Monday, May 21, 2007
Glacier Bay National Park (Alaska Classic Series) (VHS Video)
The weather at Glacier Bay National Park (Crystal Wind Chime) is:
Elevation :: 33 feet / 10 meters
Humidity :: 76%
Dew Point :: 37 F / 3 C
Wind :: Calm
Pressure :: 30.22 inches / 1023 hPa (steady)
Visibility :: 10.0 miles / 16.1 kilometers
UV :: 1 out of 16
Clouds :: Overcast 1600 feet / 487 meters
(Above Ground Level)
Elevation :: 33 feet / 10 meters
Humidity :: 76%
Dew Point :: 37 F / 3 C
Wind :: Calm
Pressure :: 30.22 inches / 1023 hPa (steady)
Visibility :: 10.0 miles / 16.1 kilometers
UV :: 1 out of 16
Clouds :: Overcast 1600 feet / 487 meters
(Above Ground Level)
Sunday, May 20, 2007
When the red cape is waved by the media which matador will you believe?
And to what extent will the result of manipulated releases of information from a corrupt Executive Branch be the reason to believe any impetus of act when it's war that is at stake?
Washington Memo; Bush Bucks Tradition on Investigation
Why didn't George Walker Bush want the 911 Commission? Why was the evidence by the 911 Commission blunted in holding anyone responsible? The first act by any President is to protect the people of this nation. It is in the job description. When that fails and political positioning has a higher priority any assault on the best interest of the people of the USA is possible. George Walker Bush failed to protect the people of the USA from the attacks of 911 and resisted the reasons why. He engaged openly in promoting a war into a sovereign country when other avenues were available and it possed no threat to the USA. Iraq was an annoyance. The sequelae of issues that has resulted since the illegal invasion into Iraq due to Bush political prioritizing has brought the USA into opposition of Russia. We need to stop this and now.
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
The political dispute over whether to have an independent commission investigate intelligence and law enforcement lapses before Sept. 11 represents a reversal of normal form.
Usually, after a calamitous event or a political embarrassment, it is the White House that seeks a commission to investigate. President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed such a commission after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. President Bill Clinton named one after the explosion of T.W.A. Flight 800.
Hundreds of other commissions -- read on to learn why they are so often called ''blue ribbon'' -- were named in the years between, most on trivial topics like ''Americans outdoors,'' but some on matters as serious as terrorism, race riots and AIDS.
For presidents, ''it is a way to absorb political heat, to grind a subject into the ground'' before hostile members of Congress can weigh in, said James A. Thurber, director of the American University Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies.
But the Bush administration adamantly opposes an independent commission to investigate the terrorist attacks last year. Democrats in the Senate, who might be expected to want to investigate the president without sharing the spotlight, are leading the charge for a bipartisan commission.
President Bush was asked at a news conference in Germany this week why he opposed a commission investigation. He replied: ''I, of course, want the Congress to take a look at what took place prior to Sept. 11. But since it deals with such sensitive information, in my judgment, it's best for the ongoing war against terror that the investigation be done in the intelligence committees.''
What the president was saying was that a Congressional investigation is inevitable -- the House and Senate intelligence committees have already begun one -- and that a separate commission investigation could only add to his troubles.
As for why the Democratic senators are willing to share the stage, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, said that Congress was hampered by ''what I call the stovepipe syndrome.''
''The intelligence committee gets part of the information,'' Mr. Daschle said. ''Another committee gets another part of the information. A third committee gets a third or fourth part. The problem is, that information isn't shared to the extent it needs to be to get the full picture.''
What Mr. Daschle was saying between the lines was that Democrats in the Senate must share any investigation with the Republicans, who control the House, and the Republicans would squelch any material that could be embarrassing to President Bush.
''The White House somehow feels it can control a Congressional committee better than it can an investigative commission, and the senators are afraid that may be the case,'' said former Senator Warren B. Rudman.
Over the years, Mr. Rudman, Republican of New Hampshire, has led independent commissions and Congressional inquiries. He favors the creation of a commission on the events leading to Sept. 11, he said, because it would be less partisan than a Congressional investigation. He is a close ally of Senator John McCain of Arizona, one of the few Republicans in Congress who support such a commission.
Sometimes commissions are created by presidential orders, sometimes by acts of Congress, but either way, they are generally composed of statesmen and experts as well as politicians, have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans and are ostensibly bipartisan. Congressional committees, by contrast, are invariably dominated by the majority party and rarely conduct thorough investigations of the executive branch unless Congress and the White House are controlled by different parties.
Often, commissions are called ''blue ribbon'' to denote exclusivity, according to Safire's Political Dictionary. The entry continues, ''The term comes from the ribbons worn by members of the Order of the Garter in Great Britain, and the cordon bleu of the ancient order of St. Esprit in France, as well as from the ribbons awarded to prize-winners, animal and human alike.''
A review of these commissions over the years shows that the ones examining the most politically charged questions tend to produce whitewashes or to reach conclusions that fail to settle once and for all the questions they were asked to answer.
Roosevelt's commission on Pearl Harbor, for instance, was created on Dec. 18, 1941. It reported to the president on Jan. 23, 1942, that the entire blame for the disaster lay with senior military commanders in Hawaii. Studies since have found that the fault was much more widespread, that the United States suffered from a general lack of readiness and that officials in Washington never shared with the commanders at Pearl Harbor solid intelligence suggesting that a Japanese attack was imminent.
The Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, found that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. No evidence has refuted that conclusively, but conspiracy theories have never been laid to rest.
In 1986, after disclosures that the United States had secretly sold arms to Iran and used the proceeds to finance anticommunist rebels in Nicaragua, President Ronald Reagan appointed a special commission to investigate the situation under the chairmanship of a loyal former Republican senator, John Tower.
The commission essentially exonerated Mr. Reagan and blamed his chief of staff, Donald T. Regan, for not keeping the president informed. Months later, House and Senate committees, controlled by Democrats, reported after an extensive investigation that the president had failed to ''take care that the laws be faithfully executed'' and bore the ''ultimate responsibility.''
Richard K. Betts, director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University, said that ideally a commission and the Congressional committees would investigate the Sept. 11 attacks.
''A little redundancy on something like this is a good thing,'' Mr. Betts said. ''A commission can act quickly and take a solid first cut, but it's not likely to get into as much detail as Congressional committees with big staffs.''
But as long as the president and the Republican leaders in the House are opposed to a commission, it is safe to bet that one will not be formed.
White House spells out case against Iraq
Iraq Survey Group Final Report (click here)
Iraq’s Chemical Warfare ProgramAnnex H
No WMD Munitions were found, (see Figures 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12).
