Home Page

From the Vol.1 No.1 issue of Electronic Intelligence Weekly
National US News Digest

LaRouche Warnings on Afghanistan Fiasco Proven Right

The events of the past week on the ground in Afghanistan, 100% vindicate what Democratic Party Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche has warned about the fiasco of the war there. Speaking at the 2002 Presidents' Day conference of the Schiller Institute and the International Caucus of Labor Committees (ICLC), LaRouche said that the United States had not won anything in Afghanistan, and that the results of the U.S. air war and related operations would create a bigger quagmire, and create greater regional instability. LaRouche has been warning that the rapid dissolution of the Taliban forces in October 2001, was emphatically not a "military victory," but the prelude to further fighting when Taliban and other forces could regroup and choose their battles, especially in the spring, as occurred repeatedly in the guerrilla war against the Soviet Union throughout the 1980s. Commenting this week on the battle of Gardez, where a significant intelligence failure underestimated the size, strength, prowess, and equipment of the resistance forces, LaRouche took special note of Gen. Tommy Franks' slip of the tongue at the Pentagon briefing, in which Franks expressed his condolences for the seven American soldiers "killed yesterday in Vietnam."

Franks Makes Freudian Slip

On Tuesday, March 5, during a Pentagon briefing following the U.S. casualties in unexpectedly heavy fighting in Gardez, Afghanistan, Central Command chief Gen. Tommy Franks opened his remarks by saying, "First, let me say that our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and the friends of the service members who have lost their lives in our ongoing operations in Vietnam. Certainly that sacrifice is appreciated by this nation."

Every reporter in the Pentagon briefing room reacted with gasps or chuckles, but Franks himself made no indication he realized what he had said. The gaffe was not brought up until the very end of the press conference, when a reporter asked him "if there was something about this day or the sense that this had sparked a memory....," Franks answered "Absolutely not. I guess it just comes with being an old guy."

For more on Afghanistan, see Asia Digest.

Challenges in Congress to War, Defense Budget

On Feb. 27, Congressional Democrats signalled that President George Bush's war on terrorism and his missile defense program were no longer off-limits to criticism in this election year. In two separate hearings, Democrats attacked the Bush Administration's spending plans.

In a Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Democrats went after the open-ended nature of the war, the lack of an exit strategy, and the failure to capture Osama bin Laden and others. Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) asked Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who is an ardent promoter of "unilateral" U.S. action and war against Iraq and other Muslim countries, "How long can we afford this? ... When will we know we have achieved victory?" Senator Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) said the Bush Administration seems to be arguing, "Since we've got a war, we've got to have deficits, and the war is never going to end."

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), speaking to reporters on Feb. 28, backed Byrd, adding, "There is expansion [of the war on terrorism] without clear direction." Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) reacted immediately saying, "How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush...?" House GOP Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) called Daschle's remarks "disgusting." Daschle said the GOP reaction was "nothing short of hysterical."

Also, in a joint hearing of the House Military Procurement and Research and Development Subcommittees of the Armed Services Committee on Feb. 28, Democrats raised questions on missile defense. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) said that the recently reorganized Missile Defense Agency will be operating "with essentially no oversight, no accountability, and a budget that's growing by leaps and bounds." He ridiculed the so-called "spiral acquisition" strategy, whereby new technologies are fielded as soon as they are available. This was last used by the former Soviet Union, Meehan said, "and the result of that was national bankruptcy [of the U.S.S.R.] and a field full of barely functional weapons." John Spratt (D-S.C.) stated that it is likely Democrats will challenge the spending plan in committee and on the House floor.

Rep. Ron Paul: "Only Tyrants Can Take a Nation to War Without the Consent of the People."

U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), known as a maverick in the GOP, blasted the drive for war on Iraq in a statement on the floor of the House of Representatives on Feb. 26: "All we hear about in the biased media is the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein, with little regard for how this, in itself, might totally destabilize the entire Middle East and Central Asia.... European criticism that the United States is now following a unilateral approach is brushed off.... Widespread support from the eager media pumps the public to support the warmongers in the Administration.... The CIA has found no evidence that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11...."

Paul said that Tony Blair's approval is seen as more important than the approval of the American people. "Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal."

McCain, Lieberman Together Again--To Promote More Wars.

Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, Connecticut Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, and the New York Times' Thomas Friedman all appeared on the Face the Nation television program on Sunday, March 3, and came across as the amen chorus for the Clash of Civilizations, specifically, for the war on Iraq. Lieberman was particularly rabid, saying that, while he wants President Bush to consult more with Congress, he fully supports the big defense buildup, and wants President Bush to be able to have an element of surprise when the U.S. launches war on Saddam--so, that being the case, he'd be happy for Congress to be consulted after the bombs fall on Iraq.

McCain, who ran against Bush in the Republican primaries of 2000, and Lieberman, who, with Al Gore, ran against Bush and Cheney in the general election of 2000, have been collaborating since at least last spring, but their tandem act has been most pronounced, most recently, around the issue of war on Iraq. In January, McCain and Lieberman led a nine-member Senate "fact-finding mission" (though some called it a "clue-finding mission") to Afghanistan, to prove that they were every bit as tough as the Administration, and then some. En route back to the U.S., McCain on Jan. 9 urged that, once military operations in Afghanistan wind down, the United States should attack Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein; he called Iraq a "clear and present danger."

Five days thereafter, in a speech at Washington's Georgetown University, Lieberman uncorked against Iraq, demanding that the Bush Administration support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and pursue a much more aggressive intervention against Arab and Islamic states.

Saddam is such an imminent threat to the U.S. that we must not only increase support for the opposition, but use force from the outside, acting alone, if necessary, to overthrow him, Lieberman declared.

President Bush's "axis of evil" remarks in his State of the Union speech, had nothing on the rabidity of the McCain-Lieberman team.

New Yorker's Seymour Hersh Details Battle Over Iraq Between Powell and Wolfowitz Cabal.

In October 2001, Executive Intelligence Review exposed that a treasonous grouping within the Bush Administration centered around Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz was planning for war against Iraq using a discredited scenario drafted by retired General Wayne Downing, now the chief of counter-terrorism for President Bush at the National Security Council (NSC). EIR labelled this "Wolfowitz cabal," an "enemy within" U.S. policy.

In its March 11, 2002 edition, The New Yorker magazine's veteran intelligence community analyst, Seymour Hersh, reports that "After a year of bitter infighting, the Bush Administration remains sharply divided about Iraq," identifying the grouping around Wolfowitz and Downing as pushing a plan opposed by top military leaders, including Central Command General Tommy Franks. "There is widespread agreement that Saddam Hussein must be overthrown," writes Hersh, "but no agreement about how to get it done."

Hersh says normal planning procedures, which normally include a series of careful preliminary studies under the control of the NSC and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been marginalized. There is little involvement by the JCS and its chairman, Gen. Richard Myers. The sharpest line of cleavage described by Hersh is between the Pentagon's civilian leadership, led by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and the State Department. Pentagon civilian officials are accusing Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, of a loss of nerve. "It's the return of the right-wing crazies, crawling their way back," one of Armitage's associates said, referring to Wolfowitz's team. "The knives are out."

A void in the NSC, caused by a series of resignations and reassignments, is being filled by retired Army General Wayne Downing, who was brought in by President Bush, after Sept. 11, as an adviser on combatting terrorism. Downing, who has worked with Wolfowitz since 1998, has also served as an ad hoc adviser to the Iraqi National Congress (INC)--which Wolfowitz ally Richard Perle, now head of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory group, and others argue must be involved in any move against Saddam.

The civilian leadership in the Pentagon insists that only Ahmed Chalabi, INC's founder, can lead the opposition, and they advocate a plan revolving around a small, mobile attack force of Iraqi dissidents and American Special Forces. The uniformed military leadership believes that hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops would be required; but Downing argues that only a few hundred Americans would be needed, to train a small Iraqi opposition force centered on the INC. INC fans say that any show of force would immediately trigger a revolt against Saddam Hussein within Iraq, and that it would quickly expand.

General Franks is insisting, despite pressure from the Pentagon civilians, on an intense and careful American buildup in the region before an attack on Iraq. Hersh quotes a recently retired senior military officer as saying, "We've got a bunch of people involved who think it's going to be easy. We're set up for a big surprise."

Hersh Warns of Israeli Nuclear "Blackmail" Threat

When Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited Washington in early February, an important agenda item was briefing Sharon about President Bush's determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein, writes Seymour Hersh in the March 11 New Yorker, and trying to persuade Israel to delay any retaliatory response in the event of an Iraqi Scud-missile attack, as it did during the 1991 Gulf War. But the Israeli leader refused to give the White House an assurance that they would not retaliate.

