Meet the U.S.

Stormig · September 30, 2003

In general, whatever this administration has said before the war, it says the same thing now. And I have not seen a shred of evidence suggesting that they have lied - no such evidence in the media nor in your latest post.

Ya, they did not lie prior to, they just "mis-spoke" a few times in the aftermath...

For Bush's lies and other [domestic] lies:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16832

America-Hye · September 30, 2003

Although I had begun to respect MJ, due to articles he has written, I am again realizing what it is about his world-view and personal approach that irritates me so much.

MJ · September 30, 2003

Sorry. No comments due to the lack of content.

joseph parikian · October 3, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US revisions to Iraq resolution fail to impress France

Agencies

Friday October 3, 2003

France today expressed dissatisfaction with the revised version of a US draft resolution on Iraq, as Shia Muslims gathered in the holy city of Najaf to mourn a revered spiritual leader killed in a bombing last month.

One day after the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, rejected the same US draft for ignoring his recommendations, a French foreign ministry spokesman, Herve Ladsous, said US revisions did not go far enough toward incorporating French demands. He said France wants a provisional Iraqi government established as soon as possible, gradually receiving executive powers in a process overseen by the UN.

"Our first impression is that our concerns are only reflected in this revised project in a very limited measure and that this revised project does not incorporate the change in approach that we are advocating," he told reporters.

Mr Ladsous reiterated, however, that France did not intend to use its security council veto to block any new US Iraq resolution.

The US hopes to pass a resolution that would encourage the UN to contribute troops and money the reconstruction of Iraq, and rewrote its original draft to appeal to dissenters in the security council. France, Germany and Russia, however, are pushing for a stronger UN role in the transition and a concrete timetable on the transfer of power to the Iraqi people.

In the Iraqi holy city of Najaf, an estimated 50,000 Shia Muslims gathered today for ceremonies marking the 40th day since the assassination of revered cleric Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim.

Al-Hakim was killed in a car bombing on August 29 in Najaf. The attack killed more than 80 others and wounded more than 140 people.

Today the crowd marched into the city chanting anti-Saddam Hussein slogans, some people beating their chests in a traditional Shia gesture of mourning. Others chanted pledges of support for Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, the dead cleric's brother and a member of the US-appointed governing council.

"The enemies of the Iraqi people from the remnants of the former regime and their allies are criminals and terrorists and they are determined to commit their crimes against the Iraqi people, who will not remain silent," said Mr al-Hakim.

He also was critical of the US-led occupation authority's attempts to pacify the country, which is still rattled by violence nearly six months after Saddam was ousted.

"The adopted policies by the occupation forces in dealing with the security situation are wrong and must be reconsidered and abandoned. Political parties must be counted on to handle this difficult task," he said.

Iraqi police, the Badr Brigade - the banned military wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIRI) in Iraq - and uniformed soldiers of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) provided security at the memorial services. The slain al-Hakim founded SCIRI while in Iranian exile. His brother has since taken over leadership.

Black flags of mourning were strung on buildings throughout Najaf, the site of the Imam Ali shrine, the holiest Shia location in Iraq.

Speaking at al-Hakim's grave site, Jalal Talabani, head of the PUK and member of the governing council described al-Hakim's death as a "national disaster for Iraq and Muslims". He called for unity between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

Mohsen Abdul Hamid, another member of the governing council, warned of plans to sow discord between Shias and Sunnis and called for strong opposition to this

THOTH · October 4, 2003

In general, whatever this administration has said before the war, it says the same thing now. And I have not seen a shred of evidence suggesting that they have lied - no such evidence in the media nor in your latest post.

I really hate when normally very intelligent and understanding folks cling to the most ridiculous of positions based on inability to see beyond a partisan position. Shame on you MJ...

Let me just say - that at best this (on your part) is lawyerspeak...focusing on this issue of weather or not what anything has been said is technically a lie...it should be clear to all that fundemental rationals purported for this war, the pursuit of it and the aftermath are frought with errors and misdirection - and a constant shifting of emphasis (away from essentially disproved hypothoses). That one would really have believed them prior is well unfourtunate...that folks continue to cling to this belief in the face of the (non) evidence...well thats either dishonesty or someone who is in on the gag - or both...what can I say...

WMD - OK where?

Immenent threat to US - still totally unproven

Ties with Al Queda - none

Necessary to bring peace in the Middle East - now this one is/eas really a joke

Will reduce the threat of terrorism/reduce #s of terrorists (etc) - both wrong - the opposite in fact - and this was very predictable

Will bring peace & prosperity to the Iraqi people - I'll believe it when I see it...though with $87 billion and counting I would say its the start of a pretty fine welfare system (and I thought Republicans were against that sor tof thing?) - paid for by Americans (in blood & money I might add)

Oh yes - Democracy for Iraq - OK ding dong Sadaam is dead (oh - wait a second...not quite yet...but Ok - hes gone at least - perhaps a good thing...arguably)...but can we say Chialbi?

What else? (others can be free to add any that I've missed...)

Edited October 4, 2003 by THOTH

MJ · October 4, 2003

I would not even dignify to you an answer.

joseph parikian · October 4, 2003

Ahmad Chalabi

Jordan would put him in jail were he to return because of the banking fraud.

Stormig · October 4, 2003

February 2001: Powell Declares Iraq Has No WMD and Is No Threat

>>> During the run-up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, we were repeatedly told by US leaders that Iraq absolutely, positively had weapons of mass destruction [read more]. The country was an immediate threat not only to its neighbors but to the entire world. It had the capability of launching WMDs within 45 minutes.

In August 2002, Cheney insisted: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

In a March 2003 address to the nation, Bush said: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

In April 2003, Fleischer claimed: "But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."

In Feburary 2003, Powell said: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

There you have it. Less than seven months before 9/11, and less than 18 months before the drive to attack Iraq seriously revved up, the Secretary of State admitted that Iraq had no "significant capabilities" regarding WMD and was so feeble that it couldn't even threaten the countries around it with conventional military power.

This significance of this speech was first noted by British investigative journalist John Pilger, who obtained video of Powell saying this. Pilger also notes:

On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

See the page on the State Department Website with Powell's Cairo press conference. The Memory Hole's mirror of the page.

If anyone with access to Lexis-Nexis or a similar service can get copies of 1) Powell's 15 May 2001 Congressional testimony (the question-and-answer portion) or 2) Rice's July 2001 full statement about keeping arms from Hussein, please send them.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Accelerated · October 5, 2003

Yeah....was watching the news the other day, and could help but think how funny (read: SAD) it is how the UN and the US are asking Iran to prove that it doesnt possess or have intentions of making WMDs!

1. Shouldnt it be the accusers doing the proving?

2. How can Iran prove that it hasnt got the INTENTION of making WMDs?

3. Why is Iran not allowed to have WMDs, when clearly its biggest threat is the US which has WMDs and has used them in the past?

joseph parikian · October 6, 2003

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_warriors.jpg

Did you guyes see this one before

joseph parikian · October 6, 2003

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bushes_iraqoil.jpg

Sasun · October 9, 2003

Spending On Iraq Sets Off Gold Rush

Thu Oct 9, 1:00 AM ET Add Top Stories - washingtonpost.com to My Yahoo!

By Jonathan Weisman and Anitha Reddy, Washington Post Staff Writers

As the House today takes up President Bush's $87 billion spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan the debate over the bill is increasingly focused not just on the amount of money but also on who will get it.

Of the $4 billion a month already being spent in Iraq, as much as a third is going to the private contractors who have flooded into the country, said Deborah D. Avant, a political scientist at George Washington University and an expert in the new breed of private military companies. The flow of money will increase greatly if Congress approves Bush's request.

Many of the services being sought -- including police training, crimes-against-humanity investigations and prison-construction expertise -- are highly specialized. Conditions are dangerous. Experts say American taxpayers can expect to pay a hefty premium to contractors in a classic seller's market.

Among the dozens of projects in the proposal is a State Department plan to spend $800 million to build a large training facility for a new Iraqi police force. Management fees alone would run $26 million a month, while 1,500 police trainers would cost $240,000 each per year, or $20,000 each per month. DynCorp of Reston is likely to get the contract.

