McKenna, fresh from media tours in the U.S. where he tried to correct false American impressions of Canada, turned the table on his Canadian audience, calling on them to have a better understanding of Americans.
The world changed dramatically for Americans on Sept. 11, and dealing with the shock and fear of the next attack "trumps all other issues and all other relationships," he said.
"As Canadians, we intellectually acknowledge this reality, but we do not comprehend the full depth of the emotional scarring caused by that extraordinary event."
"It has changed America. Americans are consumed with the need to protect their physical security and economic security."
Read the rest below:
© The Canadian Press, 2005
http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=news_home&articleID=1944992
Note: http://www.mytelus.com/...
McKenna Tells Canadians To Stop Being Smug
Posted on Friday, June 03 at 21:59 by whelan costenContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
our self confessed arrogant American is going to have a field day with this one
---
"There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking."
Alfred Korzybski
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?
"There are many places where Canada can act where we might not be able to act," Cellucci told the American Assembly, a weekend conference on Canada-U.S. relations. "There's a lot of resentment around the world towards the United States.
This anti-Canadian attitude in the United States is awakening Canadians to the fact that Canada can not exercise its democratic rights and operate freely without fear because it has not gotten approval from and risking offending our neighbor / friend / family to the south of us.
The question at the end of the day is; has Canada lost its sovereignty over its foreign and domestic affairs as to international trade due to its close trading relationship with the United States? That Canada can not exercise its democratic rights and move freely without fear because it has not gotten approval from and risking offending our neighbor / friend / family to the south of us. Have Canadian producers and suppliers become so tied to the high profits margins in the US that it is no longer profitable to look after Canada’s own domestic market?
The matter of Canada/US relations the Canadian people have been the losers and their wishes for their country have rarely been followed by those entrusted to express those wishes. It seems to suggest, too, that US leaders have always had, and expressed, a clear interest in subordinating Canadian wealth and freedom to the needs and wants of the USA.
President Bush now feels that Canadians have to be managed. Well I am not a chicken, cow, horse, business etc. that needs to be managed but a human being! I still remember when 11 years ago an executive at the American based company I work for told me that when they discuss their Canadian workers they referred to us as those over educated Mexicans up north. When do we stand up for ourselves and be proud of who we are.
Canada’s existence does not depend on the United States of America! It depends on Canada and Canadians hard work, ingenuity and demanding respect from those that want to be our friends and looking after our own national and domestic interests without interference from foreign countries that have a personal agenda of their own. Standing up to those that do not follow the rules, treaties and agreements that all have agreed to.
No Sir! We Canadians do not have to bite our lip nor apologize for doing the right thing or for benign right if not just being Canadians. Like the price we paid for free trade maybe we need to pay the same price to maintain our sovereignty and independence?
One Washington trade lawyer noted, "The United States regards Canadians as wimps and expects them to fold." Indeed, Ottawa, is expected by the United States Government Administration to do everything in its power to find some way for the Americans to "win" what they want if not expect in the end.
For Gods sakes man, stand up to them and defend my children’s future.
---
REALITY IS TWO THIRDS OF WHAT WE PROCIEVE REALITY TO BE
DIFFICULT DECISIONS ARE A MATTER OF RANK
Sad, that.
Now, however, we have more questions than answers on the events of 9/11 and what really patriotic Americans should demand is not Canada's compliance with the Bush government's policies, but answers to what really has happened on 9/11 ?
The so called inquiries where nothing more than childish whitewash, hampered all the way by the White House. Why did those planes permitted to fly long periods ? Why weren't any military heads rolling for neglect of duty ? Why wasn't a single general charged ? What hit the Pentagon? It sure as hell wasn't an airliner. What happened to the airliner that supposedly hit it ? How and why did those buildings collapse the way they did in seconds, on clue? Why wasn't there any independent inquiry? Why were independent engineers and scientists not permitted to examine the ruins and why was the metal cleaned up in such a hurry and sent to China, when simple plane crashes are investigated sometimes for months and years? Conspiracy theories? Of course, because the whole thing stinks to high heaven and it is no wonder thinking Canadians don't want to be any part of it.
Our Stephen Harper demanded Canadian troops in Iraq to be with our great friends and trading partners, but now it is becoming more evident every day, that because of the DU ammo pollution, used by US and British forces, Iraq is a doomed country and the soldiers of the so called alliance, or whatever, who have been and are serving there are also doomed to multiple cancers for the rest of their lives, passing the effects of radiation on to their yet unborn children, as Gulf War and Bosnian veterans have been for years, not only in the US, but also in Spain, Holland, Britain.
Before playing holier than thou, Mr.McKenna and our American friends should wipe the chip off their own shoulders when we question the actions of a gang of suspected criminals and don't want to have anything to do with their actions. At least, in this country we can still stand up and ask questions without being labeled anti-Canadian. Our American friends should try it sometimes and see how it feels ?
Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.
Perhaps because many Canadians don't have any and pretend that every question has shades of gray, there is no right or wrong etc. etc. - it is much, much easier to believe in all the crap that has been flowing out of the Universities in recent years than it is to try and do what's right all the time.
A patently obvious example of this is our governing Liberal party - $350 million is gone out of the Treasury, Liberal friends have become millionaires - and they still have widespread support.
So obviously Canadians no longer see a difference between right and wrong, and what was formerly known as criminal behaviour is now perfectly acceptable. It's too bad that we have adopted this self-destructive ideology, for the future of Canada will not be bright if these are its ideals.
One posted:
"When do we stand up for ourselves and be proud of who we are."
When we stand up for ourselves and be proud of who we are.
McKenna's right, the Americans don't think of us much, perhaps only when the more entertaining and incendiary soundbites make the news. You're worried about the loss of Canadian sovereignty? Worried about the U.S. feeling the need to "manage" Canadians? Then go about the business of Canadian patriotism and nation-building with proper and "stereotypically Canadian" retraint, respect and dignity. As well, attempt to do so (to be cynical) without deliberately handing your "opponents" material that can be so easily leveraged against you.
"No Sir! We Canadians do not have to bite our lip nor apologize for doing the right thing or for benign right if not just being Canadians"
WE (<-- to make one thing clear) Canadians MUST bite our lip when not doing so would harm our interests more than it would help. So too must we apologize when not doing so would create more of a threat to our goals than taking the high road (demonstrably the case if we choose to apply Newtonian mechanics to politics). Such is the core responsibility of diplomats: if you disliked Paul Celluci's notably un-diplomatic behaviour, then for gosh sakes let's try and learn something constructive from the experience.
Nature lovers, imagine hiking through the wilderness, when suddenly you realize you and a grizzly are unwittingly sharing the same piece of habitat, a situation which presents immediate and grave personal threat. Suppose that this more powerful, sometimes peaceful, sometimes horribly irrational, creature seems to be ignoring you, though not unaware of your presence. Suppose also you have years of experience in living near, working with, and understanding the nature of grizzly bears, including both those facts which can be exploited in such a confrontation, and those facts which cannot.
By show of hands, how many of you would be inclined to wave your arms and shout, "Hey Grizzly, F--- YOU!". ... two ... three ... wonderful! Let's go for a hike, you can go in front.
