THIS FAR AND NO FURTHER
A Timeline of Events Surrounding the Radical Right's Attempt to Subvert American Democracy
Written and Compiled by Black Max
September 2003
Week Two
- September 15: Top Bush officials say that their rosy predictions of instant success in post-war Iraq were erroneous because they couldn't have known just how bad a shape most of Iraq's infrastructure was in, or how intractable most Iraqis would be about cooperating with American occupation forces.
Prewar intelligence on Iraq
Most observers outside of the administration dispute this excuse. The director for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, Rachel Bronson, says, "On the military side we planned for every contingency. But on the postwar side we planned for only one possibility -- that everything was going to go well. ...It was very irresponsible." Democratic Senator Joseph Biden says that the administration came to power claiming that "we [the US] don't build nations -- that's not the function of our military. So there's been no intellectual horsepower or energy on that side of...trying to figure out where we deal with post-conflict resolution. And we better get about it." When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked in early September why U.S. intelligence agents weren't able to better assess Iraq's reconstruction needs before the war, he tossed the problem off, saying: "Well, resources are finite, and they were worrying about more important things." Of course, it is well documented that the administration knew everything they should have known about Iraq's rundown condition as well as the prospect for violence after the war's end. It received numerous reports from its own intelligence agencies about the probability for serious post-war opposition, and that an American occupation of the country could make Iraq a magnet for terrorists. In prewar Congressional hearings, one expert after another cautioned that a countrywide reconstruction could be expensive, difficult and time-consuming. Bronson says the administration ignored those warnings, choosing to focus only on a best-case scenario, and also disregarded the advice of U.S. experts who had learned valuable nation-building lessons in the Balkans during the 1990s. "They just decided not to pay attention to those with experience in places like Kosovo, basically because these were Clinton administration initiatives." "There's no plan," says Ken Pollack, a Brookings Institution scholar and former CIA analyst. "They're just kind of making it up as they go along." (Capital Hill Blue) - September 15: Eminent historian James McPherson publishes a harsh criticism of the Bush administration's own "historical revisionism" in the wake of recent complaints from Bush about opponents of his administration's policies indulging in "revisionist history."
Prewar intelligence on Iraq
In part, McPherson writes, "The administration's pejorative usage of 'revisionist history' to denigrate critics by imputing to them a falsification of history is scarcely surprising. But it is especially ironic, considering that the president and his principal advisers have themselves been practitioners par excellence of this kind of revisionism. Iraq offers many examples. To justify an unprovoked invasion of that country, the president repeatedly exaggerated or distorted ambiguous intelligence reports to portray Iraqi possession of or programs to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear 'weapons of mass destruction' that posed an imminent threat to the United States. In his State of the Union message on January 28, President Bush made clear his acceptance of a British intelligence report that 'Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' to develop nuclear weapons. This assertion was 'revisionist history' with a vengeance; the U. S. government knew at the time it was received that the intelligence was unreliable and learned soon afterwards that it was based on forged documents. Yet not until July did the administration concede its gaffe —- and then tried to blame the CIA. That agency took the fall, but with respect to another administration justification for the war—Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to Al Qaeda—the CIA refused to provide any aid and comfort. An official in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research offered (in the New York Times of July 12, 2003) a pointed description of the kind of revisionist history practiced by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al: 'This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude: "We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers."'" (History News Network)
Syria and Libya posed as next "threats to US security."
- September 16: The Bush administration names Syria and Libya as "rogue states" whose weapons of mass destruction must not just be controlled but must be eliminated by whatever means necessary.
Bush's foreign policies
Undersecretary of State John Bolton makes the claim, and says that Syria is of particular concern because it has been supporting terrorist groups and letting militants cross its border into Iraq to fight US forces. Congressional Democrats observe that Bolton's tough rhetoric doesn't match the administration's actions; Bolton admits that the State Department has no plans to impose any sort of sanctions on Syria, though that action is being considered. Bolton refuses to rule out "regime change" in Syria as an option. Bolton reiterates his past claims that Syria continues to test chemical munitions, is developing an offensive biological weapons capability and has a nuclear research and development program. He does not address Libyan weapons, but the CIA has said Libya's government is seeking to acquire chemical and biological weapons. - The administration turns to one of its most reliable shills, the New York Times's Judith Miller, to promulgate its claims in the mainstream media. Miller, after interviewing Bolton, dutifully runs a story entitled "Senior US Official To Level Weapons Charges Against Syria," with the intention of raising temperatures in Congress for Bolton's September 17 testimony. She doesn't name Bolton as her source, but instead writes that the leaked testimony comes from "individuals who feel that the accusations against Syria have received insufficient attention." (Newsday, Huffington Post)
- September 16: Abbas Balasem, a senior official in Iraq's new science ministry, says Iraq never revived its nuclear program after UN inspectors dismantled it in the 1990s.
Prewar intelligence on Iraq
He says Iraqi scientists had no way to re-start the program because the inspectors took away all the necessary resources. Balasem's comments reaffirm the finding of the UN inspection teams under Hans Blix, which made the same reports well before the US invasion of Iraq. (VOA) - September 16: The number of gun-related deaths in Iraq is up 25-fold since Bush declared that the war was over on May 1, giving the lie to US claims that Iraq is returning to a peaceful condition.
