Friday, December 19, 2003
Krugman Returns: Need that voice! Not a ground-breaking article, but he reminds us that “we shouldn’t let war supporters use the occasion of Saddam’s capture to re-write the recent history of U.S. foreign policy, to draw a veil over the way the nation was misled into war.” Those messy facts! And, noting that a majority of Americans still believe that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack, he opines that “the administration’s long campaign of guilt by innuendo, it seems, is still working.” http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/19/opinion/19KRUG.html
Democracy Acknowledged: Despite years of stocking them with conservatives of various stripes, some courts still come through now and then.
(1) The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City ruled that the President does not have the power to detain an American citizen seized on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant. In reviewing the case of so-called “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla, it said only the Congress can authorize such detentions and it ordered the government to release him from military custody within 30 days. Padilla has been held in a Navy brig for 19 months without access to a lawyer.
(2) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the U.S. cannot imprison "enemy combatants" indefinitely at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, that such indefinite imprisonment was inconsistent with American law and raised serious concerns under international law. It also said that the more than 600 detainees should have access to lawyers. As Krugman notes in his column, “The (Padilla) ruling was a stark reminder that the Bush administration, which talks so much about promoting democracy abroad, doesn't seem very concerned about following democratic rules at home.”
What’s Happening, Iraq: American media are still focused on Saddam. South Africa’s Mail and Guardian has a different take: "A series of deadly suicide bomb attacks, explosions and drive-by shootings has claimed at least 40 Iraqi lives in the four days since Saddam Hussein was captured, raising the insurgency to a new intensity."
And, Pepe Escobar of the Asia Times reminds us that Saddam was not the resistance. Pepe is characteristically definitive:
The invasion of Iraq was widely perceived as an attack on the Arab world. That's why the resistance is turning pan-Arab. Once again: this is a nationalist and religious resistance movement.
Asia Times Online has ascertained that at least 12 independent guerrilla organizations from different tribes are involved in the mukawama, all vaguely in touch with each other. This loose organization may be about to extend its reach nationwide. But the Iraqi guerrilla movement is extraordinarily complex.
The American tactic of now Iraqifying the war is nothing but a replay of "Vietnamization". Washington's push to make over a complex society in its own image will fail - as it failed in Vietnam. Iraqis, politically very sophisticated despite decades of dictatorship, detect crystal-clear the American plan, imposed at tank point, to privatize the whole country by selling its assets and fabulous natural resources to American - and a few European - corporations. This, most of all, is what is fueling the resistance. They know they cannot let people like Chalabi or Talabani in the IGC decide the future of the nation.
As author and commentator Tariq Ali has forcefully pointed out on the website Counterpunch, this is the "21st-century colonial model: Specialist companies are now encouraged to provide 'security'. They employ the mercenaries, and their profits are ensured by the state that hires them. They are backed up by the real army and, more importantly, by air power, to help defeat the enemy. But none of this will work if the population remains hostile. And large-scale repression only helps to unite the population against the occupiers. The fear in Washington is that the Iraqi resistance might attempt a sensational hit just before the next presidential election. The fear in the Arab east is that [President George W] Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney might escalate the conflict to retain the White House in 2004. Both fears may well be justified." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL20Ak01.html
Mr. WMD, David Kay, bows out
He’s giving it up before the “final report” is wrapped. David Kay, the head of the wmd search team is giving it up before the Iraq Survey Group’s work is completed. He will leave in February, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials. (Dana Priest, Walter Pincus) The BBC report emphasized Kay’s frustrations with not finding weapons and with his team being broken up to fight the insurgents. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9823-2003Dec17.html
Nader NOT bowing out, at least not yet…Nader has noted that “I would like to run. Substantively there is a strong argument for running. Now it's a question of resources -- just getting on the ballot is a major endeavor." He knocked Dean’s refusal to cut the military budget and said that "The Democrats are damaging each other far more than any Green campaign could. What they are saying about Dean ... all that will be used by Republicans." (via Yahoo, others)
9/11
The 9/11 Commission Chair, Thomas Kean made many critical statements about how preventable the attack was, but refused to criticize either the Clinton or Bush administrations. The organization “September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows” emphasizes that only $3 million has been spent on investigating 9/11, compared to the roughly $100 million that was spent on Whitewater. “It’s not about ‘getting Bush’—I’m no fan of Bill Clinton either. In a democracy it’s always about us- and what we’re willing to let people get away with. http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/ http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=795
Dean Trashing
It continues, by such “Democrats” as Lieberman and by the media. The Washington Post’s Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Finer begin their article,
Howard Dean's penchant for flippant and sometimes false statements is generating increased criticism from his Democratic presidential rivals and raising new questions about his ability to emerge as a nominee who can withstand intense, sustained scrutiny and defeat President Bush.
Later, Dean's remarks, his critics say, are in keeping with his history of making statements that are mean-spirited or misleading. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9661-2003Dec17?language=printer
Not to be out-done, the LA Times played “gotcha” claiming that Dean was pro-invasion back on Sept. 29, 2002 when he said on Face the Nation, “There’s no question Saddam is a threat to the U.S. and our allies.” Yet, that was taken out of context, as Dean had continued, “The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that.” http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dean18dec18,1,7251530.story?coll=la-home-headlines
So if Saddam testifies: What the White House fears
Many are commenting on this; conspiracy types suspect a Jack Ruby type is out there who will silence Saddam before he can spill the proverbial beans. Pepe Escobar of Asia Times has some notions on what Saddam could say. It’s a helpful review…
He can expand on how, in February, slightly before the onset of "shock and awe", his negotiators were delivering everything to Washington on a plate: free access to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to look for WMD anywhere in Iraq; full support for the American-penned road map in the Middle East; and the right for American companies to exploit Iraq's oil. The neo-conservative "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle, who had been calling for an invasion of Iraq for years, was one of the contacts of Saddam's negotiators. The defense will certainly call Perle to testify.
