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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PartyTime who wrote (2833)2/16/2004 1:10:22 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Respond to of 173976
 
Bush Lie and Who Die?’
Milititary families react to the controversy over WMD intelligenceWEB EXCLUSIVE
By Martha Brant
Newsweek
Updated: 7:27 p.m. ET Feb. 13, 2004Feb. 13 - Fernando Suarez del Solar has become something of a cause celebre in the antiwar movement. Although the Mexico native’s English is spotty, he is still eloquent when he speaks of his son’s death and the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. “Mr. Bush lie and who die?” Suarez asked this week. “My son.”

advertisement

Suarez’s 20-year-old son, Jesus, had desperately wanted to be a Marine. So the family moved across the border from Tijuana to California so that he could fulfill his dream at Camp Pendleton. The senior Suarez had been something of an activist in his hometown, a city rife with drug crime, and Jesus wanted to fight narcotraffickers, maybe go into special forces or the Drug Enforcement Agency.

Instead Jesus landed in Iraq and died last March after stepping on a stray American cluster bomb, according to his father. After his son’s death, he made a decision to speak out against the war. “They tell me I’m staining the memory of my son. But that’s not true. He died for his own ideals,” Suarez said in Spanish. “All the young people who have died are a symbol of peace, valor and courage. But they were tricked.”

Suarez finds it a bit ironic that a humble man who has yet to master the language of his adopted country (he is an American citizen) has become such an in-demand voice for the antiwar movement. He has spoken at rallies in Washington and will be a featured speaker at a national protest planned for March. He has taken a fact-finding tour to Iraq and been invited to Spain, Italy and throughout the United States to speak. He has joined liberal activist groups like Global Exchange, Military Families Speak Out and MoveOn.org. “I’m tired,” Suarez said Wednesday, after a MoveOn.org event for which he had taken a red-eye flight from San Diego. “Not just because I haven’t slept.”

E-MAIL NEWSWEEK
We're anxious to hear from U.S. troops stationed overseas and their families at home. E-mail us here.

Your name

Your town/city

Your e-mail address

Privacy

No wonder Suarez is exhausted: he is one of only a small number of military-family members who are speaking out publicly against the war in Iraq. Unlike the Vietnam War, where veterans like John Kerry became high-profile protestors, this war has yet to see former soldiers and their loved ones protesting in large numbers. Is that because they mostly support the war or because military culture frowns upon public criticism?

Antiwar activists say it’s too early for veterans in particular to protest. They say that as the death toll rises, more soldiers and their families will come forward. “That is the next phase,” explains Nancy Lessin of Military Families Speak Out, which she says has a little more than 1,000 active members and is getting about a dozen new members a week—mostly families whose kids are about to be deployed. She says there are a couple of veterans of the war who are planning to speak out through her group at this point. This week, I received an e-mail from one soldier who promised to go public after he is out of the service in April.

WAR STORIES Current Column | Archives
• Candidate Clark Adjusts His Style
Candidate Clark begins to master another kind of campaign
• Are Drugs Given to Soldiers Safe?
Many U.S. soldiers are being treated with a malaria drug that can cause psychotic episodes. Is this a good idea?

MoveOn.org has tried to bring military voices like Suarez’s into its anti-Bush campaign. Of the more than 500,000 people who joined an online petition to censure the president for “misinformation” on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, about 25,000 had military ties, according to the organization. The recent reports that Iraq probably did not stockpile WMD haven't seemed to spark a big protest within military homes. Many antiwar family members like Joe Werfelman, whose son is a reservist, were already dubious about finding WMD. “This is just another lie,” he says.

But Kathleen Monagle of Texas, whose husband is a reservist in Iraq, thinks Suarez and Werfelman are “in the minority.” While disappointed that WMDs were not found, she says, “There was definitely reason to be concerned about Iraq using WMD or sharing what they had. By the time the threat becomes ‘imminent’ it’s too late.” She heads up a family-support group for reservist families in Iowa and Texas and says the families she speaks with still support the war. She has a son who is about to graduate from Marine Corps boot camp. “Chances are he’ll end up in Iraq. And guess what? I still support this war,” Monagle says. Her son is about the same age as was Jesus Suarez.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.



To: PartyTime who wrote (2833)2/16/2004 3:11:52 PM
From: Mao II  Respond to of 173976
 
CIA officers warn of Iraq civil war, contradicting Bush's optimism

By Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war, current and former U.S. officials said Wednesday, starkly contradicting the upbeat assessment that President Bush gave in his State of the Union address.

The CIA officers' bleak assessment was delivered verbally to Washington this week, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified information involved.

The warning echoed growing fears that Iraq's Shiite majority, which has until now grudgingly accepted the U.S. occupation, could turn to violence if its demands for direct elections are spurned.

Meanwhile, Iraq's Kurdish minority is pressing its demand for autonomy and shares of oil revenue.

"Both the Shiites and the Kurds think that now's their time," said one intelligence officer. "They think that if they don't get what they want now, they'll probably never get it. Both of them feel they've been betrayed by the United States before."

These dire scenarios were discussed at meetings this week by Bush, his top national security aides and the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, said a senior administration official, who requested anonymity.

Another senior official said the concerns over a possible civil war weren't confined to the CIA but are "broadly held within the government," including by regional experts at the State Department and National Security Council.

Top officials are scrambling to save the U.S. exit strategy after concluding that Iraq's most powerful Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al Husseini al Sistani, is unlikely to drop his demand for elections for an interim assembly that would choose an interim government by June 30.

Bremer would then hand over power to the interim government.

The CIA hasn't yet put its officers' warnings about a potential Iraqi civil war in writing, but the senior official said he expected a formal report "momentarily."

"In the discussion with Bremer in the last few days, several very bad possibilities have been outlined," he said.

Bush, in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, insisted that an insurgency against the U.S. occupation, conducted primarily by minority Sunni Muslims who enjoyed power under Saddam Hussein, "will fail, and the Iraqi people will live in freedom."

"Month by month, Iraqis are assuming more responsibility for their own security and their own future," the president said.

Bush didn't directly address the crisis over the Shiites' political demands.

Shiites, who dominate the regions from Baghdad south to the borders of Kuwait and Iran, comprise some 60 percent of Iraq's 25 million people.

Several U.S. officials acknowledged that Sistani is unlikely to be "rolled," as one put it, and as a result Bremer's plan for restoring Iraqi sovereignty and ending the U.S. occupation by June 30 is in peril.

The Bremer plan, negotiated with the U.S.-installed Iraqi Governing Council, calls for caucuses in each of Iraq's 18 provinces to choose the interim national assembly, which would in turn select Iraq's first post-Saddam government.

The first direct elections wouldn't be held until the end of 2005.

In an interview with Knight Ridder on Wednesday, a top cleric in the Shiite holy city of Najaf appeared to confirm the fears of potential civil war.

"Everything has its own time, but we are saying that we don't accept the occupiers getting involved with the Iraqis' affairs," said Sheikh Ali Najafi, whose father, Grand Ayatollah Bashir al Najafi, is, along with Sistani, one of the four most senior clerics. "I don't trust the Americans - not even for one blink."

If the United States went ahead with the caucus plan and ended the military occupation, the interim government wouldn't last long, he said.

"The Iraqi people would know how to deal with those people," he said, smiling. "They would kick them out."

U.S. and British officials hinted Wednesday that they might bow to the demand for some kind of elections, after saying for weeks that holding free and fair elections in time for the handover of sovereignty would be impossible.

"We've always favored elections," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said after he and other top Bush aides briefed senators. "The only question is - the tension was, if your goal is to get sovereignty passed to the Iraqis so that they feel they have a stake in their future, can you do it faster with caucuses or can you do it faster with elections?"

Rumsfeld was responding to comments by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who opened the door Wednesday to elections in Iraq earlier than planned.

"The discussion, which has been stimulated by Ayatollah Sistani, is whether there could be an element of elections injected into the earlier part of the process," Straw said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

"We have to work with great respect for him and similar leaders," he said. "We want elections as soon as it is feasible to hold them."

Shiite clerics have become more forceful in their denunciation of the caucus plan and have organized increasingly large, albeit peaceful, demonstrations demanding elections.

State Department officials said no changes to the Bremer plan are being formally considered. They said much depends on the findings of a U.N. assessment team that the Bush administration has asked U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to send to examine the feasibility of elections.

One option being informally discussed is to delay the transfer of power until later in 2004, which might give the United Nations time to organize some sort of elections, said one official.

But that is almost certain to be opposed by White House political aides who want the occupation over and many U.S. troops gone by this summer to bolster Bush's re-election chances, the official said.

"It's all politics right now," he said.

Other options are to go ahead with the June 30 turnover as planned, whatever the fallout, or to accelerate it by handing over power to the Iraqi Governing Council in March or April, he said.

---

(Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondents Tom Lasseter in Najaf, Iraq, and Joseph L. Galloway and John Walcott in Washington contributed to this report.)
Posted on Wed, Jan. 21, 2004
realcities.com