| Author | Message | | Guest-400c | | Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2003 5:41 am Post subject: IT'S WAR! |
| http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/Willthomas/action/ItsWar.htm
IT'S WAR!
by
William Thomas
lifeboatnews.com
Jan. 16, 2003
A veteran combat officer who served more than a decade with American and Canadian military intelligence in the world's "nightmarish" hot spots, has told lifeboatnews.com that the word being passed in the intelligence community is that the "kick-off" date for war against Iraq is set for January 26, 2003.
Regardless of the outcome of weapons inspections, UN condemnation, worldwide outrage, or last-minute diplomacy, Jan. 26 is the day long range weather forecasts predict the "weather window" will open for a round-the-clock bombing sequel against a shattered country the size of California. The bombers' "window of death" will remain open until the end of February.
US military officials say that the optimum time for sending ground forces into Iraq is immediately after the bombing campaign, between mid-February and early April, before blazing hot weather makes it difficult for troops to function wearing rubberized chemical warfare suits. Officers add that it will be tricky starting an offensive before mid-February, the earliest date currently arriving troops can will be accustomed to desert conditions. [New York Times Jan. 12/03]
Secretary of State George Shultz earlier confirmed this timetable, telling the Financial Times last November 21 that "there will be military action. I would be surprised if we have not acted by the end of January."
The day before, top Bush security advisor Richard Perle told British Labour Party MPs that President Bush intends to go to war "even if inspectors find nothing." Perle stunned the Parliamentarians by insisting that even a "clean bill of health" from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not stop America's war machine. [Daily Mirror Nov. 21, 22/02]
By then, thousand of US Marines had already embarked for the Gulf onboard the Belleau Woods. Helicopters and heavy armor followed in the cargo ships Bob Hope and Fisher, with the troop transport Tarawa sailing in their wakes. [The Observer Nov. 3/02]
Blix has loudly complained that if Washington has evidence that Iraq retains weapons of mass destruction, it should pass the locations to UN inspectors so they can investigate. So far, the White House has failed to provide such evidence. Hasam Amin, the general in charge of Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions demanding disarmament, insists: "I reiterate, Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction." [The Observer Dec. 8/02]
NUKES DUPES
The ostensible fear is nuclear weapons. Iraq's atomic threat was centered at Tuwaitha Heavily damaged by allied aircraft during the Gulf War, radioactive fallout from the complex spread into Baghdad, 11 miles away. [Scorched Earth, Vancouver Sun Nov. 21/91]. UN weapons inspectors later filled the ruined fissile handling labs with concrete and epoxy resin.
According to UN resolution 1441 authorizing the current inspections, only the Security Council can trigger war by declaring Iraq in "material breach" of 1441. But as recently as two days ago, the unelected US President warned that "time was running out for Saddam" to disarm.
Bush has yet to spell out what nuclear, chemical or biological arms Iraq retains, where they might be hidden, or how Iraq could threaten the US without strategic missiles while more than 200 UN inspectors roam the country accompanied by TV crews.
WHY BUSH CAN'T WAIT
Referring to mounting pressure on an unelected President, a Republican Party aide adds that with anti-war opposition growing in the United States and Britain, "The longer he leaves it, the greater the political risk." [The Observer Dec. 8/02]
Though Bush Sr. convinced Americans that his attack on Panama was "justified" in kidnapping that country's leader - former drug-running ally Manuel Noriega - his son is losing the political momentum needed to again violate UN rules against launching an unprovoked attack against another country. At least 3,000 impoverished Panamanians were killed by US gunships and artillery in this "model" atrocity. [see "The Panama Deception" video-documentary]
An unmistakable sign of impending war against Iraq is the call-up of National Guard and Reserve forces, at least a month before an invasion. According to the New York Times, the Pentagon plans to eventually mobilize more than 250,000 reservists to augment and replace regular forces.
DEPLOYING FOR WAR
Kuwaiti military sources say that as early as last June, tanks and artillery to equip two more armored brigades began arriving in the emirate, preparing the way for 10,000 American GIs to fly in and invade Iraq within 72 hours. [Asia Times Nov. 14/02]
According to the Toronto Sun, US warplanes based in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar continue to bomb Iraq "almost daily". Predatory B-2 bombers have come to roost on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, and Fairford RAF base in England. As aging Americans grapple with unemployment, drug abuse, failing infrastructure and lack of subsidized health care, each $2.2 billion stealth bomber can drop 16 satellite-guided "precision" bombs similar to the one-ton blockbuster which - oops! - blew up friendly Northern Alliance officers observing the strike on Taliban forces from a mile away.
Along with the British fleet now arriving in the region, the number of RAF aircraft may be tripled. Jaguars based at Incirlik airbase in Turkey, and Tornado fighter-bombers in Kuwait have joined Tornados reported to have redeployed from Saudi Arabia to Qatar, where British military commanders have linked with their US counterparts preparing to attack Iraq. British pilots hope to lob newly developed "Storm Shadow" cruise missiles into a country shorn of air defenses, while remaining hundreds of miles from any return ground fire. [The Guardian Nov. 9, 2002; London Times Dec. 18, 2002]
The ground war has already begun, with US special forces operating in northern Iraq since early November. American Special Ops teams are also working with Israeli scout units in Iraq's western desert near the important H2 airbase. [Toronto Sun Nov. 10/02]
GOOD TO GO?
More than 75,000 U.S. forces are now reported in the region. On Christmas Eve and Jan. 10, 2003, an additional 87,000 troops were ordered deployed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, ensuring the magic number of 150,000 GI's needed to invade Iraq. [New York Times Jan. 12/03]
Last week, the US Central Command finished transferring its 1,000-member battle staff from its Tampa, Florida headquarters to Qatar, where the Al Udeid air base remains the linchpin of the coming US attack.
Extensive preparations for war have been underway at Al Udeid for the past year - well before the current "crisis" over Iraq. The Arabian base boasts one of the longest runways and most extensive fortifications in the Middle East. Last June 13, Digital Globe's online satellite imagery showed eight KC- 135 tankers and a huge C-17 cargo jet dwarfed by Al Udeid's vast parking ramp. America's two million homeless would be delighted to learn that two "new generation" warplane shelters built by US taxpayers at Al Udeid each feature hardened concrete interiors covering 1.7 acres. [National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty]
Also last week, 15,000 marines embarked on troop ships from camps Pendleton and Lejeune. As the Seay took on Patriot anti-missile batteries in Texas, additional M-1 tanks and Apache helicopter gunships were loaded onboard the Mendonca and Gilliland in Savannah, Georgia. According to GlobalSecurity.org, two Patriot anti-missile batteries have already been moved into position in Kuwait; another two are in Saudi Arabia.
