American Empire Unveiled

Bush delivered his Iraq war speech to AEI last night, and "didn't disappoint the crowd, moving away from arguments rooted in weapons of mass destruction, and embracing far broader geopolitical goals."

If the overheated rhetoric on "bringing democracy to the Mid East" sounds nauseatingly familiar, that's good. It means you've been paying attention to the neo-Reaganites, the PNACers, and everyone else who has hijacked post-9/11 foreign policy towards Empire.

(Liberal Oasis link via mousemusings)

"If not war then what?"

This question, the Guardian claims, "has become the hawks' favourite riposte to mounting anti-war sentiment. But should critics of military action have to answer it? And, if so, can they offer any real alternative?"

Check out what 30 high-profile opponents of the war had to say in response.

U.S. Increases Estimated Cost Of War in Iraq

"The Pentagon has sharply increased the estimated cost of a war in Iraq to as much as $95 billion for the combat phase and immediate aftermath, with huge reconstruction and occupation costs to come later, administration and congressional officials said yesterday," the Washington Post reports.

Hushing up weapons' destruction

The Scotsman reports:

The highest-ranking defector ever to turn informant on Saddam Hussein’s government told United Nations weapons inspectors in 1995 that Iraq had destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks after the Gulf war.

But UN inspectors hushed up that part of Hussein Kamel’s story - which he also told to debriefers from British and United States intelligence - because they wanted to keep the pressure on Iraq to tell more.

The revelation, reported in the US magazine Newsweek, raises new questions over claims by the US and Britain that Iraq has failed to account for vast stores of chemical and biological weapons.

Of the thousands of chemical bombs and thousands of litres of deadly anthrax said to have gone mysteriously missing inside Iraq, most date back to before 1991.

Iraq has long claimed to have destroyed the weapons "unilaterally", but a regime hardly famous for its honesty and openness is accused of failing to provide hard evidence.

However "the defector’s tale raises questions about whether the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist" Newsweek reported.

Scott Ritter's assertion that the vast majority (90-95%) of Iraq's WMDs were destroyed as of December 1998 (prior to Desert Fox) lends some support to Kamel's claims. Both stories do not necessarily mean that Iraq is clean now, but they do indicate that proper UN pressure and inspections can be successful at containing Iraq and getting rid of its nasty stuff. If the war drums stopped, the process could likely reap benefits once again.

This is, however, the last thing Washington wants.

Not surprisingly, the media is largely ignoring this story, while at the same bending over backwards to air White House propaganda.

Bye, Phil

Phil Donahue has been fired from MSNBC. Rick Ellis says Donahue was canned for being "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace."

Ellis claims to possess a leaked internal memo from NBC which laments that ol' Phil would present a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war" because he would provide "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

Hmm...

LMB ain't buying it. Tapped elaborates on the story.

A Coalition of the Coerced

Ari Fleischer got laughed off stage when he denied that the US was "buying the votes of other nations" to gain the support for its second UN resolution against Iraq. Already, the US is gloating that it "can wring the nine votes necessary to win approval of the new Iraq resolution."

A new report by the Institute for Policy Studies, "Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced?," breaks down how the pressure is being applied to each member of the UN Security Council.

Don't Forget

A War to Reshape the Mid East

This is from today's Washington Post:

President Bush intends to outline his postwar vision for Iraq and the Middle East in a speech tonight designed in part to showcase the administration's belief that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's overthrow would be a significant step toward broad democratic change in the Arab world.

The planned address, to the American Enterprise Institute, is part of an intensive administration effort to defend a prospective invasion of Iraq. Bush will present an optimistic portrait of how events could unfold if he chooses war. The speech will emphasize a broader U.S. campaign -- part of what Bush calls a "battle for the future of the Muslim world" -- that will last far longer than military hostilities in Iraq and test the United States' already difficult relationships in the region.

Let me get this straight: Bush is going to unveil a plan crafted by Likudniks to an extraordinarily pro-Israeli think tank which announces a "battle" for the "Muslim world".

Could this administration be more provocative? Or reckless?

A chance to avert war? Nah.

Has Saddam blinked? Maybe. If so, will this encourage the warmongers put the brakes on? Nope.

Shaking Hands with Saddam: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

The National Security Archive at George Washington University has published "a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's." The documents "show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would 'probably' include 'an eventual nuclear weapon capability,' harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983)."

After war

The UN is on a "mercy dash" to avert a humanitarian disaster in Iraq following a war, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. In the meantime, the US has unveiled some of its plans for humanitarian relief, but most aid agencies are complaining that they're being shut out of the planning process.

Should the war spawn a major catastrophe, Bin Laden's minions will likely exploit the situation and use it to recruit additional followers.

Also, recent reports have boosted the figure of American troops needed to occupy Iraq. The NY Times reports that "100,000 American troops may be needed in the post-Saddam phase, along with tens of thousands of additional allied forces." Of course, a highly visible American presence will make it much easier for those in the Middle East to accuse the Americans of imperialism. This plays into Osama's hands, too.

UN Future at Stake Over Iraq

The US has laid it out: the UN will either submit to its will and rubber stamp the Iraq war, or the body will descend into irrelevancy.

The decision has already been made to strike. "The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not," says one diplomat.

Support Us, or Else Part II

Back in November, the US used "coercive diplomacy" to get the support needed to push Resolution 1441 against Iraq through the UN. Translated into English, this means that the US had to resort to bribes and threats in order to garner support.

Similar tactics are now being deployed to pass the resolution that is being introduced at the UN this week. Witness the new mantra of diplomacy: "any country that doesn't go along with us will be paying a very heavy price."

Iran is Suing the US for Supporting Hussein in the 80s

According to the German paper Der Spiegel, Iran is suing the US in the International Court of Justice at The Hague for its previous support of Iraq. The translation of the story notes that "Iranian representatives accuse the USA of having provided Iraq with raw materials for chemical and biological weapons at the end of the 80's. The US government had delivered dangerous chemicals and deadly viruses to the Iraqi government for its war."

It's quite ironic that this is going on at the same time the US is trying to ram through a UN-approved war on Iraq.

War Risks Further Public Health Damage in Iraq

Reuters reports that "the citizens of Iraq are facing serious public health problems, which will likely be worsened by any future military action, according to a series of reports published Friday in a leading medical journal."

The articles in the UK's Lancet explore the situation Iraqis have faced since the first Gulf War, as well as what a future assault will likely mean for them. Needless to say, the predicted scenarios are not good.

For convenience, here are the selected articles (registration is required to read them, but it is free):

* "United Nations reveals aid plans for war in Iraq" by Clare Kapp

* "Health of the Iraqi people hangs in the balance" by Helen Frankish

* "The people of Iraq face a grim future with or without a war" by Haroon Ashraf

* "US military prepares for Iraq to use chemical and biological weapons" by Michael McCarthy

* "US military plans to lead relief efforts in Iraq" by Michael McCarthy

* "Iraq's refugees and internally displaced people will face hardship wherever they go" by Haroon Ashraf

Shock and Yawn?

