|
|||||||||
Posted June 12, 2003
Intel of One
So far the intel of one person has completely trumped our $40 Billion a year apparatus of CIA, DIA, NSA, and whatever new group Rumsfeld has put together. Here are two Scott Ritter interviews and an essay from July 20, 2002, July 17, 2002 and Sep. 14, 2002 respectively. Pretty clairvoyant? – or were the Bushies just misleading all along?
Michael Ewens Replies
I realize that my memory is not as good as it used to be, but somehow I can't shake the suspicion that I have not heard another word about the children being held at Guantanamo. I hope I am wrong. I remember that there was a great deal of information lacking initially, such as their names, where they were from, and what they had done – if anything. Were these children terrorists? Did America kidnap them? Are they being held hostage for a parent? Are they being "questioned?" Why would children under the age of 16 years be held under such terrible and traumatic conditions?
If anyone has further information, I would really appreciate knowing what has happened to them. If there isn't any change in their status, why are we silently allowing this to continue and what are the repercussions which may occur when and if the shoe is on the other foot?
Student Coordinator Mike Ewens replies:
All I know about this situation is what the news outlets have released. Here are the most recent stories:
"US
detains children at Guantanamo Bay"
"Group
Says Terror War Raises Insecurity"
"Amnesty
International: War on terror has heightened insecurity"
"Children
being held at Guantanamo Bay."
It appears that this story has lost interest, unfortunately.
Ian
H: Mike, for the assignment that I am doing we get extra credit for
searching for people in the current fields and getting a statement from
them. Do you think that you might be able to provide me with one, concerning
the types of censorship imposed on the media during the Recent Gulf war,
and war against
terror in Afghanistan?
Mike Ewens: Well, I don't like to throw around the word "censorship." It reeks of coercion, which the media really never engaged or engages in. I think that a better way to describe the mainstream media's actions in "filtership." They showed the public only certain things, I suspect the very things that the general public wanted to see: a successful Iraq campaign, happy Iraqis, happy US troops and an evil Saddam. People don't like to hear that their country is not as perfect as they want it to be. Thus, I tend to believe that the mainstream media is a creation of the desires and preferences of those who watch/read it. For those of us that want intelligent, in depth and factual analysis, news outlets have formed and do exist. (Antiwar.com is great example). For example, you can only make an argument that "censorship" exists by knowing something that the mainstream media is not telling their audience!
Simply, I don't think that censorship occurred, you just have to want the information and take the energy to find it.
IH: Do you think that although the levels of technology make it easier to broadcast more updated and live occurrences, the governments still have a wide and powerful grip over the mainstream media?
ME: Yes. But I take a much different position than those on the Left. I think that the government controls the media because it controls the licensing and property rights assignments of airwaves. If we allowed the market to control who owns the airwaves, then I predict that each market will better suit the demand for all consumer (information consumers) groups. Further government deregulation of the media markets will truly create a situation where the preferences of consumers are reflected in the media market. Overall, I see no logical distinction between the market for information and the market for say, apples, bikes, underwear or ammunition. Therefore, the government is only hurting things by meddling in the market process.
I hope that this gets you a little extra credit!
Thanks for an excellent web site. I read many of the articles and peruse the site daily.
I'm continually amazed by one thing during the whole reign of terror that the Bush Neocon Administration has brought to us , and that is, what is Dick Cheney up to? Is he alive and well (or is this another Yeltsin situation). I know he has opted to 'lay low' so that Dubya can look more presidential, but he is so far removed from day to day 'public' affairs, I wonder if he is even still with us?
Haven't past VP's been more active in world affairs, as in visiting other countries, etc. Or is Dubya, more expendable than Cheney so Dick stays home, while George goes to visit?
Its bewildering to me. And, of course, as a poor lowly taxpayer here, what am I paying Cheney to do?
Mike Ewens replies:
Thanks for the encouragement...
I found Cheney! He is "stumping" in Mississippi: "Cheney Stumps for Barbour in Mississippi" (advice: when you have a question: Google it!).
Is it possible to take a class action against the British and American governments for crimes against humanity in the light of comments by Rumsfeld et al that WMD perhaps were destroyed before the war began. I am a British citizen and feel that it's well past the time that ministers should be held accountable for how they interpret and present intelligence information to the public, especially when it triggers an illegal war resulting in wanton destruction along with mass slaughter!