Even more ominous, the 1,000-bed hospital ship Comfort has just sailed for Diego Garcia. [New York Times Jan. 12/03]
All told, as many as four heavy US Army divisions are being sent to attack Iraq, along with the 101st Airborne, which suffered heavy casualties from Gulf War Illness in the last invasion of Iraq. [New York Times Jan. 12/2003; Bringing The War Home]
The Navy is stretched thin. The aircraft carrier Constellation – with its Tomcat and Hornet squadrons the "Bounty Hunters", "Vigilantes" and "Death Rattlers" - is now on station in the Persian Gulf, with attack carriers Harry S. Truman, Vinson and Kitty Hawk steaming to join forces. At least two more 'Stateside carriers are on 96-hour sailing notice. Disciplinary problems onboard the Nimitz, and the Washington's exhausted crew will likely see both carriers withdrawn from the region. With no carriers left in Japan, North Korea's looming nuclear threat remains unchallenged. [The Guardian Nov. 9/02]
The US Air Force has also taken wing. All week, B-1 bombers have been leaving in pairs from Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, bound for Oman. An F-15 fighter unit that arrived over the burning Pentagon too late to intervene on Sept. 11 is also winging toward the Gulf, along with F-15s from North Carolina. Four-engine AC-130 gunships mounting a single giant Gatling gun used to pulverize villages in Vietnam and Afghanistan are also deploying from Florida. More robot "Predator" drones equipped with video cameras and Hellfire missiles are being sent from Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. [New York Times Jan. 12/03]
Most telling of all, the transport Bellatrix has sailed from California loaded with mobile bridges. "If you really want an indicator they are planning an invasion, it's bridging equipment because you need it to cross the Tigris and Euphrates," a military observer told The Guardian.
ALLIES NEEDED – APPLY WITHIN
In Britain - where Iraq is now defined as "the enemy" by the Ministry of Defence - at least 200,000 citizens have taken to the streets to protest their country's involvement in an illegal war. But British armed forces have been on a war footing since Dec. 17. As many as 10,000 reservists are being called up to augment a total British deployment of 30,000 troops, including the 7 Armoured Brigade "Desert Rats" with 200 tanks, and 4 Armoured Brigade. Baffled British defence officials complain that American war planners have not yet revealed their plans. [London Times Dec. 18, 2002/ New York Times Sept. 19/02]
The outflanked Saudis have not yet signed onto Washington's war plans. Last Sept. 19, Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told the New York Times that the Iraqi threat must be handled without "he firing of a single shot or the loss of a single soldier". But the prince promised that American bombers could use Saudi bases to bomb Iraqi cities if Bush works through the UN.
Turkey is key to Pentagon plans for a northern thrust intended to pincer Iraq's decrepit teenage conscript forces. Quickly securing northern oil fields, American troops could hopefully prevent a war between the Turkish Army and the Kurds. On Dec. 30, the Turkish daily Sabah reported that the country's newly elected Islamic government has told the US it will accept American invasion forces - in return for 10% of Iraqi oil production. The deal would net Ankara $5.5 billion in stolen oil revenues annually. [Arabic News.com Dec. 31/02]
A QUICK AND EASY VICTORY?
In Germany, home to the Gulf-bound US First Infantry and First Armored divisions, 3,000 US Army officers and civilian planners are currently concluding a computer simulation called "Victory Scrimmage". Experts keeping score admit that even a quick touchdown could see thousands more civilian casualties in Iraq. [New York Times Jan. 12/03]
Meanwhile, press reports of a lengthy buildup continue to mislead. As retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey observed, "Most of the ground forces will sprint into place at the last minute."[The Christian Science Monitor Nov. 12/02]
According to Agence France-Presse, US war plans call for a "brief but shattering air campaign", combined with a lightning push into Baghdad by US ground forces moving from north, south and west. The ground attack will seek to achieve tactical surprise by moving fast with maximum violence, without waiting for overwhelming reinforcements. [Washington Post Dec. 18/02]
But unless urban areas are as heavily bombed as they were in '91 campaign, things could go badly wrong. My military intelligence source, who helped designate targets in Bosnia, has been watching TV coverage of the weapons inspections with a practiced eye. He notes Iraqi troops and armor in the background of televised news clips, taking up positions in Baghdad neighborhoods. The footage has prompted charges of "spying" by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Captain Glenn Kozelka of the US Army's 10th Mountain Division warns that heavy fighting in the streets of Iraq's cities could lead to US casualties of up to 30 percent. "We call it three-dimensional warfare," Kozelka told the Washington Post. "You can be shot from all around."
Pentagon pundits favour cordoning off Baghdad, with "escape routes" for civilians and surrendering military personnel. They reason that smashing critical infrastructure will quickly collapse the city, and the government of a man widely seen as posing no threat beyond his own borders. [The Observer Nov. 3/02]
But my source says that Saddam has "learned the lessons of massing troops and tanks in the desert and exposing them to overwhelming bombardment." Instead, the retired analyst and his active duty colleagues are convinced that the fighting will be "house-to-house" - with an armed and angry populace fighting alongside regular army units in defense of their families and country.
Won't the Iraqi people hail their "liberators" with open arms?
"If you've been deprived of food and medicine for 10 years, if you saw your family killed [in bombings that leveled entire neighborhoods], you would not feel friendly toward Americans," the combat-hardened intelligence expert said.
The last time the US went to war against a supposedly ragtag army defending their homeland was in a place called Vietnam.
Will US forces have the stomach for house-to-house casualties? Yes, came the answer. The problem, added this source, is that in eyes of many allied front-line combat units, American troops instructed with comic book manuals are seen as "not too bright."
Even worse, he said, the "management" mentality of U.S. officers more concerned with protecting their careers than pursuing their objectives means there are few combat leaders worthy of respect and a gun-ho effort by the troops they send in harm's way.
Pointing to the debacles of "Operation Anaconda" and the Tora Bora campaign in Afghanistan, which reportedly saw top terrorist suspects Osama bin Laden and Omar Mullah escape a hesitant U.S. dragnet, he declared that "Tommy Franks will be reluctant to commit troops aggressively, because he does not trust the competency of his infantry troops."