It is public knowledge that the US plans to "shock and awe" the Iraqis during the first few days of war. This plan will likely kill thousands, perhaps millions, but, alarmingly, there is nary a peep of concern in the media. Because of this, Geov Parrish asks, "Are Americans -- politicians, media executives, and ordinary citizens -- so numb, or oblivious, or callous to the horrors of war that we cannot raise ourselves to be bothered by what would be, if it works as planned, one of the greatest massacres, one of the greatest war crimes, in the history of the world, committed in our name and with our money?"

Answer Geov with a resounding "no!" by signing up for and participating in this Wednesday's Virtual March On Washington. Do other stuff, too, like writing to your local paper, contacting your representatives, talking to people, etc. Be creative.

The One Certainty

There are a lot of uncertainties about the situation in Iraq right now. War is virtually guaranteed, but nobody is sure how we're going to get there. Nevertheless, as Bush gets ready to ratchet up the pressure with the introduction of a new UN resolution this week, Charley Reese is sure about one thing.

I do know that the only leader threatening the world with nuclear weapons and pre-emptive attack is George W. Bush. It gives me no pleasure to point that out. But it is not the role of an American citizen to be a sheep. It has become apparent that those of us who supported Bush made a mistake. I'm beginning to believe that a philanderer and a liar is less dangerous than an upright but ignorant man who thinks God has appointed him to rule the world.

The best way to support our troops is to try to prevent the Bush administration from sacrificing their lives for the hidden agenda of the crazy neoconservatives in his administration. Young Americans should not die because a bunch of chicken hawks have a cockamamie idea that they can bring liberal democracy to the Middle East by making war. That's like trying to sell pork barbecue in Mecca. What the president is intent on doing is committing a crime against humanity. If he goes through with it, he'll have to change his ritualistic "God bless America" to "God forgive us."

Remember Afghanistan?

Body and Soul has a good summary of the decrepit situation in country.

Bush Fudges Facts, Again

James Toedtman, an economics correspondent for Newsday, accuses the Bush administration of citing a report that doesn't exist in order to justify the tax cuts.

Bush and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer went out of their way Thursday to cite a new survey by "Blue-Chip economists" that the economy would grow 3.3 percent this year if the president's tax cut proposal becomes law.

That was news to the editor who assembles the economic forecast. "I don't know what he was citing," said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast, a newsletter that surveys 53 of the nation's top economists each month.

"I was a little upset," said Moore, who said he complained to the White House. "It sounded like the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed the president's plan. That's simply not the case."

Bush proposes radical changes in healthcare

"President Bush has begun one of the most ambitious efforts to reinvent Medicare and Medicaid since the programs were created 38 years ago," today's NY Times reports.

Mr. Bush's proposals for Medicare and Medicaid, taking shape in recent weeks, would transform these pillars of the Great Society and their guarantee of health benefits to the elderly, disabled and poor.

States would have far more power to determine who receives what benefits in the Medicaid program, which covers 45 million low-income Americans. The elderly would rely more on private health plans, and less on the government, for their health benefits under Medicare, which covers 40 million elderly and disabled people.

The administration's vision for Medicare and Social Security moves away from the notion that everyone should be in the same government-managed system with the same benefits. It promises individuals more choices, including the option of picking a private health plan or investing some of their Social Security taxes in the stock market.

But critics say these proposals would also mean less security, fewer guaranteed benefits and more financial risk for beneficiaries.

The magnitude of the Bush proposals is only gradually dawning on members of Congress. Unlike President Bill Clinton and former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Mr. Bush has not boasted about the boldness of his vision for these programs, perhaps because he is mindful of the voters' anxiety about major changes in health care.

Watered down privatisation. That's what the plan amounts to.

Terrorism likely with Iraq war

As an Iraq war draws nearer, the possibility of a strike against America by "lone terrorists" rises precipitously.

Intelligence officials and law enforcement personnel say a war will "inflame anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab world, adding to a litany of causes that have stoked hatred of the United States. Moreover, analysts regard the new taped message believed to be from Osama bin Laden as a summons to his followers, and perhaps to new sympathizers, to conduct actions against the American targets in response to the possible war in Iraq."

We'll get to you soon, N. Korea

According to the Scotsman, the Pentagon is drawing up plans for a "pre-emptive military strike against North Korea," with "likely casualties running to one million during the first day of an attack."

Paving the Way for War

"In recent days," the Independent reports, the US and Britain "have stepped up attacks on missile sites near Basra which could threaten the military build-up in Kuwait and the Gulf."

The raids are being carried out by aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zones in northern and southern Iraq, established by the victors after the first Gulf war. They claim the patrols are being carried out in the name of the UN – especially ironic, given the passionate debate over the need for a second Security Council to authorise war on Iraq.

Some have always disputed whether the "no-fly" zones have UN authority, but now the US and Britain have widened the "rules of engagement" to the point where warplanes are effectively preparing the way for an imminent invasion.

When U.S. Foreign Policy Meets Biblical Prophecy

Is the "Bush administration's go-it-alone foreign policy" part of an "unfolding divine plan"? Many Americans believe so, according to Paul Broyer. The "current political climate in the United States cannot be fully understood" unless this point is recognized. Broyer explains,

Leaders have always invoked God's blessing on their wars, and, in this respect, the Bush administration is simply carrying on a familiar tradition. But when our born-again president describes the nation's foreign-policy objective in theological terms as a global struggle against "evildoers," and when, in his recent State of the Union address, he casts Saddam Hussein as a demonic, quasi-supernatural figure who could unleash "a day of horror like none we have ever known," he is not only playing upon our still-raw memories of 9/11. He is also invoking a powerful and ancient apocalyptic vocabulary that for millions of prophecy believers conveys a specific and thrilling message of an approaching end – not just of Saddam, but of human history as we know it.

12 reasons; 13 myths

Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman offer 12 reasons why you should oppose an Iraq war. Also check out 13 myths about the case for war.

The Kunduz Getaway

In an interview which aired on PBS' Now with Bill Moyers this week, Seymour Hersh relayed the story of how, following a 2001 battle near the Afghan town of Kunduz, the "cream of the crop of Al Qaeda" were allowed to escape into Pakistan with Donald Rumsfeld's authorization. Hersh first wrote about this in a January 2002 New Yorker article.

Update: The Times of India picks up on this story.

Just a reminder...

In our name, a half million human beings are being threatened with death in the next few weeks -- dreadful deaths not unlike those of the victims of 9/11, except that far greater numbers will be burned and crushed and suffocated, and the horror will be painfully intensified by the shrieking of maimed and dying children. Nobody in this closed government, and almost nobody in the compliant mainstream media, is dealing squarely and honestly with this subject.

-- Peter Matthiessen, "Lighting the Fuse: Freeing the Iraqi People to Death" (read the whole essay)

Iraq's U.S. Arsenal

"The world is faced with a tragic irony," writes Paul Rockwell. "The world's leading merchant of death is taking us to war to stop arms proliferation in the very region to which it shipped chemicals and arms for more than 10 years."

Yes, this is old news, but still vastly underreported.

40% of Desert Storm Vets on Disability

As the US prepares to go to war in Iraq once again, it might be worth noting that "two of every five of the approximately 540,000 Gulf War vets are on disability as a result of illnesses they believe they sustained during that conflict."