<br />
"So obviously Canadians no longer see a difference between right and wrong, and what was formerly known as criminal behaviour is now perfectly acceptable. It's too bad that we have adopted this self-destructive ideology, for the future of Canada will not be bright if these are its ideals."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=non+sequitur&x=0&y=0">http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=non+sequitur&x=0&y=0</a><br />
<br />
Let's put it into another perspective. Say perhaps somebody flew a plane into the CN Tower and killed 300 people. Although muslim terrorists don't have nearly the reason to hate Canada, let's say some evidence pointed to an oppressed people who did, like native canadians, say specifically the Mohawk Nation. Well, we don't need to really imagine what it would be like, we saw what happened in Oka when they had to nerve to try to defend their cemetary from a local zoning issue which would lead to a golf course on disputed land. Mobs of angry whites threw stones and huge rocks at passing natives who weren't even involved in the barricade causing two deaths. A radio station set up live at the blockade and nightly espoused rioting, which the people actively accomodated. All this, as one white man who then went and joined the native defense claimed, "over a golf course".
So any canadian who would dare think that canada is some moralistic superpower is beyond ignorant. It is quite easy to imagine what would occur in my hypothetical scenario. Trudeau is hailed as a hero for invoking martial law and arresting thousands of francophones when kidnappings were done by two men and planned by a tiny group. We also need not go back that much further to the Winnipeg general strike and the violence the state wreaked on those who had the gall to demand they not have to starve like cattle. That we don't understand what happens to a nation like the US when something this horrible happens should be a GIVEN. Keep in mind that that does not mean I endorse caving in to their every whim simply because we can't understand.
The canadian smugness is quite well documented, particularly in our media and even sometimes at this website. We know that our government acts to endorse the financial strengths of corporations overseas, know that it puts economic interests over human rights, know that we repress native rights and security, know that we grant huge concessions to wealthy investors and rob the poor, know that we poison the environment far worse than our neighbours to the south, and on and on...what right do we have to be superior about anything? Our government acts in the exact same way, just on a smaller scale because it doesn't have the huge resources.
OK, that may be a bit extreme, but its in the ballpark. So let's look at something else. In democratic terms the US fought to get rid of british imperialism-we fought to keep it. Their citizens then fought for the right to elect senators, we jump on the back of anybody who dares impune our right to have our Prime Minister nominate senators. In many states at the beginning of the century they fought once again for citizens initiatives and currently they are fighting for CI at the federal level and more federal referenda. At the local level they fight so that virtually all areas of public discourse is open to citizen decision making. Again, I'm not saying it's an ideal society, far from it, but much of its greatest transgressions are a result of its federal government-the one area where they do not have the democratic structures available at the state and local levels-yet. That is changing, but you won't see it if you sit like a veghead and only watch fox.
In Canada meanwhile, not only are there NO democratic mechanisms, but the slightly more democratic form of Proportional Representation was wiped out by petty dictators by 1960. Currently we can't even get that modicrum of democracy back and canadians idea of political change is to 'vote for the other guy'. As we also saw, outside of Alberta its pretty difficult to even get access to what the government is doing. Believe me, it is far different in the states on that level.
So yes, I think americans are quite right to be smug democratically speaking. Their society may be bad in ways-but they take responsibility for it. In Canada we puff out our chests and take credit for 'wonderful canada' while at the same time just 'blame that autocratic government' for all the things we disagree with. The best of both worlds eh? Except for the rabbits that had a house there before the man and grizzly showed up.
The challenge on both sides of the border (generously including those south of it who take initiative to care) is to recognize this trait and seek to leverage it constructively. Compatriots, try minding your P's and Q's (short for pints and quarts) a little better and see where that gets you. Americans, for your part, please stop making selfish use of those weak-spirited Canadians who pretend to apologize for our differences and who stroke your ego when the boardroom door is shut; these *are* Canadian patriots, but are those who would prefer oligarchy and betray your Founders with every puff of smoke they blow you-know-where. They are only after your money, and just look what it does to the sentiments of decent, average, folks, when it gets back to us.
When the U.S. sit-com producers stop flattering us with old-timey stereotypes of polite, stoic, befuddlement ("what's all this aboot, eh?"), and instead opt for stomping tantrums atop stuffed effigies, we'll hopefully start to catch on.
U.S. Troop Death Toll Reaches 1,500; Civilian Deaths Number in Tens of Thousands
The death toll for U.S. troops in Iraq reached 1,500 in early March, as security in Iraq remains inadequate. The number of the dead continues to rise as suicide bombings and car bombings have occurred with increased frequency in the war-torn nation in recent weeks.
Source: CNN.com, "Bombs strike two Iraqi targets, killing 6," March 3, 2005; The Times of London, "US death toll in Iraq reaches 1,500" Phillipe Naughton, March 3, 2005
Bin Laden Draws a Rare Mention from Bush
Bush made an infrequent mention of the United States' most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden, in a March 2005 speech at the swearing-in of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, saying that stopping bin Laden was a "challenge." These days, Bush rarely mentions bin Laden, who he said he wanted killed or captured after the Sept. 11 attacks. Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said in December 2004 that "the trail has gone cold," despite a multimillion-dollar bounty and one of the largest manhunts in history, and reports indicate that U.S. officials largely agree. Since his re-election, Bush has focused less on international terrorism and more on domestic issues.
Source: Washington Post, "Bin Laden Reappears On Bush's Agenda," Jim Vandehei and Peter Baker, March 4, 2005; The White House, "President Thanks DHS Secretary Chertoff at Swearing-In Ceremony," George W. Bush, March 3, 2005. Associated Press, "Search for Bin Laden Faces Complications," Katherine Shrader, March 3, 2005
U.S. Criticizes—and Criticized—on Human Rights Violations
As the U.S. State Department issued its annual report on human rights violations in early March, China, Russia, Mexico and Venezuela issued statements of their own criticizing the U.S. for having a double standard on human rights abuses. Those nations point to human rights violations in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, along with U.S. willingness to turn over prisoners to nations which use torture as an interrogation tactic. They charge that the U.S. is losing its moral authority on the issue of human rights violations.
Sources: New York Times, "U.S. Cites Array of Rights Abuses by the Iraqi Government in 2004," Brian Knowlton, March 1, 2005; Washington Post, "China, Others Criticize U.S. Report on Rights," Edward Cody, March 4, 2005; CSMonitor.com, "Is US losing moral authority on human rights?" Tom Regan, March 7, 2005
Total War Costs Near $300 Billion, Half of What U.S. Spent in Vietnam
The Bush administration formally asked Congress on Feb. 14 for $81.9 billion to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, pushing the total costs of war since Sept. 11, 2001, to nearly $300 billion, almost half of what the U.S. spent for its decade-long involvement in Vietnam. (Converted into today's dollars, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam cost $623 billion, according to research service figures.) John Pike, a defense specialist at the Alexandria, Va., military think tank GlobalSecurity.org, said the Iraq operations have "been running over a billion a week thus far. I think we're probably getting up to $2 billion a week fairly soon."
Sources: New York Times, "Bush Says Iraqi Leaders Will Want U.S. Forces to Stay to Help," Elisabeth Bumiller, David E. Sanger, and Richard W. Stevenson, Jan. 28, 2005; "State of the Union," President Bush, Feb. 2, 2005; TruthOut.org, "War Funding Request May Hit $100 Billion," Bryan Bender, Dec. 15, 2004; Associated Press, "War funding could top $300B," Alan Fram, Feb. 15, 2004; Washington Post, "President Requests More War Funding," Jonathan Weisman, Feb. 15, 2004.
