| Author | Message | | Guest-cdbc | | Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 10:20 am Post subject: What Does the Bush Imperial Maffia Really Want? |
| What Does the Bush Imperial Maffia Really Want?
by William Blum
Which is the more remarkable -- that the United States can openly
announce to the world its determination to invade a sovereign nation and
overthrow its government in the absence of any attack or threat of attack
from the intended target? Or that for an entire year the world has been
striving to figure out what the superpower's real intentions are?
There are of course those who accept at face value Washington's stated
motivations of "liberating" the people of Iraq from a dictatorship and
bestowing upon them a full measure of democracy, freedom and other eternal
joys fit for American schoolbooks. In light of a century of
well-documented US foreign policy which reveals a virtually complete absence
of such motivations, along with repeated opposite consequences, we can
dispense with this attempt by Washington to win hearts and mindless.
Presented here are some reflections about several of the causes that make
the hearts of the imperial mafia beat faster in regard to Iraq, which may be
helpful in arguing the anti-war point of view:
Expansion of the American Empire: adding more military bases and
communications listening stations to the Pentagon's portfolio, setting up a
command post from which to better monitor, control and intimidate the rest of
the Middle East.
Idealism: remaking the world in what the true believers see as America's
image, with free enterprise and Judeo-Christianity as core elements; here is
Michael Ledeen, former Reagan official, now at the American Enterprise
Institute (one of the leading drum-beaters for attacking Iraq): "If we just
let our own vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we
don't try to be clever and piece together clever diplomatic solutions to this
thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants, I think we will do
very well, and our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
Oil: the sine qua non of Middle East policy, yesterday, today and
tomorrow; to be in full control of Iraq's vast reserves, with Saudi oil and
Iranian oil waiting defenselessly next door; OPEC will be stripped of its
independence from Washington and will no longer think about replacing the
dollar with the Euro as its official currency; oil-dependent Europe may think
twice next time about being so uppity.
Globalization: Once relative security over the land, people and
institutions has been established, the transnational corporations will march
into Iraq ready to privatize everything at fire-sale prices, followed closely
by the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization and the rest of the
international financial extortionists.
Arms industry: As with each of America's endless wars, military
manufacturers will rake in their exorbitant profits, then deliver their
generous political contributions, inspiring Washington leaders to yet further
warfare, each war also being the opportunity to test new weapons.
Israel: The men driving Bush to war include long-time militant supporters
of Israel, such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith, who,
along with the rest of the powerful Israeli lobby, have advocated smashing
Iraq for years. Israel has been playing a key role in the American military
buildup to the war. Besides getting rid of its arch enemy, Israel could use
the opportunity to carry out its final solution to the Palestinian question
-- transferring them to Jordan, (liberated) Iraq, and anywhere else that
expanded US hegemony in the Middle East will allow. Iraq's abundant water
could be diverted to relieve a parched Israel.
Written by William Blum, author of "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's
Only Superpower" -- www.killinghope.org
The JINSA Zionist extremist cabal (of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Elliott Abrams, and John Bolton) has hijacked the Bush regime and is pushing US to its coming war on Islam (beginning with the invasion of Iraq) for greater Israel and oil (Robert Fisk of the London Independent mentions in the following article that Dick Cheney was on the board of advisors for JINSA before becoming Vice President and helped put the other JINSA Zionist extremists into power in the current Bush regime):
Zionist JINSA Group in Bush Regime Pushing Iraq Attack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
Included below is that "Men from JINSA and CSP" article from "The Nation" magazine which Mr. Fisk mentions in his article referenced above:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1
The Men From JINSA and CSP
by JASON VEST
[from the September 2, 2002 issue of "The Nation" magazine in the USA]
This Zionist extremist agenda of JINSA (which is pushing for the US to attack Iraq and then Iran, Syria and North Korea) is confirmed by what JINSAN John Bolton mentioned in Israel today (according to what is mentioned in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper article which can be accessed via the following URL):
JINSA Zionist Extremist John Bolton Confirms JINSA Agenda in Israel Today:
We'll deal with Syria, Iran after Iraq war - John Bolton:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/17/we-ll-deal-with-syria-iran-after-iraq-war-john-bolton.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists at Pentagon to Control Iraq:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/04/radical-jinsa-zionists-at-pentagon-to-control-iraq.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists (in Bush Regime) Pushing US to War for Israel and Oil:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php
Recent polling is showing that 59 percent of the US public would like the UN weapons inspectors to continue with their work in Iraq (instead of having the US launch an invasion of Iraq for greater Israel and oil), and 2/3 of the US public are against the coming invasion of Iraq (if it is to occur without UN approval). I have the Constitutional right as an American patriot to expose Israel firsters (in the US government) who are associated with the JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist extremist cabal of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith and Dick Cheney (who was on the board of directors for JINSA before becoming Vice President and helped put fellow JINSA Zionist extremists Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle into power in the current Bush regime as conveyed by Robert Fisk in his London Independent newspaper articles which are referenced below).
This JINSA cabal (which has basically hijacked the current Bush regime) is pushing US to initiate a war on Islam (beginning with the invasion of Iraq) which has the potential to inflame the Middle East (as well as increase the risk of US experiencing further tragic terrorism). The Israel firster perspective may suit Likudite cronies in Israel (like General Sharon and Mr. Netanyahu as so eloquently conveyed by Mr. Fisk in his most recent article for the London Independent which is referenced first below), but it is not in the best interest of America:
Robert Fisk: The case against war: A conflict driven by the self-interest of America
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=378428
Cabinet Rallies to Blair as War Revolt Looms:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=379088
Zionist JINSA Group in Bush Regime Pushing Iraq Attack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
JINSA 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
Washington's Zionist Chicken Hawks to Reshape Mid East for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/10/25/washington-s-zionist-hawks-to-reshape-mid-east-for-israel.php
JINSA Zionist Extremist Richard Perle Does Not Speak for the Majority of Americans:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/05/every-patriotic-american-needs-to-access-this.php
War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/10/the-war-on-iraq-conceived-in-israel.php
Israeli sources say war imminent; Iran and Syria next:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/15/israeli-sources-say-war-imminent-iran-and-syria-next.php
The Threat of "Transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) in Israel and Palestine:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/15/the-threat-of-transfer-in-israel-and-palestine.php
TOO MANY SMOKING GUNS TO IGNORE: ISRAEL, US JEWS, IRAQ:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/28/too-many-smoking-guns-to-ignore-israel-us-jews-iraq.php
UN REMARKS by Foreign Affairs Ministers of Syria and France (especially comments by Syria about US/UN double standard in not enforcing paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 against Israeli weapons of mass destruction as well):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/14/un-remarks-by-foreign-affairs-ministers-of-syria-and-france.php
Iraqi Ambassador: UN/US Double Standard with Israeli Nuclear Weapons:
The UN (US) double standard for Israel with paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 against Iraq (which calls for the Middle East to be a zone free of weapons of mass destruction as mentioned below by the Iraqi UN Ambassador) is completely unjust (especially when it comes to Israeli weapons of mass destruction):
Iraq Turns Spotlight on Israel at U.N. Arms Body:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/31/iraq-turns-spotlight-on-israel-at-u-n-arms-body.php
The Return of Zionist Extremist Elliott Abrams:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/04/return-of-zionist-extremist-elliott-abrams.php
We'll give UN inspectors more time, says Blair:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=378501
Israeli Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth with 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/16/israeli-spy-rumors-fly-on-gusts-of-truth-with-9-11.php
HISTORY MADE AS MORE THAN A MILLION MARCH FOR PEACE:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12646938&method=full&siteid=50143
Kurdish Leaders Enraged by 'Undemocratic' American Plan to Occupy Iraq:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060
The following also appeared in the Daily Mirror in the UK:
HYSTERICAL? WE'VE ONLY JUST BEGUN
WHEN the Daily Mirror launched its campaign against the war on Iraq we were dismissed as lefty peaceniks, just opposing military action for the sake of it.