Iraq war and occupation
Before the war began, the Baghdad morgue investigated an average of 20 deaths a month caused by firearms. In June, that number rose to 389 and in August it reached 518. Moreover, the overall number of suspicious deaths jumped from about 250 a month last year to 872 in August. Most of the dead in the Baghdad morgue are not casualties of military actions or terrorist attacks, nor are they US soldiers. "Instead," writes the Los Angeles Times, "they are everyday civilians, victims of the violence that has become a fact of life in a city that wakes and sleeps to the cadence of gunfire and unrelenting crime. The coalition forces and the new Iraqi police have been unable to stop the torrent of mayhem springing from robberies, carjackings and just plain anger." A morgue pathologists says, "I've been working in this morgue for 29 years. It used to be accidents and natural deaths. Now there are too many weapons in society. We used to dissect six or seven bodies a day, but now we do 25 to 35 a day, and 80% of them are bullet injuries. We have more freedom, but with the absence of security there is more freedom for murder." Many Iraqi citizens believe that the country has descended into near-complete anarchy, as they attempt to adjust to the removal of Hussein-era tyranny without the US promises of new stability being fulfilled. (Los Angeles Times/Information Clearinghouse) - September 16: The presidents of 19 labor union chapters co-sign and release a statement condemning the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to lie to the people of New York City concerning the toxins released into the environment by the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings.
9/11 attacks
"EPA's dedicated Civil Service employees performed their duties swiftly and competently following the terror attack," the letter reads, "assessing as accurately as possible the environmental health risks faced by the brave rescue workers and nearby residents from toxic substances released in the attack. These workers reported to senior EPA officials their best estimate of the risks, and they expected those estimates and the accompanying recommendations for protective measures to be released in a timely manner to those who needed the information. The public was not informed of all of these health risks, some of which were avoidable. This information was withheld from the public under orders from the White House. Instead, the Bush White House had information released, drafted by political appointees, that it knew to contradict the scientific facts. It misinformed. And many rescue workers and citizens suffered. Some citizens now face the long-term risk of asbestos-related lung cancer as well as other debilitating respiratory ailments as a result. Little did the Civil Service expect that their professional work would be subverted by political pressure applied by the White House. This unwarranted and inexcusable interference with the professional work of the Civil Service by politicians reporting directly to President Bush caused rescue workers and residents to be exposed to health risks that could have been, indeed should have been, avoided. We express our solidarity with the rescue workers and residents who were affected adversely by this outrageous action of President Bush's staff. There is no excuse for White House politicians imposing their values and overriding the Civil Service's best advice on protecting those still digging in the wreckage and those whose homes and offices were covered with toxic debris. President Bush owes the rescue workers, residents, dedicated Civil Service workers and the American people more than an apology for his actions in this matter. President Bush should take steps to compensate the rescue workers and residents who were harmed by his administration's actions. The President's political appointees' interference with the professional work of the EPA Civil Service has seriously harmed EPA's credibility. Before there is another national emergency, that credibility must be restored. The President must pledge to never again order EPA to tell less than the whole truth about a public health emergency." (National Treasury Employees Union) - September 16: Three months after Republicans blocked a bill to disallow the deduction of soldiers' disability payments from military retirement accounts,
US veterans
the Pentagon, along with allies in the GOP, proposes to redefine "service-related injuries" so that approximately 1.5 million future military retirees, or two-thirds of the total number of soldiers and military personnel slated to retire, would be unable to claim disabilities. Veterans' organizations across the country are protesting the proposal. Retired Army Lieutenant General Billy Thomas calls it "an ethical and moral issue...not a money issue." An unnamed veteran writes, "If George Bush only knew how deep and bitter the sentiment over this issue...really is, he would immediately order his stooges and henchmen to back off and do the right thing. It will definitely be `Out the Door in 2004' for everyone who did not support disabled military retirees." (Knight Ridder/Real Cities, Palm Beach Post/Orange County Democrats) - September 16: White House press secretary Scott McClellan dismisses questions about whether Karl Rove outed CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, calling the charges from Wilson's husband Joseph Wilson "ridiculous." McClellan may or may not know that Rove was one of the two administration officials -- Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage being the second -- who informed Robert Novak of Plame's identity. Novak broke Plame's cover in a July 14, 2003 column. (Frank Rich [PDF file])
- September 16: In an interview, former ambassador Joseph Wilson discusses the situation in Iraq:
Iraq war and occupation
"Well, I think we're f*cked. [W]e should have learned from the bombing of the United Nations building that there was all sorts of anti -- not just American but anti-international presence -- pressure building within Iraq. And I think we should have reacted rather quickly to that by attempting to truly embrace the United Nations in the sense of internationalization. A crime against the United Nations should have been perceived as a crime against us all, and we should have been much more aggressive in ensuring that we did everything we could to help the United Nations through that period. ...I mean what you need to do is, you need to aggressively persuade Iraqis that what we -- the rest of the world, not the United States, the rest of the world -- are doing is attempting to assist it through this difficult period and assist it in reconstructing itself in a new, modern, post-Saddam Iraq. We didn't do that in a positive way. We made all the right noises about de Mello's death and the deaths of the United Nations people, and then we made some noises about how this is an opportunity for the international community to realize its interests are at stake as well. I think we should have been much more aggressive in embracing this crime against all of us, because at the end of the day the United Nations bureaucracy is nothing more or nothing less than the will of its membership -- and we are the predominant member of the United Nations. We should not have shied away from that. I think that the bombing of the ayatollah in Najaf was the real clarion call to us and the rest of the world as to how dire a situation we find ourselves in. I say that because it was very clearly an attempt to draw the Shi'a off the sidelines. - "...The Shi'a have been content with what I consider to be a tactical ceasefire, tactical truce with the United States. They've been content with that so long as they're able to consolidate their control, political control over the villages in the south and the towns in the south, and so long as the Americans were killing Sunni on their behalf. That means that if you were Sunni, that they eventually would have to kill -- if in fact there's a war between the Shi'a and the Sunni. Now the bombing of Najaf made very clear that the Sunni were not going to go along willingly, either by being killed by Americans or by not resisting what they think is going to be a Shi'a push for power. ...So it doesn't -- in the Arab world, something like this, it matters less who did it and much more the perception of who did it on the part of those who were the victims of the crime. [T]he car bombing in Najaf almost brought the Shi'a off the sidelines. ...I suspect they're still looking for ways to avenge this particular death or these deaths. If they come off the sideline and either clamor for a more rapid transfer of power to Iraqis (because they think they will benefit by a transfer of power) or by beginning to run operations against the Sunni, we will find ourselves either in a situation where Shi'a civil disturbances and civil unrest are making it difficult for us to control the south, and/or we'll be in the middle of a civil war which would make our own occupation of Iraq infinitely more difficult." (Talking Points Memo)
Bush admits no links between Saddam Hussein and 9/11
- September 17: George W. Bush admits that his administration knows of absolutely no links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11.