"All I can say is it's mind-boggling," James Lyons, a former military subcontractor in Bosnia, said of the opportunities for private contractors. "People must be drooling."

Avant said that as many as 1 in 10 Americans deployed in Iraq and Kuwait -- perhaps 20,000 -- are contractors, a group larger than any of the military forces fielded there by Britain or other U.S. allies. Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Vice President Cheney's former firm, Houston-based Halliburton Corp., has an exclusive contract to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp. is the prime contractor for much of the infrastructure reconstruction.

The Iraqi gold rush has raised concerns on Capitol Hill that the administration may be losing control of the taxpayers' money. As the task of rebuilding shifts from government employees to for-profit contractors, members of Congress are worried that their oversight will diminish, cost controls will weaken and decisions about security, training and the shape of the new Iraqi government will be in the hands of people with financial stakes in the outcome. Avant calls it "the commercialization of foreign policy."

The Coalition Provisional Authority is bolstering its contracting operations to keep up with the flow of money from Washington, congressional aides said, but lawmakers still complain that the process of bidding out and awarding contracts and subcontracts needs to be far more transparent and organized.

"What we're seeing is waste and gold-plating that's enriching Halliburton and Bechtel while costing taxpayers billions of dollars and actually holding back the pace of reconstruction in Iraq," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a leading critic of the administration's handling of Iraq. "We need greater transparency."

Driven by those concerns, the Senate last week added provisions to its version of the president's request that would increase penalties for war profiteering and demand a more open and competitive bidding system.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) included a provision to limit noncompetitive bidding in the House version of the war-spending bill.

Dan Senor, a senior adviser to Coalition Provisional Authority administrator L. Paul Bremer, said such concerns are misplaced. He said competition among contractors would keep costs down.

"We are confident that there will be an enormous supply of contractors and subcontractors interested in these projects," he said. "That's what our experience has shown."

But Senor also emphasized that the authority's primary contracting concerns right now are speed and reducing the pressure on U.S. troops by replacing them with contractors wherever possible.

For example, Fairfax-based Vinnell Corp., a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman Corp., won a $48 million contract in July to begin training a new Iraqi army, a sum that would be dwarfed by the $164 million for military contract training contained in Bush's $87 billion request. Vinnell, in turn, subcontracted with Alexandria-based Military Professional Resources Inc. and several other companies.

Erinys, a British company with offices in the Middle East and South Africa, is guarding oil fields and pipelines that are in danger from saboteurs.

Custer Battles LLC, another Fairfax company, is providing security for Baghdad International Airport, guarding ground convoys and protecting other contractors with 250 employees who served in the U.S., Nepalese, British, French and Australian military, joined by 300 to 400 Iraqis, said Scott Custer, a principal of the firm. Those numbers, he said, are "expanding exponentially."

"Iraqi operations are now the majority of our business," Custer said yesterday.

Those contracts are only the beginning. Edwin E. Brockway, a manager in the defense and federal products division of the construction-equipment company Caterpillar Inc., said 500 to 600 of his company's machines are already in Iraq. He said he expects Caterpillar to receive many more orders for bulldozers and pipe layers as private companies win contracts to rebuild Iraq's sewer systems, water-purification plants and roads. The bulldozers used by soldiers in Iraq range in price from $100,000 to nearly $1 million, and the Army hires service companies to repair and maintain the equipment.

Engineered Support Systems Inc. estimated that the military is using 4,000 of its gigantic portable air conditioners and heaters in tents and portable shelters in Iraq. Each unit costs $11,000 and can heat or cool a few thousand square feet.

"The Army and Air Force have said, 'How many more can you build? How quickly can you build them?' " said Bruce Gibbens, director of field marketing for the St. Louis company.

Congressional aides from both parties point to the police-training program to illustrate their concerns. DynCorp, a subsidiary of California-based Computer Sciences Corp., landed the initial police-training contract this summer, a contract that is likely to expand greatly if all $800 million is approved. The State Department envisions establishing a training camp capable of handling 3,000 recruits and 1,000 trainers and support staff at any given time. The camp would turn out 35,000 Iraqi police officers in just two years.

DynCorp has begun recruiting 1,000 "police advisors" with at least 10 years of experience in law enforcement or corrections, an "unblemished background" and "excellent health." The draw? DynCorp plans to pay salaries as high as $153,600, with minimum pay of $75,076.92.

DynCorp declined to comment on the contract, referring calls to the State Department.

"The money is pretty good," said Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association, an Alexandria-based trade group of private military companies. "But the risk is there, too."

Brooks said fears of price gouging are overblown. Erinys, the British firm guarding oil facilities, won its $30 million security contract by underbidding its competition by $10 million, he said.

"Yes, there are a lot of security companies there," he said. "But I know quite a few that are still waiting for contracts. If one company asks a gouging price, there's going to be another in line."

ED · October 9, 2003

For those who might be interested, they should watch the "FRONTLINE" tonight at 9pm on PBS.

US-IRAG war and the way administration misled American public for going to war

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/pr...press/2201.html

Edited October 9, 2003 by Edward

Stormig · October 19, 2003

http://www.atimes.com

Middle East

THE ROVING EYE

Iran and al-Qaeda: Odd bedfellows

By Pepe Escobar

Investigators from a special anti-terrorist cell in the European Union have expressed doubts over a Washington Post report this week in which sources claimed that Saad bin Laden, 24, Osama's eldest son, is now a top al-Qaeda member and that he runs operations out of Iran.

The paper reported its sources as saying that Saad and a close circle of about two dozen of bin Laden's trusted lieutenants are "protected by an elite, radical Iranian security force loyal to the nation's clerics and beyond the control of the central government".

Asia Times Online (see Iran lines up its al-Qaeda aces of July 2) has already reported that Iran has admitted to holding a number of al-Qaeda members in its custody.

But, Asia Times Online's European intelligence sources caution, "The leaks [to the Post], when put together, convey the impression that Iran, a Shi'ite Islamic Republic, is now supporting al-Qaeda, an Islamist, Wahhabi, terrorist, transnational organization. That is simply not true."

The attempt to throw all big cats - "axis of evil" Iran, "foreign terrorists" in Iraq and al-Qaeda - into one big bag is seen by European intelligence agencies as a crude attempt on the part of the Bush administration to "refocus" the "war on terror" from former "axis of evil" member Iraq to current member Iran, and from Saddam Hussein to the ayatollahs in Tehran. This, they say, bears a strong resemblance to the non-stop campaign in early 2003 to link Saddam to al-Qaeda, even though the evidence did not support this.

Anti-terrorist European intelligence raises several points. First, there is no proven connection between al-Qaeda and the Islamic Republic's religious leadership. And Saad is not the new Osama. According to one special investigator, "Our main target now is not Osama's son, but Muhamad Ibrahim Makkawi [aka Saif al-Adil, a former colonel in the Egyptian army, born in 1960 or 1963]. He is an explosives expert and most probably the successor of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed." Khalid Shaikh, widely reputed to be the mastermind of September 11, was captured in Pakistan in March.

Saif al-Adil has extensive combat and covert operation experience: after fighting alongside the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s, he founded the military branch of bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri's Islamic Jihad, and is considered to be the top al-Qaeda military operative still at large. Saif al-Adil has for several years been in charge of terrestrial operations, security, military education, intelligence and liaison with al-Qaeda's special forces, the infamous Brigade 055. The only known photograph of Saif al-Adil is a passport photo dating from when bin Laden was still in Sudan, in the mid-1990s.

The Americans, though, are convinced that Saif al-Adil is in Iran, along with top al-Qaeda financial expert Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah and a few dozen others, all of them under the regime's custody, but still operative.

The Europeans are not so sure: they insist that al-Qaeda's imprint is mostly in the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf regions, not in Iran. "Most al-Qaeda leaders took refuge in the Hadramut, between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, where the bin Laden family comes from. The most influential ulemas from the Hadramut tribes are Wahhabis, as well as key officials of the Saudi security forces and the religious police." says a European intelligence operative. As for the Islamic Republic's authorities, they have always vehemently denied supporting al-Qaeda - although they have not disclosed the identities of their al-Qaeda detainees.

