In this issue:

Secret Directive Authorizes Preemptive Strikes and Nuclear Bombings of Non-Nuclear Countries

Secret Directive Provokes Uproar Internationally

Rumsfeld Tells CNN He's Certain Iraq Has WMD

Bush Makes Clear He Wants No Iraq War in Near Future

Hawks in Administration Panicked That Bush Isn't Going to War

War Buildup Propaganda in the New York Times

Neoconservatives Lead the Charge To Oust Lott

Gore Decides To Opt Out of Second Presidential Run

Rees-Mogg's U.S. Alter Ego Is Hysterical at LaRouche Impact on 'Lula'

From Volume 1, Issue Number 41 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Dec. 16, 2002

UNITED STATES NEWS DIGEST

Secret Directive Authorizes Preemptive Strikes and Nuclear Bombings of Non-Nuclear Countries

Despite their having been forced to forego war on Iraq, at least for the time being, the hawks in the Bush Administration have not been idle. According to the Dec. 11 Washington Post, the White House has released a nonclassified paper which says that the U.S. will "respond with overwhelming force," including "all options," to the use of biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear weapons against this nation, its troops, or its allies. A senior official told the Post that those options include nuclear weapons, and that the statement was intended to have the same effect on Iraq, as did a letter written before the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq in 1991: The letter was sent by then-Secretary of State James Baker to Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqis understood the U.S. to be threatening them with a nuclear strike, if they used weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops.

The secret version of the new document, which is identified simultaneously as National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 17, and as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 4, also authorizes preemptive strikes against states and terrorist groups that are close to acquiring weapons of mass destruction, or acquiring the long-range missiles capable of delivering them.

A "top-secret appendix" lists Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Libya as among the targetted countries.

In January of this year, retired Russian General Leonid Ivashov detailed what he said was a new U.S. nuclear doctrine which comtemplated use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear developing countries, and the development of new generations of small nuclear weapons for that purpose. Ivashov linked the new doctrine with the population policies EIR had pointed to in Kissinger's NSSM 200 of 1973.

On Feb 22, 2002, the Moonie Washington Times ran an interview with chickenhawk Undersecretary of State John Bolton, in which he said that U.S. policy had changed to permit use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers, but this was denied by State Department spokesman Richard Boucher that same day. Yet it later turned out that it was true. And since then, although never specificially avowing it, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has not denied it, either.

And as we have documented earlier, the "preventive war" policy of the September 2002 Bush "National Security Doctrine," was first drafted for then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in 1990, by present Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and I. Lewis Libby, now Cheney's Chief of Staff.

Secret Directive Provokes Uproar Internationally

The news of NSPD 17 was featured everywhere in the European press, with alarm. It is generally understood as a warning to Iraq. For example, the London Times headlined its article, "U.S. Ready To Use Nuclear Weapons on Iraq." (In characteristically blunt American fashion, the New York Post headlined its tabloid: "Bush to Iraq: We'll Nuke You.")

The part of the document which authorizes "preemptive strikes against states and terrorist groups that are close to acquiring weapons of mass destruction, or acquiring long-range missiles capable of delivering them," was followed up by a front-page story in the Dec. 12 Washington Post, claiming the Bush Administration has found a "credible report" that an "al-Qaeda"-affiliated group "took possession of a chemical weapon in Iraq last month or in late October"—although the White House subsequently denied that story.

At the same time, German-language wires reported that fighting had taken place in northern Iraq, between the Kurdish PUK and elements of Ansar al Islam, a group said to be linked to al-Qaeda. Fifty reportedly were killed on both sides. These reports, which obviously require confirmation, aim at corroborating the claims made by Rumsfeld, Bush, and others that al Qaeda-linked groups are operating inside Iraq, and that they have weapons of mass destruction.

Rumsfeld Tells CNN He's Certain Iraq Has WMD

"It is clear that the Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told CNN recently, while in Doha. "The issue is whether or not the Iraqi government has made the decision that the game is up and ... will comply with the United Nations resolution, and it will disclose what it has and participate in a process with the UN monitoring inspections to disarm itself of those capabilities."

Asked how close war was, Rumsfeld said, "That's not knowable, really."