As the campaign continued the abuse intensified - we were accused of being 'hysterical, of "cynically chasing new readers, of over-reacting".
The crescendo of negativity reached a nadir with our BLOOD ON HIS HANDS front page, powerfully illustrating John Pilger's ferocious attack on Tony Blair for the impending slaughter of Iraqi civilians.
This was crass, offensive and way too personal, our critics said. Yet it was the exact same phrase Mr Blair used to denigrate the 1.5 million people who protested in London on Saturday.
What is now absolutely clear is that the Daily Mirror is right about this war. And Tony Blair is wrong. The Prime Minister is not a stupid man so he must realise in his astute head that he is beaten logically, politically and democratically.
The only support he has in this country is from a few lapdogs in the Cabinet - take a bow, John Prescott - the Tory leadership and newspapers owned by George W Bush admirers living in America.
Those one and a half million people who marched on Saturday are not the only ones who feel war would be wrong, needless and a total disaster. Each of them represents many more.
It was the biggest demonstration this country has ever seen. It rivalled the magnificent anti-Vietnam marches in the United States in the 70s.
In the past, protesters have been sneered at as long-haired hippies. That couldn't be said about Saturday's demonstrators. Young and old, working, middle, and upper class... Countless thousands of ordinary people united on one fundamental principle - war against Iraq at this time is wrong, wrong, wrong.
It is because Mr Blair knows he has lost the argument that he is lashing out. He claims to have scaled the moral high ground and accuses those who oppose his views of being as guilty as Saddam of murdering his victims.
Had the Prime Minister talked to the demonstrators, he would have found hardly any who supported the Iraqi tyrant - and the Mirror has no time for those who do.
Being against Saddam - or any other terrible regime - is a moral position to take. Sending in bombers to obliterate them, wiping out thousands of innocents in the process, is not part of most people's definition of morality.
If this sounds like hysteria, the Daily Mirror doesn't mind. If it takes obsessional, hysterical, head-banging to get over the message that this war must not happen, so be it. The option - though you wouldn't know this to listen to Mr Blair - is not between waging war and being obliterated by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. There is a real, workable alternative - to control him through tough use of UN weapons inspectors. Which is the alternative backed by most countries and the vast majority of people in Britain.
Having lost the argument, it is Tony Blair who is plunging down the road of hysteria. Playing the morality card is not just offensive and ridiculous, but dangerous.
Where would it end? Having taken out Saddam, where would the US-British axis turn to next? Which other objectionable, tyrannical regimes would become targets for our bombs and invasion forces?
Will they be sent in to remove Zimbabwe's President Mugabe for driving his people into starvation? How about the terrible anti-human-rights record of the Chinese government - would we take on their immense population? Or what about the attitude of the Saudis to women and human rights? Or Israel's defiance of UN resolutions? It all smacks of one rule for Iraq and another for everyone else.
We should be told if we have just heard the Blair Doctrine - coming second-hand from the dangerous men who run today's White House - which will become our foreign and military policy at the start of the 21st century.
The world has one omnipotent power, whose military spending outstrips every other nation put together. That country, unlike those in Europe, has hardly suffered from attack. Yet this White House wants to bombard Iraq and then who-knows-where next. And it wishes to take the United Kingdom along on its coat-tails, a conspirator to mass slaughter.
If we are talking morality, perhaps Tony Blair could explain the morality in rigging reports of "evidence" to justify military invasion? Both America and the British government have done that in the past few days. Or maybe the Prime Minister could debate morality with some of the fundamentalists who threaten this country because they believe we live an immoral lifestyle.
Morality is the last refuge of a discredited politician. The final desperate hiding place of those who have lost the argument but refuse to accept defeat.
Tony Blair should ask himself if he is Prime Minister of a nation so steeped in immorality that one and a half million of its people will march to support their views.
Or whether the people of this country are desperately worried at the prospect of being dragged into a divisive, dangerous and murderous war.
There will not be blood on the hands of those who seek peace with strength. And we don't want there to be on Tony Blair's, either.
The Mirror will go on shouting that loudly, clearly, and if necessarily hysterically, until Mr Blair listens. | |  | | Guest-c651 | | Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:38 am Post subject: Costs of war already coming in |
| I don't agree with Pat Buchanan in reference to what he says about the coming invasion of Iraq being inevitable (because WE CAN TAKE AMERICA BACK from the JINSA Zionist extremist cabal of neoconservatives Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle who have hijacked the Bush regime and are pushing US to war for greater Israel and oil against the majority of America and the world) as we can march on Washington and get that whacko JINSA Zionist extremist cabal out of power if we have to (for the sake of humanity):
Costs of war already coming in
By Pat Buchanan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 19, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Had President Bush never used all that barstool bellicosity about an Axis of Evil, "pre-emptive strike," "regime change" and "weeks, not months," he could now claim victory in his showdown with Saddam.
For it is only through Bush's resolute leadership that U.N. arms inspectors are back in Iraq. With steady pressure, Bush could have hundreds more swarming all over that country, to where it would be inconceivable that Saddam could mount an assault on his neighbors.
Without war, Saddam could be back in his box. But Bush set the bar for himself too high. Now, though war is not necessary to contain Iraq, Bush cannot pull back from it. To send 200,000 troops to the Gulf, then bring them home with Saddam still in power, would cripple U.S. credibility.
One wonders if the president ever asks himself: Who got me into this? Who persuaded me to surrender my freedom of action?
While the war has not yet begun, the costs are already coming in. Europe is bitterly divided and increasingly anti-American. NATO is split. Tony Blair, a loyal ally, is in a hellish spot.
Polls show only one-in-10 Britons favor war without a new U.N. resolution, and France will veto any new resolution. And as the winter window for war closes, France's position is unlikely to change. For the anti-Bush posture of Jacques Chirac and his foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, is wildly popular on the continent.