Barry Posen agrees. A specialist in military analysis at MIT, Posen's premise is that the mop-up campaign in Afghanistan was severely hampered by American commanders' unwillingness to commit ground forces. "We didn't want to take risks," Posen told The Observer last Nov. 3. "Tora Bora was a disaster."
"Operation Anaconda" - the American effort to encircle Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in eastern Afghanistan's Shah-e-Kost Valley last March - was another fiasco. Major General Franklin Hagenbeck, "didn't know what he was doing. He didn't send enough forces. He didn't take enough artillery. And there was too much reliance on the Afghans," Posen posited. After meeting determined opposition and taking casualties, Hagenbeck had to be bailed out by 1,700 British marines. He was relieved of his command in the field.
ARMING SADDAM
US forces might be better advised to raid US corporate headquarters. Three Congressional investigations earlier documented extensive chemical and biological weapons and production facilities shipped to Baghdad with White House approval prior to - and after - the last Gulf "war". [Bringing The War Home by William Thomas]
Despite White House removal of more than 8,000 embarrassing pages from Iraq's 11,800-page weapons dossier, Geneva-based reporter Andreas Zumach has published pages documenting how 24 US corporations and several US government agencies "illegally helped Iraq to build its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs."
Hewlett Packard, Dupont, Honeywell, Bechtel, Rockwell, Tectronics, Unisys and Sperry were among more than two-dozen US sponsors "who gave very substantial support especially to the biological weapons program but also to the missile and nuclear weapons program," Zumach said. Records also show that US government nuclear weapons laboratories Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia trained Iraqi nuclear scientists, and provided non-fissile material for construction of a nuclear bomb. [Financial Times Dec. 19/02]
ARMED ROBBERY
Just who is this fearsome "enemy" who must be crushed by a country that spends more money on weapons than the next 14 countries combined? As veteran British war correspondent John Pilger points out, "More than half the population of Iraq are children, and many of the rest are widows, the elderly and the poor."
Leading British humanitarian agencies, including Save the Children and Christian Aid, recently warned that "Years of war and sanctions have already created an extremely vulnerable population whose ability to cope with any additional hardship is very limited. Child mortality has risen by 160 percent under sanctions."
Driven by the United States and Britain over the past 12 years, line-item blocking of Baghdad's attempts to procure urgently needed hospital equipment and medicines, as well as spare parts needed to repair bombed out water purification and sanitation plants, has led to countrywide epidemics and malnutrition that have so far claimed the lives of more than a half-million children under the age of five. At least 70 members of Congress have condemned the sanctions as "infanticide".
Is Washington concerned about killing yet more children? When asked about the number of Iraqi people slaughtered in the 1991 "Desert Storm" Gen. Colin Powell replied, "It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in." (Estimates at the time totaled a quarter-million Iraqi war dead.)
A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
"The true danger is not Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea, or China," writes Pilger. "It is the United States, and the cabal of fanatics now in charge, led by a man who on television the other night failed to make sense in his native tongue."
"The more we talk about our power, the more apprehension there is around the world," concurs Edward Luck, director of the Center on International Organization at Columbia University. "The more you talk about it, the more other countries think the major security threat to the world is the undisciplined use of American military power."
Why would the US risk becoming a pariah nation, while destroying the world's oldest cities - birthplace of the mathematics, the alphabet, calendar, laws and 60 units of time taught in American schools?
"They know we own their country. We own their airspace. We dictate the way they live and talk," explained aptly-named Air Force Brig. General William Looney, describing the last carpet-bombing of Basra by B-52s. "It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need." [Washington Post, August 30, 1999]
Stand by, general. It's not over 'til the last pollster sings. | |  | | Guest-400c | | Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2003 6:12 am Post subject: 9/11 Hijacker Attended US Military School |
| 9/11 Hijacker Attended US Military School:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/9-11-hijacker-attended-us-military-school.php
Israeli Mossad Assassinations on American Soil
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/21/israeli-mossad-assassinations-on-american-us-soil.php
Gore Vidal was Excellent on "Hardball" Last Night about Bush and his oil business cronies pushing US for war:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/862215.asp
‘Hardball’ for Jan. 20
Read the complete transcript to Monday’s show
Guests: Joe Scarborough, Pat Caddell, Susan Molinari, Gore Vidal, Frank Luntz, Howard Fineman
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I’m Chris Matthews. Let’s play HARDBALL. The big story tonight, is exile for Saddam Hussein a way to avoid war with Iraq? After Arab leaders first floated the idea (ph), here’s what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Last choice. I would be delighted if Saddam Hussein threw in the towel, said the game’s up, the international community has caught me, and I’ll just leave.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: Joe Scarborough is a former Republican congressman from Florida. Pat Caddell is a former Democratic pollster. Susan Molinari is a former Republican congresswoman from New York and Gore Vidal is author of the book, “Dreaming War”.
Let’s go first to Joe Scarborough. Do you think this is an idea that has legs within the administration that he would either be overthrown by his generals at the behest of the Saudis or the fact Saddam Hussein would go into exile under pressure?
JOE SCARBOROUGH ®, FMR. U.S CONGRESSMAN: Well I think if it does have legs, they’re dreaming. Saddam Hussein is not going to leave. The generals aren’t going to overthrow him. I think in the end, you know, any generals participated, it’ll be kind of like the Trent Lott episode on Capitol Hill.
There may be 20 generals that shoot Saddam Hussein in the back as the tanks get into Baghdad, but he’s not going anywhere. I mean it’s going to be a war that’s going to move Saddam Hussein from power or he’ll be there until George W. Bush is out of office.
MATTHEWS: Let’s go to Pat Caddell. Do you think this is a credible solution to the problem of war?
PAT CADDELL, FMR. DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: This is a man-well, if he would leave, it would be wonderful because I think we’re in a disastrous course now, but I’ll tell you, this is a man who is known-one of the great stories when he took power and someone disagreed with him, his Cabinet, it was a general, took him in another room, and shot him in the head, and walked back in and conducted the meeting. That’s the way he does business himself. The generals believe nobody is going to dare-take him on. I mean this man is protecting himself-he’s already killed the people who have that kind of nerve, as Joe said, until the tanks are there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don’t know...
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This isn’t going to go anywhere...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Susan Molinari, is this a credible alternative, Susan, right now, that Saddam Hussein could be offered amnesty, his generals offered amnesty to get him out or he’s offered amnesty to get out himself? Is it credible?
