Iraq War
Iraq
cost:
Almost $5,000 / second
= $411 million every day
= 58,000 children in Head Start
-
Pell Grants to 153k students
$12.5 billion a month
$25 billion a month if you include
long-term bills we're incurring, per Stiglitz
Professor Stiglitz calculates that the eventual
total cost of the war will be about $3 trillion. For a family of five like
mine, that amounts to a bill of almost $50,000.
" We'll still be making disability payments to
Iraq
war veterans 50 years from now."
A Congressional study by the Joint Economic Committee found that the sums
spent on the Iraq
war each day could enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start or give
Pell Grants to 153,000 students to attend college. Or if we're sure we want to
invest in security, then a day's Iraq spending would finance another
11,000 border patrol agents or 9,000 police officers.
...
40% of the increased debt will be
held by China
and other foreign countries.
...
Professor Stiglitz calculates in a new book,
written with Linda Bilmes of Harvard University,
that the total costs, including the long-term bills we're incurring, amount to
about $25 billion a month. That's $330 a month for a family of four.
"The present economic mess is very much related to the Iraq war,"
says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning
economist. "It was at least partially responsible for soaring oil prices.
...Moreover, money spent on Iraq
did not stimulate the economy as much as the same dollars spent at home would
have done. To cover up these weaknesses in the American economy, the Fed let
forth a flood of liquidity; that, together with lax regulations, led to a
housing bubble and a consumption boom."
- nyt NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: March 23, 2008
Spanish Judge Issues Warrant for Three GIs
By MARIA JESUS PRADES, Associated Press Writer 47 minutes ago
MADRID, Spain
- A judge has issued an international arrest warrant for three U.S. soldiers whose tank fired on a Baghdad hotel during the
Iraq
war, killing a Spanish journalist and a Ukrainian cameraman, a court official
said Wednesday.
Judge Santiago Pedraz issued the warrant for Sgt.
Shawn Gibson, Capt. Philip Wolford and Lt. Col. Philip de Camp, all from the
U.S. 3rd Infantry, which is based in Fort Stewart, Ga.
Jose Couso, who worked for the Spanish television
network Telecinco, died April 8, 2003, after a U.S. army tank crew fired a shell on Hotel
Palestine in Baghdad
where many journalists were staying to cover the war.
Reuters cameraman Taras Portsyuk,
a Ukrainian, also was killed.
Pedraz had sent two requests to the United States —
in April 2004 and June 2005 — to have statements taken from the suspects or to
obtain permission for a Spanish delegation to quiz them. Both went unanswered.
He said he issued the arrest order because of a lack of judicial cooperation
from the United States
regarding the case.
The warrant "is the only effective measure to ensure the presence of
the suspects in the case being handled by Spanish justice, given the lack of
judicial cooperation by U.S.
authorities," the judge said in the warrant.
The Pentagon had no immediate information and said it was looking into it.
U.S.
officials have insisted that the soldiers believed they were being shot at when
they opened fire.
Following the Palestine
incident, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said a review of the incident
found that the use of force was justified.
In late 2003, the National
Court, acting on a request from Couso's family, agreed to consider filing criminal charges
against three members of the tank crew.
Fort Stewart
spokeswoman Jennifer Scales said the three no longer are assigned to Fort Stewart
or the 3rd Infantry Division.
Pilar Hermoso, an
attorney for Couso's family, welcomed the decision,
although she recognized that it would be difficult to get the soldiers
extradited to Spain,
the state news agency Efe reported.
Small protests over the killing have been staged outside the U.S. Embassy in
Madrid nearly
every month since Couso's death.
Under Spanish law, a crime committed against a Spaniard abroad can be
prosecuted here if it is not investigated in the country where it is
committed.
Man Kills Another in Dispute Over War--Press Calls It a First
By E&P Staff
Published: August 06, 2005 6:30 PM ET
NEW YORK It was bound to happen sooner or later, and in what newspapers in Kentucky are calling a first, one American has killed
another in a dispute over the Iraq
war.
It happened at Floyd
County flea market on
Thursday, when two friends, who were firearms vendors there, drew guns
after quarreling about the war. Douglas Moore, 65, of Martin, who backs
the war, shot and killed Harold Wayne Smith, 56, of Manchester, who
opposed it, according to investigators.
Moore
was released without being charged after he convinced police he had acted
in self-defense...
One witness [said] "Harold was talking about the 14 people that were
killed in Iraq
the other day and Doug said that just as many people were killed on the
highways here."
This quickly escalated into an argument, then to a scuffle, and finally both
men drew pistols outside a snack shed. The dead man was apparently just a
little slower in firing. Witnesses said he stood for about five seconds before
toppling on the walkway.
…
The daughter of the dead man said the two men were friends and had discussed
Iraq
before. She said her father "had different opinions than everybody. He
felt it was wrong that all of these young people were losing their lives over
what was going on. It was just a political disagreement, like a whole lot of
people have."
[Except it happened in America
where primitive emotions and easy access to firearms created a lethal
combination.]
U.S.
Says Detained Iraqi Women Were Not Held Hostage
Fri 8 Apr, 2005 13:11:50 GMT by Michael Georgy
BAGHDAD
(Reuters) - The U.S. military said on Friday two Iraqi women detained for six
days had been held on suspicion of complicity in insurgent attacks, not used as
hostages to pressure fugitive male relatives to surrender.
"U.S.
forces do not take hostages, nor do we participate in blackmail
activities," Lieutenant Colonel Clifford Kent, spokesman for the 3rd
Infantry Division, said in a statement.
The women, 60-year-old Salima al-Batawi and her daughter Aliya,
were arrested by U.S. troops
and Iraqi police last Saturday and were released by U.S. forces Thursday.
...
The two women told Reuters Friday that soldiers had informed them they would
be detained until they revealed the whereabouts of male relative suspected of
insurgent attacks, or until the wanted male relatives turned themselves in.
Arkan Mukhlif al-Batawi, the son of Salima and
brother of Aliya, told Reuters Tuesday that the women
were being held to pressure him and his brothers Muhammad and Saddam to
surrender.
A handwritten note in Arabic left at the Batawi
house after the women were arrested and seen by Reuters reporters who went to
the site read: "Be a man Muhammad Mukhlif and
give yourself up and then we will release your sisters. Otherwise they will
spend a long time in detention."
The note was signed "Bandit 6," apparently a U.S. military
code, and included a mobile phone number. When Reuters called the number, it
was answered by U.S.
soldiers.
Neighbors of the Batawis also said soldiers had
told them through an interpreter that the women would be freed once the
brothers turned themselves in for questioning.
One of the brothers, Saddam, denounced U.S. soldiers for detaining his
mother and sister. "Is this humanity? Blindfolding women and handcuffing
them," he said. "Would the Americans like people to do this to their
women?"
INVESTIGATION
The U.S.
military said it was investigating the accusations.
...
Amnesty International says arresting civilians to pressure their
relatives to surrender would be in breach of international law. The U.S. military
says it only detains those suspected of illegal activities.
…
"Actually it's quite fun to fight 'em, you
know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up
front with you, I like brawling… You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap
women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys
like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a
hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
- Lt. Gen. James Mattis,
who commanded troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and is slated to be portrayed by
star actor Harrison Ford in an upcoming Hollywood movie, at a conference on
Tuesday, 2/1/05, in San Diego, California.
A December 2003 Army study – published in the New England Journal of
Medicine – found that approximately 16 percent of soldiers returning from Iraq
were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, a psychologically
debilitating condition causing intense nightmares, paranoia, and
anxiety. But that study is, already, out of date.
Now, after a particularly bloody summer and fall, many military and
mental health experts predict the rate of PTSD will actually run nearly twice
as high as what the Army study found, approximately the same level suffered by
Vietnam War veterans. Others think it could spike even higher and note that
rarely before has such a dramatic rate of PTSD manifested so early.
- Soldier's Heart: Thousands of Iraq War
Veterans will Come Home to Face Serious Psychological Problems and a System
that may not be Ready to Help Them by DAN FROSCH / San Francisco Bay Guardian
12/15/04
Study: More than 100,000 Iraqi Civilians
May Have Died in War
-Gary Thomas, Washington, 29 October 2004
A new scientific study estimates that as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians died
in the US-led invasion and its aftermath. The study, reported in a respected
international medical journal, says most of the casualties came from aerial
bombardment.
In an article in the online edition of the British medical journal The
Lancet, U.S.
and Iraqi researchers calculate that around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died
since the U.S.-led invasion in March of 2003.
Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, a
co-author of the study, says most of the casualties were women and children.
"We shouldn't really fix on the numbers," he said. "We should
fix on the fact that, you know, these are civilians, predominantly women and
children, that are getting caught up in an urban conflict and they're carrying
the brunt of the consequences."
The report, conducted jointly by researchers from Johns
Hopkins University, Colombia
University, and Al-Mustansiriya
University in Baghdad,
is the first attempt to scientifically calculate civilian casualties of the Iraq war. Previous
non-governmental estimates range anywhere from 10,000-30,000. The U.S. government has said it does not calculate
civilian casualties in Iraq.
Asked to comment on the study, a Defense Department spokesman said that
there is no accurate way to validate the estimates of civilian casualties by
this or any other organization. He added the Iraq war was prosecuted in the most
precise fashion of any conflict in the history of modern warfare and that
multinational and Iraqi security forces work painstakingly to avoid civilian
casualties.
The researchers conducted the survey much like a public opinion poll,
surveying a scientifically selected random sample of households about deaths
suffered in the family. They visited nearly 1000 homes in 33 neighborhoods
across the country.
The scientists involved in the report acknowledge that the data on which
they based their estimates were of "limited precision," because the
quality of the information rests on the accuracy of the household interviews
conducted for the study. The interviewers were Iraqi, most of them doctors.
However, Dr. Burnham says, results from Fallujah
were omitted. He said casualties there were so great that including the results
from Fallujah would have made the sample
unrepresentative.
The single biggest cause of violent death in Iraq since March, 2003, Dr. Burnham
says, was aerial bombardment.
"Almost all of these excess deaths related to conflict were related to
aerial bombardments of some sort - armaments that fell out of the sky, as it
were," he said. "And some people said they were helicopters, some
said they were bombs, some said they were rockets. But we just classified these
as aerial attacks in some way."
Dr. Burnham says similar studies of previous conflicts show that most
civilians die not from bombs or bullets, but from being cut off from medical
care. But what they found in Iraq,
he says, appeared to be very different.
"Usually in warfare or conflict situations, deaths occur because of
poor access for health care, or, like in the Balkans, one couldn't get to dialysis
units or get their insulin and so forth," Dr. Burnham explained. "So
the finding that almost all these excess deaths were due to actual violence was
a bit of a surprise."
Dr. Burnham says the study found no evidence of civilian deaths from improper
conduct by U.S.
troops or other coalition forces. The researchers urge more study be done on
the issue to clarify their findings.
- Voice of America,
10/28/04
The former U.S. official
who governed Iraq after the
invasion said yesterday that the United States
made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then
not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam
Hussein.
Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation
government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still
supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate
forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.
"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an
atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance
conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va.
"We never had enough troops on the ground."
Bremer's comments were striking because they echoed contentions of many
administration critics, including Democratic presidential nominee John F.
Kerry, who argue that the U.S.
government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in Iraq after the
invasion. Bremer has generally defended the U.S.
approach in Iraq
but in recent weeks has begun to criticize the administration for tactical and
policy shortfalls.
…
Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels: Ex-Overseer of Iraq
Says U.S.
Effort Was Hampered Early On
- By Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington
Post, October 5, 2004
In a Sept. 17 speech at DePauw University, Bremer said he frequently raised the
issue within the administration and "should have been even more
insistent" when his advice was spurned because the situation in Iraq might be
different today. "The single most important change -- the one thing that
would have improved the situation -- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout" the
occupation, Bremer said, according to the Banner-Graphic in Greencastle, Ind.
…
Rumsfeld: "I have not seen any
strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda:
Mr. Secretary, what exactly was the connection between Saddam Hussein and al
Qaeda?
RUMSFELD: I tell you, I'm not going to answer the question. I have seen the
answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over the period
of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the
intelligence community as to what the relationship was. To my knowledge, I
have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.
- Speech by Donald Rumsfeld, 10/4/04 http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-rumsfeldspeech1006,0,5756045.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines
Four U.S.
Soldiers Charged With Murder
October 5, 2004 by DAN ELLIOTT
FORT CARSON, Colo. (AP) - Four soldiers accused of smothering an Iraqi
general during an interrogation last fall have been charged with murder,
bringing the total number of U.S. troops charged with murder in Iraq to at
least 10.
The soldiers could get life in prison without parole if convicted in the
Nov. 26 death of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, 57, at Qaim, Iraq.
The Army said Mowhoush died of asphyxiation from
chest compression and from being smothered.
The handling of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops has become a worldwide
scandal, fed by images from the Abu Ghraib
prison. But Mowhoush's case is rare, said Christopher
Wilson, a former military prosecutor now in private practice in California.
``I don't know of any other case where a major general died of asphyxiation
during interrogation. I doubt that this has happened in the past 50 years,'' he
said.
The Army gave no details on what the soldiers are alleged to have done. But
The Denver Post, citing unidentified military documents, reported earlier this
year that Chief Warrant Officers Lewis E. Welshofer
Jr. and Jefferson L. Williams slid a sleeping bag over Mowhoush's
head and rolled him from his back to his stomach while asking questions. Also
charged in the death were Sgt. 1st Class William J. Sommer
and Spc. Jerry L. Loper.
Mowhoush, a member of the Republican Guard's air
defense branch, was captured in a raid in Qaim. A U.S. military
spokeswoman said at the time that Mowhoush was
believed to have been financing attacks on American forces.
All four soldiers charged were assigned to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment,
based at Fort Carson,
at the time of Mowhoush's death and have since
returned to the United
States. Williams has transferred to the
513th Military Intelligence Brigade at Fort
Gordon, Ga.
None of the soldiers has been jailed, officials said. Their ages and
hometowns were not immediately available. They could get life in prison without
parole if convicted.
