MAY PEACE PREVAIL ON EARTH
March 14, 2003
The Writing On The Wall Series #18: More Ominous Signs of Troubles Ahead
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
This compilation is archived at http://www.EarthRainbowNetwork.com/Archives2003/WritingWall18.htm
Join Sunday's rolling wave of candlelight vigils - by Eli Pariser <email@example.com>
(...) In the face of an ever-closer and still unjustified war, we need to escalate our activity. That's why it's so important that every person who signed the emergency petition take the next step: joining the wave of candlelight vigils that will circle the globe this Sunday. This is going to be a massive global event. Already -- just since Tuesday -- 1,605 vigils have been scheduled in 77 countries. Beginning in New Zealand, these locally organized candlelight vigils will circle around the globe. They'll be beautiful, powerful, and inspiring. They'll send an eloquent and clear message that the world wants peace. And they'll be supported by many religious leaders -- including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize winner -- who will help to articulate the moral case against war. Never before have so many coordinated vigils taken place around the globe. We have the opportunity on Sunday to show just how the world feels about the war on Iraq -- but the impact depends on your participation. Please take some time to join millions in countries around the world in a Global Vigil for Peace. Sign up now at: http://www.globalvigil.org
1. Iraq May Be Poised to Ignite Oil Fields
2. Stealth jets sent to South Korea
3. Depleted Uranium (DU) in a possible war
4. America Boycotts Opening of World Court
5. Personal email from Laurie Garrett of Newsday about Davos
6. Notable quotes on CIA, FBI intelligence
The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth' by W. Clark
This war is about more than oil. OIL DOLLARS, THE EURO AND WAR IN IRAQ
CODEPINK Action Alert
Now is our time - Women Can Stop this War -- Keep the momentum - March 15 Actions in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, DC -- Build the momentum - March 17 - 24 Mass Mobilization in Washington, DC and Across the Nation
Trying to Shout Before it Happens - Warning to Soldiers Ad in Ha'aretz (March 13)
Desert Slaughter: The Imperialist War Against Iraq http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/dese-m13.shtml
"Lights. Camera. Action." Military briefers prepare for war (March 8)
With 800 journalists in the field, and a dazzling new set at HQ, war will test whether "transformation" in military-media relations is real
"Massive bomb" detonation a ploy to disguise nukes on Iraq? (March 13)
Will Neutron bombs be used?
This War Violates International Law (March 13)
Thatcher backed British firm in building "chemical weapons" plant in Iraq
World markets take fright at war talk (March 13)
The Amazon Under Threat (March 13)
This mankind treasure is today at serious risk, as world's energy giants develop simultaneous infrastructure projects that threaten millions of hectares and the isolated indigenous cultures.
The Bubble of American Supremacy by George Soros (March 13)
Global warning over mystery Hong Kong illness (March 13)
Give a good look at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/messages
Forwarded by "Mark Graffis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Iraq May Be Poised to Ignite Oil Fields
WASHINGTON, DC, March 10, 2003 (ENS) - Iraq has moved explosives to its oilfields at Kirkuk with the intention of firing the oil facilities as a deterrent to U.S. military action, U.S. officials told Reuters today, without revealing the sources of their intelligence. This report comes on the heels of an unconfirmed story from the Islamic Republic News Agency agency on Thursday which reported that Iraq dropped bombs which resulted in the explosion of an oil refinery near Kirkuk.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer today said he could not confirm those reports. "I'm not in a position to have evaluated them," he told a press briefing.
Iraq's Oil Undersecretary Hussein Suleiman Al-Hadithi denied the country has placed explosives in the oilfields in northern Iraq. Still, these reports are among a "variety of sources" that have convinced the U.S. Defense Department that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has "both the capability and the intent to damage or destroy Iraq's oil fields," the department said in a statement Thursday.
That assessment, together with the fact that Hussein's regime set fire to more than 700 of Kuwait's oil wells in 1991, has prompted the United States to plan for the possibility of oil well fires in Iraq in the event of military action to disarm the regime.
"Reliable reports indicate that these activities have been planned, and in some cases, may already have begun," the Department of Defense (DoD) said Thursday. "Recent information revealed that Iraq has received 24 railroad boxcars full of pentolite explosives. While destruction of the fields would not be a militarily significant act, it will produce economic and environmental impacts with lasting effects on the people of Iraq, as well as Iraq's neighbors."