According to the leaks to the Post, Saad bin Laden is being protected by the elite unit among the five branches of Iran's Revolutionary Guards - the Jerusalem force (al-Quds) - which completely eludes "control from the central government".

Analysts question this possibility. Such a unit could well elude President Mohammad Khatami, but certainly not the Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to whom all security services are subordinated. And for all practical purposes, "central government" means Khamenei, not Khatami.

US intelligence is persuaded that the Jerusalem force has trained more than three dozen "foreign Islamic militant groups in paramilitary, guerrilla and terrorism" tactics, Sunni and Shi'ite alike, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine. That sounds like an Israeli Mossad mish-mash - once again throwing all cats into the same bag, as the agendas of Hezbollah and Palestinian liberation groups are totally different.

Although for some European intelligence sources the Jerusalem force is "a state within a state, able to offer protection to al-Qaeda", there's great skepticism towards its supposed, effective internationalist role. "Saddam Hussein also had a Jerusalem Liberation Army. It proved to be invisible, just a propaganda coup," adds another European counter-terrorist operative.

European intelligence agrees that Saif al-Adil and Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah are indeed the current top deputies to bin Laden and al-Qaeda's number two, Ayman "the Surgeon" al-Zawahiri, who now contact their operatives only through human couriers. But the assumption that Ayman al-Zawahiri used his decade-old relationship with the Jerusalem force to negotiate a safe harbor for some of al-Qaeda's leaders bombed by the Americans in Tora Bora, in southeast Afghanistan, in December 2001, is also ludicrous: these al-Qaeda leaders escaped to Pakistan's tribal areas, where they remained ever since. There's evidence that only but a few crossed the border from Pakistan's to Iran's Balochistan desert.

According to the Post, Saudi Arabia has tried to convince Iran to extradite Saad bin Laden and his al-Qaeda brothers-in-arms because they are suspected of masterminding the May 12 Riyadh suicide bombing (35 dead). According to the Saudis and the Americans, they were in contact with an al-Qaeda cell in Riyadh. The Saudis have told the Americans that there may be up to 400 al-Qaeda members holed up in Iran. European intelligence also takes this information with a pinch of salt, considering the fact that the Saudis are trying to do everything at the moment to appease America's discomfort with their role vis-a-vis what is essentially a Saudi Arabian, hardcore Islamist, terrorist organization (al-Qaeda).

The authorities in Tehran have "challenged foreign intelligence services to come up with evidence" that they are supporting al-Qaeda, according to government spokesman Abdullah Ramezanzadeh: "We have announced time and again that we will not allow these activities to take place in Iran. This is a decision taken by the highest officials in the country. The report is an absolute lie."

The regime blames the leaks that led to the report on the powerful Israeli lobby in Washington: indeed, for neo-conservatives from Pentagon number two Paul Wolfowitz down, closely intertwined with the hardline Ariel Sharon government in Israel, Iran's ayatollahs are the next big target. According to a European counter-terrorist expert, for the neo-cons "an al-Qaeda free to operate in Iran is a dream ticket in their agenda. They have already started to prepare American opinion for an attack on Iran."

Ramezanzadeh, the Iranian government spokesman, acknowledges that Iran's porous borders with Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are difficult to control, so "sometimes some elements suspected of cooperating with al-Qaeda may enter the country". Al-Qaeda is supposed to have its bases along the Afghan border: American satellite photos could easily provide some evidence. The official Iranian position was spelled out by Ramezanzadeh: "We are asking all the world's security services and anyone else who has any information about these suspects to come forward with the information. After substantiating the information, we will arrest them."

Saad bin Laden is one of at least 11 sons from Osama's first wife and also first cousin, Najwa Ghanem from Syria. Out of five marriages, Osama has fathered about 20 children. Saad arrived in Iran in 2002, from Afghanistan. He is fluent in English and information technology. European intelligence operatives somewhat agree that he may now be a key player in al-Qaeda's logistics. He may have been close to, and may have learned a lot from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But he is not the new Osama - at least not yet. And there's still no proof that he is the Tehran ayatollahs' new lethal weapon.

Stormig · October 19, 2003

http://www.atimes.com

Southeast Asia

Anti-terrorism scorecard: US vs Bali

By Gary LaMoshi

DENPASAR, Bali - Two years ago, terrorists rocked the United States with a set of unprecedented, coordinated attacks. Just over a year later, on October 12, 2002, a night of terror bombings on the idyllic vacation island of Bali in Indonesia left more than 200 dead. Both attacks roused local and national leaders into action to combat the terror threat. But that's where the similarities end.

In the US, the president went into hiding in the hours after the attacks, adding to the uncertainty and panic. (Maybe the zipper of his flight suit got stuck.) He finally emerged to declare a global war on terrorism, warning the rest of the world, "You're either with us or against us."

In Indonesia, the famously reticent, camera-shy president appeared on national television promptly to admit a mistake. Despite more than a year of denials by government officials, the attack in Bali confirmed the presence of terrorists in Indonesia and the threat they posed. She appealed for domestic solidarity and international help to fight them.

Inside the US, heavy-handed law enforcement profiled Arabs and Muslims as potential terrorists, targeting them for arrests and detention without evidence or due process (unless they were connected to the Houses of Saud or Bush). These actions helped spur a wider public backlash against Arabs, Muslims, and anyone who fit prevailing vague stereotypes, such as Sikhs.

In Bali, a Hindu enclave in the midst of overwhelmingly Muslim Indonesia, handfuls of local hotheads targeted Muslims from other islands for expulsion in the hours after the bombing. Balinese community leaders swiftly denounced these vigilantes and deployed pecalang (traditional guards) around mosques to underline their position.

Aside from targeting Muslims, US law-enforcement and intelligence agencies embarked on a program of scapegoating, ass-covering, and blame-shifting over the failures that led to the deaths of more than 3,000 in the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Indonesia appointed its most respected police general, I Made Pastika, who implicated the military in the attack on a Freeport mining convoy in Papua (see Indonesia's gold standard, September 7, 2002), to lead the investigation of the Bali bombings.

Who is leading the US investigation into the September 11 attacks?

In response to the Bali bombings, Indonesia enacted an anti-terror law that expanded law-enforcement muscle without reverting to the arbitrary police powers in effect under its previous autocratic regime. The law is less sweeping than the colonial remnant Internal Security Acts still in effect in neighboring Singapore and Malaysia.

The US reacted to its terror attacks with the Patriot Act, an unprecedented expansion of police powers that threatens to undermine basic rights and freedoms the "war on terror" purports to protect, beyond the reach and hopes of any mere terrorist.

The US categorically rejected suggestions from domestic and international analysts that its policies and actions may have provoked the attacks and looked to pin the blame overseas.

After its tragedy, Bali looked inward. Leaders asked whether the island had lost its way by straying too far from its traditional values, since an estimated 80 percent of Bali's economy had grown to depend on tourism.

After September 11, US troops invaded Afghanistan, where the national government hosted the al-Qaeda network that the United States held responsible for September 11 and previous terror attacks. A year and half later, while Afghanistan remained in pieces, the US invaded Iraq as part of the same global "war on terror". Iraq's connection to the September 11 attacks, however, existed solely in the minds of White House speechwriters - and, largely thanks to them, 70 percent of the US public - until President George W Bush admitted to the fib last month.

After the October 12 bombings in Bali, religious leaders held a pair of cleansing ceremonies, including the sacrifice of animals, to rid the bomb site in Kuta and the island of evil spirits.

In more than two years since the September 11 attacks, the United States has not put a single defendant on trial, and last week suffered a major setback in its only pending case, the action against Zacarias Moussaoui. The US continues to detain suspects in secret locations and deny them legal counsel. Perhaps as a substitute for effective judicial steps, it sent Attorney General John Ashcroft on a speaking tour ahead of the second anniversary of the attacks to appeal for further expansion of law-enforcement powers.

As of the one-year anniversary of the Bali bombings, police have arrested 34 suspects implicated in the plot. Of them 13 had been tried and convicted in open court under normal judicial rules, with three receiving the death penalty, including mastermind Mukhlas, alias Ali Gufron, last week.

You decide which country is combating terrorism more effectively.

