Thursday, October 16, 2003
Stopping those Leaks:
That ethical, effective Administration is very much ‘on top.’ Witness the following, courtesy of the Philadelphia Inquirer (Joseph L. Galloway, James Huhnhenn):
Concerned about the appearance of disarray and feuding within his administration as well as growing resistance to his policies in Iraq, President Bush - living up to his recent declaration that he is in charge - told his top officials to "stop the leaks" to the media, or else.
News of Bush's order leaked almost immediately.
Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/7023679.htm
For the unconvinced: Imminent Threat?
The Administration is spinning that they never said the Iraqi threat was “imminent.” Well, it is true that they didn’t toss the word around. But, if you have any doubters who assert that they didn’t mislead or worse, use some of the following from a Bush speech of 53 weeks ago, October 8, 2002:
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September 11, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.
And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems are not required for a chemical or biological attack -- all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Sounds like a noteworthy, growing if not imminent threat to me…
Another Poll- of the troops
This survey, conducted by Stars and Stripes backs the notion that the troops and the Administration have distinctly contrasting views. The Pentagon-sponsored newspaper reported that half of the soldiers survey believed that their morale was low, that their training was insufficient and that they do not plan to re-enlist. The Washington Post (Bradley Graham, Dana Milbank) report, a front-pager in today’s edition, added that one-third complained that their mission lacks clear definition.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32521-2003Oct15?language=printer
Syria Bill passes House:
The aforementioned 'Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act' passed the House by a vote of 398-4 yesterday. The bill calls for sanctions on Syria for alleged links to terrorist organizations and its suspected efforts to procure nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The legislation provides U.S. President George W. Bush with an array of tools to use against Syria, including restrictions on exports and investments, a reduction of U.S. diplomatic representation in Syria and the imposition of travel limitations on Syrian diplomats in the United States, prohibition of the exportation of "dual-use" technology and restrictions on permission for Syrian aircraft to use U.S. airspace. It also would freeze Syrian assets.
“Allies” Approve the UN Resolution
Noontime today the triad of Germany, France and Russia agreed to favor the latest U.N. resolution that had been pushed by the U.S. which authorizes the Occupation. Rumors of this joining had been circulating for the past weeks. But unsurprisingly, the countries still ruled out military commitments to the Occupation. Thus, the Security Council was able to give its unanimous approval to the resolution.
Another confirmation: Invasion Yielded more al-Qaeda followers:
The International Institute for Strategic Studies issued its annual report. The British think-tank noted that the ranks of al-Qaeda were swollen and galvanized by the invasion. They also termed the Administration’s assertions about progress in the war on terror to be “over-confident.”
http://www.iiss.org/news.php?cat=4
What’s Happening: Afghanistan- are we leaving?
After a series of reports about the U.S. talking with the Taliban, a thorough account by Syed Saleem Shahzad of Asia Times noted that…
With Afghanistan daily slipping into more anarchy and chaos, United States authorities, aware that they are unlikely to ever bring stability to the country by military means, continue to explore political avenues that ultimately could pave the way for them to withdraw from the country.
First there were the talks at the Pakistan Air Force base in Quetta with "moderate" elements of the Taliban (which immediately failed due to the US insistence on the sidelining of Taliban leader Mullah Omar). Then came the formation of Jaishul Muslim, a formal grouping of lesser Taliban lights (which failed even to enter into Afghanistan), and moves to pry some of the more powerful mujahideen commanders from the anti-US resistance movement.
But now, with the US's first choice proving so poor, US authorities are keen on soliciting Pakistan's assistance in sorting out the mess in Afghanistan, which includes the "moderate" Taliban concept, which initially the US found repugnant...
At the same time, options are being explored to recruit other powerful former Taliban ministers into the central cabinet in key positions, including that of defense.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EJ15Ag01.html
-R
That ethical, effective Administration is very much ‘on top.’ Witness the following, courtesy of the Philadelphia Inquirer (Joseph L. Galloway, James Huhnhenn):
Concerned about the appearance of disarray and feuding within his administration as well as growing resistance to his policies in Iraq, President Bush - living up to his recent declaration that he is in charge - told his top officials to "stop the leaks" to the media, or else.
News of Bush's order leaked almost immediately.
Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/7023679.htm
For the unconvinced: Imminent Threat?
The Administration is spinning that they never said the Iraqi threat was “imminent.” Well, it is true that they didn’t toss the word around. But, if you have any doubters who assert that they didn’t mislead or worse, use some of the following from a Bush speech of 53 weeks ago, October 8, 2002:
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September 11, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.
And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems are not required for a chemical or biological attack -- all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Sounds like a noteworthy, growing if not imminent threat to me…
Another Poll- of the troops
This survey, conducted by Stars and Stripes backs the notion that the troops and the Administration have distinctly contrasting views. The Pentagon-sponsored newspaper reported that half of the soldiers survey believed that their morale was low, that their training was insufficient and that they do not plan to re-enlist. The Washington Post (Bradley Graham, Dana Milbank) report, a front-pager in today’s edition, added that one-third complained that their mission lacks clear definition.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32521-2003Oct15?language=printer
Syria Bill passes House:
The aforementioned 'Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act' passed the House by a vote of 398-4 yesterday. The bill calls for sanctions on Syria for alleged links to terrorist organizations and its suspected efforts to procure nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The legislation provides U.S. President George W. Bush with an array of tools to use against Syria, including restrictions on exports and investments, a reduction of U.S. diplomatic representation in Syria and the imposition of travel limitations on Syrian diplomats in the United States, prohibition of the exportation of "dual-use" technology and restrictions on permission for Syrian aircraft to use U.S. airspace. It also would freeze Syrian assets.
“Allies” Approve the UN Resolution
Noontime today the triad of Germany, France and Russia agreed to favor the latest U.N. resolution that had been pushed by the U.S. which authorizes the Occupation. Rumors of this joining had been circulating for the past weeks. But unsurprisingly, the countries still ruled out military commitments to the Occupation. Thus, the Security Council was able to give its unanimous approval to the resolution.
Another confirmation: Invasion Yielded more al-Qaeda followers:
The International Institute for Strategic Studies issued its annual report. The British think-tank noted that the ranks of al-Qaeda were swollen and galvanized by the invasion. They also termed the Administration’s assertions about progress in the war on terror to be “over-confident.”
http://www.iiss.org/news.php?cat=4
What’s Happening: Afghanistan- are we leaving?
After a series of reports about the U.S. talking with the Taliban, a thorough account by Syed Saleem Shahzad of Asia Times noted that…
With Afghanistan daily slipping into more anarchy and chaos, United States authorities, aware that they are unlikely to ever bring stability to the country by military means, continue to explore political avenues that ultimately could pave the way for them to withdraw from the country.
First there were the talks at the Pakistan Air Force base in Quetta with "moderate" elements of the Taliban (which immediately failed due to the US insistence on the sidelining of Taliban leader Mullah Omar). Then came the formation of Jaishul Muslim, a formal grouping of lesser Taliban lights (which failed even to enter into Afghanistan), and moves to pry some of the more powerful mujahideen commanders from the anti-US resistance movement.
But now, with the US's first choice proving so poor, US authorities are keen on soliciting Pakistan's assistance in sorting out the mess in Afghanistan, which includes the "moderate" Taliban concept, which initially the US found repugnant...
At the same time, options are being explored to recruit other powerful former Taliban ministers into the central cabinet in key positions, including that of defense.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EJ15Ag01.html
-R
