UNITED STATES NEWS DIGEST
Leak of Nuclear Posture Review Was Deliberate Terror Tactic
While many people presumed that the leak, in the March 10 Los Angeles Times, of the list of countries targetted in the U.S. Nuclear Policy Review was aimed at exposing and stopping the change of U.S. nuclear warfighting doctrine, Lyndon LaRouche has charged that the contents of the new doctrine were leaked by the proponents of the "Clash of Civilizations" doctrine associated with Samuel Huntington, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bernard Lewis, and Henry Kissinger. These lunatics, LaRouche said, are playing a "nuclear chicken-game" with the rest of the world, attempting to scare nations, including America's European NATO allies, into capitulating to the drive to provoke a new world war, beginning in the Middle East.
On March 17, the Washington Post admitted that LaRouche's analysis was on target (without mentioning LaRouche). Ombudsman Michael Getler, in the leading editorial item for the Post, defended the paper's editorial decision not to put the story on its front pages, unlike the New York Times and Los Angeles Times.
Getler wrote that, "adding to the spectacle of such widely differing news display among the nation's three top dailies is the attitude of the Administration toward the leak, to the New York and Los Angeles papersof this supposedly secret document. Hardly a peepuntil Defense Secretary Rumsfeld blasted the leakers on Wednesday [March 13]from an Administration that threatens federal employees if they utter an unauthorized word about the war in Afghanistan. It makes you wonder if White House officials didn't mind this leak, so they could get their 'don't mess with us' message out without launching it, and then look cool and calm, explaining that this kind of review goes on all the time, and it's nothing new." In a discussion on March 18, LaRouche evaluated the Post's assessment as being correct.
Kissinger: We Have a Nuclear Arsenal We're Ready To Use
In a March 19 speech in the Italian Senate, Henry Kissinger threatened that "We have a nuclear arsenal with which we are ready to react." Speaking almost precisely on the anniversary of the kidnapping of the former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro (March 16, 1978), whom Kissinger had threatened in brutal terms, the former U.S. Secretary of State delivered a threatening speech in the Zuccari Room of Palazzo Giustiniani in Rome. As observers noticed, Kissinger's "lecture" (attended by, among others, the U.S. Ambassador) coincided with tremendous ferment in the Italian Senate in favor of Lyndon LaRouche's New Bretton Woods proposalferment expressed in now-famous motion signed by former Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti and a large group of senators.
Officially, Kissinger had been invited by the Senate President, Marcello Pera, to speak on "Globalization and Geopolitics."
Declared Kissinger, "From Iraq and the other rogue states we learned that weapons can be used suddenly against us, but also against Europe. What do we do with countries that have weapons of mass destruction, don't have a democratic system, and have already used these weapons against their own people and their neighbors?"referring to Iraq. "Do we wait until these weapons are used or will we find the way to prevent this risk? We Americans gave up our chemical weapons in 1969, but we have a nuclear arsenal with which we are ready to react. Nobody wants a war without consulting our allies, but those who reject the use of weapons must propose an alternative and not just a diplomatic alternative" (emphasis added).
Sen. John Warner Warns of Dangers in Attack on Iraq
In a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with CIA Director George Tenet on March 19, Virginia Republican Senator John Warner, who has close ties to the armed services, went on record with his concern that an Iraq adventure would create more terrorism in the world, and would bring down the governments in friendly Muslim nations. Central Intelligence Agency chieftain George Tenet had presented to the Committee a paper along the lines of the "axis of evil" (which won fulsome praise from Sen. Joe Lieberman, especially in regard to Iraq), and responded to questions on Iraq by saying he would answer only in closed session.
Warner, clearly wanting to go on the record, said that every day sees more speculation in the press on "taking out Saddam Hussein militarily if all other avenues diplomatically in the end fail." He said he agreed that Iraq was a danger, and this approach might be important, but added: "I think we have an obligation to talk about what are the consequences ... if we have to go it alone. Here are my concerns." The Senator specified:
"[W]ho fills the vacuum [of leadership in Iraq]? Are there persons that exist that can step in and gain the confidence of the Iraqi people and lead that nation hopefully in a direction that's more compatible with a degree of democracy and freedom in that part of the world? We will also have to evaluateand this is my question to youin the aftermath, what is the likely degree of increase in the threats to this nation by means of terrorism..., how do we go about evaluating the degree of the increase of terrorist attacks, particularly by individuals who are ready to give up their lives, willingly, to bring further damage on our nation? Will not that invasion of a sovereign nation, the transformation of that government by force, spawn an increase in the number of individuals, not necessarily from Iraq, but from around the world, who will come and be inspired to inflict greater damage on this nation?"
