Spin City: QaQaa Explosives & The Administrations Replies
All The President's Excuses
The White House has been unable to explain how 380 tons of powerful explosives disappeared under its watch in Iraq, and has instead tried to deflect blame with a series of excuses.
None of them hold up. Read this new document from American Progress for the full story.
EXCUSE #1 – THEY WERE GONE WHEN WE GOT THERE: Administration spokesman Dan Senor said on CNN that "there's a very high probability that those weapons weren't even there
before the war." All the evidence, however, suggests the opposite. In an
Oct. 25 AP story, a Pentagon official said, "US-led coalition troops had
searched Al Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and
confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact."
According to Today's New York Times, after U.S. troops came through, Iraqis on
the scene in Al Qaqaa "described an orgy of theft"
as the sensitive military site was picked clean by looters. Iraq's top science
official, Mohammed al-Sharaa, confirmed these reports, saying, "It is
impossible that these materials could have been taken from this site before the
regime's fall. The officials that were inside this facility (Al Qaqaa)
beforehand confirm that not even a shred of paper left it before the fall."
EXCUSE #2 – WE DIDN'T
KNOW ABOUT IT: One White House strategy has been to simply plead ignorance.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "We were informed on October
15th. Condi Rice was informed days after that. This is all in the last, what, 10 days now."
What they're not talking about: The New York Times reported that Iraqi officials
say they warned Paul Bremer, the American head of the occupation authority, that
Al Qaqaa had probably been looted in May 2004, six months ago.
EXCUSE #3 – WE'VE
SECURED LOTS OF OTHER MUNITIONS: White House Press Secretary Scott
McClellan tried to minimize the importance of the 380 tons of explosives that
went missing, saying, "400,000 tons of munitions have been seized or destroyed
by coalition forces." But McClellan is comparing apples to oranges. The
400,000 tons the White House cites refers to munitions – including guns and
ammunition. Pound for pound, the 380 tons of explosives are much, much more
powerful. For example, "the bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over
Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound
of the same type of material." By that math, the size of the explosives
cache looted would be enough to bring down 760,000 planes.
EXCUSE #4 – THE NBC
STORY: The Bush campaign spun an NBC News story in an attempt to bolster
its excuse, charging, "NBC Nightly News
later reported that on April 10, 2003, one day after Iraq was liberated, US
troops entered Al Qaqaa and did not find the explosives." NBC News,
however, resisted that characterization. What the network actually said:
"Military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second
Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al Qaqaa weapons facility, south of
Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons,
including the high explosives, HMX and RDX...And because the Al Qaqaa facility
is so huge, it's not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually
anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX."
REALITY –
ADMINISTRATION WAS WARNED: In a blistering op-ed in the Boston Globe,
former Ambassador Peter Galbraith describes the widespread looting of sensitive
materials in Iraq as a "preventable disaster."
Iraq's sensitive material was stored in only a few known locations, all of which
were closely monitored by the international community. U.S. troops, however,
were not given any relevant intelligence about these sites from the White House
and there was never a plan in place to secure them after the invasion. According
to Lt. Col. Fred Wellman, spokesman for one of the first units to reach Al Qaqaa,
"orders were not given
from higher to search or to secure the facility or to search for
[explosives]." Iraqi witnesses to looting at Al Qaqaa also say Al Qaqaa
"employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility."
MEDIA – RIGHT-WING ECHO CHAMBER 101: Even since the story broke three days ago that the administration failed to secure 380 tons of powerful explosives in Iraq, President Bush and his surrogates have been unable to stem the political damage. Enter the right-wing spin machine. This morning, the headline on the Drudge Report blares in 36-point font: Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms; Pentagon: Weaponry relocated before war. Drudge links to a story in the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times written by Bill
Gertz. In that story, Gertz reports John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology, "believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, 'almost certainly' removed the high-explosive material that went missing." On Fox and Friends this morning Fox News jumped all over the Russian rumors. Drudge, Gertz and Fox wildly distort the story – but unless you read the Financial Times, you might not realize it. Drudge's headline notwithstanding, "the Pentagon distanced itself from [Shaw's] remarks." Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita – who has enthusiastically embraced any theory that would exculpate the administration – when asked about Shaw's comments said, "I am unaware of any particular information on that point." Drudge and Gertz fail to mention that Shaw "has not provided evidence for his claims." Russia, through its U.S. embassy, "rejected the claims as 'nonsense', saying there were no Russian military in the country at the time."
IRAQ – RAMADI SLIPPING: The New York Times reports the provincial Iraqi capital of
Ramadi, a city "which is larger and strategically more important than its sister city of
Falluja," is in danger of falling into insurgent hands. "While Ramadi is not exactly a 'no go' zone for the marines, like the insurgent stronghold of Falluja…officers say it is fast slipping in that direction. In the last six weeks, guerrillas have stepped up the pace of assassinations of Iraqis working with the Americans, and marine officials say they suspect Iraqi security officers have been helping insurgents to attack their troops. Reconstruction efforts have ground to a halt because no local contractors are willing to work." The disintegration of authority in the region "puts in jeopardy both the Bush administration's plan to stage nationwide elections by Jan. 31 and any sense of legitimacy such elections might have. It also complicates the American military's plans to invade
Falluja, because of the close coordination between insurgents in the two cities."