SUSAN MOLINARI, FMR. REPUBLICAN CONGRESSWOMAN: Well right now it doesn’t appear credible. Historically it doesn’t appear credible, and of course the question is even if all that were to work, and he were to leave, who would take his place? Someone the United States who want to take his place or somebody that Saudi Arabia and Egypt and others in Arab countries that would have to be a part of this would want to take their place, in which case, can we really afford to have another problem in Iraq? As Americans we cannot from a political standpoint; Bush 43 certainly cannot.
MATTHEWS: Wait a minute, Susan. You mean you’re tougher, you’re more hawkish than Rummy, than Rumsfeld?
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: He says he would accept the deal. You say you wouldn’t.
MOLINARI: I have a different level of responsibility after I answer the questions than Secretary Rumsfeld has. I think the question has to be asked and I’m sure he’s asking himself who and what is in place to put the next leader there, and could we make sure that they would become allies to the United States for at least the next decade? That’s a very difficult question...
MATTHEWS: Well, if you’re thinking that...
MOLINARI: ... for anybody to answer.
MATTHEWS: ... and Susan, that’s not what he’s saying, though. He very clearly stated this weekend that he would accept such a deal, no conditions, no caveats. He just wants the guy and his merry band out of the country.
MOLINARI: Well, I don’t know that...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... that is the deal.
MOLINARI: I don’t know that I heard him say no conditions or no caveats and I guess maybe me in my old cynical Washington mind, I’m thinking that he knows darn well that this is not something that’s going to happen, but clearly, if he stood up and said would we under any circumstances accept regime change, of course, there’d be international uproar at the U.N., and we would be diverted from pursuing a real course of action. This isn’t going to happen...
MATTHEWS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Susan, you and I have watched this guy 100 years. All he would have to say is I’m not going to speculate on what we’re going to do after he does it. If he leaves the country, we’ll deal with the matter when it comes. Instead, this time, Rumsfeld, the most hawkish guy in the administration said if this guy leaves, the deal is off.
Gore Vidal, sir, let me ask you this. Would you trust Rumsfeld if he made a deal like that with you and you were Saddam Hussein?
GORE VIDAL, AUTHOR, “DREAMING WAR”: No, under no circumstances. This administration always acts in bad faith. It’s just one of the rules of the gas and oil business, which they know best.
MOLINARI: How does one act...
(CROSSTALK)
MOLINARI: ... against a military dictator?
(CROSSTALK)
CADDELL: Chris, this is-they’re achieving what Rumsfeld wants to achieve. We’ve just now spent five or six minutes talking about something I think is absolutely unlikely to happen in the real world-you know, it’d be great if it did-instead of debating the really core issues now of where we are in this thing and...
MATTHEWS: Well what would you say would be more of a core issue than whether we go to war or not right now?
CADDELL: No, that’s what I’m saying, but we’re not debating the war.
We’re debating on this option, well maybe the generals will take him out or
whatever. We’ve got-you know we’ve got thousands of troops leaving-
another 6,000 left California yesterday. We have thousands of troops
going, and I thought we were originally in a war against terrorism, and I -
you know, we have 350,000 people in the Gulf, I would like for them to send some of them to Afghanistan and these other places and get al Qaeda.
They’re the people who took out the buildings. And I’d like to-you know and if bin Laden is alive, I’d like to get him. We didn’t commit the troops, but we’re doing it on this project, and at a time when the American people are moving off of this. You’ve got-”TIME” Magazine reported this week a third of the senior military officers are very concerned about this kind of preemptive strike against Iraq.
You’ve got an analysis done yesterday in the “L.A. Times”, poll, their pole and the Pugh poll shows that World War II veterans are basically that generation is one group of people who are against this because they don’t see the proof. And that’s the American people saying you better have the proof or you better have the United Nations, this idea of Mr. Rumsfeld that he’s going to have war no matter what isn’t going to work. And I’ll just add one thing. “The Wall Street Journal” Thursday said that they were planning on how to deal with the oil situation when we take over, and one of the two firms that they were considering giving the franchise to was Halliburton. You’ve got a whole world...
MATTHEWS: Let me ask Joe Scarborough...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... Congressman...
CADDELL: Oil.
MATTHEWS: Congressman, I’ve got to ask you...
CADDELL: Incredible.
MATTHEWS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) question, I think there’s a big downside strategically to what Secretary Rumsfeld said over the weekend. If he’s saying all we want to do is get rid of this guy we don’t like, we are in a position of saying this war can it be avoided if we get rid of a guy we don’t like and find weapons we can’t find. Doesn’t it seem to narrow the mission that all it has to do with changing the face of the guy on the postage stamp from Iraq? I mean, isn’t that a narrow reason for war just to get rid of one guy?
SCARBOROUGH: Well I mean...
MATTHEWS: I would assassinate him if that’s all we’re doing.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, if they could assassinate him, they would assassinate him. I mean I agree with Susan, this doesn’t cost the Bush administration anything. They can send Rumsfeld out there and say, yes, you know, if he wants to leave, if he wants to go to London or Paris, we’ll let him go. We really don’t care. We’ll call this whole thing off.
They know he’s not going to leave. He’s going to stay there. The generals aren’t going to overthrow him, and in the end, the only way they’re going to remove Saddam Hussein is by going into Baghdad and physically removing him or killing him.
MATTHEWS: Gore Vidal?
VIDAL: Well...
MATTHEWS: In 1945 the...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Well, let me just ask you a particular historic question.
In 1945, the United States went all the way to Berlin to kill Adolf Hitler. If Adolf Hitler was offered-has a chance to leave in say ’44 or ’43 to go and enjoy his life in some sort of South American country, he may well have taken it. It seems to me to have lowered...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh Chris...
MATTHEWS: ... the stakes to say all we want to do is get rid of the guy.
VIDAL: Well, I think it’s-all of this is theater for the gas and oil business in order to get our hands on Iraqi oil. We’re also aiming for Central Asia, Eurasia, as it’s still known, all of those Uzbekistans and so on. These are the great oil reserves of the world and by 2020, the world will probably have run out of oil as we now know it. What they’re doing is a preemptive strike in order to grab for the United States and specifically for this group of oil and gas people from the Carlisle Group, Halliburton, Harken.
I don’t dare say it’s a conspiracy to go over our government of oil people because we can’t use that word conspiracy, so I just say it’s a coincidence that from Condoleezza Rice to the secretary of the interior, they’re all in the oil and gas business and they have launched a war on a country that has done us no harm, yet they have convinced according to the polls, 50 percent of the American people think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. He didn’t. Now, we’re going after-we might just as well be attacking Denmark. They had nothing...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well...
VIDAL: ... to do with it either.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well listen...
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: First of all...
VIDAL: And you have all...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s ridiculous.
VIDAL: The media and this administration have worked themselves into
this is surrealism.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me...
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you...
SCARBOROUGH: What is surrealism is the fact that you’re comparing Saddam Hussein...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: ... to Denmark, and Denmark does not have an advanced biological weapons program that they’re hiding from U.N. weapons inspectors. They do not have...
VIDAL: How do we know that they are...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: They don’t have...
VIDAL: We don’t know this.
SCARBOROUGH: ... 3,000 — yes, we do know this. The U.N. weapon inspectors know specifically that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons programs and Blix announced earlier today he’s very concerned that they’re not providing the evidence that they claim to destroy this. They never did. It’s just like the 3,000 pages of documents on uranium enrichment programs that they claim they didn’t have that they only found after they knocked down the door of that-of the scientist in Iraq. Now, I...
VIDAL: And they find...
SCARBOROUGH: ... invite you, Mr. Vidal, to go to Denmark and find chemical and biological and nuclear weapons programs in the homes of Denmark scientists. And if you do, please write a book about it because I would love reading that book.
VIDAL: Don’t underestimate...
(CROSSTALK)
VIDAL: ... the ingenuity...
(CROSSTALK)
VIDAL: ... of the forgers (ph) at Langley, Virginia.
MOLINARI: Well first of all...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: ... aren’t scientists.
MOLINARI: Well and you’re totally ignoring the fact that we are all acting on behalf of the United Nations, who obviously had to have some proof and we’re not totally blind sighted by the conspiracy that you allegedly see in the United States. That is not-it’s an insult to the administration, it’s an insult to voters, frankly, sir, it’s an insult to Americans that you can even carry this fairy tale so far and paint Saddam Hussein...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well Susan...
MOLINARI: ... you know, in the demeanor...
(CROSSTALK)
VIDAL: Are you running for office now, madam?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Susan the problem...
VIDAL: Are you running for office?
MOLINARI: Sir, I had the courage to run for office, and I’m not running for office now, but being a public service, I believe, is a noble form of making a living-no fairy tales...
MATTHEWS: Well both of you...
(CROSSTALK)
VIDAL: Well...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... of running for U.S. Congress from New York over the years. Let me ask you, Mr. Vidal, do you believe this is sub conscious or conscious? Do you believe if you had a tape recording of all the meetings involving Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice and the others you mentioned, do you think there would ever be a time in that meeting where you would hear them say we’re doing this to grab the Crimea, we’re doing this to grab the Black Sea oil. Would they ever admit it?
VIDAL: Why not? I’ll tell you who admitted it and wrote it...
(CROSSTALK)
VIDAL: ... and this is the blueprint-listen, this is the blueprint they’re acting from, it was done by Brzezinski, who was national security advisor to President Carter. In foreign affairs about six or seven years ago he said the last great oil reserves are Eurasia, and this is the last great redoubt...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
VIDAL: ... of the world’s energy...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... thank...
VIDAL: ... and we must...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... for joining (UNINTELLIGIBLE) your new book, sir, it’s called “Dreaming Wars”. Thank you very much for joining us. Everybody else is coming back.
Zionist planned Iraq 'regime change' before Bush Presidency:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php
US Accelerates Military Build-up Despite Sharp UN Divisions:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/21/us-accelerates-military-build-up-despite-sharp-un-divisions.php
Beyond Regime Change, new 'old' Sykes-Picot agreement:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/20/beyond-regime-change-new-old-sykes-picot-agreement.php
The Psychotic Hawks of the Bush Administration are a Threat:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uk-and-europe/2003/01/21/the-psychotic-hawks-of-the-bush-administration-are-a-threat.php
The Zionist Wolf of the White House Pushing US to War:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/19/the-zionist-wolf-of-the-white-house-pushing-us-to-war.php
And the rogue state of Israel's violations have been going on for decades:
US/UN Double Standard When It Comes to Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/09/15/us-un-double-standard-when-it-comes-to-israel.php | | | | Guest-400c | | Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2003 6:23 am Post subject: Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit in 9/11 |
| Americans are against unilateral war in Iraq:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/15/americans-are-against-unilateral-war-in-iraq.php
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,819931,00.html
Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit in 9/11
America's most controversial novelist calls for an investigation into whether the Bush administration deliberately allowed the terrorist attacks to happen
Talk: Gore Vidal on Bush
Observer Worldview
Terrorism crisis: Observer special
Sunder Katwala
Sunday October 27, 2002
America's most controversial writer Gore Vidal has launched the most scathing attack to date on George W Bush's Presidency, calling for an investigation into the events of 9/11 to discover whether the Bush administration deliberately chose not to act on warnings of Al-Qaeda's plans.Vidal's highly controversial 7000 word polemic titled 'The Enemy Within' - published in the print edition of The Observer today - argues that what he calls a 'Bush junta' used the terrorist attacks as a pretext to enact a pre-existing agenda to invade Afghanistan and crack down on civil liberties at home.Vidal writes: 'We still don't know by whom we were struck that infamous Tuesday, or for what true purpose. But it is fairly plain to many civil libertarians that 9/11 put paid not only to much of our fragile Bill of Rights but also to our once-envied system of government which had taken a mortal blow the previous year when the Supreme Court did a little dance in 5/4 time and replaced a popularly elected President with the oil and gas Bush-Cheney junta.'Vidal argues that the real motive for the Afghanistan war was to control the gateway to Eurasia and Central Asia's energy riches. He quotes extensively from a 1997 analysis of the region by Zgibniew Brzezinski, formerly national security adviser to President Carter, in support of this theory. But, Vidal argues, US administrations, both Democrat and Republican, were aware that the American public would resist any war in Afghanistan without a truly massive and widely perceived external threat. 