(via Memory Hole)

Blair stretches the truth, once again

According to the Daily Mirror,

Tony Blair has been found out for a second time misleading the public with old allegations against Saddam Hussein.

The Prime Minister claimed that an "increasing numbers of Iraqi exiles" are "writing direct" to his office about atrocities under Saddam's regime.

The Downing Street website quotes extracts and emails from four so-called independent Iraqis.

But rather than being concerned refugees, the Daily Mirror can reveal that at least two of the four named people have well-established links with the Iraq National Congress, the opposition-in-exile group, and the US State Department.

The Media Goes to War

How will the media cover an Iraq war? That's what Danny Schechter wonders.

"Will there be less sanitized coverage, and more coverage of the war's costs and consequences? Will media organizations learn from past mistakes and fight for fuller access and uncensored coverage?"

Probably not. "The signs are not encouraging," Schechter says. As usual, propaganda will likely be the order of the day.

Update: Carol Brightman has more on the "Pentagon's Recipe For Propaganda."

Democratic institutions nowhere in sight for Iraq

The US will assume "complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq," according to the Washington Post. General Tommy Franks will serve as the initial military dictator. From there, the plan of occupation will unfold, more or less, in an ad hoc fashion.

The Post concedes, "No definitive price tag or time limit has been put on the plan, and officials stressed that much remains unknown about the length of a potential conflict, how much destruction would result, and 'how deep' the corruption of the Iraqi government goes. The administration has declined to estimate how long U.S. forces would remain in Iraq."

Basically, they're going to have to wing this.

Suicide and Torture at Guantanamo

Add three more to the list of Guantanamo detainees who have attempted suicide. The AP reports that 19 have tried to kill themselves so far, but a previous BBC story claimed "at least 30" had made the attempt as of the end of last summer. Today's AP story also contains this snippet of information:

The New York City-based Center for Constitutional Rights and the International Human Rights Law Group last week petitioned the Washington-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to ensure detainees are not tortured during interrogations and are not transferred to third countries, which might allow torture during questioning.

The groups said some prisoners had been taken to countries including Jordan, Egypt and Morocco for interrogation.

A Mauritanian weekly newspaper, Le Calame, reported Wednesday 23 Guantanamo prisoners, including one Mauritanian, had been transferred to a a Moroccan prison for interrogation. The report could not immediately be confirmed and the newspaper cited no sources.

"From time to time, the transfer and release of detainees will occur without notice or mention," [Pentagon spokeswoman] Lt.-Cmdr. Burfeind said.

So, we're not only stomping on human rights in Guantanamo. Just like in Afghanistan, we're using and outsourcing torture, too.

Short Iraq War Would Cost World $1 Trillion

A "short war" with Iraq could cost "more than $1 trillion by 2010," while a long one could cost three times as much, according to an Australian research report.

The researchers conclude that the "compounding effects of rising oil prices, extra budget spending and economic uncertainty could cut $173 billion from the world economy in 2003 alone."

ACLU's Analysis of Patriot Act II

The ACLU critiques each section of Patriot Act II.

UN on "wild goose chases," thanks to the US

From CBS News:

While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases.

CBS News Correspondent Mark Phillips reports the U.N. has been taking a precise inventory of Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missile arsenal, determining how many there are and where they are.

Discovering that the al-Samoud 2 has been flying too far in tests has been one of the inspectors' major successes. But the missile has only been exceeding its 93-mile limit by about 15 miles and that, the Iraqis say, is because it isn't yet loaded down with its guidance system. The al-Samoud 2 is not the 800-mile-plus range missile that Secretary of State Colin Powell insists Iraq is developing.

In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors – or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel – is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.

A Highway to Hell

We're on it, according to John B. Judis.

Human shields? Nope. War criminals.

After a long, arduous journey, a group of brave souls arrived in Iraq this week to serve as human shields. Now, Don Rumsfeld is threatening to charge them as war criminals.

Update: Are the human shields heroes or dupes? Get a free day pass and then read Michelle Goldberg's take in Salon.

Protest Posters

Pentagon warns of bloody war

The Pentagon is now warning the public of the "possibility of a drawn-out, bloody war with Iraq."

"We still do not know how US forces will be received [during an invasion]," one senior official told the New York Times. "Will it be cheers, jeers or shots? And the fact is, we won't know until we get there."

Valis of Liberty Think is confused by this proclamation. "Perhaps one of our chickenhawk cheerleaders can put down the pom-poms for a second and explain this to me," he writes. "I thought that everybody (including his government) hated Saddam and can't wait for his removal. What happened to people stepping over their dead family members and rushing to the window to proudly display their American flag?"

Roadblocks in Turkey

Negotiations over the use of Turkey bases for a northern assault on Iraq are causing all sorts of problems for American war planners. The impasse is regarded as a "potentially serious political calamity." The Guardian reports that this is screwing up the American timetable for war, as plans for an assault are being pushed back into March.

According to the Financial Times, Turkey's demand for a massive amount of financial compensation "has infuriated Bush administration officials, who say Ankara is seeking to exploit the Iraq crisis to address its financial needs."

To further complicate things, Newsweek reports that, as part of the negotiations with the US, "Turkey is demanding that it send 60,000 to 80,000 of its own troops into northern Iraq to establish 'strategic positions' across a 'security arc' as much as 140 to 170 miles deep in Iraq. That would take Turkish troops almost halfway to Baghdad." Considering Turkey's deplorable record on human rights towards its Kurdish minority, it's not surprising that the Kurdish population of northern Iraq (and much of southern Turkey) is alarmed about this development. Peter Galbraith writes in the NY Times that the Kurds are starting to realize that the US is about to "double-cross them" once again.

Iraq to Merge with Jordan?

Is the US planning to merge Iraq and Jordan once Saddam is gone? That's the question William O. Beeman, director of Middle East Studies at Brown University, is asking in an article for Pacific News Service.

Beeman points to this 1996 document on Israeli strategic concerns written by current Bush administration policy advisors, which suggests that "until recently, regime change in Iraq was considered not as a U.S. security issue, but as an Israeli one." This makes him wonder if the Iraq war and planned realignment of the Middle East are motivated more by Israeli priorities than American ones.

Of course, Beeman's not the first person to suggest such blasphemy.

On a Small Bridge in Iraq

Ruminate This thinks you should download and read this e-book if you want to get a better idea of what life is like for ordinary Iraqis.

Internet security strategy released

Last week, the White House released the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, the "nation's first cybersecurity strategy, containing about half the recommendations of a wider-ranging earlier draft and largely leaving the task of Internet security to voluntary efforts by corporations and individual Americans," reports Aaron Davis of the Mercury News.

GOP threats halted GAO Cheney suit

"Threats by Republicans to cut the General Accounting Office (GAO) budget influenced its decision to abandon a lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney," reports The Hill.

"Sources familiar with high-level discussions at the GAO said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, met with GAO Comptroller General David Walker earlier this year and 'unambiguously' pressured him to drop the suit or face cuts in his $440 million budget."

This is blatant extortion. As each day passes, the Bush administration keeps adding to the pile of outrages.