I would be grateful for any contacts re a legal case against the British Government for their role in this affair.
Mike Ewens replies:
I am not well versed in international law, but I suspect that a "class action" is not the way to go. You would have better luck attempting to sue the British government with international law (perhaps via the new Belgian court). The US government has the propensity to ignore international laws, especially when those laws restrict their various military adventures.
Sorry, I don't have any contacts in Britain (other than a few friends in Oxford from my past study abroad there). One of my tutors was a barrister, although I don't think that he worked on international law trials.
Regarding "Dead in the Water: 36th Anniversary of the Attack on the USS Liberty" by Mike Ewens:
Dave S: Just read your small piece on the USS Liberty. It is interesting that you neglect to mention that the USS Liberty was an NSA spy ship. There is a great chapter in James Bamford's Body Of Secrets about this very incident.
Mike Ewens: I thought that it was unimportant for a few reasons:
1.
The boat was in international waters.
2. It was unarmed.
3. Israel was an ally...hypothetically not too much to hide.
4. Even if the ship was say, a destroyer, an unprovoked attack is still
an unprovoked attack.
Thanks for the link!
DS: It was not unimportant at all. The Liberty was monitoring radar signatures, but meanwhile not 12 miles away the Israelis were shooting POWs. When a surveillance plane saw the Liberty and (by looking it up in Janes book of fighting ships) realized it was an NSA spy ship, they concluded that it was a witness to their war crimes and hence the attempt to sink it.
Every other article I read yesterday on the anniversary of the attack on the liberty mentions it as being a spy ship, your omissions makes the presence of the ship seem far more innocent that it truly was. The fact is also that the USA is constantly spying on its allies as well as its foes.
ME: Fine, let's suppose that they were witness to war crimes. That doesn't justify the attack. How is the Liberty "guilty" of anything by listening to airwaves in international waters? To me, it appears you are attempting to justify the attack.
My article was meant to remember those who died and reveal the mystery that still remains. I honestly think it is fairly irrelevant what the ship was doing, so far as it was not aggressing upon Israel or any other nation. Listening to radio emissions in international waters is not a form of aggression. Hence, I thought that the omission was warranted. Granted, it is an important part of the story, but not to the one that I was telling: the USS Liberty suffered an unprovoked attack that killed 34 innocent Americans.
Why Wash Trailers?
You seem to think you know everything about the WMDs in Iraq. Let me ask you just one question: why would the Iraqis wash the two semi-truck trailers? You really don't think (I hope) that they wanted to be clean, do you? They had plenty of time to get rid of everything they had, either by destroying it or sending it to another country.
Oh, I very, very seldom read your cr*p, because that is just what it is.
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
We are reporting the news. Our political line is, and always has been, that the UN is an illegitimate organization, and that Iraq, as a sovereign nation, has the right to possess the same weapons as any other sovereign nation. We do not support the US making threats against other nations to suit their own needs.
We NEVER asserted that Saddam didn't have weapons. In fact, I am quite surprised that the US has been unable to find more. WMDs are a news item, but they have nothing to do with our position against intervention in Iraq.
If you are going to bother coming to a site that you see as crap, at least pay attention.
Regarding "Iraq's WMD Intelligence: Where is the Outrage?" – Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV):
Many Americans have no idea of the seriousness of facts you have stated and many will never know due to the censorship of important news and events by the major media in the U.S.A. The article you have written Needs to be heard by every person in America. If possible, could you please cc: this article to the 'letters to the editor ' of every news paper in the U.S.A? You have stated too many facts that the American people have the right to know but will never know because of media censorship. Thank you.
As one who pleaded in his office with Senator Byrd to end the Vietnam war only to be told that our Generals and our Representatives had knowledge that the general public lacked, I now praise the wisdom and courage of this great Senator from my state of West Virginia in his recognition that YES, even the Senate can be lied to. I am ashamed of the Democrats like Daschle who are as guilty as Bush in abetting his criminal actions. THANK YOU SENATOR BYRD. Now, let's go on to the next step and call for impeachment.
Robert Byrd's comments could not have been expressed any better. If the evidence was so strong that there were MASSIVE stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, how is it that we cannot find them? Many of us smell a rat, and we demand answers. This issue must never, never, never go away or be brushed aside. This has been a reckless and sad venture. In addition to the thousands of Iraqis killed, our own young men and women in the military are now being killed there. How long can this go on? How much more terrible can this be? This is a horrible, inhumane act that has taken place. The man at the head of the administration, his cronies and advisors are some of the most dangerous people on the planet right now.
