News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Chris McConnel

03/08/03 4:45 AM

#9837 RE: sylvester80 #9836

Joe Conason's Journal
U.N. bombshell: More evidence against Iraq turns out to be phony. Plus: Did Bush make a big booboo during his speech to the nation?

March 7, 2003 / More faked "intelligence"?

Excuse me, but did I hear correctly what Mohammed El-Baradei said this morning? According to Reuters, I did: The chairman of the International Atomic Energy Authority told the UN Security Council that the documentary evidence of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Niger in 1999 is "not authentic." Or to use a ruder term, the proof of this allegation provided by British intelligence last fall – and repeated by the US State Department last December -- was faked.

As El-Baradei continued his polite but thorough debunking of alarms about Iraqi nuclear capability spread by the Bush and Blair governments, he quickly passed over that little bombshell. (He dwelled longer on the question of those aluminum tubes and magnets supposedly intended for uranium enrichment centrifuges, stating again, with near-certainty after additional probing, that those items were obtained for other purposes.) What the IAEA apparently established is that letters or other documents purporting to show an Iraqi bid for uranium from Niger were forged. Among other things, he noted that handwriting on those documents had been checked by "outside" experts.

So much for the vaunted Iraqi bomb (a topic conspicuously omitted by President Bush from his war-preview press conference last night). Assuming that El-Baradei's accusation about the Niger uranium hoax is correct, what remains to be discovered is where the phony documents originated and why it was created. Like the plagiarized "intelligence report" put out by the British and cited by Secretary of State Powell at the UN last month, this is a matter for investigation by the appropriate committees of Parliament and Congress. Or it would be, if those honorable legislatures possessed the necessary independence for intelligence oversight.

The report by El-Baradei's colleague Hans Blix offered no new support for the Bush-Blair position, as the White House no doubt knew when the president's press conference was scheduled to pre-empt him. The clear implication of Blix's analysis, however, is that "accelerating" Iraqi cooperation under threat of force justifies continued inspections rather than immediate resort to war.

After hearing Blix and El-Baradei, the Security Council will have to decide whether to give them days or months to complete their task. Neither Powell nor his colleague Jack Straw offered a compelling argument for an invasion within the next two weeks -- when a larger and far more united alliance is likely to back the ultimate resort to force two months from now, if necessary.


[12:25 a.m. PST, March 7, 2003]

The questions that weren't asked

When the president calls an unusual prime-time press conference, in the days leading up to a probable war, it is fair to assume that he has something important to say. George W. Bush did tell us that he will seek the approval of the U.N. Security Council, but that he will strike Iraq with or without that approval. He told us again (and again and again) that Saddam Hussein is a "threat" to our security, but that wasn't new. What he didn't explain is what he has consistently failed to explain, as exasperated commentators could not help noting afterward.

He didn't explain why. Why Iraq, why now, why inspections can't be allowed to work, and why this war at this time is worth ruining our traditional alliances and our international prestige.

There was no lack of rhetorical exhortation in the notes guiding the president's performance on the podium, as he glanced down from time to time. He stayed on message about the awfulness of Saddam and the perilous state of American security after Sept. 11. Yet he would not or could not offer a serious response to questions about the divisions between America and friendly nations in Europe, Asia and Latin America.

Instead, Bush resorted to the propagandistic mode that has already brought discredit on him and his administration. "I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I've got a good evidence to believe that ... He has trained and financed al-Qaida-type organizations before, al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations." That latter charge, although somewhat garbled, sounded new to me. Has Saddam trained and financed al-Qaida -- or "al-Qaida type organizations," whatever that may mean?

Not according to the State Department's most recent annual report on international terrorism, which was issued last year. That presumably authoritative document describes Iran as "the most active state sponsor of terrorism," and accuses the Tehran regime of providing significant assistance to such al-Qaida-type (meaning Islamist) outfits as Lebanese Hizballah, Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad. The report also fingers Sudan and Syria for providing "safe haven" and other aid to Islamist terror organizations.

But until now the U.S. government lodged no such accusation against Iraq. While the report says Baghdad continues to assist "numerous terrorist groups," the organizations specifically named by the State Department are all secular, not Islamist. The groups with ties to Iraq are "Marxist" or "socialist" in orientation, making them "infidels" like Saddam in the eyes of the Islamists. The State Department report on Iraq doesn't mention any links to al-Qaida at all. It also points out that the "main focus" of Saddam's support for terrorism "was on dissident Iraqi activity overseas."

The subdued, formalist style of the press conference permitted no follow-up questions, so nobody asked Bush to explain his reference to Saddam's alleged assistance to al-Qaida. Nor did anyone pose certain other highly relevant questions. He bluntly refused to reveal how much this war is estimated to cost, even though his aides are preparing a supplemental budget request that must include the approximate numbers.

Speaking of costs, the president repeatedly emphasized his personal commitment to minimizing civilian deaths in the event of war. While he surely has no idea how many civilians will be killed in this conflict, it would have been worth inquiring whether he knows how many civilians died in the last Gulf War. Has he asked any of his aides to find out? As I've discussed here before, that is one statistic about Iraqi suffering that the government has tried to suppress.