(via cursor)

Virtual March on Washington

On February 26th, you can join a massive march on Washington without leaving your living room. The Virtual March on Washington is a first-of-its-kind campaign from the Win Without War coalition.

Working together, we will direct a steady stream of phone calls — about one per minute, all day — to every Senate office in the country, while at the same time delivering a constant stream of e-mails and faxes. Our message: Don’t Attack Iraq.

Please help make the Virtual March a success. To register to send a free fax and make phone calls to Senate offices and the White House, visit: www.moveon.org/winwithoutwar.

The War Behind Closed Doors

"The War Behind Closed Doors" airs on Frontline this week. It will be broadcast on PBS this Thursday at 9pm (check local listings), and will explore "the hidden story of what is really driving the Bush administration to war with Iraq." It will trace just how far back the Attaq Iraq plan goes in neoconservative circles, and will likely unveil the war as the crude, imperialist power grab that it so plainly is. Check it out. Tell others about it, too.

Mystery ships tracked over suspected Iraqi WMDs cargo

Is the smoking gun floating on the high seas?

It's the Media, Stupid

Paul Krugman thinks that the reason public opinion is so different in Europe is because the American media is full of propaganda. "We have different views partly because we see different news," he writes.

Dave Lindorff and Ed Herman agree that the media is the problem. Lindorff argues that the "abject failure of the American journalistic model--long worsening--has become depressingly apparent in the run-up to what appears to be almost certain war with Iraq." Because of this, Herman writes, "High priority should be given to pressing the media to cease their unquestioning service to the war-makers. With even a modest change by the mainstream media in the direction of fairness and openness to views that are held by the global majority, the tide could be turned."

US to Rehabilitate Nukes

"The Bush administration is planning a secret meeting in August to discuss the construction of a new generation of nuclear weapons, including 'mini-nukes', 'bunker-busters' and neutron bombs designed to destroy chemical or biological agents," reports the Guardian.

Documents outlining the proposed Summer meeting of the US Strategic Command were leaked to the Los Alamos Study Group, a New Mexico-based nuclear disarmament organization. LASG has issued a press release which breaks down what the documents say.

A War Against the Euro

Iraq will not be a war for oil. It's really a war to prevent OPEC countries from moving towards the Euro as the currency standard for oil transactions. At least that's the conclusion William Clark draws in this article. Peter Dale Scott expands on Clark's piece, here.

Both articles have been making the rounds on the 'net. Most readers respond with a "wow, that's a cool argument" (like me), but remain skeptical (like me).

WMDs elsewhere in the Mid East

In case ya didn't know, the "world's best-known and most efficient 'secret' manufacturer of weapons of mass destruction is not Iraq, not even North Korea, but Israel."

America's Plans for Undemocracy in Iraq

Surprise! "Democracy" isn't coming to Iraq anytime soon once Saddam is displaced. According to Kanan Makiya, the plan for a post-Saddam Iraq entails "the appointment by the US of an unknown number of Iraqi quislings palatable to the Arab countries of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia as a council of advisers to this military government...The bureaucrats responsible for this plan are drawn from those parts of the administration that have always been hostile to the idea of a US-assisted democratic transformation of Iraq." You know things are bad when even Washington puppet Ahmed Chalabi is pissed off.

A Shame Offensive

Lying Media Bastards explores the tactical shift of the pro-warriors. The Iraq conflict is being sold more and more on the premise that we need to liberate the Iraqi people from their Hitleresque leader, not necessarily because that leader fails to comply with the UN or disarm quickly.

According to this logic, if you were one of the millions who made it out to a protest over the weekend you might have "thought that you were against the war because you didn't want bombs dropping on the heads of Iraqi children, or because you opposed U.S. imperialism, but you were wrong. You oppose the war because you like it when people are crushed 'neath the iron fist."

Update: The shame offensive is now starting to derail, according to LMB.

Patriot Act, Part II

Anita Ramasastry explains why the sequel to the Patriot Act is even scarier than the first.

We'll Get to Them Eventually...

According to Ha'aretz, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that "it will be necessary to deal with" Syria, Iran, and North Korea following an Iraq war.

War Buildup Strains Public Safety

"The U.S. military buildup for a possible war with Iraq is posing security concerns close to home as police forces, fire departments and emergency services across the nation find their ranks depleted by overseas deployments of reservists," reports Faye Fiore of the LA Times.

Bush administration behind march denial?

Atrios points to this editorial from Syracuse's Post-Standard, which alleges that the "Bush administration...filed a brief urging the judges to uphold denial of the [march] permit" for the NYC antiwar rally this past Saturday. The Daily Kos tries to pin this story down, and notes, "the fact that the Bush Administration would try and use the courts to stiffle dissent is nothing short of astounding, and must be broadcast to as wide an audience as possible."

It has also been alleged that CNN was pressured by government officials to downplay the NYC protest.

Both of these stories deserve scrutiny. If it turns out that the Bush administration played a role -- indirect or not -- in getting the march denied, or the protest coverage suppressed, there should be a colossal uproar.

Pentagon Decides Against Cremation and Mass Graves

The Pentagon has reversed its stance on cremating or bulldozing any soldiers killed by chemical or biological weapons in an Iraq war.

Kucinich for Prez?

Dennis Kucinich is considering a run for the Presidency. Check out what he had to say at the rally in NYC on Saturday.

"Americans want it both ways"

Henry Porter of the Observer has taken up Edward Said's call to expose the hypocrisy of the American stance on Iraq. Porter points out that, at the UN, there's one rule for Israel, another for Saddam.

Money to Fight AIDS Restricted

For many people, the one shining light in Bush's State of the Union last month was his unexpected proposal to invest $15 billion in a new global AIDS relief program. It now turns out that there are significant strings attached to this initiative, as the administration will withhold funding to those "organizations that promote or perform abortions overseas."

Interestingly, the NY Times runs a story on this development, but it emphasizes that "Bush has decided to allow organizations that promote or perform abortions in poor countries to qualify under some circumstances for part of the $15 billion he has proposed to fight AIDS." (my emphasis)

Same general story, but the emphasis is inverted.

War on Iraq is America's Jihad

As I've tried to emphasize, the proposed war on Iraq is not simply motivated by a desire to seize the oil reserves. There's more to it than that, as George Bisharat of the SF Chronicle explains. "Oil is a constant," he writes. "In a sense, everything in U.S. Middle East policy for the last 50 years or more has been about oil. For that very reason, however, oil cannot explain a shift in policy toward war. Some new variable has entered the equation."

"The real reason we are going to war," he continues, is to fulfill the "messianic vision of a small but influential group of strongly pro-Israeli hawks within the Bush administration. Their goal is unilateral global domination through absolute military superiority. U.S. global hegemony will 'promote democracy' and 'spread prosperity' through free enterprise and trade...

"Iraq is just a first step in redrawing the map of the entire Middle East. Iraq under a pro-Western leadership, with its enormous oil reserves, would diminish the strategic value of Saudi Arabia and negate Saudi leverage vis-a-vis the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. A new Iraq would be a beachhead for ridding the Middle East of autocracies -- the wellsprings of terrorism, in the hawks' view -- installing democratic governments, and making the region a haven for free enterprise and development."

