952 replies to this topic

[bobdrake12]

http://story.news.ya...n_re_mi_ea/iraq

Powell: Iraqi Compliance Fraudulent (excerpts)

By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) called his banned Al Samoud 2 missiles a "minor issue" Wednesday and said the U.N. order to destroy them was a ploy to demoralize the Iraqi people before an American attack.

Meanwhile, the chief of Israeli military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, said it is improbable that Iraq would try to launch a pre-emptive strike against Israel ahead of the U.S. campaign.


The United States is prepared militarily for an offensive to begin as soon as next week, depending on diplomatic developments, he said.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.claremont...lavictory4.html



Confusion and Power

Victory Watch: A time for bold words and bolder deeds (excerpts)

Above all, let us avoid the policy of peace with insult…. The worst policy for the United States is to combine the unbridled tongue with the unready hand.—Theodore Roosevelt

Just win, baby.—Al Davis, owner, Oakland Raiders

By mid-winter 2003, President Bush and his team had spoken so long and so vehemently, and had moved so many troops, as to well-nigh guarantee that spring would bring either military success against Iraq, or the administration's discredit. Moreover, the Bush team's internal confusion and delay had so eroded the American people's precious post-September 11 resolve, as well as foreigners' support for America, that the president and his secretary of state had to scramble to build support for war. Even after the president's State of the Union address, and Secretary Powell's dramatic February 5 appeal to the United Nations, the Bush team remained of two minds about whether to change Iraq's regime or merely "disarm" it. The president had not resolved disagreements over whether anti-American terrorism is the work of renegade individuals, or of regimes that use them as cut-outs. Nor had he explained what part military action against Iraq would play in the "war on terrorism." Was it a diversion from the "war," as some in the administration charged, or was it, as others maintained, the war's proper centerpiece?

At the outset of the "war on terror," the Pentagon argued that the path to victory lay in changing hostile Arab regimes. President Bush, however, sided with Colin Powell's State Department, the CIA, as well as the earlier Bush Administration's "best and brightest," and rejected the connection between regimes and terrorism (except for friendless, hapless Afghanistan). He chose to work with Saudis and other "friendly" Arab regimes against "shadowy networks," and to track down killers "one at a time."

By summer 2002, Bush somehow decided that Saddam's regime had to be toppled. Whatever his reasoning, he did not break with his earlier decision's premises and with the advisers who personified them. He spoke not of "regime change" but of "disarming" Saddam. He claimed that he had not decided whether to attack, and that he thought it necessary, or at any rate useful, to obtain the endorsement of the U.N. This proved too clever by half. Whereas in the summer of 2002 polls had been running heavily in favor of overthrowing Saddam, by January 27, 2003, opposition to attacking Iraq, and to President Bush, had risen sharply.

Common sense would not have expected otherwise. To ask support of anyone, never mind of powers who are declared opponents, for a course of action on which one has not decided oneself, and at the same time to give the impression that one's decision is contingent on such support, is to beg for opposition. More important, once President Bush had given the American people the impression that America needed the U.N.'s blessing to go to war, many Americans took him at his word and disapproved of war without those blessings.

The War, and the Battle of Iraq


By making military action appear inevitable, President Bush's State of the Union address and Secretary Powell's U.N. presentation forced foreign and domestic audiences to consider whether they could afford to be on the losing side of a successful U.S. military operation. Neither address resolved the confusions endemic to the war.

With images from KH-11 satellites, tapes of conversations between Iraqi officers, and evidence of Iraqi purchases of banned materials, Powell argued that Iraq had not complied with U.N. resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction. With photos of terrorists in Iraq, he also asserted "a potentially sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network." The pictures' significance was self evident—but only to those who understand satellite imagery. It was impossible to offer proof of the images' dates. U.S. artists' conceptions of Iraqi mobile biowar labs would have to be accepted on faith. The intercepted conversations certainly were consistent with a cover-up of forbidden programs. But by themselves they proved nothing. Nevertheless, the fact that the Secretary of State bet his country's prestige on a sound and light presentation beamed around the globe was a more certain trumpet for the battle of Iraq than any the Bush team had yet sounded. Still, if the Americans really believed it themselves, why hadn't they made their final decision?

The tentativeness of the connection that Powell made between Iraq and terrorism bespoke the Bush team's long-standing, unresolved internal struggles about "the war."

The War

The only connection President Bush made on January 28 between the battle for Iraq and "the war" was that "outlaw regimes" could "give or sell those weapons to their terrorist allies…." But what was the nature of the "alliance" between outlaw regimes and terrorists? Bush had never explained. For a quarter century, Congress had mandated that the State Department issue yearly reports on states that support terrorism. It was common knowledge in Washington that the reports' depiction of each state's terrorist connections fluctuated with U.S. policy. (In 1982, for example, the report gave Iraq a better grade, as part of the U.S. government's nine-year, misguided attempt to turn Saddam into an ally). In 1993, however, the Clinton Administration made the reports irrelevant by embracing the CIA's contention that terrorists were not the foot soldiers and cut-outs of regimes, but were "loose networks" of private individuals imperfectly pursued by regimes. The Defense Department, for its part, had touted evidence of Iraq's provision of stolen identities (and of refuge) to the persons who carried out the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the meeting between an Iraqi terrorist handler and Mohammed Atta, the hijack training camp at Iraq's Salman Pak, and so on.

Since George Bush did not question the CIA, he shaped the war on terror according to its view. In the State of the Union, he continued to define "the war" as "against a scattered network of killers," and described its operations as teaching them, "one by one…the meaning of American justice." Bush's fleeting reference to terrorists as "allies" of regimes, like Powell's reference to a "potentially sinister nexus," may have reflected no more than the tactical need to assert at least a tenuous link between the battle for Iraq and "the war." The "nexus" between the battle and the war remained a topic for the president's attention. At any rate, Bush strengthened the CIA's position by placing a new "Terrorist Threat Integration Center" under its direction. Designed "to make sure the right people are in the right places to protect our citizens," it stood no chance of doing this.


The Battle

Would America overthrow the Iraqi regime? Bush certainly hinted broadly at "regime change." He said that "outlaw regimes that seek and possess weapons of mass destruction" are "the gravest danger in the war on terror," and that the day Saddam and his regime were removed would be the day of his people's liberation. He pledged to bring "freedom" to the people of Iraq. But he stressed even more strongly that the danger to America consists of Iraq's possession of certain arms. His only explicit commitment was, "If Saddam does not fully disarm…we will lead a coalition to disarm him." The confusion continued.

Supposing U.S. forces were ordered into action, what would they actually do? Professional military sources are unanimous that they would use "shock and awe" tactics—the few troops on the ground would direct accurate fire from the air in order to cut off Iraqi units from their command structure and from one another, and allow U.S. units to pass. With Americans moving around them at will, the Iraqis would surrender even faster than they did during the Gulf War.

But from an operational, as opposed to a purely tactical point of view, the effectiveness of "shock and awe" is by no means clear. During the Gulf War, Iraqi troops surrendered en masse after they had been cut off in a concentrated deployment far from home, and pounded for weeks. Many had been killed. They were going to be overrun, and likely killed. They believed that the U.S. was going to overthrow the regime. In 2003, it is not self-evident that people will be put in fear of death by operations designed to produce fear rather than death. Most important, the fact that Bush does not explicitly aim to change the regime was sure to compound the deadly memory that the last Bush had actually turned surrendered prisoners back to Saddam.

What if Iraqi troops did not collapse? U.S. forces would not be prepared for, and Iraqi deployments do not lend themselves to, mass killing. Pursuing regime change with relatively small forces on the ground, and in the presence of undefeated Iraqi units, would court tactical disaster. In the presence of undefeated Iraqi units, search-and-destroy missions for weapons of mass destruction would guarantee tactical disasters. Too late it would become clear that operations designed for one purpose and pursued for another are less likely to accomplish either than to produce blunders pregnant with catastrophe. Choice is the essence of strategy.

The Bush team's unmade choices could invite ploys to preempt or divert American military power. Saddam might proclaim that troops authorized by the U.N. could enter Iraq, search for, and take away whatever they pleased. Iraqi forces would not fire unless fired upon. The U.N, could then unanimously "authorize" a U.S. military incursion, but narrowly tailored to achieve some kind of "disarmament" while respecting Iraqi sovereignty. Part of the Bush team would be tempted to declare that it had achieved its objectives without bloodshed. Bush could agree with Powell that "disarmament" was the functional equivalent of "regime change." The agony of defeat would follow fast.

It is also possible, however, that U.S. military's advantages over Iraq could overwhelm confused planning. Iraqi troops might well collapse, leading to the shattering end typical of tyrannical regimes. The fate of Saddam could discourage the terror regimes of Palestine and Syria enough so that, under pressure from Israel and Turkey, they would cleanse themselves. Meanwhile, decent Iranians might be heartened to end the terrible regime that, since1979, had produced misery at home and anti-Americanism abroad. The Saudi royal family could be replaced by persons who actually did useful work and did not feel the need to subsidize the world's terrorists. Following the changes in these regimes, terrorists would no longer hatch faster than we could catch them. After a while, even the Bush Administration might consider sending Tom Ridge back to fixing parking tickets.

