In this issue:

Mega's Lieberman Promises To Deliver Democrats to War Camp

Forget the UN and Go It Alone Against Iraq, Says Lieberman

Spannaus and LaRouche Irk Lieberman Democrats With Virginia Campaign

GOP Leaders Admit Popular Opposition to Rush to Iraq War

American Opposition in the 'Heartlands'

Oops! Bush and Blair Cite Non-Existent IAEA Report To Justify Iraq War

White House Dossier on Iraq Gets 'D-Minus' from Cordesman; 'F-Minus' from EIW

Chickenhawk Wolfowitz Disliked in Pentagon Corridors

'Blank Check' McCain Says Congress Must Rush To Get On Board Coming Iraq Invasion

From the Vol.1 No.28 issue of Electronic Intelligence Weekly

United States News Digest

Mega's Lieberman Promises To Deliver Democrats to War Camp

If there is a war in the Middle East based on an imperial Roman model of "preemptive war," blame Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), the man who was created as a politician by the rightwing fascists at the Buckley family's National Review, and by the organized-crime millions of Zionist Lobby godfather Michael Steinhardt, founder of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). As Lyndon LaRouche warned, Lieberman is one of the prime movers of the genocidal "Clash of Civilizations" war in the Middle East. Following President Bush's Sept. 12 UN speech, Lieberman took the point to push through a Senate resolution— immediately— for a "preemptive war" if necessary against Iraq. As Lieberman's Senate floor statement says, Bush should ignore the UN Security Council and launch unilateral war if the UNSC votes against war.

Behind the scenes, the Lieberman/DLC/Steinhardt combination is blackmailing any anti-utopian-war Democrats into being warhawks, or risking being labelled "traitors" in the war against terrorism. The rightwing Zionist Lobby/neo-conservative success in defeating Rep. Earl Hilliard (D-AL) and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) in their Democratic primary elections is the threat being levelled at every Democrat running for reelection.

Without Lieberman, even the Republican leaders say they cannot deliver a pre-election Congressional resolution to Bush (see Lieberman statement and report below).

Lieberman in 1991 was the Democratic sponsor of the resolution supporting the first Persian Gulf War; now he pledges to repeat this and deliver the Democrat Party to Bush "43" as he did to Bush "41."

Last week, when there was great pressure on Bush not to take unilateral action, Lieberman seemingly reversed his historical stance in favor of preemptive war, and said he did not think that the President had made the case for war; "I certainly believe that it would be a mistake for us to do this alone." However, this week Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein said, "He regrets any confusion caused by the remarks, but he has not changed his views." Indeed, Lieberman is bragging that he has supported military action to "finish off" Saddam Hussein since Desert Storm ended in February 1991.

Meanwhile, Will Marshall of the Democratic Leadership Council, whose website carries a new paean for war almost every day, said, "After 9/11, there is a feeling that if you are going to err, you err on the side of making Americans safer, rather than the side of underestimating the threat that hostile foreign actors present to our country." Lieberman served as the president of the DLC for many years, installed there by Steinhardt's millions.

Forget the UN and Go It Alone Against Iraq, Says Lieberman

In a statement on the Senate floor on Sept. 13, Sen. Joseph Lieberman said: "President Bush has acted wisely and decisively in asking the United Nations to lead this noble effort, to insist that Iraq obey its resolutions, and to be prepared to enforce them militarily if Iraq does not comply. But if Saddam does not comply, and the United Nations proves itself unwilling or unable to take decisive action, then the United States surely can and must assemble and lead an international military coalition to enforce the United Nations resolutions and liberate the Iraqi people, the Middle East and the world from Saddam Hussein....

"Mr. President, for more than 11 years now, since the early spring of 1991, I have supported the use of military force to disarm Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In fact, since the Iraq Liberation Act [co-sponsored by Lieberman] was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1998, that has been the law of our land. Therefore, I am fully supportive of such military action now....

