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

To: JohnM who wrote (108305)	7/27/2003 9:53:07 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

See what you want to believe in photos of Udai and Qusai By Clarence Page Columnist The Chicago Tribune Published July 27, 2003 WASHINGTON -- "Seeing is believing?" Don't believe that adage. As revealed in worldwide reactions to the news photos of the bullet-riddled bodies of Saddam Hussein's infamous sons Udai and Qusai: We see what we want to believe. Because it vigorously protested in March when Al Jazeera televised photos of dead American POWs, the Bush administration now finds itself on the defensive about releasing the photos of Udai and Qusai. Hey, it's different this time, claims U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, "because these two are particularly bad characters." Granted. The world is a better place without Udai and Qusai around ordering more rapes, maiming, torture and murders. Hopefully, the photos will bolster the confidence of Iraqis who want to believe that the Saddam Hussein regime is kaput. However, those who still aren't convinced that the brothers are dead were reported to be spreading rumors that the bodies are doubles and that Hussein is somewhere negotiating a secret deal for the return of his sons. Here in the USA, there is much discussion on whether the photos should have been released at all. That's a revealing reaction, since, the photos were hardly any more repulsive than the news footage of bullet-and-bomb-riddled Iraqi civilian bodies that Al Jazeera and other overseas news media showed during the Iraqi war. At least, from the Bush administration's point of view, the death-mask photos of the Hussein brothers helped to shift public attention away from persistent questions about the White House's use of intelligence to justify the war against Hussein--even as new questions were raised. On July 24, the same day that the first graphic photos of the corpses of Udai and Qusai were released, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney broke his silence about the controversy during a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. Cheney lambasted critics of the war, then revealed how selective he could be in his own analysis of the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to America's security. "How," Cheney asked, "could any responsible leader have ignored the Iraqi threat?" Of course, our choices were not over whether to "ignore" the threat, but whether there was a threat and, if so, how might it best be confronted. For evidence, Cheney repeatedly cited an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that warned that Hussein was seeking to develop nuclear weapons. But foreign policy experts quickly noticed that Cheney repeatedly omitted any references to dissenting sections of that same report. A State Department's dissent, for example, said it was "highly dubious" that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa to produce nuclear weapons. And the aluminum tubes that Cheney and the Bush administration touted as evidence that Iraq was building centrifuges to enrich uranium for a bomb? The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research concluded it was "far more likely" that the tubes were purchased for artillery rockets, not nukes. Was the vice president reading so fast that he simply did not see those parts of the report? Or was he only seeing what he wanted to believe? One wonders. See-nothing-but-evil has emerged as a persistent pattern of the Bush administration in the run-up to the war. So has pass the buck. It was scandalous enough that an inaccurate British intelligence report, already debunked by the CIA made, made its way into President Bush's State of the Union address as he made his case for a pre-emptive war with Iraq. It was worse when, once the Big Fib was exposed, blame was passed first to CIA Director George Tenet, then back to the White House then to Stephen Hadley, the president's deputy national security adviser. Ultimately, it is the president who must be held responsible for what he says, especially in a major address to the nation leading up to Iraq war. It is unseemly to see White House officials falling over themselves to take or assess blame. In any case, the administration has slipped into change-the-subject mode, trying to deflect attention away from its reasons for entering the war by emphasizing all of the good things that have resulted from it. Yes, there is no doubt that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. Humanitarian reasons are not a bad reason to go to war. But first our leaders should respect our democracy enough to be candid with us, not offer a simplistic one-sided set of reasons that amount to distortion. As my old Sunday School teacher advised, a half-truth turns that other half into a lie. I have seen it. I believe it. ---------- Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune chicagotribune.com

To: JohnM who wrote (108305)	7/27/2003 10:53:34 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