With over 10 billion barrels of remaining proven oil reserves, Kirkuk is the center of Iraq's oil industry and is connected by pipelines to ports on the Mediterranean Sea. After some 70 years of operation, Kirkuk still produces up to one million barrels a day, almost half of all Iraqi oil exports. Kirkuk is located in northern Iraq, about 250 kilometers (155 miles) north of the capital of Baghdad near the foot of the Zagros Mountains and just south of the no-fly zone patrolled by U.S. and British aircraft.
U.S. plans are first to prevent the destruction of Iraq's oil fields and second, if unable to prevent the destruction, to control and mitigate the damage quickly, said the Defense Department.
"The department has crafted strategies that will allow U.S. forces to secure and protect the oil fields as rapidly as possible in order to preserve them prior to destruction. U.S. military forces would be responsible for securing and protecting the oil sites, and under appropriate contractual arrangements, private sector companies would extinguish any fires and assess damage to oil facilities." the Defense Department said.
Brown & Root Services, a division of Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., Houston, developed the oil facilities control plan for the U.S. government, a plan which includes assessing damages.
Halliburton Company, led by Dick Cheney before he assumed his current position of vice president, is the parent of construction giant Kellogg Brown & Root Inc.
"Environmentally, the U.S. estimates that the regime's likely actions have the potential to double the disastrous effects experienced in Kuwait in 1991," said the DoD, which says the destruction of those oil wells had "an impact 20 times larger than that of the Exxon Valdez disaster" of 1989. In 1991, Iraq released about five million barrels of oil into the Arabian Gulf, the DoD says. "Even today, there are still environmental clean-up actions being taken."
The many water desalination plants around the Gulf were affected by the Iraqi release of oil. The long term effects on the water tables in Gulf countries are still being analyzed, the DoD said, but it has been determined that about 30 percent of Kuwait's water is unusable as a result of the 1991 oil contamination.
The Defense Department estimates that "up to 15 desalination plants would be affected were Iraq to undertake such actions today, critically affecting many of Iraq's neighbors."
Stealth jets sent to South Korea (March 11)
SEOUL, South Korea - In a move certain to further fuel North Korean war fears, the United States is sending up to six radar-avoiding F-117A "stealth" warplanes to South Korea for joint military exercises.
U.S. military officials say the deployment of F-117As to Kunsan Air Base in South Korea is the first in a decade but is not connected to current tensions sparked by the revival of North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
"These defensive exercises are not related to current world events and are not meant to be aggressive or threatening," Air Force Staff Sgt. Aaron Cram, a spokesman for the 49th Fighter Wing at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, said according to Reuters news service.
But the current South Korean-U.S. military exercises being held on the Korean peninsula -- which run until April 2 -- are cited by Pyongyang as evidence of U.S. preparations for a pre-emptive, possibly nuclear, strike against it.
The decision to send the stealth fighters to South Korea comes hard on the heels of the deployment of 24 American B-1 and B-52 bombers to the island of Guam in the Western Pacific, well within striking range of North Korea.
That move is seen as sending a message to North Korea that the U.S. will not be distracted by the crisis with Iraq.
North Korea, meanwhile, is sticking to its demand for direct face-to-face talks with the United States, saying Washington's push for a multilateral dialogue only makes the prospect of armed conflict more likely.
In a commentary Tuesday in the state-owned Rodong Sinmun newspaper North Korea accused the Bush administration of "evading its responsibility" for current tensions over Pyongyang's alleged nuclear weapons program.
Upping the political pressure on Pyongyang "would only make a clash unavoidable" the North's Korean Central News Agency quoted the commentary as saying. 'Bad practice' The Bush administration says it wants to begin dialogue with North Korea as part of a broader regional multilateral approach because the North's efforts to build nuclear weapons have regional ramifications.
Pyongyang, however, denies even having a nuclear weapons program and blames the hostile policy of the United States for pushing the two countries towards war. The only way the ongoing tensions can be resolved, it says, is through direct bilateral talks.
"By calling for multilateral talks the U.S. means letting other countries stand in its stead," Tuesday's commentary said, adding: "This is not the stand and attitude to solve the problem but an act of evading its responsibility."