Prewar intelligence on Iraq
He confirms what many Americans already know, but contradicts his own Vice President's remarks of September 14, and what many Americans have been led to believe by him and his administration. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," he says in a press conference, but adds, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda ties," a charge that his administration has yet to prove. Bush's remarks are the latest in a round of denials and damage control from senior members of his administration. Condoleezza Rice said on September 16, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11," a flat lie. Press spokesman Scott McClellan echoed Rice by repeatedly telling reporters, "We never made that connection," who continued to ask why Dick Cheney made just such connections as recently as September 14. Donald Rumsfeld, when asked Tuesday about the link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks, said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that." In making his case for an invasion of Iraq in a nationally televised address in October 2002, Bush said, "We know Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy: The United States of America." Bush said Hussein had been linked to Al Qaeda for a decade, and added that an "alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." Bush also connected the 9/11 attacks to Iraq in declaring the end of hostilities in May: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on," he said. In subsequent speeches, he continued to draw the same connections. (Chicago Tribune, New York Times)
"Doonesbury" cartoon from October 19, 2003, used without permission
- September 17: Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez. commander of the US-led coalition in Iraq,
Iraq war and occupation
says that US forces, already under pressure from a guerrilla-style resistance, now face revenge attacks from ordinary Iraqis angered by the occupation. "We have seen that when we have an incident in the conduct of our operations, when we killed an innocent civilian, based on their ethic, their values, their culture, they would seek revenge." Sanchez's comments come on the heels of the friendly fire killing late last week of eight Iraqi policemen by American soldiers near Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad. The military and the US administrator for Iraq, Paul Bremer, have apologized. (AP/Guardian) - September 17: Iraq's former Minister of Information, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, says that Iraq possessed no WMDs before the March invasion.
Prewar intelligence on Iraq
Speaking on Abu Dhabi television, Sahaf states that all the weapons of that nature were long destroyed. "Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, this is the truth. The chemical weapons and missiles were destroyed since the 1991 war, also the nuclear program." Sahaf says Baghdad had also destroyed a program to develop biological weapons because "it was useless." UN arms inspectors never found proof of chemical or biological arms in Iraq. Sahaf, who turned himself in to U.S. forces and was later released, went to the United Arab Emirates in July, saying he might not return to his homeland. (Reuters) - September 17: The US Senate votes to approve Bush's plans for developing and testing new battlefield nuclear weaponry.
US nuclear program
Rammed through by Republicans, many Congressional Democrats are concerned about the new program, but Republicans downplay any worries. "There's nothing in this bill that produces a single new nuclear weapon," says GOP senator Pete Domenici. However, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein retorts, "This is the beginning. This money will go to field a new generation of nuclear weapons. We should not do this." Federal law prohibits research on bombs carrying an explosive force of 5 kilotons or less, but Congress seems ready to repeal that prohibition at the urging of the Bush administration. Feinstein says the research will open the door to a new arms race among nations that see the United States as a superpower seeking to expand its nuclear capabilities; Domenici derides what he calls an effort to "put blinders" on U.S. scientists. The Senate vote was split almost directly along party lines. (Los Angeles Times/Contra Costa Times) - September 17: General Wesley Clark declares his intention to run for the Democratic nomination for President.
2004 presidential elections
Clark was the supreme commander of NATO forces in Kosovo in 1999, and has never held elective office. Clark "could very well end up being George W. Bush's worst nightmare," says an Arkansas Democratic political observer. Many of the other Democratic candidates have publicly or privately considered asking Clark to run with them as Vice-President. Clark called the Iraqi conflict "purely an elective war" and criticized Bush for waging it without better justification. During his speech, someone shouted to Clark, "Give 'em hell, General." He pumped his fist, smiled and replied, "We're going to give them the truth, and they'll think it's hell," which was Harry Truman's oft-repeated response during the 1948 campaign. (Arkansas NBC, AP/Philadelphia Inquirer, The Australian) - September 17: Congressman John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran and the strongest Democratic supporter of the invasion of Iraq,
Prewar intelligence on Iraq
claims that Bush "misled" him, and calls for the firing of Bush's entire "defense leadership team." Murtha claims that he had been misled into voting in favor of the invasion by falsified intelligence reports, and that Bush had also been misled. "You can't fire the president unless you're in California," he says. "But somebody recommended this policy to him, and he took the recommendation. Somebody has to be held responsible, and he's got to make the decision who it was." House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi joins Murtha in demanding high-level resignations. (New York Times) - September 17: Former Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski writes of the Bush administration's request for $87 billion for Iraq:
Iraq war and occupation
"What we have here is far more than a failure to communicate. We have a broken contract. We were promised an oil-funded rebuilding of a free Iraq and a bunch of dangerous WMDs off the street. We got a United Fruit Company-modeled oil monopoly in a serf-filled Iraq that, Enron-like, exhibits only grandiose futuristic and imaginary accounts and assets. ...In the case of a broken contract, the normal thing to do is stop payment on any uncashed checks, and call the credit company. The Congress will be quite proud of itself for negotiating and nitpicking the $87 billion.... What Congress needs to do is what we all do in the case of a broken contract. Stop further transactions and call the lawyer. Period." (Karen Kwiatkowski/Lew Rockwell) - September 17: A teenaged Iraqi boy is killed by US fire
Iraq war and occupation
after American troops mistakenly fire on a wedding party whose members are celebrating by the traditional firing of weapons into the air. Four others are killed in the incident, which takes place in the town of Fallujah, the same town which saw eight Iraqi policemen mistakenly killed by American gunfire. (VOA News) - September 17: The Orlando Sentinel prints an editorial by the mother of Specialist Jeffrey Mattison Wershow, a Florida National Guard soldier killed by sniper fire near Baghdad on July 6.