Belgium, France and Germany may be isolated inside NATO, but most Europeans back Paris, Berlin and Brussels in the clash with Washington. And with animosity toward Bush soaring on the continent and across the Arab and Islamic world, the U.S. ability to lead through suasion is being lost. The drive for hegemony is isolating America.
How can a new world order rooted in American values be erected now, with George W. Bush as architect? Not in recent memory has an American president been so reviled abroad.
While this caricature is grossly unjust and in large measure the work of anti-Americans abroad, the president, his War Cabinet and the War Party have contributed to America's isolation. For this year-long campaign to paint Saddam Hussein as the new Hitler – a mortal peril to the Middle East, America, the world, even civilization itself, according to John McCain – with George W. Bush cast in the role of Churchill, is just not believable. Sustaining this fiction is taking a heavy toll on our credibility.
First, there remains not a fiber of evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11. Despite the Stakhanovite efforts of our war propagandists, the "Prague connection" between Mohammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence proved nonexistent. Colin Powell's indictment of Saddam's arms violations now appears to have been overdrawn. The British paper he cited was hyped and plagiarized from academic scribblings. The al-Qaida cell in Iraq seems to be in territory controlled by our Kurdish allies, not Saddam.
As for the tape in which bin Laden calls on Iraqis to launch suicide attacks on invading Americans, the White House claims this conclusively ties Saddam to Osama. It does no such thing. On the tape, bin Laden uses terms such as infidel, apostate and socialist to describe Saddam, for whom his affection is comparable to that of the late Ayatollah Khomeini for the novelist Salman Rushdie.
When it comes to aiding terrorists, Saddam is not even in a league with Iran or Syria. His missile capacity is inconsequential alongside that of Iran or North Korea. His nuclear program has been moribund for years, while Iran is mining uranium and building reactors, and North Korea is producing fissile material. North Korea is the rogue state proliferator of missiles, Pakistan the proliferator of nuclear technology. Nor is Iraq the reason F-16s over-fly our homes each night here in Washington and we drive by Stinger missile batteries on the way to work.
Nevertheless, it is Iraq against whom we are going to war, and few in this city think the president – having sent all those troops to the Gulf – can now simply declare victory and get out. No way. Delenda est Iraq. Iraq has to be destroyed.
Yet, there is a sense here that this invasion of a country that never sought war with us will bring an end to the post-Cold world we knew and vault us into a new era, the outlines of which we cannot see.
Most of us, however, look to it with greater foreboding than those neoconservatives who now anticipate with wild surmise the war for empire they have finally got. | | | | Guest-98a3 | | Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2003 5:44 pm Post subject: Rumsfeld & Bush's Iraq War Plan Formulated in 1998 |
| http://www.scoop.co.nz/archive/scoop/stories/80/aa/200302191108.7063e16a.html
Rumsfeld & Bush's Iraq War Plan Was Formulated In 1998
By Jason Leopold
February 19, 2003
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz undertook a full-fledged lobbying campaign in 1998 to get former President Bill Clinton to start a war with Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime claiming that the country posed a threat to the United States, according to documents obtained from a former Clinton aide.
This new information begs the question: what is really driving the Bush Administration's desire to start a war with Iraq if two of Bush's future top defense officials were already planting the seeds for an attack five years ago?
In 1998, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were working in the private sector. Both were involved with the right-wing think tank Project for a New American Century, which was established in 1997 by William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, to promote global leadership and dictate American foreign policy.
While Clinton was dealing with the worldwide threat from Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wrote to Clinton urging him to use military force against Iraq and remove Hussein from power because the country posed a threat to the United States due to its alleged ability to develop weapons of mass destruction.
The Jan 26, 1998 letter sent to Clinton from the Project for the New American Century said a war with Iraq should be initiated even if the United States could not muster support from its allies in the United Nations. Kristol also signed the letter.
"We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War," says the letter. "In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power."
"We urge you to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council," says the letter.
The full contents of the Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz letter can be viewed at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm (and attached below)
Clinton rebuffed the advice from the future Bush Administration officials saying he was focusing his attention on dismantling Al-Qaeda cells, according to a copy of the response Clinton sent to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Kristol.
Unsatisfied with Clinton's response, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kristol and others from the Project for the New American Century wrote another letter on May 29, 1998 to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott saying that the United States should, "establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power."
"We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal," says the letter to Gingrich and Lott.
"U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place. We recognize that this goal will not be achieved easily. But the alternative is to leave the initiative to Saddam, who will continue to strengthen his position at home and in the region. Only the U.S. can lead the way in demonstrating that his rule is not legitimate and that time is not on the side of his regime."
The letter to Gingrich and Lott can be viewed at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm (and attached below)
The White House would not comment on the letters, or on whether Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz possessed any intelligence information that suggested Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States at the time. The letters offered no hard evidence that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.
The Clinton aide said the former President believed that the policy of, "containing Saddam Hussein in a box", was successful and that the Iraqi regime did not pose any threat to U.S. interests at the time.
President Clinton, "never considered war with Iraq an option," the former aide said. "We were encouraged by the UN weapons inspectors and believed they had a good handle on the situation."
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Kristol, however, disagreed; saying the only way to deal with Hussein was by initiating a full-scale war.
"The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months," Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Kristol wrote in their letter to Clinton.
"As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
Those alleged threats posed by Iraq, and the advice Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, first offered the attention of the Clinton Administration five years ago have now become the blueprint for how the Bush Administration is dealing with the Iraq.
The existence of the Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz "war" letters is just another reason to question the Bush Administration's desire to go to war with Iraq now instead of dealing with other pressing issues such as Al-Qaeda. Because the letters were written in 1998 it proves that this war was planned well before 9-11 and casts further doubt on the administration's claims that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9-11 terrorist attacks, and that this is a key part of their motivation.
- Jason Leopold is a freelance journalist based in California, he is currently finishing a book on the California energy crisis.
************
ATTACHED TWO LETTERS FROM PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
CLINTON LETTER
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams - Richard L. Armitage - William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner - John Bolton - Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama - Robert Kagan - Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol - Richard Perle - Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld - William Schneider, Jr. - Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz - R. James Woolsey - Robert B. Zoellick
************
GINGRICH AND LOTT LETTER
May 29, 1998
The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515-6501
The Honorable Trent Lott
Senate Majority Leader
United States Senate
S-208 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510-7010
Dear Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott:
On January 26, we sent a letter to President Clinton expressing our concern that the U.S. policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein was failing. The result, we argued, would be that the vital interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East would soon be facing a threat as severe as any we had known since the end of the Cold War. We recommended a substantial change in the direction of U.S. policy: Instead of further, futile efforts to "contain" Saddam, we argued that the only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction was to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power. The administration has not only rejected this advice but, as we warned, has begun to abandon its own policy of containment.