"The White House has made clear that it will ask for a resolution of support and authorization in the very near future.... For my part, I intend to work with members of both parties in the Senate and with the White House to draft a Senate resolution that will receive the broadest possible bipartisan support for the President, as Commander in Chief, as he works to protect our nation and the world from Saddam Hussein."

Spannaus and LaRouche Irk Lieberman Democrats With Virginia Campaign

In less than one week of Spannaus for Senate radio campaign ads that feature short statements by Lyndon LaRouche giving his dead-accurate economics forecasts about the current collapse, the Virginia Democratic Party is attacking Spannaus.

On Sept. 14, Nancy Spannaus, the LaRouche Democrat running for U.S. Senate in Virginia, issued the following statement in response to Virginia Democratic Party Chair Larry Framme's complaint that she is calling herself the Democratic candidate on the ballot against incumbent Republican Senator John Warner.

"There are four simple points to be made," Spannaus said.

"First, Framme's claim that I am not a Democrat, is false. It is a childishly petulant ejaculation, of no intrinsic merit.

"Second, Framme is the putative personal property of the Democratic Leadership Council of Michael Steinhardt, the extreme rightwing faction of the Democratic Party, and the leading campaigners against Franklin Roosevelt's policies.

"Third, my association with the Democratic Party and policies of FDR, for which I am fighting today, makes me the respectable Democrat, especially compared to the un-Democratic actions of the Virginia Party in closing down this year's Senate and other elections.

"Fourth, the issue here is LaRouche, who is the leading defender of FDR policies internationally, and is being increasingly looked to as the alternative to the war and depression policies of the DLC."

GOP Leaders Admit Popular Opposition to Rush to Iraq War

Hit by popular opposition, Republican leaders doubt Congress can vote on an Iraq war before the Nov. 5 elections. When President George W. Bush met with Congressional leaders on Sept 4, he told them he wanted Congress to vote him a blank check for an Iraq war, before adjourning for this fall's election campaign. At that time, none of the Senators or Congressmen spoke up against that deadline, but shortly afterward, even the Republicans were saying that the vote cannot be rushed.

"It could take a little more time than just two or three weeks," Senate Republican leader Trent Lott told reporters on Sept. 5. "So we just have to see. I don't think we should put a time line on it. I think we should do what is necessary when it is necessary."

His fellow Republican, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, told "NBC Today" on Sept. 6, "Well, the President said he'd like to have a vote before we leave. That's up— we don't know when it's going to happen."

Of course, as EIW has warned, a new terrorist outrage might produce such a vote within five minutes. But the doubts attest to the impact of the overwhelming opposition to an Iraq war.

American Opposition in the 'Heartlands'

In the "heartlands" of the United States there is, in contrast to the contrary perception that is fostered by the media and by the war crowd in Washington, very significant opposition to both a war against Iraq, and to the United States playing an "imperialist-colonialist" role in the world, wrote Richard Tomkins in the Financial Times of London Sept. 11. He had just toured Georgia, Missouri, and Idaho, to gauge the mood in the United States.

He began: "Across the heartlands of Middle America, the 'V' word keeps coming up in conversations about the prospect of war with Iraq. Ominously, in this context the 'V' stands not for victory, but for Vietnam." He speaks to the police chief of Madison, Ga., Neal Thompson, a Vietnam vet, who expresses significant reservations about going to war with Iraq.

Writes Tomkins: "In spite of the more bellicose statements issuing from Washington, ordinary Americans seem to have little appetite for war with Iraq, unless it is proved beyond doubt that the country presents a threat to the U.S. or to the rest of the world.... And contrary to perceptions abroad, there is no enthusiasm for the idea that the U.S. should embark on a course of militant unilateralism, turning itself into a new imperial power."

Tomkins says he also found fear that "the U.S. is being drawn inexorably into a clash of civilizations with the Middle East," with some Americans fearing a new "world war," and/or that, in such a context, the U.S. might end up using nuclear weapons.