Iraq war and occupation
She blames his death on orders for his unit to stop wearing protective gear, thereby providing Iraqi gunmen with "soft targets." She writes, "The civil-affairs officer who ordered these soldiers to do so should, at the very minimum, be removed from any position that gives him decision-making authority about the safety and security of others. This war is not about 'images' or 'public relations' or 'appearances.' The soldiers are people's sons, daughters, grandsons and cousins of Americans, who are paying dearly for the consequences of this war. Those who are more concerned about 'appearances' should perhaps be asked to walk around crowds of hostile Iraqis without protective gear. Let us see what they would do. I doubt they would choose to be unprotected -- yet they would order a soldier to do so. We will never know that if by wearing protective gear, Jeffrey would have been saved from the assassin who killed him. We do know it made him and the other soldiers appear to be soft targets for anyone who wished them ill. And, we sadly know the result of Jeffrey appearing to be a soft target." (Orlando Sentinel) - September 17: The Washington Post reports that as of last week, the Bush administration has removed a number of pictures in a State Department hallway and replaced them with pictures of George W. Bush as diplomat.
George W. Bush
The original pictures displayed "a historic progression of great diplomatic moments," including a political cartoon from the Jefferson era, old photographs of US diplomats negotiating with Native Americans, Woodrow Wilson at Versailles, Roosevelt and Churchill signing the Atlantic Charter, former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former Soviet foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze in cowboy boots at Jackson Hole, and Ronald Reagan at a meeting with a very young Colin L. Powell seated behind him. No explanation was given for the change except that the State Department wished to "spruce up" the building. In one photo of Bush in Beijing, the ID placard says he's in "Tienemen Square." The actual spelling is "Tiananmen Square." (Washington Post)
- September 18: Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy accuses the Bush administration of perpetuating a "fraud" in the war on Iraq, saying that the entire operation is a hoax "made up in Texas" to give Republicans a political boost:
Prewar intelligence on Iraq
"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud." He accuses the administration of failing to account for nearly half of the $4 billion a month being spent in Iraq, and believes that much of that missing money is being used to bribe foreign leaders to send in troops: "My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops." He calls the Bush administration's current Iraq policy "adrift." Kennedy says he doubts Saddam Hussein was ever a real threat to the US, and that Bush relied on "distortion, misrepresentation, [and] a selection of intelligence" to justify the case for war. A GOP official said anonymously of Kennedy's remarks, "The senator's comments reflect the tired old soft-on-defense attitude of the Democratic Party. ...And the American people are thankful for a strong and decisive leader in President Bush who isn't afraid to make tough decisions." Kennedy is denounced by Republicans for his statements, most loudly by congressman Tom DeLay, who writes, "It's disturbing that Democrats have spewed more hateful rhetoric at President Bush than they ever did at Saddam Hussein," but Kennedy refuses to back down from his position, pointing out that Republicans routinely question the patriotism of those who question the current administration. President Bush later terms Kennedy's remarks "uncivil," and says that Kennedy "should not have said we were trying to bribe foreign nations...." Kennedy responds to Bush's reply by saying, "For the sake of our troops, it is time for this administration to speak honestly about its failures in Iraq. Many Americans share my views, and I regret that the president considers them uncivil." Senator John Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, remarks, "always amusing to see anybody from the Bush administration accusing Democrats of uncivility." - Of course, the reaction from the right is virulent. MSNBC pundit Joe Scarborough, a former Republican representative, says that Kennedy's comments are "sick" and, apparently forgetting the entire Whitewater/Lewinsky debacle, "unprecedented in modern politics." Tom DeLay calls Kennedy guilty of "the most mean-spirited and irresponsible hate speech yet." NewsMax pundit Lynn Wooley writes, "As ad hominem attacks go, this one is a classic." It need not be repeated that every single one of Kennedy's charges have since been proven true. (AP/Guardian, CNN, CNN, Boston Globe, Mark Crispin Miller)
- September 18: Saudi Arabia plans to acquire nuclear capabilities as part of its strategy to deal with Middle East upheavals.
Middle East unrest
A strategy paper being considered at the highest levels in Riyadh sets out three options: to acquire a nuclear capability as a deterrent; to maintain or enter into an alliance with an existing nuclear power that would offer protection; and/or to try to reach a regional agreement on having a nuclear-free Middle East. Previously, the assumption in Washington has been that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US has steadily worsened since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. Saudi Arabia does not regard Iran as a direct threat, but it is worried about the possibility of Iran and Israel having nuclear weapons. Riyadh is also worried about a string of apparent leaks in American papers from the US administration critical of Saudi Arabia. (Guardian) - September 18: A three-month search has turned up no evidence that the Hussein regime ever had smallpox.
Prewar intelligence on Iraq
The Bush administration used fears of Iraq's supposed smallpox biological weapons as a rationale for invading Iraq, and those fears were raised again on September 8 and 14 by Dick Cheney. The only material turned up by "Team Pox" were signs that Iraq had no such program: disabled equipment that had been rendered harmless by U.N. inspectors, Iraqi scientists deemed credible who gave no indication they had worked with smallpox, and a laboratory thought to be back in use that was covered in cobwebs. Half a million US troops as well as senior government officials, including Bush, were vaccinated against smallpox in preparation for an attack by Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. One investigator said, "We found no physical or new anecdotal evidence to suggest Iraq was producing smallpox or had stocks of it in its possession." (AP/San Diego Union-Tribune) - September 18: Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix attacks what he terms the "spin and hype" behind US and British allegations of banned Iraqi weapons used to justify war against Saddam Hussein.