Regarding "Question of the Day: 'Would You Have Left Saddam in Power?'" by Whiskey Bar:
Yes, I would have left Saddam in power. By taking him out, we raise the obvious questions. On what principles did we select Saddam?
Saddam was a vicious tyrant. So is Robert Mugabe. So is Kim Jung Il.
Saddam had a WMD program prior to the first Gulf War and it was unclear whether it had continued and on what scale. Saddam was thought to deterrable; that is, unless the U.S. attacked him, he was thought unlikely to attack the US or assist those who do. Saddam was smart enough to identify a 900 pound gorilla. Robert Mugabe has no weapons that worry anybody. Kim Jung IL most certainly does have weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam had a LOT of oil. Robert Mugabe has no oil and a faltering economy. Kim Jung IL has no oil and a nearly destroyed economy.
The guiding principle seems uncomfortably close to: We will strike down tyranny wherever we find it and liberate oppressed peoples, especially if the tyrant controls natural resources that we would like to control, and unless the tyrant is really dangerous. If that seems to be overstating the case, ask yourself, Why not Mugabe? Why not Kim Jung IL? Why leave Libya along? Why ignore what is going on in Myanmar?
When we invade another country, we should have a reason for it that we are willing to apply in other cases. What is that reason?
The question “Would You Have Left Saddam in Power?” is a classic example of the type of question that has been employed by the right-wing to ensnare their opponents (usually with success). Remember before the war their question was “Don’t you think Saddam should be disarmed?” This is a spin on the sleazy types of questions lawyers are renowned for asking in court (example: “Are you still beating your wife?”). Any answer to such a question requires a lengthy explanation. The problem is that giving a complicated response to a simple question appears to most people to be an act of defensive justification. So no matter how good or logical your explanation is, you still lose. There is, however, a way to effectively counter this type of question which involves turning the tables on the questioner. I will demonstrate how to use this technique on the question “Would You Have Left Saddam in Power?”
The important thing to do is to find the weakest point in the argument. This initially seems a difficult task for the above question since most people would readily agree that the world is better off without Saddam in power. However, looking back you have to ask yourself why Americans supported sending their troops to fight and die in Iraq in the first place. The reason was because Americans believed Saddam had WMD’s and was willing to use them against the people of the United States. Self-defense was the primary reason why Americans permitted US soldiers to die in Iraq. Without this threat the American public and thus Congress would never had authorized the war. As it turns out, there were no WMD’s and Saddam was never a threat to the USA, ergo, American troops died (and keep dying on a daily basis) for nothing. This is your counter argument. The ensuing discussion should go something like this:
Right-wing Idiot: “Would You Have Left Saddam in Power?”
You: “Yes” (Stop here! Do not attempt to explain your answer which will only make you look weak and defensive. Use this opportunity to ask the next question.)
You: “Why, are American boys dead/ dying if Saddam posed absolutely no threat to the United States?”
Right-wing Idiot: “Uhhh…”
Now you can sit back and enjoy yourself having successfully turned the tables on your opponent. Most likely the right-winger will launch into a lengthy explanation describing how happy and fortunate the Iraqi people are to be liberated from such a cruel and murderous dictator. Of course, you will respond by asking if the parents, wives and children of those American soldiers killed are now equally as happy and as fortunate. You can accuse your opponent of favoring the well-being of Iraqis over that of Americans, etc. I’m sure you can figure the rest out yourself. Have fun!
~ John Leighton, Cincinnati, Ohio
The Question of the Day – What About Saddam? Would you have left him in power? – Is the wrong question. It is a red herring, and is typical of the dishonesty of George W Bush, the Bush Administration, and the Right Wing in general.
The REAL Question should be – are we safer today with Saddam out of power? Are we more secure, with two tons of nuclear materials looted and missing in Iraq? Are we safer, now that George W Bush has opened the door to religious fanaticism in Iraq, and made the Iraq a breeding ground terrorists?
The answer to these questions is emphatically NO – we are not safer or more secure, now that Saddam has been deposed. Even George Dubya says Saddam doesn't matter – but he refuses to admit the chaos in post war Iraq is a greater threat than Saddam's regime.
