In this issue:

U.S. Diplomat Resigns in Protest of Iraq War

White House Doesn't Rule Out Use of 'Mini-Nukes' Against Iraq

Pentagon Moots Conventional Warheads on ICBMs

Rehearsal for Iraq Occupation Held Under Feith

U.S. Chickenhawks Ranting and Raving

Lieberman Blasts Anti-War Democratic Presidential Hopefuls

New York Times Worries That Iraq War Could Go Wrong

Conyers: Will U.S. Invade France Next?

Los Angeles Joins 120 U.S. Cities in Anti-War Resolution

Congressman Claims Bush Wants To Assassinate Saddam Hussein

Administration Backs Away from Rewrite of Medicare

Fannie Mae Makes Bid To Take Over Conseco Loans

Supreme Court Decision Could Reverse Limitations on Habeas Corpus

From Volume 2, Issue Number 9 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Mar. 3, 2003

United States News Digest

U.S. Diplomat Resigns in Protest of Iraq War

More than 80 U.S. ambassadors and envoys to foreign nations have reported that abroad, President George W. Bush is held in the lowest regard of any President recorded, a well-respected Washington political observer told EIR on Feb. 28. The source was commenting on the resignation of a senior embassy official in Athens, Greece, and said that this resignation is just the tip of iceberg.

The resignation of J. Brady Kiesling, 45, a 20-year career U.S. Foreign Service officer who was political officer at the U.S. embassy, Athens, has made international headlines. Kiesling faxed a letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell Feb. 24 in which he stated: "Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson."

A friend made a copy of the letter available to the New York Times, which interviewed him by phone. Kiesling told the Times: "I've been comforted by the expressions of support... [but] No one has any illusions that the policy will be changed. Too much has been invested in the war." In the letter, Kiesling said: "We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests." Kiesling has served in embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

White House Doesn't Rule Out Use of 'Mini-Nukes' Against Iraq

In a White House press conference on Feb. 25, EIR correspondent William Jones had the following exchange with spokesman Ari Fleischer:

EIR: "Ari, if there are, indeed, military hostilities with Iraq, would the President condone the use of the so-called mini-nukes, which have been authorized for development under recent Presidential directives, in the fight against Saddam Hussein for bunker-busting or anything other purpose?"

FLEISCHER: "In standing with our long-time policies, the White House and the government do not rule anything in, do not rule anything out. So I don't talk about specific types of munitions."

Pentagon Moots Conventional Warheads on ICBMs

The Air Force Space Command is evaluating a change in policy to arm ICBMs with conventional explosives, the New York Times reported Feb. 24. The long-range Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, which can reach targets anywhere in the world in 35 to 45 minutes, have, so far, only been armed with nuclear warheads. The Pentagon says this new concept would give the U.S. the ability to attack targets thousands of miles away with precision-guided, non-nuclear explosives, without putting pilots at risk.

The idea comes out of the Pentagon's secret Nuclear Posture Review, produced last March. That report discussed redesigning the nuclear arsenal to suit the needs of an imperial power, rather than the bipolar world that existed until the collapse of the Soviet Union. It included proposals to incorporate into U.S. military doctrine the use of very small nuclear bombs, "bunker busters," and neutron bombs, which kill people but do not damage real estate.

Rehearsal for Iraq Occupation Held Under Feith

A rehearsal for an Iraq occupation was held recently under Jabotinskyite Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith, according to neo-con insider Judith Miller in the New York Times of Feb. 23.

Miller reported that "the new office of postwar planning held a secret session this weekend," at the Eisenhower Hall of the National Defense University in Washington, involving about 100 officials from a dozen agencies. The head of this new office is Gen. Jay Garner—the American occupation "Viceroy" who has been exposed in this week's EIR, as a key operative for JINSA, the organization of right-wing Israeli crazies and spies. "Allied nations" were also invited but EIR hasn't found out if this included Israel. The meeting was classified.

This Feith/JINSA plan by the Pentagon to impose a military Viceroy has the Iraqi National Congress (opposition) figures screaming over being double-crossed, and serious opposition Iraqi intellectuals are using the situation to increase international opposition to the war in Europe, and the developing world.

U.S. Chickenhawks Ranting and Raving

Rupert Murdoch's New York Post is a useful barometer of how the neo-conservative warmongers are feeling. Their level of desperate frenzy was well reflected in a series of ridiculous articles last week:

*George F. Will says that the "New Jews" are the Americans, since the Europeans have substituted "American" for "Jew," in their "traditional" anti-Semitism that existed from "medieval times to 1945."

*National Review Editor Peter Beinart worries "Will 'W' Betray Iraq?" because the public support for the war is thinning.

*A full-page "exposé" goes after the Jewish peace group "Not in Our Name," which opposes Israeli occupation, for being financed by terrorist-linked foundations. The group was part of the anti-war demonstrations of Feb. 15.

Lieberman Blasts Anti-War Democratic Presidential Hopefuls

Senator Joseph Lieberman, the Democratic Party poster boy of Rupert Murdoch's and William Kristol's The Weekly Standard, denounced those other contenders for the Democratic Presidential nomination who oppose a war with Iraq. Speaking at an Iowa event organized two weeks ago by a local labor leader who opposes the war, Lieberman said that the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which he had co-sponsored a resolution to conduct, had left Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in power.

Lieberman added, "I worried then and throughout the '90s that we were allowing Saddam to become a ticking time bomb. I'm not going to oppose a policy [of regime change] that I've supported for 12 years just because the person who happens to be the Commander in Chief of the United States today is a Republican.... I'm going to hope, ultimately, that people will draw a conclusion, even if they disagree with me on Iraq, that ... [I will] be the kind of candidate and type of President who will not try to please all the people all of the time."

Among those on the platform with Lieberman for this harangue (which was reported in the Feb. 25 New York Post by the editors of the Weekly Standard) were Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who denounced the war.

New York Times Worries That Iraq War Could Go Wrong

In a lead editorial Feb. 23, while agreeing with the notion that force is necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein, the New York Times fretted that if the U.S. goes it alone, or nearly alone, just about everything could go wrong. So the Times called for more discussion. "The real calculations," the editors wrote, "will be entirely about the odds of succeeding." If the war is short, with few casualties, and reveals real evidence of nuclear or biological weapons, and of collusion between Saddam and the terrorists, then President Bush will look like a hero and all those who ridiculed him will look like fools.

However, "things could go terribly wrong, very quickly." The war could be brutal and protracted, Saddam could set his oil wells on fire, and if he is destroyed, the whole region could plunge into chaos as various clans and tribes struggle for the lucrative spoils, drawing in Turkey, Iran, and others. Furthermore, "a long-term occupation of Iraq will create resentment in the Muslim world that could lead to more, not less, terrorism."

The Times opined that those risks would be worth taking if there were a broad international coalition; but, in answer to those who say that backing down from the present military buildup would be a sign of weakness, "We don't think the world's only superpower should be making war to avoid embarrassment.... An invasion of Iraq that is not supported by many traditional allies, or those powers that we need to be allied with in the best possible future, will send a message that we can do whatever we want. But it is not going to make the rest of the world root for us to succeed."

Conyers: Will U.S. Invade France Next?

Is the U.S. going to invade France next? Detroit Democratic Congressman John Conyers recently demanded, in response to government filings in a lawsuit brought seeking to block President George W. Bush from launching an imperial war. The lawsuit charged that Bush should be enjoined from waging war, because to do so would violate the Constitution, by violating the separation of powers, and by Presidential usurpation of powers granted only to Congress in the Constitution.

On Feb. 24, in Boston, where the case was brought, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro dismissed the case, ruling that the court did not have jurisdiction to issue an injunction against Bush. This court move was not unexpected, and the plaintiffs, including six Congressmen, some servicemen already in the Persian Gulf, and family members of servicemen and servicewomen, continue their opposition to the war.

In a statement released on Feb. 24, reports Reuters wire service, Conyers said he was shocked to read court documents filed last week in which "the Administration claimed the President can send U.S. armed forces into battle whenever he thinks it is necessary to protect the 'national security interest.' " "That's an open-ended grab for imperial power, worthy of Julius Caesar or Napoleon," Conyers said in a statement. "Does it mean that if President Bush decides it's in the national security interest to invade Iraq under the UN banner, and France threatens to veto a new Security Council resolution, that President Bush can invade France?"

Los Angeles Joins 120 U.S. Cities in Anti-War Resolution

According to The Los Angeles Times, the City Council in L.A. on Feb. 21 by a vote of 9-4 voted against war with Iraq. The resolution was clinched when Councilwoman Jan Perry brought forward an amendment pledging greater efforts to seek Federal funding to help the homeless. Los Angeles, the nation's second largest city, thus joins almost 120 other cities, including Chicago, that have voted up similar resolutions against the war.

Congressman Claims Bush Wants To Assassinate Saddam Hussein

According to combined wires on Feb. 25, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said in response to a question that: "If we go to war in Iraq, and hostilities result, command and control and top generals, people who are in charge of fighting the war to kill the United States' troops, cannot assume that they will be safe. ... If you go to war, command and control are legitimate targets, under international law."

Asked whether that could mean Saddam Hussein, Fleischer replied, "Of course."

Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) had been quoted as saying that President Bush told him that he would order the assassination of Saddam Hussein "if we had intelligence on where he was now and we had a clear shot." The quote appeared Feb. 25, in the Arlington Heights (Ill.) Daily Herald.

Next, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel told the Daily Herald that he couldn't confirm that the conversation took place, but he said that President Gerald Ford's 1976 executive order banning assassinations "remains in place." But, as the case of the CIA drone assassination of alleged al-Qaeda fighters in Yemen illustrates, the U.S. is already back in the business of "Murder, Inc.," and Stanzel is adding yet another lie to the White House "credibility gap."

Administration Backs Away from Rewrite of Medicare

Under bipartisan fire, the Bush Administration is backing away from requiring Medicare recipients to join private health plans in order to receive prescription-drug benefits, as President Bush had put forward in his State of the Union message.

A new draft Medicare proposal, which was outlined in a private meeting between Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee, reportedly (according to the Wall Street Journal) is still criticized for not going far enough in offering coverage to seniors enrolled in the traditional fee-for-service program.

Fannie Mae Makes Bid To Take Over Conseco Loans

Fannie Mae last week made a bid to take over $23 billion in bankrupt Conseco's mobile-home loans. Raising new concerns about the credit quality of parts of its massive $800-billion mortgage portfolio, Fannie Mae last week placed a $70 million bid to "service" the Conseco loans. Already, Fannie Mae owns or guarantees about $7 billion of the Conseco securities. Servicing loans includes processing payments and hounding delinquent borrowers.

Supreme Court Decision Could Reverse Limitations on Habeas Corpus

In a surprise ruling last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a new hearing for a Texas Death Row inmate, in an 8-to-1 decision that warned the Federal appeals courts against shutting the door prematurely on state inmates who seek to present Constitutional challenges to their convictions or sentences through habeas corpus petitions. The New York Times of Feb. 25 said that the decision could have a substantial impact in reopening Federal courthouse doors that some appellate judges have closed, through strict interpretations of the new limits on habeas review that Congress adopted in the "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996."

In the opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court sharply criticized both the Texas courts, and the lower Federal courts, for ignoring strong evidence of racial bias in the selection of the nearly all-white jury that found a black Texas man, Thomas Miller-El, guilty of murder 17 years ago.

Justice Kennedy said that while it was true that Congress had rewritten the habeas corpus statute to require greater deference by Federal judges to state court determinations, "deference does not imply abandonment or abdication of judicial review."

The lone dissent was from Justice Clarence Thomas, who said that the proof of racial bias was circumstantial at best.

The ruling vacated a ruling from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. From 1992 to 2002, Texas carried out 247 executions, accounting for 37% of all executions in the country.

All rights reserved © 2003 EIRNS