Prewar intelligence on Iraq
He compares US and British leaders to medieval witch hunters who used fraudulent and doctored evidence to convince themselves and the world that Hussein posed a legitimate threat to world peace: "In the Middle Ages when people were convinced there were witches they certainly found them. This is a bit risky. ...What in a way stands accused is the culture of spin, the culture of hyping.... Advertisers will advertise a refrigerator in terms that we don't quite believe in, but we expect governments to be more serious and have more credibility" No comment was forthcoming from Washington, but the Blair administration issued statements standing by its case for war. Blix's comments have been echoed by his successor Demetrius Perricos, who says it is "more and more difficult to believe stocks [of WMDs] were there" in Iraq. (Reuters/CommonDreams) - September 18: Reporter David Gilson chronicles some of the highlights of the last 12 months of Bush administration stonewalling and sidestepping preceding the $87 request for Iraqi and Afghani redevelopment.
Iraq war and occupation
Former White House budget chief Lawrence Lindsay incurred the wrath of the President in September 2002 when he admitted that the cost of invading and occupying Iraq would cost between $100 and $200 billion. In October, former press secretary Ari Fleischer dismissed questions of cost with a quip that the cost of removing Saddam could be as low as "[t]he cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves." Since then, the administration has been anything but forthcoming with estimates. Various budget figures have trickled out from various administration offices, but most have been heavily qualified, broad, or contradictory, such as the December 2002 estimate of $50 - $60 billion that was immediately backpedaled by administration spokespersons, and the July 2003 estimate of up to $100 billion from L. Paul Bremer that caused such a furor. Until September 2003, they never came from the president himself, who dismissed questions in March 2003 with a flippant "we'll let you know." Instead," writes Gilson, "Bush spent months talking tough about Iraq while refusing to talk at all about hard numbers. Even as late as August, he snapped at a reporter who requested an ballpark figure for the cost of rebuilding Iraq, '[W]e generally don't do our estimates on the back of an envelope.' A formal funding request would come at 'the appropriate time,' he said. ...Last year, during the months of planning and half-hearted diplomacy, the White House sidestepped the issue by claiming that, since an invasion was not inevitable, the price was unknowable. As the war got underway, the administration hid behind the assertion that the military campaign -- the biggest since the Gulf War -- would not be dictated by the bottom line. The new funding request covers operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but at least $66 billion is expected to go to Iraq. On top of an earlier request for $79 billion, that brings the current price tag for invading, occupying, and rebuilding Iraq to more than $130 billion. Lindsey's prediction, so rapidly dismissed by the White House a year ago, is starting to look downright conservative. After all, the president's request only covers costs through 2004. As Vice President Dick Cheney grudgingly admitted on 'Meet the Press' this past weekend, the administration already anticipates asking Congress for even more money next year." (Mother Jones) - September 18: US National Guardsmen are increasingly disenchanted with their service in Iraq, citing tours of duty that are extended again and again, horrific living and working conditions, and a systematic failure to protect Guardsmen and regular soldiers from Iraqi depredations.
Iraq war and occupation
One defense analysts believes that the National Guard will experience a huge dropoff in the number of recruits and re-enlisters that will sign up over the coming years. In the short term, National Guard units will be used more and more in Iraq as regular duty soldiers are rotated out of the country. "The morale there is the lowest it's ever been," says one Guardsman's wife. "They talk about how terrified they are to go out. They are really afraid." Many Guardsmen began second-guessing their decision to enlist soon after they arrived in Iraq only to discover that their mission required much more than the weekend a month and two weeks a year many signed up for. "There's some lying recruiters out there," says one specialist. (Christian Science Monitor) - September 18: Democratic congressmen Robert Wexler and Peter Deutsch are calling for an investigation into how Bush administration officials allowed about 140 Saudis to leave the country in the days after the 9/11 attacks.
9/11 attacks
At a time when all private aviation was grounded, top officials allowed charter flights to pick up Saudis around the country and then leave for Saudi Arabia. The group included members of the royal family and relatives of Osama bin Laden. The departures occurred as investigators were learning that 15 of the 19 hijackers in the attacks were from Saudi Arabia. "It is unconscionable that the Bush administration would bypass long-standing national security measures by urging the Saudis to repatriate 140 nationals the day after the largest attack in US history," Wexler says. (Miami Herald) - September 18: Captain James Yee, an Islamic chaplain in the US Army, is charged with espionage on behalf of an as-yet-unidentified group of Arab terrorists.
Anti-terrorism and homeland security
Yee, who was posted at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, had secret documents in his possession when he was arrested. He is currently being held in South Carolina, and will be represented by an Army lawyer. (Washington Times) - September 18: In one of the biggest calamities of the post-war period,
Iraq war and occupation
a bomb ignites an Iraqi oil pipeline in northern Iraq near the town of Baiji. (VOA News) - September 18: A US tank fires on a reporter who attempts to approach the site of a firefight involving US and Iraqi personnel.