Report is titled 'A Decade of Deception and Defiance'
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As the Bush administration makes its strongest bid yet for international and domestic support for action against Iraq this week, the White House released a report early Thursday, listing some of the principal accusations against Iraq and its leader.
Bush addressed the United Nations' General Assembly later in the morning on Thursday, saying, "The Security Council resolutions will be enforced. The just demands of peace and security will be met. Or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power." (Full story)
The report was intended to serve as a "background paper" for Bush's U.N. speech.
"This document provides specific examples of how Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has systematically and continually violated 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions over the past decade, " the report said in a preface.
U.N. inspector: No evidence found before Iraq war (click here)
Amid pressure on Blair, Aznar and Bush about WMDs
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- U.N. inspectors found no evidence before the U.S.-led invasion in March that Iraq had reconstituted its chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said Thursday.
The comments come as U.S. President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar face mounting criticism from lawmakers in their countries over the weapons issue. (Critics blast Blair, Spain's Aznar pressed on WMDs)
"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 U.N. Security Council in what is expected to be his final report.
Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs (click here)
Former chief U.S. inspector faults intelligence agencies
(CNN) -- Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.
He said U.S. intelligence services owe President Bush an explanation for having concluded that Iraq had.
"My summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons," he said on National Public Radio's "Weekend Edition." "I don't think they exist."
It was the consensus among the intelligence agencies that Iraq had such weapons that led Bush to conclude that it posed an imminent threat that justified the U.S.-led invasion, Kay said.
"I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people," he said.
"We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration," Kay said.
"It is not a political 'gotcha' issue. It is a serious issue of 'How you can come to a conclusion that is not matched in the future?'"
Other countries' intelligence agencies shared the U.S. conclusion that Iraq had stockpiled such weapons, though most disagreed with the United States about how best to respond.
Ex-Iraq expert: Britain saw no threat before war (click here)
POSTED: 2:24 p.m. EST, December 15, 2006
LONDON, England (AP) -- Britain's former top Iraq expert at the United Nations said in previously secret testimony that most government officials did not believe Iraq posed a threat in the months leading to the U.S.-led invasion, according to a new report.
Carne Ross, a former first secretary to the British mission at the U.N. responsible for Iraq policy, told a House of Commons committee that he and other analysts believed that Iraq had only a "very limited" ability to mount an attack of any kind, including one using weapons of mass destruction, or WMD.
Ross declined to comment on his testimony Friday, saying it spoke for itself.
The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday published the testimony, which Russ gave in 2004 to Lord Butler's official inquiry into intelligence on Iraq.
Butler did not fault the government but criticized intelligence officials for relying in part on "seriously flawed" or "unreliable" sources.
The committee published Ross' testimony after assuring him that parliamentary privilege would protect him from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.
Ross served in the British mission at the U.N. headquarters from 1998 until 2002. Later, he was posted to Kosovo and Afghanistan, but kept in contact with British Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry experts on Iraq and inquired about the shift toward war.
"It was the commonly held view among officials that the threat had been contained," Ross said in the written testimony.
"Iraq's ability to launch a WMD or any form of attack was very limited," he said. "There were (approximately) 12 or so unaccounted-for Scud missiles; Iraq's air force was depleted to the point of total ineffectiveness; its army was but a pale shadow of its earlier might; there was no evidence of any connection between Iraq and any terrorist organization that might have planned an attack," he wrote.
A NATION AT WAR: THE ADMINISTRATION; Even Critics of War Say the White House Spun It With Skill
Shock
and
Awe
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
The second Persian Gulf war was not only a runaway victory for the United States military, but for another aggressive force that fired off round-the-clock verbal cruise missiles: the White House communications operation.
That is the assessment of the Bush administration's wartime public relations campaign by both its supporters and critics, who say the spin operation was extraordinarily successful in shaping a positive battlefield narrative, at least for American audiences. They say the effort floundered in the Arab world.
Its success at home can be traced to three major factors.
First was the repeated use of phrases that critics branded propaganda, like ''coalition forces'' and ''death squads,'' that became part of the accepted language of war. Second was the powerful cinéma vérité journalism of reporters and photographers, whose words and pictures humanized the American soldiers they were with. Third, but not least, was the message discipline of a White House that plotted appearances by top officials on a daily ''communications grid,'' ensuring that in the first half of the day there was a news briefing by an administration official every two hours, and that everyone was saying more or less the same thing.
''As far as how you justify a war, they've pretty much done it by formula,'' said Robert L. Ivie, a professor of communication and culture at Indiana University who has spent his career studying the rhetoric of war. ''You construct the image of the enemy as savage and barbarian. Then there are all sorts of efforts to show that the good guys represent the forces of civilization freedom, democracy, human rights. And of course there's the implication that we fight on the side of God.''
Supporters of the administration say the narrative worked because it reflected the truth.
''Spin is useful in politics, but war is real,'' said William Kristol, the editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard who long advocated an invasion of Iraq. ''I think reality trumps spin and communications strategy. We won the war pretty quickly and impressively, and the Iraqi people are liberated, and those facts dominate everything.''
The first important element in the communications strategy, the repeated use of phrases that promoted administration policy, started before the war even began. As early as last summer, President Bush's principal advisers carefully planned a campaign to characterize the war as a blow for freedom.
''We would look at the question of how might you have regime change thought of as liberation rather than occupation?'' said a participant in one of the long meetings where officials polished their strategy over the months leading up to the war. ''That was a question put before the principals, and then there would be a paper done on it.''
The Clinton-era policy of ''regime change,'' or the euphemism for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, led to another important word. From the start of the conflict, administration officials consistently called Mr. Hussein's administration the ''regime,'' a pejorative version of the neutral ''government.'' Jesse Sheidlower, an editor at the Oxford English Dictionary, described the nuance: ''Government is the catch-all term, administration makes you sound more organized and regime makes you sound more despotic.''
Dan Bartlett (click here), the White House communications director, readily agreed. ''It better describes what they are,'' he said. ''It's a ruthless, self-appointed dictatorship.''
Similarly, he said using the term ''death squads'' to describe Iraq's paramilitary fedayeen, was no accident.
''Because fedayeen means something like 'dying for a noble cause,' it has a positive connotation in the Arab world,'' Mr. Bartlett said. ''It's not a positive thing they were doing.''
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were the first in the administration to use the phrase, on March 28 and 29, and by March 31 the president had employed it to describe Iraqis ''ordered to fight or die by Saddam's death squads.''
Mr. Bush also regularly referred to Mr. Hussein's troops and fighters as ''thugs,'' most notably at a meeting of Iraqi exiles in the Roosevelt Room on April 4, when the president said the United States was ''slowly peeling'' the hands of Mr. Hussein and his thugs off Iraqi throats.