From: "Hans Karow" <email@example.com>
Subject: Depleted Uranium (DU) in a possible war
Date: 13 Mar 2003
In case of war, Depleted Uranium (DU) in "hard target" guided weapons is my biggest concern, not Saddam Hussein!
Every effort should be undertaken to resolve the problem in Iraq in a peaceful way, and that is what the UN is about. President Bush is not the president of the UN, but of the US! If he doesn't like what the UN is doing, he can propose a resolution and in a democratic way the UN members decide about. The mission of the UN is quite clear as everyone should carefully read the UN's Preamble at http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
I urge your readers to please get informed about the short- and LONG-term hazards of spread DU, see web sites http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u23.htm#USpatreport from which summary I cite:
"In time of war vital combat and aftermath data that may alter public perception, government decisions or arms procurement is classified, concealed or distorted on the pretext of state security. It is vital to separate facts from propaganda about terrorist threats and Iraqi or allied weapons. Since September 11th US and UK Government agendas have excluded any debate about the weapon systems used by US and allied forces (2). Their potentially devastating effects on the Iraqi population and allied ground forces may far exceed hazards from weapons that Iraq may have developed."
Another good web site is http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm
Anyone still supporting Bush's and Blair's war plans in Iraq should first get informed, that includes Bush and Blair. I wonder whether these heads of their country would want to be a grandfather of children, pictured in:
http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/contaminazioneGB.htm (click on pictures to enlarge)
or have a look at:
http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html (pictures at bottom).
Dan Fahey just finished his report:
"Science or Science Fiction? Facts, Myths and Propaganda in the Debate Over Depleted Uranium Weapons."
which is posted at:
well worth to read!
Thank you for taking this in consideration to now support peace rather than war.
America Boycotts Opening of World Court
By Stephen Castle in The Hague
12 March 2003
The United States showed its opposition to the new International Criminal Court (ICC) set up at The Hague to try war crimes by boycotting its inauguration ceremony yesterday.
The American ambassador to the Netherlands, Clifford Sobel, refused to attend the gathering, which was hosted at The Hague by Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general.
Mr Annan said the ICC, billed as the descendent of the tribunal at Nuremberg set up after the Second World War, was "the embodiment of our collective conscience". But the US, which claims its servicemen could be targeted by politically motivated cases, has signed treaties with more than 20 nations giving its citizens immunity from the ICC.
Richard Dicker, director of the international justice programme for Human Rights Watch, accused the US government of trying to create a "two-tier justice system" with one law for US citizens and another for everyone else.
VERY INTERESTING READ!
From: "Mark Graffis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Personal email from Laurie Garrett of Newsday about Davos
Yahoo! Groups : the_dieoff_QA Messages : Message 47 of 61
From: Roger Baker
Date: Mar 11, 2003
[Laurie Garrett of Newsday -- and author of a great work of contemporary history, The Coming Plagues -- sent this email to a bunch of her friends. It got around. Then it got loose. Reportedly she is quite steamed about it, as well she might be. But it's been circulated to thousands already... -- Roger]
OK, hard to believe, but true. Yours truly has been hobnobbing with the ruling class.
I spent a week in Davos, Switzerland at the World Economic Forum. I was awarded a special pass which allowed me full access to not only the entire official meeting, but also private dinners with the likes the head of the Saudi Secret Police, presidents of various insundry countries, your Fortune 500 CEOS and the leaders of the most important NGOs in the world. This was not typical press access. It was full-on, unfettered, class A hobnobbing.
Davos, I discovered, is a breathtakingly beautiful spot, unlike anything I'd ever experienced. Nestled high in the Swiss Alps, it's a three hours train ride from Zurich that finds you climbing steadily through snow-laden mountains that bring to mind Heidi and Audrey Hepburn (as in the opening scenes of "Charade"). The EXTREMELY powerful arrive by helicopter. The moderately powerful take the first class train. The NGOs and we mere mortals reach heaven via coach train or a conference bus. Once in Europe's bit of heaven conferees are scattered in hotels that range from B&B to ultra luxury 5-stars, all of which are located along one of only three streets that bisect the idyllic village of some 13,000 permanent residents.
Local Davos folks are fanatic about skiing, and the slopes are literally a 5-15 minute bus ride away, depending on which astounding downhill you care to try. I don't know how, so rather than come home in a full body cast I merely watched.