Media manipulation and marketing by GOP
Some observers believe that the action was taken as part of a program to prevent an accurate measurement of American casualties, which have been lately proven to be badly underreported. (VOA News) - September 18: Former senator Max Cleland, a Democrat who was severely injured in the Vietnam War,
Iraq war and occupation
writes a scathing column in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution accusing the Bush administration of leading the nation into another Vietnam-like quagmire in Iraq. - Cleland writes, "In his campaign for president he gives no indication of wanting to go to war. In fact, he decries the overextension of American military might and says other nations must do more. However, unbeknownst to the American public, the president's own Pentagon advisers have already cooked up a plan to go to war. All they are looking for is an excuse. Based on faulty intelligence, cherry-picked information is fed to Congress and the American people. The president goes on national television to make the case for war, using as part of the rationale an incident that never happened. Congress buys the bait -- hook, line and sinker -- and passes a resolution giving the president the authority to use 'all necessary means' to prosecute the war. The war is started with an air and ground attack. Initially there is optimism. The president says we are winning. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense says we are winning. As a matter of fact, the secretary of defense promises the troops will be home soon. However, the truth on the ground that the soldiers face in the war is different than the political policy that sent them there. They face increased opposition from a determined enemy. They are surprised by terrorist attacks, village assassinations, increasing casualties and growing anti-American sentiment. They find themselves bogged down in a guerrilla land war, unable to move forward and unable to disengage because there are no allies to turn the war over to. There is no plan B. There is no exit strategy. Military morale declines. The president's popularity sinks and the American people are increasingly frustrated by the cost of blood and treasure poured into a never-ending war. Sound familiar? It does to me. The president was Lyndon Johnson. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense was Robert McNamara. The congressional resolution was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. ...Unfortunately, the people who drove the engine to get into the war in Iraq never served in Vietnam. Not the president. Not the vice president. Not the secretary of defense. Not the deputy secretary of defense. Too bad. ...Instead of learning the lessons of Vietnam, where all of the above happened, the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and the deputy secretary of defense have gotten this country into a disaster in the desert. They attacked a country that had not attacked us. They did so on intelligence that was faulty, misrepresented and highly questionable. A key piece of that intelligence was an outright lie that the White House put into the president's State of the Union speech. These officials have overextended the American military, including the National Guard and the Reserve, and have expanded the U.S. Army to the breaking point. A quarter of a million troops are committed to the Iraq war theater, most of them bogged down in Baghdad. Morale is declining and casualties continue to increase. In addition to the human cost, the war in dollars costs $1 billion a week, adding to the additional burden of an already depressed economy. The president has declared 'major combat over' and sent a message to every terrorist, 'Bring them on.' As a result, he has lost more people in his war than his father did in his and there is no end in sight. ...Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn't go when you had the chance." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
- September 18: The British Daily Telegraph's editor Charles Moore begins "Beebwatch," his attempt to "root out soft-left bias" in the BBC's broadcasts.
Media manipulation and marketing by GOP
American journalist Joe Conason observes that "Moore's determination to inflict daily humiliation on the network coincides neatly with efforts by Rupert Murdoch and the Tory opposition to deprive Britain's great broadcasting institution of its licence fee, just as its charter is coming up for renewal. At the very least, this campaign aims to intimidate the BBC's management from broadcasting anything that might offend reactionary sensibilities; but its ultimate goal is the crippling, or even the abolition, of the BBC itself." Conason observes that Moore's efforts mirror the much more successful efforts of American conservatives to muzzle any dissent or left-wing material from being printed in the American media: "Its leverage over public debate in America is profound. Conservatives still complain about the 'liberal media,' but their ideas (and ideologues) command opinion-making airtime and newsprint. No rightwing extremist is judged too rancid to be awarded his own cable TV show." (Guardian)
Bremer signs orders transforming Iraq's economy and destroying Iraq's farming and business infrastructure
- September 19: Iraq administrator Paul Bremer signs a raft of executive orders that work to more fully implement the neocon economic transformation of Iraq's economy into an unregulated playground for American and European corporations.
Iraq war and occupation
Order 37, the "Tax Strategy for 2003," mandates a total "flat tax" on corporate and individual income at 15%, which creates an immediate and enormous windfall for foreign companies working inside Iraq. According to the order, it would apply "for 2004 and all subsequent years," making the flat tax a fixture of Iraq's economy. Order 40 sold off Iraq's banks to three foreign financiers -- interestingly enough, Bremer does not announce this order in Iraq, but in Dubai, at a meeting of multinational bankers. The three financial corporations, selected by Bremer, are the Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation, the National Bank of Kuwait, and Standard Chartered Bank of London, all three junior partners of New York's JP Morgan Chase. Order 40 also eliminates any ceiling on interest rates, which in Bremer's terms, means "Iraqis can enjoy modern banking and earn market rates of interest on their money," but in reality means these banks can charge exorbitant interest rates (in violation of the Koran's injunction against usury). And Order 12 invokes the long-planned "Trade Liberalization Policy." From here on, Iraq has no tariff protection whatsoever. No other nation in the world operates without some form of tariffs, which are taxes on imports, or quotas, which set limits on imports. From now on, Iraq will be the dumping ground for cheap foreign goods of all kinds, guaranteed to make foreign companies a tremendous amount of profit, and drive out local Iraqi competition. Kevin Dahaner of Global Exchange, a non-profit organization attempting to help Iraq rebuild, later says of the order's effect on Iraqi businesses: "They were just wiped out. Iraqis can't compete against cheap Chinese junk dumped into Baghdad." Within months, the unemployment rate in Iraq is a staggering 60%. - Food is also becoming an issue. Former administrator Jay Garner planned to buy up Iraq's own harvests, which would feed the populace and keep Iraq's farmers in business. But Bremer's Order 12 strips tariff protection from Iraqi food producers and eliminates taxes on foreign-grown food. In one stroke, Iraq's farming economy is virtually destroyed. Before the invasion, Iraq grew enough food to feed itself and export a large, wide variety of vegetables and fruit. The UN and US-imposed economic sanctions wounded Iraq's farming industry by denying farmers the equipment to repair irrigation pumps and the vaccines needed for cattle herds. Instead of giving the farmers what they need to repair their infrastructure, Bremer destroys the farming industry in favor of foreign imports. One example: the US's Cargill, the world's largest exporter of grain, floods Iraq with hundreds of thousands of tons of wheat. The example is doubly interesting because the invitation to tax-free dumping of wheat by Cargill on Iraq was organized by the CPA's agriculture chief, Dan Amstutz. Amstutz, the CEO of the North American Grain Association, was, in 2000, the chairman of a company founded by Cargill. (Greg Palast)
- September 19: Former Secretary of the Army Thomas White, who resigned from the Bush administration over charges of complicity in the Enron scandal,
Iraq war and occupation
criticizes the Defense Department for poor planning in Iraq: "It is quite clear in the immediate aftermath of hostilities that the plan for winning the peace is totally inadequate." White, whose comments appear in his new book Reconstructing Eden, has long been at odds with Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and other Pentagon hardliners, who helped engineer his departure. (Washington Post) - September 19: Secretary of State Colin Powell tells the press,
Iraq war and occupation
"Iraq has come very far, but serious problems remain, starting with security. American commanders and troops told me of the many threats they face -- from leftover loyalists who want to return Iraq to the dark days of Saddam, from criminals who were set loose on Iraqi society when Saddam emptied the jails and, increasingly, from outside terrorists who have come to Iraq to open a new front in their campaign against the civilized world." Talk show host and Fox News commentator Sean Hannity gives Powell's statement the spin: "Colin Powell just had a great piece that he had in the paper today. He was there [in Iraq]. He said things couldn't have been better." (Opinion Journal/Center for American Progress) - September 19: Respected writer and Catholic dignitary Andrew Greeley compares the Bush administration's systematic misrepresentations about Iraq to Nazi Joseph Goebbels' "big lie."