Many critics say the most blatant use of loaded language was the term ''coalition forces,'' repeated on television and in the pages of newspapers, including this one, to describe what was principally a coalition of only two armies, from the United States and Britain, with help from small numbers of Scud-hunting Australian commandos in western Iraq and Polish troops assisting Navy Seals in the south. Though it was only Americans who advanced to Baghdad (the British had the task of securing the southern city of Basra), Mr. Bartlett said the term, in use since the first gulf war, was used because it was ''just obvious.''
The second major factor in the successful communications strategy, the Pentagon decision to ''embed'' more than 500 reporters and photographers with invading troops, produced first-hand accounts for Americans that generally pleased editors and television news directors. The bottom line for the White House was that it was helpful.
''It served the Bush administration by providing more sympathetic coverage, by being understanding of the soldiers and therefore of that slice of war that each reporter saw,'' said Marvin Kalb, the veteran CBS News correspondent who is now a senior fellow at the Shorenstein Center for Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard. ''If a reporter were to take a critical tone toward the administration, there were all these other reporters balancing that negative thrust.''
The third factor in the communications strategy, the message discipline, began in December 2002, when the top communications officials from the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and Britain instituted a daily 9:30 a.m. conference call about the theme of the day and who was delivering it. By the time the war started, the call was generally led by Tucker Eskew, the director of the White House office of global communications, which was created to spread the American message on the war in Iraq. Mr. Eskew made sure that the president, the defense secretary and the secretary of state or their press officers were briefing at regular intervals.
As a result, cable television viewers could watch a steady stream of the administration's message starting at 7 a.m. Eastern time in the United States, when Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks briefed at the $250,000 set created at the United States Central Command's forward headquarters in Doha, Qatar.
The briefing was deliberately timed, White House officials said, to run live on the morning news shows and to put the administration's stamp on overnight battlefield developments. General Brooks, a telegenic West Point graduate who never veered from the administration's message, was prepped beforehand by James Wilkinson, a former deputy in Mr. Bartlett's White House communications office who had been dispatched to oversee communications in Doha.
As each day progressed, Ari Fleischer (click here), the White House spokesman, would hold three sessions with reporters, who could also be briefed at the Pentagon, the State Department and from time to time at special sessions, such as those held for foreign reporters in Washington. British officials held their own briefings in London.
White House officials acknowledge that the communications effort in the Arab world largely failed, and that they have an onerous task ahead in promoting the reconstruction and relief efforts that are to begin in Baghdad. Margaret Tutwiler, the ambassador to Morocco, the State Department spokeswoman during the 1991 gulf war and a longtime Bush family loyalist, was dispatched last week to handle the task.
''It's going to be a challenge,'' Mr. Bartlett said.
The foretelling in an insightful Op-Ed. Was he believed? Could he have saved this nation from unnecessary war?
The day before the invasion.
March 18, 2003
Things to Come
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Of course we'll win on the battlefield, probably with ease. I'm not a military expert, but I can do the numbers: the most recent U.S. military budget was $400 billion, while Iraq spent only $1.4 billion.
What frightens me is the aftermath -- and I'm not just talking about the problems of postwar occupation. I'm worried about what will happen beyond Iraq -- in the world at large, and here at home.
The members of the Bush team don't seem bothered by the enormous ill will they have generated in the rest of the world. They seem to believe that other countries will change their minds once they see cheering Iraqis welcome our troops, or that our bombs will shock and awe the whole world (not just the Iraqis) or that what the world thinks doesn't matter. They're wrong on all counts.
Victory in Iraq won't end the world's distrust of the United States because the Bush administration has made it clear, over and over again, that it doesn't play by the rules. Remember: this administration told Europe to take a hike on global warming, told Russia to take a hike on missile defense, told developing countries to take a hike on trade in lifesaving pharmaceuticals, told Mexico to take a hike on immigration, mortally insulted the Turks and pulled out of the International Criminal Court -- all in just two years.
Nor, as we've just seen, is military power a substitute for trust. Apparently the Bush administration thought it could bully the U.N. Security Council into going along with its plans; it learned otherwise. ''What can the Americans do to us?'' one African official asked. ''Are they going to bomb us? Invade us?''
Meanwhile, consider this: we need $400 billion a year of foreign investment to cover our trade deficit, or the dollar will plunge and our surging budget deficit will become much harder to finance -- and there are already signs that the flow of foreign investment is drying up, just when it seems that America may be about to fight a whole series of wars.
It's a matter of public record that this war with Iraq is largely the brainchild of a group of neoconservative intellectuals, who view it as a pilot project. In August a British official close to the Bush team told Newsweek: ''Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.'' In February 2003, according to Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, Under Secretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq the United States would ''deal with'' Iran, Syria and North Korea.
Will Iraq really be the first of many? It seems all too likely -- and not only because the ''Bush doctrine'' seems to call for a series of wars. Regimes that have been targeted, or think they may have been targeted, aren't likely to sit quietly and wait their turn: they're going to arm themselves to the teeth, and perhaps strike first. People who really know what they are talking about have the heebie-jeebies over North Korea's nuclear program, and view war on the Korean peninsula as something that could happen at any moment. And at the rate things are going, it seems we will fight that war, or the war with Iran, or both at once, all by ourselves.
What scares me most, however, is the home front. Look at how this war happened. There is a case for getting tough with Iraq; bear in mind that an exasperated Clinton administration considered a bombing campaign in 1998. But it's not a case that the Bush administration ever made. Instead we got assertions about a nuclear program that turned out to be based on flawed or faked evidence; we got assertions about a link to Al Qaeda that people inside the intelligence services regard as nonsense. Yet those serial embarrassments went almost unreported by our domestic news media. So most Americans have no idea why the rest of the world doesn't trust the Bush administration's motives. And once the shooting starts, the already loud chorus that denounces any criticism as unpatriotic will become deafening.
So now the administration knows that it can make unsubstantiated claims, without paying a price when those claims prove false, and that saber rattling gains it votes and silences opposition. Maybe it will honorably refuse to act on this dangerous knowledge. But I can't help worrying that in domestic politics, as in foreign policy, this war will turn out to have been the shape of things to come.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
March 18, 2003
Things to Come
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Of course we'll win on the battlefield, probably with ease. I'm not a military expert, but I can do the numbers: the most recent U.S. military budget was $400 billion, while Iraq spent only $1.4 billion.
What frightens me is the aftermath -- and I'm not just talking about the problems of postwar occupation. I'm worried about what will happen beyond Iraq -- in the world at large, and here at home.
The members of the Bush team don't seem bothered by the enormous ill will they have generated in the rest of the world. They seem to believe that other countries will change their minds once they see cheering Iraqis welcome our troops, or that our bombs will shock and awe the whole world (not just the Iraqis) or that what the world thinks doesn't matter. They're wrong on all counts.