Stormig · October 19, 2003

Arrogant US Ambassador to Venezuela Charles S. Shapiro says its not a crime to kill a President...

In an Associated Press (AP) dispatch the United States government has said it will open up an investigation into allegations made by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez Frias relative to conspiracy to assassinate him. Chavez Frias has said that "terrorist groups" in southern Florida have allied with Miami-based anti-Castro radicals.

USA Caracas Ambassador

Charles Shapiro

Amazingly US Ambassador to Venezuela, Charles S. Shapiro says "it is not necessarily a crime ... but we are in the full process of collecting information and we must follow all legal procedures ... if there is anyone to blame, our government knows what to do!"

With typical Washington cover-up rhetoric, Shapiro shakily admits that he has received information that "some Venezuelans have been receiving military training in the United States." He further admits that the information was also published in a Miami newspaper a year ago ... but remains remarkably silent as to why no action was taken by proper authorities Stateside. "We're not going to take action against anybody ... we haven't been able to make any headway!"

President Chavez Frias was forced to cancel his scheduled trip to the United Nations in New York on September 24 after intelligence agencies revealed a CIA-backed plot against the President's plane en route to the General Assembly. Chavez asked the United States to investigate his allegations, at the same time reiterating earlier requests that President George W. Bush should stop interfering in Venezuela's affairs.

"They are conspiring against Venezuela in the United States," Chavez Frias said in a national television broadcast ... "the peoples of this continent need to know that their (USA) terrorists are preparing an attack against Venezuela!"

Posted: Sunday, September 28, 2003

By: VHeadline.com Reporters

Stormig · October 19, 2003

US soldiers bulldoze farmers' crops

Americans accused of brutal 'punishment' tactics against villagers, while British are condemned as too soft

By Patrick Cockburn in Dhuluaya

12 October 2003

US soldiers driving bulldozers, with jazz blaring from loudspeakers, have uprooted ancient groves of date palms as well as orange and lemon trees in central Iraq as part of a new policy of collective punishment of farmers who do not give information about guerrillas attacking US troops.

The stumps of palm trees, some 70 years old, protrude from the brown earth scoured by the bulldozers beside the road at Dhuluaya, a small town 50 miles north of Baghdad. Local women were yesterday busily bundling together the branches of the uprooted orange and lemon trees and carrying then back to their homes for firewood.

Nusayef Jassim, one of 32 farmers who saw their fruit trees destroyed, said: "They told us that the resistance fighters hide in our farms, but this is not true. They didn't capture anything. They didn't find any weapons."

Other farmers said that US troops had told them, over a loudspeaker in Arabic, that the fruit groves were being bulldozed to punish the farmers for not informing on the resistance which is very active in this Sunni Muslim district.

"They made a sort of joke against us by playing jazz music while they were cutting down the trees," said one man. Ambushes of US troops have taken place around Dhuluaya. But Sheikh Hussein Ali Saleh al-Jabouri, a member of a delegation that went to the nearby US base to ask for compensation for the loss of the fruit trees, said American officers described what had happened as "a punishment of local people because 'you know who is in the resistance and do not tell us'." What the Israelis had done by way of collective punishment of Palestinians was now happening in Iraq, Sheikh Hussein added.

The destruction of the fruit trees took place in the second half of last month but, like much which happens in rural Iraq, word of what occurred has only slowly filtered out. The destruction of crops took place along a kilometre-long stretch of road just after it passes over a bridge.

Farmers say that 50 families lost their livelihoods, but a petition addressed to the coalition forces in Dhuluaya pleading in erratic English for compensation, lists only 32 people. The petition says: "Tens of poor families depend completely on earning their life on these orchards and now they became very poor and have nothing and waiting for hunger and death."

The children of one woman who owned some fruit trees lay down in front of a bulldozer but were dragged away, according to eyewitnesses who did not want to give their names. They said that one American soldier broke down and cried during the operation. When a reporter from the newspaper Iraq Today attempted to take a photograph of the bulldozers at work a soldier grabbed his camera and tried to smash it. The same paper quotes Lt Col Springman, a US commander in the region, as saying: "We asked the farmers several times to stop the attacks, or to tell us who was responsible, but the farmers didn't tell us."

Informing US troops about the identity of their attackers would be extremely dangerous in Iraqi villages, where most people are related and everyone knows each other. The farmers who lost their fruit trees all belong to the Khazraji tribe and are unlikely to give information about fellow tribesmen if they are, in fact, attacking US troops.

Asked how much his lost orchard was worth, Nusayef Jassim said in a distraught voice: "It is as if someone cut off my hands and you asked me how much my hands were worth."

13 October 2003 19:34

Search this site:

Printable Story

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...sp?story=452375

Stormig · October 19, 2003

US army bulldozes Iraqi farms

By Chris Marsden

16 October 2003

Back to screen version | Send this link by email | Email the author

An October 12 report by Patrick Cockburn in The Independent draws attention to how US soldiers in Iraq bulldozed groves of date palms and orange and lemon trees in central Iraq as part of a new policy of collective punishment of farmers who refuse to inform on guerrillas attacking US troops.

The action taken last month beside the road at Dhuluaya, a small town 50 miles north of Baghdad, destroyed the livelihood of 32 farmers and their families.

The children of one woman who owned some fruit trees lay down in front of a bulldozer but were dragged away, according to eyewitnesses. When a reporter from Iraq Today attempted to take a photograph of the bulldozers at work a soldier grabbed his camera and tried to smash it. One farmer told Cockburn, “They made a sort of joke against us by playing jazz music while they were cutting down the trees.”

Sheikh Hussein Ali Saleh al-Jabouri was a member of a delegation that went to the nearby US base to ask for compensation for the loss of the fruit trees. He said US officers described what had happened as “a punishment of local people because ‘you know who is in the resistance and do not tell us’.”

A petition to the US Army demanding compensation reads, “Tens of poor families depend completely on earning their life on these orchards and now they became very poor and have nothing and waiting for hunger and death.”

The parallels between what the US army is now doing in Iraq and the actions carried out on an almost daily basis by the Israeli occupation forces in the West bank and Gaza Strip are all too obvious. The deliberate destruction of Palestinian agricultural capabilities is one of Israel’s favoured methods of collective punishment and well in excess of 400,000 olive, citrus and almond trees have been uprooted by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF).

The same methods have also been used to destroy close to 1,500 Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip alone—making around 10,000 people homeless. One can only speculate as to how long it will be before the US follows Israel’s example here also. But what is certain is that the US has indeed taken to heart the advice and training offered by its Middle Eastern proxy on how best to impose a military occupation on a hostile populace.

Israeli collaboration and involvement in the US war against Iraq is one of the worst kept secrets of recent years. All the parties involved—including the Arab regimes that have lent support to the Bush administration—wish to downplay or conceal Israel’s role because of the fear that it will antagonise broad layers of the Middle East population. But there have been a number of reports detailing Israel’s role over the past years.

As early as January, 2001, the Hebrew weekly Kol Ha’Ir reported that Israeli special forces commandos have been training with US Marine snipers serving with the Mediterranean-based Sixth Fleet in urban warfare techniques, in an exercise on capturing Palestinian areas.

The US-based Rand think-tank, which specialises in national security research, held its Arroyo Urban Operations Team annual conference from February 11 to 14, 2002, in Haifa, Israel. Its partners were the University of Haifa National Security Studies Center and the United States Marine Corps Non-Lethal Weapons and Urban Warfare Program. Israeli speakers included retired Brigadier General Gideon Avidor, former commander Major General Eitan Ben-Eliyahu, current Head of Helicopter Operations Brigadier General Shlomo Mashiah of the Israeli Air Force, Israel’s former Home Front commander, Major General Gabriel Ofir, the Israeli Defence Force’s (IDF) Head of Doctrine Brigadier General Gershon HaCohen, and the Commanding General of IDF Military Colleges, Major General Yaacov Amidror.

USA Today reported on November 3, 2002 that Israel was secretly playing a key role in US preparations for war with Iraq, helping to train soldiers and Marines for urban warfare, conducting clandestine surveillance missions in the western Iraqi desert and allowing the United States to place combat supplies in Israel.