Media manipulation and marketing by GOP
He writes, "There is not and never has been any evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. None. The implication of such involvement was an attempt to deceive, a successful attempt at the big lie. I'm not sure that the president knows it is a lie, however. Also, the weapons of mass destruction story was never true. It now appears that Saddam panicked in 1995 when his sons-in-law defected to Jordan and revealed the truth about his weapons development. He immediately ordered the destruction of all the evidence. The UN team before the war would have no more found any weapons than the Americans after the war. Again, I'm not sure that the president knew the weapons argument was false. Perhaps some of his advisers believed it, or, as the Irish say, half-believed it. However, the American people now seem to suspect that they haven't been told the truth. Why, then, did the United States invade Iraq if the reasons given for the war were so problematic? It would seem that the answer was the same as the reason as for climbing Mt. Everest: Iraq was there. The administration recited the 'war on terror' mantra as a pretext for doing something that its intellectuals had wanted to do for years. No one in the administration expected that such a war would lead to more dangers of terrorism rather than less. The mantra has been used as an excuse for many things, from the Patriot Act to drilling for oil in Alaska. It won the 2002 election for the Republicans. It is supposed to win the presidential election next year. Will the big lie work? Perhaps, though it would seem that some are growing skeptical about its constant repetition. Moreover, the corollary mantra, which says that Americans must make sacrifices to win the war on terror, is also in trouble. Who makes the sacrifices? The rich Americans celebrating their tax 'refunds?' The Republican leadership who have few if any sons and daughters in harm's way? Giant corporations like Dick Cheney's Halliburton or Bechtel? No, the sacrifices will be made mostly by the sons and daughters of the poor and the working class who must fight the war." (Chicago Sun-Times/CommonDreams)
- September 20: Iraqi Governing Council member Aquila al-Hashimi, one of three women on the council,
Iraq war and occupation
a Shiite Muslim and a strong candidate to become Iraq's representative at the United Nations, is gravely wounded in an assassination attempt. She is currently in a Baghdad hospital under close guard. None of the council members are protected by either American troops or an Iraqi police presence; many, like Hashimi, use private bodyguards. Al-Hashemi will later die of her wounds. (AP/Yahoo) - September 20: A three-way summit meeting between Britain's Tony Blair, France's Jacque Chirac, and Germany's Gerhard Schröder takes place in Berlin.
Iraq war and occupation
Relations between Chirac and Schröder are markedly warmer than between the two leaders and Blair; Chirac sets the tone for the meeting when he bluntly states that Iraqis should be given control over their country within a few months, a position Blair does not share. Chirac, with Schröder's support, continues to insist that the UN immediately be given much more power and responsibility in Iraq. (Observer) - September 20: Bush's popularity is plummeting among military voters, particularly among those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
US military
A member of the 101st Airborne currently stationed in Mosul wrote to his hometown newspaper, the Peoria Journal-Star, "I once believed that I served for a cause: 'To uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States'. Now I no longer believe that. I can no longer justify my service for what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies." "It is time to speak out because our troops are still dying and our government is still lying," says a serviceman's wife in Texas. "Morale is at an all-time low and our heroes feel like they've been forgotten." Charlie Richardson, co-founder of a group called Military Families Speak Out, said: "Our supporters range from pacifists to people from long military traditions who have supported every war this country has ever fought -- until this one. Many people supported this war at the beginning because they believed the threat from weapons of mass destruction and accepted the link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida.... Now they realise their beliefs were built on quicksand. They are very angry with the administration and feel they've been duped." Colonel David Hackworth, a well-known and highly decorated Vietnam veteran, writes, "Imagine this bastard getting away with such crap if we had a draftee army." An Air Force veteran writes, "The powers that be are destroying our military from the inside, especially our Army. How many of these people that are 'stranded' (for lack of a better term) in Iraq are going to re-enlist? How many that haven't deployed are going to re-enlist...? How many families are going to be destroyed?" (Independent/Truthout) - September 20: The House Intelligence Committee, widely seen as less willing to investigate pre-war intelligence in Iraq than its less partisan counterpart in the Senate, comes under fire for being so uncooperative.
Prewar intelligence on Iraq
Many Democratic lawmakers feel that the committee is dragging its heels at the behest of Republican chairman Porter Goss, a former CIA agent who they believe is cooperating with the wishes of the Bush administration to slow down or block investigation of the events leading up to the invasion in return for being named the head of the CIA after George Tenet leaves the position. Goss claims his group is working "diligent[ly]," and says his investigation is awaiting the results from David Kay's WMD search. (Time) - September 20: Presidential candidate General Wesley Clark calls the war in Iraq "a major blunder" that he never would have supported,
Iraq war and occupation
reversing earlier statements that he might have voted to give the Bush administration the authority to wage war against the Hussein regime: "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war, never. I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein." Clark says his Army career taught him that "the use of force is only a last resort" that wasn't justified in Iraq. "I'm a soldier. I've laid on the battlefield bleeding." (ABC News) - September 20: Former president Bill Clinton opens a war memorial to Muslim dead in Srbrenica, Bosnia.