Victory in Iraq won't end the world's distrust of the United States because the Bush administration has made it clear, over and over again, that it doesn't play by the rules. Remember: this administration told Europe to take a hike on global warming, told Russia to take a hike on missile defense, told developing countries to take a hike on trade in lifesaving pharmaceuticals, told Mexico to take a hike on immigration, mortally insulted the Turks and pulled out of the International Criminal Court -- all in just two years.
Nor, as we've just seen, is military power a substitute for trust. Apparently the Bush administration thought it could bully the U.N. Security Council into going along with its plans; it learned otherwise. ''What can the Americans do to us?'' one African official asked. ''Are they going to bomb us? Invade us?''
Meanwhile, consider this: we need $400 billion a year of foreign investment to cover our trade deficit, or the dollar will plunge and our surging budget deficit will become much harder to finance -- and there are already signs that the flow of foreign investment is drying up, just when it seems that America may be about to fight a whole series of wars.
It's a matter of public record that this war with Iraq is largely the brainchild of a group of neoconservative intellectuals, who view it as a pilot project. In August a British official close to the Bush team told Newsweek: ''Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.'' In February 2003, according to Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, Under Secretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq the United States would ''deal with'' Iran, Syria and North Korea.
Will Iraq really be the first of many? It seems all too likely -- and not only because the ''Bush doctrine'' seems to call for a series of wars. Regimes that have been targeted, or think they may have been targeted, aren't likely to sit quietly and wait their turn: they're going to arm themselves to the teeth, and perhaps strike first. People who really know what they are talking about have the heebie-jeebies over North Korea's nuclear program, and view war on the Korean peninsula as something that could happen at any moment. And at the rate things are going, it seems we will fight that war, or the war with Iran, or both at once, all by ourselves.
What scares me most, however, is the home front. Look at how this war happened. There is a case for getting tough with Iraq; bear in mind that an exasperated Clinton administration considered a bombing campaign in 1998. But it's not a case that the Bush administration ever made. Instead we got assertions about a nuclear program that turned out to be based on flawed or faked evidence; we got assertions about a link to Al Qaeda that people inside the intelligence services regard as nonsense. Yet those serial embarrassments went almost unreported by our domestic news media. So most Americans have no idea why the rest of the world doesn't trust the Bush administration's motives. And once the shooting starts, the already loud chorus that denounces any criticism as unpatriotic will become deafening.
So now the administration knows that it can make unsubstantiated claims, without paying a price when those claims prove false, and that saber rattling gains it votes and silences opposition. Maybe it will honorably refuse to act on this dangerous knowledge. But I can't help worrying that in domestic politics, as in foreign policy, this war will turn out to have been the shape of things to come.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Report: U.S. eyes Iraq invasion in 2003
From the NY Times article in the beginning of February 2002 where there was no evidence for an Iraq invasion to late April of 2002 the ramping up of the rhetoric was extremely obvious. No evidence. Just fear.
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The Bush administration is plotting a potential major air campaign and ground invasion early next year to topple the Iraqi government of President Saddam Hussein, the New York Times reported in Sunday editions.
The use of 70,000 to 250,000 troops is being considered, the Times said.
President Bush has not issued any order for the Pentagon to mobilize its forces, and there is no official plan for an invasion, the newspaper said.
For years, official U.S. policy has been to work for a "regime change" in Iraq. Since the September 11 strikes, which exposed America's vulnerability to attack, the Bush administration has repeatedly said it has to act to prevent the possibility of Baghdad using weapons of mass destruction. The statements have caused unease among many European and Arab nations.
The Times reported the use of American or combined allied forces became a possibility after two alternate scenarios were rejected. The White house concluded a coup in Iraq would be unlikely to succeed and a proxy battle using local forces there would be insufficient to bring a change in power.
"There have been at least six coup attempts in the 1990s, and they consistently fail," an administration official told the Times.
Dissident Iraqi military officers "sent signals to us, 'We're ready for a coup,' and the next thing you know these guys are murdered or it fails or people have cold feet at the end and leave the country," he said. "It's a horrific police state. Nobody trusts anyone, so how can you pull off a coup?"
The Times reported the timing of early next year delay resulted from a need "to create the right military, economic and diplomatic conditions. These include avoiding summer combat in bulky chemical suits, preparing for a global oil price shock and waiting until there is progress toward ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
Former President Bush, the current U.S. leader's father, launched an attack on Iraq in 1991 to drive its invading forces out of Kuwait but he concluded the war without toppling Saddam. One question to be answered in the current planning is the extent of expected cooperation from Saudi Arabia.
The Pentagon has been working on the assumption it might have to carry out any military action without the use of U.S. bases in the kingdom, the Times reported. The planning anticipates the possible use of bases in Turkey and Kuwait for U.S. forces while Qatar would be the replacement for the air operations center in Saudi Arabia.
According to the Times, there are conflicting views of the diplomatic impact, with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their senior aides feeling that "Arab leaders would publicly protest but secretly celebrate Mr. Hussein's downfall."
The other view, held at the State Department and among some at the White House, is that "efforts to topple Mr. Hussein would be viewed by Arabs as a confrontation with Islam, destabilizing the entire region and complicating the broader campaign against Osama bin Laden and his network, al Qaeda," which Washington blames for the September attacks, the newspaper reported.
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The Bush administration is plotting a potential major air campaign and ground invasion early next year to topple the Iraqi government of President Saddam Hussein, the New York Times reported in Sunday editions.
The use of 70,000 to 250,000 troops is being considered, the Times said.
President Bush has not issued any order for the Pentagon to mobilize its forces, and there is no official plan for an invasion, the newspaper said.
For years, official U.S. policy has been to work for a "regime change" in Iraq. Since the September 11 strikes, which exposed America's vulnerability to attack, the Bush administration has repeatedly said it has to act to prevent the possibility of Baghdad using weapons of mass destruction. The statements have caused unease among many European and Arab nations.
The Times reported the use of American or combined allied forces became a possibility after two alternate scenarios were rejected. The White house concluded a coup in Iraq would be unlikely to succeed and a proxy battle using local forces there would be insufficient to bring a change in power.
"There have been at least six coup attempts in the 1990s, and they consistently fail," an administration official told the Times.
Dissident Iraqi military officers "sent signals to us, 'We're ready for a coup,' and the next thing you know these guys are murdered or it fails or people have cold feet at the end and leave the country," he said. "It's a horrific police state. Nobody trusts anyone, so how can you pull off a coup?"
The Times reported the timing of early next year delay resulted from a need "to create the right military, economic and diplomatic conditions. These include avoiding summer combat in bulky chemical suits, preparing for a global oil price shock and waiting until there is progress toward ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
Former President Bush, the current U.S. leader's father, launched an attack on Iraq in 1991 to drive its invading forces out of Kuwait but he concluded the war without toppling Saddam. One question to be answered in the current planning is the extent of expected cooperation from Saudi Arabia.