Significantly, Rumsfeld stressed the importance of getting Iraqi scientists and others out of the country, making them defectors, and milking them for "intelligence." He said that so far none had been taken out of the country, and that whether or not the Iraqis would allow it, would "be an indicator of cooperation or lack of cooperation." Rumsfeld said that most of what had been found out in the past about WMD, had "been provided to inspectors, not by a discovery process on the ground, but by defectors, people who got out of the country and knew where the weapons were, knew what the capabilities were, knew where the documentation was."

Bush Makes Clear He Wants No Iraq War in Near Future

For full report on contents of President Bush's interview with Barbara Walters last week, see MIDEAST DIGEST.

Hawks in Administration Panicked That Bush Isn't Going to War

The hawks in the Bush Administration are panicked that President Bush isn't going to war soon, says Michael McFaul of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, quoted in the Dec. 8 New York Times. "They are nervous he will not pull the trigger.... They thought they were in the driver's seat," and "now they are panicked" because Bush went to the UN, and now they are afraid that he will balk at writing new unilateral rules of the international game.

Fritz Ermarth, former head of the National Intelligence Council under the first President Bush, when asked to assess the odds of war breaking out, says, "By a hair, I would bet that things get dragged out," adding that there is always the winter after next.

War Buildup Propaganda in the New York Times

In what appears to be a straight Pentagon printout, the Dec. 8 New York Times presented a detailed report on the U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf, frankly acknowledging that the buildup (and the leaks about it) are "intended to put increasing pressure on the Iraqi government to disarm, and perhaps persuade Mr. Hussein's generals to defect or rebel against him."

However, the Times did admit that "For now any talk of war is muted," while the Administration is preparing to examine Iraq's declaration on its weapons of mass destruction, and reported that this process and the ensuing discussions, inspections, and a possible new UN resolution, could delay any attack for weeks or months.

The Pentagon sources say that the U.S. will have enough troops, tanks, warships, bombs and aircraft in the Gulf region to begin an attack some time in January. Some 60,000 troops, and about 200 warplanes, are in or near the region. By late this week, four aircraft carriers will be in position; special operations forces in the region are planning covert missions, including hunting for Scud missiles and clandestine WMD.

It is also said that the Pentagon is prepared to mobilize up to 265,000 National Guard and reservists.

Neoconservatives Lead the Charge To Oust Lott

According to the Washington Post of Dec. 16, the second in command in the Republican Party in the Senate, Oklahoma Senator Don Nickles, is seeking to oust Trent Lott (R-Miss), who otherwise would become Senate Majority Leader with the opening of the new, Republican-dominated Congress.

Most Republicans and neoconservatives reportedly think Lott's most recent apology (for remarks apparently endorsing segregation made at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party)—that most recent "mea culpa" having been offered at Lott's pathetic Dec. 13 press conference—was grossly inadequate, and that Lott's continued presence as leader of the GOP in the Senate, will derail the party's agenda.

On Dec. 14, the New York Post published a scathing editorial calling on Lott to step down as Majority Leader, under the straightforward headline, "Lott Must Go." Noting that Lott has made his public apologies four times by then, the Post editorialists asked, "Could it be that it took Lott so long because he's never been forced to truly confront the horror of the Jim Crow laws of his youth? Could it be, in other words, that in his heart of hearts, he actually believes what he said? As the eloquent and insightful columnist Charles Krauthammer has suggested, it is as if Lott slept through the second half of the 20th century."

The Washington Post of Dec. 14 reported that among those most gung-ho for Lott's ouster have been the National Review of William F. Buckley, such noted neo-con pundits as William Kristol and Krauthammer, and Conrad Black's Hollinger Corp. adviser George Will.

Lott's fellow Senate Republicans were reportedly unimpressed with his Dec. 13 performance. Shortly after his press conference in Mississippi ended, 20 GOP Senators—minus Lott himself—held a conference call, organized by Larry Craig (Idaho). The content of the discussion was not reported. Among the names being floated as possible replacements for Lott as Majority Leader, are Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn), a close personal friend and political confidant of President Bush; Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penna), and Sen. Nickles.

Probably most devastating to Lott's fortunes were President Bush's remarks Dec. 12 in Philadelphia, when he sharply criticized Lott before a mostly black audience, saying that "recent comments by Senator Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country.... Every day our nation was segregated was a day that American was unfaithful to our founding ideals. And the founding ideals of our nation, and, in fact, the founding ideals of the political party I represent, were, and remain today, the equal dignity and equal rights of every American."