The newspaper explained, “Israeli infantry units with experience in urban warfare during the Palestinian uprising helped train US Army and Marine counterparts this summer and fall for possible urban battles in Iraq, a foreign defence official says. The Israelis have built two mock cities, complete with mosques, hanging laundry and even the odd donkey meandering down dusty streets. A defence official said the sites far surpass US facilities.”

An Israeli official was quoted as saying, “The Americans have asked us to keep a low profile, and we accept that.”

The World Tribune of June 6, 2002 noted that the US military was particularly keen on making a study of the Israeli offensive against the West Bank city of Jenin in April 2002, as part of an assimilation of the lessons of Operation Defensive Shield, the Israeli term for the month-long offensive against Palestinian insurgents in the West Bank. The Marine Corps Warfighting Lab said that it intended to revise the corps’ urban warfare doctrine after an examination of Israeli tactics.

Another report in The Independent of March 29, 2003 by Justin Huggler drew attention to the ongoing examination of Jenin by the US military. It quoted Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history and strategy at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, telling reporters that, following his advice to US Marines, the American military bought nine of the converted D9 military bulldozers used in the Jenin demolitions. He said that he gave advice to marines last year in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina and told them, “the giant D9 bulldozers, manufactured for civilian use in the US but fitted with armour-plating in Israel, were among the most useful weapons.”

Huggler also notes: “Israeli use of the bulldozers has not been limited to clearing the way for tanks. They have also been used in collective punishment, such as the destruction of an entire neighbourhood in Jenin after the fighting ended.”

The attraction of the IDF operation in Jenin for the US military is a chilling warning of what is yet to come in Iraq. A Human Rights Watch report on the Israeli attack on Jenin charged the IDF with committing war crimes and established that at least 52 Palestinians were killed, of which 22 were civilians. Of particular significance is the use of bulldozers, missile and tank fire to destroy civilian homes as a form of collective punishment. At least 140 buildings—most of them multifamily dwellings—were destroyed and another 200 rendered unsafe. Some 4,000 people have been displaced. Serious damage was also done to the water, sewage and electrical infrastructure of the camp.

No one knows definitively how many people died at Jenin, thanks largely to the cowardice and capitulation of the United Nations in the face of Israel’s threats and refusal to allow its investigators in. What is known is that atrocities took place, such as the use of human shields, extra-judicial killings, the shooting of a Palestinian nurse tending a wounded man, the shooting of a 14-year-old boy while he was shopping and the killing of a crippled man as he tried to wheel himself up the road in his wheelchair.

The dead at Jenin were only a small part of the estimated 497 Palestinian casualties during Operation Defensive Shield between March 1 and May 7, 2002.

There is a well-known saying, “What goes around comes around”, and this is certainly true of the implications of the decades of US backing for Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. What was carried out by the Zionist regime with Washington’s consent has turned out to be a dry run for what must inevitably become even worse atrocities by the US in occupied Iraq and other countries throughout the world, including the violation of civil rights in the United States itself.

The similarity of techniques utilised by both regimes reflects more than just collaboration, however. It is bound up with the oppressive nature of the military action in both Iraq and the West Bank. Washington looks to the Tel Aviv because of its greater immediate familiarity with military operations against a civilian population. In its turn, the Zionist state seeks inspiration from earlier and even more grotesque sources. One must recall that on January 25 last year an unnamed IDF officer was quoted in an article by Ha’aretz reporter Amir Oren stating candidly, “If our job is to seize a densely packed refugee camp or take over the Nablus casbah, and if this job is given to an officer to carry out without casualties on both sides, he must before all else analyse and bring together the lessons of past battles, even—shocking though this might appear—to analyse how the German army operated in the Warsaw ghetto.”

Sharon’s spokesman Ra’anan Gissen made no attempt to deny that the IDF was seeking to emulate the Nazis. He responded to the outrage this remark unleashed by telling the media, “Some officers may have been looking at that. They thought that it was similar, because you would be fighting street-by-street against the Palestinian Authority.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/.../iraq-o16.shtml

Stormig · October 19, 2003

A rare media exposure of Bush administration lies about Iraq

Television review: PBS’s Frontline, “Truth, War and Consequences”

By Jamie Chapman

16 October 2003

Back to screen version | Send this link by email | Email the author

President George W. Bush and his key lieutenants have launched a new propaganda blitz in an attempt to counter mounting popular opposition to the continuing US occupation of Iraq. Bush kicked off the campaign with a radio interview in New Hampshire on October 9. Vice President Richard Cheney followed a day later with a speech before an invited audience of 200 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice also made speeches on Iraq last week.

The essence of the public relations campaign is that the aggression against Iraq was part of a “war on terror” and that conditions there are steadily improving, despite “negative” reporting in the media.

Just as this “good news” offensive began, on October 9 PBS stations across the country aired a documentary that brought out two basic truths: the justifications for the invasion were based on the manipulation of intelligence to fit preconceived plans for war; and the US troops represent an occupation army engaged in widespread repression of the Iraqi people.

Written and narrated by co-producer Martin Smith, the 90-minute film interviews former government officials and intelligence analysts, Iraqi exiles, and the current US viceroy in Iraq, Paul Bremer, along with his short-lived predecessor, Jay Garner. It also relies considerably on first-hand footage from Iraq.

One telling scene from Baghdad in mid-April shows US soldiers meting out frontier-style justice to three Iraqis caught stealing some wood. The soldiers inflict instant punishment by utterly demolishing the Iraqis’ car, running it over with their tank, which they then put in reverse to run it over a second time. They laugh and brag about being US Army. One of the soldiers says arrogantly, “That’s what you get when you loot.” The Frontline crew was later told that the car’s owner was a taxi driver, whose means of making a living had just been destroyed.

The punishment seemed particularly out of proportion, considering that the US forces had stood by and watched for days after taking over Baghdad as looters tore apart buildings all the way down to their wiring, then set the shells on fire. The commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, Lieutenant General James Conway, told Frontline’s Smith that the looting could have been halted, but that the troops didn’t have orders to do so. Weeks later, after most of the damage was done, orders were issued to shoot looters on sight.

Another scene, this one from mid-summer, captures the joint US Army/CIA Task Force 20, assigned to hunt down Saddam Hussein, conducting a house raid in Baghdad. An impromptu and ineffective-looking street barricade set up by the soldiers out of a few cinder blocks is not recognized as such by two residents driving home. We learn that US soldiers shot and killed the four occupants of the two cars after they started to drive around the cinder blocks. A pedestrian was also killed. The camera shows us the blood-soaked back seat of one of the cars where a woman and child had been riding.

The film also shows how a previous raid by Task Force 20, which produced no trace of Saddam Hussein, stoked angry feelings among the residents of the town of Thaluya. Standing amid the wreckage left behind by the Americans, one householder denies supporting Saddam Hussein, but states bluntly, “Americans are occupiers.” In other footage, an angry Iraqi shouts out to a crowd in Fallujah, shortly after US troops gunned down 17 people protesting the US takeover of a local school building, “Is this the freedom they want to bring? The freedom of dogs!”

Early on, the show establishes that a plan to invade Iraq had been drawn up long before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It had been developed nearly a decade earlier by right-wing elements who had wanted to see Baghdad overrun as part of the 1991 Gulf War. The elder President Bush at the time feared the worldwide impact of such action, particularly when the pretext for that war was to defend the sovereignty of Kuwait. He was also not unmindful that the Soviet Union, while on its last legs, still existed, with a nuclear arsenal capable of challenging the United States.

As the documentary states, “Going to war to achieve it [the plan to overthrow Saddam Hussein] was not politically feasible until after September 11, 2001.” It reports how prominent hawk and advisor to the Defense Department Richard Perle called White House speechwriter David Fromm on the afternoon of September 11, urging the inclusion of what later became one of the major justifications for war, first on Afghanistan, then on Iraq, in Bush’s address to the nation that evening. The speech included the following: “We make no distinction between the terrorists who committed those acts and those who harbor them.” Perle confirms his discussion with the speechwriter in an interview with Smith.

The next day, Bush told his cabinet that to justify war on Iraq, they would have to find a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. A few days later, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz ordered the establishment of a “Special Intelligence Office” within the Defense Department to look for just such a connection, bypassing the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA, neither of which could be relied upon to come to the predetermined conclusion.