The Pentagon has been working on the assumption it might have to carry out any military action without the use of U.S. bases in the kingdom, the Times reported. The planning anticipates the possible use of bases in Turkey and Kuwait for U.S. forces while Qatar would be the replacement for the air operations center in Saudi Arabia.
According to the Times, there are conflicting views of the diplomatic impact, with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their senior aides feeling that "Arab leaders would publicly protest but secretly celebrate Mr. Hussein's downfall."
The other view, held at the State Department and among some at the White House, is that "efforts to topple Mr. Hussein would be viewed by Arabs as a confrontation with Islam, destabilizing the entire region and complicating the broader campaign against Osama bin Laden and his network, al Qaeda," which Washington blames for the September attacks, the newspaper reported.
The New York Times has the most extensive archives online. They are also the least offensive in it's promotion of war.
The ramping up to the Iraq invasion started long before anyone anticipated. It started with denial and eventually turned into fact. The facts would be promulgated as the administration 'dropped hints' of potential dangers within their 'culture of fear' against the populous of a country already attacked. There were never facts, but, only fears. Never leadership, but, only political pandering that served the purpose to invasion of an oil nation.
A NATION CHALLENGED: IRAQ; Terror Acts By Baghdad Have Waned, U.S. Aides Say
By JAMES RISEN
Published: February 6, 2002
The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials.
The officials said they believe that the last terrorist operation tried by Iraq against the United States was the assassination attempt against the first President Bush during his visit to Kuwait in 1993. That plot was disrupted before it could be carried out. American intelligence officials believe that Mr. Hussein has been reluctant to use terrorism again for fear of being detected.
George J. Tenet, the C.I.A. director, is to testify Wednesday before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to review the global threat. During his appearance, his first before Congress since Sept. 11, Mr. Tenet is likely to be asked about a wide range of terrorism issues, including Iraq.
Since Sept. 11, there has been widespread speculation about possible Iraqi links to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, based largely on reports of a meeting in Prague between Mohamed Atta, a leader of the hijacking teams, and an Iraqi intelligence officer. The reports about that meeting have been the subject of intense analysis and debate within the American intelligence community, and some officials even questioned whether the meeting took place.
Now senior American intelligence officials have concluded that the meeting between Mr. Atta and the Iraqi officer, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, did take place. But they say they do not believe that the meeting provides enough evidence to tie Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks. United States intelligence officials say they do not know what was discussed at the meeting. But some experts on Iraq say that even if Iraq were somehow involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, President Hussein would never have entrusted such a sensitive matter to a mid-level officer like Mr. Ani.
American officials say Iraqi intelligence now focuses most of its resources on finding ways to evade trade and economic sanctions that were imposed on Iraq after President Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990.
Instead, American intelligence officials say their greatest concern is Iraq's continuing development of chemical and biological weapons, covert programs that have resumed since United Nations weapons inspectors left in 1998.
Mr. Hussein apparently feels that such weapons will help his government deter any military attack by the United States and its allies.
A C.I.A. report released last week noted that Iraq is probably continuing low-level nuclear weapons research as well, and that its inability to obtain enough fissile material is the biggest obstacle to becoming a nuclear power.
The major threat to the United States from Iraqi efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction would come instead from Baghdad's parallel efforts to develop long-range missiles, which could be tipped with chemical or biological warheads, the C.I.A. believes.
In his State of the Union address last week, President Bush described Iraq as part of an ''axis of evil,'' which includes Iran and North Korea, that the United States must confront in order to maintain global stability.
Mr. Bush said Iraq ''continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror,'' but the section of his speech devoted to Iraq focused primarily on Baghdad's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. In fact, some American intelligence officials say, the Bush administration does not have enough evidence of Iraqi complicity in anti-American terrorism to justify making Iraq the next target in the war on terrorism.
Some signs have emerged in recent years that President Hussein might consider terrorism as a tool against the United States in the long-running duel over the inspection of suspected chemical and biological weapons sites. In 1998, American and Middle Eastern intelligence agencies discovered that Abu Nidal, the Palestinian who had been one of the most feared terrorists of the 1970's and early 80's, had moved to Baghdad.
Abu Nidal had been ousted from his previous haven in Libya, after Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi decided he wanted to end Libya's ties to terrorists in order to get out from under international sanctions. But Abu Nidal does not appear to have engaged in any anti-American operations since his arrival in Iraq, and he may have ended his terrorism activities, officials said.
A NATION CHALLENGED: IRAQ; Terror Acts By Baghdad Have Waned, U.S. Aides Say
By JAMES RISEN
Published: February 6, 2002
The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials.
The officials said they believe that the last terrorist operation tried by Iraq against the United States was the assassination attempt against the first President Bush during his visit to Kuwait in 1993. That plot was disrupted before it could be carried out. American intelligence officials believe that Mr. Hussein has been reluctant to use terrorism again for fear of being detected.
George J. Tenet, the C.I.A. director, is to testify Wednesday before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to review the global threat. During his appearance, his first before Congress since Sept. 11, Mr. Tenet is likely to be asked about a wide range of terrorism issues, including Iraq.
Since Sept. 11, there has been widespread speculation about possible Iraqi links to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, based largely on reports of a meeting in Prague between Mohamed Atta, a leader of the hijacking teams, and an Iraqi intelligence officer. The reports about that meeting have been the subject of intense analysis and debate within the American intelligence community, and some officials even questioned whether the meeting took place.
Now senior American intelligence officials have concluded that the meeting between Mr. Atta and the Iraqi officer, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, did take place. But they say they do not believe that the meeting provides enough evidence to tie Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks. United States intelligence officials say they do not know what was discussed at the meeting. But some experts on Iraq say that even if Iraq were somehow involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, President Hussein would never have entrusted such a sensitive matter to a mid-level officer like Mr. Ani.
American officials say Iraqi intelligence now focuses most of its resources on finding ways to evade trade and economic sanctions that were imposed on Iraq after President Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990.
Instead, American intelligence officials say their greatest concern is Iraq's continuing development of chemical and biological weapons, covert programs that have resumed since United Nations weapons inspectors left in 1998.
Mr. Hussein apparently feels that such weapons will help his government deter any military attack by the United States and its allies.
A C.I.A. report released last week noted that Iraq is probably continuing low-level nuclear weapons research as well, and that its inability to obtain enough fissile material is the biggest obstacle to becoming a nuclear power.
The major threat to the United States from Iraqi efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction would come instead from Baghdad's parallel efforts to develop long-range missiles, which could be tipped with chemical or biological warheads, the C.I.A. believes.