In February, the Clinton Administration embraced the agreement reached between the UN Secretary Koffi Annan and the Iraqi government on February 23. At the time of the agreement, the administration declared that Saddam had "reversed" himself and agreed to permit the UN inspectors full, unfettered, and unlimited access to all sites in Iraq. The administration also declared that the new organizational arrangements worked out by Mr. Annan and the Iraqis would not hamper in any way the free operation of UNSCOM. Finally, the administration stated that, should Iraq return to a posture of defiance, the international community would be united in support of a swift and punishing military action.
According to the UN weapons inspectors, Iraq has yet to provide a complete account of its programs for developing weapons of mass destruction and has continued to obstruct investigations. Sites opened to the inspectors after the agreement had "undergone extensive evacuation," according to the most recent UNSCOM report. UN weapons inspector Charles Duelfer has also pointed to significant problems in the new reporting arrangements worked out by Annan and the Iraqis, warning that these may have "important implications for the authority of UNSCOM and its chief inspectors." And, in the wake of these "Potemkin Village" inspections, the Iraqi government is now insisting that the inspections process be brought to an end and sanctions lifted - going so far as to threaten the U.S. and its allies should its demands not be met.
In the face of this new challenge from Saddam, however, the President's public response has been only to say that he is "encouraged" by Iraq's compliance with the UN inspections and to begin reducing U.S. military forces in the Gulf region. Unwilling either to adopt policies that would remove Saddam or sustain the credibility of its own policy of containment, the administration has placed us on a path that will inevitably free Saddam Hussein from all effective constraints. Even if the administration is able to block Security Council efforts to lift sanctions on Iraq this year, the massive expansion of the so-called "oil for food" program will have the effect of overturning the sanctions regime. It is now safe to predict that, in a year's time, absent a sharp change in U.S. policy, Saddam will be effectively liberated from constraints that have bound him since the end of the Gulf War seven years ago.
The American people need to be made aware of the consequences of this capitulation to Saddam:
-- We will have suffered an incalculable blow to American leadership and credibility;
-- We will have sustained a significant defeat in our worldwide efforts to limit the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Other nations seeking to arm themselves with such weapons will have learned that the U.S. lacks the resolve to resist their efforts;
-- The administration will have unnecessarily put at risk U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf, who will be vulnerable to attack by biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons under Saddam Hussein's control;
-- Our friends and allies in the Middle East and Europe will soon be subject to forms of intimidation by an Iraqi government bent on dominating the Middle East and its oil reserves; and
-- As a consequence of the administration's failure, those nations living under the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction can be expected to adopt policies of accommodation toward Saddam. This could well make Saddam the driving force of Middle East politics, including on such important matters as the Middle East peace process.
Mr. Speaker and Mr. Lott, during the most recent phase of this crisis, you both took strong stands, stating that the goal of U.S. policy should be to bring down Saddam and his regime. And, at the time of the Annan deal, Senator Lott, you pointed out its debilitating weakness and correctly reminded both your colleagues and the nation that "We cannot afford peace at any price."
Now that the administration has failed to provide sound leadership, we believe it is imperative that Congress take what steps it can to correct U.S. policy toward Iraq. That responsibility is especially pressing when presidential leadership is lacking or when the administration is pursuing a policy fundamentally at odds with vital American security interests. This is now the case. To Congress's credit, it has passed legislation providing money to help Iraq's democratic opposition and to establish a "Radio Free Iraq." But more needs to be done, and Congress should do whatever is constitutionally appropriate to establish a sound policy toward Iraq.
U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place. We recognize that this goal will not be achieved easily. But the alternative is to leave the initiative to Saddam, who will continue to strengthen his position at home and in the region. Only the U.S. can lead the way in demonstrating that his rule is not legitimate and that time is not on the side of his regime. To accomplish Saddam's removal, the following political and military measures should be undertaken:
-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;
-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;
-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and
-- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.
Although the Clinton Administration's handling of the crisis with Iraq has left Saddam Hussein in a stronger position that when the crisis began, the reality is that his regime remains vulnerable to the exercise of American political and military power. There is reason to believe, moreover, that the citizens of Iraq are eager for an alternative to Saddam, and that his grip on power is not firm. This will be much more the case once it is made clear that the U.S. is determined to help remove Saddam from power, and that an acceptable alternative to his rule exists. In short, Saddam's continued rule in Iraq is neither inevitable nor likely if we pursue the policy outlined above in a serious and sustained fashion. If we continue along the present course, however, Saddam will be stronger at home, he will become even more powerful in the region, and we will face the prospect of having to confront him at some later point when the costs to us, our armed forces, and our allies will be even higher. Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott, Congress should adopt the measures necessary to avoid this impending defeat of vital U.S. interests.
Sincerely,
Elliot Abrams - William J. Bennett - Jeffrey Bergner
John R. Bolton - Paula Dobriansky - Francis Fukuyama - Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad - William Kristol - Richard Perle - Peter Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld - William Schneider, Jr. - Vin Weber - Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey - Robert B. Zoellick | | | | Guest-98a3 | | Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2003 5:47 pm Post subject: 'The War Behind Closed Doors' |
| 'The War Behind Closed Doors'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/03/r_tv_frontline022103.htm
'The War Behind Closed Doors'
With Michael Kirk
Producer/Director, FRONTLINE
Friday, Feb. 21, 2003; 11 a.m. ET
What's really driving the Bush administration to war with Iraq?
FRONTLINE's "The War Behind Closed Doors," airing on Thursday, Feb. 20, at 9 p.m. ET on PBS (check local listings), asks whether the publicly reported reasons -- fear of Saddam Hussein?s weapons of mass destruction or a desire to insure and protect America?s access to oil -- are only masking the real reason for the war.
Award-winning producer and documentary filmmaker Michael Kirk was online Friday, Feb. 21, to talk about Iraq and what he learned about the Bush administration's policy. The transcript follows.
Kirk, a former Nieman Fellow in Journalism at Harvard, was Frontline?s senior producer from 1983 to 1987, and has produced more than 100 national television programs. He was online earlier this season to talk about "The Man Who Knew," and during the 2001-2002 season to discuss "Did Daddy Do It?"; "American Porn"; "Gunning for Saddam"; and "Target America." Other films include "The Clinton Years," a week-long co-production with ABC News on the presidency of Bill Clinton that aired in January 2001; "The Choice 2000," comparing the lives, beliefs and experiences of Vice President Gore and then-Gov. George W. Bush; "The Killer at Thurston High," the first comprehensive TV profile of high school shooter Kip Kinkel; and "The Navy Blues," a 1996 Emmy Award-winning look at the post-Tailhook Navy.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Knoxville, Tenn.: Is this film a documentary? One which attempts to convince or sway the viewer to accept a certain point of view? Michael Kirk: The goal of the documentary is to inform and state as clearly as possible the facts, order them in a way that makes the communication understandable and watchable, and hopefully useful.