…
Four soldiers from Fort Riley,
Kan., were charged last month
with murder in the deaths of four Iraqi civilians in two incidents. A soldier
from 1st Armored Division in Germany
has been charged with murder in the fatal shooting of a badly wounded driver
for militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Another soldier was sentenced to 25 years in prison last month after
pleading guilty to murder in the death of an Iraqi National Guard member. His
unit was not identified.
Two other Fort Carson soldiers face courts-martial on manslaughter
charges in connection with an unrelated death in Iraq
- that of the drowning of an Iraqi civilian in the Tigris River.
…
Fewer than two-thirds of the former soldiers being reactivated for duty in Iraq and elsewhere
have reported on time, prompting the Army to threaten some with punishment for
desertion. …"The numbers did not look good," said Lt. Col. Burton
Masters, a spokesman for the Army's Human Resources Command. "We are
tightening the system, reaching the people and bringing them in."...
"We are not in a rush to put someone in the AWOL category," Masters
said. "We contact them and convince them it is in their best interests to
show up. If you are a deserter, it can affect you the rest of your life."
Fourteen people were listed as AWOL last week; six subsequently told the
Army they would report. Punishment for being AWOL is up to the unit commander
and can include prison time and dishonorable discharge, said Col. Joseph
Curtin, an Army spokesman.
- Former soldiers slow to report , Tom Squitieri,
USA
TODAY, 9/28/04
"The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq ... and I think
we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy," Republican
Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on CBS's "Face
the Nation."
"We made serious mistakes," said Sen. John McCain, an
Arizona Republican who has campaigned at Bush's side this year after patching
up a bitter rivalry.
- Reuters 9/19/04
Kofi Annan: U.S. Attack on Iraq Was Illegal
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has accused the U.S.
of illegally invading Iraq
and said the attack contravened the charter of the United Nations. Annan's comments came during an interview on the BBC. Annan said, "I hope we do not see another Iraq-type
operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from
the international community. From our point of view and the [UN] charter point
of view it was illegal."
"Those who seek to bestow legitimacy must themselves embody it, and
those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it," said Mr Annan, who last week branded
the US-led invasion of Iraq
illegal under international law. "We must start from the principle that no
one is above the law, and no one should be denied its protection… Every nation
that proclaims the rule of law at home must respect it abroad. And every nation
that insists on it abroad must enforce it at home.
"Today the rule of law is at risk around the world. Again and again we
see laws shamelessly disregarded." He said some nations had used the war
against terrorism as an excuse "to encroach unnecessarily on civil
liberties".
- UK
Guardian, 9/22/04
"Saddam Hussein, if he's alive, is spending a whale of a lot of time
trying to not get caught. And we've not seen him on video since 2001." U.S.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, confusing
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in a speech before the National Press Club.
Moments earlier, Rumsfeld had muddled the two,
claiming that it was Saddam who ordered the killing of the leader of Afghanistan's Northern
Alliance in 2001. - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6039847/site/newsweek
"And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American
troops occupiers rather than liberators." - Zell Miller, Republican
National Convention, 9/04
"I say it all — I say it all the time publicly. Yes, I wouldn't want
to be occupied." - President George W. Bush 5/28/04
"Maybe the Iraqis don't want us to occupy them. Who wants to
be occupied? Nobody wants to be occupied." - President
George W. Bush, 5/7/04
"And they were happy — they're not happy they're occupied.
I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."- President George
W. Bush, 4/13/04
9/07/04 The U.S. military has not reported overall Iraqi deaths. The Iraqi
Health Ministry started counting the dead only in April when heavy fighting
broke out in Fallujah and Najaf. However,
conservative estimates by private groups place the Iraqi toll at at least 10,000 - or 10 times the number of U.S. military
deaths.
"It is difficult to establish the right number of casualties. It was
the job of the occupation power to keep track of the numbers but the Americans
failed to do so."
- Amnesty International's Middle
East spokeswoman, Nicole Choueiry
Some thoughts on the Republican National Convention (RNC):
While looking for the RNC, I kept wondering why so many channels were
playing a re-run of a 9-11 memorial, complete with Amazing Grace.
Then I realized it WAS the RNC. Good thing they weren't exploiting a
national tragedy for political gain.
As I listened, I realized that I was very wrong about so many recent and
historical events.
I was under the impression that President Bush had fought 2 wars, not 1.
Operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq,
logically, geographically, and chronologically quite distinct, were morphed
into one "war."
I learned that because Senator Kerry has changed his mind, he is a
flip-flopper. This from the Senator-Formerly-Known-as-Democrat Miller. But
President ("now he opposes the DHS - now he doesn't, "now Condie can't testify - now she can't", "now WMD
is the reason we invaded Iraq
- now it's 'weapons of mass destruction program system technology'") Bush
is not.
I learned once again that there are those who will probably go their grave
insisting that the invasion of Iraq
had something to do with 9-11.
I learned that the most powerful nation on earth is afraid that a band of
two-bit terrorists who got lucky one day in lower Manhattan wants to (and
somehow could) convert a country of almost 300 million to Islam.
I learned that Libya gave
up its vast arsenal of mustard gas (in exchange for lucrative multinational oil
deals - what a coup!) because of the American invasion of Iraq. The years
of behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Europeans (you know, those people
who let terrorists go and that sort of thing) had nothing to do with this
reintegration of a terrorist dictator into the welcoming arms of the world
community (of multinational oil companies).
I learned that Iran's budding nuclear program or North Korea's confirmed one
do not exist - they were not much mentioned. Pakistan was called an ally and a
friend in the GWOT, but the billions of aid, the multiple assassination
attempts on Musharaf, and the rigged recent election,
not to mention the shenanigans of Dr. Khan and his prompt pardon by our
"friend" - didn't merit mentioning.
I learned that American credibility and respect were improved - not trashed
- by the President's decision to invade Iraq. The political operatives must
be right and every international poll (including several in Iraq) taken
since the invasion must be wrong.
I learned that talking about the 45 million Americans without health
insurance and the hundreds of millions in danger of losing everything they ever
worked for if they became truly sick or disabled would make me a "girlie
man". So would mentioning that for the first time since World War II the
median income of the American worker has declined for 2 years in a row. Or that
the blow-out deficits will have to be paid for by our grandchildren.
I learned that football players, professional entertainers, and career
lobbyists such as Cheney - mostly white and almost all rich - really appreciate
sacrifices made by others in uniform. Not enough to inspire them to forego any
of their tax cut in a time of war, or to have served in their time, but hey.
Those guys really care because they tell us they do. They even have music to go
with it and nice big shiny signs. Not that those troops - disproportionately
poor and non-white - would have much hope of joining the RNC party or its many
ancillary events such as Halliburton midnight bowling.
I learned that history began on 9-11 and that we are safer now. The
headlines from the last few days must surely be wrong:
- 90 KIA in russia from hijacked
airliners
- 10 KIA in moscow
following blast outside a subway station
- 16 KIA in Beersheba, Israel as two buses blasted apart, 100 wia "The terrorist group Hamas
claimed responsibility, calling it a retaliation for the assassinations in Gaza
months ago of two of its leaders, Sheik Ahmed Yassin,
its founder, and his successor, Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi." (Gosh golly,
I was such a defeatist when I predicted those assassinations would trigger more
bloodshed.)
- 400 ? held hostage in a school in Russia by terrorists - you know,
the ones so intimidated by the Putin-Bush-Sharon
invade-occupy-and-humiliate approach.
I also learned that the President does not like to start wars (his wife told
me). He even took long walks on the White House lawn before starting his last
one. Gosh, that must have been wrenching - almost as bad as having your tour
extended then getting killed a day before deciding that occupying Najaf really
isn't all that important after all.
I learned that decent, honest, intelligent Americans like - or publicly
profess to like - this man and somehow are not ashamed at what he has said and
done. Even a man whose presidential aspirations were torpedoed by a vicious
"love child" push polling campaign could stand up and say he deserves
to be elected. (And to me that says far more about what a decent and honorable
man McCain is than it does about the man he says he supports.)
I learned that Afghanistan
and Iraq
are "free." Not free enough to allow women or Westerners (or
international arms inspectors for that matter) or Doctors Without Borders or US
soldiers to move about in Fallujah or Najaf or many
parts of Baghdad, or free in the sense that an elected, internationally
recognized government is in place (or has a good shot of being in place), but
free in some other sense. I guess free sounds better than "war-torn"
or "gutted."
There was no mention - not even an aside - about the fact Bush will probably
go down in history as the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net
job loss during his Presidency. Nor was there mention of the inconvenient fact
that the latest recession began AFTER Bush took office (in March, 2001,
according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private research group
that officially tracks these things).
There was no mention of the hundreds of thousands of abortions, leading to
tens of thousands of maternal deaths in developing countries, that probably
resulted from the President's gutting of international family planning programs.
Or his failure to keep his word about HIV funding or even funding of healthcare
for activated National Guardsmen or returning veterans.
There were no Iraqis to take the stage and tell us they were liberated (all
right, I admit there might have been, but I wasn't about to watch
gavel-to-gavel coverage of this event). But a bunch of white guys with American
flags on their lapels told us they felt safer, so I guess I should take their
word for it.
There was no mention of Abu Ghraib, of our
bizarre, lone support in defiance of the UN and World Court Rulings against
Sharon's apratheid wall, of reasons other than
"they hate our freedom" to explain why our ideas and our troops are
meeting such fierce resistance in the Arab world.
There was no mention of the 13,730 dead Iraqi civilian or why they should
not be as memorialized as the almost 3,000 dead American civilians on 9-11. Are
they not all in a sense victims of GWOT?
There was no mention as to why the giggling, military age daughters of the
President are not serving in the war their father started. Even a token role in
reconstruction and security in Iraq
would deflect criticism that the President is not willing to make the
sacrifices he demands of so many other, less connected, less wealthy Americans.
It was all metaphor and dangling modifiers. It was primitive in parts, like
a New York
Post editorial or a Rush Limbaugh rant. But maybe that was the point.
Mark
US wounded total in Iraq
approaching 7,000
WASHINGTON (AP) The number of American troops wounded in Iraq since the
U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 is approaching 7,000, according to figures
published Tuesday by the Pentagon. The death toll for U.S. military
personnel is 975, plus three Defense Department civilians.
The wounded total has approximately doubled since mid-April, when casualties
and deaths mounted rapidly as the insurgency intensified. The death toll over
that period has grown by about 300.
The Pentagon, which generally updates its casualty count each week, said the
number of wounded stands at 6,916, up 226 from a week earlier. In the two
months since the United States
handed over political sovereignty to an interim Iraq government, the wounded total
has grown by about 1,500.
The vast majority of casualties have been Marines and Army soldiers,
although the Pentagon announced on Tuesday the 13th member of the Air Force to
die in Iraq.
Airman 1st Class Carl L. Anderson Jr., 21, of Georgetown,
S.C., was killed by a roadside bomb on Sunday
near the northern city of Mosul.
He was assigned to the 3rd Logistics Readiness Squadron based at Elmendorf Air
Force Base, Alaska.
- AP 8/31/04
"We were given the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction,
but where are they? They said they were so sure. When I was over there I
looked. I was on an intelligence gathering team, we all looked. We found
nothing. It was just a lie. That wasn't a proper use of American troops. It
wasn't a proper use of my life, my friends' lives, or the Marines I saw die
around me."
-- Lee Buttrill, Sergeant, USMC, Iraq War Veteran,
source: moveon.org
NBC: BUSH 'NOT WELCOME' SIGHT FOR OLYMPIC SECURITY PLANNERS
ON-AIR REPORT DURING OLYMPIC COVERAGE ABOUT POSSIBLE BUSH TRIP
NBC's Jim Lampley on Bush's possible visit for
Iraqi soccer game:
NBC, 4:30pm ET
"Within the last 24 hours, the online newsletter the Drudge report
published a story indicating that president George W. Bush may attend an Iraqi
soccer game here in Greece.
As you can imagine, the trip was being planned in secret. The Iraqi soccer
story has become one of great interest as the team, unheralded just ten days,
has stunningly played its way into the Olympic semi-finals. According to
"drudge," president bush would arrive in time for the gold medal game
here in Athens
next Saturday, should the Iraqis make it that far. However, Bush campaign
manager Ken Mehlman, appearing on Meet the Press this
morning, told Tim Russert that he knew of no plans by
the president to go to the Olympics.
Two things we can add to a possible U.S.
presidential visit: Given the already tightly-stretched security situation here
in Athens, his
presence would probably not be a welcome sight for those entrusted with the
complex security operation already in place here. Despite their warm feelings
for the American people, polls in Greece show a wide majority of the
Greek population do not approve of president Bush, his administration and its
policies. Probably meaning, added and extraordinary security measures would be
needed.
Second, and perhaps more pointedly, the Iraqi soccer players, the supposed
focus of this surprise visit, have been outspoken in calling on president Bush
to stop using them as election-related fodder. Said one Iraqi mid fielder,
"Iraq
as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign. He
can find another way to advertise himself." The Bush campaign has run ads
in which the flags of both Iraq
and Afghanistan
appear and the narration mentions that two more free nations are participating
at these Olympics. Later today, the State Department announced that secretary
of state Colin Powell will represent the United states at the closing
ceremony next Sunday."
- source: drudgereport.com
General Anthony Zinni, former
commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command and Bush administration
special envoy to the Middle East said,
I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon
directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their
war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain
elements in there certainly - even to the point of creating their own
intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the responsibility.
But regardless of whose responsibility I think it
is, somebody has screwed up. And at this level and at this stage, it should be
evident to everybody that they've screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on
this? That's what bothers me most.
Look, there is one statement that bothers me
more than anything else. And that's the idea that when the troops are in
combat, everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a
faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a
result I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak
up. Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's
getting just as many troops killed? - source: CBS News
Secretary of State Powell aborts
interview with Russert when WMD question came up…
Who are these people? The smiling private in the center picture is
Specialist Lynndie England
of Fort Ashby, West Virginia. She appears in several
pictures smiling, a cigarette dangling out of her mouth, pointing at the genitals
of a naked Iraqi.
For a copy of the March, 2004, Army investigation click here
.