VOTING – ABSENT ABSENTEES IN FLORIDA: Election officials in Florida are wondering how many of "a batch of 58,000 absentee ballots" in Broward County have been "lost." County voters requested the ballots more than two weeks ago, but hundreds have reported not receiving them. In recent days, the complaints have overwhelmed the phone system. The county has responded by blaming the US Postal Service. "That is something beyond our control," said Deputy Supervisor of Elections Gisela Salas. "We really have no idea what's going on."
VOTING – JUDGE HALTS CHALLENGES IN OHIO: A federal judge in Ohio "temporarily stopped hearings Wednesday on Republican challenges of thousands of voter registrations, ruling in favor of Democrats who alleged that the challenges were an attempt to keep legitimate votes from being counted." The Republicans had challenged as many as 35,000 registrations in the crucial swing state, because "mail came back undelivered." Meanwhile, late on Wednesday, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell issued a directive that, "for the first time, will allow political parties to apportion partisan challengers by precinct instead of polling site." The directive will allow partisan operatives to overload challengers in competitive precincts. In Ohio, the Republican Party has registered 3,600 challengers, while the Democratic Party has registered 2,000.
MEDIA – U.S. GETS LOW MARKS FOR FREEDOM: Reporters Without Borders, a group that evaluates freedom of the press throughout the world, ranked the United States "22nd alongside Belgium and behind countries including Bosnia, France and Trinidad and Tobago on a media freedom index released this week." The report cited "violations of source confidentiality, persistent problems in granting press visas and the arrest of several journalists during anti-Bush demonstrations." Iraq ranked 148th and was described by the group as "the most deadly place on Earth for journalists in recent years."
WAL-MART – COMPANY OPPOSES HEALTH INSURANCE FOR WORKERS: Vice President Cheney's favorite company, Wal-Mart, is pulling out all the stops to block Proposition 72 on the California ballot, "a measure that will require employers to provide basic health insurance to workers." Besides spending $500,000 to aid opponents of the measure, AP reports that Wal-Mart is breaking a tradition of trying to stay out of politics by spending more than $2.4 million on California races this fall – "well beyond any previous sum the company has spent here in one year." Wal-Mart's big funding to block Proposition 72 came just one day after TV ads cited a study from a University of California research group estimating "California taxpayers spend $32 million a year providing health care to Wal-Mart workers."
More on the Explosives at al QaQaa
From Josh Marshall at Talkingpointsmemo.comOct. 26th, 2004
The latest video tape of al Qaqaa unearthed by a local ABC affiliate and now picked up nationally seems like pretty much game, set, match.
Those corrugated barrels that look like what the IAEA described as the containers for the explosives? Turns out that's exactly what they are. So say at least two former weapons inspectors.
And what about the IAEA seals that were supposed to be there? Turns out those are in the video too.
The only question now, it seems, is why the president and his advisors spent four days spinning out increasingly far-fetched excuses and tall-tales about this, hoping to brazen it out through November 2nd without fessing up.
-- Josh Marsha
EU chief Barroso backs down - (United Press International)
By Gareth Harding
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Strasbourg, France, Oct. 27 (UPI) -- Facing a defeat by EU lawmakers Wednesday, European Commission President-designate Jose-Manuel Barroso delayed a vote on his incoming executive team.
'I have come to the conclusion that if a vote is taken today, the outcome will not be positive for European institutions or for the European project,' Barroso told parliamentarians in Strasbourg.
Legislators in the EU assembly threatened to reject the 24-member team of commissioners Tuesday, largely because of provocative remarks made about homosexuals and women by Italian member Rocco Buttiglione.
The Barroso executive had been due to take office Nov. 1. Current commission president Romano Prodi will now stay in office until a new vote is held in the parliament in mid-November. Euro-deputies expect Barroso to reshuffle his team before then to avoid another humiliating climb-down."
Do you remember Saddam's pistol?
Bush keeps Saddam's pistol as trophyJapan Today
May 31st, 2004
WASHINGTON — U.S. President George Bush keeps in his White House offices a trophy of one his high points in the Iraq war, the pistol that Saddam Hussein held when soldiers pulled him from his underground hideaway.
Military specialists mounted the sidearm, and soldiers who helped in the deposed Iraqi president's capture presented it to the president, the White House said Sunday. The president keeps the gun in a small study adjoining the Oval Office.
"He really liked showing it off," the report in Time magazine quotes an unnamed recent visitor to the White House as saying. "He was really proud of it."
Though it was widely reported at the time that the pistol was loaded when US troops grabbed Saddam, Mr Bush has told visitors that the gun was actually empty - and that it is still empty and safe to touch, Time pointed out.
<------------------------------------->
Al QaQaa Timeline
Note: In February 2003 the IAEA confirmed the sealing of 350 metric tons, (754,000 pounds) of HMX and RDX explosives at the Al QaQaa weapons facility. A month later the IAEA certified the HMX was still there; but could not certify that the RDX was sealed. A month later on April 10, 2003, the 101st Airborne Second Brigade entered the site briefly on their way north to Bagdad. A month later the ISG and US Forces found no RDX or HMX at the site. Five months later, the story of the disappearance of the explosives made it onto the US new outlets. Neither the CPA, the IAEA, the ISG, nor the US military authorities made any mention of the disappearance. The Pentagon suggests the explosives may have been moved between February and April of 2003.The 350 metric tons of explosives, which is equal to the current calculated mass of cocaine which comes into the US annually, would have required heavy moving equipment, and at least 25 trucks to move this quantity of explosives. Since Al QaQaa was a well known weapons facility, and the US Airforce had recon aircraft in the air over Bagdad during the "disappearance window", the casual observer must conclude the US Military considered other sites to be more vital to be protected from looting. Since it was not Saddam's palaces, not the Art Museums, not the Hospitals, and since the Kurds and Brits took care of the oil fields, there must have been something else that warranted protection. What was it?