For better or worse (likely the latter), this war is intended to define American foreign policy for the next 20+ years.

The World Says No to War

~10 million people around the world protested against the impending war on Iraq yesterday. I got out to the NYC rally and spent most of the day herded in between 53 and 55 Sts. on 1st Ave.

Blocked off streets and cattle pens everywhere made movement to, from, and around the protest site extraordinarily difficult. This is what precipitated clashes between police and protesters a little farther north of my position. "Safety reasons" were specifically cited as the reason for the pens, but they actually made the rally less safe and only served to heighten anxiety levels.

Most media claimed 100K at the NYC protest. That's ridiculously low. The number is probably closer to 400K. The local media, especially, stayed true to their usual form, emphasizing the "violence" and arrests, while marginalizing the number of folks who made it out in the bitter cold to make their voices of dissent known.

All in all, a good day. Historic, too.

Update: The Guardian reports that "up to 30 million people" from around the world demonstrated against the war! Antiwar.com and Infoshop.org are collecting crowd estimates from each of the protests. See 170 pictures from over 110 of the protests, here.

No war

I'm off to the rally in NYC tomorrow. No more updates for the rest of the weekend, probably. Stay up to date on all the protests going on around the world via Indymedia.

U.S. Lawmakers Looking to Punish France, Germany

How childish can the US be?

U.S. lawmakers, angry over France's and Germany's opposition to the administration's Iraq policies, are considering retaliatory gestures such as trade sanctions against the French and pressing for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Germany.

...House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), angered by France's policies on agriculture as well as on Iraq, has told associates he would like to target two of that nation's most sacred drinks: water and wine.

...[House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.)] is trying a more personal approach. "I was at a celebration of India's Independence Day," he told reporters, "and a Frenchman came walking up to me and started talking to me about Iraq, and it was obvious we were not going to agree. And I said, 'Wait a minute. Do you speak German?' And he looked at me kind of funny and said, 'No, I don't speak German.' And I said, 'You're welcome,' turned around and walked off."

North Korea wondering what it has to do to attract US military attention

This is classic.

More Predictions on Effects of Iraq War

More internal documents from the UN on the humanitarian impact of a war on Iraq have been leaked to CASI. A summary and key quotes from the documents are available here.

If the war spawns a humanitarian crisis -- which is, in fact, what's predicted -- one document says, "30 percent of children under 5 would be at risk of death from malnutrition." This turns out to approximate 1.26 million children.

Update: The Independent reports on this. Jim Lobe follows up, as well.

Back to the Cold War...Sorta

The Crooked 'E'

Enron? Remember that scandal? Probably not, but it's now come out that "the firm's executives bribed tax officials." Enron also "paid no income tax between 1996 and 1999 according to the investigation by the Senate Finance Committee."

Overheard in the War Room

Somebody left the audio recorder on in the war room. Ray Sweatman has the transcript.

A monument to hypocrisy

Edward Said is appalled at the hypocrisy on Iraq: Saddam Hussein's regime is kept under the closest scrutiny while Israel stomps on human rights with impunity. Said writes,

literally everything Powell has accused the Ba'athists of has been the stock in trade of every Israeli government since 1948, and at no time more flagrantly than since the occupation of 1967. Torture, illegal detention, assassination, assaults against civilians with missiles, helicopters and jet fighters, annexation of territory, transportation of civilians from one place to another for the purpose of imprisonment, mass killing (as in Qana, Jenin, Sabra and Shatilla to mention only the most obvious), denial of rights to free passage and unimpeded civilian movement, education, medical aid, use of civilians as human shields, humiliation, punishment of families, house demolitions on a mass scale, destruction of agricultural land, expropriation of water, illegal settlement, economic pauperisation, attacks on hospitals, medical workers and ambulances, killing of UN personnel, to name only the most outrageous abuses: all these, it should be noted with emphasis, have been carried on with the total, unconditional support of the United States which has not only supplied Israel with the weapons for such practices and every kind of military and intelligence aid, but also has given the country upwards of $135 billion in economic aid on a scale that beggars the relative amount per capita spent by the US government on its own citizens.

This is an unconscionable record to hold against the US, and Mr Powell as its human symbol in particular. As the person in charge of US foreign policy, it is his specific responsibility to uphold the laws of this country, and to make sure that the enforcement of human rights and the promotion of freedom -- the proclaimed central plank in the US's foreign policy since at least 1976 -- is applied uniformly, without exception or condition. How he and his bosses and co-workers can stand up before the world and righteously sermonise against Iraq while at the same time completely ignoring the ongoing American partnership in human rights abuses with Israel defies credibility. And yet no one, in all the justified critiques of the US position that have appeared since Powell made his great UN speech, has focused on this point, not even the ever-so- upright French and Germans.

...And, more astounding yet, [Powell] lectures the world on Saddam's flouting of UN resolutions even as he supports a country, Israel, that has flouted at least 64 of them on a daily basis for more than half a century.

Meanwhile, Sharon and his cabinet are "cheering from the sidelines for a U.S. war on Iraq," eagerly awaiting the "Middle East 'earthquake' and bright 'morning after' once Iraq's Saddam Hussein is gone."

Those Oil-Hungry French

Richard Perle thinks the "French anti-war stance" is "driven by economic interests." Interesting, since I'm sure Mr. Perle would vehemently deny that the American "pro war stance" is driven by economic interests. No, our motives are pure: installing Jeffersonian democracies, overthrowing tyrants, and elevating the cause of human rights...

US ready to use Blix report as launchpad for war

I'm afraid the Guardian may be right: this + this = war.

All the more reason to get out into the streets on Saturday. Or, if you can't do that, Judith Gorman has some ideas for other ways to oppose the war.

Terror Alert Partly Based on Fabricated Information

Our Keystone Kops have been duped again by a "captured Al Qaeda member."

Behind Roses' Beauty, Poor and Ill Workers

It seems that there are very few things you can do in a capitalist society without having some amount of blood and exploitation on your hands. Happy Valentine's Day, everyone.

The UN Façade

In a piece written for Tom Dispatch.com, Michael Klare argues that Bush made the decision to go to war in late August 2002, knowing that the earliest time the US could have troops in place and ready to strike would be late February or early March of this year.

It was only after making this decision, and because he knew he had to wait some six months before the war could even kick off, that Bush decided to give the UN a shot. According to Klare, Bush knew that "he had nothing to lose" by going to the UN, and much to gain. Most importantly, an appeal to the UN "allowed him to quiet those domestic critics (including some senior Republicans) who felt that a veneer of international support was necessary to lend a degree of legitimacy to the planned U.S. invasion."

"Clearly," Klare writes, "it has been the pacing of U.S. war preparations and not the political environment at the United Nations that has shaped Administration strategy over the past few months. Until now, the White House has been able to conceal this underlying reality because so many eyes were focused on developments in New York. Once the fighting begins, however, the outright cynicism and deceitfulness of the U.S. strategy will quickly become apparent, further turning world opinion against the United States."

Klare is wrong on this last point, though. The "outright cynicism and deceitfulness of the U.S. strategy" is already shockingly apparent, and has been for several months.