Magic? Military success is the closest thing to it. If the battle of Iraq turns out so, America will rightly thank the Bush team, confusion and all. If not, we will have to forgive them, for they know not what they do.

2002-2003 The Claremont Institute.

[bobdrake12]

http://drudgereport.com/bush.htm



XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED MARCH 05, 2003 18:31:52 ET XXXXX

BUSH MAKES THE CALL

**Exclusive**

President Bush on Wednesday night was to make the ultimate call whether to strike and invade Iraq with military force, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

A top White House source offered few details, but did reveal the president would make a "defining decision" by morning.

The news comes just hours after Bush discussed top secret battle plans at the White House with his national security team and Army Gen. Tommy Franks, the man who would lead American forces in Iraq.

Military officials said the president had been told that an attack against Iraq could be carried out within the next several days, the NEW YORK TIMES is reporting on Thursday.

Plans for a major speech on Iraq next week by the president were under review. Bush might give Saddam a very short time period to disarm completely, perhaps as little as 72 hours, before military action.

Officials said a number of options for fighting were now ready.

Developing...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
©DRUDGE REPORT 2003

[DJS]

This one is for Lazarus, who tried to infer that the war in Iraq violates the theological canon. Not that I care about this one whit.

When There Is No Peace
On war and the Vatican.

Writing in First Things, George Weigel has remarked that "the just war tradition, as a historically informed method of rigorous moral reasoning, is far more alive in our service academies than in our divinity schools and faculties of theology; the just war tradition 'lives' more vigorously in the officer corps, in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and at the higher levels of the Pentagon than it does at the National Council of Churches, in certain offices at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or on the Princeton faculty."

According to the tradition, the criteria for judging a war to be just are that it be for a just cause, have a reasonable likelihood of success, be unlikely to cause more evil than it prevents, be declared by a competent authority, discriminate between combatants and non-combatants, and be a last resort. For historical reasons, the just-war tradition is most closely identified with the Catholic Church. But its force does not rest on the theological and moral wisdom of the Catholic bishops — which, given how much they have tarnished their reputation in these matters, is a good thing. It has, or ought to have, force for non-Catholic statesmen because its moral criteria are, in the deepest sense of the term, reasonable.

Unfortunately, some Catholic leaders are saying things about a possible war with Iraq that are anything but reasonable. Witness, for example, the recent statement by Roger Cardinal Etchegaray, papal envoy to Iraq, that Saddam Hussein "is doing everything to avoid war." But clerics have not had to make claims that are obviously empirically false to distort just-war teaching. Angelo Cardinal Sodano, the Pope's secretary of state, says, "We want to say to America: Is it worth it to you? Won't you have, afterwards, decades of hostility in the Islamic world?" American policymakers should certainly consider these questions before going to war. But they need no instruction from the Vatican to know that, and Church leaders have no special insight into the answers. The just-war tradition leaves determinations of fact and probability and prudential judgments to statesmen, not clerics.

The Pope himself has been careful to reject pacifism, while urging, appropriately, that war be a last resort. The Church has, however, come close to suggesting that a war must have the support of the United Nations to be just. Anyone arguing that the U.N. is a "competent authority" has an uphill climb. To make the case that it is the only such authority is impossible. The Church is also being shortsighted. The United Nations has been its enemy on important moral questions, and will be once more when the war is over. Does the Pope really want to lend it so much moral authority?

Under the traditional doctrines, a war to overthrow the Iraqi regime is amply justified. The cause of preventing nuclear devastation or its threat is just. War has been authorized by the U.S. Congress and will be, prospectively, by the president. Their best determination is that a war would be very likely to succeed and would be likely to bring more good than ill. No targeting of civilians is contemplated. Alternatives have been tried, and have failed, for a dozen years.

It is sometimes thought that the just-war tradition begins with a "presumption against violence." It does not. As Weigel writes, it actually "begins with the presumption — better, the moral judgment — that rightly constituted public authority is under a strict moral obligation to defend the security of those for whom it has assumed responsibility." When war is morally permissible, as it is here, it is also morally obligatory.

[DJS]

By Steve Hadley
Friday, February 28, 2003; Page A23

If Saddam Hussein refuses to disarm and makes war inevitable, it will be a war of liberation, not occupation. As President Bush said in his speech to the United Nations last September, "Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it, and the security of all nations requires it."

Securing this liberty and sustaining it in a post-Hussein Iraq will be a huge undertaking. But we are well prepared. Planning has been underway for months, across every relevant agency of the U.S. government.

The goals for which we plan are clear. First, along with our coalition partners, we must ensure the rapid flow of humanitarian relief into Iraq. The current humanitarian situation in Iraq is tenuous. For food, most Iraqis rely on rations from the oil-for-food program. But the Iraqi regime's manipulation of the program has led to mortality and malnutrition rates worse than before the Persian Gulf War.

Hussein has a history of manufacturing humanitarian crises. We must be prepared for this -- and we are.

The U.S. government is stockpiling nearly 3 million Humanitarian Daily Rations to meet emergency food needs. We are also stockpiling blankets, water containers, essential medicines and other relief items capable of helping up to a million people. Much of this material is already in the region, and more is on the way.

To distribute these and other materials, we will rely primarily on civilian relief agencies. We are counting on the efforts of international organizations such as the United Nations and the Red Cross and Red Crescent, as well as various nongovernmental organizations. These groups have the expertise, personnel and equipment that can literally mean the difference between life and death. We will fund and facilitate their efforts to the greatest extent possible.

In circumstances where no U.N. agencies or nongovernmental organizations are available, the U.S. military may be required to provide limited relief. Such relief will be under the guidance of civilian experts, with the goal of getting civilian agencies into these areas as quickly as possible.

To coordinate all this activity, the U.S. government is training a 60-person civilian disaster assistance response team, the largest in U.S. history. Made up of humanitarian emergency professionals from several agencies, the team will soon have representatives in Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan and Qatar.

We will also work to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, which for years has been mismanaged and neglected. Early efforts will include restoring electricity and clean water, as well as addressing the immediate need for medical care and public health.

Over the longer term, we will assist the Iraqi people in creating a more stable and more vibrant economic system. Specifically, we will help them create a modern system of taxation and budgeting, stabilize the dinar, and resolve debt and reparations obligations.

A critical part of the reconstruction effort will be ensuring that Iraq's natural resources are protected from acts of sabotage by Hussein's regime and that they are used for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Iraq's natural resources belong to all the Iraqi people and -- after decades of being used to build palaces and weapons of mass destruction -- will finally be used for their benefit, not Hussein's.

Finally, a post-Hussein Iraq should be truly free and democratic. The United States will not seek to dictate to the people of Iraq the precise character of that regime. But no one should be interested in simply replacing one dictator with another. The goal -- which we are confident we share with Iraq's people -- is an Iraq that is moving toward democracy, in which individual rights are protected regardless of gender, religion or ethnicity.

Assisting and rebuilding a post-Hussein Iraq will require an enormous effort. Success will be possible only by working with Iraq's neighbors and the international community. And, most of all, we will need the support of Iraq's people. The United States will work to win that support.

Many are already asking how long America is prepared to stay in Iraq. The answer is straightforward: We will stay as long as is necessary, but not one day more. We will, from the outset, draw free Iraqis into the task of rebuilding their country, and we will transfer responsibility to Iraqi entities as soon as possible.

This is an awesome responsibility. When future scholars look back on the history of the Middle East at the beginning of the 21st century, instead of asking, "What went wrong?" they may instead ask, "Why did it go right?" If they do, one of the answers will be that the free nations of the world understood that their values and their interests pointed in the same direction: toward freedom.

[DJS]

To Bob,

Here is what I would say in my five minutes with the President.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my ideas Mr. President. First I would like to say that I admire your commitment to freedom and your firm stand against terrorism.

The threats that confront global security today are numerous and complicated. Of course, irregardless of what a fringe group within our country might say, the United States is responsible for global security. We are the sole super power in the world and the course of history will be dictated by us. This is not bravado Mr. President, it is the truth.

There are two areas that must be addressed to effectively confront threats to global security. For starters, we must maintain our strategic advantage in all technological fields. This includes military, information, and all cutting edge fields.

In addition, we must stay committed to systematically eliminating all threats to our national security. Geostrategic situations must be accurately assessed and acted upon. International stability should be built upon the Rule of Law, but backed up with the threat of force. International political bodies should have only a negligible effect on our decision making process. Only the Constitution should be honored in our quest for liberty.

So how do my general pronouncements equate into specific policies?

Policies geared towards curbing proliferation should be accelerated and improved upon. The g is out of the bottle on this one Mr. President. We must act quickly and with purpose. Rogue states must not be allowed to acquire nuclear arsenals. We should stop turning a blind eye to great powers such as Russia giving nuclear technology to rogue states such as Iran. If a nation like Russia thinks this kind of proliferation is in its best interests (and profitable), then we should begin using our "big stick" to show Russia that proliferation will not be tolerated and is not profitable, but costly because of the negative trade implications it will create with the US as a result.

I completely support your policy regarding Iraq. Your vision of what the Middle East could become is not unrealistic. On the contrary, it is very realistic based on the historical track record of democracy. If the Iraqi people, and the people of the Middle East in general, are given the choice of freedom and prosperity or of tyranny and despotism, they will choose freedom every time. I urge you to continue your uncompromising position on terrorism and regimes that support terrorism in the Middle East. Remember what President Reagan believed in -- Peace through Strength.

North Korea should be dealt with in a firm manner. Concessions should not be made. You must remember that we are the ones in a position of strength, not the DPRK. Diplomacy should be given a chance to solve the problems we have with North Korea. However, if North Korea is unwilling to compromise then stiffer measures may be neccesary. I recommend initiating the largest, most comprehensive, quarantine the world has ever seen on North Korea. Box them in. Seal them off from the rest of the world. Make them submit. If the quarantine proves ineffective, or if North Korea engages in offensive actions as a result, a pre emptive nuclear strike may be in order. Based upon the condition within the DPRK at the present time, you may be doing the citizens of North Korea a favor.

The last threat that you should always keep in the back of your mind, Mr. President, is China. I know that you are already aware of the threat that China poses to our great nation. I would only ask that you follow the advice of your SoD, the honorable Donald Rumsfeld. He knows how to deal with the Chinese. Never trust the Chinese, its government is a brutal Communist regime with no respect for human dignity. They are working in secret to undermine us. More over, renew your commitment to the vibrant democracy of Taiwan and, in more general terms, the strategic status quo in the Far East.

Mr. President, I would also ask you not to alienate your supporters who are not as religious as you are. Keep the religious rhetoric to a minimum. And understand that religious beliefs can not be put ahead of strategic imperatives.

President Bush, I would like to bring to your attention the amazing technological advances that are taking place as we speak. The technological break throughs that are taking place in the western world are unparraleled in human history. Are you aware of the field of nanotechnology? Its potential offers not only great hope for the future, but also represents serious national security concerns. It is the obligation of yourself, and the government of the United States, to keep this nation of liberty at the forefront of this emerging technological field.

Finally Mr. President, I would ask you to consider the sociological implications of immortality for humanity. Yes, I said immortality. As I have said before, the western world is in the opening stages of a technological revolution that will shake the very fabric of society. We must be prepared for these changes. Please do not allow your religious beliefs to blind you to the potential benefits immortality has to offer humanity. Please do not make the mistake of believing it is immoral to strive for immortality. Did not people in the Old testament live for hundreds of years? Why would God allow us the intelligence to discover immortality if he did not want us to attain it?

I support you, Mr. President, in the belief that a strong national defense is necessary, but I must remind you, when a nation refutes progress because of its own inhibitions that is when it will fail. Let us hope against hope that we do not fail Mr. President.

Edited by Kissinger, 06 March 2003 - 10:24 AM.

[bobdrake12]

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my ideas Mr. President. First I would like to say that I admire your commitment to freedom and your firm stand against terrorism.

Mr. President, I would also ask you not to alienate your supporters who are not as religious as you are. Keep the religious rhetoric to a minimum. And understand that religious beliefs can not be put ahead of strategic imperatives.

President Bush, I would like to bring to your attention the amazing technological advances that are taking place as we speak. The technological break throughs that are taking place in the western world are unparraleled in human history. Are you aware of the field of nanotechnology? Its potential offers not only great hope for the future, but also represents serious national security concerns. It is the obligation of yourself, and the government of the United States, to keep this nation of liberty at the forefront of this emerging technological field.

Finally Mr. President, I would ask you to consider the sociological implications of immortality for humanity. Yes, I said immortality. As I have said before, the western world is in the opening stages of a technological revolution that will shake the very fabric of society. We must be prepared for these changes. Please do not allow your religious beliefs to blind you to the potential benefits immortality has to offer humanity. Please do not make the mistake of believing it is immoral to strive for immortality. Did not people in the Old testament live for hundreds of years? Why would God allow us the intelligence to discover immortality if he did not want us to attain it?

Kissinger,

Very well stated.

Thanks.

bob

[Lazarus Long]

http://story.news.ya...ence_martyrs_dc

Suicide Bombers Made, Not Born, Study Suggests
Thu Mar 6, 2:10 PM ET
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Suicide bombers are not born to kill and die for their causes, but are instead manipulated by trainers who know how to trigger basic drives and emotions, a U.S. anthropologist said on Thursday.

He said the United States is "barking up the wrong tree" with its war on terrorism and in making threats against Iraq, and will in the end only make things worse.

Scott Atran of CNRS-Institut Jean Nicod in Paris, France and the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor said groups such as al-Qaeda use sophisticated techniques to create suicide bombers such as the 19 men who killed nearly 3,000 people in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against New York and Washington.

Writing in the journal Science, he said suicide bombers are not "crazed," but have been indoctrinated.

"I think these groups are able to manipulate innate emotions ... in much the way the fast food and porn industry manipulate innate desires," Atran said in a telephone interview.

"(This manipulation) creates a sincere commitment equal to the one a mother feels when she sacrifices herself for her child."

Atran, who has lived in Jerusalem and who did his own research as well as reviewed the work of others, noted that many suicide bombers are relatively affluent and well-educated, and so cannot be seen to be acting out of desperation.

Instead, they are manipulated by leaders who know how to tap into instincts on par with the need to eat and reproduce.

"They do so very effectively," Atran said.

"My feeling is that people have been barking up the wrong tree completely in dealing with this. They are often thinking these people are crazed, which they are not. They have no suicidal tendencies, no split families," he added.

"There is no evidence whatsoever of poverty. On the contrary, they are usually better off than the surrounding population. (President George W.) Bush has been saying the way to fight terrorism is by raising education and fighting illiteracy but he is just whistling in the wind."

It is also impossible to "sell" American values to these groups, Atran maintains. He called "harebrained" an idea to create a "Radio Free Arabia" akin to the highly successful "Radio Free Europe" of the Cold War.

"If people are already convinced of an ideological position that is antagonistic to your own, then bombarding them with information relating to your own only increases their antagonism," he said. Eastern Europe during the 1960s was very different from modern-day Islamic countries, he said.

Atran believes a better approach would be to sideline the extremists. "I think the United States and its allies should try to empower moderates from within the community," he said.

Helping achieve an equitable solution between Israel and the Palestinians would also help, he said.

Atran, who addresses these issues in a recent book entitled "In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion," said attacking Iraq will only worsen ill-feelings against the United States.

"We know from polls in Israel and Lebanon that when force is used to go after what people consider to be Arab terrorists, and usually miss the mark, that increases support (for those groups)," he said.

[Lazarus Long]

http://story.news.ya...istan_bin_laden

U.S., Pakistani Forces Look for bin Laden
Thu Mar 6, 5:11 PM ET
By KATHY GANNON, Associated Press Writer

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistani and American forces intensified the search for Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) along a southwestern stretch of the border with Afghanistan (news - web sites) and carried out raids this week based on information from a newly captured al-Qaida deputy, Pakistani intelligence and military officials said Thursday.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, thought to be the No. 3 figure in the terror network, told interrogators he met bin Laden just weeks ago in a rendezvous set up through a network of phone calls and intermediaries, an intelligence official said.

At least two raids have been carried out in Pakistan's southwestern Baluchistan region based on information from Mohammed since his capture last weekend, another Pakistani intelligence official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity. There were no major arrests from the raids, the official said.

Telephone numbers taken from Mohammed's mobile phone are being tracked. The phone contained numbers inside and outside Pakistan, said a government official.

"The people he contacted in Pakistan have naturally been put under surveillance and we suspect the American agencies are doing the same," the official said.

Since Mohammed's arrest, joint Pakistani and U.S. forces have been searching for bin Laden and his son, Saad, along the 350-mile stretch of border from the Baluchistan town of Chaman to the Iranian border, a Pakistan military source said.

Villagers contacted in Dal Bandin, 170 miles south of the Baluchistan capital of Quetta, said two military aircraft landed at their small airstrip and American forces got off. There was no confirmation from the U.S. or Pakistani military.

The activity apparently generated rumors that bin Laden had been captured, but officials in Washington and in Pakistan said it was not true.

Since the weekend, residents in Chaman said U.S. aircraft swarmed overhead, dropping Pashtu-language leaflets on both sides of the border reminding them of the $25 million reward for bin Laden.

U.S. special forces and Pakistani soldiers are also farther north along the border, trying to flush out Taliban and al-Qaida fugitives in South Waziristan, in the North West Frontier province.

Mohammed's meeting with bin Laden took place somewhere in Baluchistan or farther north along the border, a Pakistani intelligence official told The Associated Press.