Allawi Faults U.S.-Led Forces on Execution of Iraqi Soldiers
By EDWARD WONG
NY Times
Published: October 26, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 26 - Prime Minister Ayad Allawi partly blamed the American-led military forces on Tuesday for the massacre by insurgents of 49 freshly trained Iraqi soldiers on Saturday, saying the military had shown "major negligence."
In a speech before the interim National Assembly, the prime minister said a committee he had assembled had begun investigating the ambush, the deadliest of the guerrilla war. The assault took place on Saturday night in remote eastern Iraq, as three minibuses of unarmed Iraqi National Guardsmen were heading south for the soldiers' leave. Guerrillas dressed as police officers waylaid the travelers at a fake checkpoint, killed all 49 soldiers and their 3 civilian drivers, mostly with shots to their heads, police officials said. The vehicles were burned.
"I think there was major negligence by the multinational forces," Dr. Allawi said before the 100-member assembly. "It was a way to damage Iraq and the Iraqi people."
The relentless assaults on Iraqi security forces continued, as a militant group called the Army of Ansar al-Sunna posted Internet photos showing that it had captured 11 Iraqi guardsmen. A message on the Web site said the insurgents had captured the "infidels" of the "crusaders' militia" on a road between Baghdad and Hilla, about 50 miles south, where the guardsmen were apparently out on patrol. In the photos, the guardsmen sit at the feet of three armed guerillas.
The kidnappings and the massacre on Saturday revealed the weak state of the Iraqi security forces, despite President Bush's assertion that local police officers and soldiers will soon be able to take over security duties from 138,000 American troops. An Iraqi national security aide said on Monday that up to 5 percent of the Iraqi forces might be infiltrated by insurgents, and American troops say the police and national guardsmen are worthless or working with insurgents. Reporters also frequently encounter Iraqi security officers who say they are ready to take up arms against the occupation forces.
Prime Minister Allawi's razor words before the National Assembly marked the first time he has publicly criticized the American-led forces, and revealed his profound frustration at the assault and quite possibly at the deteriorating security situation in the country. He did not elaborate on his criticism. He added that he expected attacks to rise as Iraq moved toward general elections scheduled for January.
The ambushed guardsmen had just finished basic training at an American-run base in Kirkush, and it was unclear why they were traveling without any arms or other protection, especially given the frequent attacks on Iraqi security forces. The guerrillas who staged the ambush likely had inside information on the movements of the soldiers, Iraqi defense officials have said.
The First Infantry Division, which is charged with controlling restive Diyala Province, where the assault took place, did not return an e-mail request seeking comment on Dr. Allawi's accusation. The office of Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who is overseeing the recruiting and training of the Iraqi security forces, also did not return a similar request.
The interior minister, Falah al-Naqib, also appeared before the National Assembly and said that the government was starting to filter out police officers whom it deemed to be bad.
"Some of them are lazy," he said. "They came just for the sake of making a salary or earning a living. We have a real unemployment problem." If the men are turned away from these jobs or fired, he said, then insurgents will recruit them and pay them an even higher salary.
In interviews, police officers almost invariably cite the lack of jobs as the main reason why they chose to join the Iraqi security forces, despite the dangers. The nationwide unemployment rate is an estimated 60 percent. The average police officer makes more than $220 a month, a solid middle-class income in this society.
Several prominent arrests recently have revealed potential high-ranking corruption among the security forces. Last month, the First Infantry Division arrested a commander of the Iraqi National Guard in Diyala Province, where the massacre took place, saying he had ties with the insurgency. In August, marines arrested the police chief of Anbar Province, which includes the volatile cities of Falluja and Ramadi, on charges of corruption.
American Progress Action Fund
by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin
Oct. 26th, 2004
The Washington Post reported this morning that the White House is planning to seek another $70 billion in emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan early next year, bringing the total cost close to $225 billion. Also, USA Today reports, "Pentagon officials are considering increasing the current U.S. force by delaying the departures of some U.S. troops now in Iraq and accelerating the deployment of others scheduled to go there next year." This will affect more than 20,000 U.S. soldiers. The new numbers "underscore that the [Iraq] war is going to be far more costly and intense, and last longer, than the administration first suggested." Unfortunately, the war has also been made longer and tougher in part by a series of serious mistakes and errors in judgment by the administration. (For an idea of just how much the war in Iraq has already cost your state, take a look at this map.)
INSURGENT THREAT IGNORED: USA Today reports the administration was repeatedly warned about the strong possibility of Iraqi insurgency in the days before the war. These warnings, however, were ignored. For example, two reports by the National Intelligence Council "warned Bush in January 2003, two months before the invasion, that the conflict could spark factional violence and an anti-U.S. insurgency." A separate report by the Army War College a month before the invasion predicted, "The longer U.S. presence is maintained, the more likely violent resistance will develop." The war plan put together by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army Gen. Tommy Franks, however, "discounted these warnings."