Gore Decides To Opt Out of Second Presidential Run

Al Gore made his long-awaited announcement on CBS-TV's "60 Minutes" program Sunday, saying he will not run for President in 2004. The announcement surprised many, though one senior Republican official commented that this way Gore can remain the man who "should have been President" (a reference to the razor-thin 2000 election between Gore and President Bush), rather than having to go up against Bush again in 2004.

Gore's associates and friends comment that Gore hadn't cultivated contributors and political leaders, and was wondering whether another Democrat might be a stronger challenger. His announcement opens the floodgates to Democratic hopefuls: Joe Lieberman, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, and others are jostling for position.

Donna Brazile, Gore's campaign manager in 2000, was recently hyped by conservative columnist George Will as a key factor in shaping the 2004 Presidential campaign; she says she hasn't talked to Gore in months, and boasts that she is talking to Rep. Dick Gephardt (Mo) and Moon-linked utopian Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn).

Rees-Mogg's U.S. Alter Ego Is Hysterical at LaRouche Impact on 'Lula'

In another echo of hysteria over the growing international political clout of Lyndon LaRouche, another Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece has penned a wild slander, accusing LaRouche of hijacking the economic and monetary policy of the new Brazilian government of Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva, and worrying that LaRouche's appeal may become irresistible to American voters, as the economic crash accelerates. We have recently received the text of an undated "Vantage Point" editorial by James Dale Davidson, the American business partner and alter ego of the London Times' Lord William Rees-Mogg. Rees-Mogg is a longtime LaRouche-watcher, and he has also carved out a profile as the Establishment economist who sees the crash coming, and tells his subscribers and clientele how to make money "when there is blood in the streets."

The Davidson editorial was written and circulated sometime between the Oct. 27 Brazilian elections and the Nov. 5 U.S. mid-term elections. The excerpts below speak for themselves:

"For a hint of how frightening election results can be, take a look at Brazil, where Luiz Inacio 'Lula' da Silva swept to a landslide victory on Oct. 27. Lula, as he is known, is a former metal worker who had previously run for President of Brazil three times and been soundly defeated. But his left-wing Worker's Party won over 61% of the vote in the recent election, triggering fears that Lula will implement the ideas he has espoused during his political career. Most worrisome is Lula's identification with anti-free market and anti-globalization policies of American fringe figure and convicted felon Lyndon LaRouche. A cursory Google [Internet] search revealed page after page of links to stories associating Lula with Lyndon LaRouche. A German story even speculated that Lula would appoint Lyndon LaRouche as his new Finance Minister. This is unlikely. But the fact that LaRouche's anti-market, anti-trade and anti-investor tirades are given any hearing or credibility by the leader of the world's fourth largest democracy shows that any country could be no more than a show of hands away from raving lunacy at the helm."

Davidson went into an ADL-style smear of LaRouche, then resumed the rug-chewing: "It is as yet unclear how many of LaRouche's views Lula shares, or how deeply he is committed to pursuing them. But the specter of havoc that hangs over Brazil is only a more extreme manifestation of the logic of politics as encompassed by Mencken. 'The advance auction of stolen goods' was too tempting for millions of impoverished Brazilians to resist. The income distribution in Brazil, while one of the most lopsided in the world, has substantially narrowed in the past 40 years. By contrast, the U.S. income distribution is one of the more lopsided among the advanced economies, by some measures, almost as lopsided as that in Brazil. It has substantially widened in the past 40 years. The United States is becoming even more vulnerable to demagogic appeals to 'soak the rich' for this very reason. But this doesn't mean that the Democrats, much less Lyndon LaRouche, are necessarily going to gain an immediate purchase with their pandering to economic insecurity."

Obviously, the London Times Thatcherite/neo-cons are beginning to worry that LaRouche, in the United States, could repeat the Lula experience of turning a string of past electoral defeats into a stunning upset victory.

LaRouche himself commented that he was "astonished" by the reported results of the Google search, showing LaRouche's purported ties to Brazilian President-elect "Lula" da Silva. LaRouche commented that he didn't realize he was an adviser to Lula, as Davidson asserted and fretted about.

It should be kept in mind, LaRouche added, that these people like the London Times' Rees-Mogg and Davidson tend towards insanity, and although they are well informed, their views are often distorted and crazy. One has to make allowances for this consideration, LaRouche explained; they may not be drinking just tea.

All rights reserved © 2002 EIRNS