In his State of the Union address last week, President Bush described Iraq as part of an ''axis of evil,'' which includes Iran and North Korea, that the United States must confront in order to maintain global stability.
Mr. Bush said Iraq ''continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror,'' but the section of his speech devoted to Iraq focused primarily on Baghdad's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. In fact, some American intelligence officials say, the Bush administration does not have enough evidence of Iraqi complicity in anti-American terrorism to justify making Iraq the next target in the war on terrorism.
Some signs have emerged in recent years that President Hussein might consider terrorism as a tool against the United States in the long-running duel over the inspection of suspected chemical and biological weapons sites. In 1998, American and Middle Eastern intelligence agencies discovered that Abu Nidal, the Palestinian who had been one of the most feared terrorists of the 1970's and early 80's, had moved to Baghdad.
Abu Nidal had been ousted from his previous haven in Libya, after Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi decided he wanted to end Libya's ties to terrorists in order to get out from under international sanctions. But Abu Nidal does not appear to have engaged in any anti-American operations since his arrival in Iraq, and he may have ended his terrorism activities, officials said.
The PreWar Defense of the Nation for all the criticism by Bush of Clinton was never paramont to protecting the USA. Why?
And why the criticism at all? To 'distract' from the reality that Bush/Cheney didn't care what occurred that would prompt war? Bush did dearly little than Clinton when in fact he had more knowledge about the invasive nature of the enemy. Who is the master propagandist? Who is in control?
August Memo Focused On Attacks in U.S. (click here)
The top-secret briefing memo presented to President Bush on Aug. 6 carried the headline, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," (click here) and was primarily focused on recounting al Qaeda's past efforts to attack and infiltrate the United States, senior administration officials said.
The document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, underscored that Osama bin Laden and his followers hoped to "bring the fight to America," in part as retaliation for U.S. missile strikes on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998, according to knowledgeable sources.
Bush had specifically asked for an intelligence analysis of possible al Qaeda attacks within the United States, because most of the information presented to him over the summer about al Qaeda focused on threats against U.S. targets overseas, sources said. But one source said the White House was disappointed because the analysis lacked focus and did not present fresh intelligence.
New accounts yesterday of the controversial Aug. 6 memo provided a shift in portrayals of the document, which has set off a political firestorm because it suggested that bin Laden's followers might be planning to hijack U.S. airliners.
In earlier comments this week, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other administration officials stressed that intelligence officials were focused primarily on threats to U.S. interests overseas. But sources made clear yesterday that the briefing presented to Bush focused on attacks within the United States, indicating that he and his aides were concerned about the risks.
The new reports came amid continued demands for an independent investigation on Capitol Hill, along with more revelations about possible intelligence missteps before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Intelligence sources said last night that at least two names listed in a July 2001 FBI memo about an Arizona flight school have been identified by the CIA as having links to al Qaeda. The FBI memo was never acted upon or distributed to outside agencies prior to Sept. 11 and was not provided to the CIA until last week, sources said.
The memo, sent to FBI headquarters by a Phoenix FBI agent, warned that bin Laden could have been using U.S. flight schools to train terrorists and suggested a nationwide canvass for Middle Eastern aviation students. The CIA's discovery of an al Qaeda link was first reported by ABC News.
Sources cautioned that CIA officials are not sure that they could have linked the two names to al Qaeda had they been given the memo last summer.
Three of the Sept. 11 hijackers received flight training in the United States, although all had ended their classes by the time the memo was written. The document was never shared in August with FBI investigators in Minnesota, who were scrambling to ascertain whether French national Zacarias Moussaoui was part of an al Qaeda plot. He since has been charged as a Sept. 11 conspirator.
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said yesterday that criticism of the administration's intelligence actions before Sept. 11 is unfair.
Unfair. Judging the lack of protection of the USA was unfair. I see.
From the Houston Chronicle (click link on title of entry):
Review of Bush early record on terrorism revealing
...Bush's engagement with terrorism in the first eight months of his term, described in interviews with advisers and contemporary records, tells a story of burgeoning ambition without commitment of comparably ambitious means. In deliberations and successive drafts of a National Security Presidential Directive approved by Bush's second-ranking advisers on Aug. 13, the declared objective evolved from "rolling back" to "permanently eroding" and eventually to "eliminating" bin Laden's al-Qaida organization.
Cabinet-rank policy-makers, or principals, took up the new strategy for the first time on Sept. 4. It called for phased escalation of pressure against Taliban leaders to present them with an unavoidable choice -- disgorge al-Qaida or face removal from power....
In the face of the CIA and FBI reports in August of 6th, Bush did dearly little regarding that tracks with steps in protecting the citizens of the USA in regard to the airline industry. He focused on clandestine international operations. He, Cheney and Rumsfeld never protected the USA Pre-911 based on the intelligence presented to him.
August Memo Focused On Attacks in U.S. (click here)
The top-secret briefing memo presented to President Bush on Aug. 6 carried the headline, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," (click here) and was primarily focused on recounting al Qaeda's past efforts to attack and infiltrate the United States, senior administration officials said.
The document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, underscored that Osama bin Laden and his followers hoped to "bring the fight to America," in part as retaliation for U.S. missile strikes on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998, according to knowledgeable sources.
Bush had specifically asked for an intelligence analysis of possible al Qaeda attacks within the United States, because most of the information presented to him over the summer about al Qaeda focused on threats against U.S. targets overseas, sources said. But one source said the White House was disappointed because the analysis lacked focus and did not present fresh intelligence.
New accounts yesterday of the controversial Aug. 6 memo provided a shift in portrayals of the document, which has set off a political firestorm because it suggested that bin Laden's followers might be planning to hijack U.S. airliners.
In earlier comments this week, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other administration officials stressed that intelligence officials were focused primarily on threats to U.S. interests overseas. But sources made clear yesterday that the briefing presented to Bush focused on attacks within the United States, indicating that he and his aides were concerned about the risks.
The new reports came amid continued demands for an independent investigation on Capitol Hill, along with more revelations about possible intelligence missteps before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Intelligence sources said last night that at least two names listed in a July 2001 FBI memo about an Arizona flight school have been identified by the CIA as having links to al Qaeda. The FBI memo was never acted upon or distributed to outside agencies prior to Sept. 11 and was not provided to the CIA until last week, sources said.
The memo, sent to FBI headquarters by a Phoenix FBI agent, warned that bin Laden could have been using U.S. flight schools to train terrorists and suggested a nationwide canvass for Middle Eastern aviation students. The CIA's discovery of an al Qaeda link was first reported by ABC News.
Sources cautioned that CIA officials are not sure that they could have linked the two names to al Qaeda had they been given the memo last summer.