Among those opposing a war is former President Bill Clinton, according to the Sacramento Bee of Sept. 6. Speaking at a fundraiser in Orange County, Calif. for Rep. Loretta Sanchez, the former President said: "Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on Sept. 11. Osama bin Laden did." He said he supported the Bush Administration's operations in Afghanistan, and that we should beef up U.S. efforts in South Asia to "flesh out the entire network," rather than attack Iraq.

On Iraq's chemical and biological weapons, Clinton said: "He has maximum incentive not to use this stuff. If we go, he has maximum incentive to use it, because he knows he's going to lose."

In addition, Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) posed for President Bush the questions his constituents keep asking him about a war. In an op ed in the Sept. 8 Washington Post, Miller wrote that he himself supports Bush's policy of attack, but he was apparently assaulted— as other Congressmen were— by his constituents during the recess. Miller's constituents, who, he said, include several military veterans, have questions that Bush must answer "before we march our soldiers into Iraq," such as:

*"Even if Hussein has nukes, does he have the capability to reach New York, or Los Angeles, or Atlanta?"

*The former Soviet Union for decades had thousands of nuclear missiles for decades that could hit the U.S., but we didn't get into a war. "The President needs to explain why Iraq is different."

*What happens after we take out Saddam; how long will we be there?

*How does this fit into the whole Middle East question?

*"Forgive my bluntness, but these folks also want to hear the President and Vice President say that this war is not about oil."

Oops! Bush and Blair Cite Non-Existent IAEA Report To Justify Iraq War

A very special relationship! Tony Blair and George W. Bush exposed themselves as fools at their joint press conference on Sept. 7 by citing an International Atomic Energy Agency report that does not exist— and by mischaracterizing another IAEA report, all of which they cited as evidence that "we can't wait any longer" to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Blair first brought up the fictional IAEA report in his opening statement, saying that "I would emphasize to you that the threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, potential nuclear capability, that threat is real. We only need to look at the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency this morning ... to realize that."

A reporter asked President Bush "what conclusive evidence ... new evidence you have of any nuclear weapons capability of Saddam Hussein?"

"We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report," Bush answered, adding that when the inspectors went into Iraq and were "finally denied access," that "a report came out of the IAEA, that they were six months away from developing a weapon."

"I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush declared. Blair then chimed in "Absolutely," and going on to say, "And the importance of this morning's report is that it yet again shows that there is a real issue that has to be tackled here."

But immediately, the IAEA announced there is no new report on Iraq. Newspaper reports on Sept. 6, one day before the Bush/Blair meeting, had reported that satellite photoes obtained by the IAEA had shown construction underway at several previously identified and dismantled Iraqi nuclear sites, but after the Bush/Blair assertions, an IAEA spokesman said the newspaper articles were referring to commercially available photos released in July. "We didn't want to make a big deal of it, because we have no idea if it means anything," the spokesman said. "Construction of a building is one thing. Restarting a nuclear program is another." The spokeswoman added that the IAEA had issued a release "to make it clear there is nothing new."

NBC News reported that a senior White House official had admitted that the citation of the IAEA report was an error. They cited an IAEA spokesman saying that the new construction shown in the photograph was no surprise, and that the IAEA drew no conclusions were drawn from it.

Also, contrary to Bush's claim, the cited 1998 IAEA report did not say Iraq was six months away from developing nuclear capability. What the report said was that prior to the 1991 Gulf War, and the UN inspection program which followed, Iraq had been six to 24 months away from such a capability. In fact, the 1998 report said that it "had found no indication of Iraq ... having retained its capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material."

White House Dossier on Iraq Gets 'D-Minus' from Cordesman; 'F-Minus' from EIW

A joke around Washington was that when First Lady Laura Bush's laundry list went missing, it was because it was used to concoct the White House's anti-Iraq background paper, "A Decade of Deception and Defiance," for Bush's UN speech.

The long and wearying summary of United Nations Security Council resolutions and Security Council Presidential Statements, and alleged Iraqi failure to adhere to them, also covers the topics of "Saddam Hussein's Abuse of Children," Iraqi "Violence Against Women," and many others.

The "Nuclear Weapons" section makes five specific claims which have been often refuted in Congressional testimony, official reports, and most recently in statements to CNN by former Iraqi weapons inspector W. Scott Ritter (see MIDDLE EAST DIGEST).

The word in Washington is that the document is a "complete zero," and that Bush is heading toward becoming a "one-term President."

CSIS Middle East specialist, Anthony Cordesman told the Washington Post on Sept. 13, "This is a glorified press release ... It's clumsy and shallow ... as an overall grade, I'd give it a D-minus." Cordesman was one of the speakers at the Sept. 9 meeting of the National Council of U.S.-Arab Relations (see INDEPTH this week) who is critical of the Iraq war, and who said at the conference that when the neo-conservatives called an Iraq war a "cakewalk ... they moved from being neo-conservatives to being neo-crazies." He also said on Sept. 9 that one of the biggest dangers would be disinformation coming from the Iraqi opposition, who have "reasons" to give anti-Saddam information— i.e., that's how they make money. Cordesman said that no one of the Iraqi opposition can be trusted.

But even the rabidly neo-conservative Iraq Watch, run by Iraq hater Laurie Mylroie, told the Washington Post the Bush White Paper is pathetic. Iraq Watch editor Gary Milhollin said, "Given the high priority for knowing what is going on in Iraq, I'm stunned by the lack of evidence of fresh intelligence. You'd expect that, for the many billions we are spending on intelligence, they would be able to make factual assertions that would not have to be footnoted to an open source."

Chickenhawk Wolfowitz Disliked in Pentagon Corridors

"Many young officers heartily dislike Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz," writes Robert Novak in his widely circulated column of Sept. 13 called "The Stretched Army."

The thrust of the column is that Army's mere 10 divisions are completely inadequate for Korea, Japan, Germany, elsewhere in Europe, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Afghanistan— not to speak of Iraq, and other future targets. But Congress will approve no increases in manpower, and cuts in weapons systems are expected after the elections.

Although the Army swallowed the deeply offensive way Rumsfeld killed the proposed Crusader artillery system, Gen. Tommy Franks has had to withdraw his objections to use of cannon artillery in Afghanistan. Air support was unable to suppress enemy mortar fire which killed American troops.

Novak writes, "When I asked a combat general about the issue last week, he replied, 'I will never go into action without artillery.' Indeed, Pentagon sources say there will be no more deployment of light infantry without supporting guns.

"That constitutes a victory for the officer corps— running counter to the theme of Eliot A. Cohen's new book, 'Supreme Command....' Cohen [is] a defense intellectual closely associated with Wolfowitz and Perle....

"Give the poor man [Rumsfeld] some better dentures," concluded a local wise man.

'Blank Check' McCain Says Congress Must Rush To Get On Board Coming Iraq Invasion

Senator John McCain (R-AZ,) and other pro-war Senators, say Congress must rush to authorize military force, now that President Bush has addressed the United Nations. In a press conference with Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS), McCain told the nation that "I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult...." It may well occur while Congress is in recess. "I would not like, as a representative of the people of Arizona, to vote ex post facto. I think that it would be important that Congress express its will before this military build-up."

Anti-war Senators say the opposite: Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-DE) said, "We're talking next year, and so I don't see a sense of urgency in terms of either days or weeks." He argued that it would be "somewhat foolish" to "essentially issue a declaration of war" before the UN Security Council acts. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) said similarly, "You've got to let the UN work its will," otherwise Bush's going to the UN is "a charade."

Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) said he was bothered by the Administration's "shifting justifications" for an Iraq war, as Lyndon LaRouche is also. Feingold said he would be "hard pressed" at this point to support a resolution authorizing a massive ground invasion.

It may be that the Administration can force a vote physically, but not legally. Congress would have to make a finding of fact, but where is the evidence on which such a finding could be based? "Blank Check" McCain and his co-thinkers are insisting on a Tonkin Gulf resolution, without any Tonkin Gulf incident!

All rights reserved © 2002 EIRNS