Alexandria, Va.: Wonderful program, except that I felt like I was on a train that never got to the station. Has Powell changed his mind on Wolfowitz's strategic thinking, or has he been trapped by his insistence on a UN resolution which now has been violated by Iraq, as you seem to suggest, or is it that he is, finally, only a tactician in the service of Wolfowitz's strategy, as you also suggest? And what was the role of the French ambush, if any? Michael Kirk: I do think many inside the administration believe Secretary of State Powell enjoyed a moment of preeminence between last August and October. But the president has apparently grown impatient with Secretary Powell's tactics, and his influence inside the Oval Office has waned. It would be hard to believe that Secretary Powell would find himself in agreement with the strategic thinking of Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. If the secretary is in the service of anyone, it is no doubt the commander in chief, the president of the United States. As to the French, one of the things some in the administration say is that Powell and others misread the mood at the United Nations, and misread the politics of Old Europe vs. New Europe and France's worries about its place in the new constellation.
Austin, Tex.: Have you found that the horrible events of 9/11 opened a window for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to implement the agenda of their think tank, Project for a New American Century, especially by following their report of "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century," submitted two months before the 2000 election? Is this just a little too much Manifest Destiny? Michael Kirk: There's no doubt that one can find the roots of the Bush Doctrine, as currently articulated, in just a few places. One of them is the draft policy guidance written by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992. The other is under the Project for a New American Century, "Rebuilding America's Defenses." Another is in the regular writings of a number of key administration figures during the 1990s.
Alexandria, Va.: This is in regards to what wasn?t included in last night's documentary. I never really understood why the evidence in "Gunning for Saddam," specifically I'm referring to Salman Pak and other related evidence, hasn't received wider play. Does the aerial reconnaissance refute this, has Sabah Khodada been discredited, was the intelligence too old to put forward? Michael Kirk: Last night we made a decision facing the tyranny of time and space not to explore the formidable amount of evidence about Saddam Hussein's arsenal and activities. Which is not to say they don't exist or are not important.
New Haven, Conn.: Has the Bush administration brought the issue of war with Iraq to the American people and to the world under a banner of terrorism and false pretense? Are they aware of the pain and disturbance they have caused in the lives of the average person? Michael Kirk: As we said in our program last night, from the first evening on 9/11, the president broadened the mandate of the war on terror to include those who harbor terrorists. Certainly, the neo-Reaganites in his administration believed that provided sufficient justification to include Iraq and Saddam Hussein as a target for their efforts.
Washington, D.C.: Mr. Kirk, can you give your view on why the print press and The Washington Post in particular, ignored telling ahead of time that your great piece was coming up last night and why they usually even ignore reviewing or reporting on such excellent reports? One has to suggest that The Post at least doesn't believe in serious history as a background and counter-argument to its strong support for going to war. Michael Kirk: Far be it for me to be critical of The Washington Post's coverage of this particular topic, since I relied heavily on the reporting and the generosity of The Post's most formidable reporters: Karen DeYoung, Dan Balz and Bart Gellman. As to whether the Post takes seriously my fervent desire that it promote my television program, that has to be taken up with the Style editor.
Hoffman Estates, Ill.: How much influence has Israel the Israeli lobby in the U.S. been on pushing this administration to war with Iraq? Israel seems to be the biggest winner if we go to war. For one thing, it will use the war as cover to remove Yassar Arafat permanently. Michael Kirk: I don't know. I never heard anything like that in the course of my reporting.
Cheverly, Md.: What role has White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card played in the push for war? Michael Kirk: Chief of Staff Card attends many of the meetings. His position is frequently solicited and offered.
Fountain Valley, Calif.: What response have you had from the Bush White House? Michael Kirk: No response and no response expected.
Nebraska: I'm curious as to your thoughts on the president's relationship with the media. It appears (to me at least) that President Bush avoids any possibility of having to respond to detailed questions (or follow-up questions) about his claims that Iraq presents a imminent threat to our country. In public speeches he continues to make vague assertions connecting Iraq to terrorists, and repeatedly speaks of "protecting the American people," but he never connects the dots. And reporters (on the rare occasions they have access to him) rarely press him to give detailed answers. Is the press afraid of him? Does the White House have a strategy to freeze out any reporter that asks him a tough question or criticizes his dissembling (as it did with Dana Milbank)? What's your take? Michael Kirk: I don't cover the White House on a regular basis, so I'm not a member of the White House press corps, so they may well have better insights on significant problems and access to the president. For our part, I deal with the public record, speeches that he's made, documents I can unearth, and off-the-record conversations with people who know -- almost none of whom are easily forthcoming about anything. It is a very tight ship they run, in terms of information, and I think that includes how open and candid the president is.
Michael Kirk: Having said that, this administration is in complete contrast to the Clinton administration, which leaked, in which sources often said completely contradictory things, and which had its own different kinds of trouble with the press.
Helena, Mont: The program was absolutely frightening. This may sound terribly naive, but the policy of pre-emptive strikes sounds to me exactly what the Japanese did to us at Pearl Harbor. Playing it out, we could apply this to absolutely any country at any time, as long as whoever is President at the time can be convinced that, at some point, however distant, that country could be perceived as a threat. How could a policy like this have any credibility with any rational decision-maker? It sounds like the perfect recipe for turning the whole world against the U.S. Michael Kirk: Well that is the counter argument to it. Simply stated, that's the counter argument to the policy. The authors of preemption and prevention would argue that if appropriately used, preemption will not be necessary that often, because potential enemies will never go there because they know how forceful we can be and that we're willing to pull the trigger.
Arlington, Va.: I just happened to switch over to you program and enjoyed it very much. It reminds me a bit of Bob Woodward's recent book he came out with. Did you interface with him during any time of the production of your project? Michael Kirk: I sincerely enjoyed reading Bob Woodward's book. But no, I did not interface with Bob on this particular subject. But we interviewed and used information from Woodward's colleague Dan Balz.
Vienna, Va.: I don't see what the big deal is here. There is no "War behind closed doors." Why make up reasons to get rid of Saddam's regime? There are enough REAL reasons for doing so -- in spite of the foolish opposition from the French and Germans. And never mind today. There were enough real reasons for getting rid of him years ago, but we just didn't have the will to do it. The Bush Administration isn't giving us a snow job here. They mean exactly what they say. Saddam is indeed a major threat to world peace and the security of this country, and unless he is disarmed or stripped of his power, he has to go, period. Michael Kirk: The war behind closed doors was between elements inside the Bush administration led by Secretary of State Powell to stop unilateral efforts to strike Saddam without coalitions and in the face of not having fully exhausted containment. And at a deeper level, our story was about the larger war, which is over the foreign policy of the United States with Iraq as the first effort toward preemption. My belief is that they really see Iraq as a first case study, and as a warning to North Korea and others in the Middle East. So it is much larger than just the case against Iraq.