Another topic unmentioned by either Bush or his interlocutors was nuclear weaponry -- except with regard to North Korea, which actually has them and is probably building more. Did nobody in the White House press corps recall that Iraq's supposedly imminent nuclear status was the president's chief concern as recently as last September? Back then, both the president and the British prime minister warned that Iraq's nuclear program was "the real issue." Now, after a few months of inspections have established that such a threat scarcely exists, the subject isn't even worth mentioning anymore.

The performance of the journalists was less deferential and more challenging than the norm for this White House. But someone should have asked the president why his reasons for this war keep changing.


[7:05 a.m. PST, March 7, 2003]


icon url

Ace Hanlon

03/08/03 7:24 AM

#9838 RE: sylvester80 #9836

Is George Bush a certifiable crazy? Conservative columnist Georgie Anne Guyer thinks the answer may well be YES.


War as Religion

by Georgie Anne Guyer



WASHINGTON -- Doubtless it is my own fault. Attribute it to too many
years overseas in the Beiruts, Bombays and Burundis of the world. Too
many romantic novels and dark, swashbuckling, sloe-eyed heroes out
of "Casablanca" and "The Godfather."

Until now, it never occurred to me that balding, paunchy Americans with
pacemakers, and lean, rangy cowboys swaggering out of the American
sunset, and good churchgoing Yankees with the gleam of God in their
eyes and political gospel in their hearts, could turn out to be men with
the dreams of Napoleon and the dangerous saintliness of the Crusaders.

Yet it is happening in Washington today. There is no question now that
President Bush's intention in invading Iraq -- along with his unlikely
band of gray but gleamy-eyed compadres -- is based primarily on
religious obsession and visions of personal grandiosity.

The final confirmation was revealed in President Bush's speech to the
American Enterprise Institute on Feb. 26, when he made it clear that his
primary intention was to transform the Middle East. Earlier motives of
disarmament were all but dropped.

As The Washington Post wrote, "As it heads into what senior U.S.
officials said are likely to be the final two weeks of U.N. deliberations,
the administration has made it increasingly clear that the outcome of
that debate is ultimately immaterial to its plans."

And so, we could begin to see, as the smoke cleared, the degree to
which the United Nations was really always irrelevant, merely a bone
thrown to "reasonable" men like Colin Powell and the senior Bush's
friends. But finally, serious people are beginning to ask, "Why?"

The predominant answer coming out of different quarters -- one that I
broached six months ago, to a certain degree of derision from some
readers -- is that the president of the United States of America sees
himself as part of God's divine plan. For America, for the Middle East,
for the world! It is not doctrine that he espouses, but gospel; not a
world of shifting national interests, but one of absolute truths.

One of the best analyses came last week from the Rev. Fritz Ritsch,
pastor of the Bethesda Presbyterian Church in Virginia. "The president,"
he said, "confidently asserts a worldview that most Christian
denominations reject outright as heresy: the myth of redemptive
violence, which posits a war between good and evil, with God on the
side of good and Satan on the side of evil." This approach, he went on,
"is characterized by a stark refusal to acknowledge accountability,
because to suggest accountability is to question American purity, which
would undermine the secular theology of 'good vs. evil' inherent in
present U.S. policy."

There is a growing awareness that something very different is going on
inside this White House. In this week's Newsweek cover piece, "Bush
and God," the president comes out as a man "on a messianic mission,"
with a "faith-based foreign policy of the most explosive kind."

This White House, the article avers further, is "suffused with an aura of
prayerfulness" and a "sense of destiny that approaches the Calvinistic"
and is little burdened with old questions of a conflict being a "just war"
in the classic Christian sense. The president "just decided that Saddam
was evil, and everything flowed from that."

Now, everyone knows that George W. Bush went through two earlier
overnight conversions, first when he stopped drinking cold-turkey in
1986, and second, when evangelist Billy Graham talked to him about
fundamentalist religion. What has not been so well noted is that he -- by
more and more accounts -- underwent a third conversion in the first
months after 9/11 as he became gripped by the idea that he was the
man chosen to liberate the Middle East.

Actually, such a conversion -- to try to impose the "freedom" he talks
about constantly on other people through secular means -- speaks to an
inner struggle as old as America itself. The original settlers saw America
as the "New Jerusalem." There was the idea that man's political future
and will would end here. Then, the idea became caught up in the secular
state, that all men should be helped (or, now, forced) to be "free."

"George Bush somehow picked up the creed," says David Brooks of The
Weekly Standard. "It's in the air today. It's straight out of this gospel,
the idea that history is incomplete so long as, for certain peoples around
the world, freedom is not complete. Bush is gripped by this mission."

Of course, there are some problems here. Such messianic posturing is
counter to the American system of checks and balances -- who, after
all, dares challenge gospel in the hands of its believer? Such Old
Testament reliance on forcing others to do and to believe as you is
hardly going to be welcomed in the rest of the world -- but why would
you have to explain anything if you are the hand of God?

President Bush has now said "Anyone who is not with us is against us"
fully 99 times since 9/11 -- just in case you didn't get the idea.

COPYRIGHT 2003 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
Originally Published on March-06-2003

icon url

redwards

03/08/03 9:56 AM

#9840 RE: sylvester80 #9836

I do not know if you are male or female,,, please don't think little of me for not allowing another category <g>,, but you definitely seem to fit well into the FLK category,,,,"flamin' liberal kook"

"Walk softly and carry a Big Stick" TR 1901