International Community Unprepared for Staving Off Effects of Iraq War

A new report on the humanitarian consequences of an Iraq war issued by the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) claims that a "US-led military intervention in Iraq will trigger the collapse of Iraq's public health and food distribution system, leading to a humanitarian crisis that far exceeds the capacity of the United Nations and relief agencies."

Echoing the UN's own predictions, Michael Van Rooyen, Director of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says that the CESR report "confirms that international relief agencies are unlikely to avert a major humanitarian disaster in the event of war."

Police State?

Alex Jones of Infowars writes that the recently unveiled Patriot Act II destroys what is left of American liberty.

It's the Dawning Age of the Apocalypse

Walter Russell Mead thinks that we're teetering on the edge of the apocalypse.

So I've noticed...

Making Osama's Dreams Come True

Mike Seccombe of the Sydney Morning Herald writes that the Bushies and Bin Laden agree on what stance to take towards Iraq. "For bin Laden's latest message, delivered via the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera network, shows that if there is one person who wants a war on Iraq more than Bush, it's Osama bin Laden...Bin Laden leaves no doubt that he agrees with opponents of war in the West, that an invasion of Iraq will radicalise Muslims in that country and elsewhere." This is, of course, not only what he wants, but what he needs.

The macho, feel-good rhetoric since 9/11 that we're going out, kicking ass, and showing those evil-doers who's the real boss has masked the fact that Bin Laden and his fellow Islamists can't precipitate their larger goals (overthrow of insufficiently Islamic regimes, leading to a larger, Huntington-like battle between Islam and the West) unless there is a massive, unjust response to the 9/11 provocation. Well, it seems like that's what they're getting; the US is, in other words, playing directly into Osama's hands.

Another Bigot on TV

Michael Savage is getting his own TV show on MSNBC.

"US denies Afghan civilian deaths"

That's the headline from this BBC story, which claims that "at least 17 civilians, mainly women and children, have died in US bombing" of the remote Helmand Province of Afghanistan. The headline could just as easily describe the US' stance during the entire Afghan war.

Harsh Iraqi Reaction Expected

"Faced with a U.S. invasion of Iraq," the Washington Post reports, "President Saddam Hussein would likely launch missile and terrorist attacks against Israel and U.S. facilities abroad, preemptive strikes against the Kurds in the north, and a 'scorched-earth strategy' in Iraq 'significant enough to stop a military advance,' the Defense Department's top intelligence official said yesterday."

It's amazing that our leaders pledge to wage war for our own safety when it is generally accepted that a war on Iraq will put the world in a much more precarious position. Iraq is under massive surveillance; it has UN inspectors crawling around its territory (with more likely to come), and, basically, can't sneeze without facing massive reprisal. By any measure, Hussein is being properly contained, even if you think he represents some larger threat to the region (most of his neighbors do not).

Baghdad Back Flip

William Saletan of Slate knows "why people don't trust what the United States says about Iraq." The way the administration has been spinning yesterday's Bin Laden tape reveals the hypocrisy being deployed to justify a war.

"Sixteen months ago," Saletan writes, "Powell wanted to isolate Bin Laden from other Muslims, so he said Bin Laden was lying about being involved in Iraq. Now Powell wants to justify war against Iraq, so he says Bin Laden is telling the truth. Same claim, same media outlet, same speaker, same U.S. official assessing the claim, same congressional venue, different U.S. agenda, different result."

Plans for Occupation; Plans for the Mid East

Nicholas Lemann was one of the first writers to unmask the personalities behind the Bush administration's march to war in Iraq (PNAC alums, mostly) in a piece he wrote for the New Yorker back in March. This month he elaborates on the American plan to remake the Middle East.

In a related article, Jonathan Wright of Reuters writes that the plans for a post-war Iraq include a two-year military occupation, although "enormous uncertainties" make it impossible to predict how long the occupation will last or how much it will cost. In other words, nobody has a clue how an Iraq invasion will turn out in the long run.

Update: Here's a projection of the way an Iraq invasion and occupation might play out.

Cool War

Joy Gordon takes a closer look at the sanctions of mass destruction in Iraq. Her essay ran in the November 2002 edition of Harper's magazine.

Bush's Lies

Dennis Hans catalogs the Bush administration's "Techniques of Deceit."

"Do we as a nation want to follow our dishonest president into an aggressive, unnecessary war?" Hans asks. "I say the wiser course is to stop the war train in its tracks and intensify inspections, which will give the American people the breathing space to decide what exactly we should do with a leader who has sunk this low."

Osama Lives! ...But only to justify war

This is truly sad. The Bush administration hasn't mentioned Osama in months and now they drag him out to somehow prove a "partnership with Iraq" because he drops a reference in a speech. Pathetic.

Update: Here's a transcript of Bin Laden's speech. Astute observers noticed that, at first, the media edited out Bin Laden's repudiation of Saddam Hussein. Atrios was quick to pounce on this, producing an early screenshot and a succinct summary of how the story played out in the beginning. Antiwar.com threw its hat into the ring, too, as Justin Raimondo tried to document the story's trajectory. He concluded that the story was "spinning so fast" it threatened "to unravel before our very eyes."

Reuters reports that the US "leaped on" the tape as proof of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link. That's an understatement. Considering that Colin Powell declared this tape to be further indication of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link before it was even released is an indication of how eager this administration is to kick start a war. Coincidentally, how Powell got his hands on the tape before al-Jazeera needs to be explained.

US officials were very quick to confirm the authenticity of the tape, much quicker than they were when the November tape popped up (that tape was called a fake by some independent researchers, btw). In the end, the overwhelming number of media stories emphasize the "Osama wants Muslims/Iraqis to attack the infidel" line, the exact framing that the administration wants to be aired. The onslaught of propaganda continues.

Update II: Reuters reports that "Powell knew what was on Osama bin Laden's audio tape before it was aired on al-Jazeera television because key ally Qatar gave Washington an advance copy." The Guardian reports that the "US knew about the latest Osama bin Laden tape five days before it was broadcast."

Resuscitation

The Senate recently voted to block TIA. The Pentagon is now trying to revive it.

NYC March Denied

Newsday reports that federal judge in Manhattan has denied antiwar demonstrators the right to march in front of the UN this coming Saturday.

United For Peace has some advice on what you can do about this.

YT Down

The alternative news and opinion site YellowTimes.org was shut down after it published this article.

The Dominoes Will Fall...

The Israeli paper Yediot Aharanot has reported that "Israel and Washington have reached a secret agreement on conditions for ousting Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat after the U.S. topples Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

Body Bags

The St. Petersburg Times previously reported that the Pentagon was stocking up on body bags. About 10,000 were ordered back then, but the military claimed that this was just to "replenish supplies". Now, the Mirror reports that nearly "100,000 body bags and 6,000 coffins have been secretly delivered to a US base in Italy."

A Catholic archbishop who is stridently against the war claims that the shipment "arrived at the Sigonella base near Catania on the island of Sicily 10 days ago."

"Americans are expecting a high number of casualties. That is why so many body bags and coffins have been sent to the base," he says.