Within a month, reports surfaced about a meeting between September 11th hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in the Czech capital of Prague. The film shows an excerpt from a September 2002 speech in which Cheney repeated this claim, long after it was debunked by Czech intelligence. The FBI had also already confirmed that Atta was in Virginia on the April 1, 2001, date that the meeting supposedly took place.

Describing the Bush administration’s approach as “faith-based intelligence,” former State Department intelligence analyst Greg Thielmann tells Frontline, “Instead of our leadership forming conclusions based on a careful reading of the intelligence we provided them, they already had a conclusion to start out with, and they were cherry picking the information we provided to use whatever pieces of it that fit their overall interpretation.” Thielmann continued, “Worse than that, they were dropping qualifiers and distorting some of the information we provided to make it seem more alarmist and dangerous.”

The documentary goes into the bitter feud between the State Department and the Pentagon over various aspects of Iraq policy, including the use of unreliable intelligence reports provided by Iraqi exiles pushing for war, and planning for the post-war occupation.

In one segment, former career State Department official Robert Perito, who helped oversee occupation forces in Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor, describes a briefing he had given the Defense Policy Board about the chaos that could be expected when Saddam Hussein fell, pointing also to the widespread looting in Panama after the US invaded in 1989 to overthrow Manuel Noriega. “And those lessons were ignored,” Perito tells the camera. Referring to the administration’s Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance headed by Jay Garner, Perito says, “Their basic approach was that they couldn’t really foresee what was needed, so they were going to wait until they got there, and then they were going to make recommendations.”

Garner himself is interviewed, saying it was a “mistake” to reject the State Department’s “Future of Iraq Project,” which, in the first phase of the occupation, was to involve declaring an interim Iraqi government based on a group of exiles they had been cultivating. The Defense Department, however, favored another group of exiles gathered around Ahmed Chalabi, the former banker and convicted embezzler who left Iraq in 1956.

The interviews with Chalabi leave the viewer with an acute sense of the sleaze surrounding the entire US project in Iraq. In one clip, Smith questions Chalabi’s claim to have documents proving links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. When pressed to produce the documents, Chalabi defers, saying he does not have them with him, but still insisting they exist. When pressed further, he hesitantly agrees to provide Frontline with copies of the documents. The interview cuts out, and the narrator reports that, months later, after repeated follow-up attempts, Frontline has still not seen the purported documents.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell all refused Frontline requests for interviews. The filmmakers splice in public statements made by each of these officials, as well as by President Bush, that clearly conflict with the facts the program has laid out. Cheney appears saying, “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has chemical and biological weapons.” Bush’s false claims from his 2003 State of the Union address about Saddam Hussein’s attempt to buy uranium in Africa as well as having stockpiles of sarin gas are replayed effectively, along with several other of his statements.

The program provides a rare media expose of the manipulation and outright lies used to drag the American people into war against Iraq. It stands out against the background of news coverage that parrots the Bush administration line, such as a recent ABC Evening News broadcast emphasizing how life in Iraq is returning to normal—never mind the car bombs, daily killings of US troops and continuing counterinsurgency operations, not to mention mass unemployment as well as widespread hunger and disease.

However, the producers tend to attribute the debacle that has developed in Iraq to mistakes of overzealous policymakers in the Pentagon. The viewer is left to conclude that if only Bush had listened to the State Department and the CIA, the invasion could have been carried out without producing such a mess.

In addition, the underlying causes of the explosion of US imperialism that the Iraq slaughter represents are not addressed. Smith acknowledges in an on-line discussion that he deliberately cut any references to Iraqi oil as a motivating factor. The program portrays the war as the brainchild of conservative ideologues who sincerely, if perhaps mistakenly, believe that US action to overthrow Hussein was the path to bringing true democracy to the Middle East. It also suggests that the US government had become the pawn of a handful of Iraqi exiles, rather than the other way around.

Despite these substantial political shortcomings, the material presented in the program represents a powerful indictment of US militarism. As of this writing, it can be viewed on line at www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/view.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/...3/pbs-o16.shtml

joseph parikian · October 22, 2003

Private companies silent about military activities

WASHINGTON -- "PMC" is about to become a household acronym. The letters stand for "private military company."

One PMC called DynCorp -- you can see its building and sign on the Virginia side of the Potomac River on the road out to Dulles Airport -- was the employer of the three security guards killed by a bomb as they guarded American diplomats in the Gaza Strip last Wednesday. When you call to ask questions about DynCorp, you are referred to the State Department, which does not discuss the trade secrets of private companies.

In other words, private companies doing the public's business are not accountable to the public. It is a big business now. DynCorp alone, with 23,000 employees, had at least $2 billion in federal contracts last year. Two more facts: PMCs are a $100 billion industry, most of that money coming from taxpayers; one in 10 Americans doing military work and occupation duty in Iraq are actually civilians working for PMCs. They are called contract employees now -- flying and maintaining military helicopters around the world, among other things. Once upon a time they would have been called mercenaries.

A month ago, a DynCorp pilot was shot down and killed by ground fire in Colombia. What was he doing? None of your business. More than a dozen of DynCorp's employees have been killed in Colombia, and even their families can't find out what they were doing there. Employees of another PMC, Aviation Development Corp., were involved in the accidental 2001 killing of a missionary and her infant daughter when the missionary's plane was misidentified as belonging to cocaine traffickers.

Three Northrop Grumman employees whose plane crashed or was shot down are being held hostage somewhere in Colombia. What were they doing? None of your business. But it must have been interesting stuff, because our State Department is offering a $5 million reward for information leading to their rescue.

Nine employees of Vinnell Corp. (a Virginia subsidiary of Northrop Grumman), training Saudi Arabian soldiers, were the people killed last May by a bomb in Riyadh.

PMCs are one face, a veiled one, of the accelerated privatizing of the government of the United States. The idea, of course, is to save money -- Dick Cheney was the first to push the idea when he was secretary of defense during the first Gulf War -- and to avoid accountability. Corporate executives are not answerable to congressional oversight committees or to reporters babbling about the public's right to know. Under this system, the public has no rights.

Another face of the new privatization was revealed briefly last week on the Maryland side of the Potomac. It was not Page One news that the U.S. Navy, under a White House "competitive sourcing" program, was deciding whether a private contractor could take over the work of 21 kitchen workers at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda.

That was on Page 21 of The Washington Post last Tuesday in a story by Christopher Lee. The 21 people, some of whom have been there for more than 20 years, are officially "disabled." They are mentally retarded. The U.S. government has given them a life. They live in group homes or have managed to buy their own homes, living with their parents or other relatives -- productive lives made possible by government policy. They are among 1,734 mentally retarded people making between $9.42 and $12.80 an hour under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Face it, most of them are not really employable in the private sector, and it would be no surprise if a contractor could hire fewer people making less money to clean the silverware and pick up kitchen trash.

But that's not the point, is it? Lee put it this way after talking to the workers and their supporters: "The administration's requirement that they compete for their job misses the point that government employment has always been about more than the bottom line. Through various policies and laws, federal agencies for decades have gone out of their way to hire members of certain populations, from veterans to disabled people to welfare mothers and students."

In the Bethesda case, the Navy is following the classic conservative mandate of government doing for people only what they cannot do for themselves. Private business, in war and peace, is in it just for the money. Your money -- but what they do with it is still none of your business.

Richard Reeves is a nationally syndicated columnist. Universal Press Syndicate (816) 932-6600

Stormig · October 23, 2003

Of course, nothing like Nicaragua vs. U.S., but...

US Investigated For War Crimes By Spain

Accused Of Deliberately Murdering Journalists

10/21/2003 8:46:55 AM

Makka Times

Madrid, Spain -- Spain to probe US 'war crime'

Friday 17 October 2003, 23:24 Makka Time, 20:24 GMT

In an unprecedented war crimes case, a High Court judge in Spain will

investigate the death of a Spanish cameraman killed in a US tank attack

during

the war in Iraq.

Judicial sources said on Friday relatives of Telecinco cameraman Jose

Couso

asked the court in May to investigate his death and put three US soldiers

on

trial.