When Tenet answered evasively, twice, Warner cut him off:
SEN. WARNER: Well, that's all very well and good, Mr. Director, but I must tell you that I think it's important that we begin to spend a lot of time on this subject and try as best we can to inform the American people and others of the consequences of a significant military action to take out Saddam Hussein.
Now, what about the other governments in the Muslim world? They are very fragile, and some of these leaders are saying that type of operation could in fact bring down the government in my nation. Is that a potential?
MR. TENET: Well, Senator, let me say that I'd like to hear from the Vice President when he gets back because he's had these kinds of conversations. You often get a public face and a private face on these discussions and sometimes
SEN. WARNER: Well, you and I know that. We've all travelled and talked to those folks. I guess I'm not going to make much progress this morning. But I'm spending a lot of my time on this issue, and I feel an obligation, and I hope our President consults with the Congress. That representation has been made by a series of individuals to this committee. But it is a major, major decision that we've got to prepare the American people for what the consequences would be.
Yes, we would destroy weapons of mass destruction, the ability of that nation to produce it. But in the wake, would we spawn a higher, much higher degree of terrorism?
Say U.S. Military Unprepared for Further Actions
The chiefs of the U.S. Pacific and European Commands told the Congress March 21 that the U.S. military is unprepared for further actions. Speaking to the House Armed Services Committee, Adm. Dennis Blair of the Pacific Command went even further, saying: "We do not have adequate forces to carry out our missions for the Pacific if the operations in [Afghanistan] continue at their recent past and current pace." The commanders were asked whether they had enough forces to carry out all current operations, as well as possible military action against Iraq, and their answers were "very troubling," said Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), who had asked the question.
"The answer to your question as you posed it is: I do not have the forces in EUCOM today to carry out these missions," Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, commander-in-chief of the European Command, told Skelton, the Committee's top Democrat. If more operations are assigned, Ralston said, "I will come back to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense and ask for additional forces. Then they are going to have to come up with a choice: Where are they going to take them away from?"
"I have not had a marine amphibious ready group since October of last year," Ralston said. "This is the primary unit that I use to evacuate Americans if there is a NATO operation taking place in one of those 91 countries" under his command. "And I don't believe I will have a marine amphibious ready group this year, other than just for a few days as they transit the Mediterranean." Likewise, he said he has not had an aircraft carrier in many months. He has also sent AWACS aircraft to support operations in Southwest Asia.
Blair said: "There are shortages of naval forces, of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance forces, in particular, that have to be made up for if we are to continue the current level of operations in the Central Command."
Army Gen. William F. Kernan, commander-in-chief of the U.S. Joint Forces Command, recently told the Committee that U.S. troops are overextended and exhausted, and supported calls by service leaders for more troops.
Washington Times, New Republic: Make War on Iraq
In the midst of the intensifying drumbeat for war against Iraq, among the news media and neoconservative circles in and out of government, the Washington Times March 20 ran an op-ed column by Tony Blankley entitled "A Fear of the Nuclear." In it, Blankley compared the concern that Iraq has nuclear weapons to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and quoted from Henry Kissinger: "Statesmen always face the dilemma that when the scope of action is greatest, they have a minimum of knowledge. By the time they have garnered sufficent knowledge, the scope for decisive action is likely to have vanished. In the 1930s, British leaders were unsure of Hilter's objectives ... [and failed] to act on the basis of assessments which they could not prove. The tuition fee for learning about Hilter's true nature was tens of millions of graves."
Blankley ended his column by commenting that these are the terrible calculations the President will have to make in the coming months: Going to war and risking destabilizing much of the world without knowing for certain, or embarking on a course of inaction, resulting in the annihilation of a major American city.
A similar message was put out in an article in the current issue of the New Republic, entitled "The Case for an American Osirak." The argument is made that the United States should do what the Israelis did in 1980, with reference to Israel's preemptive strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor. The article asserts that with all the smart weapons at the disposal of the U.S., it should be no problem to target the facilities suspected of making weapons of mass destruction.
Washington Post Reveals More 'Neo-Con' Penetration of Bush Inner Sanctum
The March 19 Washington Post carried a useful exposure, by Dana Milbank, of the extent of penetration of the Bush Administrationparticularly the White Houseby the neo-conservative networks of William Kristol. The article opened with the shocking observation that "Karl Rove's loyalty police should be on deep orange alert, if not hot pink. There is a sleeper cell operating in the White House." Milbank's article documented the case of Joseph Shattan, a former National Review writer who last fall had viciously attacked President Bush for endorsing the idea of a Palestinian state, but is now being brought in as a White House speech writer.
"How did it happen? Sounds like the work of the Kristol cabal, a vast, neoconservative conspiracy centered on William Kristol, publisher of the Weekly Standard magazine," wrote Milbank. "Kristol, who backed Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in the GOP primaries, is persona non grata at the White House. But he has some operativers on the Inside." The article ran down a long list of Kristol cat's paws who are now in key Bush Administration posts: Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully, Cheney speechwriter John McConnell, Bush speechwriter Peter Wehner, National Security Council speechwriter Matthew Rees, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Domestic Policy Council director Jay Lefkowitz, NSC Senior Director Elliott Abrams, Cheney Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of State John Bolton, bioethics panel chairman Leon Kass, and Bush "Kitchen Cabinet" member Al Hubbard.
The Post story warned that the Kristol gang is wreaking havoc at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. "For much of Bush's first year in office, Kristol was a steady critic.... Since then, however, something curious has happened. Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' is morphing into Kristol'sand McCain's'national greatness' agenda.... His 'axis of evil' reference (coined by a Kristol acolyte) echoes McCain's and Kristol's calls for a broad assault on rogue states. Kristol's not talking, but the innocent explanation for all this is that Bush aides, though hostile to McCain, embrace the senator's neoconservative ideas. But could it be Kristolean mind control at work on his inside agents?"
Feds Raid Islamic Groups, Homes in No. Virginia, Georgia
On March 20 and 22, the Federal agents led by the U.S. Customs Service conducted raids of Islamic groups' offices, Islamic schools, and homes of Muslims in Northern Virginia and Georgia. The raids of March 20 involved 14 sites of Islamic organizations in Northern Virginia and one in Georgia, and individuals. Documents, computers, and other materials were seized, but no arrests were made. The raids were part of a putative investigation into the financing of terrorism.
The individuals and organizations targetted, and the Islamic community in general, reacted with outrage, characterizing the raids as harassment, and a giant fishing expedition. About the same time as the raids, Attorney General John Ashcroft was announcing that another 3,000 Arab and Muslim men in the U.S. were to be rounded up for questioning.
At a press conference March 21 sponsored by the Council on American Islamic Relations, representatives of some of the people targetted for raids, described armed men, with guns drawn, surrounding their homes; officers refusing to show search warrants (which are reportedly under seal); the handcuffing of women, and other indignities. Shaker ElSayed of the National Muslim Leadership Council said the operation "contradicts President Bush's declarations that the campaign against terrorism is not against Muslims. These actions presume that these people are like drug dealers, and that their homes should be violated...."
Congressman Conyers Blasts Use of Secret Evidence
According to a press release from his office March 18, Michigan Congressman John Conyers (D) has said that the "Bush Administration decision to use secret evidence [in prosecuting suspected terror-supporting organizationsed.] is a slap in the face for those who supported him." The Congressman criticized the Justice Department announcement that it will use secret evidence in the case against the Global Relief Foundation, a Muslim charity active in the Chicago area. The DOJ will give to the Federal court, but not to the defense, the "secret evidence" which is supposed to demonstrate that the charity is connected to al-Qaeda networks. The source of the "evidence" is to be protected, the Justice Department argued, for "national security" reasons.
Reportedly, since Sept. 11, Israeli security sources have delivered a large amount of information concerning Muslim charities in the United States. In a statement reported by Forward magazine on March 15, an "intelligence expert," Peter Unsinger, stated: "I have no doubt Israel has an interest in spying on [Muslim fundamentalist] groups. The Israelis give us good stuff, like on the Hamas charities."
The Federal case in Chicago appears to constitute the first time the government has tried to use secret evidence under a provision of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in October. Roger Simmons, an attorney for Global Relief, called the use of secret evidence is "a very dangerous legal precedent."
Congressman Conyers' statement stressed that, "in his Oct. 11, 2000 presidential debate with Vice President Gore, then-Governor Bush condemned the use of secret evidence. In December 2001, a Justice Department spokesman repeated the Administration pledge and stated: 'It was a campaign promise by the President.... We've abided by that promise.' I call on the President to abide by his campaign promise and to cease the practice of gutting the very freedoms we are attempting to protect."
|