The Herald Sun also reports that the Pentagon has ordered nearly "five times the number of body bags it requested before the last Gulf War," which fuels "speculation that planners are expecting to suffer high casualties in street fighting as the troops try to take major cities such as Basra and Baghdad."

Electronic Iraq

Voices in the Wilderness and the Electronic Intifada have launched a new online news portal on the Iraq crisis. Check out Electronic Iraq.

White House Looking to Drop Income Tax

The NY Times reports that the Bush administration has floated the idea of dropping "the income tax as a whole" and replacing "it with some form of consumption tax."

According to the Times, the "idea was outlined in the White House's annual economic report to Congress. The report, prepared by the White House Council of Economic Advisers and signed by Mr. Bush, offers a scathing critique of the current system and an exuberant description of radical alternatives."

To make things more absurd, the economic report is headlined with: "Tax Relief Package Created Jobs and Softened Recession."

Drain the swamp; Don't fill it.

From UPI:

CIA veterans have warned the Bush administration not to go to war against Iraq, saying that doing so would further widen the divide between the Western and Islamic worlds and increase the incidence of terrorism.

In a statement sent to media organizations earlier this week, the retired CIA officials also referred to an agency assessment report last fall, which, they said, opposed a military offensive against Iraq.

They urged the Bush administration to "re-read" the CIA report that pointed out: "The forces fueling hatred of the United States and fueling al Qaida recruiting are not being addressed" and that "the underlying causes that drive terrorists will persist."

...Terrorism, the CIA veterans said, is like malaria. "You don't eliminate malaria by killing the flies. Rather you must drain the swamp. With an invasion of Iraq, the world can expect to be swamped with swamps breeding terrorists. In human terms, your daughters are unlikely to be able to travel abroad in future years without a phalanx of security personnel."

The Savage Beast...

Returns for another round

Weapons, Rhetoric, and the Looming War with Iraq

If the Security Council, if the international community, falters now, at the moment of truth, and provides the Bush administration with a smokescreen of legitimacy by authorizing military force against Iraq, the forces of ignorance and fear which have paralyzed the United States since September 11, 2001, will prevail. If, however, the international community stands firm and supports the continued work of the inspectors in Iraq, without artificially imposed time lines, then President Bush would be running the risk of committing political suicide by going to war with Iraq unilaterally. In the game of high stakes poker that is American politics, this is a risk both he and his advisors may not be willing to take. As such, it is the duty and responsibility of all freedom loving people, around the world and in the United States, to stand up for the rule of law, and continue to oppose a needless war with Iraq.

-- Scott Ritter, speech delivered in Tokyo, February, 2003

(via war in context)

The final means of persuasion (bribery)

While France and Germany are throwing all sorts of monkey wrenches into the Bush administration's plans for war, the Sunday Herald reports that the US is breaking out its checkbook in order to persuade reluctant nations to sign on to war. "The US will be spending like a lottery winner in the coming weeks to try to secure the support, or at least the non interference, of key Arab states," the paper declares. Furthermore,

The US appears to expect no less than the UN should become a supine adjunct to the world's superpower, rubber-stamping its every foreign policy whim, while allowing it to opt out of inconvenient little treaties such as the International Criminal Court.

This is the new world order and it seems that the UN and its security council is powerless to stop it, mostly because ultimately the countries that make up the Security Council are, like the US, more concerned with their own self-interest than safeguarding the principles of international law.

The Secrets Will Remain Hidden

The GAO has given up on trying to hold Dick Cheney accountable. According to the AP, "The General Accounting Office on Friday declined to appeal a recent court ruling in favor of Cheney, leaving the fight to private groups that say the Bush White House must reveal which business executives and lobbyists had a role in influencing the [Bush administration's energy] plan."

Behind the Invasion of Iraq

According to Jacob Levich, "a Mumbai-based independent think tank has now anatomized the conspiracy behind the coming war and issued a truly comprehensive explanation of the current global crisis."

Behind the Invasion of Iraq, the startling new book-length report authored by the Research Unit for Political Economy (RUPE), synthesizes the seemingly disparate threads of the US war drive in what amounts to a blistering indictment of American foreign policy. The report (available on the Web at www.rupe-india.org) is lavishly documented and jargon-free; the effect, especially for readers with limited understanding of global commerce and finance, is of puzzle pieces clicking decisively into place.

The RUPE report wholly confirms the widely-held view of the coming war as a massive oil grab, "on a scale not witnessed since the days of colonialism." Further, the current debate about arms inspections and alleged links to al-Qaeda is revealed as pure political theater, since the decision to invade Iraq was made months ago.

But seizure of Iraq's multi-trillion-dollar petroleum reserves is only the immediate goal, the report shows. RUPE's rigorous analysis of publicly available sources -- including official documents, think-tank papers, and press reports -- reveals that the US intends to use the invasion of Iraq as a launching pad for a drastic reshaping of the Middle East, to be followed by an unprecedented expansion of US power worldwide. The strategic trend of US foreign policy now points unmistakably towards global empire.

(via gordon coale)

Questions Not Asked of Powell

Norman Solomon proposes some "basic questions" for Colin Powell which poke holes in his case for war, while Maria Tomchick critiques "Powell's Flimsy Evidence" on ZNet.

The "Logic" of the Hawks

Muqtedar Khan writes on the "irony, hypocrisy and absurdity" of the claim that a strong antiwar stance by the UN will make the institution irrelevant. He observes, "The US is determined to go along with International Law if it concurs with it or else the US is determined to break international law to impose international law (1441)! If the US violates any UN resolution how is its position different from that of Iraq's. Both will be in breach of UN resolutions."

Bankruptcy of the Bush Doctrine

William M. LeoGrande and Kenneth E. Sharpe argue that the Bush doctrine is counterproductive in today's LA Times. Rather than making the world a safer place, it creates a situation where smaller nations "have a greater incentive to acquire weapons of mass destruction as their only deterrent against the whims of the world's only superpower."

Paul Rogers, as usual, has made this point before.

If an Iraq war goes wrong...

The worst case scenario in an Iraq war is "nightmarish," according to Paul Koring of the Toronto Globe and Mail.

US lied about Gulf War missile Hits

Remember the accuracy of those Patriot missiles in the '91 Gulf War? Well, it turns out they weren't so accurate after all, according to a documentary which aired on the CBC's The Fifth Estate.

The No Spin Zone

Bill O'Reilly is off his rocker. He wrapped up his deplorable "interview" with Jeremy Glick by telling him to "Get out, get out of my studio before I tear you to f**king pieces!"

The Hamster also notes that O'Reilly broke out his racist vocabulary with a reference to Mexicans as "wetbacks" last Thursday. Nice.

Dissent!? Where?

John Nichols writes that the media are missing the dissent to war in Congress. "Ignoring" is probably a better way of putting it. Ruminate This has been on top of this story from the get-go.

Plagiarized (and Discredited) Claims

As you've probably heard, the Downing Street document on Iraq's "infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation," which was cited by Colin Powell last week as a "fine paper...which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities," is a sham. Amongst other pieces of old intelligence and academic studies, most dating back to the early 1990s, "Blair's document" heavily plagiarizes this article by Ibrahim al-Marashi, a post-graduate student from California.