Their lawyer said the attack was a war crime and Spanish law allows for

suspected war criminals to be tried in Spain wherever the alleged crime

had

been committed.

The 37-year-old cameraman was killed on 8 April when a US tank fired at a

hotel serving as the main Baghdad base for international journalists

covering

the war.

A Pentagon report has absolved the US soldiers, who said they thought a

spotter was directing enemy fire from the building.

'Small victory'

"It's the first time that something like this has happened in Spain," said

the family's lawyer Pilar Hermoso. "No judge has ever agreed to

investigate a

war crimes case against soldiers before."

In Spain, cases are presented to investigating magistrates who then decide

whether they should be taken up or not.

"It is a small victory," said the cameraman's brother David Couso. "These

small victories...comfort us."

Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk, 35, was killed in the same attack and

Reuters conducted its own investigation into the incident.

High Court Judge Guillermo Ruiz Polanco has called three journalists to

testify as witnesses on 23 October, the judicial sources said.

Sasun · October 28, 2003

The $87 Billion Money Pit

It’s the boldest reconstruction project since the Marshall Plan. And we cannot afford to fail. But where are the billions really going?

By Rod Nordland

and Michael Hirsh

NEWSWEEK

Nov. 3 issue — Helmut Doll waits. And waits. Doll, the German site manager for Babcock Power, a subcontractor of Siemens, is hoping for the arrival of Bechtel engineers at the Daura power plant, Baghdad’s largest. U.S. construction giant Bechtel has the prime contract, now worth about $1 billion, for restoring Iraq’s infrastructure. That includes Daura, which should supply one third of the city’s generating capacity but today, six months into the U.S. occupation, is producing only 10 percent. “Nobody is working on the turbine,” explains Doll. “Bechtel only came and took photos. We can’t judge Bechtel’s work progress because they’re not here.” Questioned, Bechtel spokesman Howard Menaker says Iraq’s power has to be viewed as “a holistic system”—generation doesn’t have to come from a particular plant—and in recent weeks Bechtel has sent engineers to the site. He also blames the delay on more stringent—or finicky, depending on your point of view—American standards. Menaker said the Daura turbine is “covered with friable asbestos and is right now a hazardous work site.” The company says it has just completed “a protocol for asbestos abatement.”

STILL, IT’S NOT easy determining why the biggest power plant in Iraq’s largest city seems to be such a low priority. Baghdad is still beset by blackouts, and so much of America’s success or failure depends on power: the economy can’t recover with-out it. The next logical place to ask is the U.S. Agency for International Development, which gave Bechtel the contract last April. Questioned by NEWSWEEK about Daura, USAID chief Andrew Natsios referred to a priority list drawn up by a coordinating committee under the Coalition Provisional Authority—the chief occupying power—and said he didn’t know where Daura was on it. His aide said the CPA would know. No, Natsios said, he thought Bechtel would know. But Bechtel’s Menaker responded: “We perform the work tasked to us by USAID. We don’t make decisions on priorities. USAID and CPA make those decisions.” Some CPA officials concede privately that the problem stems from the lack of preparation before the war. “It always comes back to the same thing: no plan,” says one CPA staffer.

No doubt, reconstructing postwar Iraq is a brutally hard and hazardous task. Sabotage already has destroyed some 700 power-transmission towers. But George W. Bush, who has staked his nation’s credibility—and perhaps his presidency—on success in Iraq, has no choice but to set things right. And Daura offers a small window into problems that have become all too typical of America’s postwar morass in Iraq, a NEWSWEEK investigation shows. Iraqis like to point out that after the 1991 war, Saddam restored the badly destroyed electric grid in only three months. Some six months after Bush declared an end to major hostilities, a much more ambitious and costly American effort has yet to get to that point. It is only in recent weeks that the Coalition amped up to the power-generation level that Saddam achieved last March—4,400 megawatts for the country (though it’s since dropped back). True, Saddam didn’t have a guerrilla war to contend with, and his power infrastructure was in much better shape than the Americans found it. But he also had far fewer resources.

Six months ago the administration decided to cut corners on normal bidding procedures and hand over large contracts to defense contractors like Bechtel and Halliburton on a limited-bid or no-bid basis. It bypassed the Iraqis and didn’t worry much about accountability to Congress. The plan was for “blitzkrieg” reconstruction. But by sacrificing accountability for speed, America is not achieving either very well right now. For months no one has seemed to be fully in charge of postwar planning. There has been so little transparency that even at the White House “it was almost —impossible to get a sense of what was happening” on the power problem, says one official privy to the discussions.

Numerous allegations of overspending, favoritism and corruption have surfaced. Halliburton, a major defense contractor once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, has been accused of gouging prices on imported fuel—charging $1.59 a gallon while the Iraqis “get up to speed,” when the Iraqi national oil company says it can now buy it at no more than 98 cents a gallon. (The difference is about $300 million.) Cronies of Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, NEWSWEEK has learned, were recently awarded a large chunk of a major contract for mobile telecommunications networks.

All this has called into question the Bush administration’s larger agenda: inspiring gratitude and admiration in the hearts of Iraqis and other Arabs, creating a model for a troubled region. Perhaps the biggest irony for the man in overall command, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is that he has long warned of the pitfalls of “nation-building.” “A large foreign presence,” Rumsfeld has said in criticizing previous U.N.-led efforts, means “economies remain unreformed, distorted and dependent.” Now the beleaguered Pentagon chief may be creating for himself—with U.S. companies, not the United Nations—the fate he wanted to avoid. Even many Iraqis who are grateful for liberation say they hate being a U.S. protectorate. Three months after Bush declared “Bring ‘em on,” attacks on Americans have increased from 20 to 25 or 30 a day, according to Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the U.S. military commander for Iraq. And American taxpayers are footing most of the bill for this ill will, despite some $13 billion pledged at a U.N. donors’ conference last week. The tally just through 2004, including what was spent to wage the war, will likely be at least $130 billion.

U.S. officials protest, as always, that they’re getting bad press. Natsios insists electricity regeneration is on schedule. “This is the fastest and most massive reconstruction effort that has been run by any government in the last 50 years,” says Natsios, one of the most respected development specialists in Washington. “It’s faster than the Marshall Plan.” Yet even Sanchez conceded last week that his biggest concern was “the pace at which we are making progress: we need to accelerate it.” In recent weeks the CPA and USAID have declared that contracts will be competitively bid now. And, stung by congressional criticism, CPA chief L. Paul Bremer and Natsios recently installed new accountability controls. Still, world bodies such as the United Nations want more transparency.

Will that mean the effort gets bogged down even further, stymied by turf fights and bean counters? NEWSWEEK’s investigation indicates that there may be just as many problems ahead, raising serious questions about the vast amounts of money Bush has demanded for Iraq with little tolerance for debate.

DISORGANIZATION AND TURF BATTLES

The Bush administration’s favorite statistic from Iraq is the 1,595 schools it has just finished rehabilitating. This is, after all, the human face of occupation—freshly painted walls, American know-how and generosity, all wrapped up in smiling, adorable faces. And though that number is still less than a fifth of Iraq’s 10,000 schools, it seems like amazingly fast work. The problem: many of the “rehabilitated” schools don’t look ready for the morning bell. NEWSWEEK visited five schools in Baghdad’s Camp Sara neighborhood, all of which were among those listed as rebuilt, all by different Iraqi contractors working for Bechtel. None had enough textbooks, desks or blackboards. Most had refuse everywhere, nonfunctioning toilets and desks made for two kids that were accommodating four. Even Ahmed Majid Jassim, a pro-U.S. headmaster who says that “Americans have made a great effort,” comments, “I’ve seen rebuilt schools, and this isn’t one of them.”