This sweet little chalet village was during the WEF packed with about 3000 delegates and press, some 1000 Swiss police, another 400 Swiss soldiers, numerous tanks and armored personnel carriers, gigantic rolls of coiled barbed wire that gracefully cascaded down snow-covered hillsides, missile launchers and assorted other tools of the national security trade. The security precautions did not, of course, stop there. Every single person who planned to enter the conference site had special electronic badges which, upon being swiped across a reading pad, produced a computer screen filled color portrait of the attendee, along with his/her vital statistics. These were swiped and scrutinized by soldiers and police every few minutes -- any time one passed through a door, basically. The whole system was connected to handheld wireless communication devices made by HP, which were issued to all VIPs. I got one. Very cool, except when they crashed. Which, of course, they did frequently. These devices supplied every imagineable piece of information one could want about the conference, your fellow delegates, Davos, the world news, etc. And they were emailing devices --- all emails being monitored, of course, by Swiss cops.
Antiglobalization folks didn't stand a chance. Nor did Al Qaeda. After all, if someone managed to take out Davos during WEF week the world would basically lose a fair chunk of its ruling and governing class POOF, just like that. So security was the name of the game. Metal detectors, X-ray machines, shivering soldiers standing in blizzards, etc.
Overall, here is what I learned about the state of our world:
- I was in a dinner with heads of Saudi and German FBI, plus the foreign minister of Afghanistan. They all said that at its peak Al Qaeda had 70,000 members. Only 10% of them were trained in terrorism -- the rest were military recruits. Of that 7000, they say all but about 200 are dead or in jail.
- But Al Qaeda, they say, is like a brand which has been heavily franchised. And nobody knows how many unofficial franchises have been spawned since 9/11.
- The global economy is in very very very very bad shape. Last year when WEF met here in New York all I heard was, "Yeah, it's bad, but recovery is right around the corner". This year "recovery" was a word never uttered. Fear was palpable -- fear of enormous fiscal hysteria. The watchwords were "deflation", "long term stagnation" and "collapse of the dollar". All of this is without war.
- If the U.S. unilaterally goes to war, and it is anything short of a quick surgical strike (lasting less than 30 days), the economists were all predicting extreme economic gloom: falling dollar value, rising spot market oil prices, the Fed pushing interest rates down towards zero with resulting increase in national debt, severe trouble in all countries whose currency is guaranteed agains the dollar (which is just about everybody except the EU), a near cessation of all development and humanitarian programs for poor countries. Very few economists or ministers of finance predicted the world getting out of that economic funk for minimally five-10 years, once the downward spiral ensues.
- Not surprisingly, the business community was in no mood to hear about a war in Iraq. Except for diehard American Republicans, a few Brit Tories and some Middle East folks the WEF was in a foul, angry anti-American mood. Last year the WEF was a lovefest for America. This year the mood was so ugly that it reminded me of what it felt like to be an American overseas in the Reagan years. The rich -- whether they are French or Chinese or just about anybody -- are livid about the Iraq crisis primarily because they believe it will sink their financial fortunes.
- Plenty are also infuriated because they disagree on policy grounds. I learned a great deal. It goes FAR beyond the sorts of questions one hears raised by demonstrators and in UN debates. For example:
- If Al Qaeda is down to merely 200 terrorists cadres and a handful of wannabe franchises, what's all the fuss?
- The Middle East situation has never been worse. All hope for a settlement between Israel and Palestine seems to have evaporated. The energy should be focused on placing painful financial pressure on all sides in that fight, forcing them to the negotiating table. Otherwise, the ME may well explode. The war in Iraq is at best a distraction from that core issue, at worst may aggravate it. Jordan's Queen Rania spoke of the "desperate search for hope".
- Serious Islamic leaders (e.g. the King of Jordan, the Prime Minster of Malaysia, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia) believe that the Islamic world must recapture the glory days of 12-13th C Islam. That means finding tolerance and building great education institutions and places of learning. The King was passionate on the subject. It also means freedom of movement and speech within and among the Islamic nations. And, most importantly to the WEF, it means flourishing free trade and support for entrepeneurs with minimal state regulation. (However, there were also several Middle East respresentatives who argued precisely the opposite. They believe bringing down Saddam Hussein and then pushing the Israel/Palestine issue could actually result in a Golden Age for Arab Islam.)
