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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neeka who wrote (15478)11/7/2003 3:19:36 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793843
 
I just posted a blog about Cent-com's plans. Now here it is in the Times.
___________________________________

Pentagon Says a Covert Force Hunts Hussein
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT - NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 — The top American military commander for the Middle East has created a covert commando force to hunt Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and key terrorists throughout the region, according to Pentagon and military officials.

The new Special Operations organization is designed to act with greater speed on intelligence tips about "high-value targets" and not be contained within the borders where American conventional forces are operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gen. John P. Abizaid, who commands all American forces in the strategic crescent from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean, decided over the summer to disband two Special Operations missions, Task Force 5 in Afghanistan and Task Force 20 in Iraq, officials said.

Military officers say a broader, regional mission was given to the new force, which has become one of the Pentagon's most highly classified and closely watched operations.

Much about the force, which is commanded by an Air Force brigadier general, remains classified, and Pentagon officials declined to discuss the rules under which the new force operates throughout the region or whether its would require the permission of a foreign government to operate in its territory.

Military officers say that focusing the intelligence, and the Special Operations firepower, within one organization, called Task Force 121, streamlines the effort to use information on these targets and mount an attack.

The new, more flexible force already has shown results, according to Pentagon officials and military officers, who say it has gotten close to Mr. Hussein. Officials declined to give any details.

The decision to create the force was prompted by several factors, Pentagon and military officials said.

Senior Bush Administration officials are frustrated that Mr. Hussein is on the loose and still exerts influence in Iraq. At a minimum, officials say, Mr. Hussein's mere survival is inspiring attacks on American troops and Iraqi security forces; some officials believe he is playing a role in coordinating and directing the violence by his loyalists.

"Capturing Saddam Hussein or killing him would be very important," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last week during a speech in Washington. "So we do need to catch him and I think we will."

Mr. Rumsfeld, who routinely cautions that the American military is not designed for manhunts, also said that some of the Iraqi population may be withholding support for the new, American-appointed government in Baghdad because of fears Mr. Hussein may return to power.

"The fact that he's alive is unhelpful," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Let there be no doubt that the intimidation factor in that regime was near total."

One senior military officer at the American-led coalition headquarters in Baghdad said of the quest for Mr. Hussein, "It's a 24/7 job."

The creation of the task force also reflects a desire by senior administration officials and top military officers to ensure that the American commitment in Iraq does not detract from the hunt for leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban who went underground after the war in Afghanistan. Some are believed to be plotting a fresh wave of terror attacks against the United States from the Middle East and the Horn of Africa.

During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military worked closely with the Central Intelligence Agency, whose officers routinely traveled and lived with Special Operations units. The new task force receives information from the government-wide intelligence community and, like the two previous missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, has C.I.A. officers attached. However, nothing in the mission of the new task force would compel the C.I.A. to halt any of its own operations against terrorists.

While it is unclear whether President Bush, or the newly-formed Iraq Stabilization Group at the National Security Council, were directly involved in the decision to create the new force, senior administration members have said in the last two months that capturing or killing Mr. Hussein would change the dynamic of the American occupation.

Administration officials say politics is not in their equation, but success in finding Mr. Hussein would no doubt be viewed as a significant victory by a large part of the public.

American military, intelligence and law enforcement personnel have begun or participated in anti-terror operations outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, most notably raids in Pakistan to arrest terror suspects and a Predator strike in Yemen against men said to be Qaeda operatives.

Although the task force has not been publicly disclosed, a number of Pentagon officials and military officers agreed to discuss its work in broad terms as an example of the military's new thinking on how to fight terrorism.

The joint task force of elite Special Operations forces from the Army, Navy and Air Force is supplemented by a sizeable conventional force, which might be called upon to secure the perimeter of an area where a raid is about to take place, create a large diversion or bring firepower in greater numbers than the small Special Operations teams.