Balkan conflict in Yugoslavia
8,000 Muslims, many of them children, were massacred at the site by Bosnian Serbs in July 1995. The massacre has become a symbol for the brutality of Bosnia's 1992-1995 war. Speaking to an audience of over 15,000, Clinton says, "I hope the very mention of the name Srebrenica will remind every child in the world that pride in our own religious or ethnic heritage does not require or permit us to dehumanize or kill those who are different. I hope and pray that Srebrenica will be for all the world, a sober reminder of our common humanity." Clinton was invited to the ceremonies because of his central role in ending the war. (MSNBC)
- September 21: Bush says he is prepared to allow the UN to oversee postwar elections in Iraq.
Iraq war and occupation
"I do think it would be helpful to get the United Nations in to help write a constitution. I mean, they're good at that," Bush tells Fox News. "Or, perhaps when an election starts, they'll oversee the election. That would be deemed a larger role." Bush still opposes any other larger role for the UN in ruling Iraq: "I'm not so sure we have to, for starters." Many other countries, along with many UN leaders, see Bush's offer as condescending and meaningless. (Washington Post) - September 21: Former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher has privately told friends that Britain's involvement in the Iraqi occupation was a "mistake."
Iraq war and occupation
"Britain should never have been involved and it will be very difficult to get our troops out in anything like the near future," she told Tory peers at a private meeting last week. She also believes a judicial inquiry should be set up into the Iraq conflict rather than the "tightly defined" Hutton inquiry. (Sunday Mirror) - September 21: The US Congress may well rethink its acquiescence to Bush's request for an additional $87 million for Iraq in light of his recent admission that no evidence of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda exists, according to columnist and writer Thom Hartmann.
Iraq war and occupation
The original October 16, 2002 resolution accepted by Congress to give Bush the option to declare war on Iraq says, in part, "Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States...by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations. ...Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens.... ... the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States...and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself...." Now that these claims have all been proven false, it is entirely possible that some members of Congress will rethink their previous acceptance of the falsehoods and lies being promulgated by the administration, and fight the $87 billion expenditure. (CommonDreams) - September 21: Bush may be beginning to question the hard-line policy towards Iraq espoused by his Vice President and Secretary of Defense, among others.
Iraq war and occupation
Several officials close to the President say that foreign policy concerns and domestic politics are prompting Bush's rethinking of his position on Iraq. Bush wants more foreign support for his intervention in Iraq, and is beginning to understand that he may have to give up some of American control of Iraq in return. At home, a mixed reception to the $87 billion budget request, sinking poll numbers, and a potential schism between traditional Republicans and neoconservatives who want to extend the war to Iran, Syria, and other countries are all contributing to Bush's unease. All of the officials hasten to note that nothing has changed as yet in Bush's policies, and that both Cheney and Rumsfeld still have direct and intimate access to Bush. (Knight-Ridder/Tennessean)
"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read [sic] the news themselves." -- George W. Bush, September 21, 2003
- September 21: In a review of several books on terrorism and civil liberties, former White House counsel John Dean writes,
Anti-terrorism and homeland security
"Bush has made terrorism his raison d'etre, as he shamelessly and endlessly exploits it, actually using its threat to govern. More specifically, he is using terrorism to 'manufacture consent,' to borrow newspaper columnist Walter Lippmann's phrase." He also quotes author Pierre Tristam: "The USA Patriot Act is homage to George Orwell. The Department of Homeland Security is Franz Kafka's newest castle. The Department of Justice is run by a dangerously sober Elmer Gantry. Guantanamo Bay is a tropical one-stop of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Siberian gulag. And whatever goes on in the White House is a cross between Dr. Strangelove and 'Groundhog Day.'" And he quotes author Cass Sunstein: "Organizations and nations are far more likely to prosper if they welcome dissent and promote openness. Well-functioning societies benefit from a wide range of views; their citizens do not live in gated communities or echo chambers. The fantastic economic success of the United States owes everything to a culture of open information." (Los Angeles Times) - September 21: In a scathing op-ed in the St. Petersburg Times, columnist Robyn Blumner writes:
Bush administration's contempt for democracy
"Our nation is great because we are committed to the separation of powers, individual rights, the rule of law, the separation of church and state and transparency. Those are also the principles for which Bush has demonstrated the deepest contempt. One need not do anything more than mention Vice President Dick Cheney's clandestine energy policy meetings with industry executives to illustrate this administration's obsession with secrecy and its disregard for the oversight role of Congress. But the posture is also summed up in a 2001 directive from Attorney General John Ashcroft that encourages all departments of government to resist Freedom of Information Act requests. It promises that the Justice Department will back up any legally sound information denials. Bush doesn't believe in open, answerable government, he believes in government as Clint Eastwood movie -- hunker down, zip your lip, and maybe the varments will go away. ...And, as to rule of law, it is only followed when convenient. ...On the eve of the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the moment when a true leader would seek to unite the nation, Bush chose to divide us. He essentially called for an expansion of the USA Patriot Act just at a time when many Americans are calling for a rollback of the act.... Part of Bush's plan is to give the FBI free rein to demand personal records held by banks, ISPs, libraries, etc., without the need for a court order. So much for individual rights. In the best traditions of a banana republic, Bush is actively concentrating power and wealth. Friends-of-Bill walked away with nothing compared with the Friends-of-Bush. They are being given everything they want on a platter -- silver of course -- and the spoils include what has been promised to you, me and future generations of Americans." (St. Petersburg Times)