LOSING FALLUJAH: The Los Angeles Times reports the administration's inconsistent, politically motivated response to the insurgency "turned Fallujah from a troublesome, little-known city on the edge of Iraq's western desert to an embodiment of almost everything that has gone wrong for the United States in Iraq." Today, Fallujah is a "haven for anti-American guerrillas, a base for suicide bombers, and a headquarters for the man U.S. officials consider the most dangerous terrorist in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi."
ZARQAWI GOT AWAY: The White House passed up the chance to take out Zarqawi before the war in Iraq. The Wall Street Journal reports that in June 2002, the Pentagon drew up detailed plans for a military strike designed to hit the terrorist in his camp. Gen. John Keane, the Army's vice chief of staff, called the camp "one of the best targets we ever had." The White House, however, quashed the plan, unwilling to cause any international controversy in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq. Zarqawi got away and used the war in Iraq to spearhead a terrorist insurgency. He is responsible for a string of deadly car bombings, beheadings as well as the recent massacre of more than 40 Iraqi army recruits.
REAL THREATS IGNORED: In its zeal to chase down phantom weapons of mass destruction – which did not exist – the White House left dangerous explosives – which did exist – unguarded and open to looting by terrorists. Pentagon officials said the facility "was not high on U.S. commanders' list of sites to guard because survey teams found no nuclear or biological materials." Scott McClellan also stated yesterday, "There is not a nuclear proliferation risk," he said. "We're talking about conventional explosives." These "conventional explosives" have been widely used in the car bombs and suicide bombs that are killing U.S. troops in Iraq. They are also powerful enough to bring down entire buildings or "shatter" airplanes.
ADMINISTRATION PUSHES BOGUS THEORY: Yesterday, in an attempt to downplay the looting of the dangerous explosives, the administration tried to sell the theory that the weapons were already gone by the time the U.S. forces reached the Al Qaqaa military facility, leaving the U.S. no chance to safeguard the material. The LA Times reports, "Given the size of the missing cache, it would have been difficult to relocate undetected before the invasion, when U.S. spy satellites were monitoring activity." One former U.S. intelligence official who worked in Baghdad concurred: "You don't just move this stuff in the middle of the night." On top of that, Iraqi officials told the International Atomic Energy Agency earlier this month "that the explosives were looted after April 9, 2003, when U.S. forces entered Baghdad."
OIL WAS THE PRIORITY: The administration has had to fight the perception that the United States invaded Iraq for the oil, a perception that has fueled Iraqi anger at the U.S. presence. In a press conference yesterday, however, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked why the U.S. had left the dangerous explosives unguarded. He responded, "At the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there were a number of priorities. It was a priority to make sure that the oil fields were secure, so that there wasn't massive destruction of the oil fields."
JUDICIARY
The Scalia/Thomas Majority
Chief Justice William Rehnquist underwent surgery yesterday related to "a recent diagnosis of thyroid cancer." Rehnquist's serious condition – even as he is expected to return to the bench on Monday – "gave fresh prominence to the future of the Supreme Court." Bush has said publicly that the Supreme Court justices he admires are arch conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. If re-elected, it is possible Bush could get three or more appointments, "enough to forge a new majority that would turn the extreme Scalia-Thomas worldview into the law of the land." The result: "Abortion might be a crime in most states. Gay people could be thrown in prison for having sex in their homes. States might be free to become mini-theocracies, endorsing Christianity and using tax money to help spread the gospel. The Constitution might no longer protect inmates from being brutalized by prison guards. Family and medical leave and environmental protections could disappear."
A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In the second presidential debate Bush was asked, given the opportunity, who he would appoint to the Supreme Court. Bush responded that he wouldn't pick a judge who supported "the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights." Why would President Bush reference Dred Scott v. Sandford, which hasn't been good law since the end of the Civil War? Because "to the Christian right, 'Dred Scott' turns out to be a code word for 'Roe v. Wade.'" Dred Scott has been compared to Roe v. Wade by prominent conservatives such as George Will, Peggy Noonan and Michael Novak. By referencing Dred Scott, Bush made it clear that "he would never, ever appoint a Supreme Court justice who condoned Roe." If Roe v. Wade is overturned, "there's a good chance that 30 states, home to more than 70 million women, will outlaw abortions within a year; some states may take only weeks." (For more on Bush's misuse of the Dred Scott decision read this new column from American Progress).
A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD CRIMINALIZE PRIVATE SEXUAL CONDUCT: If Scalia and Thomas controlled the Court, "states could once again criminalize private, consensual conduct between adults, and could prevent local governments from enacting even the most basic anti-discrimination protections for gay men and lesbians." Last year, when the Court ruled that the police violated a gay man's right to liberty when they raided his home and arrested him for having sex there, Scalia and Thomas sided with the police.
A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD END FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE: The Family and Medical Leave Act "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one." Last year, the Court upheld the law, but Scalia and Thomas voted to strike it down, arguing that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law.
A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD ALLOW STATE-SPONSORED RELIGION: Justice Thomas has suggested that "despite many Supreme Court rulings to the contrary...the First Amendment prohibition on establishing a religion may not apply to the states." If that view prevailed, "states could adopt particular religions and use tax money to proselytize for them."