Pentagon Examined
Iraq Detention Centers
By ROBERT BURNS
WASHINGTON (AP) -
The U.S. military did a
"top-level review" last fall of how its detention centers in Iraq were run,
months before commanders first were told about the sexual humiliation and abuse
of Iraqis that has created an international uproar, a Pentagon official said.
Larry Di Rita, the
top spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld,
said Monday the review was done at the request of Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the
senior American commander in Iraq.
Di Rita did not
say what prompted the review. He said it "drew certain conclusions,"
which later were taken into account by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba,
who began an investigation on Jan. 31 focused on an unidentified soldier's
report of prisoner mistreatment at Abu Ghraib prison.
That second probe
led to findings of blatant and sadistic abuse by U.S. military police and perhaps
others. It has drawn wide condemnation, particularly with the publication of
photos documenting the mistreatment.
Di Rita did not
disclose the earlier review's findings, and he said he could not disclose what Taguba found because his report is classified secret and is
under review by senior officials.
Di Rita, seeking
to contain the prisoner abuse controversy, provided a timeline of the
military's response to the reported abuse at Abu Ghraib.
He said it first came to the attention of commanders in Iraq when an
unidentified soldier reported it to his superiors on Jan. 13. The next day,
Sanchez ordered a criminal investigation, and since then four other probes have
begun, Di Rita said.
The only one of
the five dealing directly with the role of military intelligence officials in
prisoner operations was opened April 23 by a senior Army intelligence official,
Di Rita said. The rest deal more broadly with prison operations or the role of
military police.
President Bush on
Monday urged Rumsfeld to quickly get to the bottom of
the Abu Ghraib scandal and to ensure that American
soldiers found guilty of misbehavior are appropriately punished.
Bush, in an
interview Monday with The Detroit News, the Detroit Free Press and Booth
Newspapers, said he had been "shaken" by the reports of prisoner
abuse "because I know that this doesn't reflect the values of our
country."
Members of
Congress urged quick action also. But Di Rita said, "It's going to take
some time to sort through exactly what the facts were."
The chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John Warner, R-Va.,
summoned Army officials to face his panel Tuesday.
Another
Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, said she fears that photos depicting
Iraqi prisoners in U.S. custody apparently being sexually humiliated and
physically abused, which have been widely broadcast on TV, could incite more
violence against American troops in Iraq.
Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Jeff Bingaman, N.M., said the concern
goes beyond the actions of a few soldiers.
"There is a
bigger issue here," Hagel said Tuesday on NBC's
"Today.""Was there an environment, a
culture that not only condoned this, but encouraged this kind of behavior? We
need to look well beyond just the soldier. Who was in charge? Was there a
breakdown in command here? ... We need to understand all the dynamics of
this."
Bingaman, also on
"Today," said he was concerned about "an attitude that the ends
justify the means: We need to get this information out of these prisoners.
Whatever you have to do to accomplish that, we're not going to ask you a lot of
questions."
In early February,
the Army inspector general began a review of U.S.
detention facilities throughout Iraq
and Afghanistan,
at about the time the chief of the Army Reserve, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, began an assessment of training for his MPs and
military intelligence personnel, Di Rita said.
Di Rita said
repeatedly that he could provide no information about allegations that private
contractors were involved in the abusive situation at the Abu Ghraib prison.
"I'll tell
you right now, I have nothing to say about that. I just don't know anything
about it," he said.
The criminal
investigation of the Abu Ghraib case was completed on
March 15, Di Rita said. On March 20, criminal charges were filed against six
military police. As many as three of the six cases has been referred to
military trial, and others are in various stages of preliminary hearings,
officials said.
In addition to the
criminal cases, seven others - all military police - have been given noncriminal punishment - in six of the cases they got
letters of reprimand. It was unclear whether others, including those in
military intelligence, will face disciplinary action. The names of the seven
have not been made public.
Rumsfeld has not read or
been briefed on the central findings of the Taguba
investigation, Di Rita said, but he has kept abreast of the allegations of
prisoner mistreatment.
Gen. Richard
Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday that he, too, had not
read the Taguba report.
Rumsfeld has had no public
comment on the controversy since it began with the broadcast over the CBS News
program "60 Minutes II" of photographs taken by U.S. military guards
inside the Abu Ghraib prison last fall. Di Rita said Rumsfeld had not seen the photos before they were
broadcast.
Asked why Rumsfeld had not demanded to see the Taguba
report, or at least be briefed on its central findings, Di Rita said Rumsfeld's was mainly interested in ensuring that the
matter be thoroughly investigated. He said it was not necessarily important at
this point that Rumsfeld see the findings.
"His concern
is that we can have confidence in the military justice system, which he
does," Di Rita said. Because he is in the chain of command, he is
restricted in what he can say and do about specific cases, the spokesman said.
The CIA also is
investigating.
April 29, 2004:
Architect of Iraq
War Wolfowitz Badly Underestimates American Deaths
From War He Advocated
WASHINGTON - Asked
how many American troops have died in Iraq (news - web sites), the Pentagon
(news - web sites)'s No. 2 civilian estimated Thursday the total was about 500
— more than 200 soldiers short.
Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was asked about the toll at
a hearing of a House Appropriations subcommittee. "It's approximately 500,
of which — I can get the exact numbers — approximately 350 are combat
deaths," he responded
…
American deaths
Thursday were at 722 — 521 of them from combat — since the start of military
operations in Iraq
last year, according to the Department of Defense (news - web sites).
Wolfowitz, an architect of
the military campaign in Iraq,
was responding to questions from Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, on the costs of the
war.
Since President
Bush (news - web sites) declared an end to major combat last May 1, 582 U.S. soldiers
have died — 410 as a result of hostile action.
April has been the
deadliest month so far, with more than 100 killed and some 900 wounded amid a
sharp rise in violence.
- AP, April 29,
2004
April 29, 2004:
Iraqi Islamic Party Threatens Quitting the IGC if Fallujah
Siege Continues
Three days of
intense fighting around Fallujah had brought sharp
international condemnation of the U.S. action.
"Violent
military action by an occupying power against inhabitants of an occupied
country will only make matters worse," United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned. "It's
definitely time, time now for those who prefer restraint and dialogue to make
their voices heard."
Mohsen Abdul-Hamid, a member of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council,
also called on the U.S. to
end the fighting in Fallujah and said if the U.S. refused,
his Iraqi Islamic Party would consider withdrawing from the council.
"We call on
the American troops that are bombing Fallujah to stop
immediately and withdraw outside of the city," Abdul-Hamid
told al-Jazeera television. "Otherwise, we'll be
forced ... to consider the subject of withdrawal."
On Thursday, U.S. troops at
the main checkpoint in and out of Fallujah opened
fire on a car, killing several Iraqis, although there were differing accounts
of the circumstances of the attack.
Marine Capt. James
Edge said a car screeched into the razor wire near the main Marine checkpoint
into Fallujah and gunmen inside opened fire with
assault rifles on the Americans. U.S. troops returned fire with a Humvee-mounted heavy machine gun, killing at least three of
the auto's occupants, Edge said. A fourth person was wounded but it wasn't
clear if he was in the car or a bystander, Capt. Edge said.
An Associated
Press reporter, however, saw U.S.
soldiers open fire on a pickup truck at the checkpoint, killing a seven-member
family that was trying to flee the city. It was not clear if the accounts
referred to separate incidents.
…
The bombing that
killed eight U.S. soldiers
from the Army's 1st Armored Division occurred around 11:30 a.m. near the town
of Mahmoudiyah, south
of Baghdad, the
military said.
Four wounded
soldiers were taken to the 31st Combat
Support Hospital
in Baghdad.
The soldiers who
were killed were to have returned to their home base in Germany by now,
under their original deployment orders. The division's departure was blocked by
the Pentagon and the unit was ordered to remain in Iraq for 90 days, after this
month's surge in violence.
The bombing that
killed eight U.S. soldiers
from the Army's 1st Armored Division occurred around 11:30 a.m. near the town
of Mahmoudiyah, south
of Baghdad, the
military said.
Four wounded
soldiers were taken to the 31st Combat
Support Hospital
in Baghdad.
The soldiers who
were killed were to have returned to their home base in Germany by now,
under their original deployment orders. The division's departure was blocked by
the Pentagon and the unit was ordered to remain in Iraq for 90 days, after this
month's surge in violence.
- WSJ, "Fallujah Siege to End; 10 U.S. Soldiers Killed",
Associated Press, April 29, 2004 9:31 a.m. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108323767038997193,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
April 26, 2004:
MSF (Doctors without Borders) condemn United States use of hospital as a
military position
[Fallujah's] main hospital, on the western bank of the Euphrates, was closed by the marines. Ibrahim
Younis, the Iraq emergency coordinator for Médecins sans Frontières, said
that meant many wounded had died because of inadequate healthcare.
"The
Americans put a sniper position on top of the hospital's water tower and had troops
in the single-storey building," said Mr Younis, who visited Falluja
during the fighting two weeks ago. "The hospital had four operating
theatres, which could no longer be used. If they had been working, it would
have saved many lives."
He said MSF wanted
an independent inquiry to determine why the US military used the hospital as a
military position - a violation of the Geneva convention. - Guardian (UK),
04/26/2004
April 25, 2004: Brahimi condemns Israeli and American violence
Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, referred to that link last week, saying
his efforts to forge a new Iraqi government were hindered by Israel's
"poison in the region" of "domination and the suffering of the
Palestinians."
Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy who is helping draft an
Iraqi interim government urged the Bush administration Sunday to "tread
carefully" in besieged Fallujah and avoid
alienating an already angry populace.
Before leaving Iraq he
described the siege as unacceptable collective punishment. Asked about that
Sunday, Brahimi said: "When you surround a city,
you bomb the city, when people cannot go to hospital, what name do you have for
that? And you, if you have enemies there, this is exactly what they want you to
do, to alienate more people so that more people support them rather than you.
- Christian
Science Monitor, 04/25/2004
|
Date:
|
Iraqi civilians:
Estimates:
Low High
|
Combatant KIA:
|
Total Dead:
|
|
4/16/04
|
8,875
|
10,725
|
> 20,000
|
> 30,000
|
|
8/17/03
|
6,096
|
7,807
|
> 20,000
|
> 25k
|
|
6/17/03
|
5,563
|
7,236
|
> 20,000
|
> 25k
|
|
4/29/03
|
2,050
|
2,514
|
> 4,500
|
> 7,120
|
|
3/31/03
|
478
|
586
|
> 1,000
|
> 2,100
|
April 14, 2004:
Civilian casualties mount in Fallujah
HALF the Iraqis
killed in a US offensive in the town of Fallujah were
women, children and elderly people, a mediator claimed yesterday as US
officials insisted that they took all precautions to avoid non-combatants.
Fouda Rawi, a senior member of the Iraqi Islamic Party
spearheading efforts to negotiate a ceasefire in the city west of Baghdad,
quoted hospital sources as saying more than 600 Iraqis had been killed and 1250
wounded.
"Among those
killed were 160 women, 141 children and many elderly," he said, providing
the first figures on the number of civilian deaths from the nearly week-long
offensive.
Wednesday,
February 11, 2004
"I'm not reading this. This is
bullshit."
- Colin Powell when presented with a
text Dick Cheney's chief of staff prepared for him to read at the UN in 2003
When David Kay and
Director Tenet both publicly claimed that they were aware of no political
pressure on anyone in the intelligence community to spin intelligence data
their own way, they clearly had not spoken to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
According to US News and World Report magazine the first draft of his famous UN
presentation was prepared for him by Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff,
Lewis "Scooter" Libby. It was so full of questionable material that
Powell threw several pages of the report into the air, shouting, "I'm not
reading this. This is bullshit."
Some of the
allegations Cheney's "forward-leaning" intelligence wanted him to include:
- allegations that
Iraq had purchased computer software that would allow it to plan an attack on
the United States (the CIA didn't support this);
- allegations that
Mohammed Atta, had met in Prague with an Iraqi
intelligence officer prior to the attacks, despite dismissal of this allegation
by American and British intelligence services;
What Bush Said: A Look Back at Gems
From White House Press Secretary Briefings
On How
Disagreement with the President's Plan to Invade Iraq = Immorality
Q So if they [members
of the UN Security Council] vote with you, then they're living up to their
obligations; but if they oppose the United States, they're immoral?
MR. FLEISCHER: I
didn't say they were immoral. I said that from a moral point of view, what are
the people of Iraq to think when it comes to who is it who fought for their
freedom and liberty? What were the people of Kosovo to think? What were people
to -- about, with the ethnic cleansing, about the role of the United Nations
Security Council? Those are the issues.
Q But don't you
see why people could conclude that dissent within this deliberative body is not
really condoned by the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER:
Different nations have different points of views. That's the point of view of
the United States. Other nations that will vote differently are free to express
their point of view from their point of view. That's the point of view of the
President. This is a moral issue, and the President hopes that action will be
taken. It doesn't suggest that if they don't take action they are immoral.
But the President
does believe that when people of Kosovo ask who they are to thank for the end
of ethnic cleansing, they cannot thank the United Nations Security Council. The
President of Rwanda, himself, expressed similar thoughts about waiting for the
United Nations Security Council. And after waiting, a million people died.
This is a very
interesting twist. By implication, Press Secretary Ari
Fleischer was alleging an on-going genocide in Iraq comparable to Rwanda or Kosovo.
He mentioned these countries repeatedly in other press briefings. No evidence
before or since the invasion confirms this allegation. It was quite clear that
Saddam Hussein had committed egregious human rights abuses, but the vast
majority had occurred while he was an ally of the United States. In fact, the
United States had opposed UNSCR's against Saddam
Hussein for, among other things, killing 5,000 Kurds at Halabja
with poison gas. Yes, it was true that Saddam Hussein had murdered many
thousands of people. Yes, it was true that the United States was now interested
in invading his country, ostensibly to disarm him. But the two observations
were temporally and logically unrelated.
Q Is the United
States prepared to accept the damage that's being done to international
institutions and alliances as a result of the debate over Iraq? And if the U.S.
fails this test that you have set up for it -- if the United Nations fails this
test you have set up, what sort of structure or relations do you see emerging afterwards?