That is the real question – are we safer today with Saddam gone, than we were when he was in power? The answer is no.
One more point – the question of leaving Saddam in power or going to war is a false dichotomy: by racheting up the pressure, through threats of war and increasingly robust weapons inspection program, there is a good chance that Saddam would have been forced from power, without going to war and the attendant destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure. And that would have been a win-win situation for everyone – except George W Bush and his corporate cronies, who are now busy looting Iraq and the United States Treasury.
How about: "A trumped-up war with no plan for its aftermath was not the right way to get rid of Saddam. Why don't you conservatives ever practice what you preach?" as an answer.
You cheapen an incisive article with your last reference to the "conservatives" who supposedly support Bush in his moves. Please, wake up, or at least use intellectual honesty in your writing. The so-called "conservatives" about which you write are decidedly the least "conservative" conservatives I've ever read about. How about these points for starters: supporting government expenditures which are no less than 30% of our Gross National Product, involving ourselves in former Yugoslavia, an ever increasing torrent of rules and regulations, continued assaults and diminutions on the rights of speech, property and bearing of arm, a total corruption of education to achieve a series of intellectually neutered nitwits in a manner which would shock even Mencken – assuredly NOT "conservative" thought in the US. Statists of all kinds, particularly those formerly identified as socialists parading under the label of "modern liberals" are crying great tears of delight as we see the fulfillment of the "Stadt uber alles."
Regarding "New Bases Reflect a Shift in Military Policy to Quick Strikes," originally titled "New Bases Reflect Shift in Military":
The “New Bases Reflect a Shift in Military Policy to Quick Strikes” missed the point – it’s likely a jobs and patronage program for Brown and Root (Halliburton) and Bechtel. It’s likely more about re-election strategy than military strategy. For example in the cramped South Korean peninsula moving and consolidating troops a mere 75 miles is hardly a strategic move, rather it could make the troops more attractive as a consolidated target for a nuclear strike verses the present dispersed troops. At the end of the day only boots on the ground create deterrence, not the threat of boots on the empty ground at an empty base; but boots on the ground now. Boots on the ground in the US do nothing to enforce the favorable terms of peace in a theater far away. Commitment means never having to say SPOE. The commitment of forward presence is proactive peace enforcement on favorable terms; while having to say RSOI is reactive. Get a reporter to run the trap line – follow the money, it’s not rocket science.
Hussein Can Win
FACTS:
1. Hussein wrote a novel about a president whose country was invaded, who then abdicated and fought a guerilla war against the invader. The book was written BEFORE the invasion, and was just released. It details his plans, which he is now carrying out.
2. Special Republican Guards DISAPPEAR one night. Best soldiers. Comments from our soldiers say that they Iraqis they are NOW fighting are PROS. Now we know where they went.
3. Hussein has BILLIONS hidden all over, and since his men get paid $10.00 per month, he is able to keep a LARGE force in the field.
4. Rumsfeld said that the current fighting can go on for MONTHS.
5. If Hussein had WMD, they are STILL UNDER HIS CONTROL! Just hidden. Like his RPGs he uses every day.
6. What if Hussein knocks out a few hundred men all at once? I remember Lebanon. It was ones and twos killed, then almost 250. It is just a matter of time.
7. Hussein, if he keeps going like he is going, CAN WIN.
8. freearabvoice.org lists Hussein's WEEKLY speeches!
9. Former Iraqi exiles now in Iraq claim Hussein made a few small PUBLIC appearances!
We need to take this WAR seriously if we want to win it.
Regarding "What Are We Getting Into?" by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX):
A good question that should have been asked months ago by the entire Congress and our cheerleading media. While I realize that Paul did just that, we now have the responsibility to clean up the mess we made. For him to imply that we can just demolish an entire country and slaughter its citizens all to remove one man from office and then walk away is purely stupid and thoughtless. Yes, the US "is spending tens of billions of dollars and more rebuilding Iraq." While we should never have been there in the first place, we broke it, now we need to fix it. The Iraqis should be free to govern themselves, and choose exactly what that government will be. That is their responsibility. Repairing and replacing the infrastructure we destroyed is ours. Hopefully the heavy price tag will encourage Americans to actually think and to weigh the costs of war before being lied into the next one. By the way, Ron Paul should abandon the Repugnican party. He is as useful there as tits on a bull.