- US unilateralism is seen as arrogant, bullyish. If the U.S. cannot behave in partnership with its allies -- especially the Europeans -- it risks not only political alliance but BUSINESS, as well. Company leaders argued that they would rather not have to deal with US government attitudes about all sorts of multilateral treaties (climate change, intellectual property, rights of children, etc.) -- it's easier to just do business in countries whose governments agree with yours. And it's cheaper, in the long run, because the regulatory envornments match. War against Iraq is seen as just another example of the unilateralism.
- For a minority of the participants there was another layer of AntiAmericanism that focused on moralisms and religion. I often heard delegates complain that the US "opposes the rights of children", because we block all treaties and UN efforts that would support sex education and condom access for children and teens. They spoke of sex education as a "right". Similarly, there was a decidedly mixed feeling about Ashcroft, who addressed the conference. I attended a small lunch with Ashcroft, and observed Ralph Reed and other prominent Christian fundamentalists working the room and bowing their heads before eating. The rest of the world's elite finds this American Christian behavior at least as uncomfortable as it does Moslem or Hindu fundamentalist behavior. They find it awkward every time a US representative refers to "faith-based" programs. It's different from how it makes non-Christian Americans feel -- these folks experience it as downright embarrassing.
- When Colin Powell gave the speech of his life, trying to win over the nonAmerican delegates, the sharpest attack on his comments came not from Amnesty International or some Islamic representative -- it came from the head of the largest bank in the Netherlands!
I learned that the only economy about which there is much enthusiasm is China, which was responsible for 77% of the global GDP growth in 2002. But the honcho of the Bank of China, Zhu Min, said that fantastic growth could slow to a crawl if China cannot solve its rural/urban problem. Currently 400 million Chinese are urbanites, and their average income is 16 times that of the 900 million rural residents. Zhu argued China must urbanize nearly a billion people in ten years!
I learned that the US economy is the primary drag on the global economy, and only a handful of nations have sufficient internal growth to thrive when the US is stagnating.
The WEF was overwhelmed by talk of security, with fears of terrorism, computer and copyright theft, assassination and global instability dominating almost every discussion.
I learned from American security and military speakers that, "We need to attack Iraq not to punish it for what it might have, but preemptively, as part of a global war. Iraq is just one piece of a campaign that will last years, taking out states, cleansing the planet."
The mood was very grim. Almost no parties, little fun. If it hadn't been for the South Africans -- party animals every one of them -- I'd never have danced. Thankfully, the South Africans staged a helluva party, with Jimmy Dludlu's band rocking until 3am and Stellenbosch wines pouring freely, glass after glass after glass....
These WEF folks are freaked out. They see very bad economics ahead, war, and more terrorism. About 10% of the sessions were about terrorism, and it's heavy stuff. One session costed out what another 9/11-type attack would do to global markets, predicting a far, far worse impact due to the "second hit" effect -- a second hit that would prove all the world's post-9/11 security efforts had failed. Another costed out in detail what this, or that, war scenario would do to spot oil prices. Russian speakers argued that "failed nations" were spawning terrorists --- code for saying, "we hate Chechnya". Entire sessions were devoted to arguing which poses the greater asymmetric threat: nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
Finally, who are these guys? I actually enjoyed a lot of my conversations, and found many of the leaders and rich quite charming and remarkably candid. Some dressed elegantly, no matter how bitter cold and snowy it was, but most seemed quite happy in ski clothes or casual attire. Women wearing pants was perfectly acceptable, and the elite is sufficiently multicultural that even the suit and tie lacks a sense of dominance.
Watching Bill Clinton address the conference while sitting in the hotel room of the President of Mozambique -- we were viewing it on closed circuit TV -- I got juicy blow-by=blow analysis of US foreign policy from a remarkably candid head of state. A day spent with Bill Gates turned out to be fascinating and fun. I found the CEO of Heinekin hilarious, and George Soros proved quite earnest about confronting AIDS. Vicente Fox -- who I had breakfast with -- proved sexy and smart like a -- well, a fox. David Stern (Chair of the NBA) ran up and gave me a hug.