MR. FLEISCHER:
Here's what's at stake in the United Nations and in international
organizations. Given that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that
are prohibited to him, what is the lesson for the next country that has weapons
of mass destruction or nuclear weapons, such as Iran or North Korea, where we
fear they are developing their programs to have weapons of mass destruction and
nuclear weapons?
Follow-up: as he
was speaking, the leading nuclear scientist of Pakistan was selling said
nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran, and Libya. Saddam Hussein, of course,
had no such weapons. So we were invading a country out of fear it was selling
something it never had while ignoring confirmed nuclear powers (headed also by
a military dictator) who were actively proliferating weapons of mass
destruction technology for profit.
On March 11, 2003,
he addressed the issue of Saddam Hussein being capable of posing an
"imminent attack" on the United States:
Q Can you
substantiate the credibility of the President's statement that Iraq is capable
of, or direct an imminent attack on the United States? …
MR. FLEISCHER: The
President does believe that Iraq is a direct threat to the United States as a
result of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, particularly biological and
chemical weapons.
Q Aimed at the
U.S.?
MR. FLEISCHER:
Certainly, the fact that we have a presence in the region means American
military men and women, American allies are targets. And even without a
buildup, we have American forces in the region that could be targets of such
attack.
Q They haven't
done anything in 12 years. Do you mean our people, the 250,000 troops we've put
there now?
MR. FLEISCHER: In
addition to the troops that are there now, there are the American forces that were
in place prior to the buildup. There are our friends and our allies who are
there. And the question is, does Saddam Hussein, in violation of Resolution
1441, have weapons of mass destruction? The answer is, yes.
This was a
disingenuous, rambling answer. The question was whether the United States was
directly threatened. He answered that members of the United States military the
President had massed in Kuwait were directly threatened. Then he repeated the
now-disproven allegation that Saddam Hussein had
"weapons of mass destruction," but finally got back to the question:
"The answer is, yes." If an Iraqi force was gathering in Mexico on
the border with Texas, could Iraq claim that it was threatened because it had
placed its troops within range of American defenses?
Earlier (2/28/03),
Fleischer was asked some tough questions re appeasers and the Hitler-Hussein
comparisons:
Q Does the
President think, though, to dissent against the war that he's planning are
appeasers?
MR. FLEISCHER: The
President views everybody who has a position about the war as a patriot. The
President does view this much like Elie Wiesel did,
when Elie Wiesel came to the White House yesterday
and met the President -- where Elie Wiesel, one of
the great humanists and smartest intellectuals and a leading moral authority --
no less an official than Elie Wiesel stood in front
of the White House after a meeting with the President and said, this is like
1938 all over again. And he called --
Q And he thinks we
should bomb people?
MR. FLEISCHER: --
and he called on the world, including Europe, to intervene, to disarm Iraq. As Elie Wiesel said, if the world had done that in 1938, there
would have been no World War II. The President views it in a similar way.
Q So he thinks
Saddam is the same as Hitler? Is he comparing him to Hitler, marching across
Europe?
MR. FLEISCHER: He
stopped just -- Elie Wiesel stopped just short of
saying that.
It seems cruel to
read it now, but Fleischer's dramatic Churchill-like flourish could have been
applied even more to his own administration's statements:
And I think when
you summarize Iraq's statement, …the Iraqi actions are propaganda wrapped in a
lie, inside a falsehood.
It also seems
clear that nothing Saddam Hussein could have done would have averted war:
Q While you and
the President have been consistent on the point that this is about total
disarmament, there is some inconsistency with regard to the Al Samoud missiles. You said from this podium a couple of
weeks ago that whether or not he destroys the missiles would be a "new
test for Saddam Hussein." Now, if you look at that objectively, if he's
promising, and if he actually carries through on destroying these missiles,
then he would have passed that test. And now you and the President have gone
out of your way to diminish and dismiss the importance of that step, when a
couple of weeks ago, you were saying, no, this is an important test.
MR. FLEISCHER: And
it is a test. It is one question on the test. The test has questions about his
anthrax. He hasn't answered those questions. The test has questions about his botulin, not only his missiles. So there are all of those
elements, which you know have been well discussed, not just the missiles. The
missiles are an important part of it. We'll see what he ultimately does --
because, of course, just as the President predicted, it is a game that Iraq is
playing.
Q Right, but don't
you see that there's no way to win here? I mean, you guys --
MR. FLEISCHER: No,
there is. There is.
Q But on this
issue, Ari, on this issue, there is no acceptable
answer to this administration. If you disarm, if you destroy the missiles,
that's still not good enough. If you don't do it, that's not good enough,
either.
MR. FLEISCHER:
That's because the U.N. set out the standard: full, immediate, complete
disarmament. That is the standard, that is the answer, that is what has not
happened.
…
Q … You said
before it was the destruction of the Al Samoud
missiles would be just a piece of disarmament --
MR. FLEISCHER:
Correct.
Q -- and you're
looking at pieces. If you don't give any meaning to the pieces, I mean, how --
the pieces, if you add them up, would equal total disarmament. So if there's no
value to the pieces, what is it that Saddam Hussein could possibly do --
MR. FLEISCHER:
Because Saddam Hussein has shown that a history of his actions throughout the
'90s or his pieces are nothing but diversions and deceptions. His pieces do not
lead up to a totality, which means that Iraq is completely and totally disarmed.
Q But if you look
at now -- not at history, but at now, if he says, okay, I'm going to disarm,
I'm going to comply to this or that -- why not give any value or any weight to
those pieces? Because if you look at those pieces, together they would fit a
puzzle of the total, you might have a chance of seeing total disarmament. I
mean, why would you negate any meaning at all to the pieces?
MR. FLEISCHER:
Because the United Nations Security Council called for, in November, full,
complete and immediate disarmament. It did not say, stretch it out, delay it
and only after you're under pressure should you say you're going to destroy a
missile that you once claimed you never had and you still say doesn't even
violate the United Nations. And that's the problem with the Saddam Hussein.
Every time he's under pressure he tries to relieve the pressure by disarming
just a touch, just a little; playing the game, playing the deception.
And the's why, as I said to you, when you sum up what Iraq is,
and you sum up the actions they take, the Iraqi actions are propaganda, wrapped
in a lie, inside a falsehood.
(He used this
phrase twice in the same conference.) His logic could be summarized as follows:
if Saddam Hussein does not destroy the missiles, he should be attacked. If he
does destroy them, he is "playing" a "game" and should be
attacked. (Saddam Hussein did end up destroying the missiles; he was attacked
anyway.)
On March 3, 2003,
he was confronted about the logical conflict of the disarmament-regime change
argument. Would disarmament alone prevent the President from starting a war?
Apparently not:
Q Ari, can I try to get clarification on something …? It's
the policy of the administration that Saddam has to totally and completely
disarm. But regime change is also the policy. So if he were to fully disarm, in
the administration's view would that amount to regime change? Or is the policy
now full disarmament plus exile, meaning Saddam has to --
MR. FLEISCHER:
Well, what we've always said is that if the regime were to have completely have
done what the United Nations called on them to do in Resolution 1441 last
November, it would, indeed, be a different type of regime. And then people have
said does that mean Saddam Hussein could still be the head of it? The point
that I have made is, in the event that the President makes a decision that
force is used to disarm Saddam Hussein to accomplish disarmament, nobody should
think -- not even for a second -- that military action could be possibly taken to
disarm Saddam Hussein that would leave Saddam Hussein at the helm for him to
rearm up later. No, that's not an option.
Q But if the
decision is not made to take force, if by some chance he just says, yes, I'm
fully disarming, I'm meeting all the requirements of 1441, and he stays in
power -- in your view, that would be a regime change?
MR. FLEISCHER:
Well, let's first see him completely, totally and immediately disarm, and see
if that takes place.
…
Q Ari, … if I understand you correctly, there is no way that
Saddam Hussein can ever truly satisfy this administration because no matter how
much or how little he disgorges in the way of illicit weapons, you will always
say, well, how do we know there isn't more buried somewhere, how do we know he
doesn't have some here or some there?
If that's the
case, if that's the administration's attitude, that he's simply so
untrustworthy that we can never know, no matter how much he gives up, how can
he possibly satisfy you?
MR. FLEISCHER:
Well, that's why I put it the way I did. That Saddam Hussein has put himself in
a Catch-22, where he says, I do not have any weapons that violate the United
Nations resolutions -- but I just found a few that I'm about to destroy. Why
does he keep finding things that he says he never, ever had? Which gives rise
to the question, what does he have that he is continuing to hide when we know,
as a starting point, that the United Nations found the anthrax, found the botulin, found the VX?
If Saddam Hussein
would all of the sudden come out with the 26,000 liters of anthrax, the 38,000
liters of botulin, the area chemicals that 30,000
empty chemical warheads -- which, of course, I think at last count some 12 had
been found, leading to the question, where's the other 29,900? These are the
issues that decide whether Saddam Hussein has disarmed completely, totally or
not. And these are the issues that Saddam Hussein still will not answer.
Q But your answer
-- if I take your answer to David's question right, what you're saying is that
no matter how much he produces, no matter how much evidence he were to produce,
you still won't believe him because you'll still believe that there might be
something else out there that nobody knew about that might be there?
MR. FLEISCHER: I
think the burden is on Saddam Hussein to show where these weapons are,
particularly when -- if you recall Secretary Powell's presentation -- we know
because we heard it that there are coded communications where they refer to the
nerve agents that they have. There are conversations that they're having about
these very weapons that we worry the most about.
He blurred
chronologies and facts here:
[When] the
inspectors were removed in the late 1990s, … on their way out, in their final
conclusive report, they indicated that Iraq had up to 26,000 liters of anthrax,
38,000 liters of botulin, 1.5 tons of nerve agent VX,
6,500 aerial chemical bombs. We don't know where those are. We have yet to see
any accounting for all of these. And so the fact that he may have destroyed
some 16 missiles has nothing -- nothing to do with the anthrax, the botulin and the VX.
This isn't true.
Per Scott Ritter, a member of that team, 95% of these stockpiles had been
destroyed. The rest would have degraded by 2003. The questions concerned a few
liters here and there that the Iraqis stated had been destroyed, but for which
they were unable to provide completely accurate and complete documentation for.
It is unclear today whether this incomplete documentation was a result of
bureaucratic bungling, posturing by a leader who wished to avoid the spectacle
of completing caving into Western demands, or outright lying by his own weapons
people (as David Kay would later allege).
On Pakistan, which
we now know was selling nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran, and Libya as he
spoke, his words seem almost comical:
What this shows is
the strong cooperation that we have from the government of Pakistan, and for
that the President is grateful to President Musharraf
and the people of Pakistan. They deserve the world's congratulations for
helping in this effort and leading this effort.
Thursday, February
05, 2004
Was Human Rights a Credible
Justification for War?
No, according to
Human Rights Watch, as cited on Veterans for Common Sense (http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=1496):
Human Rights Watch
said the US-British attack on Iraq failed to qualify on a number of grounds
normally used as a test of justified humanitarian military action.
There were no mass
killings going on; war was not the only option - legal, economic and political
measures could have been taken; there was no evidence that humanitarian purpose
was the main one for launching the invasion; the attack did not have the backing
of the United Nations or any other multinational body, and the situation in the
country has not got better.
Mr Roth said:
"The Bush administration cannot justify the war in Iraq as a humanitarian
intervention, and neither can Tony Blair ... such interventions should be
reserved for stopping an imminent or ongoing slaughter. They shouldn't be used
to address atrocities that were ignored in the past.
"Humanitarianism,
even understood broadly as a concern for the welfare of people, was at best a
subsidiary motive for the invasion of Iraq."
He said:
"Over time, the principal justifications originally given for the Iraq war
lost much of their force. More than seven months after the declared end of
major hostilities, weapons of mass destruction have not been found. No
significant pre-war link between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism has
been discovered. The difficulty of establishing stable institutions in Iraq is
making the country an increasingly unlikely staging ground for promoting
democracy in the Middle East."
Human Rights Watch
criticises the US and Britain for not sending in more
troops after the invasion. This, says the report, might have prevented the
anarchy after the fall of Saddam's regime. Mr Roth
said the Pentagon had acted as if it believed that the Iraqis would welcome the
soldiers with open arms.
Human Rights Watch
is a mainstream body with support across the political spectrum. It does not
have a policy of opposing military action.
Did Bush Label
Saddam Hussein an Imminent Threat?
Defenders of
President Bush now claim that he never stated that Iraq was an imminent threat,
therefor the fact that Iraq clearly was not an
imminent threat does not undermine or discredit his invasion, or the concept of
preemptive war.
If this were true,
then Bush launched something even worse - a preventive war. But to claim that
it was not packaged, marketed, and sold as a preemptive war against an imminent
threat is simply disingenuous.
Consider the
following:
The danger to our
country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime
possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the
facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And
according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a
biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were
given.
The regime has
long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are al
Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with
fissile material, could build one within a year.
- biological or
chemical attack within 45 minutes, a nuke in a year… sounds imminent to me. (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/iraq/20020926-7.html)
Rumsfeld testified before
Congress on 9/18/02 that Iraq may be an imminent threat and its biological
weapons may pose an "immediate threat":
The threat posed
by those regimes is real. It is dangerous. And it is growing with each passing
day. We cannot wish it away.
Some have argued
that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent-that Saddam is at least 5-7
years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain...We do not
know today precisely how close he is to having a deliverable nuclear weapon.
- http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-18rumsfeld.html
Rumsfeld in November,
2002, also posed the following hypothetical that clearly draws parallels
between Saddam Hussein and 9-11:
I would look you
in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this
question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the
month before or two months before or three months before or six months before?
When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport
yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is,
when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?
- http://www.rense.com/general48/claims.htm
True, he could have been saying that
since we did not have any evidence that al Qaeda posed an imminent threat to
the United States prior to 9-11, we cannot wait until (if) Saddam Hussein
becomes one. But he could just as easily have been saying that the absence of
evidence that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat does not rule this out.
Vice President Cheney said that
Saddam Hussein "threatens the United States of America" shortly
following the President's 2003 State of the Union address.
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, presumably speaking for the president, at
least twice agreed with the term "imminent threat" to characterize
Iraq:
Q: "Well, we
went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons
were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?"
Fleischer:
"Absolutely." (May 7, 2003)
Q: "Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from
Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons
of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in,
unfettered, no conditions, so forth."
Fleischer:
"Yes." (October 16, 2003)
Other quotations gathered at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/29/17733/6012
"There's no
question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
- White House
spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
"We ended the
threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
- President Bush,
7/17/03
Iraq was "the
most dangerous threat of our time."
- White House
spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
"Saddam
Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but
he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
- President Bush,
7/2/03
"We gave our
word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
- President Bush
4/24/03
"The threat
posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
- Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"It is only a
matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the
region and the world is ended."
- Pentagon
spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
"The people
of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of
an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
- President Bush,
3/19/03
"The dictator
of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of
free nations."
- President Bush,
3/16/03
"This is
about imminent threat."
- White House
spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a
serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
- Vice President
Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses
"terrible threats to the civilized world."
- Vice President
Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq
"threatens the United States of America."
- Vice President
Cheney, 1/30/03
"Iraq poses a
serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a
nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium,
and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from
Africa."
- Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
"Saddam
Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the
security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from
any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle
East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot
ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and
both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has
demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our
friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
- Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
"The Iraqi
regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass
destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a
threat, a real threat."
- President Bush,
1/3/03
"The world is
also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose
dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
- President Bush,
11/23/02
"Saddam
Hussein is a threat to America."
- President Bush,
11/3/02
"I see a
significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
- President Bush,
11/1/02
"There is
real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in
the form of Saddam Hussein."
- President Bush,
10/28/02
"The Iraqi
regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
- President Bush,
10/16/02
"There are
many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers
the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any
given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or
individual terrorists."
- President Bush,
10/7/02
"The Iraqi
regime is a threat of unique urgency."
- President Bush,
10/2/02
"There's a
grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
- President Bush,
10/2/02
"This man
poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
- President Bush,
9/26/02 [Since I can't imagine a threat greater than an imminent threat…]
"No terrorist
state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people
and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
- Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"Some have
argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at
least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.
And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological
weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
- Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
"Iraq is busy
enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and
they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are
offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale,
developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one
he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in
to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
- Vice President
Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
Thursday, January
22, 2004
George W. Bush and
The Real State of the Union
The Independent of
Britain:
501 = # of US
servicemen to die so far
222 = # of combat
troops to have died prior to Bush's May 1, 2003, "Mission
Accomplished" speech
0 = # of combat
deaths in Germany after the allied surrender
0 = # of coffins
that Bush has allowed to be photographs
100 = # of
fund-raisers attended by Bush or Cheney since
9.2 = average # of
American soldiers wounded
1.6 = average # of
American soldiers killed
16,000 =
approximate # of Iraqis killed
10,000 = civilians
36% = increase in
desertions from Army
92% = % of Iraq's
60% = % of Iraq's
urban areas that have
130 = # of
countries out of total of 191 with an American military presence
22 soldiers have
committed suicide in Iraq, including 2 who committed suicide at Walter Reed
Army Medical Center. - NPR 1/22/04
1/9/04: US plays
down withdrawal of Iraq weapons team
The White House
has played down the withdrawal from Iraq of a 400-member military team specialising in the disposal of weapons of mass
destruction.
Spokesman for US
President George W Bush, Scott McClellan, said that even though the disposal
team was leaving, the group focused on hunting weapons was remaining in Iraq.
"The Iraq
Survey Group continues to do its work," Mr
McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One.
Mr Bush was en route
to Tennessee for an event on school reform and a fund-raiser.
Newspaper The New
York Times reported on Thursday that the departure of the team was "a sign
that the administration might have lowered its sights" and viewed it as
less likely that chemical and biological weapons would be discovered.
The Bush
administration had cited the threat of illicit weapons as a principle reason
for launching war on Iraq in March of last year.
"We already
know from [the Iraq Survey Group's] interim report that Saddam Hussein's regime
was in serious violation" of United Nations disarmament demands, Mr McClellan said.
In a potential
setback to the so far fruitless hunt for banned weapons, the head of the Iraq
Survey Group, David Kay, told administration officials last month he was
considering leaving his job.
-- Reuters
12/31/03: Military
Drops Cowardice Charge Against Soldier The U.S. military has dropped charges
against Sgt. Georg Pogany who was accused of
cowardice after he suffered a panic attack after seeing a dead Iraqi body.
12/30/03:
President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blairs’
justification for the invasion of Iraq has run up against what appears to be
unintended scrutiny from an unlikely source—Paul Bremer, head of the occupation
forces in Baghdad.
In an interview
with London’s ITV-1, Bremer dismissed Blair’s allegation that British and
American weapons hunters had unearthed "massive evidence of a huge system
of clandestine laboratories" in Iraq. The supposed danger from Saddam
Hussein's alleged WMD was central to the case for war in Iraq, but despite
months of work, the Iraq Survey Group, headed by David Kay, has all but given
up hope of finding them. Blair has remained undaunted, insisting that the
evidence would eventually turn up, and told British troops in his Christmas
message that the information on laboratories showed Saddam had attempted to
"conceal weapons".
But when the
claim was put to Bremer, he said it was not true. Unaware that it had been made
by Mr Blair, the American proconsul said it sounded
like a "red herring" put about by someone opposed to military action
to undermine the coalition. He said "I don't know where those words come
from, but that is not what David Kay has said. I have read his report, so I
don't know who said that ... It sounds like someone who doesn't agree with the
policy sets up a red herring, then knocks it down."
But when the
interviewer told Bremer the statement was actually made by Tony Blair, he
changed his tune, saying "There is actually a lot of evidence that had
been made public,", adding that the group had found "clear evidence
of biological and chemical programs ongoing ... and clear evidence of violation
of UN Security Council resolutions relating to rockets".
- Democracynow.org
12/30/03
From the UK
Guardian: Nothing has been discovered in Iraq that was not
known to exist as a result of the inspections. With breathtaking
disingenuousness, Blair and Bush now deny that they ever gave the impression
that Iraq was close to possessing nuclear weapons or the means of delivering
them. The weapons for which we went to war, in the most recent versions, were
chemical and biological. Now, even they have dematerialised
- from actual weapons to a sinister but insubstantial potential...
According to
former head of Unscom, Rolf Ekeus,
it had "eliminated Iraq's capabilities fundamentally in all areas".
They had accounted for and destroyed all but one of Saddam's missiles, his
secret biological weapons programme and his chemical
weapons programme.
... In 1981,
Israel unilaterally bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor, supposedly to destroy
Saddam's capacity to produce nuclear weapons. The bombing, in Ekeus' opinion, had no substantive impact on Iraq's nuclear
potential. What it did do was encourage the Iraqis to speed up a clandestine
development programme that brought them to the brink
of nuclear capacity by 1990...
But the next
dictator who tries to transform himself from a local thug into an international
menace by acquiring WMD will have less to fear from the difficult, patient and
methodical inspections that the UN inspections teams pursued. Bush and Blair
have seen to that.
- isabel.hilton@guardian.co.uk, UK
Guardian, 10/07/2003
The White House was reportedly
angered by the media reports of the CIA-led Iraqi Survey Group (ISG) report on
the search for banned weapons. Almost every major newspaper led its front page
with the failure to find actual weapons. - UK Guardian, 10/05/2003
"Multiple sources with varied
access and reliability have told ISG (Iraq Survey Group) that Iraq did not have
a large, on-going, centrally controlled CW programme
after 1991," Mr Kay told a congressional
intelligence committee.
He said Saddam had also had nuclear
ambitions, but he conceded: "To date we have not uncovered evidence that
Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or
produce fissile material."
Dick Cheney on Iraq, as quoted in the
New York Times, 10/12/2003:
"Had we followed the counsel of
inaction, the Iraqi regime would still be a menace to its neighbors and a
destabilizing force in the Middle East." - Dick Cheney.
"Finding comparatively small
volumes of extremely deadly materials hidden in these vast stockpiles will be
time-consuming and difficult." - small volumes? what about stockpiles?
Mr. Cheney said it was dangerous to
rely too heavily on reaching international consensus.... saying that approach
"amounts to a policy of doing exactly nothing." - are inspections
nothing?
NBC News's Andrea Mitchell told
Newsweek that following the Novak column's appearance, White House officials
were touting it. And about that time Karl Rove had a private conversation with
Hardball host Chris Matthews in which Rove either said Wilson's wife was
"fair game" or that it was reasonable for the press to look at
Valerie Wilson's position. - AP, 11/03
Sadly, most of our media-especially
in these last few years - has lacked the courage to question authority, to
raise tough questions, to perform the basic duties required of a free press in
a democracy. It has been too easily intimidated by an Administration that has
used fear to make its case for war, to label its critics traitors, to silence
dissent, to pervert the meaning of patriotism and compassion, and to push for
legislation that would invade our privacy and destroy our dignity. The
Nation, November, 2003
"Specialist Artimus
D. Brassfield, 22, a tank driver for the 66th Armored
Regiment, Fourth Infantry Division, was killed in a mortar attack in Samarra,
north of Baghdad, on Oct. 24. His death has not changed his wife's opinion of
the war. Ms. Brassfield was against it when it began.
She is against it now."
- New York Times,
10/26/2003
Excerpts from "Blueprint
for a Mess" by David Rieff, New York Times,
11/1/03:
I have made two trips to Iraq since
the end of the war and interviewed dozens of sources in Iraq and in the United
States who were involved in the planning and execution of the war and its
aftermath. It is becoming painfully clear that the American plan (if it can
even be dignified with the name) for dealing with postwar Iraq was flawed in
its conception and ineptly carried out. At the very least, the bulk of the
evidence suggests that what was probably bound to be a difficult aftermath to
the war was made far more difficult by blinkered vision and overoptimistic
assumptions on the part of the war's greatest partisans within the Bush
administration. … Despite administration claims, it is simply not true that no
one could have predicted the chaos that ensued after the fall of Saddam
Hussein. In fact, many officials in the United States, both military and
civilian, as well as many Iraqi exiles, predicted quite accurately the perilous
state of things that exists in Iraq today. There was ample warning, both on the
basis of the specifics of Iraq and the precedent of other postwar deployments
-- in Panama, Kosovo and elsewhere -- that the situation in postwar Iraq was
going to be difficult and might become unmanageable. What went wrong was not
that no one could know or that no one spoke out. What went wrong is that the
voices of Iraq experts, of the State Department almost in its entirety and,
indeed, of important segments of the uniformed military were ignored. As much
as the invasion of Iraq and the rout of Saddam Hussein and his army was a
triumph of planning and implementation, the mess that is postwar Iraq is a
failure of planning and implementation.
…
American forces largely did nothing
[when looting began following the invasion]. Or rather, they did only one thing
-- station troops to protect the Iraqi Oil Ministry. This decision to protect
only the Oil Ministry -- not the National Museum, not the National Library, not
the Health Ministry -- probably did more than anything else to convince Iraqis
uneasy with the occupation that the United States was in Iraq only for the oil…
Bremer's first major act [after
relieving Garner] was not auspicious… On May 15, [2003] he announced the
complete disbanding of the Iraqi Army, some 400,000 strong, and the lustration
of 50,000 members of the Baath Party. As one U.S.
official remarked to me privately, ''That was the week we made 450,000 enemies
on the ground in Iraq.''
The decision -- which many sources
say was made not by Bremer but in the White House -- was disastrous. In a
country like Iraq, where the average family size is 6, firing 450,000 people
amounts to leaving 2,700,000 people without incomes; in other words, more than
10 percent of Iraq's 23 million people. The order produced such bad feeling on
the streets of Baghdad that salaries are being reinstated for all soldiers. It
is a slow and complicated process, however, and there have been demonstrations
by fired military officers in Iraq over the course of the summer and into the fall.
- David Rieff,
New York Times, 11/1/03
President Bush was … forced to defend
his May 1 appearance aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln where he said "the
battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror" while he stood in front
of a banner that read "Mission Accomplished." Yesterday he claimed
the ship's large banner that read "Mission Accomplished" was only
meant to indicate the mission of the members of the returning ship had been
accomplished, not the U.S. military. He said the sign was put up by members of
the USS Abraham Lincoln. After the press conference White House press secretary
Scott McClellan admitted that the White House produced the sign but he said it
had been requested by members of the ship.
Yesterday's press
conference was only Bush’s 10th of his term. No president in the last 50 years
has held fewer press conferences during their first 2 and a half years in
office.
White House Alters
Website To Block Google Archives: Meanwhile it has been revealed
that the White House has manipulated its web site to prevent Internet search
engines including Google from archiving portions of the White House website
related to Iraq. Over the past few months the White House has come under
criticism for altering archived pages as the situation in Iraq worsens. In the
most widely noted case the White House altered the headline for its coverage of
his speech aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. The web page originally read
" President Bush announces combat operations in Iraq have ended." But
several months later the text "combat operations" was changed to
"major combat operations" as it became evident that the fighting in
Iraq had not ended.
Study: 15,000
Iraqis Killed During Iraq Invasion: A new report by the
Massachusetts-based Project on Defense Alternatives estimates that up 15,000
Iraqis were killed in the opening days of the U.S. invasion. Nearly one third
of those killed were civilians. In what is considered to be the most
comprehensive report on Iraqi casualties, researchers drew on hospital records,
official US military statistics, news reports, and survey methodology to arrive
at their figures. - www.democracynow.org, 10/29/03
"Honestly, it’s a little tougher than I thought
it was going to be," [Senator Trent] Lott said. In a sign of frustration,
he offered an unorthodox military solution: "If we have to, we just mow
the whole place down, see what happens. You’re dealing with insane suicide
bombers who are killing our people, and we need to be very aggressive in taking
them out." - The Hill, October 29, 2003, GOP unity is strained by attacks,
by Geoff Earle
"Yesterday, when I read that US Commander-in-Chief
George W. Bush, in a moment of blustering arm-chair machismo, sent a message to
the 'non-existent' Iraqi guerrillas to "bring 'em
on," the first image in my mind was a 20-year-old soldier in an
ever-more-fragile marriage, who'd been away from home for 8 months. He
participated in the initial invasion, and was told he'd be home for the 4th of
July. He has a newfound familiarity with corpses, and everything he thought he
knew last year is now under revision. He is sent out into the streets of Fallujah (or some other city), where he has already been
shot at once or twice with automatic weapons or an RPG, and his nerves are raw.