I never believed the Bush Administration did not anticipate what's happening in Iraq in this postwar period. We'll occupy Iraq as long as it's economically feasible to pump oil there.
Strife between the political factions, looting, disorder, anarchy, destruction of cultural identity – this is all good news for the Bush people. As long as it continues, US occupation is "justified."
If the Iraqis could get it together, the first thing they'd do is toss the US out of their country and appropriate the oil revenues for the benefit of their own people.
The US will do what it takes to make sure that doesn't happen. People who are living in a degraded condition find it difficult to fight back, so the Bush people will keep them that way.
Sudden Honesty
The fact that WMD evidence in Iraq has not (yet) been faked, has been a source of pride for some that confirms the "honesty" of the US government. What these folks fail to understand is that a conspiracy to fake evidence requires a lot of people to cooperate and keep silent.
I have no doubt that there are elements in the US government that would like to plant WMD evidence, but they lack the necessary backing to maintain a conspiracy of that kind (for starters, they would need the CIA and military to keep the information secret, as well as force Congress to look the other way).
The Pentagon Neocons seem to have fed the administration incorrect intelligence about Iraq, and alienated the regular intelligence agencies. Even worse, they have placed us into a messy situation we don't understand, and which will siphon military resources for years to come.
If the occupation were going according to plan, Neocons would probably have been able to strong-arm a WMD conspiracy. But now that there is Neocon blood in the water, those who are necessary for a conspiracy to fake WMD probably feel less compelled to cooperate with them.
Thus power politics – rather than principle – may be behind our government's sudden honesty about the lack of WMD evidence in Iraq.
Regarding Behind the Lies"" by Justin Raimondo:
Justin Raimondo claims to be agnostic on the question of whether Bush was "misled" or whether he lied. The answer to this is obvious, and it doesn't require knowledge or assumptions about Bush's character. To justify this war, it was asserted that the US was threatened not because Iraq could attack the US with any weapons whatsoever, nevertheless WMDs, but because they might give some of those WMDs to terrorists who would use them to attack the US.
Given that rationale, if the US government really believed there WERE WMDs in Iraq, then there would have been an absolutely frenetic search launched, even while the war was going on, to ensure that those WMDs didn't fall into the wrong hands. All evidence, which I won't reiterate here suggests that the search has been lackadaisical at best, with "crack teams" just now being put together. US citizen Jose Padilla has been held without rights, incommunicado, for over a year now, for just THINKING about a "dirty bomb" (or at least ALLEGEDLY doing so; surely we aren't taking John Ashcroft's word on this), but Tuwaitha was left completely unguarded and able to be looted of dirty bomb material at will.
Not only are there no WMDs in Iraq, but the administration knew it all along. The proof is incontrovertible.
Whether BUSH knew it, or whether he knows ANYTHING of consequence, is another subject, and definitely a debatable one. But the ADMINISTRATION, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc., certainly knew it.
~ Eli Stephens, Cupertino, California
Regarding "No WMDs? Fabulous, but Still Beside the Point" by Matthew Barganier:
This is the best essay on the war that I have read. A succinct synopsis of why the war was wrong and the only essay that I can recall reading to use the word "immoral." It warmed my heart to hear a someone, especially a youngster like Matt, say that the war was immoral.
I agree with Matt that the existence or nonexistence of WMDs has been blown out of proportion by the government propaganda apparatus (oh excuse me, I mean the mainstream press) to set the stage for justifying the war when they find the ones that they will import and plant on the Iraqis. We old hippies learned years ago about that trick from the narcs.
"The US isn't bombing Russia, China, or North Korea (author's note: this statement was true at time of submission)."
I also love Matt's sense of humor as demonstrated in the quote above. The laugh that I got reading that sentence earns you a couple of free beers if you ever find yourself in Chicago. ...
You have been a great addition to Antiwar.com.
Regarding "Iran Admits Failing to Report Uranium," originally titled "Iran: Failure to tell IAEA of 1991 uranium imports did not 'violate' treaty":
Naughty, naughty, Iran stepped on a crack and the boys in Bush's pentagon plan to break their back.
Why even consider national sovereignty as a viable concept in today's preemptive world? It is already quite clear that if King Bush and his advisors consider a sovereign nation's activities to be counterproductive to their interests, they will be coming to blow (take) them away. Hey, hey!
Quagmire? Let's use "global chaos" as a better description of what Bush and his buddies have gotten us into.
~ KW