The world isn't run by a clever cabal. It's run by about 5,000 bickering, sometimes charming, usually arrogant, mostly male people who are accustomed to living in either phenomenal wealth, or great personal power. A few have both. Many of them turn out to be remarkably naive -- especially about science and technology. All of them are financially wise, though their ranks have thinned due to unwise tech-stock investing. They pay close heed to politics, though most would be happy if the global political system behaved far more rationally -- better for the bottom line. They work very hard, attending sessions from dawn to nearly midnight, but expect the standards of intelligence and analysis to be the best available in the entire world. They are impatient. They have a hard time reconciling long term issues (global warming, AIDS pandemic, resource scarcity) with their daily bottomline foci. They are comfortable working across languages, cultures and gender, though white caucasian males still outnumber all other categories. They adore hi-tech gadgets and are glued to their cell phones.
Welcome to Earth: meet the leaders.
From: "Judith Iam" <email@example.com>
Subject: Notable quotes on CIA, FBI intelligence
Date: 13 Mar 2003
Raymond McGovern, CIA, retired:
"The ethic at CIA reflects the inscription on the entrance wall, which says,"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. And we - that is, CIA analyst - took that very seriously. And so, if we do not see evidence of atie between al-Qaeda and Iraq, for example, we will not write that. Intelligence needs to be as pure as a virgin. When intelligence is pimped, as is now being done by the White House and the Defense Department, itloses its virginity. And, as is well known, nothing is quite the same again once you have lost your virginity."
The day after 9/11 Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were saying, "Now let's go get Iraq. And so the push was on to find evidence that Iraq had some sortof connection with 9/11. And I am very sad to say that our president himself has in a subliminal way always made that connection. And that is why most Americans - pity them - tend to believe that Iraq did have something to do with 9/11, while the intelligence community is convinced it did not.
President Bush has said the Iraqis could produce a nuclear weapon perhaps in another year. Now the formal intelligence estimate on that is that they could not possibly do that until the end of the decade. One wonders where the president gets his information. I really don't fault him as much for being dishonest as for being naive to think that he can go to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and expect to get a straight answer on such things.
The logical conclusion is that the information has been doctored, that theinformation has been cooked to the recipe of policy and this - for an intelligence outfit - is anathema, beyond the pale. This is something that renders itsuperfluous to even have an intelligence agency."
Former CIA Officer David MacMichael:
"I think the administration is indeedpressuring the intelligence system, whether it be the CIA, FBI, or anyone else,to come up with the strongest possible evidence to indicate there is a genuine and immediate threat of attack by chemical, biological, or other weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups - and in particular those associated with al-Qaeda,and to link Iraq to that."
Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer who spent years working on covert operations in Iraq, is astonished.
Baer: "There is no imminent threat from Iraq, all right?! If he does have missiles, which he probably does, they are buried in the ground, and it is going to take months to dig them up. We've seen no evidence of VX gas, or Bubonic plague, or anthrax, or any of this stuff."
The CIA said, "Listen; we don't have enough information to indict Saddam on terrorism charges. And Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, said, "That's not good enough. Give us the raw data bases and we'll make our own decisions. And they rounded up these people who are non-professionals - a couple of ex-lawyers, consultants, who all rallied around and said, "Well, let's take this, let's take that, let's take this and we can indict."
Former UN Inspector David Albright:
"Often what you see in the Bush administration is that they don't care. I mean, you say, "This isn't true." They say, "Oh, Okay," and then they repeat it again publicly. Or they just say,"Don't form a conclusion. Keep working on it. And so there are several cases where the inspectors are just expected to keep working on it, and yet they think it's garbage."
President Bush has almost reached his goal: war against Saddam Hussein. And the American media are beating the drums. For example, Fox TV, America's most watched news channel and its very popular star-anchor Bill O'Reilly, who stirs up millions ofviewers:
O'Reilly: "When the war begins, this is what we expect from every American: Either you support the military or you shut up. Americans and our foreign allies who come out against us are enemies of the state."
In a letter dated October 7, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet told the US Senate that Iraq was "drawing a line short" of conducting terrorist attacks with either conventional or chemical/biological weapons against the United States." The CIAtook the position that the probability was low that Iraq would either initiate an attack with weapons of mass destruction or give them to terrorists.
On the verysame day, October 7, President Bush went before the cameras and turned the content of Tenet's letter on its head. Bush claimed, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group orindividual terrorists."
Read the entire article:
BACK TO THE FIRST HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE