News Grab Bag

In the past few weeks, I’ve been overwhelmed with interesting clippings about events in Iraq. There are so many, I’m not really sure how to include them, beyond creating a general compilation, along with notes about why the link leads to something interesting.

Here goes:

April 19, 2004
-American soldiers killed two employees of the US Pentagon-funded Al Iraqiya television station. (SFGate.com) The article also discusses other recent killings of journalists by US forces.

April 16, 2004
-BBC’s Hostage Timeline. (BBC)

April 15, 2004
-US defends tactics at Falluja: The US siege of the Iraqi city of Falluja in which hundreds of people have died is "humane", the Pentagon's top soldier has told reporters. (BBC)

At least 87 US soldiers have died in action across Iraq this month while five international non-governmental organisations together counted at least 470 Iraqi dead in Falluja alone last week, Reuters news agency reports.

April 14, 2004
-Iraq death toll reaches new high (complete with charts). (BBC)
-Analysis: US 'emulates' Israeli tactics. (BBC) (Unfortunately, the US is seeking tips on how to occupy an unwilling nation from someone who hasn’t been ‘winning hearts and minds’ with their technique.)
-US in stand-off with Iraqi cleric. (BBC) "At least 87 US soldiers have died in action this month while aid agencies counted at least 470 Iraqi dead in the Sunni city of Falluja alone last week, with 243 women and 200 children among them."
-Viewpoint: Iraq worker's dilemma (BBC) is about a Syrian concerned for her brother, an employee of a Saudi company doing business in Iraq, whose roommates were kidnapped and who reports that many things happen in Iraq that never make it to TV. (BBC)

April 13, 2004
-Morley's World Opinion Roundup: "In Coalition Countries, Jitters About Staying in Iraq." (washingtonpost.com). The reports aren’t so positive:

The editors of the Financial Times , a leading voice of the British establishment, replied Monday that the problem is heavy-handed U.S. military tactics that alienate Iraqis. "Over-stretched, US forces are over-reacting and retaliating with heavy armour in a way that turns the innocent as well as the guilty against them," they say. "That is no recipe for political success."

-Foreign workers told to quit Iraq (BBC) after a wave of kidnappings.
-Iraqi officers 'refused to fight.' (BBC)
-West blasted over Iraq treasures. (BBC) More than 8,000 of the most valuable Iraqi cultural treasures are still missing, and the international community is turning a blind eye.
-NPR : Connie Rice Commentary: 10 Things Condi Didn't Say, which deals with the September 11th hearings, but which has implications associated with Iraq. (link to NPR audio file)

April 12, 2004
-Hundreds killed in Iraq, says US. (BBC) "US Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt said about 70 coalition troops had been killed in Iraq since 1 April, while casualties among insurgents were 10 times as high."
-This is an image file: "Bath party: Sgt. [] enjoys his first bath in about a month at a home held by the 1st Marine Regiment on the northwest side of Fallujah, Iraq." (sfgate.com) Can you figure out which part of this text alarmed me? Since when are U.S. forces occupying Iraqi homes?
-Iraqi troops reject Fallujah duty (BBC) "The troops were quoted as saying they had not signed up to fight Iraqis."
-Hundreds killed in Iraq, says US (BBC)
-Scale of Falluja violence emerges (BBC).

A group of five international charities estimated that about 470 people had been killed, while hospital officials put the death toll at about 600.

Reuters television footage from Falluja showed corpses of children, women and old men lying in the street beside body parts no one has had time to collect.

... The group said that at a conservative estimate, about 1,200 had been wounded, according to Reuters, which did not name the aid agencies involved.

April 10, 2004
- Analysis: US gamble on toughness: Iraqis feel the Americans have played into the hands of the extremists by letting themselves be drawn into a war on two fronts, says BBC's John Simpson. (BBC) Unpopular thugs are now popular because of US tactics against them.

April 8, 2004
-Sept. 11 Allegations Lost in Translation By Jefferson Morley (washingtonpost.com) discusses former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds' contentions that "[she] saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes," which she revealed in an interview with The Independent (by Andrew Buncombe, 04/02/04, (independent.co.uk) (payment required). The story has gotten significant coverage abroad, but nearly none in the US. The article discusses this issue as a matter of journalistic standards, without holding anyone to any. (If documents exist that prove Edmonds’ contentions, the press needs to demand them. But they don’t and then say that her contentions are unproven. Yet, had she leaked the documents, she’d be in the same situation as a Danish government employee, who leaked documents suggesting that his government knew that no WMDs would be found in Iraq, got fired, and now faces criminal charges. (04/15/04, BBC)

April 4, 2004
-Bush Loyalists Pack Iraq Press Office, by Jim Krane (AP) (Guardian.co.uk). The US coalition's press office is determined to help Bush get reelected, with numerous campaign workers appointed to their positions. "More than half a dozen CPA officials in the press office worked on Bush's 2000 presidential campaign or are related to Bush campaign workers, according to payroll records filed with the Federal Elections Commission." (British press officers are civil/foreign service career types, non-appointed.)

Today's episode of the audio program the World is especially great. (The show is always good, and frequently fabulous). If you're not a regular listener by either radio or web, I recommend that you start listening.

In the first segment, a Baghdad correspondent said that Iraqis who object to the occupation have always been very polite about it, but the situation of the US military attacking the people of Falluja has changed the tone: now locals are visibly disgusted by the presense of the US military. (File under 'Bad Signs.')

There was a segment about the Japanese government being annoyed that the recently freed Japanese hostages aren't quite as thankful as they should have been, which segwayed into a strange argument that the hostage crisis demonstrates that Japan needs to give up its self-defense-only constitution and build its military, because the hostage crisis showed that Japan can't protect its people. (!!!!!) Because a big military has nothing better to do than run around Iraq with the three that were hostages, who were an anti war activist, a humanitarian worker, and a journalist?? Because the US has the world's largest military, and that kept Americans safe from the September 11th attackers??? (What is this man smoking?)

Later, "Rami Khouri of Lebanon's English language newspaper, The Daily Star, and Italian journalist Ennio Caretto" (audio file) spoke about the differing coverage between the US and elsewhere. Caretto's comment that the war is much bloodier, more realistic, and crueler on European TV than in the US. American audiences see a much tidier, sanitized version of the war.

Doesn't it make sense that Europeans are opposed to the war because they're getting different information about it than we are? It certainly does.

Yesterday's episode featured a great interview with Rony Brauman of Medicins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders)(audio file). Brauman notes that the U.S. military created humanitarian crises in places such as Basra by disrupting local supplies, and then used the disruption to justify further desired military action. He has written an essay discussing the difficult situation humanitarian organizations are placed in when the language of humanitarian aid is coopted for purely political, non-humanitarian purposes. It's worth listening to.

Brutality

It's strange to be back, wallowing in the ego, pride, illogical rationalizations, and impassioned testimony about the use of violence against us and against others after a break from it. It seems even more ridiculous after time away.

During my vacation, there was only one moment when politics & violence came up in discussion with one of the few strangers we encountered while camping in the backcountry. Just in passing, a healthy young man who had broken away from his companions for some exploration chatted with us about conditions in the area, and then made passing reference to our country's 'disastrous' foreign policy, and a short comment that US chances for success will be determined by 'whether or not we are willing to be brutal enough.'

S and I shrugged this comment off and went back to discussing local conditions, partly because the youth didn't sound like he meant it. (There's a lot of repeating phrases heard on TV in our culture, and it sounded like this could be one such senseless repetition.) But also, it would be hard to discuss without appearing to come down hard on our upbeat new acquaintance. Brutality is the wrong answer to just about every worthwhile question associated with Iraq.

How brutal does the US have to be to Iraqis to:
-make up for intelligence failures relating to an Afghan group?
-avenge the September 11th attacks against an innocent people with no connection to the attacks?
-find non-existent weapons of mass destruction?
-liberate them?
-convince them that foreign occupation is very similar to liberation?
-get consent to privatizing all Iraqi natural resources and industries?
-force a "lite" version of Democracy on them, when they want the real thing?
-create internal "national" unity, even though the 'nation' was forced together by the British?***
-make them like us?

Brutality just isn't an appropriate means to succeed in these goals except for unity, but not in a good way: there is now an increasing national unity against U.S. occupation, but nothing else.

Occupation doesn't lead to 'winning hearts and minds,' a precursor to many of the US' other aims. It can't. It isn't. It won't. New approaches are required. We could try, for example, listening to the Iraqis. (!!!!)

The best news summary of what occurred while I was out of town is "Did the US miscalculate in Iraq?
Iraqi officials, British commanders say US has mishandled the situation in Iraq," by Tom Regan (csmonitor.com, 04/12/04). I highly recommend this article and many links provided within the text.

I've been in The Great Outdoors since Sunday, away from all things that beep, honk, or report news.

My first glimmer of news came a few hours ago while visiting a relative in a hospital on the way home from the trip. There was a newspaper under her bed. While she slept, I perused the first section of the Contra Costa Times, and read a bit more once I came home this evening. The main story was about the worsening situation in Iraq (entitled "Baghdad and Parts of Central Iraq Chaotic"), including reports of 45 US soldiers' deaths this week alone; the US Marines defensive statements after bombing a mosque complex in Fallujah; word that three Japanese aid workers are being held hostage, and separate violent resistence efforts by both Sunni- and Shiite-backed factions who, despite their differences, all loathe the American occupation. (all links to contracostatimes.com).

It's very sad that things have gotten even worse since I last had access to news.

While there is something of a party line criticism accepting Bush's revised premises for war, yet pointing out the failures even in that context (same), I notice that the peace movement's premise that war and bombings couldn't bring peace and stability to a country are still not part of the discussion.

That's also sad.

The only options of permissable discourse from this limited sample of mainstream press material appear to be a) whether or not to bomb & occupy more (even though bombing and US occupation have not achieved previous stated goals) or b) whether to end the occupation but allow Iraq to descend into violence and chaos in the immediate future (even though violence and chaos are currently extant and appear to be increasing).

Continuing to make the same choices again and again while expecting different results are proverbial dictionary definitions of insanity. It is sad to learn that no wisdom has been gained during recent days (weeks, months, years...).

I was going to post a rant about the fluidity of American morality after being disgused by Dennis Miller whining at guest Eric Alterman about how it was really okay that Saddam Hussein gassed Kurds when he was our friend, because Iran 'was a bigger threat,' as if that would ever make gassing ANYONE okay... And then I got annoyed by the run-on-sentence nature of it all...

But then I decided to post something lighthearted instead. So here it is: "Charlie McCarthy Hearings" by Maureen Dowd. (04/01/04 NYTimes). Favorite line: "The President at all times, even on trips to the men's room, will be accompanied by the Vice President."

The Iraqi press should be free... but not TOO free. (sfgate.com photo - see sfgate article for more.)

The Iraqi press should be free... but not TOO free. (sfgate.com photo)

Another sad day without peace and security in Iraq

Just before my afternoon meeting I listened to the first half of 60 Minutes (cbsnews.com), where there was an extensive discussion of today's deaths of 4 civilians in Fallujah. (5 soldiers were also killed elsewhere.) They were killed with grenades and, quite appallingly, had their remains dragged through town. One correspondent discussed all the possible things civilians could have been doing for the Iraqi people, like supplying electricity or running water... but not what these particular civilians were actually doing.

According Five U.S. troops, four American. civilians die in day of 'horrific' violence in Iraq, by Robert Burns (sfgate.com/AP), there is information that the "civilians" were former military personnel providing [armed] security services for the military.

Early evidence indicated that the four civilian contractors worked for Blackwater Security Consulting, a company based in Moyock, N.C., the company said in a statement. The company is a security firm that hires former military members from the United States and other countries to provide security training and guard services. In Iraq, the company was hired by the Pentagon to provide security for convoys that delivered food in the Fallujah area, the company statement said.

(Similar info is available in this Washington Post article.)

I noticed this odd omission from the 60 Minutes reporting because a friend of mine has pointed out that "private contractors" or "civilian contractors" in many cases actually means "mercenaries" employed by private, for-profit armies.

They're good "civilian contractors" if they're working for us; they may be bad "foreign fighters" if they're working for others.

Right before I turned my radio off, it finally came it up: one of the hostesses asked why these "civilians" had DOD-issued dog tags, and the answer was that most of these "civilian contractors" are former military personnel, and they're functioning in a similar capacity now for the DOD... It may not come up in all reporting of the incident, however. I've now heard several news stories that omitted what role these contractors had, which is somewhat relevant. (It could not justify the treatment of their remains, but it does mean the men were armed foreigners, which makes the situation make slightly more sense.)

[Also see "Occupiers Spend Millions On Private Army of Security Men" by Robert Fisk and Severin Carrell in the Independent UK (truthout.org, 03/28/04) on how mercenaries are acting like, well, mercenaries during their time in Iraq...]

The September 11th Commission hearings and their aftermath (Or, 1000 reasons to read the Washington Post)

I haven't been writing as much as I've been reading and listening to the news of recent weeks as it has unfolded.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States ("the 9-11 Commission") hearings have undoubtedly been THE media feeding frenzy of recent weeks. The hearings have been broadcast live on countless radio stations. Their purpose is to "prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." Mysteriously, the commission was long opposed by the current administration, who has provided various levels of cooperation with the Commission.

Much of the testimony I heard was very polite and professional, with blame cast on no one in particular, and a shared theory that little could have been done to prevent the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center in New York. The testimony was faster paced than I expected, and more educational: one of the questioners pointed out that decision makers seemed to never be presented with more options when presented with likely or possible terrorist facility location intelligence other than a) cruise missiles or b) the Normandy invasion. The questioner wanted to know why there weren't options presented in between. It took a while for the gentleman testifying in response to mention that there were options outside the narrow spectrum of missiles-to-Normandy, which was of concern to me. I was relieved when the idea of sending investigators (overt or covert) to actually visit a site to find out what it was used for eventually came up, but...

[An anti-Clinton opinion piece called 'The Clinton Mindset' by Peter Feaver (washingtonpost.com,03/24/04) actually suggests that the only option available to Clinton was cruise missiles, because the military was so opposed to Clinton's very existence. "A White House that could not prevail over military objections to using ground troops in Kosovo would have had a hard time overcoming institutional military objections." Feaver then blames Clinton for being a weak leader for this predicament, rather than military disloyalty, and insists that this lack of control over the military made us a target, and Bush is better/stronger because he invaded Iraq without a mandate. So the true measure of Presidential success is what you can get away with...]

Eventually, the tone of blamelessness gradually dissolved as past and present government officials suggested that nothing effective could have been done during their own watch, implying fault by others. (BBC)

And then came Richard Clarke, Republican, former Bush Administration counter-terrorism expert, and author of a new book which states that Bush didn't make terrorism an urgent priority. (BBC) (see also Washington Post summary) As with another Republican administration official who criticized Bush's decision making, the Bush Administration has gone bonkers trying to discredit him. In Bush, Clarke and A Shred of Doubt by Richard Cohen (washingtonpost.com, 03/23/04), the oddity of Bush's people so eager to discredit people they chose to work with doesn't add up.

As with former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, another fool who had somehow risen to become chairman of Alcoa, Clarke's account of his more than two years in the Bush White House was immediately denounced by a host of administration aides, some of whom -- and this is just the sheerest of coincidences -- had once assured us that Iraq was armed to the teeth with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Why is it that former Bush aides are all telling the same story?

That's a question we're not supposed to ask. Terror experts 'almost quit' in frustration with Bush
by Rupert Cornwell (Independent (UK), 03/25/04) makes the list of allegedly disgruntled employees longer, by reporting "that two veteran CIA counter-terrorism experts were so frustrated in summer 2001 that they considered resigning and making public their fears about an imminent terrorist strike against US targets."

The list of names of those within the Bush Administration who can't agree with its policies is growing. The best summary of this is The Professionals' Revolt by Harold Meyerson (washingtonpost.com, 03/24/04). This is an amazing article on internal rebellion by Republicans, and it names names:

Step back a minute and look at who has left this administration or blown the whistle on it, and why. Clarke enumerates a half-dozen counterterrorism staffers, three of whom were with him in the Situation Room on Sept. 11, who left because they felt the White House was placing too much emphasis on the enemy who didn't attack us, Iraq, and far too little on the enemy who did.

But that only begins the list. There's Paul O'Neill, whose recent memoir recounts his ongoing and unavailing battle to get the president to take the skyrocketing deficit seriously. There's Christie Todd Whitman, who appears in O'Neill's memoir recalling her own unsuccessful struggles to get the White House to acknowledge the scientific data on environmental problems. There's Eric Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, who told Congress that it would take hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to adequately secure postwar Iraq. There's Richard Foster, the Medicare accountant, who was forbidden by his superiors from giving Congress an accurate assessment of the cost of the administration's new program. All but Foster are now gone, and Foster's sole insurance policy is that Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress were burnt by his muzzling.

If you read any one article about the Bush Administration's internal dynamic, this should be the one.

But back to Clarke. Clarke's testimony and recent interviews are fascinating. In this Fresh Air interview (npr.org, 03/24/04), Clarke reveals that when he turned in his 9/11 report that blamed Al Qaeda but not Saddam Hussein, his memo cleared with CIA and FBI, but Bush's people returned it with a variation of 'wrong answer - do it again.' Clarke notes that the three major concerns of the outgoing Clinton intelligence personnel (Al Qaeda, the Arab-Israel Peace Process, and North Korea) appeared to become the lowest priorities of the Bush Administration, which fuels the perception that Bush's people had such a reactionary aversion to Clinton's administration and its ideas that it couldn't objectively look at the available information. (Great conceptual statement: 'There are more police in Manhattan than there are troops that the US put in Afghanistan.' I guess that shows how concerned we STILL are about terrorism there!)

Attempts to discredit Clarke are in full swing. But with a catch: Clarke's former boss, Condoleezza Rice, has been attempting to discredit his testimony while refusing to publicly testify herself. Rice's attempts to point to inconsistencies in Clarke's testimony has only called attention to her statements which conflict with those of her Bush Administration peers. (washingtonpost.com)

At the same time, some of Rice's rebuttals of Clarke's broadside against Bush, which she delivered in a flurry of media interviews and statements rather than in testimony, contradicted other administration officials and her own previous statements.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before 9/11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban; the CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats; and Rice's assertion this week that Bush told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that "Iraq is to the side" appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.

Rice, in turn, has contradicted Vice President Cheney's assertion that Clarke was "out of the loop" and his intimation that Clarke had been demoted. Rice has also given various conflicting accounts. She criticized Clarke for being the architect of failed Clinton administration policies, but also said she retained Clarke so the Bush administration could continue to pursue Clinton's terrorism policies.

Rice's appearances on a variety of major media outlets while refusing to provide sworn testimony have attracted more and more attention to these problems. Some of Rice's private comments to the commission may wind up being released as a compromise to ward off even more bad press. (also washingtonpost.com, which has been FABULOUS as a source on this story.)

Perhaps that is why Condi looks SO VERY ANGRY in this photo. (Time magazine cover illustrating this BBC article)...

*

The problem that has become apparent to me is that nothing substantive that our government does has changed for the better in the wake of the WTC attacks. THAT is really the main point of concern for those of us listening to these hearings, and the point of the commission. The Bush Administration may want mileage out of posturing as a protector of the nation, but we do NOT need posturing: we need a real plan, and people who are willing to put safety and security above their own geopolitical agendas. If that isn't happening, we need new leadership to MAKE it happen.

