How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence

How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence: "[In 2002] Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had 'irrefutable evidence' - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges" ... But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials... Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. ... But if the opinions of the nuclear experts were seemingly disregarded at every turn, an overwhelming momentum gathered behind the C.I.A. assessment. It was a momentum built on a pattern of haste, secrecy, ambiguity, bureaucratic maneuver and a persistent failure in the Bush administration and among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to ask hard questions. ... Last week, when asked about the tubes, administration officials said they relied on repeated assurances by George J. Tenet... Mr. Tenet declined to be interviewed. But in a statement, he said he "made it clear" to the White House "that the case for a possible nuclear program in Iraq was weaker than that for chemical and biological weapons." ... "But we always think in terms that we've got all the evidence,'' [Cheney] said. "Here, we don't have all the evidence. We have 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent. We don't know how much. We know we have a part of the picture. And that part of the picture tells us that he is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons." ... But at the start of the Bush administration, the intelligence agencies also agreed that Iraq had not in fact resumed its nuclear weapons program. Iraq's nuclear infrastructure, they concluded, had been dismantled by sanctions and inspections. In short, Mr. Hussein's nuclear ambitions appeared to have been contained. ... Suddenly, Joe's work was ending up in classified intelligence reports being read in the White House. Indeed, his analysis was the primary basis for one of the agency's first reports on the tubes, which went to senior members of the Bush administration on April 10, 2001. The tubes, the report asserted, "have little use other than for a uranium enrichment program." This alarming assessment was immediately challenged by the Energy Department, which builds centrifuges and runs the government's nuclear weapons complex. The next day, Energy Department officials ticked off a long list of reasons why the tubes did not appear well suited for centrifuges. Simply put, the analysis concluded that the tubes were the wrong size - too narrow, too heavy, too long - to be of much practical use in a centrifuge. What was more, the analysis reasoned, if the tubes were part of a secret, high-risk venture to build a nuclear bomb, why were the Iraqis haggling over prices with suppliers all around the world? And why weren't they shopping for all the other sensitive equipment needed for centrifuges? ... "

The debate was over whether anyone would be fooled, as usual.

Britain: Labour Party conference endorses occupation of Iraq

Britain: Labour Party conference endorses occupation of Iraq "On the day the Labour conference conducted its debate?one forced on it by a number of Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs)?a series of bombings in Baghdad killed more than 41 people, 34 of them children. The September 30 bombings were claimed by an Islamic opposition group, but they were only one of many bloody incidents throughout the country. The BBC reports in that one day:
* A US soldier killed by a rocket fired at a US base near Baghdad,
* A senior policeman shot dead in the northern city of Mosul,
* Also in the north, the Kirkuk mayor?s chief bodyguard shot dead, * Four people killed in a car bombing in Talafar that also injured about 16 others,
* At least four children among six or seven people killed in Falluja after US forces allegedly fired on their car, and
* At least three civilians killed in a US air strike on Falluja overnight. The media, as usual, focuses on the barbaric actions of the fundamentalist groups and ignores the painful truth that it is the brutality of the occupation forces that is claiming most lives and fuelling resistance. That same evening, the US began a ferocious assault on the town of Samarra, a predominantly Sunni Muslim city, north of Baghdad. Using warplanes and armoured vehicles, US forces claimed to have killed 94 ?insurgents,? but local sources say many civilians have been killed and wounded. The contrast between the extent of US and British atrocities and the mealy-mouthed response of what passes for opposition within the Labour Party could not be starker. With most of the population opposed to war and many in support of a troop withdrawal... Barely a peep was heard from delegates regarding the prime minister?s lies over weapons of mass destruction... In a debate bookended by contributions from Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, one opponent of the Iraq war after another lined up to defend the occupation. They echoed Prime Minister Tony Blair?s claim during his conference address that whatever one thought about the original reasons for war, all must be united in supporting the birth of ?democracy? in Iraq and against the growth of ?global terrorism.? National Executive Council member Shahid Malik said he had previously opposed the war before continuing, ?But we did go to war and now is not the time to desert the people of Iraq. They would not forgive us.? Yvonne Ritchie of the GMB had also opposed the war but argued, ?The consequences of leaving prematurely will be to plunge Iraq into civil war. We have an obligation to put right the wrong a Labour government created.? ... First to the rostrum was Shanaz Rashid, who delivered a near- hysterical appeal for troops to remain in the country. As a supposed representative of liberated Iraqi womanhood, Rashid begged, ?Please, please do not desert us in our hour of need.? She singled out Blair for having ?stood up to Saddam and freed my people.? Ms. Rashid, who has lived in London for 30 years, is in fact the wife of Iraq?s Minister of Waterways, Abdul Latif Rashid, a member of the pro-western Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which was presiding over US-enforced ?no-fly? zone in Iraq even before the war. According to reports, Abdul Rashid had originally come to Britain on a Baathist government scholarship and subsequently secured a bachelor of engineering, a master of science and a PhD at Manchester University. He has now negotiated his position in the puppet administration into a series of lucrative consultancies for companies seeking contracts in Iraq, including Kingsmere Consulting Limited UK, Washington Investment Limited UK, Sir William Hal Crow & Partners irrigation and draining engineering association UK, as well as posts in the United Nations and the World Bank. The other ?ordinary? Iraqi to stump up for Blair was Abdullah Mushin, the London-based representative of the Iraqi Federation of Workers? Trade Unions (IFTU), who left Iraq in 1978. The IFTU is the interim administration?s house federation, which has been the subject of a formal complaint to the UN?s International Labor Organisation that its official status prevents the development of genuinely independent workers? organisations?a pedigree that takes the shine off Mushin?s appeal at the conference that withdrawing troops would be a ?terrible blow for free trade unionism.? ... the card vote showed the full-scale of the anti-war opposition?s collapse, with 80 percent of local parties and 90 percent of trade unions voting against the early withdrawal motion. The other notable collapse was made by the BBC, which had agreed not to broadcast the debate. Its excuse was a complaint by the Conservatives that a broadcast would break the corporation?s pledge of impartiality because of the by-election taking place that day in Hartlepool... in Hartlepool. Labour only narrowly retained what had been one of its safest seats."

Toronto International Film Festival 2004-Part 3 Orphaned by history

Toronto International Film Festival 2004-Part 3 Orphaned by history "It is entirely fitting that a number of filmmakers from the region have responded in protest and created works that expose conditions kept from North American and Western audiences generally by governments and a servile media. One must say that it is to the shame of American filmmaking that not a single major work, fictional or otherwise, has yet concerned itself with the fate of the victims of US military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. Marziyeh Meshkini?s Stray Dogs and Bahman Ghobadi?s Turtles Can Fly were two of the most powerful films from the region screened at the Toronto festival."

Afghanistan's presidential election: a mockery of democracy

Afghanistan's presidential election: a mockery of democracy "Bush?s loyal ally in Australia, John Howard, who is up for reelection on the same day, has also hailed the Afghanistan ballot as a success story, demonstrating that the US-led intervention has brought ?democracy? to the country. These empty claims do not, however, bear scrutiny. Every aspect of the election has been marred by bribery, threats and thuggery?not so much by supporters of the ousted Taliban regime, but by US-backed warlords, tribal leaders and militia commanders who have been part of the current Kabul administration, and, in some cases, are presidential candidates. To describe the upcoming Afghan poll as ?democratic? is simply a sham. The US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report this week detailing the extensive abuse of democratic rights by warlords and their militia in virtually every area of the country. ... "... In politics here today whatever the gunmen want ultimately happens. We don?t know what kind of democracy this is.? The same official noted: ?One of the major sources of power and authority for Hazrat Ali and his gang is his close relations with the US military and intelligence. ... Dostum is notorious throughout the country for his many atrocities, including the slaughter of hundreds of unarmed Taliban prisoners in the immediate aftermath of the Taliban regime?s collapse in 2001. Until he declared his presidential candidacy, he was Karzai?s top security adviser. The US-backed Karzai, an ethnic Pashtun from southern Afghanistan, relies on similar methods. ... ?All Terezai tribespeople should vote for Hamid Karzai... if any Terezai people vote for other candidates, the tribe will burn their houses.? ... The HRW report noted that, as of early September, electoral bodies were still short by 100,000, making it impossible to hire and properly train enough personnel. Already there are indications of widespread multiple registrations by voters. Election officials told HRW that as few as 5 to 7 million of the more than 10 million voter registrations may be genuine. ...The US administration, with the assistance of the UN and the acquiescence of its European allies, has had a major hand in every aspect of the election?from its timing to the drawing up of the Afghan constitution. The Afghan people have had no say in the process whatsoever. Two elections?for the presidency and the parliament?were due to take place in June, but were twice delayed. Now only the presidential poll will take place on October 9?carefully timed to maximise the benefits for Bush in his own presidential campaign. ... The delay of parliamentary elections until April is even more ominous. Under the constitution, drawn up under the supervision of US and UN officials and rubberstamped by a stage-managed loya jirga [tribal assembly], the president has extensive autocratic powers: to appoint and sack the cabinet, military officers, judges, diplomats and other top officials. Parliament provides the only limited check on the president but it will not be in place for six months?at the very least. Despite its formal profession of neutrality, there is no doubt whatsoever that Washington favours the incumbent. ... Dyncorp, provides his bodyguards, and he is ferried around the country by the US military?privileges that none of his rivals enjoy. An article published last week in the Los Angeles Times makes clear that the US is actively seeking to manipulate the election process. One of the presidential candidates Mohammed Mohaqqiq told the newspaper that US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad had visited his office... The ?request? came with a series of offers, which Mohaqqiq turned down, mainly because he regarded them as inadequate. Not satisfied with the answer, Khalilzad approached the Hazara warlord?s supporters. Mohaqqiq explained: ?He left, and then called my most loyal men, and the most educated people in my party or campaign, to the presidential palace and told them to make me?or request me?to resign the nomination. And he told my men to ask me what I need in return.? It was not an isolated incident. ... Khalilzad has, of course, denied any interference in the election. But Mohaqqiq?s remarks were supported by other candidates... ?Our hearts have been broken because we thought we could have beaten Mr Karzai if this had been a true election. But it is not. ... ' ...In mid-September, amid factional fighting in the western city of Herat, Karzai stepped in to dismiss Ismail Khan as provincial governor. The snap decision provoked an angry reaction from Khan?s supporters who mounted a demonstration outside the UN compound in the city. The protest was forcibly dispersed by US and Afghan troops, who killed at least seven of Khan?s supporters and wounded 20. While Karzai issued the dismissal, there was no doubt who was pulling the strings. ...the US cannot afford to dispense with warlords like Khan, on which it has relied for the past three years. The dismissal of Khan as governor did, however, provide a timely reminder to all of the country?s despots that they hold their fiefdoms under US sufferance. The result of the October 9 election appears to be a foregone conclusion. ... Yet this electoral charade will no doubt receive the blessing of the United Nations and be triumphantly hailed by the Bush administration as a vindication of its criminal policies."

Bush-Kerry debate: two candidates committed to war

Bush-Kerry debate: two candidates committed to war "On a day that ranked as one of the bloodiest in recent months in Iraq, neither candidate made any direct reference to the ongoing carnage and the suffering of the Iraqi people due to the US invasion. Much of what passes for political analysis in the corporate media will focus on the facial expressions and ?body language? of the two candidates, as the pundits decide who won the contest at the University of Miami. Bush, who squirmed and grimaced through much of the 90-minute encounter, could do little more than repeat by rote a series of talking points attacking Kerry as inconsistent in his backing for the Iraqi intervention. He sprinkled his remarks with catchphrases meant to demonstrate his religious piety and appeal to his base among the Christian right. For his part, Kerry managed to pull virtually every punch in his criticism of the Bush administration?s foreign and military policies, while nodding as his opponent mouthed lies and stupidities. ... Both pledged to continue the war in Iraq until victory was secured, saying they would train Iraqi security forces for the job. Both vowed to intensify ?homeland security? enforcement, and they agreed that halting nuclear proliferation and keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists was the top foreign policy priority. Kerry?s remarks were, as always, riddled with political duplicity. He condemned the war as a mistake and a policy based on lies. In the next breath, he affirmed his commitment to remain in Iraq and win the war. ... ?What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground,? he said. ?And you have to do that by beginning to not back off from the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists.? With US commanders openly discussing plans for a military offensive against major urban areas such as Fallujah, Kerry?s statement amounted to an advance endorsement of the bloodletting to come. Kerry further indicated that the war in Iraq would not be the last war of aggression... This is a falsification of history. During the Cold War, successive administrations pursued a policy of ?containment? against the Soviet Union. Many of those who now hold leading positions in the Bush administration were identified with the drive under Reagan to replace that strategy with one of ?rollback? ... The ?preemptive war? doctrine developed by the Bush administration, however, is a qualitatively new phenomenon. ... This is not, in strict diplomatic terms, a policy of preemptive war, but rather one of preventive war, which is a war crime under international law. Kerry indicated he was prepared to utilize the same methods employed by Bush against Iraq in what would inevitably be far more dangerous acts of militarism, including a possible nuclear war. ?Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous,? he said. ... ?I have a plan for Iraq,? he said. ?I believe we can be successful. I?m not talking about leaving. I?m talking about winning.? Significantly, there was no mention either from the moderator or the candidates of the torture of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, or any of the other war crimes... Kerry?s performance made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of winning the election by appealing to the sentiments of many millions of Americans who rightly consider the war in Iraq a crime and want US troops to leave the ravaged country. The first presidential debate has underscored the narrow and right-wing parameters of the US two-party system. ...

America's oligarchy in the mirror of the debacle in Iraq

America's oligarchy in the mirror of the debacle in Iraq "Just days after Allawi appeared before a joint meeting of Congress to parrot the Bush administration?s claims of ?steady progress,? a report prepared by a private US security contractor cited over 2,300 attacks by Iraqis resisting the US occupation in the last 30 days alone. The report indicated that these attacks?nearly four times the number recorded just last March?-took place in virtually every major population center in the country. Asked about the fighting in Iraq on television news shows last Sunday, Secretary of State Colin Powell was compelled to acknowledge: ?We are fighting an intense insurgency...Yes, it?s getting worse.? He indicated that the US military is preparing a major new offensive to reoccupy the cities of Ramadi, Samarra and Fallujah. Confident predictions that elections will be held in January have also been contradicted. Jordan?s King Abdullah, one of Washington?s most servile allies in the Middle East, told the French newspaper Le Figaro it would be ?impossible...to organize indisputable elections in the chaos we see today.? He further predicted that the likely victor in such a vote would be ?extremists.? General John Abizaid, the chief of US Central Command told a US Senate panel ?we?re going to have to fight our way all the way through elections, and there will be a lot of violence between now and then.? Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that if violence made it impossible to set up polls in as much as a quarter of the country, ?So be it.? He added, ?You have the rest of the election and you go on. Life?s not perfect.? ... US troops are confronting an indigenous resistance movement. General Abizaid put the number of so-called foreign fighters in Iraq at less than 1,000. Conservative Pentagon estimates have put the number of active resistance fighters at 20,000. ?They say these guys are flowing across [the border] and fomenting all this violence. We don?t think so,? a senior US military official told the Los Angeles Times. ... Reports indicate not only that the ranks of those taking up arms against the US have swelled, but that their actions have the support of broad masses of people, who shun collaboration with American authorities. Even efforts to train Iraqi security forces?touted as the ultimate solution to the escalating catastrophe?are fatally undermined, because many of those who are being armed and trained secretly sympathize?and in many cases actively collaborate?with the resistance. ... The American public is regularly assured that the escalating eruption of violence in Iraq is the work of a small minority driven either by loyalty to the former Baathist regime?whose principals have for the most part been killed or captured by US forces?or by Islamist fanaticism, or by criminality. Those fighting US forces are, in the words of Vice President Cheney, ?the enemies of the civilized world.? ... a resident of Fallujah, Abu Ghnem Awuud, whose wife and five children were slaughtered in one of the daily US air strikes against the city. Offered monetary compensation for the killing of his entire family, he told a US officer: ?Is this the logic of your civilization? How can money compensate me for the loss of my family? I await compensation from God to kill all of you in Iraq.? These words captured sentiments that have spread throughout Iraq as the US military has turned tanks, heavy weapons, aerial gunships, and assault helicopters against heavily populated areas from Baghdad?s Sadr City to Najaf, Fallujah and elsewhere. Those who have buried the bodies of their families or rushed their burned and maimed children to overwhelmed hospitals have ample cause for rejecting the ?civilization? on offer from Washington. Thousands more have been rounded up in counterinsurgency sweeps, humiliated before their families and taken hooded to prison camps such as the infamous Abu Ghraib... a man released after four months in Abu Ghraib told Reuters. ?I have never regretted anything in my life as much as I regret welcoming the Americans.? ... From the first days of the occupation, when US authorities deliberately allowed mass looting and destruction to occur in order to smash up the previous structures of state control over the economy, the constant aim of the so-called ?reconstruction? of Iraq has been to privatize the oil industry and bring it under the control of US-based oil giants. Control over this strategic resource would not only secure supplies needed by the US economy, but also give Washington the power to place its actual and potential international rivals on energy rations. It is well understood by Iraqis that the US invaded their country because it sits on top of the world?s second largest petroleum reserves?and this knowledge has further fueled their resistance. To this day, however, the American media deny the obvious, treating oil as an incidental question and deriding any suggestion that it was a prime motive for the war. ... Weapons of mass destruction were an issue in the Iraq war only to the extent that Washington was aware they did not exist, and that the country was defenseless in a war to expropriate its abundant natural wealth. Terrorism served as a useful pretext for frightening the American people into accepting a war of aggression. As for the phony crusade for democracy and freedom in the Middle East, it has yielded a puppet regime headed by a murderous thug, the former Baathist hit-man and CIA agent Allawi. The Bush administration came into office with plans for a war of conquest against Iraq already well advanced. ... Cheney and his former oil industry colleagues were pouring over maps of Iraq?s oilfields and reviewing plans of their foreign rivals... Even before the first US troops entered Iraq, the US drew up its own plans for the exploitation of Iraq?s huge petroleum reserves. ... No US companies, outside of the military contractors supplying mercenaries and ferrying supplies for the US occupation, dare operate in Iraq [a world for crook backed dick to bustle in]. ... To the extent that profits have been made in Iraq, they have come from padded military contracts and the diversion of funds supposedly meant for reconstruction into the coffers of US corporations. ... Hundreds of millions have been lost to embezzlement and mismanagement. An air of corruption and greed hangs over the entire US venture in Iraq. While invoking right-wing ideology and Christian fundamentalism to justify cruelty against the Iraqi people, Washington has pursued policies that amount to colonialism on the cheap... attributes the mounting violence and chaos in Iraq to incompetence on the part of Bush and his subordinates, while claiming that he can conduct a more effective war. But the source of this debacle goes far deeper. The ugly character of the occupation is a reflection of America?s ruling oligarchy and its methods. It embodies the criminality and rapaciousness with which the financial elite in the US has accumulated obscene levels of wealth, as well as its contempt for the problems and sentiments of the masses of working people, both at home and abroad. The disaster that US imperialism has created in Iraq manifests the internal rot of an entire social system."

Washington's policy of sadism and sexual abuse: excerpts from Seymour Hersh's Chain of Command

Washington's policy of sadism and sexual abuse: excerpts from Seymour Hersh's Chain of Command "Hersh traces the war crimes at Abu Ghraib?as well as at US prisons in Afghanistan and the Guantanamo concentration camp?to Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld and the White House. He provides damning examples of the sadistic and murderous treatment of ?terrorist suspects??thousands of whom were civilians swept up in indiscriminate roundups... War crimes were committed and no action was taken, he added, in anger. ?People were beaten to death. What do you call it when people are tortured and going to die and the soldiers know it, but do not treat their injuries?? He answered his own question: ?Execution.?? ... ?The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation had become a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. One book that was frequently cited was The Arab Mind... ?The Patai book, an academic told me, was ?the bible of the neocons on Arab behavior.? In their discussions, he said, two themes emerged??one, that Arabs only understand force and, two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation.??"

Prisoner releases expose illegal nature of Guantanamo Bay detentions

Prisoner releases expose illegal nature of Guantanamo Bay detentions "None of those released had been charged with any crime by the US government. Only one was brought before the Pentagon?s so-called Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which ruled that he was not an ?enemy combatant??the pretext under which more than 600 people have been incarcerated in the prison camp since early 2002. In other words, Washington simply decided that scores of the prisoners it previously defined as major threats to American and international security represented no danger at all. ... The real reason for the releases, however, has nothing to do with ?peace-building? or ?reconstruction?. Rather, they have been motivated by the need to bolster US puppet regimes in the region. Pakistani POWs were sent home by Washington as a sop to the Musharraf government, while some press reports have speculated that the Afghan prisoners were freed to shore up Karzai?s prospects in presidential elections on October 9. ... The question that must be asked is: why has Hicks been singled out? Scores of Pakistani Taliban supporters released from Guantanamo Bay could just as easily have been accused of the same so-called ?crimes? as the Australian is alleged to have committed. The reason lies in the fact that the Howard government decided in late 2001 to use Hicks and fellow-citizen Habib as another justification for its participation in Washington?s illegal ?war against terror?. ... Senior government ministers have publicly claimed that the detention of Hicks and Habib is both ?fair? and ?legal? and denounced them as dangerous terrorists. Australian officials have stonewalled the Hicks and Habib families and their lawyers and the government has mounted high-level legal action to prevent Freedom of Information access to correspondence between Washington and Canberra on their detentions. These actions, along with the government?s violation of the Geneva Conventions rights of its own citizens, constitute war crimes punishable under Australian law. Predictably, the Australian media has ignored the repatriation of the Pakistani and Afghan prisoners... Washington has so far refused to provide any concrete details about Hicks?s alleged crimes. Basic information such as who Hicks was planning to murder, and when and how he aided the enemy, has never been provided, making it almost impossible to prepare an adequate legal defence. ... Appointed deputy chief judge of the US Air Force, Shaffer said the system was archaic, could not provide a fair trial and called for military court-martial procedures. She pointed out that one major difference between a military commission and a court-martial is that the judge and jury remain separate. Under the Guantanamo Bay system, the military commissioners are both judge and jury and only one of the commissioners is a trained lawyer. Nor is there any appeal process for those convicted. Shaffer has also filed a motion demanding information from the US government about her client. She wants access to the 14 investigators who interrogated al-Qosi and the 18 linguists who served as translators. Thus far, Washington has provided none of this."

Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran

Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran " Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of ?surgical? missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington?s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation?s nuclear arsenal. Obama, the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention, is being hailed as a ?rising star? in the Democratic Party. In his Tribune interview, he said explicitly what is implicit in repeated statements by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and other party leaders. They have frequently attacked the Bush administration?s policy in Iraq on the grounds that it is diverting attention from supposedly greater threats, in particular Iran and North Korea. Obama told the Tribune, ?[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?? Answering his own question, Obama said, ?I hope it doesn?t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I?d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.? Obama advanced a racist argument for attacks on Iran and Pakistan. Making a comparison between the ?Islamic world? and the Soviet Union, he argued that the religious outlook of Iranians and Pakistanis made them less prone to compromise and reason and more warlike. ... Due to scandal and political turmoil in the Illinois Republican Party, Obama is virtually assured of victory on November 2. When Republican nominee Jack Ryan dropped out of the race on June 25 due to a sex scandal, the state Republican Party scrambled to find a replacement. After several prominent conservatives, including former Chicago Bears football coach Mike Ditka, refused to run, the party finally recruited the fascistic radio talk show host, frequent presidential candidate, and resident of Maryland, Alan Keyes. Keyes, who has never lived in Illinois, quickly turned his campaign into something of a farce, issuing homophobic statements and attacking the so-called ?moderate? wing of the state Republican Party. According to one poll, Obama has built more than a fifty-point lead on Keyes. Obama?s statements underscore the Democratic Party?s acceptance in principle of the ?Bush Doctrine? of preventive war... The African-American Democrat is being groomed for national leadership. His speech at the Democratic convention, a homily on hard work, individual responsibility and the American dream, would have been well received at a Republican convention not so many years ago."