'Osama was chosen on aesthetic grounds to be the frightening logo for our long-contemplated invasion and conquest of Afghanistan ... [because] the administration is convinced that Americans are so simple-minded that they can deal with no scenario more complex than the venerable, lone, crazed killer (this time with zombie helpers) who does evil just for the fun of it 'cause he hates us because we're rich 'n free 'n he's not.' Vidal also attacks the American media's failure to discuss 11 September and its consequences: 'Apparently, "conspiracy stuff" is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.''It is an article of faith that there are no conspiracies in American life. Yet, a year or so ago, who would have thought that most of corporate America had been conspiring with accountants to cook their books since - well, at least the bright dawn of the era of Reagan and deregulation.'At the heart of the essay are questions about the events of 9/11 itself and the two hours after the planes were hijacked. Vidal writes that 'astonished military experts cannot fathom why the government's "automatic standard order of procedure in the event of a hijacking" was not followed'. These procedures, says Vidal, determine that fighter planes should automatically be sent aloft as soon as a plane has deviated from its flight plan. Presidential authority is not required until a plane is to be shot down. But, on 11 September, no decision to start launching planes was taken until 9.40am, eighty minutes after air controllers first knew that Flight 11 had been hijacked and fifty minutes after the first plane had struck the North Tower.'By law, the fighters should have been up at around 8.15. If they had, all the hijacked planes might have been diverted and shot down.'Vidal asks why Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, stayed in a Florida classroom as news of the attacks broke: 'The behaviour of President Bush on 11 September certainly gives rise to not unnatural suspicions.' He also attacks the 'nonchalance' of General Richard B Myers, acting Joint Chief of Staff, in failing to respond until the planes had crashed into the twin towers.Asking whether these failures to act expeditiously were down to conspiracy, coincidence or error, Vidal notes that incompetence would usually lead to reprimands for those responsible, writing that 'It is interesting how often in our history, when disaster strikes, incompetence is considered a better alibi than .... Well, yes, there are worse things.'Vidal draws comparisons with another 'day of infamy' in American history, writing that 'The truth about Pearl Harbour is obscured to this day. But it has been much studied. 11 September, it is plain, is never going to be investigated if Bush has anything to say about it.' He quotes CNN reports that Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit Congressional investigation of the day itself, ostensibly on grounds of not diverting resources from the anti-terror campaign.Vidal calls bin Laden an 'Islamic zealot' and 'evil doer' but argues that 'war' cannot be waged on the abstraction of 'terrorism'. He says that 'Every nation knows how - if it has the means and will - to protect itself from thugs of the sort that brought us 9/11 ... You put a price on their heads and hunt them down. In recent years, Italy has been doing that with the Sicilian Mafia; and no-one has suggested bombing Palermo.'Vidal also highlights the role of American and Pakistani intelligence in creating the fundamentalist terrorist threat: 'Apparently, Pakistan did do it - or some of it' but with American support. "From 1979, the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan ... the CIA covertly trained and sponsored these warriors.'Vidal also quotes the highly respected defence journal Jane's Defence Weekly on how this support for Islamic fundamentalism continued after the emergence of bin Laden: 'In 1988, with US knowledge, bin Laden created Al-Qaeda (The Base); a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across 26 or so countries. Washington turned a blind eye to Al-Qaeda.'Vidal, 77, and internationally renowned for his award-winning novels and plays, has long been a ferocious, and often isolated, critic of the Bush administration at home and abroad. He now lives in Italy. In Vidal's most recent book, The Last Empire, he argued that 'Americans have no idea of the extent of their government's mischief ... the number of military strikes we have made unprovoked, against other countries, since 1947 is more than 250.'
Observer special reports
Terrorism crisis: Observer special
Observer Worldview
9/11 and after: Observer Comment highlights | | | | Guest-400c | | | | Guest-400c | | Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2003 6:48 am Post subject: Op-ed- Selling A War |
| Op-ed- Selling A War
In five weeks it is likely that United States soldiers will be fighting
and dying in Iraq. While there is no doubt that we can defeat Sadam
Hussein there is much debate on whether we should go to war and what will
be the ultimate costs to Iraq and the United States.
Americans want to believe that our government officials tell the truth
and don’t intentionally mislead us. Other governments manipulate the
truth not ours.
It is hard for Americans to accept that at times we are lied to or
intentionally misled in order to build support for a foreign policy
decision. While this may be disturbing it is our duty as citizens in a
democracy to be open to this reality. We are the strongest military in the
world and ultimately decide which governments will fall or stand.
Gulf War I
If you followed the first Gulf War you remember the infamous story of
how Iraqi soldiers removed babies from incubators in Kuwait city; left
them to die and shipped the incubators back to Iraq. This was front page
news in every newspaper in the U.S. and the lead story on every major
news station as the public was deciding whether to support going to war.
This story was repeated by President Bush senior in a number of
speeches saying that such "ghastly atrocities," were like "Hitler revisited."
There is only one problem with this story. It never happened! It was a
complete fabrication!
Months after the war ended TV Guide reported in Feb., 1992 that both
20/20 and Sixty Minutes interviewed doctors in Kuwait and determined no
such incident ever happened.
Another example from the first Gulf war, according to an article in the
Christian Science Monitor was a report by Pentagon officials, citing
top-secret satellite images. Pentagon officials estimated that up to
250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border of Saudi Arabia,
threatening the major supplier of oil for the US.
The St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet
satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time which showed no
Iraqi troops visible near the Saudi border - just empty desert.
Jean Heller, the Times Journalist who broke the story asked Secretary
of Defense Cheney (now Vice President) for evidence refuting the Times
photos, offering to hold the story if proven wrong. The official
response: "Trust Us." To this day the photos cited by Pentagon officials
remain classified.
Hill & Knowlton
When the invasion of Kuwait took place in August, 1990 US public
opinion was not predisposed to the government of Kuwait. Only a few weeks
before Amnesty International accused the government of Kuwait of jailing
dozens of dissidents and torturing them without trial.
To help build support for the war "Citizens for a Free Kuwait," which
was the Kuwait government in exile, hired the Washington based public
relations of Hill and Knowlton for $10.7 million to devise a campaign to
win support for the war. The CEO of H & K at the time, Craig Fuller,
had access to the power elite in Washington, as he had served as the
President’s chief of staff when Bush was Vice President under President
Reagan.
One aspect of their campaign was to coach a young woman Nayirah, who
appeared Oct. 10, 1990 in front of a Congressional committee. She
testified to the committee that she saw Iraqi soldiers come into a hospital,
remove babies from incubators and leave them "on the cold floor to die."
It later came out long after the war was over that she was the daughter
of Kuwait’s ambassador to the United States and hadn’t actually seen
the incident she described taking place - an incident which was later
proven to be a fabrication. Hill & Knowlton also coached a team of
witnesses who appeared a few weeks later at the United Nations about
atrocities in Iraq.
Gulf War II
In a September 7, 2002 news conference President Bush said that Iraq in
1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon citing a
report from The International Atomic Energy Agency.
On Friday, Sept. 27, in a news interview Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA’s
chief spokesman said, "There’s never been a report like that issued from
this agency."
When questioned, the White House said the President was referring to a
1991 IAEA report.
Mr. Gwozdecky said no such report was ever issued by IAEA in 1991. "I
don’t know where they have determined that Iraq has retained this much
weaponization capability because when we left in December 1998 we had
concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had
confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key
buildings and equipment," he said.
Civic Responsibility
It would be cynical to believe that every statement by our government
leaders is a lie or distortion. It would be just as foolish however, to
blindly accept every statement our government leaders make.
As citizens of the world’s most powerful country we have an obligation
to critically examine
the position of our government regarding the merits of going to war and
each come to our own conclusion.
If we are to be true to those who die defending our freedom this is our
patriotic responsibility.
Peter Wirth
CEO of GW Associates, a Syracuse public relations firm. | | | | Guest-400c | | Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2003 7:14 am Post subject: Selling A War |
| Selling A War
In five weeks it is likely that United States soldiers will be fighting and dying in Iraq. While there is no doubt that we can defeat Sadam Hussein there is much debate on whether we should go to war and what will be the ultimate costs to Iraq and the United States.
Americans want to believe that our government officials tell the truth and don’t intentionally mislead us. Other governments manipulate the truth not ours.
It is hard for Americans to accept that at times we are lied to or intentionally misled in order to build support for a foreign policy decision. While this may be disturbing it is our duty as citizens in a democracy to be open to this reality. We are the strongest military in the world and ultimately decide which governments will fall or stand.
Gulf War I
If you followed the first Gulf War you remember the infamous story of how Iraqi soldiers removed babies from incubators in Kuwait city; left them to die and shipped the incubators back to Iraq. This was front page news in every newspaper in the U.S. and the lead story on every major news station as the public was deciding whether to support going to war.
This story was repeated by President Bush senior in a number of speeches saying that such "ghastly atrocities," were like "Hitler revisited."
There is only one problem with this story. It never happened! It was a complete fabrication!
Months after the war ended TV Guide reported in Feb., 1992 that both 20/20 and Sixty Minutes interviewed doctors in Kuwait and determined no such incident ever happened.
Another example from the first Gulf war, according to an article in the Christian Science Monitor was a report by Pentagon officials, citing top-secret satellite images. Pentagon officials estimated that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border of Saudi Arabia, threatening the major supplier of oil for the US.
The St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time which showed no Iraqi troops visible near the Saudi border - just empty desert.
Jean Heller, the Times Journalist who broke the story asked Secretary of Defense Cheney (now Vice President) for evidence refuting the Times photos, offering to hold the story if proven wrong. The official response: "Trust Us." To this day the photos cited by Pentagon officials remain classified.
Hill & Knowlton
When the invasion of Kuwait took place in August, 1990 US public opinion was not predisposed to the government of Kuwait. Only a few weeks before Amnesty International accused the government of Kuwait of jailing dozens of dissidents and torturing them without trial.
To help build support for the war "Citizens for a Free Kuwait," which was the Kuwait government in exile, hired the Washington based public relations of Hill and Knowlton for $10.7 million to devise a campaign to win support for the war. The CEO of H & K at the time, Craig Fuller, had access to the power elite in Washington, as he had served as the President’s chief of staff when Bush was Vice President under President Reagan.
One aspect of their campaign was to coach a young woman Nayirah, who appeared Oct. 10, 1990 in front of a Congressional committee. She testified to the committee that she saw Iraqi soldiers come into a hospital, remove babies from incubators and leave them "on the cold floor to die."
It later came out long after the war was over that she was the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the United States and hadn’t actually seen the incident she described taking place - an incident which was later proven to be a fabrication. Hill & Knowlton also coached a team of witnesses who appeared a few weeks later at the United Nations about atrocities in Iraq.
Gulf War II
In a September 7, 2002 news conference President Bush said that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon citing a report from The International Atomic Energy Agency.
On Friday, Sept. 27, in a news interview Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA’s chief spokesman said, "There’s never been a report like that issued from this agency."
When questioned, the White House said the President was referring to a 1991 IAEA report.
Mr. Gwozdecky said no such report was ever issued by IAEA in 1991. "I don’t know where they have determined that Iraq has retained this much weaponization capability because when we left in December 1998 we had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment," he said.
Civic Responsibility
It would be cynical to believe that every statement by our government leaders is a lie or distortion. It would be just as foolish however, to blindly accept every statement our government leaders make.
As citizens of the world’s most powerful country we have an obligation to critically examine
the position of our government regarding the merits of going to war and each come to our own conclusion.
If we are to be true to those who die defending our freedom this is our patriotic responsibility.
Peter Wirth
CEO of GW Associates, a Syracuse public relations firm | | | | Guest-400c | | Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2003 7:28 am Post subject: 2 million children to Die/U.N. Security Council Split |
| 2 million children to Die/U.N. Security Council Split
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 million children will die in conflict
>
> By RICHARD GRAY 21 January 2003
>
> Mirror
>
> A DAMNING secret UN report has predicted more than two million
children
> could starve to death as a result of war on Iraq.
>
> The shocking document, drawn up by aid officials, anticipates a
massive
> humanitarian crisis will erupt from a conflict.
>
> And the draft contingency plans state more than 500,000 innocent
people
> could become casualties.
>
> They also anticipate around 900,000 refugees with another two
million
> people being left homeless.
>
> Emergency supplies are already being positioned by UN relief agencies
in
> countries neighbouring Iraq.
>
> And yesterday one of Scotland's most senior MSPs warned a war in Iraq
could
> create a disaster to rival the famines of the 1980s.
>
> Deputy Presiding Officer George Reid said the UN document showed
the
> horrific consequences of attacking Saddam Hussein.
>
> The Fife MSP is better placed than most politicians to understand
the
> ravages war can have on a country.
>
> He served with the Red Cross for nearly 12 years providing humanitarian
aid
> in some of the world's most horrific conflicts.
>
> The report was compiled by the Iraq Steering Committee with the UN
senior
> staff.
>
> It said: "As many as 500,000 could require treatment to a greater or
lesser
> degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries.
>
> "It is estimated that the nutritional status of some 3.03 million
persons
> will be dire and will require therapeutic feeding.
>
> "This consists of 2.03 million severely and moderately
malnourished
> children under five and one million pregnant women.
>
> "It is estimated that there will eventually be some 900,000 Iraqi
refugees
> requiring assistance."
>
> The report delivered a stark picture of conflict in the Gulf with a
"long,
> protracted ground offensive".
>
> The World Health Organisation estimates there will be 100,000
people
> injured directly by fighting.
>
> It also predicts a further 400,000 could become casualties of war
through
> disease.
>
> In the document they said the country's electrical system would
be
> "seriously degraded" and water supply contaminated.
>
> Diseases like cholera and dysentery could reach epidemic scales.
>
> The experts estimate nearly 7.4 million people will need aid but fear
it
> could be up to a month before fighting had died down enough to allow
aid
> agencies into the region.
>
> Last night, Mr Reid warned: "Going to war in Iraq would make a
bad
> situation worse.
>
> "It is going to be very hard for aid agencies to the people as since
the
> Balkans we have seen Red Cross workers being targeted in fighting.
>
> "The kind of humanitarian disaster we are facing is very large and
could
> rival some of the worst we have seen."
> **********************************************
> U.N. Security Council Divided Over Iraq
>
> Jan 21, 2:51 AM EST
>
> By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer
>
> UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The United States and Britain lined up
against
> France, China and Germany in a preview of an expected clash in the
U.N.
> Security Council over military action against Iraq.
>
> The confrontation over Iraq erupted during and after a high-level
council
> meeting called by France Monday to give new momentum to the global war
on
> terrorism. It was attended by 13 foreign ministers.
>
> The 15-member council unanimously demanded that all 191 U.N. member
states
> take urgent action to prevent and halt all support for terrorism. But
it
> split over the U.S. push for a quick decision on disarming Iraq, and to
a
> lesser extent on how to deal with North Korea.
>
> The divisions are certain to surface when U.N. weapons inspectors report
to
> the council on the first 60 days of inspections in Iraq on Jan. 27 - and
if
> North Korea gets on the council's agenda as the United States wants.
>
> On Iraq, the United States and Britain, who have embarked on major
military
> build-ups in the Persian Gulf, warned that time was running out for
Saddam
> Hussein. But France and Germany, backed by China, opposed military
action
> and demanded that the inspectors be given the time they need. Russia
has
> supported the same position. Secretary of State Colin Powell, taking
a
> tough line, challenged members not to be "shocked into impotence"
and
> shrink from their responsibilities when the inspectors report next week
and
> the council considers what comes next.
>
> While expressing hope for a peaceful solution, Powell dismissed
Iraq's
> 10-point agreement with inspectors Monday to make inspections
more
> effective and possibly help answer questions about what happened
to
> thousands of chemical and biological weapons. "It's just more of the
same,"
> he said.
>
> "If Iraq is disarming, then there may be a solution to this crisis
without
> conflict," Powell said. "But if Iraq is not disarming, the United
Nations
> cannot simply turn its head away and ignore this lack of respect that
Iraq
> has for the United Nations and the international community. And we must
not
> be afraid to meet the challenges that are ahead," he said.
>
> His only support came from British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw who
warned
> that "the moment of choice for Saddam is close."
>
> French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said that nothing
today
> justifies military action, and didn't rule out the possibility of a
French
> veto if the United States sought a second Security Council
resolution
> authorizing military action.
>
> "We will not associate ourselves with military intervention that is
not
> supported by the international community," he said. "Using force like
that
> would only be a last resort assuming all other possibilities
are
> exhausted."
>
> "We will go to the end. As long as you can make progress with
the
> inspections and get cooperation, there's no point in choosing the
worst
> possible solution - military intervention," de Villepin said.
>
> German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, whose country joined the
council
> on Jan. 1, reiterated his country's strong opposition to an attack
against
> Saddam Hussein's regime. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has opposed an
Iraq
> war and ruled out a German combat role, angering Washington.
>
> "We are greatly concerned that a military strike against the regime
in
> Baghdad would involve considerable and unpredictable risks for the
global
> fight against terrorism," Fischer said. He also warned that there could
be
> "disastrous consequences for long-term regional stability."
>
> China's Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan also called for inspectors to
be
> given more time, saying the Jan. 27 report "is not a full stop of
the
> inspectors work but a new beginning."
>
> Both Powell and de Villepin noted that the Security Council had
unanimously
> adopted Resolution 1441 on Nov. 8, giving Iraq a final opportunity to
get
> rid of its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the
long-range
> missiles to deliver them or face "serious consequences" -
including
> possible military action.
>
> The council could also see a division over the handling of North
Korea's
> withdrawal from the global treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons
> and its reactivation of a nuclear reactor.
>
> Powell said the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency has
"a
> responsibility" to refer the issue to the council. China's Tang said
"We
> have to go mainly though direct dialogue between North Korea and the
United
> States." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:50 am Post subject: White House Press Briefing with Ari Fleischer |
| http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0121-09.htm
White House Press Briefing with Ari Fleischer Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 12:30 PM
by Russell Mokhiber
Mokhiber: Ari, UPI reported last week that Prime Minister Sharon of Israel has given the green light to Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, to engage in targeted killings in the United States and other friendly countries. The report says that Mossad has in the past engaged in assassinations in Belgium, Norway, and other European countries, but never in the United States. Is the administration aware of this new Israeli policy and has the administration agreed to it?
Ari Fleischer: That's the first I've heard of it, so I have no comment to offer on it. Mokhiber: Could we get comment from you? Ari Fleischer: I'll see if there is something on it.
Mokhiber: You and the President have repeatedly said that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people. The biggest such attack was in Halabja in March 1988, where some 6,800 Kurds were killed. Last week, in an article in the International Herald Tribune, Joost Hiltermann writes that while it was Iraq that carried out the attack, the United States at the time, fully aware that it was Iraq, accused Iran. This was apparently part of the U.S. tilt toward Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. The tilt included billions of dollars in loan guarantees. Sensing he had carte blanche, Saddam escalated his resort to gas warfare -- graduating to ever more lethal agents. So, you and the President have said that Saddam has repeatedly gassed his own people. Why do you leave out the part that the United States in effect gave Saddam the green light?
Ari Fleischer: Russell, I speak for President George W. Bush in the year 2003. If you have a question about statements that were purportedly made by the administration in 1988, you need to address those somewhere other than this White House. I can't speak for that. I don't know if it is accurate, inaccurate, but you have all the means to ask those questions yourself.
###
Hiltermann's article can be accessed at: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2692 | | | | Guest-98a3 | | | | Guest-400c | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