Rumsfeld Goes on the Defensive Regarding Humvee Armor Kits for Troops in Iraq
A Dec. 8 pep rally at a Kuwait staging base turned into a question-answer session for U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld when Spec. Thomas Wilson spoke out: "Our vehicles are not armored. We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat." Rumsfeld, taken off guard, responded that "you go to war with the Army you have… not the Army you might want to wish to have at a later time." The ensuing controversy surrounding Rumsfeld's comments led Congress to release a report stating that only 6,000 of the near-20,000 Humvees in service in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait were fully protected. According to testimony by the Army's vice chief of staff in late 2003, the military needed 8,400 armor kits for those Humvees, but Bush's 2004 budget proposed no funding for Humvee armor kits. A spokesman for Armor Holdings, which manufactures the fully-protected Humvees, said, "We have always said, 'Tell us how much you want and we'll build them.'" The company even proposed setting up new assembly lines to produce more. At least one report has estimated that half of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq might still be alive if only they had been properly equipped.
Sources: Associated Press, "Rumsfeld selling $500 billion military budget," Feb. 15, 2005; Center for American Progress, "Rumsfeld Says the Darndest Things," Christy Harvey, Judd Legum, and Jonathan Baskin, Dec. 9, 2004; TruthOut, "Rumsfeld Under Fire for 'Hillbilly Armor,'" Rupert Cornwell, Dec. 11, 2004.
Pat Robertson Says Bush Didn't Expect Any Casualties in Iraq
Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson told CNN reporter Paula Zahn on Oct. 19 that George Bush did not expect American soldiers to sustain any casualties in Iraq. "I was trying to say, Mr. President, you better prepare the American people for casualties." And according to Robertson's account, Bush replied, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." Bush's political team was quick to refute such claims. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, "The president never made such a comment." Long-time Bush crony Karen Hughes told CNN, "Perhaps he misunderstood, but I've never heard the president say any such thing." Pat Robertson has not backed down from his original comments, although he asserts that he is 100 percent behind Bush's re-election.
Sources: CNN, "Paula Zahn Now" Transcript, Oct. 19, 2004; CNN, "No Casualties? White House Disputes Robertson Comment," John King, Oct. 21, 2004.
Every Vote Counts ... Just Not in Iraq
What good is the outcome of an election conducted amid violence and chaos? According to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, good enough. At a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington, he said, "Let's say you tried to have an election, and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great. Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life. So you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."
Source: AlterNet, "Lie and You Thrive," James Bovard, Sept. 17, 2004
Conservative Think Tank Details Bush Miscalculations in Iraq
Larry Diamond, senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, recently published an article detailing a long list of miscalculations in the war in Iraq. He says that the Bush administration "was never willing to commit anything like the forces necessary to ensure order in postwar Iraq." According to Diamond, different kinds of troops with different rules of engagement are needed to ensure a successful transition to democracy in the war-torn nation. He goes on to say that the aftermath of major combat was very different from the Bush administration's initial assessment. " Administration officials repeatedly deluded themselves into believing that the defeat of the insurgency was just around the corner—just as soon as the long, hot summer of 2003 ended, or reconstruction dollars started flowing in and jobs were created, or the political transition began, or Saddam Hussein was captured, or the interim government was inaugurated." However, as Diamond concludes, "The transition in Iraq is going to need a huge amount of international assistance—political, economic, and military—for years to come."
Source: Foreign Affairs, "What Went Wrong in Iraq," Larry Diamond, Sept/Oct 2004.
Report Card on War on Terrorism Gives a Grade of D+
The Center for American Progress released a report card for the Bush administration's war on terrorism last week. "Instead of taking advantage of the historical opportunity presented after the 9/11 attacks, the administration has emboldened the world's most dangerous regimes and terrorists, and escalated the potential of another terrorist attack," said John Podesta, CEO and President of the Center for American Progress. The disturbing report card focused on four major issues: homeland security, nonproliferation, military power, and combating the terrorist threat. On homeland security, the administration received a D+ since it has "failed to allocate sufficient resources to improve security at our ports, railways, and chemical plants. Management problems, bureaucratic obstacles, and the lack of priorities hamper the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies. Intelligence and money fail to flow adequately to state and local authorities." Podesta said, "This is not a report card the Bush administration wants to take home to the American people."
Sources: Center for American Progress, "Bush Administration Gets 'Failing Grades'—New Report Concludes Administration Not Up to the Task of Making Americans More Secure," Sept. 2004.
Vote for Bush or Die?
Speaking in Des Moines on Sept. 7, Dick Cheney implied that a vote for John Kerry would result in another terrorist attack on the United States. "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice," Cheney said, "because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again. We'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." Critics were quick to respond. Sen. John Edwards said that "Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line." Al Gore called Cheney's comments "a sleazy and despicable effort to blackmail voters with fear." The Center for American Progress, in its daily Progress Report email newsletter, characterized these comments as, "Vote for us or die."
Sources: CNN, "Cheney: Kerry win risks terror attack," Sept. 7, 2004; Newsday.com, "Gore calls Cheney remarks 'sleazy'"; Combined News Sources, Sept. 10, 2004; The Center for American Progress, Daily Progress Report, David Sirota, Christy Harvey, Judd Legum, and Jonathon Baskin, Sept. 8, 2004.
Hussein or bin Laden? Rumsfeld Gets Them Confused
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mixed up the names of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein twice in a speech at the National Press Club on Sept. 10. First he referred to Hussein as the leader of the al Qaeda-backed Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Later in the speech he said, "Saddam Hussein, if he's alive, is spending a whale of a lot of time trying to not get caught. And we've not seen him on a video since 2001." The search for bin Laden has rarely been mentioned since the beginning of the war in Iraq. According to a Washington Post reporter, Bush has mentioned bin Laden by name only 10 times since the beginning of 2003. In that same amount of time, he's mentioned Saddam Hussein's name approximately 315 times.
Source: The Center for American Progress, Daily Progress Report, David Sirota, Christy Harvey, Judd Legum, and Jonathon Baskin, Sept. 13, 2004.
9/11 Commission Report Shows Bush & Co. Failed America
Busted! Like a teenager whose beer bash is interrupted by the parents' early return home, George W. Bush's nearly three years of bragging about his "war on terror" credentials has been exposed by the bipartisan 9/11 commission as nothing more than empty posturing. Without dissent, five prominent Republicans joined an equal number of Democratic peers in stating unequivocally that the Bush administration got it wrong, both in its lethargic response to an unprecedented level of warnings during what the commission calls the "Summer of Threat," as well as in its inclusion of Iraq in the war on terror. Although the language of the commission's report was carefully couched to obtain a bipartisan consensus, the indictment of the Bush administration surfaces on almost every page. The London Times concludes that Bush & Co. got off easy—sort of: "The summary, the final conclusions, and the overall tone are more generous to the Bush Administration than many others might be, having read the same evidence. The commission appears to forgive the Bush team for being slow off the mark because of the time-consuming nature of the transition from the previous Administration. But the details of the narrative, gripping in themselves, also argue against that indulgence." Bush, who originally fought the panel's creation but ultimately yielded to political pressure and supported its formation, praised commissioners for their efforts and called their recommendations "very solid." But he fell short of offering unqualified support for the sweeping proposals outlined in the 567-page report, which capped a nearly 20-month probe. In a Rose Garden appearance two hours before the report was released, Bush said he assured 9/11 commission chairman Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the panel's vice chairman and a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, that "where government needs to act, we will," adding that he looked forward to studying the recommendations.
Sources: "An Excuse-Spouting Bush is Busted by 9/11 Report," Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2004; "Commission's September 11 Report is already a bestselling thriller," Bronwen Maddox, London Times, July 24, 2004; "9/11 Report Says U.S. Failed to Grasp 'Gravity of Threat'," Cam Simpson, Chicago Tribune, July 23, 2004
New Terror Threat—to Postpone Election?