Intro to Clarke 101

A few days ago, a friend of mine forwarded a message from her right-wing brother, insisting that anything former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke says which is in any way hurtful to the President is some sort of partisan Democratic conspiracy.

Her brother was blissfully unaware that Clarke is Republican, apparently.

She asked me to compile a few links that might educate a guy who relies on White House press releases for information, emphasizing the recent historic pattern within this administration of lying. And so this is what I sent:

----------
...I haven't seen the original comments [she sent to her brother], but I assume it relates to R. Clarke's reporting on what went on in the Bush White House.

Clarke has served 7 U.S. Presidents and has a 30 year career in government service, his book comes out at about the right amount of time (1 year of work after his resignation) both in terms of how long it took to write and when it's most likely to sell, and his complaints are reinforced by similar complaints made by former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, a man who was considered to have impeccable conservative/business credentials prior to his firing for disagreeing that tax cuts for the wealthy were a good idea.

Clarke's testimony to the 9/11 commission will be FASCINATING.

SO. While conservatives aren't big on facts (his facts will probably be White House Press Releases!!) My recommendations would be:

Clarke to Testify Wednesday (9/22/04, page with NPR audio file) About Clarke's reputation and allegations. Clarke was "Intensely loyal and mostly apolitical." Includes gripes by Bush Administration about the timing. "One of the nation's finest public servants."

BEST: 9/11 Commission Set to Convene (9/22/04, page with NPR audio file) Clarke issued repeated warnings to the Bush Administration, and was not allowed to brief Bush until after 9/11. "On 1/24/01 I wrote a memo to [Condi] asking for - URGENTLY, underlined, URGENTLY - a cabinet level meeting to deal with the impending Al Queda attack. And that urgent memo wasn't acted on." The response was basically that Bush had a plan anyway, and took Al Queda "seriously," and that was enough. (Condi has basically said this in her recent responses.) Clarke also says he was pushed to find a link to Iraq. Includes gripes by Bush Administration about the timing.

Audio interview with investigative reporter Michael Elliott on The World. January 2001 proposals to stop Al Queda didn't please Bush Administration, so they took a very long time to come up with new, grander proposals to eliminate Al Queda. Bush was skeptical about what he was told, and Condi wasn't impressed by the briefings. This is a non-partisan critique of the systemic transition problem.

Paul O'Neill, who was fired for publicly disagreeing with Bush over the merits of tax cuts, made statements supporting Clark's assertion that Bush's people only cared about Iraq. (BBC) Small excerpt:

The author of the new book, Ron Suskind, told CBS that he had received documents from Mr O'Neill and others which showed that during Mr Bush's first 100 days in office his officials were already looking at military options to remove Saddam from power.

O'Neill has also said he never saw evidence of the existence of WMDs - and he was in the cabinet! (This one is also fun, just for its harshness: [comments about dysfunctional administration]. (BBC))

Perhaps things would have gone smoother if Bush hadn't been on vacation so much: Ask Yahoo points out that "Bush has taken 250 days off as of August 2003. That's 27% of his presidency spent on vacation." (ask.yahoo.com) (The appropriate right-wing defense to this, by the way, is 'at least it wasn't with an intern.' Because THAT is a meaningful response, hee hee...)

If your brother chooses to use any White House statements to refute Clarke, he'll have a hard time, considering all the documented lies that Bush has been caught telling:

pantsonfire.net Catalogs of lies
Caught On Film (a good catalog)
Bushlies.com (yes, there's a BOOK full of them)
whodies.com
bushwatch.com
buzzflash.com's compilation (July 2003 chart of lies known at that time)
Alterman's comments on how the press is shy about calling Bush a liar, but were fine with saying so about Clinton (thenation.com)
an example of the press being unwilling to call Bush a liar, yet listing some of his "flights of fancy" which aren't true (Washington Post)

And if you want to torment him with opinion, this is short and sweet: Paul Krugman's "Weak on Terror" points out that Bush has given Al Qaeda huge amounts of time to regroup while focusing on non-threatening, WMD-less Iraq. (originally in the NY Times, now at dailystar.com and elsewhere)

The two stories that have dominated the U.S. news in recent days, are the change of government in Spain, and the revelations by a counter-terrorism expert who has worked for four presidents that Bush ignored his warnings that could have prevented the September 11th attacks.

The dramatic loss by Spain's ruling party and rise of socialists there (BBC) is widely seen as a reaction to the recent terrorist train attack there, in the context that the ruling party created new enemies by siding with Bush on Iraq over 90% public opposition.

"It's the first time I voted. I feel very happy because the government had to change... because of the Iraq war," a Spanish law student told the BBC.

In the United States, the Spanish results have been met with surprise: culturally, Americans believe that it's disloyal to let such an event impact local decisions. One colleague told me that they shouldn't have 'changed their minds just because they got hit,' and found it unlikely that decisions unpopular with 90% of the populace made more than a year ago could have been influential. (!)

