In this issue:

LaRouche Campaign Issues Broadside Against Ashcroft's Nazi-Style 'Patriot II' Bill

Ellsberg Hails Report of U.S. Wiretapping of UN Members' Phones

EIR Asks Ari Fleischer if U.S. Might Be Seen as 'Bullying' Blair

Fleischer Joins Freakout Battalion Over Perle Corruption Exposé

Powell Compelled To Deny That Pro-Israel 'Cabal' Is Influencing U.S. Policy

Feeling the Heat, Bush Says He Will Soon Put Forward 'Road Map' for Mideast Peace

Current and Former Congressmen Question Drive to War

U.S. Army Chief of Staff Stands Ground Against Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz

Pentagon Rationalizes Development of New Nukes

Are Chickenhawks Planning To Target Iran, North Korea Next?

Ledeen Raves That France, Germany Allied with Islamic Terrorists To Block American Empire

From Volume 2, Issue Number 11 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Mar. 17, 2003

United States News Digest

LaRouche Campaign Issues Broadside Against Ashcroft's Nazi-Style 'Patriot II' Bill

LaRouche in 2004, the campaign committee for Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche, on March 17 released the text of a new mass leaflet written by LaRouche and titled "Stop Ashcroft's 'Heinrich Himmler II' Bill—While You Still Can."

The leaflet will be circulated massively across the United States, and is also posted on www.larouchein2004.org, the LaRouche campaign's website.

Ellsberg Hails Report of U.S. Wiretapping of UN Members' Phones

Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the "Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times during the Vietnam War, at a press conference March 11 said that the leaks in the London Observer about the wiretapping of UN members' phones by the American National Security Agency, as being potentially more significant than even the publication of the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971. The leaks, which Ellsberg felt were leaks by the British security institutions, could potentially stop the Iraq war before it began, Ellsberg said—and that was what made the leak, in his view, potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers, released in the midst of the war and represented dated material. One person, an employee at the Government Communications Headquarters, has been arrested, according to an article in this week's Sunday Observer. The Observer reports, "The leak marks a serious breach between the Blair government and elements of the intelligence community opposed to using British security resources to help the U.S. drive towards war."

Ellsberg reasoned that the revelations about the wiretaps as a part of U.S. efforts to pressure the UN member governments to vote for the U.S.-British resolution, could actually make it more difficult for countries to vote for the resolution. "What was portrayed as a 'coalition of the willing' is now viewed more and more as a 'coalition of the coerced,'" Ellsberg said. In response to a question from EIR, Ellsberg also talked about the danger of the use of nuclear weapons, reflecting that in his previous experience at the Pentagon, the "use of nuclear weapons" was always an item that was never excluded from the discussion. He then read a few sections of newly declassified Kissinger-Nixon tapes, where Nixon talked about using nuclear weapons against targets in North Vietnam. If more people would have the courage of the State Department officials who recently resigned in protest of the Iraq gambit, Ellsberg said, and leaked more information about how information was being doctored to depict Saddam Hussein as a major threat to the world, there would be a greater chance of stopping the war before it started.

EIR Asks Ari Fleischer if U.S. Might Be Seen as 'Bullying' Blair

EIR asked White House press spokesman Ari Fleischer on March 13 if the U.S. operation vis-à-vis Iraq might not be viewed as "imperial bullying" if Tony Blair were forced out of office.

EIR: Ari, Tony Blair has effectively been asked to fall on his sword, and he's having a difficult time doing it. If he's replaced as the party leader, or if he makes a decision that he ultimately can't go with the United States under the conditions that are finally decided upon, and the United States decides to go it alone, doesn't that create the impression in the eyes of the world that the U.S. is kind of acting like something of an imperial bully to revamp the map of the Gulf in line with certain agendas that certain people have in the Administration? That's already widespread. But wouldn't that really kind of encourage that view?

FLEISCHER: I think I reject the premise of the question. I think that when you take a look at the actions of nations in the region, when you take a look at the coalition of the willing, that you can see that this is actually many nations who share the United States' approach. And that will be reflected if the decision is made to use force, and you will see that.

You said "fall on his sword." I think what Tony Blair is doing is trying to act so Saddam Hussein is not armed with a sword that he can swing against others.

Fleischer Joins Freakout Battalion Over Perle Corruption Exposé

At the same time that the entire "neo-con" apparatus is on a full court press to bury the "Clean Break" exposés in a sea of allegations of anti-Semitism (see INDEPTH), White House press secretary Ari Fleischer on March 13 refused to answer a perfectly legitimate question about Richard Perle's business conflict of interest as chairman of the Defense Policy Board. The following exchange between Fleischer and a White House correspondent, Russell Mokiber, was transcribed by Fed News:

Q: Richard Perle, the chairman of the Defense Policy Board and the leading public advocate for war in Iraq—in The New Yorker magazine this week, Seymour Hersh reports that Perle is also a managing partner of a venture capital company, Trireme Partners, who is in a position to profit from a war in Iraq. The Federal code of conduct which governs Perle in this matter prohibits conflict of interest. Henry Kissinger resigned from the 9/11 Commission because of similar business conflicts. When asked on Sunday by Wolf Blitzer about the New Yorker article, Perle called Hersh, quote, "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist."