On March 17, Bush said that "should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war". Bush lied - and it would be very easy for Saddam to prove that he did everything to find a diplomatic alternative, while Washington did everything to prevent it. He can prove that Bush and his European allies - Britain's Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and President Jose Aznar of Spain - lied to a world public opinion which was overwhelmingly against the war.
He can talk of endless collusions with Washington, right up to the day he invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Still today, nobody has told the real story preceding the invasion of Kuwait. He will say how at the time Washington led him to the conclusion that an invasion was "acceptable". The defense will certainly call April Glaspie, the American ambassador in Baghdad and the last American official to see Saddam eye-to-eye five days before the invasion. She was "retired" by the State Department and has been conveniently silent ever since.
Using equipment bought from National Security Council chief Brent Scowcroft's company, Kuwait was involved in slant-drilling in Iraq in 1989, and was pumping out something like US$14 billion in oil from underneath Iraqi territory. The territory from which Kuwait was drilling had indeed been Iraqi territory. Saddam will say that Glaspie told him the US was neutral in the dispute. Saddam will also say that in 1989, while the CIA was advising Kuwait to put pressure on Iraq, a CIA-affiliated think tank was advising him to put pressure on Kuwait. And at the same time, Bush senior's administration was issuing a secret directive that resulted in billions of dollars of arm sales to Saddam.
He can talk about how, why and by whom the Shi'ite intifada was betrayed after the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. He will give American names. He will detail the American deal under which the US was to have helped the Shi'ites. He will prove that those exhumed bodies incriminate the Anglo-American alliance as much as himself.
He will keep talking all the way back to 1989, to the famous meeting on December 20, 1983 in Baghdad with his friend Donald Rumsfeld, now Pentagon chief… http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL19Ak01.html
Another low point for Fox News
The Rightist network supposedly added a “progressive Democrat” to its staff. Actually, as the Daily Howler points out, Tammy Bruce is “a fake and a fraud.” Seems that she (whoever she is) has started several broadcasts by praising Bush and trashing Dean.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121703.shtml
Bush: The Diane Sawyer interview
I’m no fan of Sawyer, who till now has rarely functioned as a journalist. But she persisted in her interview of Bush and was rewarded with the following. Note the bold sequence, mid-way...
DIANE SAWYER: Fifty percent of the American people have said that they think the administration exaggerated the evidence going into the war with Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, connection to terrorism. Are the American people wrong? Misguided?
PRESIDENT BUSH: The intelligence I operated one was good sound intelligence, the same intelligence that my predecessor operated on. The — there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a threat. The — otherwise the United Nations might — wouldn't a passed, you know, resolution after resolution after resolution, demanding that he disarm. ... I first went to the United Nations, September the 12th, 2002, and said you've given this man resolution after resolution after resolution. He's ignoring them. You step up and see that he honor those resolutions. Otherwise you become a feckless debating society. ... And so for the sake of peace and for the sake of freedom of the Iraqi people, for the sake of security of the country, and for the sake of the credibility of institu — in — international institutions, a group of us moved, and the world is better for it.
DIANE SAWYER: But let me try to ask — this could be a long question. ... ... When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons and now the inspectors say that there's no evidence of these weapons existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger. George Tenet has said that shouldn't have been in your speech. Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence — the inspectors have said they can't confirm this, they can't corroborate.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.
DIANE SAWYER: — an active —
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.
DIANE SAWYER: Is it yet?
PRESIDENT BUSH: But what David Kay did discover was they had a weapons program, and had that, that — let me finish for a second. Now it's more extensive than, than missiles. Had that knowledge been examined by the United Nations or had David Kay's report been placed in front of the United Nations, he, he, Saddam Hussein, would have been in material breach of 1441, which meant it was a causis belli. And look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there's no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.
DIANE SAWYER: Again, I'm just trying to ask, these are supporters, people who believed in the war who have asked the question.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer's gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him.
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
DIANE SAWYER: Well —
PRESIDENT BUSH: The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That's, that's what I'm trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be de — dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger. And so we got rid of him and there's no doubt the world is a safer, freer place as a result of Saddam being gone.
DIANE SAWYER: But, but, again, some, some of the critics have said this combined with the failure to establish proof of, of elaborate terrorism contacts, has indicated that there's just not precision, at best, and misleading, at worst.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. Look — what — what we based our evidence on was a very sound National Intelligence Estimate. ...
DIANE SAWYER: Nothing should have been more precise?
PRESIDENT BUSH: What — I, I — I made my decision based upon enough intelligence to tell me that this country was threatened with Saddam Hussein in power.
DIANE SAWYER: What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.
DIANE SAWYER: And if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction [inaudible] —
PRESIDENT BUSH: Diane, you can keep asking the question. I'm telling you — I made the right decision for America —
DIANE SAWYER: But-
PRESIDENT BUSH: — because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. ... But the fact that he is not there is, means America's a more secure country.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/US/bush_sawyer_excerpts_2_031216.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/18/politics/18PREX.html (summary)
-R