It’s not quite as bad as the suspiciously sandy U.S. concrete that caused schools in South Vietnam to collapse in the 1960s, generating support for the Viet Cong. But the good-will project is also not creating quite as much pro-American enthusiasm as the Bushies would like. What’s the problem? A lack of accountability, it seems. One Iraqi construction engineer who worked on school projects says it’s not that Iraqi firms are corrupt and incompetent. To meet the U.S. deadline for fast refurbishment, the occupation authority set a short time frame, then Bechtel hired contractors, who in turn hired subcontractors and even sub-subcontractors. But few U.S. officials seemed to follow up with oversight. As one USAID official admits, “Saddam had better accountability” in his economic affairs, as brutal as he was, than the CPA does. Bechtel proudly points out that 102 of its 140 USAID contracts were subbed to Iraqi firms. But many of these sub-subcontractors cut corners as they tried to meet Bechtel’s very short deadline. “The original tender for our school called for air conditioners in every classroom,” said an Iraqi engineer named Marwan. Once the subcontractor got it, it was an air cooler. “Once we got it, it was a ceiling fan for $11 apiece.” At the Al Qaqa primary school, headmistress Haibat Abdul Hussein said the Iraqi contractor walked off the job shortly after starting, leaving the school a mess of construction debris and incomplete work. “I can’t deal with this anymore; I don’t even know what happened. All I know is they said the Americans told them to stop working,” she said. She planned to organize a demonstration in front of the school in protest.

Similar confusion may have exacerbated the power crisis. As one USAID official describes it, it’s “a chicken-and-egg problem.” The power stations need natural gas and (to a lesser degree) oil to run, but the oil refineries and wells need power to operate. Still, there seems to have been less than full coordination between Bechtel, which is responsible for electricity, and Halliburton, which has an open-ended contract to secure fuel: Halliburton says it has not been asked to supply fuel for restarting the refineries. Disputes between U.N.- and U.S.-authorized companies also obstruct progress. At the key port of Umm Qasr, Bechtel and its subcontractors left in frustration when a Turkish company—previously contracted through the United Nations—suddenly appeared, claiming it had rights to the job. Though the port is operating, needed dredging and wreck salvage have been held up while the dispute is resolved.

A British Christian aid group last week accused the CPA of not accounting for $4 billion of the $5 billion it has spent, most of which came from Iraqi oil proceeds. The lack of transparency is not surprising: the CPA and United Nations took six months to agree on an international monitoring board called for under U.N. Resolution 1483. “There’s certainly the suspicion that what the Iraqi oil is being used for right now is not to the benefit of the Iraqi people but to the benefit of American corporations,” says one of the aid group’s spokesmen, John Davison. “This is quite controversial, considering that many people around the world have been saying that ‘it’s all about the oil.’ So you would have —thought that this would be treated with a great deal of care.”

Meanwhile a turf fight between USAID and the CPA has led Bremer to insist that the CPA take over the dispensing of some rebuilding contracts (though Natsios says he’s been reassured that the new CPA office “is not meant to replace USAID”). That may not solve anything: contractors in Iraq complain that the CPA’s staff consists largely of political appointees who don’t understand the process. “CPA is run by a bunch of political hacks and incompetents who have no idea what they’re doing,” said a project manager for a firm working on a major USAID contract. “Every time we turn around there’s a new order coming from CPA, ‘Do it this way—no, do it that way instead.’ It’s just unbelievable.” Privately, some CPA officials admit the staff is less than the best the United States has to offer. Right now, “we’re not talking A-team, even B-team. We’re talking C-team,” says one official with the CPA. The Bush administration denies that any major changes are afoot, but all these problems have prompted a new reckoning back in Washington: Douglas Feith, Rumsfeld’s policy chief and a key official involved in postwar planning, is no longer sitting in on reconstruction meetings, NEWSWEEK has learned, and the White House has wrested oversight from the Pentagon.

..............................

The rest of the article can be read here

Stormig · October 31, 2003

Not a fan of Greenpeace, but...

Personal Voices: Ashcroft's Attack On Greenpeace

By John Passacantando, AlterNet

October 30, 2003

Yesterday the Greenpeace ship MV Esperanza arrived in Miami. However, rather than pulling into port, as Greenpeace ships do throughout the world, she will remain at anchor.

The Port of Miami has refused us entry because John Ashcroft's Justice Department is prosecuting us for a protest action last year. The prosecution is unprecedented. Never before in U.S. history has an entire organization been prosecuted for a peaceful protest by its supporters.

For years we have worked to end environmental destruction and human rights abuses in Brazil's Amazon rainforest. Destruction of these habitats threatens clean air and water, animal and plant species, and the people and cultures who depend on forests for their way of life. Large criminal enterprises, using bribery, extortion, slavery and murder, continue to ravage the Amazon and export their contraband.

Last year, two Greenpeace activists climbed aboard a ship carrying Amazon mahogany wood. They held a banner that said "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging."

Instead of halting the shipment, the government is prosecuting Greenpeace in federal court in Miami. It has charged Greenpeace under an obscure 19th-century law never intended for this purpose. A trial is now set for December.

Leading legal experts, quoted in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and publications around the world, agree that this prosecution is disturbing and poses a threat to free speech.

From the Boston Tea Party to the civil rights movement, public protest actions have helped bring positive change in the U.S.

Our actions worldwide have played a critical role in, for example, stopping atmospheric nuclear testing, protecting Antarctica from exploitation, and banning radioactive waste dumping at sea.

But if this prosecution succeeds, non-violent protest may become yet another casualty of John Ashcroft's attack on civil liberties.

John Passacantando is the executive director of Greenpeace USA.

Take Action:

Contact President Bush and John Ashcroft and tell them to prosecute illegal loggers, not Greenpeace

Contact the authorities in Miami and tell them that they should allow the Esperanza to dock in Miami.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17073

Stormig · December 9, 2003

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/img/2003/dancart1850.jpg

Stormig · December 11, 2003

Amerikanskis: World, give us money, give us a hand, but do as we tell you anyway, we always do better than anyone else, as we have in Iraq and we want the overblown money from taxpayers to go not to foreigners but to Bushy's favourite companies! Our performance in Iraq is a guarantee to our future progress! Just like we found WMD, we found "findings" about the countries opposed to the war in Iraq!

U.S. PROHIBITS COUNTRIES OPPOSED TO IRAQ WAR FROM BIDDING ON

CONTRACTS. U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's office

has released a 5 December document detailing "findings" on countries

eligible to bid on $18.6 billion in reconstruction contracts in Iraq,

which prohibits those nations opposed to the U.S.-led war from

bidding on multimillion-dollar reconstruction contracts.

The document notes that 63 countries will be eligible to bid

on contracts awarded by the U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority

(CPA) and by the U.S. Department of Defense using funds from the Iraq

Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF) in the sectors of electricity,

public works and water, military courts and borders, building,

housing and health, transportation, communications, and oil

infrastructure.

Eligibility to bid on contracts is limited, however, to

Operation Iraqi Freedom allies. All countries are eligible to bid on

subcontracts, Wolfowitz said, while still calling for international

cooperation in rebuilding Iraq. "It is necessary for the protection

of the essential security interests of the United States to limit

competition for the prime contracts of these procurements to

companies from the United States, Iraq, coalition partners, and force

contribution nations. Thus, it is clearly in the public interest to

limit prime contracts to companies from these countries," Wolfowitz

added. Under the plan, Canada, France, Germany, and Russia are barred

from bidding on prime reconstruction contracts.

Leaders from the excluded states lashed out at the U.S.

decision on 10 December. "We believe the interests of a political

settlement of the situation in Iraq, and the rebuilding of Iraq, are

best served by uniting the efforts of the international community and

not splitting it," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told

reporters in Berlin, Reuters reported. German Chancellor Gerhard

Schroeder's spokesman Bela Anda called the decision

"unacceptable," adding that it did not correspond with an agreement

between Schroeder and President George W. Bush to "look to the future

-- not the past," dpa reported. French Foreign Ministry spokesman

Herve Ladsou said his country was studying the legality of the

decision, adding that France had no comment on 10 December.

Meanwhile, the White House defended the decision. "The United

States and coalition countries as well as others that are

contributing forces to the efforts there -- and the Iraqi people

themselves -- are the ones that have been helping and sacrificing to

build a free and prosperous nation for the Iraqi people. And I think

it's totally appropriate for those U.S. taxpayer dollars to go to

the entities I just mentioned," White House spokesman Scott McClellan

told reporters on 10 December. (Kathleen Ridolfo)

Sign In

Meet the U.S.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation