THIS FAR AND NO FURTHER

Written and Compiled by Black Max

December 2003, Week Three

Page Two

 

• December 18: The Bush administration continues its efforts to make Iraq's lack of WMDs a "nonissue,"

  Prewar intelligence on Iraq

  taking its cue from Bush's already-famous shrug-off of the question to interviewer Diane Sawyer: "So, what's the difference?" "This was a pre-emptive war, and the rationale was that there was an imminent threat," responds Democratic senator Bob Graham, who has said that by elevating Iraq to the most dangerous menace facing the United States, the administration unwisely diverted resources from fighting al-Qaeda and other terrorists. The overwhelming vote in Congress last year to authorize the use of force against Iraq would have been closer "but for the fact that the president had so explicitly said that there were weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to citizens of the United States," says Graham. The New York Times observes, "In trying to build public and international support for toppling Mr. Hussein, the administration cited, with different emphasis at different times, the banned weapons, links between the Iraqi leader and terrorist organizations, a desire to liberate the Iraqi people and a policy of bringing democracy to the Middle East. When it came to describing the weapons program, Mr. Bush never hedged before the war. 'If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -— and we do -— does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?' Mr. Bush asked during a speech in Cincinnati in October 2002. In the weeks after the fall of Baghdad in April, the White House was equally explicit. 'One of the reasons we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction,' Ari Fleischer, then the White House spokesman, told reporters on May 7. 'And nothing has changed on that front at all.' On Wednesday [press secretary Scott] McClellan, when pressed, only restated the president's belief that weapons would eventually be found. Mr. Bush, despite being asked repeatedly about the issue in different ways by Ms. Sawyer, never did say it, except to note Mr. Hussein's past use of chemical weapons. He emphasized Mr. Hussein's capture instead." (New York Times)

Courts grant rights to enemy combatants and Guantanamo detainees

• December 18: A federal appeals court rules that detainees being held by the US military at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba should have access to lawyers and the US court system, and says that their detention is contrary to US ideals and US law.

  Terrorism detainees and "enemy combatants"

  It refuses to accept the argument that the US government has "unchecked authority." The ruling relates to the case of a Libyan national captured in Afghanistan and currently being held at Guantanamo. "Even in times of national emergency," reads the ruling, "...it is the obligation of the judicial branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the executive branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike." It adds it could not accept the position that anyone under the jurisdiction and control of the US could be held without "recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement." The decision comes shortly after another US federal appeals court ruled that US authorities did not have the power to detain American citizen Jose Padilla as an "enemy combatant." (BBC)
• December 18: Iran will sign the agreement to allow intrusive inspections of its nuclear sites on Thursday, according to Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh.

  Iran's nuclear program

  Aghazadeh, also the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, says signing the agreement would demonstrate Iran's commitment to peaceful uses of nuclear power. "Iran has decided to sign the protocol to prove that the Iranian nuclear program is for civilian purposes," he says. "signing the protocol will also end the propaganda campaign against the nuclear program." On October 21, Iran agreed under international pressure to sign the additional protocol to the nonproliferation treaty. During a visit by the foreign ministers of Britain, Germany and France, Iran agreed to suspend its uranium-enrichment program and allow unfettered inspections but demanded technical cooperation for its peaceful nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency condemned Iran's 18-year-old secret nuclear program last month and said it had produced small amounts of plutonium, which is needed for making nuclear weapons. Iran's major nuclear partner, Russia, refused this week to deliver nuclear fuel unless Iran signed the protocol. Russia helped Iran build a reactor in the southern city of Bushehr. (New York Times/Arizona Daily Star)
• December 18: Pentagon auditors accuse Halliburton of refusing to turn over documents that show the company was aware of "significant internal control weaknesses" in an Iraq fuel contract that has allegedly overcharged taxpayers nearly $100 million.

  Halliburton

  The accusation was made in a previously undisclosed December 10 letter from the Defense Contract Audit Agency to a top official at Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary handling more than $5 billion of work in Iraq. The letter says that KBR's refusal to turn over the internal audit "is not in the spirit of open communication, trust and cooperation." A preliminary investigation shows that KBR may have overcharged the Pentagon $61 million for gasoline in Iraq; a full investigation is underway. Says KBR president Randy Harl, "We believe our response proves KBR delivered fuel to Iraq at the best value, the best price and the best terms." The preliminary audit indicates that KBR was well aware of the overcharging long before government auditors became aware of it. (Wall Street Journal/Smart Money)

Purging of White House Web site

• December 18: The White House is indulging in its own revision of history by purging government Web sites of statements and facts that document its lies and missteps.

  Secrecy of Bush administration

  On April 23, Bush sent top international aid official Andrew Natsios on national television to reassure the world that the cost of war and reconstruction in Iraq would be modest: "In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this." That statement has proven to be markedly untrue, with the administration requesting over $166 billion in such funds for 2003 alone. Bush officials have ordered the State Department to purge its Web site of the comments by Natsios, along with the links to the transcript. When asked about the purge, a Bush spokesman lied, saying that ABC News was forcing the government to pay to keep the transcript on its site, an assertion flatly denied by ABC and proven wrong by the fact that plenty of other government sites routinely post links to ABC interview transcripts at no charge. Such Web site changes are not new. After the invasion in Iraq proved to be more troublesome than first expected, the White House edited the original headline on its Web site of President Bush's May 1 speech, "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended," to insert the word 'Major' before the word 'Combat.' More recently, the Justice Department redacted criticism of the department in a consultant's report that had been posted on its Web site.
• The Washington Post writes, "since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, administration Web sites have been scrubbed for anything vaguely sensitive, and passwords are now required to access even much unclassified information. Though it is not clear whether the White House is directing the changes, several agencies have been following a similar pattern. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and USAID have removed or revised fact sheets on condoms, excising information about their effectiveness in disease prevention, and promoting abstinence instead. The National Cancer Institute, meanwhile, scrapped claims on its Web site that there was no association between abortion and breast cancer." Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, says the Natsios case is particularly pernicious. "This smells like an attempt to revise the record, not just to withhold information but to alter the historical record in a self-interested way, and that is sleazier than usual," he says. "If they simply said, 'We made an error; we underestimated,' people could understand it and deal with it." (Washington Post, Daily Misleader)
• December 18: President Bush visits wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center,

  US veterans

  and tells them, "We have made a commitment to the troops, and we have made a commitment to their loved ones, and that commitment is that we will provide excellent health care -- excellent care -- to anybody who is injured on the battlefield." The actions of Bush's administration stand in stark contrast to his promise to those wounded soldiers. His administration is fighting the attempt to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health insurance system, which is doubly egregrious considering that 1 in 5 Guard members have no health insurance whatsoever. Bush has proposed cutting $1.5 billion, or 14% of total funds, from funding for military family housing and medical facilities; this fell on the heels of his 2002 budget, which fell $1.5 billion short of adequately funding veterans care. Less than a year ago, Bush visited the medical hospital, and then on the same day announced his proposal to cut off 164,000 veterans from the VA's prescription drug discount program. Right now, over 235,000 veterans are currently waiting 6 months or more for initial medical appointments, with many veterans waiting 2 years just to be seen by a doctor. At Ft. Stewart, Georgia, hundreds of sick and wounded US soldiers, including many who served in the Iraq war, are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait, sometimes for months, to see doctors. This administration appears, in some cases, to be denying benefits to soldiers wounded in Iraq -- specifically, many soldiers say they are seeing their pay and health benefits severely reduced after they are badly wounded. This in no way can be construed as providing "excellent health care" to US military personnel. (White House, Daily Misleader)

Evidence surfacing that info about Hussein's capture was false

• December 18: Conflicting stories are arising surrounding the capture of Saddam Hussein.

  Iraq war and occupation

  The official American version is that the concerted investigation (along with the arrests and detentions of over 10,000 Iraqis) that yielded one piece of information after another helped achieve the successful result. But the story from the Kurdish Patriotic Union is different. According to Jalal Talabani, the leader of the KPU, it was his men who uncovered Saddam's hiding place and it was a force comprised of his men, together with the American forces, that nabbed Saddam. And other Kurds dispute that story. Another Kurdish faction, led by Massoud Barzani, claim that Talabani's men had nothing to do with Saddam's capture and that this is not the first time Talabani's men are taking credit for capturing senior Iraqis without any basis in reality. "If they had let us run our intelligence network in the past eight months, we would have found him first," says one of Barzani's men. Certainly US intelligence in Iraq has been limited at best, and at times approaches the level of abject incompetence. As of now, though the US story is already crafted and has taken hold in the public perception of the US citizenry, it is hard to say exactly how Hussein was captured. (Ha'aretz [cached Google copy])
• December 18: Dr. David Kay, the head of the Bush-appointed team to investigate Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, is leaving the team as early as February.

  Prewar intelligence on Iraq

  Kay cites personal and family reasons for his departure. Much of his team has been diverted from the weapons hunt to help search for Iraqi insurgents, and few believe that any weaponry will be discovered. "They took away a lot of his folks, some critical people, the linguists and analysts," says Democrat Jane Harman, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. Harman, a war hawk and moderate conservative, says that Kay's departure would be "a big loss" because he has been "apolitical and thorough." She adds, "I don't think it will set back the effort a lot; I'm not personally convinced there's anything there."
• Kay let the CIA's George Tenet know in early December that he was leaving, not for the "personal and family" reasons given to the press, but because of the lack of success that his Iraq Survey Group was having in finding Iraqi WMDs, and because Donald Rumsfeld has finally succeeded in forcing the ISG to take on other missions aside from the WMD hunt. Tenet doesn't want Kay to leave, but doesn't try to talk him out of it; he is most worried that Kay will begin giving revealing interviews to the press, or perhaps write a book. Kay agrees to stay on the CIA payroll as a consultant, which gives Tenet some control over Kay.
• Shortly thereafter, Kay meets with senior CIA official Charles Allen, who tells Kay of a highly covert operation to gather intelligence about WMDs eight months before the March 2003 invasion, a project so secret it wasn't even in the files. Kay has heard nothing of this project, similar to the "Dead Souls Project" ran after the collapse of the USSR that tracked down and paid Soviet weapons scientists to find out what they knew. The highly clandestine program, which had proven quite dangerous for some of the Iraqi "assets," had turned up nothing, but the lack of evidence was viewed in the CIA as a failure of the program and not evidence of a lack of WMDs. Kay was offended that he hadn't been told of the program. But, he later reflects, he couldn't be sure who had known of it outside of the CIA. Bush probably didn't know, Kay believes, and neither did Colin Powell. "I don't think Condi [Rice] asked or was told." Later, then-deputy CIA director John McLaughlin says the program was small and inconclusive, and didn't believe anything had been suppressed. (Washington Post, Bob Woodward)
• December 18: A dozen Iraqi human rights leaders write a joint letter to CPA administrator Paul Bremer complaining about the subserviant role of women in the "new" Iraq.

  Iraq war and occupation

  "Women make up 60 percent of the population of Iraq; they are educated, motivated, and represent the voice of moderation and tolerance," says the letter. "Despite these facts, the CPA appointed only 3 women to the 25-member Interim Governing Council. This set a horrible precedent for Iraq and resulted in further acts of discrimination." The lack of representation of women in government has allowed local councils to pursue an anti-women right's agenda and raises concerns about the future of women in Iraq, says the letter, including: women on the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) are not allowed to serve on the Presidential Council; no women being selected for the Constitutional Committee or the new Fundamental Law Committee that will write Iraq's interim Constitution; only one female deputy minister, although the CPA committed to at least five; the CPA-appointed provincial councils are dominated by men who have either ignored unofficial CPA quotas for women, or have selected women they can control and intimidate; local councils in parts of Iraq are excluding women from positions of power. (US NewsWire)
• December 18: Britain's Sky News has been fined for faking a story during the invasion of Iraq.

  Conservative media slant

  Sky claimed to have a live exclusive showing a missile being fired at Iraq from the British Royal Navy submarine HMS Splendid. It later emerged that at the time of the supposed firing the submarine had been docked, with the dramatic coverage comprising a mixture of library footage and a fake missile launch process staged for the cameras by the crew. Reporter James Forlong, who produced the report, has resigned in July, and committed suicide in October. Britain's Independent Television Commission ruled that his report breached guidelines on accuracy and misled viewers: "Audiences are reliant on the accuracy of news reports, particularly during times of war." (News.com [Australia])

Court rules against Bush administration in Padilla detention

• December 18: A federal appeals court declares that Bush has no authority to detain Jose Padilla, the so-called "dirty bomb" suspect, as an enemy combatant.

  Terrorism detainees and "enemy combatants"

  The court orders Padilla's release from military custody within 30 days. If the ruling stands, the US government will either be forced to try Padilla in open court or release him. "Under any scenario, Padilla will be entitled to the constitutional protections extended to other citizens," says the decision: "The President's inherent constitutional powers do not extend to the detention as an enemy combatant of American citizens without express congressional authorization." Padilla will be entitled to the constitutional protections extended to other citizens." In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says Padilla's detention was not authorized by Congress and that Bush could not designate him as an enemy combatant without the authorization. Such authorization, it says, is required under the Non-Detention Act, legislation passed in 1971 partly in response to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. "As this court sits only a short distance from where the World Trade Center stood, we are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al-Qaida poses to our country and of the responsibilities the president and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation," the court writes. "But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the president is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress." In a dissenting opinion, the third judge says the president as commander in chief "has the inherent authority to thwart acts of belligerency at home or abroad that would do harm to United States citizens." He adds that Padilla is entitled to counsel.
• The White House said the ruling was inconsistent with the president's constitutional authority as well as with other court rulings. "The president's most solemn obligation is protecting the American people," White House press secretary Scott McClellan responds. "We believe the 2nd Circuit ruling is troubling and flawed. The president has directed the Justice Department to seek a stay, and further judicial review." Chris Dunn, a staff attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union, calls the ruling "historic." He continues, "It's a repudiation of the Bush administration's attempt to close the federal courts to those accused of terrorism." The group had submitted a legal brief supporting Padilla. "It's right on the money," adds Barbara Olshansky, deputy legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which argued in court papers that Bush lacked authority. "This is by far the biggest legal setback the administration has faced in the war on terrorism," says David Cole, a professor of constitutional law. "This is a great day for liberty. It says that US citizens cannot be locked up on the say-so of one man, even if that man is president of the United States." "The pendulum is swinging back," says Elisa Massimino of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, which filed a brief in the case. "Even in a post-9/11 world, the president does not stand above the law and the Constitution." Neal Sonnett, chairman of the American Bar Association's Task Force on Treatment of Enemy Combatants, notes that Padilla's guilt or innocence isn't the question; the issue is whether the Bush administration has defined its war on terrorism so broadly as to blur constitutional distinctions. "None of us want to see a dirty bomber walk free," Sonnett says. "But the government cannot declare that the entire world is a combat zone in which the Constitution doesn't apply." (AP/Guardian, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post)
• December 18: Democrats Henry Waxman and John Dingell write a letter to Rear Admiral David Nash, the director of the Iraq Program Management Office.

  Iraq war and occupation

  Waxman and Dingell claim that Nash's office's plans to award $18.7 billion in contracts for Iraqi reconstruction are "fundamentally flawed." Waxman and Dingell observe that the contract procedure will not foster competitive bids between independent corporations, but will instead award "a few hand-picked companies" effective monopolies over different sectors of the Iraqi economy. "In effect, the Administration is giving contractors in Iraq a virtual blank check," they write. They go on to note that the two largest corporations in Iraq, Halliburton and Bechtel, have established "two massive fiefdoms: Halliburton has a monopoly on all oil work and Bechtel has a monopoly on the remaining construction and restoration work in a variety of sectors, including electricity and public works. Whenever a new oil project is proposed, it is awarded to Halliburton without any price competition from any other company. And whenever a new public works project comes along, it's handed to Bechtel without any price competition from any other company. This absence of price competition leaves the taxpayer susceptible to vastly inflated costs. ...Like Bechtel and Halliburton, several large corporations will receive massive contracts worth billions of dollars without ever having to demonstrate an ability to complete specific projects at lower costs than other companies. This may be a good arrangement for the contractors, but it's not a good deal for the taxpayers." (Henry Waxman)
• December 18: The Pentagon has decided to award the same campaign medals to US soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

  US military

  The decision, which is unpopular with a large number of active-duty troops and retired veterans, is aimed at, according to the Washington Post, "subtly convey[ing] a central -- if increasingly controversial -- tenet of their worldview: that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the same seamless global military fight against terror." Experts calls the decision politically motivated, and say that it breaks with a longstanding tradition of giving different campaign ribbons for different geographic areas of conflict, no matter how related they may have been. The Post says, "The collection of ribbons and medals worn on the left breast of a military uniform tells a unique story of individual service to the country, career achievement and sometimes valor in combat. These awards are easily identified by the initiated and serve as a kind of résumé of past service. They are proudly worn, and there is enormous attention to detail. The burnt orange of the Vietnam service ribbon is readily identified on the generation that served in Southeast Asia, as are the awards for military service of later generations of soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines in Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf War, Bosnia and Kosovo. The Bush Pentagon is not denying campaign ribbons to worthy veterans, but it is denying them recognition for their distinctive service and individual accomplishments by merging Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom in the commemorative process. As their names suggest, these were two separate operations in military terms, fought in two theaters against two different enemies with two different sets of military objectives. Let's remedy this situation quickly by returning to the age-honored tradition of recognizing and honoring our servicemen and women for their specific service in Afghanistan and Iraq and keep politics out the business of acknowledging service to the nation in times of war." (Washington Post)
• December 18: Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich says

  Iraq war and occupation

  that the capture of Saddam Hussein provides the perfect opportunity for US troops to pull out of Iraq. "If we don't bring them home now, they'll be there for years," he says. "We need to bring in UN peacekeepers and bring our troops home." (Quad City Times)
• December 18: Columnist William Pfaff predicts that the capture of Saddam Hussein will increase, not decrease, tensions in Iraq.

  Iraq war and occupation

  He notes that as long as the Shi'ite majority had reason to fear a return to power of Hussein and his Ba'ath party, they had reason to cooperate with the US occupation; now with Hussein safely in custody, they are free to push for power. "Until now, the most important Shiite leaders have remained, objectively, allies, or at least neutrals, in Washington's effort to control the country," Pfaff writes. "They now will become active players in the emerging political power struggle. Since they can bring millions into the streets, as demonstrators or as fighters, practicing a version of Islam with a powerful emotional component of suicidal self-sacrifice, they are potentially a more important force than Saddam could ever have mobilized as underground leader or as martyr." The Sunni minority, long the most powerful force in Iraqi governance, now must fight to regain its former status. While a coalition government of all interested parties -- not only Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds, but also Turkoman, Christians, and others -- might be what the US would most favor, a strong US presence would be required to stay in order to maintain the precarious balance. "A continued American presence would run into the obstacle of Iraqi nationalism, which this war has inflamed, and rob the Shiites of the dominant political role," Pfaff writes.
• A more authoritarian government, possibly of the same Sunnis who formerly dominated the country, is said to be strongly favored among some Bush administration officials, who are accustomed to working with this kind of Arab government, but again, nationalist and sectarian interests are the obstacles. The US flatly does not want a theocratic government dominated by the Shi'ites to take control of Iraq: "shiite majority rule would incorporate a powerful bias toward theocratic government of the Iranian kind, which is what Washington does not want." Iraqi author Zaki Laidi sums it up by saying that "the Shi'ites, who in the majority seem to have at least implicitly backed the American intervention, cannot find durable political legitimacy other than by opposing the United States, while the Sunnis, who lost most in the American intervention, would be Washington's best allies against the Shiites' taking power." (Tribune Media Services/International Herald Tribune)
• December 18: Ha'aretz correspondent Roger Alpher compares the media frenzy over the capture of Saddam Hussein to the media's crafting of public opinion in George Orwell's 1984.

  Iraq war and occupation

  He writes, "[T]he American media treatment of his capture is an Orwellian nightmare for the following reasons: The main reason America went to war in Iraq was the claim that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing and in possession of weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to expose to international inspectors and which he refuses to dismantle. America claimed that if he exposed and destroyed those weapons, Iraq would not be attacked. It presented apparent evidence that strengthened its argument against Saddam. It was against the background of those assertions that the US invaded Iraq and continues to hold it under occupation. However, the weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found. Now there is serious doubt if they ever existed from the start. Maybe some will yet be found. Until they are found, any reasonable media consumer should doubt American motives for the invasion of Iraq and suspect they have fallen victim to the use of lies or errors to shape their opinion. After all, the war was only a means to discover the weapons of mass destruction.
• ...[T]he truth should be demanded -- and right now, it is being blurred. The images of the humiliated Saddam were another and most significant building block in the changing dynamic of the public relations campaign of this war. It is a form of brainwashing. The pictures were broadcast non-stop, innumerable times. They sent the message to the planet's residents that the goal of the war was not the discovery of weapons of mass destruction but the capture and humiliation of Saddam Hussein. Saddam, to use the language of the American media, is the 'Bad Guy.' America, according to that same lexicon is a nation of Good Guys. The good won. That's all that matters. Nothing else is important. Americans should hate Saddam Hussein even though no weapons of mass destruction were found. The pictures emanating from the screens are accompanied by implied imperative from commentators: hate, hate, hate. A critical consumer of the media should be worried, uncomfortable. The hypnotic images aren't fading from the screen and they present the public with its enemy, a kind of devil, even though the declared casus belli has disintegrated, or regrettably, is very shaky.
• Moreover, the images are the message. The images are the victory. The hunt inside the mouth of the deposed tyrant, the search through his hair for lice, his own neglected and battered image, his general pitiable state, the sheer defeat of the enemy of the American nation -- Orwell envisioned it all in 1984. That's what happened to the saboteur Winston Smith; that's how the dissident Goldstein looked when his image was broadcast on the huge screens. The message was that it is impossible to escape the long and determined arm of the empire and that Saddam's body, even his body, was occupied. He did not swallow cyanide, didn't shoot himself and didn't fire at the soldiers. The Americans wanted him alive to show him off to the world, on the TV screens, and prove, as in 1984, that they broke his spirit, defeated his resistance. The dead Winston Smith was useless to the oppressive regime depicted in Orwell's novel. A live Winston Smith, his spirit broken, was the great victory, to be shown and feared.
• ...Once again it was made evident that the media front, which shapes public opinion, particularly through TV, has the greatest impact. It makes one forget the bleak and cloudy Iraqi future under an American occupation with no end in sight. It erases from the consciousness information about the bodies of American soldiers who are dying in a war that was officially justified by a reason that has evaporated. It sears the consciousness of the viewers with visual images saturated with symbolism that fan the flames of feelings. It reduces everything to the simplistic matter of 'good' and 'bad,' 'victory' and 'defeat.' It makes the American governor in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, speak like a copywriter in an advertising agency or an astronaut landing on the moon equipped with a finely honed slogan ready to be written into the chronicles of mankind. As a result of the images, the humiliation of Saddam appears to be a goal unto itself. Ridiculously, it now justifies the entire war effort, even though if Secretary of State Colin Powell had gone to the UN Security Council to claim that America must invade Iraq to turn Saddam into a homeless man, public opinion would have been shocked and outraged. There is no evading the feeling that the well-oiled propaganda machinery managed in this case to rewrite history and that public opinion has bought it. Fortunately, Saddam really is a bastard. But such passive public opinion is a horrifying sight to behold." (Ha'aretz/Rense)
• December 18: Columnist Robert Novak, usually a reliable shill for the administration, expresses his doubts over the rebuilding of Iraq in the wake of the Hussein capture.

  Iraq war and occupation

  He begins by quoting an e-mail from one high-ranking civilian to another: "My opinion is that CPA (the U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority) is a living breathing [obscenity]. It is beyond negligent or even criminal. It is tragic in the Greek sense." He continues, "The Bush administration has spent a lot of time saying how well things have gone in Iraq, contending the happy truth has been obscured by negative news media coverage. This is privately described by officials as the 'smoke and mirrors' technique. Nobody has recognized that more clearly than Jerry [Paul] Bremer [civilian head of the CPA]. He was not summoned to Washington when he volunteered for a brief visit Nov. 11. He wanted to tell the president personally just how bad things really were in Iraq and, in fact, got a rare one-on-one meeting with Bush. The inadequate, unrealistic planning for the occupation of Iraq will never be admitted publicly, but it is common knowledge at high levels of the administration. The notion that Iraqi exiles could step in to run the country, pressed on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by his civilian advisory board, was a chimera. Bremer, bearing credentials as an anti-terrorist expert, was brought in May 7 with the US occupation already in disarray. Esteemed though he is as a public servant, Bremer lacks experience administering large complex organizations." Novak says that the addition of two deputies to the CPA's administrative structure, Richard Jones and Lieutenant General Joseph Kellogg, will help to get the rebuilding moving in the right direction. Jones is an Arabic-speaking veteran foreign service officer who has been the U.S. ambassador to Kuwait the last two years, and Kellogg is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Chicago Sun-Times)

---

New evidence proving Rumsfeld visited Hussein in 1983 and 1984 to support his regime even after Hussein's use of banned chemical weapons

• December 19: Newly released documents reveal Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq in 1983 and 1984 to show America's support for the regime even after it had used banned chemical weapons against both Iranians and its own citizens.

  Prewar intelligence on Iraq

  Rumsfeld's visits were made, according to the documents, to defang ostensible US criticism of Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and to reinforce the US commitment to backing Iraq in its war with Iran. Earlier this year, Rumsfeld and Bush administration officials regularly cited Iraq's willingness to use chemical weapons against his own people as evidence of the threat presented to the rest of the world. They presented the attacks against the Kurds, particularly the notorious attack in Halabja in 1988, as a justification for the invasion and the ousting of Saddam. But the newly declassified documents reveal that 20 years ago America's position was different and that the administration of President Ronald Reagan was concerned about maintaining good relations with Iraq despite evidence of Saddam's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish rebels. In March 1984, under international pressure, America condemned Iraq's use of such chemical weapons. Realizing that Baghdad had been upset, Secretary of State George Schultz asked Rumsfeld to travel to Iraq as a special envoy to meet Saddam's Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, and smooth matters over. In a briefing memo to Rumsfeld, Shultz wrote that he had met Iraqi officials in Washington to stress that America's interests remained "in (1) preventing an Iranian victory and (2) continuing to improve bilateral relations with Iraq."
• The memo adds: "This message bears reinforcing during your discussions." Four months previously, Rumsfeld had met with Saddam Hussein, and was photographed shaking hands with the dictator. Rumsfeld earlier claimed he visited Iraq to warn Hussein about the US's opposition to its use of chemical weapons. The documents prove that Rumsfeld lied about his visit. Tom Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive, a non-profit group that obtained the documents, says, "Saddam had chemical weapons in the 1980s and it didn't make any difference to US policy. The embrace of Saddam and what it emboldened him to do should caution us as Americans that we have to look closely at all our murky alliances." And Danny Muller, a spokesman for the anti-war group Voices in the Wilderness, says the documents revealed America's "blatant hypocrisy." He adds: "This is not an isolated event. Continuing administrations have said 'we will do business'. I am surprised that Donald Rumsfeld does not resign right now." Tom Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archives, a Washington-based research center, says the secret support for Hussein offers a lesson for US foreign relations in the post-9/11 world: "The dark corners of diplomacy deserve some scrutiny, and people working in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Uzbekistan deserve this kind of scrutiny, too, because the relations we're having with dictators today will produce Saddams tomorrow." (Washington Post, Independent, Information Clearinghouse [video clip of Rumsfeld's meeting with Saddam])
• December 19: New York City's comptroller, William Thompson, asks Halliburton to release more details about its business dealings in Iran.

  Halliburton

  Thompson, who manages the New York police and fire department pension funds, has been agitating for months for Halliburton's board to reconsider doing business in Iran because of that country's links to terrorism. Federal law bars American citizens from doing business in Iran, but independent foreign subsidiaries of US firms can operate there. The two New York funds have about $31 million invested in Halliburton. "If we are trying to eradicate terrorism, we must ensure that companies in our portfolio are not using offshore subsidiaries to legally evade United States sanctions against terrorist-sponsoring states," says Thompson. Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall responds: "We hope that the [comptroller's] office is not playing politics with pension funds." In March, Halliburton officials promised to detail the company's Iranian operations. In exchange, Thompson agreed to withdraw a shareholder proposal urging the board to reconsider doing business in Iran. In October, Halliburton sent Thompson a report stamped "confidential." Company officials hoped the information would remain secret until Halliburton issues its 2003 annual report next year. Thompson, however, posted the report on his Web site. In that document, Halliburton revealed that its Halliburton Products & Services Ltd., a Cayman Islands firm headquartered in the United Arab Emirates, expected to sell more than $39 million worth of oil-field services to customers in Iran this year. In working in Iran, Halliburton said it was competing against the foreign affiliates of a number of other US companies, including Schlumberger, Baker Hughes, Smith International, Weatherford, ABB Vetco Gray, FMC and Cooper-Cameron. Thompson complains the report failed to detail the "potential financial reputational risks" of its operations in Iran. Hall suggests that if Thompson has a problem with the US's Iran policy and with Halliburton's investment strategy for Iran, "we suggest he address that concern to Congress or the executive branch." (Houston Chronicle/Peyk e Iran)
• December 19: Many Republicans, mostly fiscal conservatives, are angry with the huge increases in government spending perpetuated under the Bush administration.

  Bush's economic policies

  According to these conservatives, Bush is a "fraud" and a "disaster" who is betraying the Reagan Revolution and turning the Republican Party into the "the new welfare state party." "This administration has presided over one of the most massive expansions of the federal government in history," says Phil Heimlich, a Republican who serves as a Hamilton County commissioner. "Conservatives feel betrayed," says Brian Reidl, a federal budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "As far as this fiscal conservative is concerned, I'm doing everything I can to expose Bush for the fraud that he is," adds Jim Urling, a Cincinnati lawyer and chairman of a local group that fights government spending and taxes. Representative Mark Souder, a conservative Republican who voted for the Medicare bill, said that small-government Republicans have been stirred up by conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But when the election comes, the libertarian faction's anger will be "almost irrelevant," he said. "It's not to say that there isn't a restlessness and a concern, but at the end of the day you would have a tough time convincing conservatives that George Bush isn't closer to Ronald Reagan than his dad." When people label President Bush a "big government socialist," Souder said, "most conservatives go: 'What? Excuse me?'"
• Last week, 13 Republican House members sent a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert complaining that the last four years had seen the biggest expansion of government in 50 years. A final, massive spending bill for fiscal 2004, passed by the House Monday, would only make matters worse, they said. "Before we pass another massive appropriations bill, we believe Congress must make preparations to put our fiscal house in order," wrote Rep. Jim DeMint, the letter's author. If Congress won't kill the bill, they said, Bush should veto it. The bill sailed through the House but is expected to have trouble passing the Senate. It was the Republicans' message of less government, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility that prompted voters in 1994 to give them control of the House and Senate, says Arizona Republican Jeff Flake. "The message clearly resonated with Americans -- and still does," he said. "If Republicans continue to turn their backs on that message, we risk the voters turning us out of power." "I'm not happy at all," says Tom Brinkman, a Republican state representative from Cincinnati. "The spending is out of control and somebody's going to have to pay for it, and it's my children. And I don't think that's' right." (Gannett/Lancaster Eagle)
• December 19: US soldiers in Iraq still lack the proper body armor to protect them from insurgent bullets.

  Iraq war and occupation

  The Pentagon confirms that at least 40,000 of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq don't have basic Kevlar Interceptor vests or the ceramic plates needed for full protection. Many soldiers are forced to scavenge to find plates left behind by Iraqi soldiers -— plates of inferior quality that do not properly fit or provide protection. At a September House hearing, General John Abizaid, head of all military forces in Iraq, admitted he could not give House members a good reason "why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply." Retailers and manufacturers of the body armor are "deluged" with orders from soldiers and families who are scrambling to provide them with the armor that the US military refuses to provide. The military says that all soldiers should have the proper armor by the end of January. (USA Today/Axis of Logic)
• December 19: The nonpartisan watchdog group FactCheck debunks the Bush administration's claim that 80% of the tax relief given to the rich goes to job-creating small businesses.

  Bush's economic policies

  The organization writes, "This fairy tale was re-told most recently by Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie when he said in a Dec. 3 speech: '80% of the tax relief for upper income filers goes to small businesses.' It's untrue -– and a classic example of a statistical distortion gone amok. It may be true that 79% of upper-income taxpayers have some income from business, but Gillespie's definition of 'small' business actually includes big accounting firms, law firms and real-estate partnerships, and 'businesses' that are really only sidelines -– such as occasional rental income from a corporate chief's ski condo. In fact, tax statistics show that upper-income taxpayers get far more of their income from salaries, capital gains, stock dividends and interest than they do from small business. ...Their method also counts as a 'small business owner' any member of an investment club -- someone who put $50 a month into a pool to buy stocks with friends and then reported a few dollars of dividends and capital gains on a K-1 form from the partnership at the end of the year. And that's not all. Also counted as 'small business owners' would be: a corporate executive who made $500,000 in salary and bonuses, and who also had $3,000 in income from renting out his yacht; a TV anchorwoman making $1 million in salary and reporting $25,000 in speaking fees as Schedule C income; a partner in a national accounting firm who has no side business at all, but who gets a big chunk of his income as a share of the giant partnership's profits. It's silly to call any of these 'small business owners,' but Gillespie went even beyond what the report said. He said 80% of the tax relief went to 'small businesses,' (as opposed to 'owners'). Not even the Republican staff report can back that statement. So how much of the benefit really goes to small business? According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center...business income accounts for just over 22% of the income that will be reported this year by the most affluent American households. Those upper-income taxpayers actually get more from interest, dividends and capital gains than they get from business income, but Gillespie said nothing of the tax benefits on that score." (FactCheck)
• December 19: C-SPAN Baghdad, the satellite link that broadcasts US government-approved news and commentary directly to US media outlets, has debuted to decidedly unenthusiastic responses.

  Media manipulation and marketing by GOP

  The satellite link is designed to put a more "positive," US-friendly spin on events and circumvent the major networks by making it possible for press conferences, interviews with troops and dignitaries, and even footage from the field to be transmitted from Iraq for use by regional and local media outlets, according to news accounts. "I'm kind of appalled by it. I think it's very troubling," says Charles Kravetz, vice president of news at the regional cable news outlet NECN. "I think the government has no business being in the news business." WBZ-TV's news director Peter Brown adds, "We have no interest in this. The Fourth Estate is independent and should remain so. As news providers, we should go there and see for ourselves." Government officials deny that this is an attempt to manage the news. Former ABC reporter Dorrance Smith, who now works for the CPA in Baghdad, says the satellite link, which has functioned for the past several weeks, is "an expansion of our ability to communicate.... Basically, this provides us with the ability to feed back briefing materials and the substance of what is happening in Baghdad to the Pentagon...on a real-time basis. It's for one or for all as opposed to the very few media who are here in Baghdad." WHDH-TV news director Ed Kosowski characterizes the new Iraq feed as "part of a very concerted effort on the part of the Bush administration to get its message out unfiltered." In recent months, the White House has increasingly used local television as a vehicle for countering negative images and stories coming out of Iraq, but many news directors reject the idea of picking up Pentagon material right from Iraq. WCVB-TV news director Coleen Marren says the station is well served by the reporting resources of CNN and ABC and has no use for what she calls "a government-sponsored television station." (Boston Globe)

Proof emerges that NY prison authorities abused innocent detainees

• December 19: Hundreds of videotapes that federal prison officials had claimed were destroyed show that foreign nationals held at a New York detention facility after the 9/11 attacks were victims of physical and verbal abuse by guards, according to the Justice Department's inspector general.

  US torture allegations

  An investigation by Inspector General Glenn Fine also finds that officials at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn improperly taped meetings between detainees and their lawyers, and used excessive strip searches and restraints to punish those in confinement. The report concludes that as many as 20 guards were involved in the abuse, which included slamming prisoners against walls and painfully twisting their arms and hands. Fine recommended discipline for 10 employees and counseling for two others who remain employed by the federal prison system. He also said the government should notify the employers of four former guards about their conduct. "some officers slammed and bounced detainees against the wall, twisted their arms and hands in painful ways, stepped on their leg restraint chains and punished them by keeping them restrained for long periods of time," the report reads. "We determined that the way these MDC staff members handled some detainees was, in many respects, unprofessional, inappropriate and in violation of BOP policy."
• One focus of the report was an American flag T-shirt that hung from a wall at the MDC with the slogan, "These colors don't run." Four corrections employees told investigators that the shirt, which hung in a prisoner receiving area for months, was covered with bloodstains, including some that appeared to have come from detainees being slammed into the wall. A June report by Fine found "a pattern of physical and verbal abuse" at the Brooklyn detention facility's Special Housing Unit, where 84 of the men picked up after the 9/11 attacks, but investigators then that firm conclusions on abuse were impossible in many cases because of the lack of videotapes, which prison administrators said at the time had been destroyed. Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said yesterday that federal prosecutors in Brooklyn and in the department's Civil Rights Division were reviewing the report to determine whether criminal charges were warranted. The Justice Department had previously declined to pursue any prosecutions in the cases. "We agree with the inspector general that even the intense emotional atmosphere surrounding the attacks, particularly in New York City, where smoke was still rising from the rubble of Ground Zero, is no excuse for abhorrent behavior by Bureau of Prisons personnel," says Corallo. "It is unfortunate that the alleged misconduct of a few employees detracts from the fine work done by the correctional personnel at MDC and around the nation, who conducted themselves professionally and appropriately."
• Barbara Olshansky, deputy legal director at the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based civil liberties group that is suing the federal government on behalf of detainees, said the report "is astounding confirmation of what we've alleged all along. This goes into exactly what kind of physical and verbal abuse there was and what the contradictions of the government's position has been. ...It's clear that there was no provocation at any point, and clear that there was no justification for excessive force at any point." A federal dragnet after the Sept. 11 attacks resulted in the detention of more than 1,200 foreign nationals, including 762 people who were the focus of Fine's original probe. Most were of Arab or South Asian descent and were held on immigration violations under a directive from Attorney General John Ashcroft while authorities attempted to determine whether they were connected to the attack or to terrorist groups. None was ever charged with terrorism-related crimes.
• Many of the incidents of abuse were confirmed when investigators viewed more than 300 videotapes recorded from October to November 2001 that showed detainees being moved around the facility and within their cells. Corrections officers who had been interviewed earlier had denied that many of the incidents occurred. MDC Warden Michael Zenk and other officials repeatedly told Fine's investigators that the videotapes had been destroyed as part of a recycling policy. The tapes eventually located in August had not been included on inventory sheets provided by the prison and were held in a storage room that also had not been disclosed to investigators, the report said. Many tapes from the period are still missing, and there are unexplained gaps the ones that were found, the report shows. Many detainees also told investigators that, in the month before the installation of the camera system in October 2001, jail conditions and abuse had been much worse. "If the camera wasn't on, I would have bashed your face," one detainee was allegedly told by a guard. "The camera is your best friend." Fine notes that the prison system's failure to turn over all the videotapes "significantly delayed and hindered our investigation," but "we did not find sufficient evidence to prove it was an effort to cover anything up." He said he remained concerned about allegations of abuse in the weeks before the installation of a video system. "If these incidents are an indication of what was done in front of the camera, what may have occurred without them?" Fine asks. "It's cause for significant concern."
• The public version of the report released yesterday does not name individual corrections officers or detainees, but it does describe in detail an unspecified number of violent incidents captured on film or witnessed by guards and law enforcement officials. Several lieutenants and officers interviewed by investigators indicated that they had seen incidents of abuse. One lieutenant told another that "slamming detainees against the wall was all part of being in jail and not to worry about it." Another MDC officer said in an affidavit that "there were some lieutenants...who would [rein] in an officer for bouncing a detainee against the wall, but there were probably other lieutenants who would let it slide." During two incidents captured on videotape, the report said, "we observed officers...ram them [detainees] into a wall...." In the numerous "slamming" incidents recorded on tape, the report said, there was no evidence that the detainees had provoked or attacked the guards. On more than 40 occasions, the report found, MDC staff members recorded detainees' visits with their attorneys using video cameras set up on tripods outside visiting rooms. The tapes routinely captured "significant portions" of conversations between the detainees and legal counsel. In some cases, detainees were instructed not to speak in Arabic or to speak in English because they were being taped. Such taping is a violation of federal regulations.
• Zenk, the prison warden, told investigators that the cameras were moved farther from the visiting room after an attorney complained in November 2001. But the report says that "as late as February 2002, conversations between detainees and their attorneys are still audible on many of the tapes." Although the taping "potentially stifled detainees' open and free communications with legal counsel," the report notes that some of the recordings include allegations of physical and verbal abuse that were consistent with the allegations being probed. The report found two incidents in which inmates were locked in restraints for more than seven hours despite no signs of resistance. (Washington Post)
• December 19: Wesley Clark, Democratic presidential candidate, calls an ad by the Bush campaign alleging that Clark recently visited Europe to raise foreign money for his campaign "bizarre."

  Conservative smear campaigns

  In an e-mail fundraising letter sent by Bush reelection campaign manager Ken Mehlman, the Bush campaign accuses Democratic presidential candidates of "raising foreign cash to attack our president." It goes on to say, "Wesley Clark, who was in Europe when Saddam Hussein was captured, criticized the president this week and said that rather than going after Saddam, he would have let the United Nations continue to seek the dictator's cooperation." Clark spokesman Matt Bennett says the Clark campaign considered the reference to Clark being in Europe as a sideswipe against Bush's potential opponent. "We don't know why the Bush allies would question Gen. Clark's participation in a trial against a murderous despot," Bennett says. Clark, the former NATO commander, was in The Hague this week to testify in Milosevic's trial before a UN war crimes tribunal on charges including the massacre of 7,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica. Referring to the letter, Bennett says, "That's bizarre, given that the Bush administration actively encouraged Clark to participate in the prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic. The State Department worked closely with Gen. Clark and the prosecution in determining how and when the testimony would be provided." A Bush campaign official who insisted on anonymity says of the reference to Clark's European trip only that "It's a statement of fact. We were describing his location." The fundraising letter says, "Democrats will do or say anything to defeat our president, wild accusations, reckless conspiracy theories and now raising money from foreign anti-American activists. Web sites for Wesley Clark and Howard Dean direct visitors from outside the United States to liberal fund-raising Web sites, where foreign donors can pledge money to fund left-wing efforts to defeat President Bush." Bennett denies the charges as "absurd and pathetic." He notes that among the links on the Clark campaign's Internet site is one to a site called "Canadians for Wesley Clark," which says Canadians cannot donate to the campaign but encourages donations to an independent pro-Clark site. A message on the Canadians for Clark site denies any illegal activities. "Wesley Clark and his campaign have absolutely nothing to do with this web site and...Canada is not a communist nation," it says. The Dean campaign also denies accepting or encouraging any foreign donations to any groups. "It's an absurd and offensive allegation by President Bush's campaign," says Dean spokesman Jay Carson. "These guys just play fast and loose with the facts, and it's another example of it." (Reuters)
• December 19: As the death toll among Iraqi citizens approaches (or exceeds) 10,000,

  Iraq war and occupation

  the ongoing bloodshed is inflaming anti-coalition passions in Iraq and beyond it, encouraging paramilitary organizations and provoking acts of revenge from ordinary Iraqis driven beyond moderation by the deaths of friends and family under the Coalition Provisional Authority's military rule. British and American military spokespersons dodge the issue with obfuscation, as with this statement from UK defense minister Adam Ingram: "Through very strict rules of engagement, the use of precision munitions and the tactical methods employed to liberate Iraq's major cities, we are satisfied that the coalition did everything possible to avoid unnecessary casualties. We do not, therefore, propose to undertake a formal review of Iraqi casualties sustained." The CPA has already ordered the Iraqi health ministry to stop collecting statistics on civilian deaths; Iraqi health minister Dr. Khudair Abbas claims the order came about "because hospitals cannot distinguish between deaths that resulted from the coalition's efforts in the war, common crime among Iraqis, or deaths resulting from Saddam's brutal regime." Such statements are nonsensical on their face. John Sloboda, the co-founder of Iraq Body Count and incoming executive director of the Oxford Research Group, writes, "since the start of hostilities, Iraq Body Count has been tracking civilian deaths through worldwide media reports. We will continue this work until some official agency fulfils its responsibilities to the memory of those who have died since March 19 2003. The innocent victims of the Iraq conflict must be recorded and honoured -- and their relatives compensated -- for it is they who have paid most dearly for the decisions of our politicians." (Guardian)
• December 19: Liberal writer and filmmaker Michael Moore writes of the hundreds of letters he's received from soldiers in Iraq.

  Iraq war and occupation

  "...[T]hey are telling me something very different from what we are seeing on the evening news. What they are saying to me, often eloquently and in heart-wrenching words, is that they were lied to -- and this war has nothing to do with the security of the United States of America." Moore quotes from some of the letters. A Marine writes, "You'd be surprised at how many of the guys I talked to in my company and others believed that the president's scare about Saddam's WMD was a bunch of bullsh*t and that the real motivation for this war was only about money. There was also a lot of crap that many companies, not just Marine companies, had to go through with not getting enough equipment to fulfill their missions when they crossed the border. It was a miracle that our company did what it did the two months it was staying in Iraq during the war.... We were promised to go home on June 8th, and found out that it was a lie and we got stuck doing missions for an extra three months. Even some of the most radical conservatives in our company including our company gunnery sergeant, got a real bad taste in their mouth about the Marine Corps, and maybe even President Bush."
• An Army specialist writes, "Dear Mike -- I'm writing this without knowing if it'll ever get to you. ...I'm writing it from the trenches of a war (that's still going on,) not knowing why I'm here or when I'm leaving. I've toppled statues and vandalized portraits, while wearing an American flag on my sleeve, and struggling to learn how to understand.... I joined the Army as soon as I was eligible -- turned down a writing scholarship to a state university, eager to serve my country, ready to die for the ideals I fell in love with. Two years later I found myself moments away from a landing onto a pitch black airstrip, ready to charge into a country I didn't believe I belonged in, with your words (from the Oscars) repeating in my head. My time in Iraq has always involved finding things to convince myself that I can be proud of my actions; that I was a part of something just. But no matter what pro-war argument I came up with, I pictured my smirking commander-in-chief, thinking he was fooling a nation...."
• An Army private writes, "I would like to tell you how difficult it is to serve under a man who was never elected. Because he is the president and my boss, I have to be very careful as to who and what i say about him. This also concerns me a great deal... to limit the military's voice is to limit exactly what America stands for...and the greater percentage of us feel completely underpowered. He continually sets my friends, my family, and several others in a kind of danger that frightens me beyond belief."
• Another Army member writes, "I have just returned home from 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.' I spent 5 months in Baghdad, and a total of 3 years in the US Army. I was recently discharged with Honorable valor and returned to the States only to be horrified by what I've seen my country turn into. I'm now 22 years old and have discovered America is such a complicated place to live, and moreover, Americans are almost oblivious to what's been happening to their country. America has become '1984.' Homeland security is teaching us to spy on one another and forcing us to become anti-social. Americans are willingly sacrificing our freedoms in the name of security, the same Freedoms I was willing to put my life on the line for. The Constitution is in jeopardy. As Gen. Tommy Franks said, (broken down of course) One more terrorist attack and the Constitution will hold no meaning."
• Moore also hears from parents of soldiers in Iraq. One mother writes, "My son said that this is the worst it's been since the 'end' of the war. He said the troops have been given new rules of engagement, and that they are to 'take out' any persons who aggress on the Americans, even if it results in 'collateral' damage. Unfortunately, he did have to kill someone in self defense and was told by his commanding officer 'Good kill.' My son replied 'You just don't get it, do you? Here we are...Vietnam all over again.'"
• A retired Marine veteran writes, "Why is it that we are forever waving the flag of sovereignty, EXCEPT when it concerns our financial interests in other sovereign states? What gives us the right to tell anyone else how they should govern themselves, and live their lives? Why can't we just lead the world by example? I mean no wonder the world hates us, who do they get to see? Young *ssholes in uniforms with guns, and rich, old, white tourists! Christ, could we put up a worse first impression?" (Michael Moore)
• December 19: Military recruiters are pressuring high-school seniors to consider a military career at an unprecedented level, a practice meeting with resistance among many schools and families.

  US military

  The problem starts with an obscure Federal regulation in Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education act that requires schools to provide military recruiters the names, addresses, and phone numbers of their students. Some systems have designed consent forms for parents to sign and return if they approve of this information being given to the military; during the summer, many systems were informed that the consent forms did not meet federal standards. The consent forms have had to be rewritten to make it much harder for parents to deny military recruiters this information. "It's a George W. Bush thing," says Santa Cruz school board commissioner Cece Pinheiro. "We've been fighting this for some time." One parent has hand-delivered forms to his sons' school in Texas to ensure that the recruiters, who call several times a day at times, will stop. "It's up to parents to tell the schools that, where military recruitment is concerned, they'd prefer their children be left behind," he says. (Christian Science Monitor)
• December 19: The respected media journal Editor and Publisher asks when the US media will stop giving so much credence to discredited and dubious claims about Iraq made by the administration.

  Media manipulation and marketing by GOP

  The article says, "The latest chapter unfolded this week with wide publicity -- capped by a favorable mention in a William Safire column in the New York Times on Monday and the usual hosannas on Fox News -- concerning a supposed document that linked 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta to Saddam Hussein. ...There's only one problem: Just like every other bit of paper linking Saddam to 9/11 (some of them also touted by Safire), the latest document appears to be bogus. Yet many in the press keep taking them seriously." (Editor and Publisher)
• December 19: The Austin Chronicle asks why the Justice Department and the US media refuses to make an issue of a major terrorist arrest in Texas.

  Domestic terrorism

  The FBI arrested two suspects, found a sodium cyanide bomb capable of wreaking destruction on the scale of the Timothy McVeigh bombing of 1995, as well as about 100 other bombs, bomb components, machine guns, chemical agents, and 500,000 rounds of ammunition. They also found documents detailing an apparent scheme to actually use these weapons, some indicating other suspects might still be at large. The two suspects plead guilty. The Chronicle writes: "Big story, right? Huge, right? John Ashcroft throwing the curtain over the naked lady statue so that he can crow at the top of his lungs about how his Justice Department is keeping America safe, right? So why haven't you heard about it? Well for starters, it could be because Ashcroft is not crowing about it, nor is anyone else at Justice. Not one press conference. Just a quietly issued press release. If that defies explanation, some Ashcroft critics think they have one: The suspects were named William J. Krar and Judith L. Bruey, not Mohammed or Omar or Khalid. They aren't Muslims, but alleged white supremacists. And they were caught right here in Texas." Media coverage has been all but non-existent. Even news outlets in Texas have all but ignored the story. Except for a single editorial in the New York Times and coverage on Pacifica Network's Democracy Now feature, the national media has paid no attention. The question is: why not? (Austin Chronicle)
• December 19: Liberal news site Buzzflash interviews Jack Huberman, author of the book The Bush-Haters Handbook.