Three of the Sept. 11 hijackers received flight training in the United States, although all had ended their classes by the time the memo was written. The document was never shared in August with FBI investigators in Minnesota, who were scrambling to ascertain whether French national Zacarias Moussaoui was part of an al Qaeda plot. He since has been charged as a Sept. 11 conspirator.
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said yesterday that criticism of the administration's intelligence actions before Sept. 11 is unfair.
Unfair. Judging the lack of protection of the USA was unfair. I see.
From the Houston Chronicle (click link on title of entry):
Review of Bush early record on terrorism revealing
...Bush's engagement with terrorism in the first eight months of his term, described in interviews with advisers and contemporary records, tells a story of burgeoning ambition without commitment of comparably ambitious means. In deliberations and successive drafts of a National Security Presidential Directive approved by Bush's second-ranking advisers on Aug. 13, the declared objective evolved from "rolling back" to "permanently eroding" and eventually to "eliminating" bin Laden's al-Qaida organization.
Cabinet-rank policy-makers, or principals, took up the new strategy for the first time on Sept. 4. It called for phased escalation of pressure against Taliban leaders to present them with an unavoidable choice -- disgorge al-Qaida or face removal from power....
In the face of the CIA and FBI reports in August of 6th, Bush did dearly little regarding that tracks with steps in protecting the citizens of the USA in regard to the airline industry. He focused on clandestine international operations. He, Cheney and Rumsfeld never protected the USA Pre-911 based on the intelligence presented to him.
Friend or Foe ? I guess it depends on the administration and how much power it too much...
... when the media itself has no elected representatives or vote mechanism to the FCC and active grievance process. Perhaps that is too much of a democracy than 'special interest groups' can handle.
The 'filters' of Election Night 2000 - the plasticity of the USA media isn't resistant enough.
Final Election Results 2000 : Gore - 266 Bush - 271
We know now that the Election of 2000 that determined Bush as president was rigged. The Florida Secretary of State disenfranchised thousands of Democratic voters that would have elected Al Gore. But, what happened that night in 2000. All the news networks were calling Al Gore victor by their own polls. That was correct, yet, when FOX chimed in with John Ellis, Bush's cousin (click here) in charge that evening, Florida results across the board started to change.
Not once did any of the other major stations question the validity of the vote. Their own polls showed differently, but, yet there was never a doubt by any to question the validity in a majority of opinion otherwise. I find that odd and disheartening. They didn't believe in their ability to be correct and suspect corruption.
An odd fact. John Ellis is a cousin of the Bush's but how many know that there is another John Ellis but the last name is Bush. John Ellis Bush - JEB.
A Fox News consultant, John Ellis, who made judgments about presidential ‘calls’ on Election Night admits he was in touch with George W. Bush and FL Gov. Jeb Bush (click here) by telephone several times during the night, but denies breaking any rules.
A bit of a chronology to current circumstances.
In 1998, there was pressure by some for the UN Secretary General Annan to visit Iraq before there was an invasion of Iraq. This is 1998. Noted in the article is the fact Australia was already placing forces within striking distance of Iraq. In 1998. Also noted is a statement which clearly directs Mr. Annan to realize there is no WMD in Iraq or the capacity to build any. This is 1998.
This is a video that is at the CNN link clearly illustrating well nourished and well clothed Iraqi citizens, both men and women demonstrating against potential attacks into their country in 1998. How many of those people are now dead? How many were alive before March 19, 2003?
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/16/iraq.latest/protest.240.28.mov
How did this disarmed country become an enemy with a threat so huge the USA had to invade the country to protect the nation? How did that happen? The article is below.
Pressure mounts for U.N. chief to visit Iraq (click link above)
February 16, 1998
Web posted at: 9:08 a.m. EST (1408 GMT)
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- As the United States and its allies boosted their military presence in the Persian Gulf region, pressure was growing Monday for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to go to Baghdad in a last ditch effort to resolve the impasse over U.N. inspections before U.S.-led military strikes.
Monday's latest developments:
Annan was to meet at the United Nations with the ambassadors of the five permanent Security Council members in an effort to speed up a diplomatic solution. The secretary-general has said he doesn't want to go unless he sees hope for a solution
Members of the Iraqi parliament protested with their Arab colleagues outside a U.N. building in Baghdad Monday
In a letter to Annan, the Iraqi parliament said it was the secretary-general's duty to block an attack. "Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. These allegations are nothing but a cover to justify an aggression against Iraq," the National Assembly said. Some parliament members demonstrated outside a U.N. office in Baghdad.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in an interview published in the Financial Times, said he saw any mission by Annan as the final chance for peace. Mubarak said public opinion in the Arab world had swung toward support for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Video of the protesters marching in the streets of Baghdad.
1.6MB / 28 sec. / 240x1801MB / 28 sec. / 160x120QuickTime movie
Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf was in Lebanon, wrapping up a four-nation tour seeking the support of Iraq's Arab neighbors in the showdown. Al-Sahhaf said Baghdad hoped Annan would succeed in coming up with an "objective" formula that would allow the U.N. inspectors to survey disputed "presidential" sites, which include palaces of President Saddam Hussein.
French President Jacques Chirac will meet with Al-Sahhaf on Tuesday in Paris, Chirac's office said. Al-Sahhaf was expected to deliver a reply from Hussein to a message sent to him by Chirac.
CNN's Mike Hanna reports from Bahrain 1 min. 38 sec VXtreme streaming video
Qatar's Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani became the first foreign minister from a Gulf country to visit Iraq since its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, saying he sought a peaceful solution.
The United Arab Emirates defense minister, Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid al-Maktoum, also has offered to mediate.
Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, far right, greets al-Thani Monday in Baghdad
In a sign that Iraq could be willing to offer concessions, government-run newspapers quoted Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan as saying Iraq "is serious and earnest" in its pursuit of a diplomatic solution. But Baghdad did not back down from its insistence that the palaces are symbols of its sovereignty and emphasized that Iraqis would fight to the death to defend them.
U.N. surveyors who arrived in Baghdad over the weekend resumed work mapping the eight sites that Hussein has declared off limits to U.N. inspectors who are trying to verify that all weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed.
Several Russian lawmakers visiting Iraq reportedly plan to stay there as a "human shield" against possible U.S.-led strikes. Ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who is leading the delegation, plans to return to Moscow on Tuesday, but several other legislators will stay behind, a member of Zhirinovsky's parliament faction said in Moscow. During his trip, Zhirinovsky visited one of disputed presidential compounds.
The new three-man U.N. inspection team arrived in Baghdad on Sunday
Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Australian forces including elite commandos of the Special Air Service unit will leave for the Gulf on Tuesday for possible combat action. They are the first Australian troops to be sent into an overseas conflict since the Vietnam War.
New Zealand announced it is offering its elite commando unit and two search and rescue planes.
