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


To: Mannie who wrote (24936)8/9/2003 5:21:56 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Bush Team Kept Airing Iraq Allegation

__________________________

Officials Made Uranium Assertions Before and After President's Speech
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post
Friday 08 August 2003

Since last month, presidential aides have said a questionable allegation, that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium for nuclear weapons, made it into President Bush's State of the Union address because of miscommunication between the CIA and Bush's staff.

But by the time the president gave the speech, on Jan. 28, that same allegation was already part of an administration campaign to win domestic and international support for invading Iraq. In January alone, it was included in two official documents sent out by the White House and in speeches and writings by the president's four most senior national security officials.

The White House has acknowledged that it was a mistake to have included the uranium allegation in the State of the Union address. But an examination of how it originated, how it was repeated in January and by whom suggests that the administration was determined to keep the idea before the public as it built its case for war, even though the claim had been excised from a presidential speech the previous October through the direct intervention of CIA Director George J. Tenet.

Dan Bartlett, White House director of communications, said yesterday that the inclusion of the allegation in the president's State of the Union address "made people below feel comfortable using it as well." He said that there was "strategic coordination" and that "we talk broadly about what points to make," but he added: "I don't know of any specific talking points to say that this is supposed to be used."

The allegation appeared in a draft of a speech Bush was to give Oct. 7 to outline the threat that he said Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. In that draft, an unnamed White House speechwriter wrote, "The [Iraqi] regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa."

The statement the Iraqis "had been caught" was described as "over the top" by a senior administration official familiar with the sketchy intelligence on which the statement had been based. Tenet succeeded in having it stricken the day the speech was given on the grounds that intelligence did not support it.

The CIA arranged to have a similar allegation deleted from a speech that John D. Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was to give Dec. 20 before the U.N. Security Council.

Yet in the days before and after the president's State of the Union address, the allegation was repeated by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz and in at least two documents sent out by the White House.

The first of those documents was a legislatively required report to Congress on Jan. 20 on matters "relevant to the authorization for use of military force against Iraq." It referred to Iraq as having failed to report to the United Nations "attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it." The second document, a report distributed to the public Jan. 23 covering Iraq's weapons concealment activities, highlighted Baghdad's failure to explain "efforts to procure uranium from abroad for its nuclear weapons program."

The same day, the op-ed page of the New York Times included a piece by Rice that said Iraq's Dec. 7 declaration of its weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. Security Council "fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad." In a speech that same day before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Wolfowitz said: "There is no mention [in the declaration] of Iraqi efforts to procure uranium from abroad."

Three days later, Powell, in a speech before the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, asked: "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?"

And the day after the State of the Union address, Rumsfeld opened a news conference by saying of Hussein: "His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon; it was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

When it came to the State of the Union speech, the White House has said that it was an unnamed speechwriter who reviewed a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq and perhaps a British intelligence dossier and came up with the 16-word sentence that Bush delivered: "The British government has learned Saddam Hussein has recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The NIE, dated Oct. 2, 2002, carried only four paragraphs on the subject, on page 25 of the 90-page document, according to unclassified excerpts released last month.

The first of those paragraphs said: "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake." Support for that characterization was an item saying "a foreign government service reported" that Niger was planning to send several tons of "pure uranium" to Iraq and that, as of early 2001, the two countries "reportedly were still working out arrangements" for as much as 500 tons. A second item said: "Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo."

According to the intelligence official, the "vigorously" language was "quoted verbatim out of a [Defense Intelligence Agency] paper," along with other paragraphs relating to Niger, Somalia and Congo.

The CIA, which had its doubts about the intelligence, did not include the uranium item in the NIE's "key judgments," nor even as one of six elements supporting the key judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, Tenet said in written answers to questions posed by The Washington Post. He added that the four paragraphs, which had originated from the Defense Intelligence Agency, were kept in the NIE for "completeness."

Tenet, in a statement July 11, described the CIA as having only "fragmentary intelligence" related to what he termed "allegations" of Hussein's efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa.

The British dossier, published Sept. 24, said in its executive summary: "We judge that Iraq . . . sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear power program that could require it." It did not say the British had "learned" anything about Iraq and uranium. Support for that judgment was the single statement, "There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The CIA suggested that the judgment be removed, but the British maintained then, as they do today, that they have their own source, which has not been disclosed.

Two congressional committees, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and the inspectors general of the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon are all investigating how the material got into the president's speech.

There is one congressional query into how other administration officials came to repeat the allegation.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing July 9, Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) asked Rumsfeld to supply information for the committee record on why he, on Jan. 29, and the president, the day earlier, had made this "very significant statement" at the same time "the intelligence community knew in the depths of their agency that this was not true."

Nothing had been supplied as of Wednesday, a committee aide said.

truthout.org



To: Mannie who wrote (24936)8/9/2003 5:33:38 PM
From: Rarebird  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
If the Bush Administration proceeds blindly on its chosen course, they will eventually blow up the US financial system as well as the US Dollar. This will be delayed to the extent that other parts of the world decide that it is too dangerous NOT to fund the US deficits. The problem is that national savings are insufficient for this task. The alternative is for the rest of the world to have their Central Banks create the additional funding required out of thin air. If some of the major players (Japan and China stand first in line) do this, they could end up by blowing up their own financial systems in the process. The final choice is one in which the rest of the world finally decides that they cannot continue to fund the US deficits, so they simply stop.

If THAT happens, the US Treasury will be faced with the necessity of cutting back its deficit spending to 5.1% of US GDP (causing a huge US economic contraction), or selling this amount of debt paper to Americans, or sending it to the Fed to be monetized. Selling the debt internally would push interest rates up even faster than they are already rising. Sending it to the Fed would be the first step towards hyper-inflation. It is hard for me to adequately describe the global enormity of the stakes. The one certainty is that the Bush Administration is leading the USA, as well as the rest of the world, towards a global economic precipice of vast and assured future world wide economic calamities. The means chosen by the US cannot gain the ends sought - it's that simple.



To: Mannie who wrote (24936)8/9/2003 5:33:54 PM
From: abuelita  Respond to of 89467
 
s1-

i thought so too.
chilling isn't it?

tell yen i didn't get the shoes.

-r1



To: Mannie who wrote (24936)8/9/2003 6:33:20 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The Worldview of John Kerry
______________________________

His instincts on foreign policy and national security.

By William Saletan and Avi Zenilman
Slate
Posted Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 12:41 PM PT

slate.msn.com

Slate is running several series of short features explaining who the 2004 presidential candidates are, what they're saying, and where they propose to take the country. The first series summarized their personal and professional backgrounds. The second series analyzed their buzzwords. The third series outlined what each candidate would focus on as president. This series sketches how they would manage America's role in the world.

After communism collapsed, American voters lost interest in defense and foreign policy. But those subjects can consume most of a president's time, and 9/11 returned them to the forefront. It's difficult to anticipate which hot spots a candidate would have to deal with as president, but it's possible to get a sense of how he approaches war, diplomacy, trade, and other challenges abroad. This series pieces together a picture of each candidate's instincts based on his words and his record. Today's subject is John Kerry.

Soldier's perspective: Kerry is the only 2004 candidate who served in the active military. He earned a Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts in Vietnam. When he returned home, he became a spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Corrupt allies: When Kerry entered the Senate in 1985, he joined the Foreign Relations Committee and took charge of the subcommittee on narcotics and terrorism. His investigations of U.S. involvement in Latin America, especially with the Nicaraguan Contras, brought that issue to the forefront. The subcommittee revealed the role of Reagan aide Oliver North in smuggling guns to the Contras. It also uncovered the drug-running of CIA-funded Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Kerry called these connections part of an "illegal war." He angered the political establishment by demanding the testimony of Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party insider whose bank was linked to Noriega's money laundering. The subcommittee also intimated that some CIA operatives working with the Contras had smuggled narcotics into the United States. Ten years later, the CIA acknowledged that this was true.

Terrorism and multilateralism: In 1997, Kerry wrote The New War, which analyzed emerging threats posed by international criminal groups such as terrorist organizations and drug cartels. The book outlined multilateral steps to combat international crime. It urged the United States to "regulate electronic money transfers; expand the scope of extraterritorial jurisdiction for major crimes committed against a country's citizens overseas; use the CIA and other intelligence services to penetrate global crime organizations; [and] share the seized assets of international criminals with governments that cooperate in fighting global crime."

Dogmas and grudges: In 1991, Kerry chaired a bipartisan investigation into the possibility that American POWs were still captive in Vietnam. Despite pressure from POW activists, he convinced the investigative committee, including reluctant Republican senators, that there were no leftover American soldiers in Vietnam. The committee's unanimous agreement set the stage for the 1995 normalization of relations with Vietnam.



To: Mannie who wrote (24936)8/10/2003 1:07:09 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The foreign media (who else?) is exposing the truth about the rotten situation our troops are facing in Iraq. Unlike the rosy scenario that the White House just published, this may be closer to the truth:

guardian.co.uk

'Bring us home': GIs flood US with war-weary emails

An unprecedented internet campaign waged on the frontline and in the US is exposing the real risks for troops in Iraq. Paul Harris and Jonathan Franklin report on rising fears that the conflict is now a desert Vietnam

Sunday August 10, 2003

The Observer

Susan Schuman is angry. Her GI son is serving in the Iraqi town of Samarra, at the heart of the 'Sunni triangle', where American troops are killed with grim regularity.
Breaking the traditional silence of military families during time of war, Schuman knows what she wants - and who she blames for the danger to her son, Justin. 'I want them to bring our troops home. I am appalled at Bush's policies. He has got us into a terrible mess,' she said.

Schuman may just be the tip of an iceberg. She lives in Shelburne Falls, a small town in Massachusetts, and says all her neighbours support her view. 'I don't know anyone around here who disagrees with me,' she said.

Schuman's views are part of a growing unease back home at the rising casualty rate in Iraq, a concern coupled with deep anger at President George W. Bush's plans to cut army benefits for many soldiers. Criticism is also coming directly from soldiers risking their lives under the guns of Saddam Hussein's fighters, and they are using a weapon not available to troops in previous wars: the internet.

Through emails and chatrooms a picture is emerging of day-to-day gripes, coupled with ferocious criticism of the way the war has been handled. They paint a vivid picture of US army life that is a world away from the sanitised official version.

In a message posted on a website last week, one soldier was brutally frank. 'Somewhere down the line, we became an occupation force in [Iraqi] eyes. We don't feel like heroes any more,' said Private Isaac Kindblade of the 671st Engineer Company.

Kindblade said morale was poor, and he attacked the leadership back home. 'The rules of engagement are crippling. We are outnumbered. We are exhausted. We are in over our heads. The President says, "Bring 'em on." The generals say we don't need more troops. Well, they're not over here,' he wrote.

One of the main outlets for the soldiers' complaints has been a website run by outspoken former soldier David Hackworth, who was the army's youngest colonel in the Vietnam war and one of its most decorated warriors. He receives almost 500 emails a day, many of them from soldiers serving in Iraq. They have sounded off about everything from bad treatment at the hands of their officers to fears that their equipment is faulty.

The army-issue gas mask 'leaks under the chin. This same mask was used during Desert Storm, which accounts for part of the health problems of the vets who fought there. My unit has again deployed to the Gulf with this loser,' ranted one army doctor.

Some veterans have begun to form organisations to campaign to bring the soldiers home and highlight their difficult conditions. Erik Gustafson, a veteran of the 1991 Gulf war, has founded Veterans For Common Sense. 'There is an anger boiling under the surface now, and I, as a veteran, have a duty to speak because I am no longer subject to military discipline,' he said.

A recent email from Iraq passed to Gustafson, signed by 'the Soldiers of the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division', said simply: 'Our men and women deserve to see their loved ones again and deserve to come home. Thank you for your attention.'

Another source of anger is government plans to reverse recent increases in 'imminent danger' pay and a family separation allowance. These moves have provoked several furious editorials in the Army Times, the normally conservative military newspaper. The paper said the planned cuts made 'the Bush administration seem mean-spirited and hypocritical'.

Tobias Naegele, its editor-in-chief, said his senior staff agonised over the decision to attack the government, but the response to the editorials from ordinary soldiers was overwhelmingly positive.

A further critical editorial is planned for this week. 'We don't think lightly of criticising our Commander-in-Chief,' Naegele said 'The army has had a rough couple of years with this administration.'

Mainstream veterans' groups too are angry about cuts being proposed at a time when politicians have heaped praise on the army's performance in Afghanistan and Iraq and want to launch a recruitment drive.

Veterans plan protests to highlight the issue. 'We are going to show them that veterans are people who know how to vote,' said Steven Robinson, a veteran and executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Centre, one of the websites where veterans' issues are raised.

Susan Schuman too is planning a protest. This week she plans to join members of a new group, Military Families Speak Out, who will travel to Washington to make their case for their sons, daughters, husbands and wives, to be brought home from Iraq.

With soldiers dying there almost daily, comparisons have already been drawn with the Vietnam war and the birth of the protest movements there that divided America in the Sixties and Seventies.

Political scientists, however, think the war will have to get much worse before anything similar happens over Iraq. 'To put it crudely, I think the country can accept this current level of casualties,' said Professor Richard Stoll, of Rice University in Houston, Texas.

That is little comfort to Schuman, who says she just wants to see her son, Justin, return alive from a war she believes is unjust. 'It is a quagmire and it is not going to be easy to get out,' she said. 'That's where the parallel with Vietnam is.'