U.S. officials have discussed how to postpone Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack, a number of news reports say. According to Newsweek, the discussions about whether the Nov. 2 election could be postponed began with a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge from DeForest Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Newsweek reported that Soaries, a Bush appointee, expressed concern that no federal agency had the authority to postpone an election and asked Ridge to ask Congress to give his commission such power. Democrats have voiced concerns about the possibility of postponement; 13 members of Congress sent a letter to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on July 1 asking for U.N. oversight of the presidential elections. The Chicago Tribune reports that though Congress could pass a law to postpone a federal election, the Bush administration has no legal authority to act on its own. An editorial in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says that the Bush administration's "use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, misinterpreting whatever it had on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and alleged links with al-Qaida, makes any 'intelligence' it would put forward to support an effort to postpone the elections very suspect."
Sources: "Officials Discuss How To Delay Election Day," CNN.com, July 12, 2004; "Election delay fears downplayed," Ricardo Alonzo-Zalvidar, Chicago Tribune, July 13, 2004; "No Stopping Election: Terrorists Win If Nov. 2 Polling Stops," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 13, 2004
The New Republic: Bush Pressures Pakistanis for 'High-Value Target' Before Election Day
The Bush administration has upped its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture a "high-value target"—Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman Al Zawahiri or Taliban leader Mullah Omar—before the November presidential elections, according to multiple unidentified Pakistani officials quoted in The New Republic's July 19 edition. A White House aide told Pakistani intelligence chief Ehsan ul-Haq that the ideal days to announce the killing or capture of any fugitive would be the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston (July 26, 27 or 28), the magazine cited an unidentified subordinate of the Pakistani intelligence chief as saying. The magazine also reports that when visiting Pakistan to urge greater involvement in the war on terror, Bush administration higher-ups seem to be willing to look the other way about the country's proliferation of nuclear technology and lack of democratic reform: "Powell pointedly refused to criticize [Pakistani Prime Minister Pervez] Musharraf for pardoning nuclear physicist A.Q. Khan—who, the previous month, had admitted exporting nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea, and Libya—declaring Khan's transgressions an 'internal Pakistani issue.'"
Sources: "July Surprise?" John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman and Massoud Ansari, The New Republic, July 19, 2004.
Powell: Terrorism Reports a "Big Mistake"
A State Department report that incorrectly showed a decline in worldwide terrorism during 2003 was a "big mistake," Secretary of State Colin Powell said on June 13. He said he was working with the CIA, which helped to compile the data, to determine why the errors got into the report: "Very embarrassing. I am not a happy camper over this. We were wrong," the secretary told NBC's "Meet the Press." The numbers are at the heart of George W. Bush's presidential campaign, which is promoting the Bush administration's tough stance on terrorism. Bush advisers point to the State Department's annual worldwide terrorism report, which shows terrorist attacks dropping almost by half since 2001, the year Bush took office. Proponents used that as evidence that Bush is winning the war on terror. Trouble is, the numbers used in the report are wrong. Released in April, the annual report on "Patterns of Global Terrorism" said that worldwide, terrorist attacks were down from 346 in 2001 to 190 in 2003, a 45 percent decline since Bush's inauguration. Actually, terrorism rose sharply instead of declining last year. Says the Virginian-Pilot: "The faux terrorism figures are yet more evidence of a severe credibility gap between the Bush administration's rhetoric and reality, between the White House and the American people."
Sources: "Terror Report Big Mistake, Powell Says," Chattanooga Times Free Press, June 14, 2004; "Terror Report Paints Wishful Picture," The Virginian-Pilot, June 15, 2004
Use of Dogs to Scare Prisoners Was Approved; Focus Shifts to Bush
As more information surfaces regarding the treatment of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, attention is focused on George W. Bush. The Washington Post, for one, reported that the Justice Department advised the administration in 2002 that the torture of Al Qaeda terrorists might be legally defensible. This raised questions about the role Bush played in setting rules for interrogation. Those rules included an approval of the use of unmuzzled dogs to "frighten and intimidate detainees." Human rights experts said the use of dogs at Abu Ghraib violates longstanding tenets regulating the treatment of prisoners and civilians under the control of an occupying force, including the Army's field manual, which prohibits "acts of violence or intimidation" by American soldiers. According to an internal memo obtained by the Washington Post, the use of dogs to intimidate would have to be approved by the officer in charge, providing "the clearest indication yet that military intelligence personnel were deeply involved in tactics later deemed by a U.S. Army general to be 'sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses.'"
Sources: "Use of Dogs to Scare Prisoners Was Authorized," Josh White and Scott Higham, Washington Post, June 11, 2004; "Memo on Torture Draws Focus to Bush," Mike Allen and Dana Priest, Washington Post, June 9, 2004
CIA Director Tenet 'Resigns' Amid Intense Scrutiny
George Tenet's departure from his post as the head of U.S. foreign spying operations, announced June 3, comes after a year in which the quality—or lack of quality—of the intelligence filtering through the Central Intelligence Agency and informing U.S. foreign policy has come under intense scrutiny. Recurring themes have been the failure to prevent the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and to find weapons of mass destruction in post-war Iraq. Though both Tenet and George W. Bush attributed the resignation to "personal reasons," critics pointed out that Tenet’s resignation may have been hastened by the anticipation of three heavily critical reports about the agency’s operations. Or perhaps, as Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post suggests, "Tenet finally being served up as a sacrificial lamb by an administration that loathes to admit a mistake." Under Tenet, the CIA has been the subject of blistering critiques for what its detractors have called the two worst intelligence failures of the last 50 years: not anticipating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and exaggerating the threat of Iraq's weapons capability. Mark Leibovitch of the Washington Post notes that, in an exchange depicted in Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack," Tenet told George W. Bush that it was a "slam-dunk" that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Some believe Tenet's resignation signals the beginning of the end of the Bush administration's foreign policy team: Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice have reportedly made it clear they will depart at the end of the current term, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld may also be unlikely to remain in the wake of the prison scandal in Iraq and the many calls for his resignation.
Sources: "George Tenet: A High-Wire Act," BBC Online, June 3, 2004; "Tenet Resigns as C.I.A. Director; 3 Harsh Reports on Agency Due," Elisabeth Bumiller, Douglas Jehl, New York Times, June 4, 2004; "For Personal Reasons, or Is He The Fall Guy?" Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, June 4, 2004; "George Tenet's 'Slam-Dunk' Into the History Books," Mark Leibovich, Washington Post, June 4, 2004
New York Times Apologizes for WMD Coverage
The New York Times, arguably America's most influential newspaper, published a sweeping apology on May 26 for a series of prominent reports before the war highlighting the apparent threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The Times said the articles in question shared a common feature: All depended "at least in part" on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles, once trusted by the Bush administration, whose credibility has come under increasing scrutiny in recent weeks. "The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles," the editorial said. "He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week." The Times editorial also said that the exiles' accounts were "often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq." The editorial acknowledged that Times editors at several levels were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper, and should have challenged reporters and pressed for more skepticism. Information from Iraqi defectors was not always weighed against the defectors' strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original reports into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all.
Sources: "The Times and Iraq," New York Times editorial, May 26, 2004; "Times admits flawed pre-war coverage; Reporters over- relied on Iraqi exiles' claims," David Folkenflik, Baltimore Sun, May 27, 2004; "Chalabi Duped Us on WMD, Says New York Times," Alec Russell, Daily Telegraph (London), May 27, 2004
Terror Warnings—Prime Timing?