Atlanta, Ga.: I just watched the Frontline broadcast concering the new American strategy on the world and particually and the Iraq and the prower/influence issues facing the president. The focus was entirely on the conflict between the moderates and conservatives on a new world doctrane. No mention was ever made about PM Tony Blair and their ardent support. This is a very liberal government of the British, which is supporting a very conservative policy toward Iraq. There seems to be far more to this issue than merely the two different totally American ideologies that Frontline would have one believe. Why is Tony Blair, a liberal, so adament about Saddam Hussein's removeal? What do the British, a very liberal counry, see or know that they would risk aligning themselves with the Bush doctrine on Iraq? Britian has long had much better on the ground inteligence services than the U.S. What do they know and how is that shaping what is happening now? The Frontline report is very interesting and does help one better understand the people and their individual views. However, I feel that the Iraq issue is far more complexed and sinister than simply a power struggle between two policy camps with in the White House. The British involvement and infulence in this process I found greatly missing form Frontline's analysis, which casues me to question the credibility of the entire thesis. Please comment. Michael Kirk: Point taken... and as important as Britain's role in decisions about a potential war with Iraq may well be, the fact is, long before Tony Blair voiced his position, elements of the United States government and indeed the president of the United States were signaling their intentions to go to war with Iraq. They are not mutually exclusive. But for our story, we chose to focus on the American policy initiatives. No doubt exploring England's position would also have been an interesting, if different television program.
Chicago, Ill.: How much of a role does oil REALLY play in this war? Is the U.S. SO reliant on Mideast oil? Michael Kirk: Oil, the attempted assassination of the president's father, the relationship of Saddam Hussein to the first World Trade Center bombing, and many other factors explain some of the reasons some people might be willing to argue for war with Saddam. We believe the primary reasons are much larger than any of those: A new doctrine and a new foreign policy that places America in a preeminent posture vis-a-vis the world.
Dubuque, Iowa: You portrayed Powell as a bit of a loner in the current scheme -- who are his key allies in the administration? Michael Kirk: I think Secretary of State Powell operates independently inside this administration, especially on this subject. He no doubt has allies on a variety of other issues, but about this, he seems to be in a loop of his own.
Potomac, Md.: Behind Closed Doors made it seem like Wolfowitz was the principal, if not only author of the Global Defense Strategy (the Plan), whereas it appears that he was second to the principals Cheney and Powell in the early 90s. It was Cheney's (and Powell's) concern to maintain Defense Dept funding which was in jeopardy as the Cold War started to fade with the onset of the Soviet Union's collapse. That's when the 'pre-emption concept and the ability to fight wars on two fronts came into being. Cheney was the central figure in the initiation of that Plan aided and abetted by Powell. Wolfowitz's plan was seen as so extreme that it was rejected at that time. The Frontline failed to show the pre-eminent roles of Powell and especially Cheney who was their boss. This is a serious oversight in the progam if not the heart of the entire issue. Wolfowitz was a party to the Plan eventually but Cheney and Powell were the pre-eminent players which should have been very clearly protrayed. Why was this important aspect omitted? Michael Kirk: We disagree, based on information others gave us about the genesis of preemption as a doctrine and the role of then-Secretary of Defense Cheney, which has always been complicated and defies easy description. And they all worked for a president, George H.W. Bush, who especially in an election year, wanted nothing to do with preemption.
San Diego, Calif.: Unfortunately and as usual, something happened that made it impossible for us in San Diego to watch this program. It's not the first time a controversial program was either not aired or like tonight, suddenly inaccessible. The program finally came on 10 minutes before it was over. Prior to that, it was nothing but snow and others wiht different cable companies confirmed this as well. Oh, and it is certainly not a coincidence that this is the big military town that has deployed most of the soldiers to the Gulf recently, now is it? Of course not. Michael Kirk: You can view the full program online at the Frontline Web site.
washingtonpost.com: To find out if the show will re-air in your area, click "schedule" on the left-hand side of the screen and type in your ZIP code to find your local PBS station.
New York, N.Y.: Has Bush's team analyzed contingencies -- worst case scenarios, etc.? What are they going to do if all hell breaks lose as the war goes on? Michael Kirk: That I am certain is a question they ask themselves with some regularity. They would have to be examining a variety of contingencies, and surely an experienced soldier like Secretary Powell would have raised some of these issues in the councils of power.
Chicago, Ill.: Conflict can lead to confrontation and be a positive driver. In your research, did you get a sense that tension in the Bush administration is creating an environment where the best possible decision can arise? Or is the administration's internal conflict destructive? Can the president manage such conflict? Michael Kirk: Every administration, if it's lucky, is populated with intelligent, opinionated and forceful thinkers. Often, the best ideas emerge under those circumstances. The question is whether those people feel free to give a president their honest counsel. My sense is that in the days right after Sept. 11, the people in the Bush administration were pulling together their most forceful arguments and trying to set the nation on the right course. Whether the policies that have emerged from those discussions are the right ones will be demonstrated soon enough.
Tampa, Fla.: Why did you make the PNAC look so warm and fuzzy? Their goal is world dominion, and it is a chilling prospect. I turned it off after 20 minutes. I felt it was a commercial for the neo-conservatives. Good use of public television, huh? You should be ashamed. You could have done a lot of good. Michael Kirk: Obviously, I disagree that we were doing a "commercial" for anyone. Explaining the positions of people who have for more than 20 years been near the center of power in America is our obligation. And one we take very seriously. And that would include the new-conservative points of view.
New York, N.Y.: What was the prime motivation for Colin Powell's unusually hawkish presentation to the United Nations? Michael Kirk: Perhaps he believes it, and knows after more than 12 years, something the rest of us don't; perhaps he was being a team player in the administration; perhaps, as a former soldier, he was following the orders of his Commander in Chief; perhaps, having made the argument to the president that the United States must work through the United Nations, he was giving that institution his best shot. Or maybe it's all of the above.
Aurora, Ill.: What do the members of the Bush administration see as the most likely fallout from a failure to win UN approval of a "use of force" proposal? Michael Kirk: I don't have any idea what they see. But I think looking at their actions and taking them at their word, they are prepared to act in concert with the 40 or so allies they say they have signed up in a coalition of the willing.
washingtonpost.com: That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.
Stay tuned to Live Online: | | | | Guest-400c | | Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2003 7:37 am Post subject: Full U.S. Control Planned for Iraq |
| If I was an Arab/Muslim, I would be outraged that a Zionist Jew (Marc Grossman at the Zionist hijacked US Department of State) is calling the shots (in association with the JINSA Zionist extremist Jews of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams along with Dick Cheney who was on the board of advisors for JINSA before becoming Vice President as he helped put Wolfowitz and Perle into power in the current Bush regime) was talking about what kind of regime is going to be in existence in US occupied Iraq. If I am irked at this, one can easily understand how angry the Arab/Muslim world is going to be...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37949-2003Feb20.html
washingtonpost.com
Full U.S. Control Planned for Iraq
American Would Oversee Rebuilding
By Karen DeYoung and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 21, 2003; Page A01 The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration headed by a yet-to-be named American civilian who would direct the reconstruction of the country and the creation of a "representative" Iraqi government, according to a now-finalized blueprint described by U.S. officials and other sources.