Commanders realized they were wasting forces by having two complete sets of fighters on alert 24 hours a day for quick-response missions. In addition, tracking and then capturing or killing Qaeda and Taliban leaders or fleeing members of the former Iraqi government required planning and missions not restricted by lines on the map of a region where borders are porous.

Officials described the force as a antidote to those who were concerned that the war to topple Mr. Hussein had taken the military's eye off the other prizes: capturing Mr. bin Laden and Qaeda leaders, as well as Mullah Muhammad Omar, the fugitive Taliban commander, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an anti-American Afghan warlord who survived an attack in 2002 by a Hellfire missile launched from a Predator reconnaissance aircraft.

While American forces have captured or killed many of the top members of Mr. Hussein's government they have had less success with Taliban and Qaeda leaders who survived the war in Afghanistan.

The United States "has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.," Mr. Rumsfeld said last month in an internal memo first reported by USA Today. He added: "We have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?"

nytimes.com



To: Neeka who wrote (15478)11/7/2003 3:33:38 AM
From: KLP  Respond to of 793843
 
Transcript regarding Intel memo: What is Jay Rockefeller doing? Zell Miller D-GA, says this Intel leak, if not treason, is it's first cousin.

Political Agenda Behind Iraq Intel Probe?

Wednesday, November 05, 2003

foxnews.com

This is a partial transcript from Hannity & Colmes, November 4, 2003, that has been edited for clarity.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: A FOX News exclusive. Earlier today I obtained a copy of a memo apparently written by a Democratic member of the Senate select committee on intelligence, outlining a strategy to handle questions about the Bush administration's use of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq.

Among other things, the memo says, "Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time, but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year."

A short time ago, the ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller (search), released a statement that said, in part, "The draft memo leaked to the press today was written by staff and was likely taken from a waste basket or through unauthorized computer access. The draft memo was not approved nor was it shared with any member of the Senate Intelligence Committee (search) or anyone else."

We called every Democratic senator who was on this committee. They either declined our invitation to appear on show, or they did not respond.
Joining us now is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republican Senator Pat Roberts.

Senator, I find this memo chilling. I find it very serious. What are your thoughts on it?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS,R-Kan., SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Well, basically, I sort of considered it a slap in the face, Sean. I bent over backwards to try to work with my Democratic friends and colleagues, because on the Intelligence Committee, we have to act in a bipartisan way.

We're the ones that have the oversight responsibility on the nation's intelligence and how it applies to our national security. And right now, we are very close to finishing an inquiry in regards to the credibility and timing of the intelligence prior to the war.

And it seems that this draft memo is very political. It prejudges that, and it has some sentences in there that personally, I don't care for. It says to pull the majority along and then we're going to pull the trigger.

So it looks like more of a political document. I'm upset about it. But the biggest thing we ought to do is build a bridge back to a bipartisan compromise so we can go ahead with our work.

HANNITY: Senator, I've got to be honest. It seems that these people that wrote this did not learn a thing from 9/11. It doesn't matter, as you point out, what your interim report is going to say. They already have a plan. They are already going to attack it, and then they're going to launch an independent investigation, regardless of what the conclusion is here.

Now, the question is, first of all, do you believe Senator Rockefeller that this was a staffer? Do you believe that, especially when it says "we" and "our" plan? Do you buy into that?

And No. 2, will you launch an investigation and subpoena computers and documents to see the veracity of whether or not what he is saying is true?

ROBERTS: Well, we have already asked some questions in regards to the computers. And I'm satisfied our staff did not get into any of that. But the question of how this became public is not so much important that it exists. And...

HANNITY: But do you believe it's from a staffer or do you believe this goes much higher up? Because the reading of it, in my mind, clearly, this is not a staffer.

ROBERTS: I had a conversation with Senator Rockefeller. He's indicated in his statement that he instructed his staff to prepare the report. I'm not going to go any farther than that. When you have an opportunity to talk

Senator Rockefeller is a man whom I respect. I've worked with. That's why this became such a shock to me as to why this would be so partisan.