The Bush administration said on May 26 that it had credible intelligence suggesting that Al Qaeda is planning to attack the U.S. in the next several months, a period in which an international summit meeting and the two political conventions could offer tempting targets. But some intelligence officials, terrorism experts, and to some extent even Attorney General John Ashcroft's own F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, offered a more tempered assessment, saying, "for the next few weeks we have reason to believe there is a heightened threat to the U.S. interests around the world.'' Some Bush opponents, including police and firefighter union leaders aligned with Sen. John Kerry, the expected Democratic presidential candidate, alleged the timing of the announcement was intended in part to distract attention from Bush's sagging poll numbers and problems in Iraq. The New York Times reported that officials at the Department of Homeland Security said just a day before Ashcroft's announcement that they had no new intelligence pointing to the threat of an attack. Ashcroft conceded that authorities did not know of any specific plans for a terrorist attack and had no evidence to publicly share that would tie individuals identified as potential suspects to any specific threats. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge did not elevate the color-coded terror level.
Sources: "As Ashcroft Warns of Attack, Some Question Threat and Its Timing," Richard Stevenson and Eric Lichtblau, New York Times, May 27, 2004; "Terror Warning Timing Questioned," Dan Froomkin, Washington Post, May 27, 2004; "Analysis: Skeptics Wonder Whether Politics Motivated Warnings," Marc Sandalow, San Francisco Chronicle, May 27, 2004
Bush's Primetime Iraq Speech Falls Short on Answers
In a speech May 24, George W. Bush failed to address key concerns that have triggered growing skepticism about the war in Iraq. Bush did not provide the midcourse correction that even some Republicans had called for in the face of increasing violence in recent weeks. Nor did he try to answer the looming questions that have triggered growing skepticism and anxiety about the final costs, the ultimate length of stay for U.S. troops, or the terms of a final U.S. exit from Iraq. After promising "concrete steps" toward making progress in Iraq, the White House basically repackaged stalled U.S. policy as a five- step plan. In the hours before the address, delivered at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., Bush received a fresh reminder of just how fully his political fate is now tied to events in Iraq. A new crop of opinion polls showed that his job approval ratings continue to fall, that Americans increasingly think the nation is on the wrong track and that most people do not think Bush has a clear plan for bringing U.S. involvement in Iraq to a successful conclusion. While Bush said the handover of power would proceed as scheduled on June 30, he added the U.S. would keep troops in Iraq at the current level as long as necessary, because of the continuing unrest. Iraq's defense minister said he wanted U.S. troops out within the year, to be replaced by newly trained Iraqi forces. Shortly before Bush spoke, Washington asked the United Nations to endorse a plan that would give U.S. forces an open- ended mandate to stay in Iraq, renewable in a year. But Iraqis, from the streets of Baghdad to the ranks of the U.S.-installed administration, made clear they wanted a final end to 14 irksome months of occupation as soon as possible.
Sources: "A Speech Meant to Rally Public Support Doesn’t Answer Key Questions," Robin Wright and Mike Allen, Washington Post, May 25, 2004; "Bush Starts Out on A 5-Week Uphill Run Concerning Iraq," Richard W. Stevenson, New York Times, May 25, 2004; "Iraqis Skeptical on Bush Speech, Want U.S. Out," Alistair Macdonald, Reuters, May 24, 2004
Practice Can’t Perfect Bush’s Pronunciation of Abu Ghraib
Two rehearsals for his primetime May 23 speech were not enough to keep George W. Bush from mangling the name of the prison that brought shame to the U.S. mission in Iraq. Tom Shales of the Washington Post noted that "in addition to a generally lackluster delivery, Bush stumbled over the crucial name Abu Ghraib, the now infamous prison where grisly torture of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops has become an international scandal as well as an enormous embarrassment to the Bush administration." During the half-hour televised address, Bush mispronounced the infamous prison’s name each of the three times he mentioned it while announcing U.S. plans to tear it down and replace it with a new facility. The prison, the scene of torture under Saddam Hussein and the setting for the Iraqi prison abuse scandal under the U.S. military, has a name that English speakers usually pronounce as "abu-grabe." But Bush stumbled on the first try, calling it "abugah-rayp." The second version came out "abu-garon," and the third attempt sounded like "abu-garah." White House aides, who described the speech as an important address on the future of Iraq, said Bush practiced twice on Monday before boarding his helicopter for his trip to the speaking venue at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.
Sources: "Bush Trips Over Abu Ghraib Pronunciation," Reuters, May 24, 2004; "Bush Speech: Was It Enough?" Dan Froomkin, Washington Post, May 25, 2004
Moore’s Documentary About Bush and Sept. 11 Wins Top Prize at Cannes
Tense relations between Disney and the company’s art-house division, Miramax, are complicating a deal to find a distributor for Michael Moore's new documentary movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," a film that criticizes the launching of the war in Iraq and explores ties between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia’s upper class. Two days after winning the Palme d'Or at the Cannes International Film Festival, the film—the first documentary since 1956 to win the competition’s top prize—was still without American representation. Walt Disney chairman Michael Eisner was said to be furious over news reports just before the Cannes festival that Disney had prohibited Miramax to distribute the film for political reasons. The news stoked a controversy that ultimately drew more attention to the movie, embarrassing Eisner and possibly raising the price for the film. The Montreal Gazette noted the uncertainty surrounding the documentary’s release date: "Something about Disney not releasing it for fear of offending Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his nice Disney tax abatements there."
Sources: "Reel Hot Summer," John Griffin, The Montreal Gazette, May 15, 2004; "Moore Film Is Held Up By Questions About Rights," Sharon Waxman, New York Times, May 25, 2004
Bush Avoids Apology for Prisoner Abuse, Lauds Rumsfeld As "Superb"
More than a week after photographs and videos depicting the abuse of Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib prison surfaced, George W. Bush finally "expressed his regrets" in the Rose Garden on May 7. According to the Washington Post, aides had advised Bush to apologize the day before in televised appearances on Arabic news channels. Senior officials were reportedly puzzled when Bush did not apologize and had to push "for him to say he was sorry during his news conference with Abdullah." The Progress Report notes "an apology is a step in the right direction, but it will take more than words to restore damaged American credibility." On May 10, both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for "courageously leading our nation in the war against terror" and said that he was doing a "superb job." But according to an article in the May 24 edition of the New Yorker magazine, a policy put in place by Secretary Rumsfeld "encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq."
Sources: "Hard to Say You're Sorry," David Sirota, Christy Harvey and Judd Legum, The Progress Report, May 7, 2004; "Allegations of Abuse Lead to Shakeup at Iraqi Prison," Sewell Chan and Jackie Spinner, Washington Post, April 30, 2004; "Bush: U.S. Owes Debt to 'Superb' Rumsfeld," Jim Drinkard and Tom Sequitieri, USA Today, May 10, 2004; "The Gray Zone, How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib," Seymour M. Hersh, New Yorker, May 24, 2004.
As Prisoner Abuse Scandal Continues, House Works Three-Day Week
While the nation watched the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal unfold in May, the U.S. House of Representatives renamed a post office in Rhode Island, named a Miami courthouse after a dead judge, and honored the founder of the Lions Clubs. The three-day workweek bothered Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who told the Washington Post: "Given all the issues and problems the country faces, it's scandalous that we're only coming in to work three days a week, and even then most of the time we're renaming post offices." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the House of Representatives "demonstrated that it is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the administration." Pelosi pointed out that the U.S. Senate, in contrast, held three committee hearings on the prison abuses before senators summoned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to the Armed Services Committee last Friday. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay dismissed the idea of a full-fledged congressional investigation into the Abu Ghraib abuse reports, which he likened to "saying we need an investigation every time there's police brutality on the street." He told reporters that the House should be passing "good" legislation and "not doing a bunch of make-work."
Source: "All Quiet on the House Side," Charles Babington, Washington Post, May 11, 2004
Bush's Job Approval Rating Dips, Support for War Declines
George W. Bush's job approval rating has hit a new low, and public support for the war in Iraq has declined, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released May 10. A survey of 1,003 adults conducted May 7-9, showed Bush's approval rating at 46 percent, down from 52 percent in April. And, only 44 percent of those polled said they felt that the war in Iraq was worthwhile, down from 50 percent one month earlier—and down from 73 percent a year ago. Fifty-four percent thought going to war in Iraq was a mistake, and only 41 percent felt Bush was doing a good job of handling the war.
Sources: "Poll: Bush Job Rating Dips, Support for War Down," Reuters, May 10, 2004; "La Popularidad de Bush desciende a la cota mas baja durante su mandato," Europa Press, El Mundo, May 11, 2004; "Bush: U.S. Owes Debt to 'Superb' Rumsfeld," Jim Drinkard and Tom Sequitieri, USA Today, May 10, 2004
Bush Claims Iraq War Is Not Political, Avoids Questions About Intelligence
During a rare interview on the Sunday morning television program "Meet the Press" on Feb. 8, George W. Bush used extremely muddy logic to differentiate the war in Iraq from the war in Vietnam. "The thing about the Vietnam war that troubles me as I look back was, it was a political war," Bush said. "We had politicians making military decisions. And it is lessons any president must learn, and that is to set the goal and the objective and allow the military to come up with the plans to achieve that objective." Bush was not clear about what he meant by Vietnam being a "political war" or why Iraq should not be considered a political war. Additionally, he was evasive when Russert asked him why the newly announced Senate committee to investigate the intelligence failure regarding the Iraq war would not report until after the election. Bush was evasive as to the reason for the delayed report. Russert replied with the fact that Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair has ordered a report due in July, while Bush's committee report is not scheduled until March 2005, five months after the presidential election. Russert went on to ask "Shouldn't the American people have the benefit of the commission before the election?"
Sources: "Meet the Press," Feb. 8, The New York Times, Feb. 10; MSNBC, Transcript, Feb. 8
Bush-Linked Consulting Firm Set Up in Iraq to Profit from Rebuilding
The New York Times reports that a group of businessmen with close ties to the Bush administration have set up a consulting firm to advise companies that want to do business in Iraq, including those seeking pieces of taxpayer-financed reconstruction projects. The new firm is headed by a string of Washington insiders including Joe M. Allbaugh, Bush's campaign manager in 2000 and the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency until March, along with Edward M. Rodgers and Larry Griffith, former assistants to Bush Sr. The firm's website calls attention to the links between the company's directors and both Bush administrations and says that "no other existing firm has the necessary skill and experience to be effective in both Washington D.C. and on the ground in Iraq." The website also claims the company was "created specifically with the aim of assisting clients to evaluate and take advantage to business opportunities in the Middle East following the conclusion of the U.S.-led war in Iraq." The U.S. government has awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to American businesses operating in Iraq. Those contracts, some without competitive bidding, have included more than $500 million to support troops and extinguish oil field fires for Kellogg, Brown, & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, which Vice President Cheney led from 1995 until 2000. Of the $3.9 billion a month that the administration is spending on military operations in Iraq, up to one-third may go to contractors who provide food, housing, and other services.
Source: New York Times, "Washington Insiders' New Firm Consults on Contracts in Iraq," Sept. 30, 2003.
Bush Administration Retracts Three Major Rationales for Iraq War, Public Support Falls Away
In Sept. 2003, the Bush administration retracted three of its major rationales for war with Iraq, seriously undermining assertions that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and allies.
As recently as Sept. 14, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed that it was possible that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 by replying "we just don't know" when questioned about a link. However, within just a few days, Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld both admitted that there was no evidence that Hussein had any connection whatsoever to the attacks.
Three days before the war began, Cheney stated that the strongest reason for going to war was that "we believe has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons"—despite the fact that two weeks prior the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that there was no indication of resumed nuclear activities. On the Sept. 14 airing of "Meet the Press," Cheney responded by saying, "I misspoke."
Both Bush and Rumsfeld have claimed to know where weapons of mass destruction were located in Iraq. But when questioned at a Sept. 16 Defense Department briefing about why weapons have not been found, Rumsfeld replied, "What do you mean? We're talking about a country the size of California."
Coinciding with these retractions is a significant drop in public support. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll from Sept. 19-21 revealed a continuing erosion of public support for Bush and the U.S. intervention in Iraq. Only 50 percent of the public believe that the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over. This is down from 58 percent in early September and 63 percent in August.
Sources: NBC, "Meet the Press," Sept. 14, 2003; White House News Release, Bush Remarks After Meeting with Members of the Congressional Conference Committee on Energy Legislation, Sept. 17, 2003; Rumsfeld, Defense Department News Briefing, Sept. 16, 2003; CNN/USA Today/Gallup, Poll, Sept. 19-21, 2003.
Bipartisan Criticism Increases Regarding Bush's Spending Spree, Handling of Iraq
The Washington Post reports that President Bush's request for $87 billion in additional spending for Iraq and Afghanistan stirred concern that Bush has launched an unaffordable spending spree even as he pursues more tax cuts that will increase the federal deficit. "From the president's speech, I haven't seen the hard recognition of the economic costs of this decision. I don't think he gave us a picture of how he intends to pay for his foreign policy," said Lee Hamilton, director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former Democratic member of the House. According to The New York Times, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) called the $87 billion "a bitter pill for the American people to swallow," since some of the money is likely to be subtracted from spending on domestic needs. Furthermore, for months, many Democrats and some Republicans have complained that the Administration has offered few details about how it will rebuild Iraq, how much international support can be expected, how much American taxpayers will have to pay over the years and how long U.S. troops will be based there. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) complained that the administration had done "a miserable job of planning the post-Saddam Iraq." Putting $87 billion in perspective: Bush has asked to spend more additional money in Iraq and Afghanistan than the $78 billion all 50 states together say they to finance the budget shortfalls they anticipate for 2004. Bush's request is nearly three times higher than the $29.5 billion the Education Department plans to spend on elementary and secondary education and more than twice as much as the $41.3 billion the Administration plans to spend on homeland security.
Sources: Washington Post, "Democrats Say Iraq Spending With Tax Cut Is Unaffordable," Sept. 9, 2003; New York Times, "Bush's Plans on Iraq Draw Criticism From Senators," Sept. 9, 2003.
Rumsfeld Pushed Bush Into Iraq War, Former U.S. Diplomat Says
A former U.S. diplomat claims that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld strong-armed Bush into declaring war on Iraq in an attempt to advance himself politically. The Agence France Presse reports that Brady Kiesling, who served as political counselor at the U.S. embassy in Athens, described Bush as "a politician who badly wants to appear strong but in reality is very weak." Kiesling claims that Rumsfeld pushed his agenda forward by minimizing doubts held by the secret services. "Easy to convince, blindly believed in Rumsfeld's assurances," Kiesling said.
Source: Agence France Presse, "Former U.S. Diplomat Says Rumsfeld Led Bush to War," Aug. 17, 2003
Bush Administration Shifts War Aims Post-Conflict
In light of the flawed U.S. intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions and the failed attempts to discover illegal weapons in Iraq, the Bush administration has begun to change its spin on the American rationale for the war in Iraq. While the majority of the administration's pre-war rhetoric focused on possible existence of weapons of mass destruction, the Washington Post reports that the emphasis now is on reforming Iraq in an effort to stabilize the entire Middle East. Although the desire to bring peace to the volatile region was originally low on the list of the administration's original goals, it has recently risen in importance. As Bush told reporters during a July 30 news conference: "The rise of a free and peaceful Iraq is critical to the stability of the Middle East, and a stable Middle East is critical to the security of the American people."
Source: Washington Post, "U.S. Shifts Rhetoric On Its Goals in Iraq," Dana Milbank and Mike Allen, August 1, 2003
Bush Takes Personal Responsibility for Erroneous Intelligence
After three weeks of allowing staffers to take the blame for the flawed intelligence about Saddam Hussein's regime that was included in the 2003 State of the Union address, Bush took responsibility for his statement. "I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course," Bush said at a July 30 news conference. "I also take responsibility for making decisions on war and peace. I analyzed a thorough body of intelligence, good solid, sound intelligence that led me to come to the conclusion that it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power." Earlier in the year, the Bush administration declared that Saddam Hussein's regime purchased uranium from Africa and the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Months later, there is still no evidence to prove either claim.
Source: Washington Post, "Bush Takes Responsibility for Iraq Claim," Mike Allen and Dana Milbank, July 31, 2003
New Doubts Cast on Bush's Statements About Iraqi Weapons Capabilities
In a National Intelligence Estimate recently released by the White House to dispel doubts about information that indicated Iraq was rebuilding its weapons programs, the State Department expressed concern that some of the evidence cited by the Bush administration was "highly dubious," the Los Angeles Times reported. Amidst the mounting controversy over whether shaky or forged intelligence was used in Bush's State of the Union address and other speeches in which he rallied support for the war against Iraq, new reports are emerging that suggest the Bush administration was aware of the disputed nature of some of the information upon which he relied. Despite claims by CIA Director George J. Tenet that the intelligence agency should have removed unverified information regarding Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Bush's State of the Union address, Knight Ridder news reported that a senior CIA official claimed "that the agency expressed doubts about the uranium assertion to the White House as early as March 9, 2002, seven months before the October intelligence report and 10 months before the State of the Union speech."
Sources: Los Angeles Times, "Classified Iraq Data Released: White House Seeks to Defend War Case," Greg Miller and James Gerstenzang, July 19, 2003
Bush Administration's Provocation of Saddam May Have Created Greater Threat
Following the White House's recent release of declassified portions of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which assessed the likelihood of an unprovoked Hussein regime supplying chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups for use against the U.S., new questions have emerged about the Bush Administration's justifications for invading Iraq. According to the Washington Post, the circulating portions of the NIE indicate that prior to the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. intelligence community thought it more likely that "Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States"—claims that completely contradict Bush's repeated prewar assertions of the threat presented by Saddam. The portions of the NIE that were released in an attempt to refute criticism that the administration "twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons program" suggest that Saddam may now pose a greater threat to Americans due to the war.
Source: Washington Post, "Oct. Report Said Defeated Hussein Would be Threat," Walter Pincus, July 21, 2003
White House Launches Personal Attacks on Journalist for Reporting Declining Morale of Troops
ABC News correspondent Jeffrey Kofman recently did a story for "World News Tonight" about the rapidly declining morale among U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq, which apparently ruffled the feathers of members of the Bush administration. Kofman's story included clips of U.S. soldiers questioning the Army's credibility, as well as one soldier calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The Washington Post reported that the White House became so angry about Kofman's story that "a White House operative alerted cyber-gossip Matt Drudge to the fact that Kofman is not only openly gay, he's Canadian." The Washington Post quoted the reaction of one ABC network insider: "Playing hardball is one thing. But appealing to homophobia and jingoism is simply ugly."
Source: Washington Post, "Drudging Up Personal Details," Lloyd Grove, July 18, 2003
U.S. Officials Admit Bush Erred in Statements About Iraqi Attempts to Purchase Uranium
In the midst of increasing concern over the legitimacy of the White House's rationale for war, top security officials have now conceded that Bush was wrong to assert that Saddam Hussein had attempted to acquire uranium from Africa in his State of the Union address this past January. According to the Los Angeles Times, this assertion by Bush—based on a falsified British report—was one of his central arguments for declaring war against Iraq. Admission of Bush's error came in response to a published statement by Joseph C. Wilson IV—the envoy the CIA dispatched to Africa in February 2002 to examine the validity of reports on Iraq's attempts to buy uranium—in which he claimed the administration had manipulated his findings, perhaps with the intent of strengthening its argument for war. The Times reports that even as the evidence of Iraqi weapons programs is steadily deteriorating, the Bush administration continues to assert that Hussein had been trying to rebuild his program of illegal weapons.
Sources: Los Angeles Times, "White House on Defensive Over Intelligence," James Gerstenzang, July 9, 2003; Associated Press, "Democrat lawmakers urge probe after U.S. security officials say Bush was wrong to say Saddam sought Africa uranium," Deb Reichmann, July 8, 2003
Anti-American Resentment Fueled by Administration's Lack of Strategic Direction, Delay in Granting Leadership to Iraqis
A report by the Washington Post claims that despite an increasing number of attacks on Americans and a U.S. "post-war" death toll of more than 50—which exceeds one-third of actual wartime deaths—the Bush administration continues to downplay the attacks and casualties as a "necessary cost of a successful military occupation." According to comments made to The Telegraph by a British official working in the American-led Iraqi reconstruction effort, U.S. troops—which it now appears will make up the majority of the international force in Iraq for many months—are facing increasing risk due to the "chaos" and "complete absence of strategic direction" of the U.S. administration. The British official commented that the widening disparity between the expectations of the Iraqi people and what the American-led coalition can actually provide—evidenced by the administration's difficulty in providing essential services such as salaries, electricity, and security—is producing escalating unrest and dissatisfaction among Iraqi civilians. The volatility of the situation in Iraq has also been aggravated by a recent decision by the U.S. administrator in Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer III, to retract his initial promise to grant immediate leadership responsibilities to Iraqis. In addition to "barring direct elections in Iraq and limiting free speech," as the New York Times described it, American officials are now claiming that it could be two years before an Iraqi administration takes over the government.
Sources: New York Times, "Iraqis Were Set to Vote, but U.S. Wielded a Veto," David Rohde, June 19, 2003; The Telegraph, "America's Rebuilding of Iraq is in Chaos, Say British," Peter Foster, June 17, 2003; Washington Post, "Rising U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Spurs Concern: 9 Soldiers Killed in Attacks This Month," Peter Slevin, June 20, 2003.
War on Terror Criticized by Former Top Counter-Terrorism Bush Aide
In a series of interviews with the Washington Post, Rand Beers, the former special assistant to the president and senior director for combating terrorism, criticized several facets of Bush's war on terrorism. Beers resigned five days before the war on Iraq began, and explained his resignation by saying that the administration "wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure." In these interviews, Beers—a man praised by colleagues as a "model government worker"—voiced doubts about evidence of the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and questioned why war on Iraq was such a "policy priority." Beers also contended that domestic antiterrorism efforts, which have suffered due to the massive commitment of resources to the war with Iraq, need reorganization and are under-funded. Although he originally attributed his resignation to a desire to leave government, just eight weeks after resigning his position with the National Security Council, Beers volunteered as national security adviser for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), who is campaigning to defeat Beers' former boss in the 2004 election.
Source: Washington Post, "Former Aide Takes Aim at War on Terror," Laura Blumenfeld, June 16, 2003
Bush Exaggerates Evidence of Iraq's Weapons Capabilities
With the discovery of what some senior intelligence officials are calling the "strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program," a number of media outlets have reported that the Bush administration has still failed to show that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the U.S. invasion. The cited evidence consists of two trailers that were completely absent of any traces of biological agents. The Pentagon claims to be "highly confident" that the Iraqi regime could have used these trailers to produce biological weapons and Bush boasted to a Polish television network during his recent visit to Europe that the U.S. found "biological laboratories": "And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, we found them." Yet according to The Nation, two former UN weapons inspectors insist that, "even if these trailers had been thoroughly scrubbed, there should be trace residues that would indicate what was done in them." The Washington Post reported that Iraqi employees of the facility where the trailers were found explained that the equipment found in the trailers was used to produce hydrogen gas for weather balloons and other purposes.
Sources: The Nation, "Bush's Postwar Iraq Causing Cracks?" David Corn, May 27, 2003; Washington Post, "U.S. Hedges on Finding Iraqi Weapons," Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus, May 29, 2003; Knight Ridder Newspapers, "Postwar Problems in Iraq Raise Concerns Among Bush Advisers," John Walcott, May 31, 2003
Bush Administration's Planning for Post-War Iraq Deemed Inadequate
While the Bush administration and Pentagon continue to offer only vague references to the length of occupation and the number of troops that will be necessary to stabilize post-war Iraq—stating that the U.S. will remain in Iraq "as long as it takes" and offering no comment on the specific size of the force—the former Army secretary, Thomas White, has suggested that the stabilization effort will require a much more extensive commitment by the U.S. USA Today reported that White said it is "reasonable to assume" the Pentagon will need more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for at least the next year. Although the Pentagon offered no comment on White's assertions, the Army's 3rd Infantry Division recently had its stay in Iraq extended indefinitely. Republican and Democratic senators alike are also beginning to critique the White House's handling of post-war Iraq. As quoted in The Nation, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), projected that the U.S. occupation of Iraq will span at least five years and may require up to $100 billion.
Sources: USA Today, "Ex-Army Boss: Pentagon Won't Admit Reality in Iraq," Dave Moniz, June 3, 2003; The Nation, "Bush's Postwar Iraq Causing Cracks?" David Corn, May 27, 2003
Administration May Have Exerted Pressure to Report Questionable Evidence of Iraqi Weapons
U.S. News and World Report recently reported that during a rehearsal for a Feb. 2003 report to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Secretary of State Colin Powell became so frustrated with the information that had been prepared for him that he reportedly tossed several pages in the air and declared, "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit." The original report, crafted primarily by Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and pushed strongly by the White House and Pentagon, alleged that Iraqi intelligence officers were linked to the suspected leader of the 9/11 hijackers and that Iraq had procured computer software that would enable it to plan an attack on the U.S.—claims unsupported by American and European intelligence agencies. The Washington Post reported that senior intelligence officials indicated that the allegations against Iraq may have been compiled by CIA officials who "felt they were being pressured to make their assessments (of Iraq's weapons) fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives" due to multiple visits to the CIA by Dick Cheney and his chief of staff.
Sources: U.S. News and World Report, "Truth and Consequences: New Questions About U.S. Intelligence Regarding Iraq's Weapons of Mass Terror," Bruce B. Auster, Mark Mazzetti and Edward T. Pound, June 9, 2003; Washington Post, "Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits," Walter Pincus and Dana Priest, June 5, 2003
White House Delays Inspecting, Securing Nuclear Sites in Iraq
After stalling in response to repeated warnings issued by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Mohamed ElBaradei highlighting media reports about the possibility of radioactive contamination due to looting at Iraq's nuclear sites, the Bush administration has finally agreed to allow a joint United States and IAEA inspection. The warnings—in which ElBaradei described a "potentially serious humanitarian situation"—called upon the Bush administration to allow an IAEA safety and security team to enter Iraq and inspect the Tuwaitha nuclear site. Yet according to the New York Times, for unexplained reasons the Bush administration is restricting the IAEA's "work to accounting for low-grade uranium and natural uranium."
Sources: Washington Post, "U.N. Atomic Chief Again Warns U.S. About Iraq," Walter Pincus, May 20, 2003; New York Times, "State Dept. and U.N. to Inspect Iraq Nuclear Site," James Dao, May 21, 2003; Agence France Presse, "Joint US-IAEA Inspection Team Expected in Iraq Soon," May 21, 2003.
Bush Administration Acknowledges It Might Not Find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, U.S. Inspection Team to Leave Iraq
After launching a war allegedly to prevent Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from using or sharing a presumed arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, the Bush administration and its allies have acknowledged that they may never find such weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The United States has also signaled that next month it intends to cease the operations of the 75th Exploitation Task Force, which was assigned to search for the "hundreds of tons of biological and chemical agents" about which Secretary of State Colin Powell warned the U.N. Security Council. (It is worth noting that no weapons were found at the facilities identified by Powell during his speech at the United Nations.) Task force leaders echoed the words of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said, "I don't think we'll discover anything." According to the Washington Post, the task force's "impending dissolution… poorly with assertions in Washington that the search has barely begun."
Sources: Washington Post, "Frustrated, U.S. Arms Team to Leave Iraq," Barton Gellman, May 11, 2003; The Nation, "Now They Tell Us," David Corn, May 19, 2003
Administration Officials: Show of American Power Was Reason for War
ABC News reported that unnamed administration officials and outside advisers admitted that putting on a "global show of American power and democracy" was an important factor in launching the war on Iraq. These officials also said the White House "emphasized" Saddam Hussein's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction as a way to obtain backing from the international community and from the nation for launching the war. ABC News also reported that the administration chose Saddam Hussein over other ruthless dictators who posses weapons of mass destruction and who may have less doubtful ties to terrorists because Saddam was "guilty" of being located between Syria and Iran, "two countries the United States wanted to send a message to."
Source: ABC News, "Reason for War?," John Cochran, April 25, 2003
Bush Administration Proposes to Increase Control of Iraqi Oil, Finances
The United States is preparing to introduce a United Nations Security Council resolution that would expand its control over Iraqi oil resources and revenues until a "permanent, representative" government can take over in Iraq. Despite the administration’s previous assurances that Iraqis would remain in control of the nation’s oil, the resolution would give "the United States far greater authority over Iraq's lucrative oil industry than administration officials have previously acknowledged." (The U.S. resolution assigns only a "consultative role" to any transitional Iraqi government.) The resolution would also give the Bush administration the authority to manage Iraq's oil revenues and "would leave open the prospect" that the administration could use these funds to pay for its "costly efforts to disarm Iraq."
Source: Washington Post, "U.S. to Propose Broader Control of Iraqi Oil, Funds," Colum Lynch, May 8, 2003
White House Blocks Sept. 11 Report
The Bush administration wants to make information contained in a Senate Intelligence Committee report about the Sept.11 terrorist attacks "classified," even though some of the information the administration believes is sensitive has already been released. Among the information the White House wants to exclude from the report is the "well publicized" memo from an FBI agent warning about the possible presence of al Qaeda operatives in U.S. flight schools and information indicating that Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice "may have received warnings." Critics charge that the Bush administration is "simply trying to avoid enshrining embarrassing details in the report." "Most of what's in dispute should be made public," said Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), who is the chairperson of the House Intelligence