The official was one of a team of Pakistani and CIA agents who interrogated Mohammed for hours after he was nabbed in a pre-dawn raid in Rawalpindi on Saturday.

The intelligence official quoted Mohammed as saying of bin Laden, "The sheik is a hero of Islam and I am his tiny servant. Life, family, money, everything can be sacrificed for the sheik." The official did not reveal what Mohammed and bin laden discussed.

Mohammed told his interrogators he didn't know bin Laden's exact whereabouts, but that he was in the remote border region.

On Monday, AP received similar information about bin Laden's supposed location from a former intelligence chief of the ousted Taliban regime.

In a telephone interview from Afghanistan's southern city of Kandahar, the former Taliban said bin Laden had been seen less than two months ago meeting with Taliban members in South Waziristan. His report could not be independently verified.

Several sources say bin Laden moves with only a few guards, changing locations nightly and never using satellite telephones that could be used to pinpoint his location

Instead, he reportedly sends messages through intermediaries, according to another former Taliban interviewed by AP.

Western diplomats say it's intriguing that Mohammed was arrested in Rawalpindi, a city of 4 million near Islamabad that is home to army generals, top military officials and President Pervez Musharraf.

Mohammed was arrested at the house of Ahmed Abdul Qadus, an activist within Pakistan's oldest religious party, Jamaat-e-Islami, which has close links with the Pakistan's state InterServices Intelligence, or ISI.

Jamaat-e-Islami activists worked closely with Pakistan's intelligence service to help Afghan insurgents during the 1980s, when the United States bankrolled an anti-communist war in Afghanistan.

Arab and Pakistani sources have told AP that Mohammed may have been trying to raise money for terrorist attacks against U.S. interests.

A second al-Qaida suspect, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi, a Saudi national suspected of financing the Sept. 11 attacks, was arrested with Mohammed. Qadus was also detained.
___

AP Correspondent Munir Ahmad contributed to this report.

[Lazarus Long]

http://story.news.ya.../iraq_diplomacy

Britain to Offer Iraq Weapons Deadline
5 minutes ago
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - As opposition hardened against a war with Iraq (news - web sites), Britain offered Thursday to compromise on a U.S.-backed resolution by giving Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) a short deadline to prove he has eliminated all banned weapons or face an attack.

With some 300,000 U.S. troops massing for battle, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw made clear that any compromise must still include an authorization for military action. But Straw's demand, made a day before a crucial Security Council meeting, was unlikely to be acceptable to key council powers that favor more weapons inspections to disarm Iraq peacefully.

President Bush (news - web sites), in an effort to counter stiff opposition to his plans for disarming Iraq, accused Saddam of trying to deceive U.N. weapons inspectors and said he must be held accountable by America's allies. The president has said he is willing to wage war even without new U.N. authorization though he would prefer to have it.

"We're days away from resolving this issue in the Security Council," Bush said in a rare prime-time news conference. "As far as ultimatums, we'll wait and see."

Earlier Thursday, China threw its support behind France, Germany and Russia, which have vowed to prevent the resolution's passage. The resolution, co-sponsored by the United States, Britain and Spain, says Iraq missed its "final opportunity" to disarm peacefully and paves the way for war.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) appealed to council members to discuss the crisis calmly, noting there were several proposals on the table.

"The positions are very hard now," he said. "I am encouraging people to strive for a compromise to seek common ground," adding, "to make concessions, you get concessions."

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) arrived in New York on Thursday to try to win support for the resolution from undecided council members. But Powell faced an uphill struggle to get nine "yes" votes and avoid a veto by one of the permanent members opposed to war soon — France, Russia and China.

He said the threat posed by Saddam must be dealt with now, not after thousands of people die when his "horrible weapons" of mass destruction are used.

Powell and other foreign ministers will attend a Security Council meeting on Friday where chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and his counterpart, Mohamed ElBaradei, will brief members on Iraq's cooperation in eliminating its banned weapons. For many council members, Friday's reports will be key in deciding whether to vote for the U.S.-backed resolution.

ElBaradei, the chief nuclear inspector, suggested Thursday he would tell the council that abandoning the weapons inspections makes little sense so long as the Iraqis are actively cooperating.

"That's clearly the gist of my presentation: In my area, inspection is working. We are making progress. There's no reason to scuttle the process," ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told The Associated Press on a flight from Vienna, where the IAEA is headquartered.

In a hint of own report, Blix said Wednesday that Iraq is now cooperating "a great deal more" in providing evidence about its weapons programs and engaging in "real disarmament." He said he would welcome more time for inspections, but wouldn't ask for it.

Straw, the British foreign minister, told a news conference after meeting Annan that London was prepared to negotiate language in the resolution. He also said he was open to possible amendments that address concerns raised by the divided council.

He did not spell out the details during a news conference. But British diplomats floated the idea of attaching a short deadline with the resolution, either as an amendment or a statement that would accompany it. The deadline would give Saddam a brief period to prove he has no more banned weapons, or face war.

"We are open to discussion on the wording, but the principle we are holding firm to," he said, emphasizing that Iraq has squandered its final opportunity to disarm peacefully.

U.S. diplomats in recent days have signaled a willingness to hear suggestions on the wording so long as there were no changes to the substance of the draft. U.S. officials said Washington had "not completely signed off" on the British ideas.

British diplomats said discussions were going on among capitals and at the United Nations (news - web sites), but it was too early to talk about the amount of time Saddam would be given. Several council diplomats expressed surprise that British hadn't approached them to discuss their ideas.

Russia's deputy U.N. Ambassador Gennady Gatilov said his government hasn't been approached yet about the British suggestion, but he said talk of a short deadline on the existing resolution "sounds cosmetic."

"Just to add something to the existing draft in terms of putting deadlines, short deadlines, one week — of course, it will not fly because it doesn't change ... the substance of the draft," Gatilov said.

Pakistan's U.N. Ambassador Munir Akram, whose country is considered a swing vote, said he also hadn't heard directly from the British. But he said his understanding was that they were suggesting "a delayed fuse."

Asked whether that was acceptable, Akram replied: "If you don't want to set off the firecracker in the first place, whether the fuse is lit or not is immaterial."

There were hints of alternative compromise ideas.

Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou, who will represent the European Union (news - web sites) at the Security Council meeting, will present "a new possibility" with benchmarks that Iraq must implement "in a specific time frame," said Greek Foreign Ministry spokesman Panos Belglitis.

This appeared very similar to a Canadian compromise proposal that would give Saddam until the end of the month to carry out a series of remaining disarmament tasks.

Foreign ministers on a newly appointed Arab League committee met Annan to discuss the Iraq crisis. Amr Mousa, the head of the Arab League, said afterward that his team offered no proposals for the United Nations but believes war is still avoidable and would travel to Baghdad next.

[acaveyogi]

Just for fun, Armageddon starts with the Euphrates River drying up to make way for some folk. No Ammageddon, no thousand years of peace. Maybe Armageddon starts in Iraq. Love, john

[Lazarus Long]

http://famulus.msnbc...&vts=3620031824
World Bank head hopes quick Iraq war limits damage

By Suleiman al-Khalidi

AMMAN, March 6 — World Bank President James Wolfensohn said on Thursday he hoped the Iraq crisis could be resolved without war -- but if it happened, it should be ''very quick'' to minimise damage to the global economy.

''I think the hope that everybody has is that this thing can be resolved quickly, because at the moment what is affecting the global economy is an unwillingness to buy and unwillingness to invest and a sense of fear,'' Wolfensohn told reporters.

''So let's hope it can be resolved firstly without war, but in the event there is conflict it can be very quick,'' he added.

Wolfensohn spoke at the end of a long planned two-day visit to Jordan that touched on how to help shield its economy in the event Washington wages war against Iraq, the kingdom's main trading neighbour and energy supplier.

Wolfensohn said the impact of a war on the global economy depended on its duration and how it would dent confidence, prompt firms to put investment plans on hold and make consumers less inclined to spend.

''First of all, it depends on how long the war is...it would obviously have an impact in terms of peoples' confidence in themselves and in the environment around them,'' he added.

''I think nobody likes war; it makes people very afraid so there will be some reaction as you would expect in normal commercial markets,'' Wolfensohn said.

''People won't go about to spend as much. People will be worried about the future, and the impact of that will depend on how long it lasts and what are the implications and how broadly it spreads,'' he said.

Wolfensohn predicted further oil price turbulence that could slow the global economy if the hostilities caused damage to Iraq's oil industry installations.

OIL SUPPLY DISRUPTION

''There will be concerns about disruption of oil supplies, but then it depends on whether oil is destroyed or disrupted,'' he said.

The World Bank would help rebuild Iraq after any U.S-led military invasion, drawing on its experience in multi-billion dollar reconstruction plans in Bosnia and Afghanistan.

''It is likely if there is a war, and if there is an issue of reconstruction, that we and the U.N. and a number of agencies would be called on, first of all to assess the damage and then participate in the reconstruction,'' Wolfensohn said.