Glen Rangwala, a Lecturer in Politics at Cambridge University, was the first to notice the plagiarism. Rangwala has also published a "First Response to Sec. Colin Powell's Presentation Concerning Iraq," as well as a more comprehensive analysis of claims concerning Iraq's supposed weapons capabilities.

Also, Firas Al-Atraqchi breaks down Colin Powell's "telling of a tall tale" at the UN last week.

Class Warfare

Bush's war on the poor continues.

President Bush has embarked on a far-reaching campaign to transform the federal government's relationship with the nation's poor, seeking to tip control over social services to the states, reduce the funding of some programs, and require more proof that low-income people are eligible for public help.

The $2.23 trillion budget that Bush proposed to Congress last week would loosen federal standards and hand states vast new authority, if they want it, over housing subsidies, unemployment benefits, health insurance and a preschool program for children from disadvantaged families, which is known as Head Start. It would also make outright cuts in some poverty programs, such as a reduction by a fourth in the amount the government devoted last year to "community services" grants for dispossessed neighborhoods.

At the same time, the president is seeking nearly $1.5 trillion in tax cuts that would largely benefit the wealthy while potentially squeezing social spending for years to come. White House officials contend that such cuts would ultimately help the poor more than direct government aid because they are supposed to spur faster economic growth, which would raise wages and pull more people into the workforce. In effect, they say, pro-investment tax policy is Bush's boldest anti-poverty program.

Plan for Iraq Occupation

The Observer has a summary of the United States' "three-stage plan for ruling the country after toppling Saddam's regime." And, please, try to keep in mind that we're not neocolonialists...

Toting the Casualties of War

A lot of people were killed the last time we went to war with Iraq, but getting an estimate has always been difficult. This could be because any projections that didn't match the US military's depiction of a "clean war" were suppressed.

According to a Q&A in Business Week, Beth Osborne Daponte made some estimates of casualties that didn't fly with then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. She nearly lost her job because of it.

Daponte was a 29-year-old Commerce Dept. demographer in 1992, when she publicly contradicted then-Defense Secretary Richard Cheney on the highly sensitive issue of Iraqi civilian casualties during the Gulf War. In short order, Daponte was told she was losing her job. She says her official report disappeared from her desk, and a new estimate, prepared by supervisors, greatly reduced the number of estimated civilian casualties.

Although Cheney said shortly after the 1991 Gulf War that "we have no way of knowing precisely how many casualties occurred" during the fighting "and may never know," Daponte had estimated otherwise: 13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system, she calculated.

In all, 40,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the conflict, she concluded, putting total Iraqi losses from the war and its aftermath at 158,000, including 86,194 men, 39,612 women, and 32,195 children.

...She has since published two studies in scholarly journals about the effects of economic sanctions on Iraqi children, and casualties from the 1991 Gulf War and its aftermath. Her final estimates were higher than her original ones: 205,500 Iraqis died in the war and postwar period, she believes today.

Blocking the Protests

NYC is still blocking the rally scheduled for this coming Saturday, the 15th. Now the city is citing "terrorist threats" as a reason why the march can't go forward. If you find this absurd, there is a petition online to encourage NYC to issue the permit. United for Peace also has some tips on how to raise a ruckus about this development.

The NY Sun, in the meantime, applauds the blockades that are being thrown up by the city. An editorial from the paper's Thursday edition proclaims:

Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly are doing the people of New York and the people of Iraq a great service by delaying and obstructing the anti-war protest planned for February 15. The longer they delay in granting the protesters a permit, the less time the organizers have to get their turnout organized, and the smaller the crowd is likely to be. And we wouldn’t want to overstate the matter, but, at some level, the smaller the crowd, the more likely that President Bush will proceed with his plans to liberate Iraq.

The last sentence summarizes the issue nicely: if you want to avert a war on Iraq, get out into the streets.

Truth behind US 'poison factory' claim exposed

...or a bakery.

Another one of Colin Powell's allegations from last Wednesday's UN presentation has been discredited. Luke Harding of the Observer reports,

The US Secretary of State last week confidently described the compound in north-eastern Iraq - run by an Islamic terrorist group Ansar al-Islam - as a 'terrorist chemicals and poisons factory.'

Yesterday, however, it emerged that the terrorist factory was nothing of the kind - more a dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy sloping hill. Behind the barbed wire, and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts, are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking.

...last Wednesday Powell suggested that the 500-strong band of Ansar fighters had links with both al-Qaeda and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. They were, he hinted, a global menace - and more than that they were the elusive link between Osama bin Laden and Iraq.

This is clearly little more than cheap hyperbole.

The NY Times and LA Times have also run stories debunking Powell's claim.

Update: Ok, there's more than a bakery in the compound. There's also a television editing studio.

US Plans for Use of Gas in Iraq

"Top US military planners are preparing for the US to use incapacitating biochemical weapons in an invasion of Iraq," alleges a news release from the Sunshine Project. This international NGO, which works to "avert the dangers of new weapons stemming form advances in biotechnology," contends that this is "the first official US acknowledgement that it may use (bio)chemical weapons in its crusade to rid other countries of such weapons."

The plans for the use of such weapons were revealed in the testimony of Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a February 5th appearance before the US House Armed Services Committee.

According to the news release,

plans are being made for multiple applications, including use of gas or aerosols on unarmed Iraqi civilians, in caves, and on prisoners. Rumsfeld reiterated the confusing, typical US official language about so-called "non-lethal" biochemical weapons. Rumsfeld described applications of a 'riot agent' that clearly imply the complete incapacitation of victims, combatant and non-combatant, in armed conflict - a definition and usages that are at odds with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Rumsfeld acknowledged US ratification of the CWC but expressed "regret" about its restrictions, stating that the US has "tangled ourselves up so badly" on policy for use of incapacitating biochemical weapons. Rumsfeld indicated that - in his opinion - if President Bush signs a waiver of long-standing restrictions on US use of incapacitating chemicals, that the US will be able to legally field them in Iraq and elsewhere.

On Counterpunch, Edward Hammond follows up on these revelations. The logic being deployed is impeccable: the US plans to use illegal biochemical weapons so that Iraq cannot develop illegal biochemical weapons.

They Want War

"No one wants war," Donald Rumsfeld told the audience at an international security conference in Munich this past weekend. "War is never a first or an easy choice. But the risks of war need to be balanced against the risks of doing nothing while Iraq pursues weapons of mass destruction."

Now, UPI reports that the US is "likely to reject a proposal France and Germany are crafting for beefed up U.N. arms inspections in Iraq, a plan being developed without consulting the United States."

"The proposal, to be presented next week to the U.N. Security Council, would send thousands of U.N. troops -- so-called 'blue helmets' -- and hundreds, possibly thousands, more inspectors to enforce U.N. resolutions calling for Iraq's disarmament."

This sure as hell looks like those "Old Europeans" are trying to do something, and yet the Americans are furious about this. And we're supposed to take the admonishment that Rumsfeld, et al. don't want to go to war seriously?!? Please! The US has essentially defined everything short of war as "doing nothing".