This is the only story out with a Manila dateline. Mutineers Take Over Complex in Philippines Renegade soldiers seize a Manila mall and briefly hold foreigners, but call it a protest, not a coup. By Richard C. Paddock and Sol Vanzi Special to The LA Times July 27, 2003 MANILA - Dozens of mutinous soldiers took over a shopping mall in Manila's financial district early today, briefly seized the Australian ambassador and called on President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to resign. The rebellious troops, who also temporarily held two Americans and four Australian police officers, booby-trapped the mall complex with explosives as troops loyal to the president surrounded them. Arroyo, identifying herself as commander in chief, gave the mutineers seven hours to surrender before they would be removed by force. "You have crossed the line," she said in a televised address. "You have now engaged in an unlawful action backed by force. Your actions are hovering on the fringes of outright terrorism. You will find no support among our people and the world." The rogue officers and soldiers said they were protesting what they claimed was a plan by Arroyo to declare martial law and remain in power beyond the expiration of her term next year. Arroyo, who announced earlier this year that she would not run for reelection, had called the soldiers "fugitives from military justice" and ordered their arrest Saturday after they deserted with their weapons amid rumors of a brewing coup attempt. Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes said the mutineers were "misinformed and misguided." Speaking to the Philippine public by videotape, mutiny leader Navy Lt. Antonio Trillanes accused Arroyo's government of selling arms to Islamic militants and staging bombings in the southern Philippines to provide a pretext for a declaration of martial law in August. "We demand the resignation of the entire regime which has only looked after the rich and enriched themselves," Trillanes said. "This is not a coup d'etat. We do not intend to grab power." The takeover of the Glorietta mall complex and the adjoining Oakwood Premier Hotel shortly after midnight struck at the heart of Manila's wealthy commercial district and set the stage for a standoff that could disrupt business and damage the Philippines' international reputation. Arroyo, who had met with some of the disgruntled officers last week in an attempt to address their grievances, was reported by the palace to be huddled with her Cabinet through the night. It was unclear whether the rebels had intended to seize Australian Ambassador Ruth Pearce, the Americans and the Australian federal police officers. They are residents of the Oakwood and may have been accidentally taken hostage when the rebels captured the building. The residents, including Pearce, were allowed to leave the building later this morning. The rogue forces, said to comprise about 20 junior officers and 50 soldiers, cast themselves as protectors of the people who oppose corruption and underhanded deals with the enemy. "Our soldiers have been sacrificing while our leaders have been enriching themselves," Trillanes said. "We believe we cannot achieve peace while greedy officials head the armed forces and the Philippine national police." The Philippines has a history of presidents' taking and holding power without the approval of voters. After winning election in 1965, President Ferdinand E. Marcos declared martial law in 1972 and remained in office until 1986. He was forced to step down after a group of police officers and soldiers seized two bases in Manila and the public rallied to their support in what became known as "people power." Arroyo, who had been vice president, assumed the presidency under questionable circumstances in January 2001 when her predecessor, Joseph Estrada, was forced out of office by a combination of public protest and military opposition. Supporters of Estrada's ouster called the transfer "people power II." Critics decried it as a military coup disguised as popular democracy. Estrada, who has been imprisoned ever since, denies that he resigned and handed power to Arroyo. The Philippines has been in a state of turmoil throughout Arroyo's term. The armed forces have fought rebellions by Islamic separatists and Communist guerrillas while combating high-profile abductions by the Islamic group Abu Sayyaf and other kidnap-for-ransom gangs. Bombers believed to be linked to the Jemaah Islamiah terrorist network and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) have staged a series of deadly blasts, including two this year in Davao City. The U.S. has provided military aid and training to the Philippines and is seeking a negotiated peace agreement with the Moro rebels. The Pentagon announced this year that it would deploy troops to fight the rebels, but it was forced to cancel the plan because it would have violated a Philippine constitutional ban on foreign combat troops. Trillanes charged that the government was behind the bombings and was colluding with the rebels to obtain increased aid from the U.S. and to set the stage for martial law. "The government of Gloria Arroyo and the leadership of the military and police have been selling arms to the Abu Sayyaf and the MILF," he said. "These are the same bullets killing our soldiers." Members of Arroyo's Cabinet charged that Sen. Gregorio Honasan, a longtime rival, was behind the mutinous troops' seizure of the mall. Honasan, known by the nickname Gringo, mounted coup attempts in the 1980s against then-President Corazon Aquino. He was arrested, sent to prison, escaped, accepted amnesty and was elected to the Senate. He has indicated that he will run for president next year. Supporters of Honasan's National Recovery movement marched near the mall in support of the rebellious troops in what appeared to be an attempt to build popular support for Arroyo's ouster. Presidential spokesman Ignacio Bunye appealed to the public to avoid the area. "The president is fully in charge," Bunye said. Times staff writer Paddock reported from Bangkok, Thailand, and special correspondent Vanzi from Manila. latimes.com