  George W. Bush

  Huberman, whose book is an overview of the Bush presidency from a liberal viewpoint, tells the interviewer, "I'd have to say that even in an era of big-money politics, of government for sale, this administration goes beyond anything I've seen before. I don't think there's a single thing the Bushies have done that doesn't, in some way, strengthen their hold on power, usually by solidifying the support of their corporate and big-money clientele. Faithfully and generously serving that clientele is this administration's real business. Big business hardly needs lobbyists anymore -- the lobbyists are on the inside now, occupying key positions throughout Bush administration. I think you can even subsume the Iraq war under this heading. The purpose of invading Iraq, if you could reduce it to just one, was to boost Bush's popularity and get him reelected -- to in turn ensure the accomplishment of the right's domestic agenda."
• Of Bush's economic policies, Huberman says, "I've come only slowly to believe it, but I think the Bushies' aim really is to cripple the federal government with record budget deficits, with a view toward strangling the remaining Great Society and New Deal social programs -- just as some critics have argued -- and the new Medicare bill notwithstanding. I'd speculate that at the core of this project -- and one of the core impulses of what I would call elite conservatism, versus populist and religious conservatism -- is an actual hostility or antipathy towards equality as a social goal. Thus, every bit of what we would call progress, every bit of legislation of the past century that aimed to increase economic equality, is in the Bush administration's cross-hairs, not because they believe such efforts are counterproductive economically, and not only because they want the money to go instead toward tax cuts for their most valued supporters and bankrollers, but also, I think, because deep down, many of these people actually believe, whether for Darwinian, religious, or other ideological reasons, that equality is against the natural order of things, that there is supposed to be inequality -- that it is, per se, a good thing. There's no telling how far some of these people want to turn the clock, but I suspect that a return to the much wider class differences of the past is part of their vision."
• Of Bush's image and campaign strategy, Huberman is equally cynical: "Whoever said politics is a beauty contest was on to something. Bush is very well protected against being seen to have any hand in the administration's dirty work. In public -- and I'm speaking about perception only -- Bush has not acted terribly partisan. The really partisan and dirty work is delegated to others, to keep Bush elevated high above the fray. ...Meanwhile, those around him take care of smearing particular opponents as obstructionists or worse. It's really dramatic how different a picture you get when polls ask people about specific Bush policies, on the one hand, versus, 'Do you approve of the job Bush is doing overall;' the latter numbers are always far higher. But the contest in 2004 is going to come down to how well they sell Bush's image as a great leader in the war on terrorism and as the conquering hero of Iraq, and how well they sell the proposition that Bush's tax cuts have worked. And, I expect a 'fake to the center' between now and election time. They will again seek to sell Bush as a moderate. ...As for the election itself, in the darkest, most paranoid corners of my mind, I expect more Floridas in states run by Republicans, and who knows what dirty tricks along the way. This White House is renowned for its secrecy, and this White House brought a bunch of old Iran-Contra operatives out from under their rocks and back into government, and put the likes of John Poindexter in charge of collecting personal data on Americans in a vast new computer database. After 2000, none of us should ever take a fair and clean presidential election for granted again, especially not with this crew. As for the campaign, the Bush campaign will obviously claim Iraq as a great victory in the war on terrorism -- which in fact it isn't a part of, except insofar as it will provoke more terrorism against us. They will reprise and reprise the capture of Saddam. Remind us of the toppling of the Taliban. Point to the emergence of a Palestinian prime minister and the Road Map as evidence of progress there. Tout the Medicare bill. Claim the tax cuts saved the economy -- never mind the $680 billion a year in deficits as far as the eye can see. Tell us in these and other ways how Bush has more or less single-handedly saved America and Western civilization -- but that of course, there's still a lot of work to do."
• Of his book's title, he says, "I laughed when I first thought of it -- and so does almost everyone when they hear it. It's pretty...strong, and sounded even more so before Bush-hatred became the media topic that it has in the past few months. I had misgivings about it at first. But it's also funny, and therefore, I hope, disarming enough to be inviting rather than off-putting to undecided and even to pro-Bush readers. What can one book do? I don't know the answer to that. But this was what I could do, and I can only hope it does some good." (Buzzflash)

---

• December 20: Three Iraqi policemen are mistakenly killed by US troops.

  Iraq war and occupation

  "The police had a roadblock on the road linking Kirkuk and Baghdad," says an Iraqi policeman. "An American patrol arrived around 0200 and opened fire, taking the police to be guerrillas." The US military says it is investigating the incident. (Agence France-Press/Terra Net)
• December 20: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is resisting testifying under oath to the 9/11 investigative commission.

  9/11 attacks

  She and her staff are arguing over ground rules for her appearance in part because, apparently, she does not want to testify under oath or in public. While the commission may invite -- not subpoena -- the testimony of former president Bill Clinton, former VP Al Gore, and current officeholders Bush and Cheney, it has been seeking the sworn testimony of other Clinton and Bush administration officials. Commission chairman Thomas Kean, who has already suggested that the attacks could have been prevented had mid-level officials done their jobs, is expected to grill Rice and other senior Bush officials over their actions before and after the attacks. One Republican commissioner says a comment by Rice last year that no one "could have predicted that they would try to use a...hijacked airplane as a missile" was "an unfortunate comment...that was, of course, a wrong-footed statement on its face," given that there was years of intelligence about al-Qaeda's interest in airplane attacks. An administration spokesperson says of Rice's cooperation with the commission, "Dr. Rice and the White House continue to work amiably with the commission, consistent with the President's desire to make staff available in accordance with his ability to fight the war on terrorism." (Time)
• December 20: Presidential candidate Wesley Clark says that if anyone attacks his military record,

  2004 presidential elections

  "I'll beat the sh*t out of them." He adds, "I hope that's not on television." It indeed goes out live on C-SPAN. Clark is responding to a question that referred to then-candidate George W. Bush attacking Senator John McCain's commitment to veterans in the 2000 primaries. Clark is asked if he would take the offensive if Bush or any of the other Democrats questioned his trading military caps with a Bosnian general who now is a war crimes suspect, or cited critical comments about Clark by former Army brass. Clark's campaign clarifies his remarks to note that he meant the statement rhetorically, not physically, and will come out strongly against anyone who challenges his patriotism or military service. "General Clark is a military man and a fighter," says campaign spokesman Bill Buck. "He'll stand up to President Bush or any of the administration's chicken hawks that attack his patriotism, military record, or his commitment to veterans, which is one of the reasons why he will beat George Bush." The campaign's traveling press secretary, Jamal Simmons, calls it "an unscripted comment from a blunt-spoken leader. If anyone tries to question Wes Clark's character, integrity, or his commitment to this country or its security, they're going to be in the biggest fight they've ever had." (Boston Globe)

---

• December 21: A rift is widening between Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair over the rebuilding of Iraq.

  Iraq war and occupation

  According to the Sunday Mirror, the two have fallen out over plans for the reconstruction of the country and the heavy-handed action of American troops against the civilian population. The rift has been deepened by the US's disapproval of a proposed morale-boosting visit by Blair to British troops in Iraq during the Christmas holiday. According to diplomats, relations between the allies have gone into "deep freeze" since the capture of Saddam Hussein last weekend. Reportedly, Bush is "incensed" that Blair stole his thunder by being the first Western leader to confirm that the former dictator had been arrested by US troops. Downing Street rushed out Blair's announcement before he had spoken to Bush early last Sunday, when Bush, six hours behind London, was still in bed. Whitehall insiders confirm that Blair's decision was partly out of anger over a US veto on his proposed visit to British troops in Iraq during the Christmas holiday. Presidential advisers in Washington wanted Mr Bush to be the sole leader to make a Christmas visit to troops in Baghdad and urged Downing Street to postpone any visit. The US refused to co-operate on security arrangements for a Christmas visit by Blair, who is going to spend the festive season with his family in the Egyptian resort of Sharm al-Sheikh. Blair and Bush have had at least three phone conversations during the past seven days which Whitehall officials described as "increasingly terse." A Downing Street insider said: "Relations between the two are at the lowest ebb since they first met. The PM is not happy at having to deal with Britain's European partners who have been left out of the rebuilding contracts. Of course they are still talking -- but the diplomatic temperature is in the deep freeze." Blair has expressed his concern over Bush's decision to rule Germany, France and other European countries out of the running for lucrative contracts in the reconstruction of Iraq. And in recent phone conversations with Bush, Blair has also expressed worries about heavy-handed US tactics against Iraqi civilians. (Sunday Mirror)

Bogus orange threat level

• December 21: The Department of Homeland Security raises the threat level status in the US from "yellow," or elevated, to "orange," or high.

  Anti-terrorism and homeland security

  DHS Secretary Tom Ridge writes, "The US Intelligence Community has received a substantial increase in the volume of threat related intelligence reports. These credible sources suggest the possibility of attacks against the homeland around the holiday season and beyond." No specifics of the nature of the attacks are given. Ridge's advice to Americans about handling the high alert status? "Just go about your business. ...If you've got travel plans, travel." "The information we have indicates that extremists abroad are anticipating near-term attacks that they believe will either rival or exceed" the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Ridge adds. "The volume [of intelligence reports] is up. The quality of the reporting is up. The credibility is there." (Department of Homeland Security, ABC News)

US soldier Time's Person of Year

• December 21: Time magazine names the US soldier as its "Person of the Year."

  US military

  The magazine's editors chose the nameless soldier to represent the 1.4 million men and women who make up the US military, according to magazine spokespersons. The magazine honors soldiers but not the Bush administration for putting them in Iraq, calling troops "the bright sharp instrument of a blunt policy," and leaving it to scholars to debate "whether the Bush doctrine is the most muscular expression of national interest in a half-century." It continues, "A force intensively trained for its mission finds itself improvising at every turn, required to exercise exquisite judgment in extreme circumstances. They complain less about the danger than the uncertainty -- they are told they're going home in two weeks, and then two months later they have not moved." (AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

Libya opens its borders to inspectors -- for a price

• December 21: Libya agrees to open its weapons programs to UN inspections and destroy its weapons facilities, following nine months of top-secret negotiations with inspectors.

  Global nuclear proliferation

  Initial visits have found that Libya was quite close to developing a nuclear weapons capability (probably a low-yield atomic bomb), had significant quantities of chemicals capable of being used as weapons; possessed research centers for biological weapons-related work at Tarhuna and Qabilat az Zaribah, and was developing long-range missiles, largely bought from Pakistan. Libya was far more dangerous an enemy than Iraq was when the coalition invaded that country. (The investigation also reveals that Malaysia has joined the hunt for nuclear weapons, using a free-trade zone in Dubai to acquire critical technology.) Even so, as Edmund Greene of the Royal United Services Institute points out, "For its part, the US was certainly not pressing for action against Libya on the question of weapons of mass destruction or its alleged sponsorship with terrorism." The information about Libya's missile program shows the technology was largely dormant and based on the obsolete Scud delivery vehicle, and much of the chemical and biological holdings could have been produced at dual-use civilian facilities. "I am not impressed by what I've seen," says a senior non-proliferation official. "It was not a well-developed program -- not a serious research-and-development approach to make use of what they bought. It was useless. But I was absolutely struck by what the Libyans were able to buy. What's on the market is absolutely horrendous. It's a Mafia-type business, with corruption and secrecy." The IAEA even finds blueprints for the construction of what an IAEA official calls "a sweet little bomb. ...It's too big for a Scud, but it'll go into a family car. It's a terrorist's dream." The US is far more forgiving; while conceding that Libya was "moving in the right direction," a US State Department official says it is too early to say if the findings were based on hard facts: "We're at the start. We will work with them as long as they are genuine in their initiative."
• However, in Tripoli there seems to be no doubt that the Libyans regard the breakthrough as a new beginning. Following the initial announcement, Libyan foreign office officials have made it clear that they want to end their diplomatic isolation and renew their traditional, if somewhat rusty, links with the West. Speaking on the al-Jazeera television network, foreign minister Mohamed Abderrahmane Chalgam says the time had come to mend ties: "Libya wants to solve all problems and we want to focus on development and advancing our country. The [illegal weapons] programme does not benefit or help our country. We want to have ties with Britain and America because this is in the interest of our people." President Bush says of the new initiatives: "As Libya becomes a more peaceful nation it can become a source of stability in Africa and the Middle East. Should Libya pursue internal reform, America will be ready to help its people to build a more free and prosperous country. Another message should be equally clear: leaders who abandon the pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them will find an open path to better relations with the United States and other free nations."
• Sunday Herald editor Trevor Royle explains, "The moves to rehabilitate Libya began last year shortly after Gaddafi indicated he was interested in a rapprochement while inaugurating his brainchild, the African Union, in Durban. At the time Libya had found itself listed as a potential enemy of the US in the state department's annual report on terrorism and this carried a general warning that Gaddafi had to do more to shed its reputation as a rogue state. Behind the scenes, the US and Britain were already working towards rehabilitation, both to end a long-running confrontation and to persuade Gaddafi he had more to gain by building bridges with the West. Earlier this year, shortly before the outbreak of war in Iraq, Libyan officials approached London and Washington, which led to inspection teams visiting sites in October and November. They discovered Libya's weapons were substantial, with one official claiming the nuclear program was 'much further advanced than previously thought.' However, the revelations were made with the caveat that the details still have to be confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The main winner is Blair. In Washington he is being acknowledged as the main broker of the deal, and British inspectors did most of the donkey work to put together the dossier on Libya's weapons. After the debacle over a similar dossier on Iraq the Libyan report, if confirmed, will come as a welcome fillip. It will also bring closure to Britain's troubled relations with Libya. First there was Libya's decision to accept responsibility for Lockerbie and pay compensation to the victims, now there is another step towards normalization with the halting of the development of weapons of mass destruction. Blair was right to call the decision courageous and far-reaching; he knows, too, that the announcement has come at precisely the right time and is a welcome follow-up to last week's news about the arrest of Saddam Hussein. The other winner is Bush, who was facing a long hard winter if the US death toll increased in Iraq and Saddam remained uncaptured."
• Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh digs through the rhetoric to a hard, gritty reality: far from being an intelligence and foreign-policy coup, as trumpted by the Bush administration, the entire "revelation" is a tissue of half-truths and political convenience. Libya, having long sought reconciliation with the US, deliberately delivers a shipment of nuclear technology, along with evidence implicating Pakistan's nuclear expert Abdul Qadeer Khan, to the US, a "sting" operation designed to make the US and Libya look good in the eyes of the world at the expense of Pakistan. Pakistan's leader, Pervez Musharraf, is livid, calling Libya's actions a betrayal of his country by his "Muslim brothers." An Arab intelligence officer is less impressed by either the technology or by Musharraf's ire: "The Pakistanis took a lot of Libya's money and gave second-grade plans," he says. "It was halfhearted." He continues, "Qaddafi is very pragmatic and studied the timing. It was the right time. The United States wanted to have a success story, and he banked on that." (Sunday Herald, Seymour Hersh)
• December 21: Libya has provided the US and Britain with detailed intelligence on hundreds of al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists as part of a deal to end its isolation as a outcast nation.

  Islamist terrorism

  The disclosure comes on the heels of an announcement that Libya will renounce its weapons of mass destruction programs. Libya, which possesses one of the most effective intelligence networks of any Arab nation, has coordinated for two years with MI6, as well as the CIA, to provide key intelligence in return for the lifting of economic sanctions by the West. The key Libyan negotiator, Musa Kousa, the head of Libya's external security organization, was formerly listed as one of the major enemies of the US and Britain, until the 9/11 attacks caused those countries to turn to Libya for help. Mousa has been accused of being heavily involved in international terrorism, including masterminding Libya's support for the IRA, and was expelled from Britain in 1980 for publicly threatening to murder dissidents. He was also named by the French as a suspect in the bombing of a civilian airliner over Niger in 1989 with the loss of 170 lives. In 1995, a secret MI5 assessment accused Kousa of running agents in the UK and of presiding over an organization "responsible for supporting terrorist organisations and for perpetrating state sponsored acts of terrorism." Now Kousa is negotiating the final details of the plan to bring Libya into the fold from a comfortable office in the Travellers' Club in Pall Mall with senior figures from the Foreign Office and MI6.
• London-based dissidents say they fear for their future, and are horrified that Kousa was allowed to enter the country. Ashur Shamis, founder of the opposition National Front for the Liberation of Libya, says: "It is an absolutely appalling state of affairs. The British and Americans were prepared to go to war to dismantle a regime like Saddam's. But they are quite happy to accommodate Gadaffi, who is no less tyrannical and repressive." Shamis, who has a $1 million bounty on his head from Libya, says Kousa had organized the systematic persecution of Libyan dissidents in Europe for two decades. Huda Abuzeid, whose dissident father was murdered by Libyan assassins in west London, says: "I am astonished that they have done this deal before dealing with the unsolved murders of my father and PC Yvonne Fletcher [shot and killed outside the Libyan People's Bureau in 1984]. This is deeply depressing." Families of those who died in the Lockerbie bombing also reacted with dismay. Susan Cohen of New Jersey, whose daughter was killed on the flight, described the move as a "total betrayal." (Guardian)

More proof that tale of Hussein's capture a lie

• December 21: The Sunday Herald reports that the US story of Saddam Hussein's capture is sheer fabrication.

  Iraq war and occupation

  The actual story, the newspaper claims, is that Kurdish forces had already taken him prisoner. Hussein was drugged and abandoned, ready for his "capture" by American forces. Hussein was originally captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) after being betrayed by a member of the al-Jabour tribe, whose daughter had been raped by Saddam's son Uday, leading to a blood feud. The story is bolstered by information from an unnamed British military intelligence officer. US claims that its own intelligence work led to the capture of Hussein are also being challenged by reports sourced in Iraq's Kurdish language media that say its militia set up the circumstances in which the US merely had to go to a farm identified by the Kurds to take the fugitive former president into custody. The US claims to have taken Saddam prisoner around 8:30 local time on Saturday, December 13, but sat on the dramatic news until 3 PM the next day. But early on Sunday, a Kurdish language wire service reported explicitly: "Saddam Hussein was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace. Qusrat's team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Details of the capture will emerge but the global Kurdish party is about to begin." Western media reports of Hussein's capture relied almost exclusively on US military and governmental reports. According to the PUK, it received a vital intelligence breakthrough after a telephone conversation between Qusrat Rasul Ali and Saddam's second wife, Samira, which had prompted the Kurds to move units of their Peshmerga fighters to where Saddam was hiding. The report said the Americans had insisted that it be an American arrest because they worried that such a coup for the Kurds might provoke an Arab-Kurd civil war. A Kurdish member of the Iraq Governing Council, Mahmud Othman, also suggested a critical role for Kurds in the arrest when he said on Sunday the 14th: "Before 4 AM (more than 12 hours ahead of the US announcement) today, Qusrat Rasul Ali called me to inform me that his men, with the Americans, had managed to capture Saddam Hussein." A Western intelligence source in the Middle East says, "Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence. We knew that someone would eventually take their revenge, it was just a matter of time." (Bloomberg News, The Age, Channel News Asia)
• December 21: CBS News is able to interview some of the men who spoke with Saddam Hussein shortly after his capture.

  Iraq war and occupation

  CPA administrator Paul Bremer says of Hussein, "He looked to me like a man who had lost hope. You could see it in his eyes, particularly. He was tired, obviously, but beyond that, underneath that, you could see resignation. ...He was a defeated man, thank God." Mowaffak Al-Rubaie of the Iraqi Governing Council was one of the men brought in to identify Hussein. Al-Rubaie, who was jailed and tortured by Hussein's regime, said to Hussein, "Saddam Hussein, may God curse what have you done to the Iraqi people. How are you going to face God in the here after, in the day of judgment? What are you going to say to God?" According to Al-Rubaie, Hussein just turned away. "I found him...very defiant, very unrepentant," says Al-Rubaie. "He felt absolutely no remorse towards the crimes he has committed against the Iraqi people. Very unapologetic." Hussein insisted he was still the people's choice. "He was saying that he was an elected...people have elected him to rule Iraq," says Al-Rubaie. "I said, 'There are hundreds of thousands of people out in the streets now, rejoicing and celebrating your capture. Shall we take you and hand you over to these people? They will eat you alive, Saddam Hussein.' He said, 'These are thugs, hooligans, gangsters.'" Al-Rubaie continues, "I said, 'Why did you kill hundreds of thousands of people in the mass graves?' He turned around and said, 'Did you ask their relatives, what they had done these people? They were thieves, or they escaped from the battlefield.''" He also questioned Hussein about the 1988 nerve gas attack on ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq. Hussein, however, claimed that the Iranians had poisoned the people of Halabjah with nerve gas.
• At times, according to Al-Rubaie, Hussein was swearing in frustration. "The 'F words' and the 'B words.' When he gets cornered with a question, and there was no answer, he looked at us, and he looked away and was swearing," says Al-Rubaie. "Physically [Saddam] was fit. But, psychologically he was ruined -- very demoralized, broken, irritable but mentally he was very with it." Bremer says Saddam is being kept in solitary confinement, in a private room in a secure location: "I'm not going to go into details of how he's held. He's held in accordance with international rules and he's well treated." (CBS News)

Bush advocates Arafat's ouster

• December 21: According to Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot,

  Middle East peace process

  Bush tells an Israeli journalist that "we must get rid of" Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Bush made the comment at a Christmas party in Washington, shortly after a keynote speech by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Thursday in which he outlined plans for unilateral disengagement from peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Such a statement by Bush is almost guaranteed to produce an extreme reaction from Palestinians, who already complain that Israel is heavily favored by the US in peace negotiations between Palestine and Israel. (Channel News Asia)
• December 21: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says that the US "may need a bigger Army,"

  US military

  opening the door for consideration of expanding the military. Rumsfeld has been under pressure from Congress to expand the military by at least two divisions, or 20,000 troops; while he has resisted that idea up till now, indications are that he is giving it new consideration. Rumsfeld says he is opposed to a military draft. (Time)
• December 21: Boeing Aerospace, one of the world's largest defense contractors, is under investigation for ethics violations, mostly regarding the company's too-cozy ties with the US military establishment.