He is wearing Kevlar and ceramic body armor, a Kevlar helmet, a load carrying
harness with ammunition, grenades, flex-cuffs, first-aid gear, water, and
assorted other paraphernalia. His weapon weighs seven pounds, ten with a double
magazine. His boots are bloused, and his long-sleeve shirt is buttoned at the
wrist. It is between 100-110 degrees Fahrenheit at midday. He's been eating MRE's three times a day, when he has an appetite in this
heat, and even his urine is beginning to smell like preservatives. Mosquitoes
and sand flies plague him in the evenings, and he probably pulls a guard shift
every night, never sleeping straight through. He and his comrades are beginning
to get on each others' nerves. The rumors of 'going-home, not-going-home' are
keeping him on an emotional roller coaster. Directives from on high are
contradictory, confusing, and often stupid. The whole population seems hostile
to him and he is developing a deep animosity for Iraq and all its people--as
well as for official narratives.
"This is the lad who will hear from someone that
George W. Bush, dressed in a suit with a belly full of rich food, just hurled a
manly taunt from a 72-degree studio at the 'non-existent' Iraqi resistance.
"This de facto president is finally seeing his
poll numbers fall. Even chauvinist paranoia has a half-life, it seems. His
legitimacy is being eroded as even the mainstream press has discovered now that
the pretext for the war was a lie. It may have been control over the oil, after
all. Anti-war forces are regrouping as an anti-occupation movement. Now,
exercising his one true talent--blundering--George W. Bush has begun the improbable
process of alienating the very troops upon whom he depends to carry out the
neo-con ambition of restructuring the world by arms."
- Stan Goff is the
author of "Hideous Dream: A Soldier's Memoir of the US Invasion of
Haiti" He retired in 1996 from the US Army, from 3rd Special Forces. He
lives in Raleigh.
Since October 6, 2003, General Sanchez reported that
the number of attacks has risen to 35 per day versus 20-25 per day before. They
appear to be more organized and regionally coordinated. - NPR, 10/22/03
"Last week, [Commerce Secretary] Don Evans … was
out here. He was touting the new Iraqi currency. There was a media event
everyone was invited to take pictures of it and write about it. After the event
was over, he hopped on the press bus, and he said to the press that the
American people have a far different view of this place than the reality we all
know is here. And he called on the press that day to report what they really
are seeing. It was clear from this comment that he does believe that we are not
looking at any of the good news, and he urged us to. It was a real message from
the Bush administration to tell the truth as they see it in Washington. [He had
been in country] for about 24 hours. And most of the officials who come here
actually don't stay here. Most of them stay in Kuwait. So I think we do see a
different reality than some of the Congressional delegations and some of the
officials who come here… For months, now, the coalition has not talked about
soldiers who are wounded. We don't know. That is very hard information to get…
When television reporters get to the scene of an attack, they are either held
in detention by coalition forces or their pictures are taken away… Often you
will ask for a number and an American will say, Ask the Iraqis, but the Iraqis
will say ask the Americans… [The Iraqis] shrug their shoulders and say they're
not in charge here… Sometimes Iraqis find it very embarrassing - they don't
like it that we have to ask permission to talk to them. That wasn't true a few
months ago…
- Debra Amis in
Baghdad, NPR, 10/22/03
"The administration is very sensitive about
controlling how events in Iraq are reported… they want to control the message
out of Iraq so that the image is a positive one rather than a negative one… The
administration believes that the message from Iraq is inaccurate, that it
conveys to the American people that the war was not worth it."
- Marvin Count,
NPR, 10/22/03
"Sergio and Nadia lived lives of sacrifice and
substance. Their deaths both shame and mock the armchair warriors, the
television talk-show mudwrestlers, the pontificators,
the manipulators and the simplifiers. Their deaths are a reminder that imperium, no matter how benign its intent, is never
altruistic, and calls forth its own responses. And their lives are a reminder
that it is just possible to do some small good int
his rank, sorry, blood-drenched world."
- 'I should always believe journalists', he said,
adding: 'Please pray for me.", New York Times , 8/24/03, page WK 7.
President George W. Bush is leading the United States
in a "false and dangerous" direction.
- George Soros, quoted in
the New York Times, 8/8/03, page A13, "5 Foes of Bush Form PAC in Bid to
Defeat Him"
"The transformation [of the American military to
3.8% of GDP] we are talking about will take a very long time unless some sort
of catacylsmic event takes place like another Pearl
Harbor."
- Project for a
New American Century web site, September, 2000; note that a position statement
signed by, among others, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld, advocated 3 theater wars, massive increase in
military spending, and regime change in Iraq was posted on their web
site years prior to 9/11/01.
"The United States finds the present Iranian
regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating
the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with
the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious
basis which it claims."
- 1984 public U.S.
condemnation of the concept of regime change, coming as it did at the time from
Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. At this point the United States had unequivocal
evidence of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran.
"This is not right. Americans should settle down
and focus on things like providing electricity and water. This will only
increase hatred." - Iraqi civilian interviewed on NPR, 7/28/03, following
a botched attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein by a group of American special
forces and Navy SEALS in which 4 Iraqi civilian bystanders were killed.
American troops are attacked at least 12 times a day,
perhaps as many as 100 times. Most go unreported (unless a soldier is killed or
gravely injured). - NPR, 7/28/03
"What is offensive to me… morally is that they
make [CIA Director] Tenet play the good soldier which he is… Accountability in
American government counts. To dump responsibility on George Tenet is
dishonorable and disingenuous."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), speaking about
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice's
"incredulous" claim that the President was not at fault in citing a
fraudulent report re Iraq attempting to obtain uranium from Africa in making
his case for war, NPR, 7/13/03.
"It is sort
of fascinating that you can have 100 percent certainty about weapons of mass
destruction and zero certainty of about where they are."
- Hans Blix in address to
Council on Foreign Relations in New York, 6/23/03
ABOVE left: Munthir
Sabir lost 6 members of his family on 4/26/03 when a
munitions dump exploded; local residents were enraged that the Americans had
stockpiled arms collected from all over the country in a heavily populated area.
Above right: Baghdad burns. LEFT: A wounded Iraqi girl March 29, 2003. The
four-year old girl, blood streaming from an eye wound, was screaming for her
dead mother, while her father, shot in a leg, begged to be freed from the
plastic wrist cuffs slapped on him by U.S. marines, so he could hug his other
terrified daughter. REUTERS/Damir Sagolj
Death Toll (www.iraqbodycount.net)
|
Date:
|
Iraqi civilians:
Estimates:
Low High
|
Combatant KIA:
|
Total Dead:
|
American Equivalent (Adjusted for Population
Differences):
|
|
8/17/03
|
6,096
|
7,807
|
> 20,000
|
> 25k
|
> 527,000
|
|
6/17/03
|
5,563
|
7,236
|
> 20,000
|
> 25k
|
> 487,000
|
|
6/10/03
|
5,531
|
7,203
|
> 20,000
|
> 25k
|
> 487,000
|
|
5/14/03
|
3,770
|
4,805
|
> 20,000
|
> 25k
|
> 325,000
|
|
4/29/03
|
2,050
|
2,514
|
> 4,500
|
> 7,120
|
> 92,560
|
|
4/26/03
|
2,029
|
2,488
|
> 4,500
|
> 7,094
|
> 92,222
|
|
4/24/03
|
1,933
|
2,380
|
> 4,500
|
> 6,989
|
> 90,857
|
|
4/22/03
|
1,930
|
2,377
|
> 4,500
|
> 6,974
|
> 90,662
|
|
4/21/03
|
1,878
|
2,325
|
> 4,500
|
> 6,974
|
> 90,662
|
|
4/18/03
|
1,652
|
1,939
|
> 4,500
|
> 6,588
|
> 85,664
|
|
4/15/03
|
1,390
|
1,803
|
> 4,500
|
> 6,452
|
> 83,876
|
|
4/09/03
|
961
|
1,139
|
> 4,500
|
> 4,004
|
|
|
4/06/03
|
876
|
1,049
|
> 4,000
|
> 3,389
|
|
|
4/04/03
|
601
|
760
|
> 1,000
|
> 2,423
|
|
|
4/02/03
|
569
|
725
|
> 1,000
|
> 2,377
|
|
|
4/01/03
|
565
|
724
|
> 1,000
|
> 2,352 * (1830)
|
|
|
4/01/03
|
508
|
667
|
> 1,000
|
> 2,238 (1700)
|
|
|
3/31/03
|
478
|
586
|
> 1,000
|
> 2,100
|
|
|
3/28/03
|
283
|
391
|
> 500
|
> 941
|
|
|
3/26/03
|
227
|
307
|
> 500
|
> 857
|
|
An Iraqi boy wounded by American
bombing of Baghdad, March, 2003
I swear the
following is not a joke: according to Time magazine, Lithuania is going to send
43 soldiers to Iraq, Macedonia 30, and Kazakhstan bless their Central Asian
hearts is sending 25.
So you see we're
not alone. The Bush administration's pre-war bungling hasn't hurt our ability
to get foreigners to help.
As soon as the
Macedonian 30 arrive, Iraqis will start heeding Paul Bremer's
"drug-free-zone" like decree and everything will be fine. Really.
- Creative
Loafing, 7/26/03
Consider the Chickenhawk
architects of this war:
Richard Perle,
prince of darkness:
Perle's predictions:
On resistance to the invasion and
occupation: "Support for Saddam, including within his military
organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder…
There is an internal opposition to Saddam Hussein. The Kurds in the north … the
Shi'a in the south… we have the ability to remove
Saddam Hussein and his regime. And it will be quicker and easier than many people
think. He is far weaker than many people realize."
On the length of the conflict: "Now,
it isn't going to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
On the links between al Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein: "There is collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al
Qaeda, which means to destroy us."
On weapons of mass destruction: "It
entails chemical weapons, biological weapons, training in their application.
And he's working on nuclear weapons. The message is very clear - we have no
time to lose, Saddam must be removed from office. Every day that
goes by is a day in which we are exposed to dangers on a far larger scale than
the tragedy of September 11…"
On international support:
"We'll get lots of allied support when it's over, when it's clear that the
result was as we anticipated… So I don't think we need the Europeans and their
bank accounts."
On resistance to occupation:
" It makes a great difference whether we are seen as invaders serving only
our own purposes or whether we're working with the opposition to liberate Iraq
from the scourge of Saddam Hussein. And I have no doubt that when it's over,
Iraqis will consider that they have been freed from a nightmare regime that has
practiced the most brutal murderous repression. So at the end of the day, there may be a
brief period when people are confused, but this will be seen as an act of
liberation. And the Iraqis themselves will welcome the change."
- (Yes, he really said this in an
interview with James P. Rubin in the summer of 2002 [emphasis added]: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saddam/transcript2.html
)
Chickenhawk article from New York Times
Deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz:
"Like the
people of France in the 1940s, they [Iraqis] view us as their hoped-for
liberators." - March 11, 2003
"It's hard to
conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam
Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and secure the surrender of
Saddam's security force and his army.'' - February 27, 2003
"I believe
demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.
Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2)
they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're
playing for keeps."
- Ken Adelman,
former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, February 13, 2002
"This will be
no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention. The
president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling
... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation.
And I say, bring it on."
- Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair writer, in a debate Jan. 28, 2003
[interesting language, eerily similar to President Bush's "bring 'em on" taunt re attacks on United States and
international entities]
|
Where are those pesky weapons of mass destruction?
|
|
|
9 Iraqi children killed playing with bomb
|
May 15, 2003
|
|
Widespread protests against US occupation; international
aid organizations criticize US for creating humanitarian crisis;
|
April 18, 2003
|
|
Portrait of Civilian Death in Baghdad
|
April 8, 2003
|
|
US Military Admits to Using Cluster Bombs in Civilian
Areas; Investigates Reports of Civilian Deaths and Mass Casualties at Hillah
|
April 02, 2003
|
|
Welcome to Hell… James Webb's 3/03 New
York Times article
|
March 30, 2003
|
|
As They Kill More Civilians Each Day, US and British Risk
Being Seen as Villians
|
April 02, 2003
|
|
Rumsfeld's Disaster: How Micromanaging by SECDEF bogged down
"Iraqi Freedom" (Seymor
Hirsh article in the New Yorker)
|
April 01, 2003
|
|
Americans Kill 10 Iraqi Women and Children in a Van at a
Road Block; Pentagon Gives Markedly Different Account
|
March 31, 2003
|
|
Weapons of mass destruction aren't the issue, it's about
global control (Opinion, Guardian)
|
September 13, 2002
|
|
Bush's Recipe for Armageddon: Creative Loafing Article
|
September 12, 2002
|
|
On the Job and at Home, Influential Hawks' 30-Year
Friendship Evolves
|
September 10, 2002
|
|
Don't Attack Iraq by Brent Scowcroft
|
August 15, 2002
|
"Welcome To
Hell"
- James Webb
Every gun that is
made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, is in a final sense, a theft
from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
2 of the 1 million children killed by US-sponsored
sanctions against Iraq
I am strongly in
favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should
be good ... and it would spread a lively terror. ...
I suspect that by
invading 'evil-doer' nations, we may lessen our vulnerability but lose a piece
of our soul in the process.
"But clearly,
if the main product of the Persian Gulf were broccoli and not oil, we would not
be where we are today, vis-a-vis Iraq, vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia, vis-a-vis
the whole region. So I think it's either naive or disingenuous to begin with
the notion that somehow this has nothing to do oil. Oil shapes everything about
the politics and the economy and the military realities of that entire
region."
"If Kuwait
grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn."
- Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under Reagan
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and
file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by
mistake, since for him
the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be
done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable
love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and
ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an
action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but
an act of murder."