Gen. Tommy Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, is to maintain military control as long as U.S. troops are there. Once security was established and weapons of mass destruction were located and disabled, a U.S. administrator would run the civilian government and direct reconstruction and humanitarian aid.
In the early days of military action, U.S. forces following behind those in combat would distribute food and other relief items and begin needed reconstruction. The goal, officials said, would be to make sure the Iraqi people "immediately" consider themselves better off than they were the day before war, and attribute their improved circumstances directly to the United States.
The initial humanitarian effort, as previously announced, is to be directed by retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner. But once he got to Baghdad, sources said, Garner would quickly be replaced as the supreme civil authority by an American "of stature," such as a former U.S. state governor or ambassador, officials said.
Officials said other governments are being recruited to participate in relief and reconstruction tasks under U.S. supervision at a time to be decided by Franks and officials in Washington. Although initial food supplies are to be provided by the United States, negotiations are underway with the U.N. World Food Program to administer a nationwide distribution network Opposition leaders were informed this week that the United States will not recognize an Iraqi provisional government being discussed by some expatriate groups. Some 20 to 25 Iraqis would assist U.S. authorities in a U.S.-appointed "consultative council," with no governing responsibility. Under a decision finalized last week, Iraqi government officials would be subjected to "de-Baathification," a reference to Hussein's ruling Baath Party, under a program that borrows from the "de-Nazification" program established in Germany after World War II.
Criteria by which officials would be designated as too tainted to keep their jobs are still being worked on, although they would likely be based more on complicity with the human rights and weapons abuses of the Hussein government than corruption, officials said. A large number of current officials would be retained.
Although some of the broad strokes of U.S. plans for a post-Hussein Iraq have previously been reported, newly finalized elements include the extent of U.S. control and the plan to appoint a nonmilitary civil administrator. Officials cautioned that developments in Iraq could lead them to revise the plan on the run. Yet to be decided is "at what point and for what purpose" a multinational administration, perhaps run by the United Nations, would be considered to replace the U.S. civil authority.
"We have a load of plans that could be carried out by an international group, a coalition group, or by us and a few others," one senior U.S. official. President Bush, the official said, doesn't want to close options until the participants in a military action are known and the actual postwar situation in Iraq becomes clear.
The administration has been under strong pressure to demonstrate that it has a detailed program to deal with what is expected to be a chaotic and dangerous situation if Hussein is removed. The White House plans to brief Congress and reporters on more details of the plan next week.
No definitive price tag or time limit has been put on the plan, and officials stressed that much remains unknown about the length of a potential conflict, how much destruction would result, and "how deep" the corruption of the Iraqi government goes. The administration has declined to estimate how long U.S. forces would remain in Iraq. Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman told Congress last week that it might be two years before the Iraqis regained administrative control of their country. But "they're terrified of being caught in a time frame," said retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, one of a number of senior military and civilian experts who have been briefed by the Pentagon on the plan. "My own view is that it will take five years, with substantial military power, to establish and exploit the peace" in Iraq.
Although more than 180,000 U.S. troops are on the ground in the Persian Gulf region, U.S. officials continued to emphasize that President Bush still has not made a final decision on whether to go to war. Negotiations at the United Nations, where Bush is seeking a new Security Council resolution declaring that Hussein has violated U.N. disarmament demands and authorizing that he be disarmed by a U.N. multinational force, are at a delicate stage.
A majority of the council's 15 members have said they believe a decision on war should be delayed while U.N. weapons inspections, launched in November, continue. Bush has said that, if necessary, the U.S. military and a "coalition of the willing" will disarm Iraq without U.N. approval.
The administration also is continuing discussions with Arab governments about the possibilities of exile for Hussein and several dozen of his family members and top officials. Sources said, however, that even if Hussein and a small group of others were to leave, uncertainties about who would remain in charge, the need to destroy weapons of mass destruction, and concerns about establishing long-term stability would likely lead to the insertion of U.S. troops there in any case.
Among the other parts of the post-Hussein plan:
? Iraqi military forces would be gathered in prisoner-of-war camps, with opposition members now receiving U.S. training at an air base in Hungary serving as part of the guard force. The Iraqi troops would be vetted by U.S. forces under Franks's command, and those who were cleared, beginning with those who "stood down or switched sides" during a U.S. assault, would receive U.S. training to serve in what one official called a "post-stabilization" force.
U.S. forces would secure any weapons of mass destruction that were found, including biological and chemical weapons stores. "At an appropriate time," an official said, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, who are conducting U.N.-mandated weapons inspections in Iraq, might be brought in to examine weaponry, scientists and documentation.
In addition to the consultative council, an Iraqi commission would be formed to reestablish a judicial system. An additional commission would write a new constitution, although officials emphasized that they would not expect to "democratize" Iraq along the lines of the U.S. governing system. Instead, they speak of a "representative Iraqi government."
Officials said the decision to install U.S. military and civilian administrations for an indeterminate time stems from lessons learned in Afghanistan, where power has been diffused among U.S. military forces still waging war against the remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda, a multinational security force of several thousand troops in which the United States does not participate, and the interim government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
The administration is particularly keen on averting interference by other regional powers, and cites the "ability of people like the Iranians and others to go in with money and create warlords" sympathetic to their own interests, one official said. "We don't want a weak federal government that plays into the hands of regional powers" and allows Iraq to be divided into de facto spheres of influence. "We don't want the Iranians to be paying the Shiites, the Turks the Turkmen and the Saudis the Sunnis," the official, referring to some of the main groups among dozens of Iraqi tribes and ethnic and religious groups.