A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD LEGALIZE SEX DISCRIMINATION: If Scalia and Thomas were in charge, "public universities, such as the Virginia Military Institute, would be able to discriminate against women in admissions." Also, federal law "could no longer be used to protect students from sexual harassment or other types of discrimination at the hands of other students."
A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD LEGALIZE BRUTALITY AGAINST PRISONERS: A recent case considered a Louisiana inmate who "was shackled and then punched and kicked by two prison guards while a supervisor looked on." The beating left the inmate "with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate." The Court ruled that the inmate's treatment violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Scalia and Thomas dissented, arguing "the Eighth Amendment was not violated by the 'insignificant' harm the inmate suffered."
A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD GUT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS: A Scalia/Thomas majority would make short work of the law that protects our air, water and land. Scalia and Thomas, for example, voted to strip the EPA "of the authority to prevent damaging air pollution by industries when state agencies improperly fail to do so." Already, federal judges appointed by Bush "were less sympathetic to environmentalists' pleadings than those appointed by previous Republican presidents... ruling in favor of environmental challenges 17 percent of the time."
AFGHANISTAN – MORE PRISONER ABUSE?: Cherif Bassiouni, the U.N. Human Rights Commission's independent expert on human rights in Afghanistan, "criticized the U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan for violating international law by allegedly beating Afghans to death and forcing some to remove their clothes or wear hoods." While the coalition justifies many of its practices as necessary for fighting the "war on terrorism," Bassiouni said they undermine efforts to enforce compliance with international law and standards. He cited several examples of alleged violations by coalition troops, including entering people's homes without warrants, detaining people without judicial authority, "beatings resulting in death ... forced nudity and public embarrassment, sleep deprivation, prolonged squatting, and hooding and sensory deprivation." Bassiouni also "blamed warlords, local commanders, and drug traffickers" for many of the rights violations, but stressed that "the absence of security" had allowed such elements to exact "a direct and significant impact on all human rights." TERRORISM – EMBRACING GADHAFI: President Bush has "often cited Libya's announcement last December that it would stop trying to build nuclear weapons as evidence that the invasion of Iraq has deterred other nations from terrorism," but the Washington Post's David Ignatius says the administration is "undercutting its 'war on terrorism'" by embracing a Libyan regime now known to have plotted to assassinate the ruler of Saudi Arabia. New details support evidence that "in November 2003, at the very time that top Libyan officials were negotiating with U.S. and British diplomats the details of a supposed renunciation of terrorism, Libyan operatives were recruiting a hit team to kill Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and destabilize the oil-rich kingdom." Privately, the administration admonished Gadhafi, but "it has gone almost unmentioned publicly by an administration eager to claim success for its anti-terrorism policy." So much for not sending mixed messages. CORPORATE – BUSH FOREIGN POLICY THREATENS PROFITS: A new poll shows President Bush's foreign policy may be hurting overseas profits for American companies. The poll, by an independent global market research firm, says "American corporations are in danger of suffering a major shift in purchasing habits as nearly 20% of foreign consumers say they'll avoid select U.S. products due to America's position on foreign affairs." The poll reveals that "people in China, Japan, Germany and other industrialized Western nations are less willing today to purchase American brands — notably Starbucks, Marlboro and Mattel — or fly American-based airlines than before the Iraqi invasion and the United States' unilateral foreign policies." More than half of those surveyed cited "an increasingly negative perception of the U.S., while 67% believe U.S. foreign policy is guided by 'self interests' and 'empire building.'" CIVIL LIBERTIES – FBI TURNED BLIND EYE TO PRISONER ABUSE: The New York Times reports, "FBI agents witnessed harsh treatment of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2003, but did not believe that what they saw was abusive or worth reporting, according to a newly released document." Some of the things the agents saw: an inmate with a sack over his head who was covered with a shower curtain and handcuffed to a waist-high rail; a naked or partly clothed inmate made to lie prone on a wet floor; inmates stripped naked and put in isolation cells. "The document, a May 19 report by the FBI's counterterrorism division," shows the bureau's leadership became concerned about what its agents had seen only after Abu Ghraib went public. The report said the treatment witnessed by the agents seemed similar to what agents "had seen in prison strip-searches in the United States." MEDIA – SMITH DOESN'T WATCH OWN SHOWS: Apparently, even Sinclair CEO David Smith is turned off by his company's programming: in an interview on Friday, Smith denied being a Republican activist and said he rarely watched anything but golf on TV. He denied trying to sway the presidential election by requiring his stations to air a special on Friday that included several minutes of an anti-Kerry documentary, and said he gave more money to Democrats than Republicans. According to Federal Election Commission records, at least the latter of these statements was untrue. Since 1997, Smith has given only $2,250 in donations to Democrats while he has pitched in $22,000 for Republicans. "Brothers Frederick G. Smith and J. Duncan Smith, also Sinclair board members, have made tens of thousands of dollars in GOP contributions over the same period, record show." |
Another Viewpoint...
The More Things Change...By DAVID BROOKS
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: October 23, 2004
Why is this country still tied?
Over the past four years, we've experienced a major terrorist attack, a recession, a dot-com shakeout, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, corporate scandals and an active and tumultuous presidency. We've had an influx of new citizens. Millions have died of old age, and tens of millions have moved to new towns and new states.