This is a video that is at the CNN link clearly illustrating well nourished and well clothed Iraqi citizens, both men and women demonstrating against potential attacks into their country in 1998. How many of those people are now dead? How many were alive before March 19, 2003?
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/16/iraq.latest/protest.240.28.mov
How did this disarmed country become an enemy with a threat so huge the USA had to invade the country to protect the nation? How did that happen? The article is below.
Pressure mounts for U.N. chief to visit Iraq (click link above)
February 16, 1998
Web posted at: 9:08 a.m. EST (1408 GMT)
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- As the United States and its allies boosted their military presence in the Persian Gulf region, pressure was growing Monday for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to go to Baghdad in a last ditch effort to resolve the impasse over U.N. inspections before U.S.-led military strikes.
Monday's latest developments:
Annan was to meet at the United Nations with the ambassadors of the five permanent Security Council members in an effort to speed up a diplomatic solution. The secretary-general has said he doesn't want to go unless he sees hope for a solution
Members of the Iraqi parliament protested with their Arab colleagues outside a U.N. building in Baghdad Monday
In a letter to Annan, the Iraqi parliament said it was the secretary-general's duty to block an attack. "Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. These allegations are nothing but a cover to justify an aggression against Iraq," the National Assembly said. Some parliament members demonstrated outside a U.N. office in Baghdad.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in an interview published in the Financial Times, said he saw any mission by Annan as the final chance for peace. Mubarak said public opinion in the Arab world had swung toward support for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Video of the protesters marching in the streets of Baghdad.
1.6MB / 28 sec. / 240x1801MB / 28 sec. / 160x120QuickTime movie
Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf was in Lebanon, wrapping up a four-nation tour seeking the support of Iraq's Arab neighbors in the showdown. Al-Sahhaf said Baghdad hoped Annan would succeed in coming up with an "objective" formula that would allow the U.N. inspectors to survey disputed "presidential" sites, which include palaces of President Saddam Hussein.
French President Jacques Chirac will meet with Al-Sahhaf on Tuesday in Paris, Chirac's office said. Al-Sahhaf was expected to deliver a reply from Hussein to a message sent to him by Chirac.
CNN's Mike Hanna reports from Bahrain 1 min. 38 sec VXtreme streaming video
Qatar's Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani became the first foreign minister from a Gulf country to visit Iraq since its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, saying he sought a peaceful solution.
The United Arab Emirates defense minister, Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid al-Maktoum, also has offered to mediate.
Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, far right, greets al-Thani Monday in Baghdad
In a sign that Iraq could be willing to offer concessions, government-run newspapers quoted Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan as saying Iraq "is serious and earnest" in its pursuit of a diplomatic solution. But Baghdad did not back down from its insistence that the palaces are symbols of its sovereignty and emphasized that Iraqis would fight to the death to defend them.
U.N. surveyors who arrived in Baghdad over the weekend resumed work mapping the eight sites that Hussein has declared off limits to U.N. inspectors who are trying to verify that all weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed.
Several Russian lawmakers visiting Iraq reportedly plan to stay there as a "human shield" against possible U.S.-led strikes. Ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who is leading the delegation, plans to return to Moscow on Tuesday, but several other legislators will stay behind, a member of Zhirinovsky's parliament faction said in Moscow. During his trip, Zhirinovsky visited one of disputed presidential compounds.
The new three-man U.N. inspection team arrived in Baghdad on Sunday
Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Australian forces including elite commandos of the Special Air Service unit will leave for the Gulf on Tuesday for possible combat action. They are the first Australian troops to be sent into an overseas conflict since the Vietnam War.
New Zealand announced it is offering its elite commando unit and two search and rescue planes.
This was used by the USA during WWII to promote the 'idea' of hard work wins the war. It's bigoted. Isn't it?
US Office for War Information, propaganda message: working less helps our enemies.
This image was justified in a multicultural nation due to the Japanese attacks. That image also allowed the detained encampment of innocent Japanese citizens in the USA. How does a citizen become the enemy?
Do you preceive this as dangerous Russian propaganda? Do you? It was used in WWII to recruit the very soldiers that defeated Hitler. Is it still bad.
The poster states :: "The Red Army fighter, save us!"
The Russian Victory in WWII. Russia was an ally. How now could they ever be an enemy?
Soviet soldiers Mikhail Yegorov and Meliton Kantaria of the 756th Rifle Regiment raising the Soviet flag over the Reichstag during the Battle of Berlin on April 30, 1945.
I am troubled that the USA media is ambivalent in reporting a protectionist view of our democracy; allowing a Neocon administration their own reality
"Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." Source: Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda And Persuasion, 4th edition, 2006.
Is it correct to criticize the USA media when reporting turns into bolstering an American public for war through accurate reporting from a manipulative and corrupt White House? Where does it end? And does our Constitution protect itself from such an outrage without the guarantees of impeachment when a political party uses the USA for exploitation of power to achieve wealth while deliberately ignoring their Constitutional responsibilites?
A look at propaganda and how the USA has fallen under it's influence.
Is it correct to criticize the USA media when reporting turns into bolstering an American public for war through accurate reporting from a manipulative and corrupt White House? Where does it end? And does our Constitution protect itself from such an outrage without the guarantees of impeachment when a political party uses the USA for exploitation of power to achieve wealth while deliberately ignoring their Constitutional responsibilites?
A look at propaganda and how the USA has fallen under it's influence.
The Matador by Johnny Cash
The crowd is waiting for the bullfight
Matador
My final fight the place is packed once more
But Anita won’t throw me a rose this fight
The one she wears is not for me tonight
She’s watching now with her new love I know
Walk proud and slow
Be strong and sure give the crowd a show
They want blood you know!
You’re still their idol as you were before
Kill just one more!
Remind Anita, you’re the greatest Matador
Walk on out, forget Anita in the stands
Be a tall and strong and brave and noble man
Be better than you’ve never been before
Make this your greatest moment Matador
She’s watching now with her new love I know
Walk proud and slow
Be strong and sure give the crowd a show
They want blood you know!
You’re still their idol as you were before
Kill just one more!
Remind Anita, you’re the greatest Matador
Matador
My final fight the place is packed once more
But Anita won’t throw me a rose this fight
The one she wears is not for me tonight
She’s watching now with her new love I know
Walk proud and slow
Be strong and sure give the crowd a show
They want blood you know!
You’re still their idol as you were before
Kill just one more!
Remind Anita, you’re the greatest Matador
Walk on out, forget Anita in the stands
Be a tall and strong and brave and noble man
Be better than you’ve never been before
Make this your greatest moment Matador
She’s watching now with her new love I know
Walk proud and slow
Be strong and sure give the crowd a show
They want blood you know!
You’re still their idol as you were before
Kill just one more!
Remind Anita, you’re the greatest Matador
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)