If the U.S. were attacked again, "the traditional effect is a rally," unless people blame the Administration for failing to protect them. (seattletimes) [There's a new poll that theoretically supports this position, but I can't find it.]

And then there are the revelations by Richard Clark that the Bush Administration was so obsessed with Iraq that they virtually ignored Al Queda. (BBC) A friend watched Clark's recent appearance on television, and couldn't figure out why his story wasn't on the front page of all our papers. A day later, it largely was: recent coverage includes this live chat in the Washington Post with GREAT links about Clark's allegations, Bush's non-action on counter-terrorism information put forward by Clinton's people, and links to documents elsewhere and on the Post's own site. Also see this BBC article.

As Clark partly predicted, the Bush Administration is harmed by his statements, and so had to attempt to discredit him. As I joked with friends, the Administration had to decide whether to allege that Clark is either a) a disgruntled former employee; b) a pedophile; c) a Clinton-lover trying to cover for Clinton's own failure to pre-emptively kill bin Laden (really, this is a turn some right-wing blogs have taken, perhaps to make excuses for Bush's inaction in what Franken called Operation Ignore); d) a member of Al Qaeda; or e) a complete nutcase. a) appears to be their working plan, questioning the motives of anyone who would publish such a thing during the election season. They have to defend this situation with energy, because this is the second departed official with criticism, former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill having also been harsh on the Administration, despite his own conservative/business credentials.

The Invasion of Iraq: One Year of War and Occupation

The promised 'cakewalk' for control of Iraq turned into a war that cost more than 10,000 civilian lives (Iraqbodycount.net), more than 500 U.S. soldier's lives (washingtonpost.com), and the maiming of thousands more (Iraqometer.com). The weapons of mass destruction which were supposedly an imminent threat to Americans do not appear to exist. The former US ally-turned-monstrous threat turned out to be an old man hiding in a dirty hole rather than an all-powerful arch-villain with his finger on a red button. Many of the Iraqi people are relieved that their tyrannical ex-ruler is gone (aside from those who benefitted from his rule, of course), but fear that they are now being occupied by a stronger tyrant - the US military and the US Provisional Authority which are busy privatizing Iraqi public assetts.

On March 20th, the anniversary of the US' invasion of Iraq, people around the world expressed their opposition to the use of war and to the occupation.

Selected news and images:
-San Francisco peace march photos (by me); SF peace march photos 2 and 3; Scenes from arrests at an SF breakaway march; March and Bikes Not Bombs; and scary stuff: video of police attacking people on sidewalk
-German Indymedia's compilation of M20 protest images from around the world
-International Indymedia's compilation of links to demonstration news and images as reported from around the world, including Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, Brussels, Belgium, Chicago, Crawford (Texas), Dublin (Ireland, not our Dublin), Goeteborg (Sweden), East Timor, London, and 9 other locations.
-New York peace march photos
-Iraq anti-occupation demonstration photos (featuring lively commentary on the fact that the Iraqis are allowed to protest means everything is fine, and so all those pesky civilian deaths and extrajudicial killings must be okey dokey)
-Barcelona for peace
-Phillipines (Manila) protest photos
-BBC worldwide protest overview and photos from around the globe. According to the BBC, there were protests in New York, Rome (300,000), London (25,000), New York, Chicago, SF, Los Angeles, Budapest, Mardrid (100,000), Barcelona (200,000), Sydney, Tokyo (30,000), and unspecified locations in Chile, Venezuela, Brazil, Thailand, the Phillipines, Hong Kong, and various Middle Eastern capitals. (This article insists there were no protests in Baghdad; the Indymedia image collection suggests otherwise.)
-SF Chronicle coverage of local protests.

Nerve

It takes a lot of nerve to try to take credit for being a protector of people your government virtually ignored while they were being massacred, but that's not a problem for U.S. Administrator for Iraq Paul Bremer. Bremer visited the memorial to the massacre at Halabja (BBC), which commemmorates the mass murder of 5000 Kurdish people by Saddam Hussein 16 years ago, which Bremer says justifies last year's Iraq war. (!)

There's a catch, of course. The Kurdish prime minister comments in the same article on the topic:

Just before Mr Bremer spoke, the Kurdish prime minister in the Halabja region, Barham Salih, criticised the United States.

He said that US and world indifference to Saddam Hussein at the time of the Halabja attack was the reason the Iraqi leader remained in power for so long.

I think the Kurdish PM is being diplomatic. After all, the US Administration at the time didn't object to the gas attack.

[Context-free comments regarding dropping] sanctions are removed from the larger and more precise context that has the United States befriending, arming, and providing intelligence to Saddam Hussein during the time of his bloodiest endeavors -- the invasion of Iran, the use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, and the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds. All of these were events, literally tens of thousands of times more bloody and vile than the relatively innocuous invasion of Kuwait, with which the United States essentially oversaw and found no problem. The Halabja incident, now invoked in somber tones typically reserved for such horrifying events as the Jewish Holocaust as well as being exploited by President Bush, wasn't even condemned at the time it took place in 1988. (globalpolicy.org)

The chemical weapons that the US fusses over now as proof of Saddam Hussein's inherent evil led to some public condemnations, but in terms of policy and relations were not objectionable at all when used against the Iranians in the years prior to the Halabja massacre, either. At the time, the US was actively courting Saddam Hussein by having Donald Rumsfeld make personal trips there to try to improve relations with him.

Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons" [Document 47]. Briefings for Rumsfeld's meetings noted that atmospherics in Iraq had deteriorated since his December visit because of Iraqi military reverses and because "bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later" [Document 48]. Rumsfeld was to discuss with Iraqi officials the Reagan administration's hope that it could obtain Export-Import Bank credits for Iraq, the Aqaba pipeline, and its vigorous efforts to cut off arms exports to Iran.... (National Security Archive, Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984)

[I very much recommend the National Security Archive as the source of all sorts of great information. On a related note, read Iraq: Declassified Documents of U.S. Support for Hussein With Joyce Battle, Middle East Analyst, National Security Archive at George Washington University, a discussion session at washingtonpost.com.]

The use of chemical weapons is either evil, or it's not -- it shouldn't matter what the ethnicity or nationality of the victims are. US objections to chemical attacks against one group (Kurds) yet not another (Iranians) is self-serving, but neither moral nor ethical.

[To hear Bremer's comments and some additional criticism from Kurds, listen to The World's 3/16/04 audio report. (theworld.org)]

*

Bechtel was the subject of yesterday's 'Shut Down the War Profiteers' Action at Bechtel HQ in downtown San Francisco (link to my photos at sf.indymedia.org; see also a short article in the Chronicle (sfgate.com)). From Kosovo to Iraq, Bechtel appears to have used its political connections and heavy political contributions to land work (www.warprofiteers.com), rather than relying on its experience alone.

Government watchdogs noted that all six of the companies bidding on the contract Bechtel won Thursday donated heavily to American politicians -- $3.6 million between 1999 and 2002, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Most of the money went to Republicans. Bechtel and its employees contributed $1.3 million to federal campaigns and candidates over the past three years, with 59 percent going to Republicans and the rest to Democrats.(warprofiteers.com)

"...within days of the American occupation of Iraq, Bechtel of San Francisco, California, was hired to repair the power system, telephone exchanges and hospitals, weeks after multi-billionaire Riley Bechtel, the principal shareholder, was sworn in as a member of President Bush's Export Council to advise the government on how to create markets for American companies overseas." (warprofiteers.com)

Bechtel has a long history of immoral behavior in Iraq: After the US Senate passed the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" to put economic sanctions in place against Iraq for gassing 5000 Kurds, "Bechtel representatives said that if economic sanctions contained in Senate Act are signed into law, Bechtel will turn to non-U.S. suppliers of technology and continue to do business in Iraq." (PDF (Document 11) from Saddam Hussein: More Secret History at Georgetown's National Security Archive) "...the U.S. corporation, now part of President George W. Bush's project to bring democracy to post-Saddam Iraq, courted the dictatorial regime with full knowledge of Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and the Kurds -- with the approval of U.S. diplomats." (commondreams.org)

All this, yet Bechtel representatives had the nerve to accuse those who protested outside it's offices that the protesters were aiding and abetting the enemy, despite its own history of doing business with a regime that was gassing its people!! (Answering machine recording within the documentary We Interrupt This Empire (videoactivism.com))

Nerve. And nerve gas, but mainly nerve.

The New Pentagon Papers by Karen Kwiatkowski (salon.com) is a lengthy essay from a longtime career employee of an intelligence department, providing an inside scoop on the intelligence community's actions in the run up to the Iraq war. She observed the erosion of intelligence information in favor of political posturing under the influence of Bush appointees. Her initial scene-setting (telling us who everyone was and whether or not they were an appointee) is dry, but it gets better.

(My favorite line isn't actually substantive, but I find it entertaining: "Neoconservatives are fairly easy to study, mainly because they are few in number, and they show up at all the same parties.")

She makes many educational observations:

The talking points were a series of bulleted statements, written persuasively and in a convincing way, and superficially they seemed reasonable and rational. Saddam Hussein had gassed his neighbors, abused his people, and was continuing in that mode, becoming an imminently dangerous threat to his neighbors and to us -- except that none of his neighbors or Israel felt this was the case. Saddam Hussein had harbored al-Qaida operatives and offered and probably provided them with training facilities -- without mentioning that the suspected facilities were in the U.S./Kurdish-controlled part of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was pursuing and had WMD of the type that could be used by him, in conjunction with al-Qaida and other terrorists, to attack and damage American interests, Americans and America -- except the intelligence didn't really say that. Saddam Hussein had not been seriously weakened by war and sanctions and weekly bombings over the past 12 years, and in fact was plotting to hurt America and support anti-American activities, in part through his carrying on with terrorists -- although here the intelligence said the opposite....

Kwiatkowski details the changes made to assignments when experienced intelligence officers kept insisting on using the supported facts that they had, rather than the political speculation and fearmongering that was desired of them. There were times when Kwiatkowski heard statements on TV from politicians' mouths which had no basis in the information intelligence officers like herself had access to, and while she wished to assume they were based on facts unavailable to her, that wasn't necessarily the case.

Some bullets were softened, particularly statements of Saddam's readiness and capability in the chemical, biological or nuclear arena. Others were altered over time to match more exactly something Bush and Cheney said in recent speeches.

Yes, you read that right: the intelligence reports had to be changed to reflect what speechwriters were putting into administration speeches, rather than the other way around.

This is a short review of a very long article, but I recommend that you go to Salon and read an insider's view of the Bush Administration's failure to use the intelligence community and its skills in favor of a pre-existing political agenda to manipulate public opinion.

The first Guantanamo detainee to speak to the press, Jamal Udeen, a web designer and father of three, describes inhumane conditions , beatings, and psychological torture used against detainees. (BBC)

Finally it's becoming clear(er) to me why the US doesn't want to participate in international bodies that punish flouters of international law...

The US has decided to try a bit harder to capture bin Laden. (news.yahoo.com) And, consistent with the 'kill 'em first and ask questions later' approach the US has been on for some time, they are killing lots of suspects. From the same item:

An Afghan army commander in southern Kandahar province, Haji Granai, told The Associated Press that U.S. aircraft killed 12 suspected Taliban in a pickup truck there Thursday.

Granai said the planes struck in Maruf district, some 160 miles east of Kandahar city, where suspected Taliban killed seven Afghan soldiers in a March 3 raid on a border post.

That's kind of convenient: it saves all that messy fact finding and justice system work that would ordinarily be associated with depriving a dozen individuals of their lives...

Today I saw on the front page of our local paper a HUGE photograph of the demonstrations in Spain against terrorism. (SFGate.com) Now that I've read the accompanying article, I find it odd that the paper didn't contest attendance, happy to accept that 2.5 million people participated.

Odd, that. And there was no insinuation that the demonstrators were not patriotic. And there was no attribution of any violence or crime in the region being blamed automatically on the demonstrators.

It was such a contrast to the sort of reporting we get about our own local demonstrations. 'Quite amazing.

*

(As a related aside, one of the same central squares in Madrid was the site of a huge anti-war protest prior to the US' attack on Iraq. THAT didn't make the front pages here, unlike the assembly in that same square this time.)

How long has it been since I mentioned the possibility of the US starting to draft soldiers? Too longer, perhaps. The US Government is considering a 'special skills' draft of people with computer and language skills. (sfgate) The article notes that a draft is "far off" because the effort "is strictly in the planning stage" and could take two years.

I think the people who don't think two years is far off are well over the age limit for draftees...

The US holds about 640 people without charge at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. As of Tuesday, 105 people have now been released from Guantanamo Bay without charges. (audio file - theworld.org) While members of the British government note that two years of life has been stolen without cause for the 5 Britons just released, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld would rather imply that everyone captured is guilty of something, even if the US can't figure out what that is, perhaps in hopes of limiting sympathy for those wrongly held.

In this audio clip, Rumsfeld acknowledges a very poor statistic to justify wrongly holding hundreds of people:

"...I've been told by senior people in this department that of the people who have been released, we know of at least one who has gone back to being a terrorist. So life isn't perfect! In other words, you can make mistakes in evaluating these people. Let's hope that none of these do."

(Transcription mine.) Yes, even after holding hundreds of people for two years, the US has released 105, and believes that just one of those people it released has become a terrorist! Less than 1 percent of those RELEASED!! So 104 of 105 people released were... well, how shall I put this... innocent of any crime they could be charged for.

More disturbing language from Rumsfeld:

The goal was to take these people off a battlefield, and keep they away from killing other people. And that's been accomplished. That's a good thing, for two years, that's not a bad thing. Second, the goal was to interrogate them, find out what do they know...so they get interrogated for a couple of years, then at some point you say, 'we think we got what we need out of this crowd' of 5 people, and let's move 'em along, we don't want to keep everybody at Guantanamo...

(transcription again mine) THIS is what repressive governments have always done: sloppy work that denies individuals of liberty and human rights, for NOTHING.

*

The follow up interview with human rights attorney Clive Stafford-Smith is very informative. (audio file, theworld.org) A $4500 bounty was offered to anyone in Afghanistan who could hand over "Taliban" members, which resulted in some greedy people abducting foreigners for the money. (I'd never heard that before.) He also points out that several Britons were abducted from other countries, such as Pakistan and the Zambia, and there is documentation of this, but the Bush Administration's line still remains that everyone swept up was captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan.

Stafford-Smith notes that even perpetrators of Nazi war crimes got TRIALS, had lawyers, and went through a proper process to establish their guilt or innocence, and that the US isn't bothering to meet any similar justice standard.

Why is the US government afraid to do things right? (Does that less than 1% non-success rate of correctly identifying terrorists have anything to do with it?)