The Balkans continue to fracture Part 2

The Balkans continue to fracture Part 2 "In March this year communal violence orchestrated by former Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) leaders resulted in the death of 19 people and injury to hundreds more. More than 4,000 people?mainly Serbs?were forced to flee. A leaked internal UN report said UNMIK was on ?the point of near collapse.? ... Struck pointed out that many troops involving much expense are needed to protect often small and isolated settlements, and that ?more consolidated? Serbian enclaves should be considered. ... The Democratic Party of Kosova, a successor organisation to the pro-US stooge KLA, runs Kosovo, under Prime Minister Bajram Rexhepi. Its Assembly?which, like the forthcoming elections is boycotted by the Serbs?voted on July 8 to adopt several constitutional changes, including the right to hold a referendum on independence. ... [Macedonia] The US turned against Giorgijevski?s coalition when it became obvious it had no support in the country. Mass demonstrations and general strikes met attempts to privatise state assets and cut welfare provision. The western powers wanted a more compliant regime that would integrate the NLA, which a mountain of evidence suggests was secretly backed by Washington, into government structures, and to more vigorously pursue privatisation strategies. ... Ashdown admitted, ?The international community does not have an exit strategy here? ... Earlier this month there were riots in Konjevic Polje between Serbs and Muslims. Political analyst Tanja Topic told the Centre for Peace in the Balkans that war could break out again at ?any time? ... Ethnic tensions have also risen in the Vojvodina province of Serbia, which has a Hungarian-speaking minority. ... The situation in the Balkans is a bitter indictment of the western powers? intervention. Poverty, corruption and ethnic separation have become endemic in the Balkan region as a result of the attempt to dismantle the former Yugoslavia. That intervention was carried out under the cloak of humanitarianism, but signalled the legitimisation of the naked use of overwhelming military power against small countries in pursuit of strategic of ?Big Power? interests, the cynical violation of the principle of national sovereignty, the de facto reestablishment of colonialist forms of subjugation, and the revival of inter-imperialist antagonisms that carry within them the seeds of a new war."

Le Gouvernement fran?ais encourage le chantage ? l'emploi des employeurs

Le Gouvernement fran?ais encourage le chantage ? l'emploi des employeurs: "Du fait de la faiblesse politique du Président Chirac suite aux défaites de son parti dans les élections régionales et européennes, le gouvernement de Raffarin fait mine de se préoccuper de la cohésion sociale du pays. En réalité, le régime de Chirac soutient sans réserve les efforts des entreprises françaises à parcourir le globe à la recherche de main-d'uvre la moins chère possible et à rester compétitive face aux pressions du marché mondialisé. Néanmoins, le gouvernement de droite de Jean-Pierre Raffarin subit des pressions de plus en plus fortes de la part des patrons du MEDEF (mouvement des entreprises de France) pour l'abandon pur et simple de cette politique de cohésion sociale. ... Ce type de chantage à la délocalisation et ces attaques à l'encontre des emplois et des droits des salariés en France, se produisent aussi en Allemagne, partout en Europe et à travers le monde. Mais les dirigeants syndicaux préfèrent ignorer la réalité internationale qui se cache derrière le chantage à la délocalisation qui n'est rien d'autre que la recherche effrénée par le capital de coûts de production les plus bas sur la planète dans le cadre de la mondialisation. Ils affirment qu'une solution nationale quelconque peut être trouvée et dépeignent l'état nation comme le garant des acquis sociaux des ouvriers."

CBS cancels broadcast on Bush's use of forged Iraqi WMD documents

CBS cancels broadcast on Bush's use of forged Iraqi WMD documents "The chief reporter of the ?60 Minutes? segment, Ed Bradley, conducted the first on-camera interviews of two key figures in the affair: Elisabetta Burba, the Italian journalist who first obtained the phony documents, and the man who supplied them, Rocco Martino, a Roman businessman and former Italian intelligence agent with purported ties to other European intelligence agencies. Burba reportedly said that she was instructed by her editor at Panarama, a news magazine owned by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, to provide the documents to the US embassy in Rome, which forwarded them to the State Department and CIA. Berlusconi has been one of the most vocal international supporters of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. The documents were quickly exposed as fraudulent when turned over to the International Atomic Energy Agency for verification. According to the current Newsweek, which summarizes the suppressed CBS program, ?Within two hours, using the Google search engine, IAEA officials in Vienna determined the documents to be a crude forgery.? An investigation into the forgery subsequently initiated by the FBI has been an exercise in stonewalling. Two years after the event, the FBI has not even interviewed Martino... The White House was acutely aware of the impending report, as ?60 Minutes? approached both Bush administration officials and congressional Republicans as part of its preparation of the story. None would agree to be interviewed, including Porter Goss, the Florida Republican congressman who chaired the House Intelligence Committee and has just been sworn in as the new CIA chief. The ?60 Minutes? segment was initially slotted for broadcast in June, but was put off because of unspecified new developments, according to CBS spokeswoman Kelli Edwards. It was finally scheduled for the evening of September 8, but network officials decided to replace it with the report on Bush?s National Guard service that included purported memos from Bush?s former commander that turned out to be bogus. ... CBS News President Andrew Heyward eventually declared that broadcasting the ?60 Minutes? program on Iraq?s nonexistent WMD would be ?inappropriate? so close to the election, since it would give the appearance that the network was seeking to influence the vote. This rationale, of course, ignores the fact that not broadcasting the program also influences the vote, and amounts to a whitewash of the Bush administration?s lies. Newsweek, citing CBS sources, said the network feared it would become a ?laughingstock? if it broadcast a program criticizing the Bush White House for using forged documents so soon after CBS itself fell victim to forged documents. This account suggests another explanation for the whole affair: it raises more forcefully the likelihood that the bogus memos on Bush?s National Guard service were supplied to CBS by dirty tricks operatives of the Republican Party..."

Britain: Blair's defence of his record on Iraq given standing ovation

Britain: Blair's defence of his record on Iraq given standing ovation "Blair continued to insist: ?The problem is I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong, but I can?t, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam. The world is a better place with Saddam in prison, not in power.? He then went on to reiterate every lie he has ever uttered in justification for his criminal war of aggression?with the sole exception of the WMD claim. Above all, the war against Iraq was portrayed as part of an international struggle against terrorism?as if there were still proof of any connection between Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the September 11 atrocities. Contained within this presentation was a threat of worse to come. In Blair?s world view, Iraq was only part of a network of ?worldwide global terrorism,? with deep roots 'in the madrassehs of Pakistan, in the extreme forms of Wahabi doctrine in Saudi Arabia, in the former training camps of Al Qaida in Afghanistan; in the cauldron of Chechnya; in parts of the politics of most countries of the Middle East and many in Asia; in the extremist minority that now in every European city preach hatred of the West and our way of life.' ...?Do I know I?m right? Judgements aren?t the same as facts. Instinct is not science. I?m like any other human being, as fallible and as capable of being wrong. I only know what I believe.? Ergo, if Blair believes that war is right, even if he hasn?t a shred of evidence to prove an actual threat to the British people, then war it will be. Iraq was by no means the only subject on which Blair made clear the right-wing agenda he intends to pursue. He also insisted that his government?s attacks on the welfare state and privatisation policies would be intensified. His watchwords were ?We have to modernise,? that ?traditional methods of funding? are inadequate and that no challenge can be met ?without altering the rest of our welfare state.? He concluded, ?With the courage of our convictions, we can win the third term??and the delegates duly increased his overall standing ovation total by an additional four minutes."

Australian 2004 election: Howard and Latham united on Iraq war cover-up

Australian 2004 election: Howard and Latham united on Iraq war cover-up "Howard made no references to his bogus reasons for joining the US-led coalition, but nevertheless maintained that his decision was correct. ?If I had my time again, I would take the same decision,? he declared. ?The world is a better place, the Middle East is a better place, without Saddam Hussein.? In other words, as these remarks make clear, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with alleged weapons of mass destruction or links to terrorist groups because, even knowing that none of these allegations was true, Howard would still go to war. This simply demonstrates that the invasion of Iraq was not determined by facts, but by the material and strategic interests of the US and its allies. ... The provision of $800 million over the next four years to set up 24 technical colleges to train students in years 11 and 12 was put forward on the basis that it would overcome specific skill shortages in the labour market. But the very structure of the scheme points to another agenda. The new colleges will not function under the jurisdiction of the technical and further education (TAFE) system, which is operated by the states, but will be run independently of state governments, with funding contributions from private sponsors. They will thus contribute to the ongoing privatisation of public education?one of the major aims of the Howard government. As well, teachers? pay in the new system will be based on performance, another key feature of the right-wing agenda for education ?reform.? Similarly, Howard?s additional $1 billion for repairs to school buildings and facilities will by-pass the state-run education systems, and be allocated directly to school principals and parent bodies. While portrayed as a means of circumventing bureaucracy at the state level, the scheme drew the immediate criticism that it would require a new bureaucratic apparatus at the federal level to administer it. Furthermore, parents? organisations will be forced into competition with each other to secure funds, with those in better-off regions likely to get the lion?s share. ... There are, of course, differences between the Liberal and Labor parties, and they were reflected in the two speeches. But Howard and Latham?s basic class orientation?and fundamental unity?was expressed in their attitude to the Iraq war, and the fate of the most vulnerable and impoverished layers of society."