Yet the political landscape looks almost exactly the same. We're still divided right down the middle. We're still looking at razor-thin margins in states like Florida. If you compare the demographic breakdowns of the Bush-Kerry race to those of the Bush-Gore race in 2000, you find they are quite similar. Why does everything in America change except politics?
That is the central mystery of this election.
The only possible conclusion is that there is some deep, tectonic fissure that shapes the electorate, a fissure so fundamental that it is unaffected by the enormous shocks we've felt over the past four years. Remember, it is very unusual to have two close presidential elections in a row. This hasn't occurred for about 120 years.
But what explains this stable divide?
Let me first tell you what it is not. Foreign, domestic and social policy debates do not explain the current tie. The election of 2000 was fought on a different set of issues. Then, we were arguing about things like lockboxes, compassionate conservatism and how to use the surplus. Now, we're arguing about war, terrorism and the deficit. The issues have changed, but the political landscape has not.
Moreover, as the Stanford political scientist Morris Fiorina has shown, Americans are not that polarized on issues. When you ask people about policies - even abortion - you see a big group of moderates. If issue differences were shaping this campaign, you'd see these centrists sloshing back and forth and breaking the tie.
But two forces do account for the stable political divide. First, partisanship. We've just seen how passionately some people care about the Yankees and the Red Sox. Many people care that passionately about being a Democrat or a Republican.
Human beings are tribal. When they find themselves in a closely fought contest with a rival group, they become ever more tightly bound to their tribe. They see reality in ways that flatter the group. They nurture the resentments that bind the group.
In this campaign the two candidates do not just describe different policies. They describe different realities. In short, the partisan rivalry fuels itself. Once an electorate becomes tied, there is a built-in emotional pressure that keeps things that way. Even people who claim to be independents find themselves sucked into the vortex.
Second, and probably more important, we're in the middle of a leadership war. Underneath all the disputes about Iraq, we're having a big argument about what qualities America should have in a leader. Republicans trust one kind of leader, Democrats another. This is the constant that runs through recent elections.
Republicans, from Reagan to Bush, particularly admire leaders who are straight-talking men of faith. The Republican leader doesn't have to be book smart, and probably shouldn't be narcissistically introspective. But he should have a clear, broad vision of America's exceptional role in the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are more apt to emphasize such leadership skills as being knowledgeable and thoughtful. They value leaders who can see complexities, who possess the virtues of the well-educated.
Republicans and Democrats have different conceptions of the presidency. Republicans admire a president who is elevated above his executive branch colleagues. Democrats see the presidency as a much more ministerial job. They admire presidents who engage in constant deliberative conversations. Democrats from Carter through Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry have all been well versed in the inner workings of government.
It just so happens that America is evenly divided about what sort of leader we need: the Republican who leads with his soul or the Democrat who leads with his judgment. Even the events of the past four years have not altered that disagreement.
"Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete." The Emperor
Ok, you asked: "What do these people have in common?"
Ronald ReaganBob Dornan
Michael Huffington
Jim Bakker
Jimmy Swaggart
Arnold Schwarzenegger
John McKay
Bob Dole
Henry Hyde
Bob Livingston
Neil Bush
Ted Bundy
Sam Walls
Guy Millner
Rush Limbaugh
Dan Burton
Rudolph Giuliani
Strom Thurmond
Bob Packwood
Newt Gingrich
Bill O'Reilly
Jack Ryan
Bob Barr
Marv Albert
...
Hint: All are Republicans
...
Hint: All have admitted to adulterous behavior
...
Answer: All have spoken on numerous occasions about how Republicans are the party that makes faith, and traditional family values the centerpiece of their personal lives. Hippocrites Extraordinaire !!
Note: And if you want to push the envelope, try coming up with twenty five well-known Democrats who have had sex related problems while in office...or had the gall to pretend they were "up-standing citizens". I can come up with five; but not twenty five.
Whistleblower Asks for Halliburton Investigation
Mon Oct 25, 2004 01:54 PM ET
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
The Army Corps of Engineers' top contracting official has demanded an investigation into contracts given to Halliburton, citing "improper action" that favored Vice President Dick Cheney's old company.
According to documents made available to Reuters on Monday by congressional sources, Army Corps whistle-blower Bunnantine Greenhouse complained of "repeated interference" in billions of dollars of contracts given to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root for work in Iraq and the Balkans.
"This interference was largely focused on multibillion-dollar contract issues pertaining to a Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root," said a letter faxed on Thursday to Acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee by lawyers for Greenhouse.
"As set forth below, employees of the U.S. government have taken improper action that favored KBR's interests," the letter said.
An Army attorney said in reply the matter was being referred to the Defense Department's inspector general for "review and action, as appropriate" and the Corps was asked not to act against Greenhouse until a sufficient record was available.
The Corps issued a brief statement saying it supported the right of employees to use established procedures to ensure governmental actions complied with applicable laws.
"In order to ensure that Ms. Greenhouse's privacy rights are protected and to ensure that a fair investigation can proceed, the Army Corps will not provide further comment," said a Corps spokeswoman.
The Pentagon inspector general's office declined comment on the request for an "independent executive agency" to examine the allegations made by Greenhouse and said it could neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation. A decision could take months or even years.