A similar anxiety led to the decision to prohibit the Iraqi opposition based outside the country from forming a provisional government. The chief proponent of that idea, Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, was informed this week that any move to declare a provisional Iraqi government "would result in a formal break in the U.S.-INC relationship," the official said. | | | | Guest-400c | | Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2003 8:23 am Post subject: Retired American general will run a postwar Iraq |
| JINSA Zionist Extremist Jews of Douglas Feith (who believes in a greater Israel and helped sabotage the Oslo Peace Accords with his Likud cronies in Israel) and Marc Grossman are setting up US occupied Iraq (this is absolutely incredible how these Zionist extremist Jews are being allowed to set up a regime of their pleasure in US occupied Iraq as this should understandably infuriate the most if not all of Arab/Muslim world)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3-580674,00.html
February 17, 2003
Retired American general will run a postwar Iraq
From James Bone in New York
THE Bush Administration, pressing forward with plans for war despite increasing public protest, has picked a retired US Army general and friend of Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, to replace President Saddam Hussein in Iraq, The Times has learnt. Lieutenant-General Jay Garner, who led Operation Provide Comfort to help fleeing Kurds at the end of the last Gulf War, is in line to become the US military governor in Iraq, sources say. A former Vice-Chief of US Army Staff, General Garner, 64, was appointed recently to head a new Pentagon office for postwar planning that has become a virtual “government-in-waiting”. The US has backed away from establishing a United Nations-run administration in Iraq — favoured by Britain — because of the divisions in the Security Council over the war. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, told Congress last week that a post-Saddam Iraq would be run by a US general for at least two years, using many of the bureaucrats who administer the country now. “The plans we are looking at include using the institutions that are there,” General Powell told the House International Relations Committee. “There is a nation there. What it has is rotten leadership.” Lieutenant-General Garner was appointed last month to head a new Pentagon Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, which would be deployed en masse to Iraq after an invasion. Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary for Defence Policy, told Congress last week that he considered Lieutenant-General Garner’s unit, staffed by officials from various departments, to be an “expeditionary office”. Mr Feith, an influential hawk in the Bush Administration, said that the postwar planning office brought together task forces on humanitarian relief, reconstruction, the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and the vetting of existing Iraqi officials. “Major Iraqi governmental institutions, such as government ministries, could remain and perform the key functions of government after the vetting of top personnel,” He told Congress. “Town and district elections could be held soon after liberation to involve Iraqis in governing at the local level.” Marc Grossman, UnderSecretary of State for Political Affairs, told Congress that Washington envisaged three phases. In the first the “interim coalition military administration” will try to establish security and order. There will then be a “transition”, during which authority is progressively transferred to Iraqi institutions. The final stage will happen when Iraq has decided on a constitution, held an election and become a “normal country.” | | | | Guest-cdbc | | | | Guest-cdbc | | | | Guest-c651 | | | | No Sins Allowed. | | Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2003 11:30 pm Post subject: |
| Friday 21 February 2003
"To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace."
- Tacitus
It sounded like two behemoth icebergs colliding in the North Atlantic, but you needed the right kind of ears to hear it. Two immensely powerful forces crashed into each other over the weekend of February 15th, and the resulting thunder has set the world to trembling.
On one side were the people, who took to the streets all across the world by the tens of millions to stand against George W. Bush's push for pre-emptive war on Iraq. The numbers, and the locations, were staggering. More than 100,000 people took to the streets of Sydney, Australia, a nation that has been solidly in Bush's corner on this matter. In Spain, another member of Bush's "Coalition of the Willing," several million protesters took over Madrid, Barcelona and 55 other cities. Italy, another Bush ally, saw over a million citizens take to the streets of Rome. Britain, Bush's go/no go ally of allies, saw over a million people protesting in London. Police there said it was the largest demonstration in that nation's long history.
The Netherlands saw one hundred thousand protesters, as did Belgium and Ireland. There were protesters by the tens of thousands in Sweden, Switzerland, Scotland, Denmark, Austria, Canada, South Africa, Mexico, Greece, Russia and Japan. 500,000 protesters demonstrated in Germany, joined by three members of Gerhard Schroder's cabinet who defied their Chancellor by being there. It was the largest demonstration ever in post-war Germany. Another 500,000 people marched in Paris and 60 other French cities.
The United States of America saw protests from coast to coast in over 100 cities nationwide. New York City was paralyzed by over a million marchers. San Francisco was taken over by well over 200,000 protesters, and Los Angeles saw over 100,000 people take to the streets. Thousands upon thousands joined them in Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami and Seattle.
This was a gathering of ordinary citizens who came together in the streets of the world in an organized event that has no precedent in all of human history. They were brought together by a global word-of-mouth activism rooted entirely in the Internet. Were it not for this planetary connection, no such coordination could have ever taken place. Once upon a time, the world wide web was a realm dominated by dreams of profit and marketing. Those dreams have soured, leaving behind a marvelous network now utilized by very average people who can, with the click of a button, bring forth from all points on the compass a roaring deluge of humanity to stand against craven injustice and ruinous war.
The weekend of February 15th saw this force ram headlong into the will of men who walk in shadow, whose hands wield lightning and steel, pestilence and famine. In their ranks stand Presidents, Prime Ministers, corporate magnates, untouchable billionaires, and the advisors who whisper to them of empire and domination. They are few in number, but life and death flows from their fingertips in freshets and gouts. These men control the armies and navies of great nations, nuclear and chemical nightmares beyond measure, unassailable technological weapons and walls, the financial cords which hold the package together, the water, the air, the oil, the law, and a global media machine by which they can obscure their designs with pleasing lies.
No mere citizen could do what these men in one moment can do with the crooking of a little finger. With a word, they can erase cities, deprive an entire populace of water and light, unleash disease and famine, annihilate the economies of dozens of nations, and imprison forever anyone who dares dissent. These men bleed, they sicken, they die, but in their time of life they can punch holes in the sky large enough to make Zeus wince with envy. Like the millions who marched, the gathering of such fearful powers into the hands of so few is also without precedent in all of human history.
There was, among the millions who stormed the planet last weekend, a misconception that masked the true reason for their presence in the streets. A great many people believe this looming war with Iraq is about old grudges and oil. There is logic in this; Iraq has the second largest proven stores of precious petroleum in the world, and there is a definite history of malice between House Bush and House Hussein. The truth of the matter is far more broad and deep, belittling all talk of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and even oil. The men who pursue their goals by way of this war have a great many desires on their minds, and once more, they have the will to attain these goals by whatever means is required.
Were the protesters fully aware of whom they faced, a good many of them may well have fled in terror to cower in their homes. One does not lightly bait a bear with such terrible claws.
Does this all sound like some paranoid fantasy? If so, allow me to introduce The Project for the New American Century.
The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.
The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.
Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.
Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could?
Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.
Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."
PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to 22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the Bush administration's plans.
PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News
The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.
On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.
Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world. Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.
In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.
Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.
All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewership goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."
There will be adverse side effects. The siege mentality average Americans are suffering as they smother behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct tape will increase by orders of magnitude as our aggressions bring forth new terrorist attacks against the homeland. These attacks will require the implementation of the newly drafted Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the previous Act that has profoundly sharper teeth. The sun will set on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense spending, and by the aforementioned "constabulary" duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Former allies will turn on us. Germany, France and the other nations resisting this Iraq war are fully aware of this game plan. They are not acting out of cowardice or because they love Saddam Hussein, but because they mean to resist this rising American empire, lest they face economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush. Richard Perle has already stated that France is no longer an American ally. As the eagle spreads its wings, our rhetoric and their resistance will become more agitated and dangerous.
Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want, from famine and disease. At home, the social fabric will be torn in ways that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison.
This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now control the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it. For them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.
The plan was running smoothly until those two icebergs collided. Millions and millions of ordinary people are making it very difficult for Bush's international allies to keep to the script. PNAC may have designs for the control of the "International Commons" of the internet, but for now it is the staging ground for a movement that would see empire take a back seat to a wise peace, human rights, equal protection under the law, and the preponderance of a justice that will, if properly applied, do away forever with the anger and hatred that gives birth to terrorism in the first place.
Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his countrymen in Rome. "You fight terrorism," he said, "by creating more justice in the world."
The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required. The tide can be stopped, and the men who desire empire by the sword can be thwarted. It has already begun, but it must not cease. These are men of will, and they do not intend to fail. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