"It is almost like a blackmail threat," Hersh said, in a March 4 interview about his article on CNN. "Israel, by the way, my understanding is, would much rather see us go elsewhere than Iraq. They see Iran as more of a problem. And this could be their way of forcing our hand."

Hersh said, "This is a very serious impediment to our planning. We can't begin war against Saddam" because "an Israel counterattack, nuclear or otherwise, would pit the whole Arab world against the U.S., and could invite a counter-response against Israel from Pakistan."

Concern over Israeli nuclear blackmail is also being raised by Swedish military experts. See Europe Digest.

Washington Post Obsessed with "LaRouche Factor" in Fight to Save D. C. General Hospital.

The Washington Post, whose late owner, Katharine (KKKatie) Graham, played a major role in eliminating D.C. General Hospital, the only public hospital in the nation's capital, appears to be in the grip of an obsession about Lyndon LaRouche and his leadership of the fight to save the hospital. In a series of articles, the Post is conceding that the two biggest problems Mayor Anthony Williams faces, are his decision to shut down D.C. General Hospital, and his emphasis on "attracting residents and development" to "gentrify" the neighborhoods. In a front-page article of Feb. 28, the Post tries to puff up Williams' record, but repeatedly quotes the Rev. Willie Wilson (at whose church most of the meetings of the Coalition to Save D.C. General were held) attacking the Mayor, and accusing him of "running low-to moderate-income people out of this city, who happen to be predominantly African-American." Williams is so far unopposed in his re-election bid this fall.

*Also Feb. 28, the Post's weekly District section ran an article "Hospital Dispute Overshadows SE Development Plan," which complained that plans for redevelopment of the D.C. General campus are running up against accusations that "closing the hospital was a way to clear the potentially valuable riverfront land for a more profitable project." The article identifies the center of this opposition as "citizen activists, former hospital employees, and followers of conspiracy theorist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr." And it notes that two meetings held so far, to "elicit community input" about what to build on the site, were dominated by those who had opposed closing D.C. General.

*On Feb. 9, Washington Post columnist Mark Fisher admitted that the "conspiracy theories" about the D.C. General land-grab were basically correct, acknowledging that "it's finally clear what the RFK [Stadium]/D.C. General area is slated for" --that being an "Olympic sports and entertainment complex."

During Fisher's weekly online program on Feb. 14, EIR's Ed Spannaus sent Fisher a message, noting that "it was clear ... a year ago what the D.C. General land was slated for," showing how LaRouche supporters had documented this. Spannaus challenged Fisher for labelling those objecting to the Mayor's and the Financial Control Board's plans, as a "motley collection of hate-mongers and rabble-rousers" and as "truly wacky Lyndon LaRouchies."

"Since you now acknowledge that we were right all along, don't you think you owe us--and your readers--an apology?" Spannaus asked. Fisher, of course, refused.

For more on Washington, D.C. and the Democratic Party, see Indepth article on "The Boys from Brazile."

Time Magazine's Nuclear Terror Propaganda Shot Down in Senate Hearing.

On March 6, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joe Biden (D-Del) brought before his committee a set of competent physicists and scientists to refute the nuclear terrorism scare hysteria that began on Sunday, March 3, when Time magazine and the Washington Post released simultaneous scare stories about nuclear terrorist attacks, based on an October 2001 classified report that turned out to be false.

Dr. Richard Meserve, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told the committee that any device that could spread radiological material (a so-called "dirty bomb") would not be a very effective terrorist weapon in terms of causing mass casualties, because the amount of material required to cause mass deaths would be very large, and consequently, difficult to handle. The dispersal of material would actually reduce the risk, because the concentration would be reduced by the dispersal. However, such an attack could have severe psychological effects, and could contaminate a large area, with resultant cleanup and economic costs. Meserve made a point of distinguishing between such a "dirty bomb" and a nuclear explosive device.

Biden repeatedly questioned the witnesses in order to ensure the precision of their testimony as to what can and cannot be done with such devices. One upshot of this drive for precision was the implication that you cannot build a nuclear explosive device that would fit into a suitcase, but a "dirty bomb" that spreads radioactive material is a serious concern. No Republican members of the committee attended the hearing, possibly indicating that the GOP members were not interested in debunking the nuclear scare propaganda.

All rights reserved © 2002 EIRNS