Greenhouse lawyer Michael Kohn said his client went public after the Corps tried to remove her from her post as principal assistant responsible for contracting and not because she wanted to influence next week's election by raising questions about Halliburton, which was run by Cheney from 1995-2000.
"This is not an assault against Halliburton, it's an effort to make the contracting process work," Kohn said.
Halliburton, which is already under investigation for overcharging for work in Iraq, has been a target of Democratic criticism ahead of the Nov. 2 election, with suggestions the Texas firm got special treatment because of Cheney.
Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said KBR did not have any information on what Greenhouse may or may not have said to Pentagon officials in 2003 when a no-bid contract worth up to $7 billion was given to KBR to rebuild Iraq's oil industry.
"On the larger issues, the old allegations have once again been recycled, this time one week before the election," said Hall.
Greenhouse said the Iraq oil contract given to KBR, which was later replaced by a competitively bid deal, as well as another to feed and house U.S. troops in the Balkans, put at risk the "integrity of the federal contracting program."
Kohn said KBR contracts were awarded despite his client's reservations, which she expressed in hand-written notes on official documents, a tactic her superiors asked her to stop.
In one case, he said Army Corps officials bypassed getting a signature from Greenhouse to grant a waiver for KBR to be relieved of its obligation to provide cost and pricing data for bringing fuel into Iraq.
That waiver was granted after a draft Army audit said KBR had overcharged the military by at least $61 million to bring in fuel to Iraq to ease a shortage of refined oil products.
October 25, 2004
TRACKING THE WEAPONS
Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq
By JAMES GLANZ, WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER
This article was reported and written by James Glanz, William J. Broad and David E. Sanger.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, produce missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.
The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no-man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished after the American invasion last year.
The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed. American officials have never publicly announced the disappearance, but beginning last week they answered questions about it posed by The New York Times and the CBS News program "60 Minutes."
Administration officials said yesterday that the Iraq Survey Group, the C.I.A. task force that searched for unconventional weapons, has been ordered to investigate the disappearance of the explosives.
Note: Have you heard the one about closing the door once the chickens have fled the coop?
American weapons experts say their immediate concern is that the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks against American or Iraqi forces: the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could be used to produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings. The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the material of the type stolen from Al Qaqaa, and somewhat larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people.
The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, which was why international nuclear inspectors had kept a watch on the material, and even sealed and locked some of it. But the other components of an atom bomb - the design and the radioactive fuel - are more difficult to obtain. "This is a high explosives risk, but not necessarily a proliferation risk," one senior Bush administration official said.
The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country.
The Qaqaa facility, about 30 miles south of Baghdad, was well known to American intelligence officials: Saddam Hussein made conventional warheads at the site, and the I.A.E.A. dismantled parts of his nuclear program there in the early 1990's after the Persian Gulf war in 1991. In the prelude to the 2003 invasion, Mr. Bush cited a number of other "dual use" items - including tubes that the administration contended could be converted to use for the nuclear program - as a justification for invading Iraq.
After the invasion, when widespread looting began in Iraq, the international weapons experts grew concerned that the Qaqaa stockpile could fall into unfriendly hands. In May, an internal I.A.E.A. memorandum warned that terrorists might be helping "themselves to the greatest explosives bonanza in history."
In an interview with The Times and CBS in Baghdad, the minister of science and technology, Rashad M. Omar, confirmed the facts described in the letter. "Yes, they are missing," Dr. Omar said. "We don't know what happened." The I.A.E.A. says it also does not know, and has reported that machines tools that can be used for either nuclear or non-nuclear purposes have also been looted.
Dr. Omar said that after the American-led invasion, the sites containing the explosives were under the control of the Coalition Provisional Authority, an American-led entity that was the highest civilian authority in Iraq until it handed sovereignty of the country over to the interim government on June 28.
"After the collapse of the regime, our liberation, everything was under the coalition forces, under their control," Dr. Omar said. "So probably they can answer this question, what happened to the materials."
Officials in Washington said they had no answers to that question. One senior official noted that the Qaqaa complex where the explosives HMX and RDX were stored was listed as a "medium priority" site on the Central Intelligence Agency's list of more than 500 sites that needed to be searched and secured during the invasion. In the chaos that followed the invasion, many of those sites, even some considered a higher priority, were never secured.
"Should we have gone there? Definitely," said one senior administration official. "But there are a lot of things we should have done, and didn't."
An Arsenal Turned No-Man's Land
To see the bunkers that makeup the vast Qaqaa complex today, it is hard to recall that just two years ago it was part of Saddam Hussein's secret military complex. The bunkers are so large that they are reminiscent of pyramids, though with rounded edges and the tops chopped off. Several are blackened and eviscerated as a result of American bombing. Smokestacks rise in the distance.
Today, Al Qaqaa has become a no-man's land that is generally avoided even by the Marines in charge of north Babil Province. Headless bodies are found there. An ammunition dump has been looted, and on Sunday an Iraqi employee of The New York Times who made a furtive visit to the site saw looters tearing out metal fixtures. Bare pipes within the darkened interior of one of the buildings were a tangled mess, zigzagging along charred walls. Someone fired a shot, probably to frighten the visitors off.
"It's like Mars on Earth," said Maj. Dan Whisnant, an intelligence officer for the Second Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment. "It would take probably 10 battalions 10 years to clear that out."
Saddam Hussein's engineers acquired HMX and RDX when they embarked on a crash effort to build an atomic bomb in the late 1980's. It did not go smoothly. In 1989, a huge blast ripped through Al Qaqaa, the boom reportedly heard hundreds of miles away. The explosion, it was later determined, occurred when a stockpile of the high explosives ignited.
After the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the United Nations discovered Iraq's clandestine effort and put the I.A.E.A., the United Nations arms agency, in charge of Al Qaqaa's huge stockpile. Weapon inspectors determined that Iraq had bought the explosives from France, China and Yugoslavia, a European diplomat said.
None of the explosives were destroyed, arms experts familiar with the decision recalled, because Iraq argued that it should be allowed to keep them for eventual use in mining and civilian construction. But Al Qaqaa was still under the authority of the Military Industrial Council, which was led for a time by Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law. He defected to the West, then returned to Iraq and was immediately killed.
In 1996, the United Nations hauled away some of the HMX and used it to blow up Al Hakam, a vast Iraqi factory for making germ weapons.
The Qaqaa stockpile went unmonitored from late 1998, when United Nations inspectors left Iraq, to late 2002, when they came back. Upon their return, the inspectors discovered that about 35 tons of HMX were missing. The Iraqis said they had used the explosive in civilian programs.
The remaining stockpile was no secret. Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the I.A.E.A., frequently talked about it publicly as he investigated, in late 2002 and early 2003, the Bush administration's claims that Iraq was secretly renewing its pursuit of nuclear arms. He ordered his weapons inspectors to conduct an inventory, and publicly reported their findings to the Security Council on Jan. 9, 2003.
During the following weeks, the I.A.E.A. repeatedly drew public attention to the explosives. In New York on Feb. 14, nine days after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented his arms case to the Security Council, Dr. ElBaradei reported that the I.A.E.A. had found no sign of new atom endeavors but "has continued to investigate the relocation and consumption of the high explosive HMX."
An Inspector's Warning
A European diplomat reported that Jacques Baute, head of the I.A.E.A.'s Iraq nuclear inspection team, warned officials at the United States mission in Vienna about the danger of the nuclear sites and materials once under I.A.E.A. supervision, including Al Qaqaa.
But apparently, little was done. A senior Bush administration official said that during the initial race to Baghdad, American forces "went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal." It is unclear whether they ever returned.
By late 2003, diplomats said, I.A.E.A. experts had obtained commercial satellite photos of Al Qaqaa showing that two of roughly 10 bunkers that contained HMX appeared to have been leveled by titanic blasts, apparently during the war. They presumed some of the HMX had exploded, but that is unclear.
Other HMX bunkers were untouched. Some were damaged but not devastated. I.A.E.A. experts say they assume that just before the invasion the Iraqis followed their standard practice of moving crucial explosives out of buildings, so they would not be tempting targets. If so, the experts say, the Iraqi must have broken I.A.E.A. seals on bunker doors and moved most of the HMX to nearby fields, where it would have been lightly camouflaged - and ripe for looting.
But the Bush administration would not allow the agency back into the country to verify the status of the stockpile. In May 2004, Iraqi officials say in interviews, they warned L. Paul Bremer III, the American head of the occupation authority, that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted. It is unclear if that warning was passed anywhere. Efforts to reach Mr. Bremer by telephone were unsuccessful. But by that time, the Americans were preoccupied with the transfer of authority to Iraq, and the insurgency was gaining strength. "It's not an excuse," said one senior administration official. "But a lot of things went by the boards."
Early this month, Dr. ElBaradei put public pressure on the interim Iraqi government to start the process of accounting for nuclear-related materials still ostensibly under I.A.E.A. supervision, including the Al Qaqaa stockpile.
"Iraq is obliged," he wrote to the president of the Security Council on Oct. 1, "to declare semiannually changes that have occurred or are foreseen."
The agency, Dr. ElBaradei added pointedly, "has received no such notifications or declarations from any state since the agency's inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq in March 2003."
Two weeks ago, on Oct. 10, Dr. Mohammed J. Abbas of the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology wrote a letter to the I.A.E.A. to say that the Qaqaa stockpile had been lost . He added that his ministry judged that an "urgent updating of the registered materials is required."
A chart in his letter listed 341.7 metric tons, about 377 American tons, of HMX, RDX and PETN as missing.
Five days later, on Oct. 15, European diplomats said, the I.A.E.A. wrote the United States mission in Vienna to forward the Iraqi letter and ask that American authorities inform the international coalition in Iraq of the missing explosives.
Dr. ElBaradei, a European diplomat said, is "extremely concerned" about the potentially "devastating consequences" of the vanished stockpile.
Its fate remains unknown. Glenn Earhart, manager of an Army Corps of Engineers program in Huntsville, Ala., that is in charge of rounding up and destroying lost Iraqi munitions, said he and his colleagues knew nothing of the whereabouts of the Qaqaa stockpile.
Administration officials say Iraq was awash in munitions, including other stockpiles of exotic explosives.
"The only reason this stockpile was under seal," said one senior administration official, "is because it was located at Al Qaqaa," where nuclear work had gone on years ago.
James Glanz reported from Baghdad and Yusifiya, Iraq, for this article, William J. Broad from New York and Vienna, and David E. Sanger from Washington and Crawford, Tex. Khalid al-Ansary contributed reporting from Baghdad.