HANNITY: Senator, we are at war. I cannot believe that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has so politicized things. This is what this document is about, attacking the president. Not looking for an honest answer to honest questions, but politicizing the war while the commander in chief is leading our men and women and putting them in harm's way. I can think of nothing more repugnant than what I read here in this memo.

And clearly, sir, we see a lot of what they outlined here, they have been involved in. And I want to know what are you going to do and what are the Republicans on this committee going to do?


ROBERTS: Well, tomorrow we're taking the floor at 9:30 to express, in some cases, some real outrage and some indignation. We are asking our colleagues across the aisle to completely disavow this report or this attack plan. Somehow build a bridge back to some kind of bipartisan coalition so we can get the answers to intelligence, exactly what you have described.

HANNITY: Good luck.

ROBERTS: I'm just as upset about this as you are, but it's my responsibility to try to work with my colleagues across the aisle to make the Intelligence Committee what it's supposed to be, and that's the oversight responsibility.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Good to have you here. Alan here.

By the way, we invited Senator Rockefeller and other Democrats and either they didn't respond or they declined our invitation.

I have trouble with this as a Democrat. But I want to ask you this. What level do you think did this? Do you think a Senator was behind this or do you think a low-level staffer was behind it?


ROBERTS: As I say, I had private conversations with Senator Rockefeller. I think you ought to address that to him.

COLMES: What do you suspect?

ROBERTS: I think his statement is such that he instructed staff to prepare the report. He points out in his statement, and here I am repeating his statement, that this was not shared with any member. And I take him at his word for that.

COLMES: Let me put on the screen something else that Senator Rockefeller said.

He said, "Exploring or asserting the rights of the minority under the intelligence committee rules in no way amounts to politicizing intelligence. The American people deserve a full accounting of why we sent our sons and daughters into war."

Do you disagree with that?

ROBERTS: No. I don't disagree with that at all. But let us do our report and then judge the report.

This -- What this memo does, it's an attack plan. It says pull the majority along and collaborate until we can go no farther, and then pull the trigger on an independent commission. Replace what the intelligence committee is doing. We've already defeated that twice in the Senate.

And then it has other language in there that is, you know, personally insulting.

I think we've got to get past this draft memo and get on to the business, again, of doing our oversight responsibility, which we have to do in the interest of our national security.

COLMES: Senator Rockefeller that he thinks it was a low-level staffer, that it was something taken out of a wastebasket or broken into somebody's computer inappropriately. Does that seem like a plausible explanation of this?

ROBERTS: I don't find that very plausible.

COLMES: I'm sorry, sir?

ROBERTS: I don't find that very plausible.


COLMES: So you don't think Senator Rockefeller is being candid here about this?

ROBERTS: Well, I'm not saying he's not being candid. What I would like to have him say is that we disavow this draft and we have to build bridges back, do a bipartisan job on the intelligence committee. I don't know about any wastepaper basket. I mean, that's -- that's. You know, I don't...

COLMES: Are you saying you're not satisfied with his response and you don't think that he gave the appropriate response to this, one that you would have...?

ROBERTS: I have had private conversations with Senator Rockefeller. I respect him. He has been a good friend. He's been a good colleague. He and I have to work together to rebuild a bridge back to this oversight responsibility that we have.

I don't know of anybody in the Intelligence Committee that will work into that committee room and think there is a political buzz saw going on. And this has, also, all sorts of repercussions for intelligence agencies all throughout the world and certainly does a disservice in regards to the war against terrorism.

COLMES: Do you think, as Senator Rockefeller says, the committee should review the accuracy of prewar intelligence, the use and misuse of intelligence by the administration members? Isn't that important for us to know?

ROBERTS: I think it's very important for us to know, but we're not done with the initial report. And we have seen no findings that would indicate there's anything wrong in regards to what the policy maker does.

If we start in the Intelligence Committee starting to question the judgment of every policy maker with intelligence, which is always imprecise, you'll never have any policy maker making any decision.


HANNITY: We've got to -- Senator, clearly they're politicizing the war. I think we need an investigation before you can get to your bridge. But we appreciate you being with us. Thank you, Senator Roberts.

ROBERTS: I appreciate it very much. Thank you.



To: Neeka who wrote (15478)11/7/2003 5:04:46 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793843
 
Oh, I wish I wasn't in the land of cotton,
___________________________________

The Fabric of Their Lives

U.S. cotton subsidies make the poor poorer

Jacob Sullum

During a cross-country drive in July 1989, my car broke down in the Arizona desert sometime around noon. My cat, Miles, who had long, black fur, was not pleased. I managed to find a phone and call a tow truck, and during the long, slow, non-air-conditioned ride to the nearest service station, with Miles panting at my side, I had plenty of time to take in the scenery: row after row of cotton.

Since cotton is a water-intensive crop, the middle of a desert seemed a strange place to grow it. Similar oddities can be observed in other arid areas of the country where the federal government provides farmers with irrigation water at prices far below the cost of supplying it.

But the taxpayer-subsidized water is just the beginning. U.S. cotton farmers also receive crop-specific payments that encourage them to grow more than they could sell if, like most business people, they had to recoup their production costs. According to a 2002 report from Oxfam International, these subsidies amount to nearly $4 billion year, or $230 an acre.

By comparison, the market value of America's cotton crop in 2001 was about $3 billion. "In an economic arrangement bizarrely reminiscent of Soviet state planning principles," Oxfam noted, "the value of subsidies provided by American taxpayers to the cotton barons of Texas and elsewhere in 2001 exceeded the market value of output by around 30 percent."

Even with all this help, U.S. cotton farmers insist they cannot make a go of it unless the government also pays companies to buy their crop. Based on numbers obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the Environmental Working Group recently posted a database on its Web site listing the payments received by companies that export American cotton or use it to make yarn, fabric, sheets, towels, or clothing.

This arrangment, known as Step 2 of the "cotton competitiveness program," has cost taxpayers $1.7 billion during the last eight years. The payments have included $107 million to the Allenberg Cotton Co. of Cordova, Tennessee; $102 million to Dunavent Enterprises of Fresno, California, and Memphis, Tennessee; and $87 million to Cargill Cotton of Cordova, Tennessee.

You begin to see how Tennessee gets back $1.26 in spending for every dollar it sends to Washington. And these textile companies already benefit from trade barriers that restrict foreign competition, at the expense of American consumers and producers in other countries who do not have the same clout on Capitol Hill.

Speaking of foreign competition, the cotton subsidies are shameful not only because U.S. farmers should have to play by the rules of the market but because this welfare program for the well-to-do has a ruinous impact on poor farmers in other countries who do not enjoy such largess. By artificially boosting the cotton supply, subsidies depress world prices, driving farmers in countries such as Mali, Benin, and Burkina Faso out of business. Oxfam estimates that U.S. subsidies cost cotton-growing African countries $300 million a year.

For American cotton farmers (whose average net worth is about $800,000) the subsidies may be the difference between growing cotton and growing something else, or between farming and pursuing a different line of work, assuming they can't compete without the government's support. For African farmers who earn something like $800 a year, the subsidies can be the difference between eating and starving.

Given this reality, the anger of African leaders is perfectly understandable. Referring to U.S. and European subsidies, Mali's finance minister told the BBC: "The money that those countries put into agricultural subsidies is five times what they give as development assistance. And we've always said to those rich countries, 'You're hypocrites. You tell us to play [by] the rules of the open market at the same time as you subsidize your farmers.'"

The U.S. refusal to reconsider its cotton subsidies was one of the main reasons for the collapse of the World Trade Organization talks in Cancun. Brazil, joined by several other countries, has filed a WTO complaint challenging both the direct farm subsidies and the Step 2 payments to cotton buyers as unfair trading practices.

The National Cotton Council, which says the Step 2 program is "vital to U.S. cotton's competitiveness," complains "there is nothing new" in the Environmental Working Group's report on the program. The same could be said for the pathetic excuses offered by those who profit at the expense of others instead of making an honest living.
reason.com