Two questions. Given Perle's conflict of interest and given the widespread public belief that this war is being driven by corporate interests—war for oil, war for defense contracts, war for construction contracts—does the President believe—

MR. FLEISCHER: Whose—whose informed judgment is that?

Q: Widespread public belief.

MR. FLEISCHER: Widespread?

Q: Yes.

MR. FLEISCHER: Or just that chair?

Q: No, widespread. Does the President believe that Richard Perle should resign from the Defense Policy Board? And the second question, do you agree with Richard Perle that Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist?

MR. FLEISCHER: (Laughs.) Russell, there is absolutely no basis to your own individual and personal statement about what may lead to war. If anything leads to war, it's the fact that Saddam Hussein has refused to disarm. And I think you do an injustice to people no matter what their background if you believe that people are—people believe that Saddam Hussein should be disarmed for any reason that suggests personal profit.

Q: Okay. What about the question now? Should he resign, and is he a terrorist?

MR. FLEISCHER: Russell, you've had your—you've made your speech.

Q: You didn't answer the question.

MR. FLEISCHER: You've made your speech.

Powell Compelled To Deny That Pro-Israel 'Cabal' Is Influencing U.S. Policy

Indicating how deeply the LaRouche movement's exposure of the Likudnik "Clean Break" policy has penetrated in Washington, Secretary of State Colin Powell was invited to depart from normal procedure at an appropriations hearing in the House March 13, to respond to allegations about Israeli influence on U.S. policy toward Iraq. Representative Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), raised the issue in his opening statement, citing Robert Novak's column, the Washington Post "Blaming the Jews" editorial, and the like. He asked Powell to respond, before any other opening statements were made, and before Powell delivered his prepared testimony.

"U.S. policy with respect to Iraq is not just something that has been developed in the last month or so," Powell replied. "One can go back many years to the end of the Gulf War." He outlined one version of the history of the past 12 years of Iraq policy (but without mentioning that Wolfowitz, Libby et al. elaborated their policy of preventive war about 12 years ago). Powell said that "we have a comprehensive policy for the region, and strategy with respect to Iraq has derived from our interest in the region and our support of the UN resolutions over time."

"It is not driven by any small cabal that is buried away somewhere, that is telling President Bush or me or Vice President Cheney or Condi Rice or other members of our Administration what our policies should be....

"So this is not just the result of a few individuals who are running loose, as some suggest, but it's a comprehensive policy developed over the years, over several administrations...."

Feeling the Heat, Bush Says He Will Soon Put Forward 'Road Map' for Mideast Peace

Obviously feeling the heat from the flurry of exposés of the real pro-Likud program the Chickenhawks, President Bush, in a hastily organized Rose Garden event March 14, announced that the Administration will present its much-touted "road map" for Middle East peace as soon as the new Palestinian Prime Minister takes office. "To be a credible and responsible partner, the new Palestinian Prime Minister must hold a position of real authority," Bush said. "We expect that such a Palestinian Prime Minister will be confirmed soon. Immediately upon confirmation, the road map for peace will be given to the Palestinians and the Israelis. This road map will set forth a sequence of steps toward the goals I set out on June 24, 2002, goals shared by all the parties.

"The United States has developed this plan over the last several months, in close cooperation with Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations," he continued. "Once this road map is delivered, we will expect and welcome contributions from Israel and the Palestinians to this document that will advance true peace. We will urge them to discuss the road map with one another. The time has come to move beyond entrenched positions and to take concrete actions to achieve peace."

Previous to Bush's sudden announcement, Administration officials had been insisting that the presentation of the road map would have to wait until the end of the Iraq war. Obviously feeling the heat from the combined international and domestic opposition to the Iraq war, the Administration has felt it necessary not to totally ignore the Arab-Israeli conflict at a point in time in which the anger in the Arab world will be at its height. After the press conference, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that once a Palestinian Prime Minister is elected, "I think there would be nothing better, at some point in time when it is appropriate, for a Palestinian Prime Minister to visit the White House."

Commenting on these developments, Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche said that Bush is saying what he's said before, and reflecting pressure from his father and others to do something. We don't know if he'll do it, LaRouche added, but he's responding to the pressure.

Current and Former Congressmen Question Drive to War

A large number of current and former Congressmen, predominantly Democrats, have spoken out against the Bush Administration's "Chickenhawk"-led headlong rush into war with Iraq.

*Speaking on the floor of the Senate on March 13, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said: "I am concerned that as we rush to war with Iraq, we are becoming more divided at home and more isolated in the world community.... The Administration by its harsh rhetoric is driving the wedge deeper. Never before, even in the Vietnam War, has America taken such bold military action with so little international support.... The Bush Administration was wrong to allow the anti-Iraq zealots in its ranks to exploit the 9/11 tragedy by using it to make war against Iraq a higher priority than the war against terrorism."

*Speaking on the same day, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) referred to the words of former National Security Adviser and current Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) Brent Scowcroft, who called the Administration's "coalition of the willing" to be "fundamentally, fatally flawed ... [by projecting] an image of arrogance and unilateralism. If we get to the point that everyone secretly hopes the United States gets a black eye because we're so obnoxious, then we'll ... be like Gulliver with the Lilliputians."

Senator Leahy also introduced into the Congressional Record, the letter of resignation of career diplomat John Brady Kiesling, saying "he echoed General Scowcroft's concerns about the practical harm to U.S. interests." Leahy noted that Kiesling's letter "expresses the concerns of some other American diplomats who are representing the United States in our embassies and missions around the world." And, finally, Leahy said: "I cannot pretend to understand the thinking of those in the Administration who for months or even longer have seemed possessed with a kind of messianic zeal in favor of war."

*And, finally, 70 former Congressmen—all but four of them Democrats—issued a statement which was sent on March 14 to the White House, and which said: "Let us pull back from the brink of war and give peaceful solutions a chance to work." At a news conference to announce issuance of the statement, former Masschusetts Rep. Fr. Robert Drinan said: "The opposition of former members of Congress here is based on moral, religious and strategic reasons.... It is the wrong war at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons."

U.S. Army Chief of Staff Stands Ground Against Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz

General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, is sending to friends and associates a chapter from Gen. Matthew Ridgway's memoirs, to back up his public disagreement with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz over how many troops will be needed to occupy Iraq.

Ridgway wrote: "The professional soldier should never pull his punches, should never let himself for one moment be dissuaded from stating the honest estimates his own military experience and judgment tell him will be needed to do the job required of him."

Civilian Pentagon officials are privately passing the word that Shinseki should move up his June retirement, as a result of his testimony to the Senate stating that "hundreds of thousands" of U.S. troops will be needed as an occupation force.

On March 12, at a House Subcommittee hearing, Shinseki repeated his estimate that "several hundred thousand" troops may be needed for a postwar occupation of Iraq. After Shinseki had made a similar statement during Senate testimony last month, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz both disputed Shinseki's estimate, with Rumsfeld declaring it to be "far off the mark."

Meanwhile, syndicated columnist Robert Novak reported that the civilian Secretary of the Army, retired General Thomas White, is on the chopping block; Rumsfeld has wanted to fire White over various policy disagreements, most recently White's refusal to join the Pentagon's civilian leadership in denouncing Shinseki. But, Novak says, second thoughts prevailed about sacking White on the eve of battle.

Pentagon Rationalizes Development of New Nukes

In a release March 11 from its press office, the Pentagon argued that the need to "train the next generation of nuclear weapons scientists and engineers and restore a nuclear weapons enterprise able to respond rapidly to changes in the international security environment or unforeseen technical problems with the stockpile," justifies the development of new nuclear weapons (e.g., mini-nukes).

The release stated, "It is prudent national security policy not to foreclose exploration of technical options that could strengthen our ability to deter, or respond to, new or emerging threats," as called for in last year's Nuclear Posture Review. Finally, it asserted that any repeal of the prohibition on mini-nuke research—a repeal for which the Pentagon has asked—"falls far short of committing the United States to developing, producing and deploying new, low-yield warheads." Such activity would require explicit authorization of Congress, the release said.

Are Chickenhawks Planning To Target Iran, North Korea Next?

The agenda of a Defense Policy Board meeting held on Feb. 27-28 and just obtained by EIR, featured the most aggressive of the Chickenhawks towards Iran and North Korea. Henry Sokolski, who was one of the early advocates of preemptive bombing of North Korea, was, according to the agenda, to address the Board, as was Mike Pillsbury, a China expert for the Chickenhawks.

Also addressing the Board was none other than universal fascist Michael Ledeen, who has advocated a wider war against all of the countries he calls "the terror masters," including Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. He was to address the Board on "Iran issues." Also addressing the Board was Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith, along with Abe Shulsky, the head of Feith's Chickenhawk intelligence unit.

Ledeen Raves That France, Germany Allied with Islamic Terrorists To Block American Empire

Universal fascist Michael Leeden, writing in National Review online March 10, offered a wildly-paranoid "theory" to explain why France and Germany are thwarting the U.S. plans to attack Iraq. His theory goes as follows: After the defeat of the Soviet Empire, the French and the Germans saw the U.S. developing into a "hyperpower" (as the former French Foreign Minister called it), so strong that no one could stop it. "They dreaded the establishment of an American empire, and they sought for a way to bring it down."

Their answer was to strike a deal with radical Islam and Arab extremists, telling them: "You go after the United States, and we'll do everything we can to weaken the Americans." The strategy "was based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States."

After giving details of how this scheme supposedly works, Ledeen said that French President Jacques Chirac isn't just doing it for money—"He's fighting to end the feared American domination before it takes stable shape."

"If this is correct," the psychopathic Ledeen concluded, "we will have to pursue the war against terror far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, into the heart of Western Europe."

All rights reserved © 2003 EIRNS