- Albert Einstein
The B-2 bomber
carries sixteen 2'000 lb. JDAM bombs. If all goes 100% as planned (the bomb
does not fall outside of its specified margin of error of 13 meters, and the
GPS guidance system is not foiled by a $50 radio jammer
kit, easily purchased), then here is what one such bomb does:
The B-2s will be
used upon targets within Baghdad. -Prof Marc W. Herold, IBC
Project Consultant
Chronology and
Highlights
« Main
TOP STORIES
« Prev | Next »
Bush vows to 'reveal the truth' on Iraqi weapons
June 5, 2003
Web Posted at: 6:11 p.m. EDT (2211 GMT)
Democrats challenge White House on claims
Facing growing criticism and calls for congressional
hearings about his administration's pre-war assertions on the threat posed by
Iraq, U.S. President George W. Bush vowed Thursday to "reveal the
truth" about what he has described as former leader Saddam Hussein's
weapons of mass destruction.
Speaking to troops in Qatar as he headed home from a
Middle East peace summit, Bush suggested it shouldn't be surprising that no
such weapons have been found, despite the fall of Saddam's regime and the
presence of coalition forces in Iraq for more than two months.
"This is a man who spent decades hiding tools of
mass murder," Bush said. "He knew the inspectors were looking for
them. You know better than me he's got a big country in which to hide them.
We're on the look. We'll reveal the truth."
The president pointed to the recent discovery of what
he described as two "mobile biological weapons facilities" as
evidence of Saddam's interest in and Iraq's capability of producing biological
weapons.
In New York, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told the Security Council Thursday that inspectors
found no evidence before the March invasion that Iraq had reconstituted its
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs.(Full story)
"The commission has not at any time during the
inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of
programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed
items, whether from pre-1991 or later," Blix
told the Security Council in what is expected to be his final report.
But he also said Iraq was unable to account for chemical
or biological weapons it claimed to have destroyed, and weapons inspectors were
unable to clear up discrepancies before they left Baghdad in advance of the
invasion.
"This does not necessarily mean that such items
could not exist. They might. There remain a long list of items unaccounted
for," Blix said. "But it is not justified
to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it was unaccounted
for."
'Perception of deception'
On Capitol Hill, Democrats are growing increasingly
vocal in challenging the Bush administration to better explain its claims.
The Bush administration cited the weapons of mass
destruction as the key reason for invading Iraq and removing Saddam -- who
remains unaccounted for -- from power.
The Senate's senior Democrat Thursday called on Bush
to dispel the "perception of deception" about Baghdad's banned
weapons programs.
"The questions continue to grow. The doubts are
beginning to drown out the assurances," said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West
Virginia. "For every insistence from Washington that the weapons of mass
destruction case against Iraq is sound comes a counterpoint from the field --
another dry hole, another dead end."
Some Democrats, including several who are seeking
their party's 2004 presidential nomination, question whether the administration
slanted or manipulated intelligence data to make the case for war with Iraq.
Others say the intelligence data may have been flawed, a claim rejected last
week by CIA Director George Tenet.
"Like millions of Americans, I'm wondering where
the hell the weapons of mass destruction are," Rep. Joseph Hoeffel,
D-Pennsylvania, said Wednesday at a House International Relations Committee
hearing.
Administration officials have denied the suggestions
they distorted evidence to justify the war, and say Iraq had made an extensive
effort to hide its weapons programs from international inspectors.
Rumsfeld defends
presentation
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
said the intelligence presentation Secretary of State Colin Powell gave to the
United Nations in February "was accurate, and will be proved to be
accurate."
"We haven't found Saddam Hussein, and I don't
know anyone who's running around saying he didn't exist," Rumsfeld told reporters Thursday, following a closed-door
briefing on Capitol Hill.
Critics in Europe are also raising questions, forcing
British Prime Minister Tony Blair to defend his support for the U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq. Spain's opposition Socialist Party has formally requested
that Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar explain to parliament
what happened to Iraq's reputed weapons of mass destruction.
The Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees
are reviewing classified background documents related to the Bush
administration's pre-war statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the intelligence panel, has not, however,
scheduled a hearing about the matter, even though some lawmakers, mostly
Democrats, are calling for such a move. Roberts, R-Kansas, said he wants to
give the weapons hunt in Iraq more time.
A 1,200-member Pentagon survey team is being
dispatched to the Persian Gulf to continue the hunt for Iraq's suspected
weapons. The team also will have responsibility for finding terrorists, war
criminals and prisoners of war.
National Security Correspondent David Ensor, U.N
Producer Liz Neisloss, Congressional Producer Steve
Turnham, and CNN.Com Producer Sean Loughlin
contributed to this report.
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
Civilian violent death toll as high as 1,139.
American tanks in Baghdad. Looting everywhere, a breakdown in infrastructure.
The troops are neither equipped nor intent upon restoring order and
humanitarian aid.
Wednesday, April 02, 2003
The International Red Cross said that it saw dozens
of Iraqi civilians killed or injured in the town of Hillah. Bodies of men,
women, and children were transfered to the hospital
where 300 injured people were being treated. Iraqis claimed US Apache
helicopters attacked a residential neighborhood; the US Central Command had no
comment. See article regarding initial investigation.
US troops are now reportedly within 30 miles of
Baghdad.
Back in the home of the free, lawmakers in Oregon are
considering legislation that would equate protesting war with terrorism and a
senator proposed arresting Arnett for treason. How much of a superpower could
we be if protestors and aging journalists scare our lawmakers so much?
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
More details on the family shot in the van: a
Washington Post reporter on the scene disputes the numbers and circumstances.
Over the weekend, Fox News began referring to
kamikaze attacks on the invading forces by Iraqis as "homicide
bombing." (Of note, they didn't refer to American weapons as
"homicide cruise missiles" or "homicide Tomahawks."
Homicide is murder, of course; killing an enemy
combatant occupying your land, even if you use guerilla tactics to do so, does
not seem to fall into the category of homicide. Apparently the bomber posed as
a taxi driver; as such, he probably was in violation of the Geneva Convention,
that requires that combatants wear uniforms, but this is legalistic quibbling
when contrasted with the much grander questions of legitimacy of the operation.
Over the weekend, dozens of Iraqi civilians were
killed, many burned alive in residential areas of Baghdad. A family of 7 was
shot to death by United States troops as they drove toward a roadblock in a
van. Winning hearts and minds.
The humanitarian crisis in southern Iraq shows no
signs of abating. The United States kicked out the international humanitarian
relief agencies that fed 60% of the Iraqi people prior to the war and clearly
had no plans to feed them (or those plans were made a mockery of by the stiff
Iraqi resistance that denied allied troops access to major population centers).
Friday, March 28, 2003
Syria, which has denounced the war as illegal, has
been sending military equipment into Iraq. Rumsfeld
warned them that these are considered "hostile acts." He gave a
similar warning to Iran, which also condemned the American invasion.
4 Marines are missing following a fire fight.
Rumsfeld was criticized
for failing to amass sufficient troops prior to the invasion of Baghdad, and
for committing all of his reserves. An additional 70,000 troops are en route
from the United States to Iraq. They will not arrive for weeks.
President Bush criticized the media coverage of the
war as "silly."
Thursday, March 27, 2003
In the first opportunity that Congress had to react
to the war in Iraq, they unexpectedly chose to slash President Bush's proposed
tax cut. Stan Collinder, who has been following the
budget process for years, was "stunned": "The vote was shocking.
We are talking about Congress controlled by the party of the President voting
against the President in the midst of a war and his popularity was on the
rise."
"I hope President Bush can sleep at night. He
says this war is justified. I think it's a waste. I think nothing good will
come of it."
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Today comes news that 2 cruise missiles hit a
civilian neighborhood in Baghdad, killing 26 people, including a mother with
her child in a car, according to NPR. The NPR correspondent was taken to the
scene, that appears to be a residential neighborhood with several shops.
Customers inside were burned to death. The mother with her child was driving
by. The residents are very, very angry.
Russia strongly denounced the war, calling claims of
liberation "far removed from reality." Ivanov
said the world should be highly doubtful about any claims of finding weapons of
mass destruction; only weapons inspectors can be in a position to do this.
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
Rumsfeld came under fire
from reporters, who accused him of creating expectations for a shorter, lower
casualty conflict than we are experiencing. He became visibly angry, snapping
back that he had said no such thing. He dismissed attacks made on the
increasingly lengthy line of supply of American troops as "onesies and twosies"
(meaning, presumably 1 or 2 deaths or casualties at a time), comparing them to
deaths that occur every night in American cities.
Basra, initially bypassed, has now been declared a
legitimate military target by the British. 1 million people including 200,000
children are at risk of death and disease because of lack of food, water, and
electricity. People are using the river, which is also used for sewage, to
drink. None of the hospitals has clean water. The United States and British
came under international criticism for not having aid delivered as promised.
(Of note, the first British casualty of the war was killed trying to suppress a
riot over food and anger at the invasion.)
Colin Powell was asked whether he would resign as
requested in a newspaper editorial that said his resignation would send a
signal that he condones the Bush administration's militantly unilateral
policies. He said no, he had no such plans.
Monday, March 24, 2003
The United States hit a bus today carrying Syrian
civilians. A cruise missile had been called in to destroy the bridge. The bus
appeared in view, but the missile apparently could not be called back. The
Syrians denounced the attack as a crime.
Friday, March 21, 2003
A curious thing: today CNN reported "the first
casualty of the war", a Marine (then later in the day a 2nd). This was a
curious slip: it was quite clear from initial reports of the artillery and air
assault that "bodies were everywhere" meaning that Iraqis had been
dying long before any allied troops were harmed. Yet in the twisted logic of
war, even the media had taken sides. Death didn't count unless the body was of
an American or Brit. In the weeks and months to follow, there will no doubt be
estimates of those being killed now, but the two dead members of the invading
army were certainly not the first casualties.
The father of one of the Marines killed in a chopper
crash on 3/20/03 had harsh words for President Bush: "As he held a picture
of his son, Waters-Bey's father, Michael, said: 'I
want President Bush to get a good look at this, really good look here. This is
the only son I had, only son.' He then walked away in tears, with his
family behind him."
Many supporters of the President are willing to
overlook the fact that he dodged service in Vietnam by serving a partial tour
in the Texas Air National Guard, a tour he didn't complete. They may be willing
to overlook the fact that none of the architects of the war (Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Rove) served in the military. As the first
soldiers come back in body bags, it is unclear if all members of the public
will be so forgiving. Mr. Waters-Bey's father isn't.
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
President Bush did something today the United States
had never officially done before. Despite the opposition of vast majorities of
every non-American country on the planet, despite his complete failure to win
United Nations Security Council support, despite his alienation of virtually
all of Europe, the people of Britain, Japan, Russia, China, and every Arab
country, he launched a unilateral, unprovoked war against a sovereign country.
President Bush stated that he would take his case (which Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld once promised was "bulletproof") to the
world community. He made his case and failed to persuade anyone. It didn't help
that his own intelligence community openly contradicted his claim that Saddam
Hussein posed an imminent threat. It didn't help that no credible evidence
linked Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. It certainly didn't help that the
President's stated rationalization for war was internally inconsistent as well
as externally invalid. Consider the following:
- Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein posed an
imminent threat. To whom? Certainly not his neighbors: not a single
direct neighbor supports this war. Turkey was so opposed to it they
passed up a $6 billion cash bribe and the right to a piece of the
autonomous Kurdish region rather than participate (despite this, Bush's
spin-meisters had the gall to list Turkey as a
supporting country in the "coalition of the willing");
- Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of
mass destruction. Yet the chief of the CIA contradicted the President's
earlier implications that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons - the ones
used most dramatically and hysterically by Rumsfeld
when stating that the "smoking gun" everyone was looking for
could be a "mushroom cloud." Scott Ritter, a former Marine
officer, Gulf war veteran, and member of the inspections team until 1998,
shredded the argument that Saddam Hussein could possess meaningful
quantities of biological or chemical agents. He pointed out that VX nerve
agents, for example, had a shelf life far shorter than the length of the
sanctions so even if Saddam Hussein had no destroyed them as ordered,
they would be useless in combat;
- Bush implied that there was not time for weapons
inspection, that he had to invade now. (He told us he was losing
patience, as though thousands of lives should be risked to appease him.)
Why? The consensus of the world community was that the weapons inspection
regimen, however imperfect, was working. The weapons inspectors
themselves were reporting progress. Scott Ritter estimated 95% of the
weapons Saddam Hussein possessed in 1991 had been destroyed SINCE the end
of the Gulf War. The only timetable Bush was up against was the
enormously costly one he himself had created: sending hundreds of
thousands of troops across the world to sit in the desert only to have
the arms inspection and disarmament regimen succeed would be a major
embarrassment (not to mention an enormous expense - the troops cost an
estimated $4-7 billion to deploy and another $4 billion a month to
maintain in the region). Like a cocky high school student who had
reserved a luxury suite prior to the prom date, he was not in a position
to have his date say no. In the end, he forced the matter.
President Bush's
Address Filled With Half Truths
It is telling to note that 40% of Americans believe
that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Never mind that the intelligence community
does not believe this, that it would be suicidal for Saddam Hussein, a secular
leader, to support Islamic fundamentalists he has crushed in his own country,
much less to hand over his crown jewels (if he even had them). President Bush
has read this from his cue cards either explicitly or implicitly so often and
with such apparent conviction that many Americans, even those who should know
better, believe him. (If it's any consolation, about the same proportion
believe in alien abductions and a literal Biblical chronology of the creation
of the planet.)
He told us that "American and coalition forces
are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its
people and to defend the world from grave danger. " Even the opening
phrase was deceptive. There was no coalition. There was the United States and
Britain, which sent troops over the vociferous objections of 85% of its people.
The term coalition implied a broad support the President simply didn't have.
He said he wanted to "disarm Iraq" but
earlier he had personally aborted the disarmament regimen in place through the
UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency. There was a chance that war
might disarm Iraq if everything went well, but war was clearly the most
extreme, costly, and potentially catastrophic means to this end. Another far
less risky and arguably more effective means was in place. The world community
had not bought Bush's argument that war should replace inspections.
"More than 35 countries are giving crucial
support from the use of naval and air bases to help with intelligence and
logistics to deployment of combat units." This was a simple lie. To
underscore it, consider that Turkey, whose parliament had rejected landing and
basing rights and even (until recently) fly-over rights was listed as one of
these 35 countries. The governments of 2 countries participated materially in
this invasion. The people of none - with the late exception of the United
States once shooting started - supported it. Several viewed it as illegitimate
and criminal, including France, Germany, Russia, and China.