  Military-industrial complex

  Darleen Druyun is a perfect example of the problem. She retired from the US Air Force in late 2002, where she had spent three decades in various acquisition roles, negotiating billion-dollar weapons contracts and amassing valuable insights into Pentagon policy and the strengths and weaknesses of defense contractors. Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed were all attempting to hire her, and Boeing won out, signing her to a juicy contract. Now the hiring of Druyun is at the heart of the investigation into the company. Boeing fired both Druyun and CFO Michael Sears in November 2003 for what it called "unethical" conduct. Their dealings were a major factor in the resignation a week later of the company's chairman and chief executive, Phil Condit. Druyun was preparing for a position at Boeing two months before she recused herself from handling Boeing contracts. While she was negotiating for a position with Boeing, she was also continuing to push a controversial $21 billion plan to have the government lease and later buy 100 Boeing-made airplanes.
• Separately, Pentagon investigators are looking into whether Druyun broke the law by sharing a rival company's information with Boeing. Federal law bars government acquisition officers from discussing jobs with outside companies unless they disqualify themselves from contract decisions connected to those companies. The law also bans contractors from having job talks with an official if they know that he or she still has authority over contracts linked to them. The criminal part of the probe, which could result in jail time, centers on obstruction-of-justice charges related to alleged efforts in recent months by Sears and Druyun to cover up their early discussions. As the Seattle Times writes: "The Boeing-Druyun relationship highlights the long-standing coziness between military contractors and their No. 1 customer and major overseer: the Pentagon. In 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex and its 'potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.' In the 1980s, the military came under fire for such things as paying $435 for hammers and sharing internal, often classified, documents with industry executives vying for Pentagon work. Now critics say the situation is worse than ever. Post-Cold War consolidation melded dozens of smaller defense contractors into a handful of giants. As the government modernizes its armed forces, it has become increasingly reliant on contractors such as Boeing to pull together sophisticated weapons systems with products and services from different companies; military officials admit they lack the technical expertise for the job. And because weapons programs cost billions and can take a decade to come to fruition, their official overseers often find their interests closely aligned with the companies they are supposed to police." (Seattle Times)
• December 21: French magistrate Reynaud van Ruymbeke is examining whether to prosecute US Vice President Dick Cheney over alleged complicity in the abuse of corporate assets dating from the time he was head of the services company Halliburton.

  Halliburton

  The case stems from a contract by a consortium including the American company Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), a Halliburton subsidiary, and a French company, Technip, to build a $6 billion gas liquefaction plant in Nigeria. A Paris investigating magistrate has been conducting investigations since October into allegations that $180 million was paid in secret commissions during the late 1990s up to 2002 from funds established by the consortium in Madeira. Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive between 1995 and 2000. Van Ruymbeke believes that some or all of $180 million in so-called secret "retrocommissions" paid by Halliburton and Technip were, in fact, bribes given to Nigerian officials and others to grease the wheels for the refinery's construction. Van Ruymbeke has fingered as the bagman in the operation a 55-year-old London lawyer, Jeffrey Tesler, who has worked for Halliburton for some thirty years. Tesler was paid the $180 million as a "commercial consultant" through a Gibraltar-based front company he set up called TriStar. TriStar, in turn, got the money from a consortium set up for the Nigeria deal by Halliburton and Technip and registered in Madeira, the Portuguese offshore island where taxes don't apply.
• A former top Technip official, Georges Krammer, has testified that the Madeira-based consortium was a "slush fund" controlled by Halliburton through its subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, and Technip. Krammer, who is cooperating with the investigation, also swore that Tesler was imposed as the intermediary by Halliburton over the objections of Technip. Tesler is a veteran operator in Nigeria, the financial adviser to the late dictator General Sani Abacha. Tesler controlled Abacha's personal fortune, while at the same time working for Halliburton. Abacha's former Oil Minister, Dan Etete was deposed by Judge van Ruymbeke in December. Etete's testimony seemed to confirm the judge's suspicions that Tesler laundered the $180 million through offshore and other accounts, and that part of the money wound up in dictator Abacha's coffers. Tesler's bank accounts in Monaco, Switzerland and elsewhere have been subpoenaed in an effort to find out where the money went. In a letter to the attorney-general's department, van Ruymbeke has ruled out directly prosecuting Cheney on a charge of bribing foreign officials, but has not excluded the possibility of prosecution on the grounds of complicity in misuse of corporate assets. Van Ruymbeke is famous in France for unearthing and prosecuting a number of campaign finance scandals. (AAP/The Age, The Nation)

Documented failure of US companies to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure

• December 21: Iraq's civilian administration Paul Bremer tells 60 Minutes that neither the US invasion of Iraq, nor the decade of sanctions and air strikes preceding it, caused the damage to the Iraqi infrastructure that is now being rebuilt.

  Iraq war and occupation

  Instead, Bremer lays the blame squarely on "35 years of of economic and political incompetence." Bremer is flat wrong. According to retired Iraqi engineer Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar, allied bombing in 1990 had disabled 18 of Iraq's 20 power stations. The two barely operating plants were able to produce only 4% of Iraq's pre-war electricity output. Despite a severe lack of parts and financing, the Iraqis managed to restore power to the country in four months, a task not yet completed by the US even though it has had significantly longer and has tremendous resources. The New England Journal of Medicine reported: "By May 1990, repairs undertaken by cannibalizing spare parts from other plants had brought generation back up to about a quarter of pre-war levels. By August the system was back to two thirds of its 1990 peak output..." Al-Mukhtar has little patience for the ongoing, excuse-ridden failure of US forces to restore electricity in 2003: "To improve the generating capacity from 4% to 67% in four months is a very great achievement that Bremer could not do with all his highly paid people." The horrific effect of US air strikes on Iraq's water and electrical infrastructure between the 1990 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraqi invasion has been well-documented, as has been the devastation wrought by the invasion itself. (Voice of Democracy)
• December 21: An unverified report from the soldiers who extracted Saddam Hussein from his hiding place indicates that Hussein spat upon one of his captors,

  Iraq war and occupation

  who promptly punched the former dictator. An official military spokeswoman in Iraq claims no knowledge of the incident: "I think this is an urban legend," she says. Similarly, doubts have been cast upon the widely reported story that one of Hussein's captors greeted him with the words, "Regards from President Bush." The story is now considered "apocryphal." (Time)
• December 21: Presidential candidate Howard Dean pens a response to a Washington Post editorial that he says misrepresents his positions on foreign policy.

  2004 presidential elections

  "...I support missile defense efforts that make us more secure; I oppose deployment of any system not yet proven to work," he writes. "I favor active talks with North Korea, backed by the threat of force, rather than a stubborn refusal to engage that has allowed the situation to become more dangerous by the day. And the role I support for the National Guard is hardly "radical"; it was endorsed by the bipartisan Hart-Rudman commission and in fact is enshrined in our Constitution (Section 8, Clause 15)." Dean goes on to criticize both the Post and the Bush administration for their takes on foreign policy: "More important, The Post's editorial comes close to equating the Bush administration's foreign policy -- including its signature doctrine of 'preemptive war' -- with the American foreign policy mainstream. In fact, the Bush agenda represents a radical departure from decades of bipartisan consensus on the appropriate use of U.S. power and our leadership in the world community. From its derisive treatment of allies to its rejection of important global agreements, this administration has favored a go-it-alone approach and a determination to use force as its weapon of first resort. Its approach has alienated friends and bolstered foes. Its agenda isolates the United States, placing responsibility for all the world's problems in our hands, and runs counter to America's traditions as a republic. By contrast, my national security policy reflects the best of our mainstream tradition. I believe the United States must exercise leadership by working with allies and partners to advance common interests, rather than advancing our power unilaterally."
• Of the Bush administration's war in Iraq, Dean says: "The reasons I opposed the war in Iraq are clear. In the fall of 2002, Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat to America. The administration had not (and still has not) presented clear evidence that Hussein was on the verge of attacking his neighbors or threatening the United States or the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction or supporting al-Qaeda. The administration's failures to mobilize allies and plan effectively for the war's aftermath suggested difficulties ahead. It is just as important that this president failed to level with the American people about the costs or potential consequences or about the nature of the threat. Our democratic tradition, our mainstream values, demand that government be open and honest with its governed. The consequences of the war are becoming clear, even beyond the loss of life, even beyond the $150 billion price tag -- so far. Our resources -- military, intelligence, diplomatic -- are strained. Our alliances are frayed. Around the world, too many are now under the false impression that the American people are bent on global domination and war against Islam. ...The current administration strays wildly from this course and from the time-honored manner of pursuing it. In the end, I believe it will be clear who is in the mainstream and who is swimming against the tide of history." (Washington Post)

 

Quick Navigation Menu

• Main Page

• 1897-1960
• 1961-1970
• 1971-1979
• 1980
• 1981
• 1982
• 1983
• 1984
• 1985
• 1986
• 1987
• 1988
• 1989
• 1990
• 1991
• 1992
• 1993
• 1994
• 1995
• 1996
• 1997
• 1998
• 1999
• 2000
• 2001
• 2002

2003 Month by Month

• Jan 03
• Feb 03
• Mar 03
• Apr 03
• May 03
• Jun 03
• Jul 03
• Aug 03
• Sep 03
• Oct 03
• Nov 03
• Dec 03

2004 Month by Month

• Jan 04
• Feb 04
• Mar 04
• Apr 04
• May 04
• Jun 04
• Jul 04
• Aug 04
• Sep 04
• Oct 04
• Nov 04
• Dec 04

2005 Month by Month

• Jan 05
• Feb 05
• Mar 05
• Apr 05
• May 05
• Jun 05
• Jul 05
• Aug 05
• Sep 05
• Oct 05
• Nov 05
• Dec 05

2006 Month by Month

• Jan 06
• Feb 06
• Mar 06
• Apr 06
• May 06
• Jun 06
• Jul 06
• Aug 06
• Sep 06
• Oct 06
• Nov 06
• Dec 06

2007 Month by Month

• Jan 07
• Feb 07
• Mar 07
• Apr 07
• May 07
• Jun 07
• Jul 07
• Aug 07
• Sep 07
• Oct 07
• Nov 07
• Dec 07

Other Pages On This Site

• 9/11
• They Said
• Stolen!
• Katrina
• Who Is?
• Citations
• Links
• Biblio
• Impeach
• Imperial
• Cabinet
• Rationale
• Assist
• Updates