But Wolfensohn said it was difficult to put a price tag on the cost of reconstruction, which could only realistically begin to be estimated after guns fall silent and damage to Iraq's infrastructure is assessed.

''But at the moment all we know is what Iraq is like today and we do not know what the extent of any destruction would be.''

''I do know there is a need today for increased power generation, I do know there is a need for investments in roads, in schools. That is today but what I have no idea of is what would happen in a conflict,'' the World Bank chief said.

He said the bank would not be involved in humanitarian relief, leaving that to U.N. agencies that operate in the immediate aftermath of conflict.

''Our particular function in countries after conflict is basically reconstruction and we are just not geared to humanitarian relief, although we do (help) from time to time by assisting governments in their efforts,'' he added.

The World Bank's mission in a post-war Iraq as in other conflict torn regions would be to seek poverty reduction and narrowing social inequalities, Wolfensohn said.

Copyright 2003 Reuters Limited.

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.msnbc.com...4.asp?0dm=N17PN

Democrats shifting on Iraq resolution
A few who voted for use-of-force measure now assail Bush policy

By Tom Curry
MSNBC

March 6 — In a significant change in the dynamics of the debate over Iraq, Democrats such as Sen. Tom Daschle who voted for last October’s use-of-force resolution on Iraq are now leading the opposition to President Bush’s policy, arguing that conditions have changed since they cast their votes. Daschle charged Thursday that Bush had failed to build international support for a war to oust Saddam Hussein.

DASCHLE SAID last October he was backing Bush because “Saddam Hussein represents a real threat” and “it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment.”

That support has has been the dominant issue in scrimmaging among contenders for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean has vaulted to prominence among the contenders by attacking Daschle, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and other Democrats for voting for the resolution.

AUTHORIZING BUSH
Eighty-one House Democrats voted on Oct. 10 for the resolution, which gave Bush the authority to use U.S. military forces “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq” and to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The following day, 29 Democratic senators, including Daschle, voted for the resolution.

Until now Dean and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, another Democratic presidential hopeful, have been most outspoken in denouncing Bush’s Iraq policies. Dean has gone even further by castigating congressional Democrats who, he said, had voted to give Bush a “a blank check to go to war.”

On Tuesday, Dean called Bush’s approach “ghastly,” saying, “We have treated most of the world with contempt, both our enemies and our friends, and it’s not surprising we don’t have many friends left.”
Daschle struck a similar note Thursday.

‘RUSHING TO WAR’
Daschle told reporters he and fellow Democrats feel the administration is “rushing to war without an adequate concern for the ramifications of doing so unilaterally, or with a very small coalition.”

He said he believes “military invasion today would be premature. My preference would be that we not concede failure diplomatically. I just fail to concede that war is inevitable.”

Daschle said the “extraordinary disintegration of support in the international community” has changed the situation since he cast his vote last October for the use-of-force resolution.

“If anything, the situation has put us in a more isolated position than I ever anticipated,” he said. “I think it is a significant risk, a major problem for the United States, if we do it alone.”

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., has introduced a resolution calling on Bush to wait until he has obtained another vote from Congress before he orders an attack.

But Daschle told reporters that he did not think a new vote on using force was necessary, saying, “the Senate has officially acted, we acted last fall. I think to act again is redundant. But I also believe senators ought to have the opportunity to express themselves on the record if they wish to do so.”

Partisan combat on the brink of military operations against Iraq or even during them is not new: it was in December 1998, 24 hours before the House was to begin its impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton, that he ordered air strikes against Iraq.

Clinton’s action sparked outrage among congressional Republicans.
“After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons,” said House Majority Leader Dick Armey.

“Never underestimate a desperate president,” Rep. Jerry Solomon, R-N.Y.

Daschle’s comments Thursday were remarkable because last October he had taken a large political risk, alienating many in his party by backing Bush.

At the time, Daschle told the Senate: “Because I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment, I will vote to give the president the authority he needs.”

But he also said that “the president needs to be honest with the American people, not only about the benefits of action against Iraq but also about the risks and the costs of such action. We are no longer talking about driving Saddam Hussein back to within his borders; we are talking about driving him from power. That is a much more difficult and complicated goal.”

Today, the sentiment among rank-and-file Democrats appears to be overwhelmingly opposed to Bush’s policy.

In a poll last month of those “core Democrats” who said they are “very likely” to vote in the 2004 presidential primaries, two-thirds opposed using force against Iraq.

And 58 percent of such “core Democrats” said they agreed with the view that Bush is considering attacking Iraq because his administration “wants control of Iraq’s oil.”

Although Daschle said he will forgo a bid for the 2004 Democratic nomination, other Democrats who backed Bush last October, such as Gephardt, have received a chilly reception at party events in Iowa and elsewhere.

‘INEPT AND BUNGLED’

Daschle’s comments echoed what had been said 24 hours earlier by Rep. Joseph Hoeffel, D-Pa., a Democrat who also voted for the use-of-force resolution last October.

“We are dealing with an isolated country with a fourth-rate military power, led by a murderous tyrant that nobody likes,” he said. “And yet the (U.N.) Security Council is split. Why? It is because of the inept and bungled and cowboy diplomacy of President Bush and his senior advisers. He has spent a great deal of time in insulting our allies, in denigrating the United Nations.”

Hoeffel said his vote in favor of using force was necessary at the time to persuade the United Nations to press harder for weapons inspections.

Asked whether he would now vote against the authorization, Hoeffel said he would not consider a “hypothetical” scenario.

A possible next step for those opposed to Bush’s policy would be to move to cut off money for military operations.
There are precedents for such a move:

In 1973, Congress voted to cut off funds for U.S. military operations in Indochina.

In 1993, Congress voted to end funding for military operations in Somalia, one month after a botched raid in Mogadishu left 18 U.S. soldiers dead and many wounded.

In 1999, the House passed a measure to ban the use of funds to deploy U.S. ground forces in Yugoslavia. The Senate did not pass the measure and it did not become law.


The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.rushlimba...edge.guest.html



The U.N. Fan Dance Continues

March 7, 2003


The UN fan dance continued with Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony to the United Nations Security Council on Friday. President Bush stripped down all the yapping to one question in his Thursday night press conference: Has Saddam Hussein disarmed? Powell made that point in his presentation. The answer is clearly, "No," based on Hans Blix's 166-page report. Iraq has dragged its feet and flouted Resolution 1441.

Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the UN's nuclear weapons agency, said there's no evidence of Saddam trying to get nukes. This guy sounded like a Bond villain. What he meant by "there's no evidence" is that he hasn't been given any by the bad guys. Again: the inspectors aren't there to sleuth around. Blix has asked for more months "for the inspectors to do their work," which means "for Saddam to stall, us to yank our troops out, and Baghdad to expel the inspectors again and set off a nuclear device."

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer - leader of the deceptively named "Green Party" - piped up to add his short, fat, little squat voice to the voices of appeasement who did so much to help his nation take over Europe in the 40s. This guy, Michael Kelly reported in the Washington Post, "was a member of the evil Baader-Meinhof Gang (or Red Army Faction)," which kidnapped people, staged bank robberies and murdered opponents. He hates America, and is none too fond of the Jewish state, which is Saddam's #1 WMD target.

The real news in Bush's press conference is there will be a vote on a resolution to use force even if we think we'll lose. We'll put these appeasers and enablers of evil on record as favoring the sham of inspections - which France and Russia both voted against re-establishing, by the way. It's the same old situation. That's why I'm glad President Bush said that he won't let these people decide whether or not we act to defend the American people. Berlin and Paris didn't lose 3,000 people on 9/11. We did, and we can't let that happen again.

Edited by bobdrake12, 08 March 2003 - 12:57 AM.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.rushlimba...echo.guest.html



We Don't Need Anybody's Permission

March 7, 2003

I stood up and cheered when President Bush told Thursday night's assembled press corps that he would not decide whether or not to protect the American people based on the United Nations or any other nation. I loved it when he said that he'd sworn an oath on the Bible to defend us. The real news in the press conference was that we'll call a vote on a resolution of force against Saddam even if we don't have the votes to pass it. Those who said we wouldn't hold a vote unless we had the nine votes and no vetoes needed, were wrong.

We want to have everyone on record, as either with us or with those who shut their eyes tight to Saddam's evil regime. When I read some columns on the press conference the morning after, I had to ask if some people lived in a parallel universe, in Bizarro world. Consider the Washington Post's Tom Shales who sniffed that Bush was almost medicated, he was so sedate, worn-out and out of energy. This tantrum may be explained by the fact that Bush passed over the Post's Mike Allen along with Helen Thomas - who'd asked a question of every president since Millard Fillmore.

Bush can't win! He's either a reckless, out-of-control cowboy or he's too calm. Which is it? I thought his energy level was perfect - and I'm right. There's no question that all of this is weighing on Mr. Bush. It's just too bad if reporters would like some sparks or CNN would prefer screaming or gotcha questions from some fossil. This is not something about which Bush is gleeful. He wasn't trying to change anybody's mind last night about anything. He was simply explaining his course of action.

The press asked a number of times questions such as: What do you say to those who disagree with you?" He said he respects the right of people to disagree with their government. It's not his job to psychoanalyze why people disagree with him - nor should he be influenced by reactionaries who reflexively disagree with him. It's all in the audio links below, folks. Don't believe what I or any of these columnists say. Listen to the man yourself, and see which one of us is right. (We all know who it's going to be, but still - listen.)

[bobdrake12]

http://www.rushlimba...ge_2.guest.html



Blix Living In Swedish Fog

March 7, 2003


I watched the president's press conference Thursday night, and he made it abundantly clear that there's only one question UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix-Clouseau has to answer: Has Saddam Hussein completely and totally disarmed? That's the only thing that matters. It was not coincidental that Bush held this presser the night before this fan dance at the United Nations Security Council. Bush knew what he was doing.

So here comes the oblivious Hans Blix on Friday morning. They called Mel Torme "the Velvet Fog," but Blix is living in a total Swedish fog. He comes out with his summary of the latest examples of partial disarmament and sham actions by Saddam, who made the laughable comment that the inspectors are "able to report some progress." Notice, the wiggly phrase "able to report" that it's happened, not, "It's happened." It's "not enough," he says. As Secretary Powell said: if Saddam were disarming, Blix's report would be thousands of pages instead of a hundred or so.

Blix gave comfort to Saddam on the very day in history when Adolf Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland and the world did nothing, and I'm sitting here saying, "You lunkhead, do you not get this?" Bush threw down the gauntlet on Thursday night. Protesters and people that disagree don't mean a thing. Bush has a job to do and he's going to do it. Unless Blix can prove that Saddam is totally disarming, it doesn't matter to Bush what anyone named Blix or Sheen or ElBaradei or Dominique says.

Wouldn't you rather have someone like Bush as president, who focuses, than somebody wishy-washy who's always changing their core beliefs based on somebody else's opinion? Do we want to bet our protection against an attack with a higher body count than 9/11, on someone whose judgement changes with the wind? No. In a circumstance like this, you can't fold every time a few people protest or some guy with a Bond villain accent threatens you. If you're going to kill a snake, you kill it while it's small - you don't stand there and talk at it until it strikes.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.informati...article1922.htm

Bush Administration Officials Admit that Press Conference Was Rigged

"In this case, we know what the questions are going to be, and those are the ones we want to answer," Bartlett said.

Bush's Distaste for News Conferences Keeps Them Rare


By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 7, 2003;



The extended questioning of the presidential news conference was a regular exercise for all presidents of the recent past. But President Bush has turned the tradition into a rarity, both because of his distaste for the format and his staff's determined message management.

Bush went before 94 reporters for his eighth solo news conference last night as part of his effort to prepare Americans for a likely war against Iraq as increasingly insistent opposition from allies and skepticism at home grow.

At the same point in their presidencies, President Bill Clinton had held 30 solo news conferences (that is, without a foreign leader at a twin lectern) and Bush's father had held 58, according to research by Martha Joynt Kumar, a Towson University political science professor who specializes in presidential communication.

After two years and 45 days in office, President Ronald Reagan had held 16 solo news conferences, President Jimmy Carter had held 45, President Gerald Ford had held 37, President Richard M. Nixon had held 16 and President Lyndon B. Johnson had held 52.

Communications director Dan Bartlett said this White House uses news conferences more sparingly than other types of presidential events, because "if you have a message you're trying to deliver, a news conference can go in a different direction."

"In this case, we know what the questions are going to be, and those are the ones we want to answer," Bartlett said. "We think the public will see the thought and care and attention he's given to a lot of the different questions that are being asked about the diplomatic side and the military side and the potential post-Iraq issue. These are all legitimate questions that he has answers for and wants to talk about."

The news conference was Bush's second in the East Room or in prime time. The last was Oct. 11, 2001 -- four days after allied cruise missiles and bombers began dismantling the Taliban. Bush's last solo news conference, held in a more casual setting, was Nov. 7, two days after the Republican triumphs in the midterm elections.

Bush's aides point out that he frequently takes short bursts of questions from reporters in other settings -- most often, when cameras are allowed in at the beginning or end of a presidential event. The White House said that counting those, Bush has taken questions 216 times, not including one-on-one interviews. Aides said Bush disdains what they call the "preening" by correspondents that he considers an inescapable part of televised news conferences.

"The president thinks that sometimes East Room news conferences are more about the reporters and the theater of the moment and less about the substance of the answers," a senior administration official said. "So his inclination is to hold more, informal news conferences where the answers are the story and not lengthy questions on live TV."

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer echoes that sentiment, telling reporters that Bush "has been having his fun thinking about who's going to be dressed how, how the hair is going to look."

Robert Dallek, a presidential historian at Boston University, said citizens lose an important measure of the president when he is shielded from sustained questioning. "People don't want to just hear from the press secretary all the time," he said. "They want the real thing -- the horse's mouth."

To avoid a long buildup, and to give them the flexibility to drop the idea, Bush's aides announce a news conference only a few hours in advance.

Yesterday, Fleischer took reporters by surprise at 9:30 a.m. during his routine reading of Bush's public schedule, when he slipped in the fact that at 8 p.m., the president would hold a news conference.

Aides said the idea was first discussed Tuesday, and said Bush spent two to four hours preparing, between Wednesday night and yesterday afternoon. Clinton had formal briefing books and Kumar's research suggests some presidents blocked out whole days to prepare. Bush was given a memo consisting of about 50 possible topics with suggested answers. Then his most senior aides gathered around his desk in the Oval Office and fired practice questions at him.

Stephen Hess, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who was a speechwriter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, said presidents can learn a lot about less-noticed parts of their administrations during the rigor of preparing for a full-dress news conference.

Hess said news conferences are often perceived by White Houses as "the matador in the arena, and all the bulls are after him." In fact, he said, they are usually tame affairs, with often flabby questioning and plenty of ways for the president to keep the upper hand.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[bobdrake12]

http://www.informati...article1911.htm

Why Hussein Will Not Give Weapons of Mass Destruction to Al Qaeda

by Gene Healy

Gene Healy is senior editor at the Cato Institute.

Of all the reasons the administration has offered for war with Iraq, keeping chemical and biological weapons out of the hands of Al Qaeda resonates most strongly with the American people. President Bush used that frightening prospect to dramatic effect in his State of the Union speech: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

But the administration's strongest sound-bite on Iraq is also its weakest argument for war. The idea that Saddam Hussein would trust Al Qaeda enough to give Al Qaeda operatives chemical or biological weapons -- and trust them to keep quiet about it -- is simply not plausible.

Bin Laden, who views the rigid Saudi theocracy as insufficiently Islamic, has long considered Saddam Hussein an infidel enemy. Before Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, Bin Laden warned publicly that the Iraqi dictator had designs on conquering Saudi Arabia. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden offered to assemble his mujahedeen to battle Hussein and protect the Arabian peninsula.

Last summer, when CNN acquired a cache of internal Al Qaeda training videotapes, they discovered a Qaeda documentary that was highly critical of Hussein. Peter Bergen, the CNN terrorism expert who interviewed Bin Laden in 1998, noted that Bin Laden indicted Hussein, as "a bad Muslim."

That theme continues in the latest "Bin Laden" audiotape, released to Al Jazeera. In it, Bin Laden (or someone claiming to be him) urges Muslims to fight the American "crusaders" bent on invading Iraq. But even while urging assistance to Hussein's "socialist" regime, "Bin Laden" can't resist condemning that regime: "The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago .... Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden."

Of course, cooperation is possible; sworn enemies often collude when their interests coincide -- most famously in the Nazi-Soviet nonagression pact of 1939. But Hussein, as a student and admirer of Stalin, knows how that turned out -- with the Russian dictator double-crossed and almost destroyed by his Nazi ally.

No doubt Al Qaeda would accept chemical or biological weapons from Hussein. If he handed them over, the theory goes, he might be able to harm the United States without suffering massive retaliation because the strike would come via terrorist intermediaries. But the theory depends entirely on Al Qaeda keeping quiet about how they acquired the weapons. Why would they?

Al Qaeda wants the Hussein regime overthrown. There's also good reason to believe they want to incite a U.S. invasion of Iraq to draw new recruits into the Al Qaeda campaign against a so-called "Crusader"-Israeli alliance aimed at conquering the Middle East. Provoking a crackdown by the enemy has been a key terrorist strategy for as long as there have been terrorists.

Getting Iraqi WMD would allow Al Qaeda to kill two birds with one stone. They'd get to kill more Americans, and then, by revealing that Hussein gave them the weapons (perhaps on a satellite phone they know American intelligence is monitoring) they'd get a war that would finish Saddam's "infidel" regime and bring "the jurisdiction of the socialists" to an end. A war that promises to bring new Jihadis into the fold. And all that would be necessary for Al Qaeda to achieve these goals is to convince the Iraqi dictator to hand over the goods. Ask yourself: Did Saddam Hussein rise to the top of a totalitarian dictatorship by being quite so... trusting?

The idea that Hussein views a WMD strike via terrorist intermediaries as a viable strategy is rank speculation, contradicted by his past behavior. Hussein's hostility toward Israel predates his struggle with the United States. He's had longstanding ties with anti-Israeli terror groupsand he's had chemical weapons for over 20 years. Yet there has never been a nerve gas attack in Israel. Why? Because Israel has nuclear weapons and conventional superiority, and Hussein wants to live. If he's ever considered passing off chemical weapons to Palestinian terrorists, he decided that he wouldn't get away with it. He has even less reason to trust Al Qaeda with a potentially regime-ending secret.

Of course, if regime change is coming anyway by force of American arms, Saddam Hussein "probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action." That's what CIA director George Tenet told the House and Senate intelligence committees last October, to the embarrassment of the Bush administration. Is Tenet right? We're about to find out.

All Rights Reserved © 2003 Cato Institute

Edited by bobdrake12, 08 March 2003 - 01:28 AM.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.newameric...iraq-121202.htm

December 12, 2002

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: WILLIAM KRISTOL

Subject: Iraq - al Qaeda Connection

This morning's front page article in The Washington Post, "Report Cites Al Qaeda Deal For Iraqi Gas," should not come as a surprise. Over the past months, we have had several detailed reports of links between Iraq and al Qaeda. For example, in "The Great Terror (March 3, 2002)," Jeffrey Goldberg of the New Yorker described the relationship between Saddam Hussein's intelligence services and al-Ansar, a bin Laden-affiliated terrorist group in Northern Iraq, which a government official in today's Post says was involved in smuggling the nerve agent out of Iraq. In the current issue of Vanity Fair, David Rose reports on additional links between Baghdad and the al Qaeda network. And in October, CIA director George Tenet flatly declared in a letter to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that based on credible reports "Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

What all of this means is that the president has been right in saying that the coming war to remove Saddam is part of the overall war on terrorism. Regime change in Iraq and the destruction of al Qaeda are two related fronts in one war, and both fronts should be prosecuted aggressively and simultaneously.

Edited by bobdrake12, 08 March 2003 - 01:27 AM.

[Mind]

I just want to say again that besides the terrorism and WMD arguments for the police action in Iraq, there is a extremely compelling humanitarian argument. People are being tortured and terrorized at this very moment. We should help stop this.

[Thomas]

The mission will succeed iff:

- Americans (with British and Australians) will defeat Sadam in a quite spectacular way

- Democracy will be installed with no very big difficulties

- Old Europe will be humiliated

- UN will be reformed or abandoned as a relevant institution


Only in this case, the pursue for less suffering in the world, will come on the top place, as it deserves.

The chances are quite good, I think.

- Thomas

[bobdrake12]

http://www.timesonli...-603370,00.html

March 08, 2003

Iraqi drone 'could drop chemicals on troops' (excerpts)

From James Bone in New York

A REPORT declassified by the United Nations yesterday contained a hidden bombshell with the revelation that inspectors have recently discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone with a wingspan of 7.45m, suggesting an illegal range that could threaten Iraq’s neighbours with chemical and biological weapons.
US officials were outraged that Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, did not inform the Security Council about the drone, or remotely piloted vehicle, in his oral presentation to Foreign Ministers and tried to bury it in a 173-page single-spaced report distributed later in the day. The omission raised serious questions about Dr Blix’s objectivity.

“Recent inspections have also revealed the existence of a drone with a wingspan of 7.45m that has not been declared by Iraq,” the report said. “Officials at the inspection site stated that the drone had been test-flown. Further investigation is required to establish the actual specifications and capabilities of these RPV drones . . . (they) are restricted by the same UN rules as missiles, which limit their range to 150km (92.6 miles).

[Lazarus Long]

It is ironic when I can so completely agree with the basic premise and even some of his conclusion and yet so totally disagree about the methods of accomplishing this. But it merits inclusion in this discussion without a doubt.
U.S. News & World Reports, article & Links

Freedom: our best export
Mon Mar 3,12:00 AM ET

BY LOU DOBBS

President Bush last week laid out in broad terms his vision of a Middle East free of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and the fear of weapons of mass destruction. The president said, "A liberated Iraq (news - web sites) can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions." Some critics of the president's decision to disarm Saddam Hussein absolutely, and by force if necessary, either suggest or claim outright that U.S. policy is being motivated by oil. Along with a number of journalists who were invited to the White House last week, I heard this president say without reservation and with absolute conviction

that the U.S. policy is peace and freedom in the region, which he sincerely believes are essential to the safety of the American people.

The critics of the war against terror and the absolute disarmament of Saddam Hussein must overcome their partisan myopia and do their best to understand that there's nothing at stake here less than the very survival of our nation and democratic civilization.

In my opinion, the president has set us upon exactly the right course on the Middle East. Yes, it is in the interest of this energy-hungry nation to have stability in the region. But far more important is the elimination of dictators and despots who oppress their people and deny them even basic freedoms whether in the name of the secular Baath Party or radical Islamist ideology.

Trade in values. We have imported their oil and exported our dollars far too long without exporting as well democratic and capitalist market values. Democracy and markets offer the people of the Middle East their best hope for prosperity and freedom. The widespread impoverishment and unchecked extremism among radical Islamist factions will breed only further dangers to our way of life and democratic civilization everywhere.

The threat of terrorism and the uncertainty and impending prospect of war with Saddam Hussein continue to depress our markets and stifle business investment and economic growth. Consumer confidence is now at the weakest level in nine years, and investor confidence is at a historical low. "Our company's surveys have shown that business spending decisions have clearly been delayed because of uncertainty about the war," says Jason Trennert, senior managing director of ISI Group. Even Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) has warned about Iraq's drag on the economy and the markets. As he told Congress last month, "Worries about the situation in Iraq contributed to an appreciable increase in oil prices. These uncertainties, coupled with ongoing concerns surrounding macroeconomic prospects, heightened investors' perception of risk." Stunningly clear talk from a man better known for obliqueness.

Israel's current problems are troubling proof of the cost of allowing uncertainty over terror to continue. Since Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations broke down in September of 2000, the main index of the Israeli stock market (the TA 100) has plunged 44 percent. Israel's economy has slowed from 6 percent annual growth to recession. And as you would expect, Israel's unemployment rate has increased dramatically to 10 percent.

Soundly defeating Saddam will also be an important disincentive to other states and radical Islamist terrorist groups who would harm Americans. As President Bush also said last week, "The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers." And, as Mr. Bush added, "Other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated."

Of course, even after Saddam is long gone, the cost of the threat of terrorism won't go away. We'll still face the danger from further attacks from al Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups. As a report from the Joint Economic Committee last year found, there are significant long-term costs of terrorism, such as the expense of additional security measures, or a "terrorist tax." That's in addition to the economic resources diverted toward security and away from private-sector activity.

But the best way to create a disincentive to terrorists in the future is to fight the war against Saddam with all of the resources and resolve we possess today. Saddam's threat to our security needs to be eliminated once and for all, and the message needs to be sent that terror against the United States from any radical group or state won't be tolerated. Otherwise, the cost of terror will only rise precipitously--both in economic terms and human life.

[bobdrake12]

http://foxnews.com/s...3,79450,00.html

Iraqi Drones May Target U.S. Cities (excerpts)



Monday, February 24, 2003

WASHINGTON — Iraq could be planning a chemical or biological attack on American cities through the use of remote-controlled "drone" planes equipped with GPS tracking maps, according to U.S. intelligence.

The information about Iraq's unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program has caused a "real concern" among defense personnel, senior U.S. officials tell Fox News. They're worried that these vehicles have already been, or could be, transported inside the United States to be used in an attack, although there is no proof that this has happened.

Secretary of State Colin Powell showed a picture of a small drone plane during his presentation to the U.N. Security Council earlier this month.

"UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons," Powell said during his speech. "Iraq could use these small UAVs, which have a wingspan of only a few meters, to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or, if transported, to other countries, including the United States."

[Lazarus Long]

Some evidence on Iraq called fake
U.N. nuclear inspector says documents were forged

By Joby Warrick
THE WASHINGTON POST

March 8 — A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations’ chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq’s secret nuclear ambitions.

DOCUMENTS THAT purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed “not authentic” after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.

ElBaradei also rejected a key Bush administration claim — made twice by the president in major speeches and repeated by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell yesterday — that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Also, ElBaradei reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.

“There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities,” ElBaradei said.

Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger. The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away — including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said.

ANOTHER SETBACK FOR U.S.

“We fell for it,” said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents.

A spokesman for the IAEA said the agency did not blame either Britain or the United States for the forgery. The documents “were shared with us in good faith,” he said.

The discovery was a further setback to U.S. and British efforts to convince reluctant U.N. Security Council members of the urgency of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Powell, in his statement to the Security Council Friday, acknowledged ElBaradei’s findings but also cited “new information” suggesting that Iraq continues to try to get nuclear weapons components.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein pursued an ambitious nuclear agenda throughout the 1970s and 1980s and launched a crash program to build a bomb in 1990 following his invasion of neighboring Kuwait. But Iraq’s nuclear infrastructure was heavily damaged by allied bombing in 1991, and the country’s known stocks of nuclear fuel and equipment were removed or destroyed during the U.N. inspections after the war.

However, Iraq never surrendered the blueprints for nuclear weapons, and kept key teams of nuclear scientists intact after U.N. inspectors were forced to leave in 1998. Despite international sanctions intended to block Iraq from obtaining weapons components, Western intelligence agencies and former weapons inspectors were convinced the Iraqi president had resumed his quest for the bomb in the late 1990s, citing defectors’ stories and satellite images that showed new construction at facilities that were once part of Iraq’s nuclear machinery.

Last September, the United States and Britain issued reports accusing Iraq of renewing its quest for nuclear weapons. In Britain’s assessment, Iraq reportedly had “sought significant amounts of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear program that could require it.”

Separately, President Bush, in his speech to the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 12, said Iraq had made “several attempts to buy-high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”

Doubts about both claims began to emerge shortly after U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq last November. In early December, the IAEA began an intensive investigation of the aluminum tubes, which Iraq had tried for two years to purchase by the tens of thousands from China and at least one other country. Certain types of high-strength aluminum tubes can be used to build centrifuges, which enrich uranium for nuclear weapons and commercial power plants.

By early January, the IAEA had reached a preliminary conclusion: The 81mm tubes sought by Iraq were “not directly suitable” for centrifuges, but appeared intended for use as conventional artillery rockets, as Iraq had claimed. The Bush administration, meanwhile, stuck to its original position while acknowledging disagreement among U.S. officials who had reviewed the evidence.

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Bush said Iraq had “attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”

Last month, Powell likewise dismissed the IAEA’s conclusions, telling U.N. leaders that Iraq would not have ordered tubes at such high prices and with such exacting performance ratings if intended for use as ordinary rockets. Powell specifically noted that Iraq had sought tubes that had been “anodized,” or coated with a thin outer film — a procedure that Powell said was required if the tubes were to be used in centrifuges.

Full Text & Links

[Lazarus Long]

I just found this old proverb that I think deserves to be looked at in relation to the larger issues involved with what we see taking place.

"This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job.

Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.

It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anyone could have."

--Anonymous.

Or maybe Any Mouse, or Some Mouse that... "Roars"

[bobdrake12]

I just found this old proverb that I think deserves to be looked at in relation to the larger issues involved with what we see taking place.

Lazarus Long,

Can you tranlate your "old proverb"?

By the way, The Battalion Online has an article which I am displaying below. How does that relate with the way you feel about the Iraq War?

bob

http://www.thebatt.c...7/3e690973c0a57



Antiwar protesters are not anti-American protesters


March 07, 2003


response to Mail Call on March 6:

Many Americans have taken the misguided and reckless opinion of the Bush Administration in which this war is a protective and moral imperative and many have not. Those who have stood up against such hubris are not, by any means, Anti-American as the Limbaughs, O'Reilleys and Matthew Maddoxes of this world constantly claim. These are the people who do not have a programmed reaction to any and everything this administration does.

These are people who have the courage to stand up against what they feel is wrong and the intellectual depth to understand the importance of global coalitions and diplomacy. It is not a protest of our troops or our military who are simply following orders, we support them in everything they do for our country, it is speaking out against the inept leadership of George W. Bush on the issue of this war.

We have seen these protests from California to New York and Barcelona to Beijing, who are we to ignore the world and just do whatever we want. We are standing up and saying we choose life over death, stability over uncertainty, diplomacy over force, we choose peace over the Bush Doctrine. We must remember we are only a super power until all the other countries have nuclear weapons which is not far away.

Keep speaking out and write your congressman. This war probably cannot be stopped but remember in the 2004 presidential election who is responsible for sending all of our young troops over there to fight a war because of a gut feeling.

Justin Hill

Class of 2004

[bobdrake12]

I just want to say again that besides the terrorism and WMD arguments for the police action in Iraq, there is a extremely compelling humanitarian argument. People are being tortured and terrorized at this very moment. We should help stop this.

Mind,

How do you feel about the following?


bob

http://news.independ...sp?story=384604




America admits suspects died in interrogations

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles

07 March 2003


American military officials acknowledged yesterday that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul – reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives.

A spokesman for the air base confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was "homicide", contradicting earlier accounts that one had died of a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism.

The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive, known only as Dilawar, 22, from the Khost region, died from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a "blunt force injury".

US officials previously admitted using "stress and duress" on prisoners including sleep deprivation, denial of medication for battle injuries, forcing them to stand or kneel for hours on end with hoods on, subjecting them to loud noises and sudden flashes of light and engaging in culturally humiliating practices such as having them kicked by female officers.

While the US claims this still constitutes "humane" treatment, human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have denounced it as torture as defined by international treaty. The US has also come under heavy criticism for its reported policy of handing suspects over to countries such as Jordan, Egypt or Morocco, where torture techniques are an established part of the security apparatus. Legally, Human Rights Watch says, there is no distinction between using torture directly and subcontracting it out.

Some American politicians have argued that torture could be justified in this case if it helped prevent terror attacks on US citizens. Jonathan Turley, a prominent law professor at George Washington University, countered that embracing torture would be "suicide for a nation once viewed as the very embodiment of human rights".

Torture is part of a long list of concerns about the Bush administration's respect for international law, after the extrajudicial killing of al-Qa'ida suspects by an unmanned drone in Yemen and the the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a number of whom have committed or attempted to commit suicide.

President Bush appeared to encourage extra-judicial solutions in his State of the Union address in January when he talked of al-Qa'ida members being arrested or meeting "a different fate". "Let's put it this way," he said in a tone that appalled many, "they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies."

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[bobdrake12]

http://www.globeandm...y/International



Documents linking Iraq to uranium were forged (excerpts)

By JEFF SALLOT

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Ottawa — Secret documents detailing attempts by Iraq to buy uranium for nuclear warheads from Niger are forgeries, the UN's nuclear watchdog agency says.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Friday his investigators and independent document examination experts have determined the letters and other written material are "not authentic."

The forgeries were sold to an Italian intelligence agent by a con man some time ago and passed on to French authorities, but the scam was uncovered by the IAEA only recently, according to United Nations sources familiar with the investigation. The documents were turned over to the IAEA several weeks ago.

In fact, the IAEA says, there is no credible evidence that Iraq tried to import uranium ore from the Central African country in violation of UN resolutions.

"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of these uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are, in fact, not authentic," Mr. ElBaradei told the UN Security Council Friday.

"We have also concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded," he said.

Mr. ElBaradei also said there is no reason to believe Iraq has been able to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

IAEA inspectors have found "no indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected site," he said.

His report is yet another blow to U.S. efforts to convince the Security Council that the regime of Saddam Hussein is secretly trying to develop nuclear warheads and other weapons of mass destruction and that it must be disarmed by force.

The forgeries were the work of a con man who simply saw an opportunity to make some money, the sources say.

There is no evidence that the forgeries were part of a dirty tricks operation by the United States or any other government to discredit Iraq, even though U.S. and British officials said the documents supported their case against the Baghdad regime.

A British intelligence report made public last month by Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, supposedly documenting Iraqi efforts to build weapons of mass destruction, later proved to be plagiarized in large part from an academic paper written by a scholar in California.

The forged nuclear documents were a "clever cut-and-paste job" that on the face of it indicate Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger between 1999 and 2001, one of the sources said.

© 2003 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc.

Edited by bobdrake12, 08 March 2003 - 10:14 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Lazarus Long,

Can you tranlate your "old proverb"?

By the way, The Battalion Online has an article which I am displaying below. How does that relate with the way you feel about the Iraq War?

bob

First off Bob I agree with the premise and clear message of the article and second I heard a very similar Editorial from a Marine Commander who works for Military Intelligence an went on NPR to give almost the same lecture to the general public yesterday. He told the story of remembering to call his X-girlfriend from time to time just to make sure he heard what the "Other Side" believed.

He felt this was necessary and that much of what she said from time to time he fervently disagreed with but ALWAYS respected and found useful. And that it also kept reminding WHY he was a proud American and willing to "ship out" to defend her right to disagree and the rest of our values that we hold so sacred.

As to the first part it might be seen as this:

Everybody = All the Worlds Nations, and/or The United Nations

Somebody = One Nation, or a small mulitlateral coalition of specific interests that take a unilateral approach, Specifically the United States in this instance.

Anybody = All the individuals that comprise humanity, and our various smaller Nation/States and Special Interest groups together

Nobody = No one, and/or the opposition, apathy, disinterest, ignorance and complacency.

It is just my take on the symbolism of the proverb and events but I do see that there is a kind of frenetic DEMAND to do something, anything as long as something is finally done. Ironically it is just this urge that both gets the greatest achievements accomplished and precipitates the most catastrophic disasters.