"In this conflict America faces an enemy that
has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality," he said. This
might be forgivable hyperbole, but it is hyperbole nonetheless. It is a
dangerous good-evil dichotomy that only a President who could claim with a straight
face that Jesus Christ was his favorite political advisor (although how that
advise is reflected in his behavior is difficult for an outside observer to
appreciate). Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. However, he has shown
restraint. He had chemical and nerve agents that he didn't use for many years.
When he did use them, he did so with our support (against Iran) or our
complicit silence (against the Kurds). He never invaded a country without first
getting either approval (Iran) or reassurance of no American opposition (Iraq).
There is a huge difference between a tyrant and an irrational man who knows no
restraint. He, like the United States, has at times violated the rules of law.
Let us not forget that the chemical weapons he possesses were provided by the
United States when we were his ally and that the United States is the only
country ever to have used nuclear weapons against other human beings not once
but twice. Does this make us in disregard of the "conventions of war or
rules or morality"? ) Arguably no. More precise and truthful language
would have said that Saddam Hussein at times has violated the conventions of
war and rules of morality, and offered an explanation as to why we find actions
we helped him commit so unpalatable now but not worthy of mention much less
suspension of aid or protest at the time.
"Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and
equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children
as shields for his own military. A final atrocity against his people. … I want
Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every
effort to spare innocent civilians from harm." The implication of this was
chilling: Don't blame me if we kill large numbers of civilians in our hunt for
the baddies. Blame Saddam Hussein for not moving his civilian population
centers to make it easier for our invading forces to occupy his country.
"Millions of Americans are praying with you for
the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. " A
true Christian would not be in a position to judge the innocent from the
non-innocent, and in either case would pray for all of God's creations. Even
those committed of high treason against the King of England were beheaded at
the Tower with the words: "May God have mercy on your soul."
"You can know that our forces will be coming
home as soon as their work is done." Since many of us thought there work
was done following Afghanistan, it is unclear when this will end. Is Iran next?
North Korea? Or perhaps one of several countries that may succumb to an Islamic
fundamentalist revolution while all eyes were on Iraq?
"The people of the United States and our friends
and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the
peace with weapons of mass murder. Another lie. Disregarding what "friends
and allies" the President may be referring to - are any left after his
diplomatic disaster of the past few months? - the people of every country on
earth with the exception of the United States do not share Bush's sense of
urgency or danger. Either he - with his fine grasp of international affairs and
military history - has intelligence the rest of the world doesn't, or over 3
billion people, including many who live far closer to Iraq than the United States
does, know something he doesn't.
"We will meet that threat now with our army, air
force, navy, coastguard and marines so that we do not have to meet it later
with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our
cities." This is pure melodrama. After the CIA established that Iraq was
not behind 9/11 and that Saddam Hussein does not pose a direct threat to the
United States (unlike North Korea, a country which Bush wants us to believe is
"different" in the sense that it can be engaged diplomatically (not
that he has tried)), this dramatic image although provocative is disingenuous.
To heighten the sense of irony, consider that only a fraction of the $4 billion
Bush promised to the "first responders" has materialized.
"Now that conflict has come, the only way to
limit its duration is to apply decisive force and I assure you this will not be
a campaign of half measures and we will accept no outcome but victory."
This is the American way: to box yourself into a corner leading to needless loss
of additional lives. Suppose a coup overthrows Saddam Hussein and a new
leadership offers a conditional surrender to the United States: leave our
country intact and we will pledge to hold elections in 3 months, let's say.
Bush can't assess this proposal because it has not yet been put on the table,
but his rhetoric rules it out. Only an American occupation of Baghdad will do.
And he will use nuclear weapons (no "half measures") and massive
firepower to achieve this objective.
"My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country
and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and
carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom
to others and we will prevail." Ignoring for a moment how launching a war
will advance "the work of peace", is there any doubt that the United
States, a country of 285 million with a state of the art military and
unquestioned air superiority will prevail over a country less than a tenth the
size with a badly run-down military gutted by 12 years of sanctions? I too no
doubt could find a small child in my neighborhood and promise to prevail, and
no doubt would, but in proclaiming my superiority in advance does this make me
brave or a bully?
Perhaps Mr. Bush is sincere when he says he feels
threatened by Iraq. But to the rest of the world he, and with him unfortunately
a significant minority of Americans whom he has misled, look ridiculous. In the
best case, we are jumping at our own shadow. In the worst, we are picking a
fight with the scruffiest kid on the block to wow the world with our strength.
We are trying to send a message to those who would
use the threat of violence to force others to do their bidding: we are prepared
to use violence to force you to do our bidding.
"May God bless our country and all who defend
her." And all the citizens on our little planet who continue to be
victimized by the cycle of violence and retribution.
…
It is unclear at this point (3/21/03) if the world
will close ranks around what seems a fait accompli. So many things can
go wrong - from a humanitarian disaster to an errant bomb (remember the 400
Iraqis killed when their bomb shelter took a direct hit in 1991?) to a
resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism in neighboring countries to a massive
retaliatory terrorist strike by Muslim countries that DO have nuclear weapons
(can you say Pakistan?) that if he pulls this off and quickly people may forget
those pesky little international laws and conventions Bush ignored to launch
the war.
What is very clear is that Bush has no room for
error. He has neither the political nor the logistical support for a long,
drawn-out battle. High civilian casualties, or even extraordinarily lopsided
military casualties (most of the world can tell the difference between a battle
and a massacre) will cause international outrage - already high - to overflow.
What is so strange about this conflict is that it provoked the largest
international protests ever BEFORE it began.
So the United States is now beyond the pale. We are
told to rally around the troops, as though by putting troops in harm's way,
opposition to the policies that endanger them in the first place should cease.
Hitler enjoyed such reflexive loyalty and the world saw the results. The First
Amendment does not have a "shut up in war" clause especially when the
legitimacy and legality of the war has not been established. In fact, soldiers
have an obligation not to follow illegal orders.
This behavior on the part of Bush puts many of us who
love our country and the ideals on which it was founded in a very difficult
situation. To remain silent would be a major disservice. To be too vocal about
opposition may undermine the effort to get the damn war over with now that it
has already begun. So what is to be done?
The same thing citizens have always done when
confronted with these sorts of dilemmas: stay informed, voice your opinion,
call your representatives, write, protest. If you are an American citizen of
non-Middle-Eastern descent, speak up for the rights of your Muslim and
Arab-American neighbors. Obtain multiple sources of information. Boycott Fox
News and other jingoistic voice pieces for the administration. Ask hard
questions. Demand accurate answers. To paraphrase Bush, we should not shy away
from the conflict just because it is hard. We should behave in a way that
allows us to look our grandchildren in the eye when they asked what we did to
try to stop the neocons from hijacking the country in
2003.
As President Bush unilaterally ended the disarmament
and inspection regimen put in place by the United Nations and declared that his
efforts to gain international support for his war had failed, it became clear
that he had been lying all along. His appeals to the international community
had not been to build consensus or respect international law or norms but
simply to deflect criticism that he was a unilateralist. In the end, it had all
been a façade. Shot down badly by overwhelming international opposition and not
insignificant opposition by an American electorate that had been numbed into
believing - incredibly - that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks by a President
whose inability to grasp history and the importance of diplomacy are matched
only by his contempt for the democratic process and basic ethics.
Prominent
Americans For and Against Launching a War on Iraq, as of March, 2003:
|
For War:
|
Military Experience:
|
|
President George W. Bush
|
Served in the National Guard a la Dan Quayle:
"Obviously, if you join the National Guard, you have less of a chance of
going to Vietnam. I mean it goes without saying."
-- Senator Dan Quayle NBC's `Meet the Press',
9/20/92
|
|
Dick Cheney
|
None; "had other priorities in the 1960s than
military service"; see Chickenhawk
article
|
|
Donald Rumsfeld
|
Flew Navy jets during peacetime; no combat; helped
orchestrate the Vietnam war as an administrator
|
|
John Ashcroft
|
None; according to the 1/8/02 New Republic:
"Ashcroft … repeatedly sought and received student deferments from his
local draft board … When Ashcroft graduated from law school in 1967 he took
the far less common step of seeking an occupational deferment granted to
those who hold critical civilian jobs. (Out of 35 million men registered with
the Selective Service in 1967, only 264,000 received occupational
deferments.) The 'critical' job in question? Teaching business law to
undergrads at Southwest Missouri State University--an assignment he lined up
with the help of a family friend."
|
|
Richard Perle
|
None; worked as an assistant secretary of defense
at one point; see Chickenhawk
article
|
|
Colin Powell
|
Former Chief, Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired Army
General, combat experience in Vietnam; personal views remain questionable; by
report, he is hostile to the Chickenhawk camp, but
has recently been more supportive of the administration's marketing campaign
|
|
Jerry Falwell
|
None; always a paragon of sensitivity, he proclaimed
that the Prophet Mohammed was a terrorist;
shortly after 9/11, he blamed the attacks on "pagans, abortionists,
feminists, homosexuals and civil liberties groups"
|
|
Ralph Reed, former head of the
"Christian Coalition" a right-wing fundamentalist
"Christian" lobby
|
None known; reflexively supports
Israel and the war against Iraq, at least in part because of an "end-times" belief, namely
that the temple must be rebuilt in Israel, then destroyed, then all the Jews
killed or converted so that Jesus can come again and take the "good
people" like Reed home (I'm not making this up - check out the Left Behind series); despite their
gruesome role in this story (death or conversion to Christianity), many
Israelis publicly welcome the support of the Christian right-wing in America,
at least for now.
|
|
Against War:
|
Military Experience:
|
|
Brent Scowcroft (read his statement ("Don't Attack Iraq")
|
West Point graduate, Retired Army
General, National security adviser under Presidents Gerald Ford and George
H.W. Bush
|
|
Norman Schwartzkopf
|
General, commander of American
troops in Persian Gulf War, West Point graduate, combat experience in
Vietnam. "The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War
says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades
Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are
correct in moving
toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course
to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even
more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq. And don't
get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."
- Washington Post, 1/29/03
|
|
James Webb (read his statement, "Heading for
Trouble")
|
Former Secretary of the Navy, highly decorated
Marine during Vietnam war, Annapolis graduate.
|
|
King Abdullah II, Jordan
|
Sandhurst Graduate,
Former Jordanian SOCOM Commander
|
|
Woody Harrelson
|
You're kidding right? But he made a great movie
about the madness and cruelty of war, and wrote one hell of a good anti-war column for the Guardian.
|
|
Nelson Mandela
|
Commanded the African National Congress for decades
leading a guerrilla movement that eventually overthrew the apartheid system
|
|
COL Mike Turner
|
General Norman Schwarzkopf's personal briefing
officer during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm.
|
International Leaders For and Against Launching a War on
Iraq, as of September, 2002:
Europe Has a
Problem
Rumsfeld, in another
stunning outflow of compassion and subtle diplomacy, managed to harden an
already entrenched anti-war position in Germany and France, which -
unfortunately for Bush et al and fortunately for the international community
control the UN Security Council for the next 2 months - said the following on
1/22/03:
"Germany has
a problem. France has a problem." Meaning they don't support the United
States unilateral attack on Iraq.
"Germany and
France are not Europe - they are old Europe."
Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld.
You are doing more to advance the cause of peace than a hundred thousand
protesters ever could. Opposition to the war has shot up 10 points to 75%
against in France (it is 70% against in our "ally", England) and
anti-American editorials covered the pages of even traditionally pro-American
conservative German papers.
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
has had withering words for Germany. First, he dismissed it as being part of
old Europe, and on Wednesday, Rumsfeld made another
jab. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, he listed how
various countries are willing to help a US war effort in Iraq by sending their
own troops or even just by allowing US forces to fly over their territory.
"Secretary DONALD RUMSFELD (Defense Department): Then there are three or
four countries that have said they won't do anything. I believe Libya, Cuba and
Germany are ones that have indicated they won't help in any respect, I believe.
"GJELTEN: In fact, Germany is the home of the US military's European
Command, and the German government has already made clear the United States can
freely use its bases there during any military action against Iraq. So Rumsfeld's placement of Germany in the same category as
Cuba and Libya was curious, to say the least. German Defense Minister Peter
Struck has said he'll talk to Rumsfeld during the
Munich Conference about US-German military cooperation, but for the moment,
neither side is backing down. A government spokesman yesterday reiterated
Germany's opposition to military action against Iraq. And when Secretary Rumsfeld this week was asked to characterize US-German
relations on the eve of the Munich Conference, he hesitated to say anything.
"
- NPR, 2/7/03
Bush Logic -
"If she's a witch, she floats."
The stunningly anti-scientific and anti-intellectual
stance of the administration ("let's pretend to be asking the question
(through the inspection process) and go through the motions of going through
the international community, but we know the answer so any contradictory
evidence would Iraq is lying"), like the date who has booked the hotel
room before the prom, was elucidated in the following excerpt from a briefing
by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:
"If the
inspectors had found new evidence, the argument might then have been that
inspections were in fact working and therefor they
should be givne more time to work. Another way to look
at it is this: the fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new
evidence could be evidence in and of itself of Iraq's non-cooperation." [emphasis added source]
In other words, there are two scenarios under which the United States
feels an attack against Iraq would be justified: if weapons of mass destruction
are found in Iraq or if they are not. In fact, absence of proof under this
paradigm is further proof and even more sinister.
The Madness of War
The
neoconservatives who promoted the invasion of Iraq tried to shift the burden of
proof to their opponents. Instead of asking, what evidence supports the thesis
that an unprovoked unilateral invasion of a sovereign Arab country by the
United States will lead to a more stable world with less of a threat from
terrorism and weapons of mass destruction? The chickenhawks
ask….:
Click here for
more…
We have Saddam Hussein in a steel box; we have him
contained right where we want him. It would be insane to invade and occupy
Iraq. We have never done anything like this.
- Joseph Cirincione "He
specializes in defense and proliferation issues at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. He directs the Endowment's Non-Proliferation Project. The
Endowment has just published the new report Iraq: What Next?, which examines
the weapons inspection process so far." - Fresh Air, 1/28/03