Home Page

From the Vol.1 No.9 issue of Electronic Intelligence Weekly

UNITED STATES NEWS DIGEST

Catholic Leaders Under Attack To Silence Criticism of Israeli War Crimes

On May 3, Lyndon LaRouche's Presidential campaign committee, LaRouche in 2004, issued the following press release.

LaRouche: When You Violate the Sanctity - - Of Holy Sites, You Provoke Religious War

May 3—During his international webcast on May 1, Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. responded to a statement from a prominent Roman Catholic official, regarding the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, with a strong warning that the attack on the Bethlehem holy site was aimed at provoking a religious war.

The official's statement referred to the siege as a "Calvary," adding that "The Pope is informed constantly and is most concerned. He called into the church, as you know, to express his solidarity with them and thank them for their 'Christian witness.'" The Pope seeks to affirm, he said, "the initiatives of dis-tension and dialogue in the Land of Christ and in every other place on the planet marked by violence and pain." The official described conditions inside the Basilica, which was placed under siege on April 2, "When Palestinians took sanctuary in this holy place—as churches for centuries have been the places of sanctuary." There are some 200 Palestinians and 40 Franciscan and Greek and Armenian religious, with very little food, water, electricity or medical supplies.

"The Church of the Nativity is one Calvary," the statement concluded. "Ramallah, Jenin, and other places of sorrow are under siege. We pray for cooperation between the Palestinians and Israelis, of course, who must concentrate all efforts to find a peaceful solution—but the Israelis are the ones who must withdraw and end their siege.

"The few Christians who inhabit the Holy Land are wondering what are the other 2 billion Christians in the world, thinking? What are they doing?"

LaRouche's Reply

"First of all," LaRouche responded, "when you look at the Nativity Church, what you're looking at—think in terms of another place: Al Haram al Sharif, the Holy Mountain," he replied. "Remember that when Sharon started his last campaign for Prime Minister, he unleashed an attempted assault on one of the holy places of Islam, on the top of this mountain in Jerusalem. This ... particular location, was the crucial breaking point in the attempt to get a Camp David agreement, where [then Prime Minister Ehud] Barak, under pressure of this crowd—the Likud crowd (remember, he used to work for Sharon; Barak did, in the Israeli military)—that, that was a breaking point.... Al Haram al Sharif, this is on the mind of the butchers, who are going at the Church of the Nativity. Because, remember that one of the conditions for Middle East peace, for avoiding a Clash of Civilizations war, for avoiding a Thirty Years' War scenario, is that the holy sites—those of Islam, various confessions of Christianity, and Judaism—are sacred: They are sanctuaries. That nobody can tamper with them.

"The condition of religious peace is a policy of sanctuary, which means that, in whatever agreement is reach, the sites of the holy places must be assured, of being able to function and be intact. And, whatever governments exist, they must respect that law. Without that, there is no peace. Anyone who attacks this, the Church of the Nativity, in this way—which is not really an issue; it's not a military issue; not a police issue—means that they want religious war."

Why Are America's Christians Silent?

He continued, "Now, the thing to put the pressure on, that's obvious to everybody in the area. It's obvious to people in Rome. What's wrong with the American Catholic Church? Why has the American Catholic Church allowed itself to be shut up, under intimidation of an orchestrated scandal against Cardinal Law in Boston, who would normally be the person speaking out on this issue, on behalf of the American Catholics? Why are the American Protestant churches not speaking out on this thing? Because they're afraid of some of their Protestants of the Bush variety? Of the Attorney General of the United States, perhaps, and his particular religious persuasion? Why is no one speaking out, in the United States? Where's this pack of cowards, called 'Christians' in the United States—they call them 'the Cowardly Lions,' not the 'Christians'?

"What are we doing? Have we looked the Catholic Bishop in the eye, and said, 'What are you doing about this?' Have we looked at Christian figures in the eye, and said, 'What are you doing about this? Do you believe in religious war? Because that's what you're promoting, if you don't do something about this. At least, if you don't take a stand against it. If you don't put moral condemnation on it. If you don't say, Anybody who says they're for peace, and tolerates this kind of thing, is a hypocrite—or worse.' You know, sometimes, we can't do much. Sometimes, we can only make an appeal to conscience. And, that is particularly true of the religious profession: Often you have no authority; you have no power; you can't do anything, actually—you can't command, you can't write laws, you can't give orders, in that sense. But at least, you can appeal to conscience. And, if you don't appeal to conscience, what are you? You're nothing.

"And, this is where the pressure has to go. It has to go on the American Catholic Bishops, and others, not to submit to a dirty operation, run by the people, who targetted Cardinal Law in Boston at this particular time, when he would have been the normal channel, through which to issue a condemnation of what's being done against the Church of the Nativity. Realizing that what is being condoned, is not merely an insolence against that church: What is being condoned is a denial of the existence of the policy of sanctuary. And, if you deny the issue of policy of sanctuary, if you make holy, religious sites battlegrounds of religious warfare, you are going to have global, religious warfare. And, you won't have much left, standing, in any part of the world, if you start that kind of a war."

LaRouche in Dialogue with Cairo, Egypt on Mideast Peace Conference

At the May 1 international webcast by Lyndon LaRouche, the first question came from Dr. Selim in Cairo, Egypt, who said: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to talk to Mr. LaRouche. In Egypt, we have been following, with a great deal of interest, his comments on the deteriorating situation in the Middle East. And his voice has been, as a matter of fact, one of the few voices in the West that have been able to point out the basis of the conflict. And he was able to diagnose the Nazi tendencies of the government of Sharon in Israel. Now, I want to ask a question, concerning the suggestion by Mr. Sharon, supported by Colin Powell, to hold a conference for peace in the Middle East, after the massacre that he has commited in the Palestinian occupied territories. This proposal is being widely suggested in the Middle East, and, as I said, it is being supported by the American Administration. Also, I was surprised that the Japanese Foreign Minister came in support of this project. This project is widely perceived in Egypt, as an attempt to give Sharon an opportunity to get the political gains of the massacre that he has committed. What are your views on this proposal, Mr. LaRouche?

LaRouche's reply:

Well, if Sharon were anything but Sharon—or maybe Netanyahu—he would have had the decency not to even suggest it. Because, if you wanted a Middle East agreement, if you took away one of the unreasonable demands, which was imposed upon President Clinton, which Clinton mistakenly accepted, by Barak—that the holy sites in the Middle East be tampered with—then, I think that Arafat agreed to about everything that the Israeli government wanted, at that point. Of course, the Israeli government, at that point, was not sincere. And, I think the reason that the question of Holy Mountain came into the discussion at that point it did, was to prevent from being reached. And, the pressure was on the President to make the mistake, of falsely blaming, publicly, Arafat for the failure of the agreement. The problem with the failure, was that of Barak, whose extenuating circumstances were that probably, he was afraid that the people who had killed Rabin, would kill him, too, from the Likud.

And, you have to remember that the murderers of Rabin, the Prime Minister of Israel, were never really prosecuted. The people who arranged the possibility for the assassination to occur, were never prosecuted. They were the Likud! So, the fascists killed the Prime Minister of Israel, and the policies of Israel were then under the control of the fascists, the Nazis. What is new? So, this simply that Sharon is under great pressure, from the United States, to give the United States some language, to convince the world that Sharon is something that Sharon would hate to be called: "a man of peace." I can't imagine that Sharon desiring to be a man of peace: It's like telling Adolf Hitler, "You're a man of peace." There's no difference! What's the difference between Hitler and Sharon? They're really, in the scale of history, of all the different varieties of criminals that come into a court: One is this and one is that, but they commit the same crime, and they should be tried for the same crime. He's a Nazi like Hitler, and he behaves like Hitler. Maybe not as smart, but he behaves like Hitler, otherwise. And, that should be said. If you want peace, there's only one basis for peace: The other mistake in Camp David—and we should go back to Camp David, because Camp David represented a point in time, at which the agenda was on the table; the opportunity was on the table, to actually bring about an agreement, at least among the parties represented. Maybe not with the Likud, as represented back in Israel, but the parties represented.

The issue of economic development, including water development, should have been on primary public agenda in those negotiations. Because, how can you have peace, without water? Look at the operations of Israel against Syria, against the Golan Heights, against Lebanon: What were the causes of that war?Water! To steal the water, from the aquifers! Because there's not enough water in the present system in the Middle East, to sustain even the existing population. So, without desalination, there is no peace! Without economic evelopment, there is no peace! If you can't give the Palestinians, who have been brutalized, for decades, a sense of economic development, of opportunity for their children, what do the deaths of their children mean? Can you say to the Palestinian, "We'll give you something, in honor of your children, who were killed? To make their lives meaningful? That some outcome came from this, which makes their sacrifice worthwhile?" That's the condition of peace.

Sharon is incapable of offering anything, that any respectable human being, called a Palestinian, could decently accept; or any other human being in the same situation. It's up to the United States—not to say, "We want Sharon to make a gesture, to make Bush's stinking policy look good." We want to make Bush's continued present policy look bad; very bad. Bad enough, so that he wants to change it. That's the only chance."

Christians in America Mobilize To Defend Palestinian Rights; Holy Sites

Traditional Christian organizations in the United States are being blacked out of the media in their ardent appeals for the Bush Adminsitration and the U.S. Congress to take a firm policy against the Israeli attacks on Palestinian lands and on holy sites in the Middle East. While the so-called "Christian Zionist" and other rightwing fanatic organizations have been given big media play to give the appearance that "America supports everything Israel is doing," the truth is that Christians are anguished over the violence, and fascist actions by the Israeli regime of Ariel Sharon. A selection of the many statements issued to this point appear here, and will be reported in more depth in future issues of EIW.

"Palestinian Christians are treated as non-people," reported the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation (HCEF) on its website, which contains many accounts of the Israeli oppression and brutalization of Christians in the Palestinian territories. The HCEF also reports a number of thorough refutations of the Darbyite theological outlook which justifies the Israeli expulsion of Palestinians from their own homeland. One example, is article, excerpted here, by one Professor Abe W. Ata, who now resides in Australia. "One is struck," writes Ata, "by the indignity of the American Christian Right who conveniently drop from their memory tales of oppression experienced daily by their Palestinian Christian compatriots....

"Thirty-five years ago, one in five of the 'Arab' inhabitants of Palestine was Christian; now it is about 1 in 50. Once Bethlehem was 95% Christian; now Christians are a mere 15%. Why? What brought about this catastrophic decline?

"On the face of it, the answer is obvious. Christians are leaving Palestine for the same reason that any Palestinian leaves: They see no future. But this does not explain why they are more inclined to leave than their Muslim compatriots. Part of the reason, it seems to me—a ninth-generation Christian born in Bethlehem—is that Christian Palestinians are treated by the West as non-people. Few outside the Middle East know they exist.

"Another is the persistent denial of their plight by a frighteningly influential American Christian Right ... they were not given any thought by millions of so-called American fundamentalist Christians, particularly by those who have visited the Holy Land during the past few decades.

"Wake up Rev. Gary Bauer, Rev. Jerry Falwell and other setters of religious agendas.... How will you account in Heaven for your apathy to your very brothers and sisters' suffering...?"

Another example is the response to the Mideast crisis by the National Council of Churches, which assembled a delegation of 13 U.S. Church leaders to visit the Mideast April 16-27. They urged the Israeli government to cooperate with UN investigation of events in Jenin, and objected to the withholding of food, water and medical supplies to the Church of the Nativity. The group, which also delivered humanitarian supplies, included United Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Armenian Orthodox, National Baptist, and Syrian Orthodox church leaders. The delegation said it continually heard pleas from Middle East leaders for outside intervention in the crisis. The group noted the need for the United States to constrain the government of Israel to abide by UN resolutions, and to do so as a matter of the highest priority. A World Methodist Council leader said that if the United States can't bring an end to the crisis, he didn't know who could. The group met with several Arab leaders, including Syria's President Bashar Al Assad, Jordan's King Abdullah II, and Lebanon's Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, but were not able to arrange a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

United Methodist leader Jim Winkler said that what made him angry was the obvious attempt of the Israeli government not just to root out terrorists, but to destroy the civil infrastructure "to set back the possibility of a Palestinian state being set up and running any time in the near future." Their official report emphasizes "the urgency of the crisis in the region and our sense that the Middle East, and, indeed, the entire world, stands on the brink of catastrophe." They issued a seven-point statement which includes calling for an end to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, the cessation of building Israeli settlements, and dismantling most of the existing settlements, and addressing the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

More than 20 such statements from major Christian denominations appear on the website www.elca.org/story/me . Until recently, the churches generally tried to be even-handed in their criticisms of Israel and the Palestinians, but the events since Sharon's invasion of the West Bank have caused a dramatic shift. The General Secretary of the Middle East Council of Churches, Dr. Riad Jarjour, who hosted the recent National Council of Churches delegation, wrote an open letter to President Bush reflecting the approach to the President that Lyndon LaRouche discussed in his May 1 webcast. He said: "I appeal to you, Mr. President, to oblige Prime Minister Sharon to step back from the brink of horror and humanitarian abomination. He must set his personal and emotional agenda aside and begin to act as a mature moral agent for both the sake of his own people and the sake of people everywhere.... As a first step, he must make it possible for the Palestinian National Authority (all its flaws and weaknesses notwithstanding) to resume its role as a credible partner in dialogue and to desist forthwith from brutalizing and mauling Palestinian cities and centers.... You, Sir, are in a unique (if, perhaps, unenviable) position to interfere in the degenerate dynamic that now pervades geographical Palestine and all its people. You have it in your power to force the introduction of a process that will leave to ... peace. The Arab states have clearly shown their willingness to support you in such an initiative.... It will be a shame were history to record that, in the presence of manifest evil, and with rewards of goodness within reach, the President of the United States chose not to act."

FBI Chief Admits: Not a Shred of Written Evidence on Sept. 11 Planning

A speech by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and official records of the Czech and U.S. governments have proven that the U.S. has no written evidence—after nearly eight months—about al-Qaeda, or any of the so-called identified "19 Islamic hijackers," having planned and carried out the Sept. 11 irregular warfare attack on the United States. Speaking on April 19 to a meeting of the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Mueller said: "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot." The Washington Post article notes that "Law enforcement officials say that while they have been able to reconstruct the movements of the hijackers before the attacks—all legal except for a few speeding tickets—they have found no evidence of their actual plotting."

Lyndon LaRouche has said repeatedly that not a shred of evidence has been presented by the U.S. government to prove that Sept. 11 was carried out by Osama bin Laden. Although Mueller has the concrete proof that he has no proof, the FBI and others committed to the "Clash of Civilizations" imperial war line maintain, incredibly, that the lack of evidence proves the "professionalism of the hijackers." As LaRouche has noted, this so-called "professionalism," is nothing less than a highly sophisticated "inside job" using members of the U.S. military.

As Mueller's admission came out, another piece of "evidence" that has been used by the neo-conservative Empire crowd has turned out to be false. On May 1, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. has no evidence that 9/11 "suspect" and alleged leader of the suicide hijackers Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence, citing an unnamed senior U.S. official, and collating his statements with a public statement by FBI Director Mueller. The Czech government is no longer certain that the man at the Prague meeting was Atta. From the U.S. side, no evidence has been found that Atta left or returned to the U.S. during that period, despite an exhaustive search.

FBI Director Mueller said that hundreds of thousands of leads had been run down. The FBI had checked every record they could get their hands on, from flight reservations, to car rentals, to bank accounts.

Neo-Cons Dump Former CIA Official from Heading Probe of Sept. 11 Failure

There is no question that the joint Senate-House Intelligence Committee investigation into the "intelligence failures" of Sept. 11 is nothing but an impotent gesture, especially in the context of the Congressional lockstep to retail Israeli disinformation about Palestinian and other so-called Arab terrorism in two resolutions passed this week. However, the neo-conservative fanatics succeeded on April 29 in their long-desired goal of dumping Britt Snider, the former CIA inspector general who was to have run the joint House-Senate Intelligence Committees' investigation into the Sept. 11 massive intelligence failures, resigned "under pressure," just weeks before the investigation was to have started. The type of pressure, and the specifics of the firing have not come out yet.

The Committee is headed by Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla), and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala)—who had opposed Snider's original appointment since last February, claiming that Snider was "too close" to CIA Director George Tenet. The House Intelligence Committee is headed by Porter Goss (R-Fla), who is touted as the CIA Director (favored by neo-cons) if Tenet can be ousted. The neo-conservative mafia, the Christian right, and the American Jabotinskyite Zionists have been on a crusade against Tenet, blaming him for the Sept. 11 attacks, and also claiming that he is anti-Israel.

One of the causes for their attacks are sections of the Tenet Plan that demand that Israel not attack any offices, buildings, prisons, police stations, or other facilities of the Palestinian Authority. Snider was opposed by neo-conservative clown Frank Gaffney, who runs the small, but well-financed Center for Security Policy. Gaffney would be virtually penniless without the constant infusion of funds from the nexus of rightwing foundations: Olin, Bradley, Scaife, and Smith Richardson, which are profiled in the LaRouche in 2004 Special Report, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Sept. 11.

Congress for Sale? Backs Fascist Actions of Sharon Regime

At his May 1 webcast address, Lyndon LaRouche replied to one question about U.S. institutions' uncritical support for Israel's crimes, including ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, by saying that Congress members apparently are wearing a sign on their backs which states "This Space for Rent."

Indeed, the combination of the power of the neo-conservative "Big Brother press," and the financial power of the Christian Right/rightwing Israeli lobby alliance, has cowed Congress and the Senate to the degree that they have supported massacres modelled on the Nazi actions against the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. As EIW has reported, the resolutions come directly from the April 27-29 conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC), described by observers and some attendees as a frightening "Nuremberg Rally."

On May 2, the House of Representatives debated and passed a rabid resolution calling fro the destruction of the "Palestinian terrorist infrastructure," by a vote of 352-21, with a significant number of Congressmen voting "present," but not having the courage to vote "no." The rabid resolution was introduced by House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-Texas) and Zionist Lobby "Golem," Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif) on April 18, 2002.

The resolution is filled with outright Israeli intelligence lies and disinformation, which many members of Congress know to be untrue. The six-page House Resolution 392, which can only be summarized here, states that: "Israel's military operations are an effort to defend itself agains the unspeakable horrors of ongoing terrorism and are aimed only at dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas."

In terms of this infrastructure, the Resolution claims that:

"Whereas Palestinian organizations are engaging in an organized, systematic, and deliberate campaign of terror aimed at inflicting as many casualties as possible on the Israeli population, including through the use of suicide terrorist bombers ... [and]...

"Whereas the al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades, which is part of Arafat's Fatah organization and has been designated a 'Foreign Terrorist Organization' by the United States Government and other Fatah forces have murdered scores of innocent Israelis... [and]

"Whereas forces under Yasser Arafat's direct control were involved in the Palestinian Authority's thwarted attempt to obtain 50 tons of offensive weapons shipped from Iran to the Karine-A, an effort that irrefutably proved Arafat's embrace of the use and escalation of violence... [and]...

"Whereas the Israeli Government has documents found in the offices of the Palestinian Authority that demonstrate the crucial financial support the Palestinian Authority continues to provide for terrorist acts, including suicide bombers ... [and]...

"Whereas Yasser Arafat continues to incite terror by, for example, saying of the Passover suicide bomber, 'Oh God, give me a martyrdom like this'... [and]...

"Whereas the process of Israeli withdrawal is nearly complete: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the House of Representatives—

"1) stands in solidarity with Israel as it takes necessary steps to provide security to its people by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas ... [and]

"2) remains committed to Israel's right to self-defense and supports additional United States assistance to help Israel defend itself ... [and]

"4) condemns the ongoing support of terror by Yasser Arafat and other members of the Palestinian leadership;

"5) demands that the Palestinian Authority at last fulfill its commitment to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas, including any such infrastructure associated with PLO and Palestinian Authority entities tied directly to Yasser Arafat;

"6) is gravely concerned that Arafat's actions are not those of a viable partner for peace."

In introducing the Resolution, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay said: "We must support Israel as they dismantle the Palestinian leadership that fosters violence and hate.... Arafat and his Authority have been an impediment to peace and a threat to the emergence of moderate Palestinian voices. During four decades of terrorism, Yasser Arafat has proven his total contempt for human life. And "Golem" Tom Lantos said: "This bipartisan resolution forcefully expresses the strong support in Congress and the nation at large for Israel in its fight against Palestinian terrorism. The United States must stand shoulder-to-should with our democratic ally Israel in our shared struggle to eradicate terrorism. There is no neogitating with terror, it must be defeated."

Not to be outdone by the Tom Delay initiative, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) created his own resolution that is being presented as the "soft cop" version of the same Delay ranting. Lieberman, who introduced Israeli fascist Benjamin Netanyahu to the U.S. Senate on April 10, stresses in his resolution that the Israeli "fight against terrorism" is identical to the U.S. "fight against terrorism," following Sept. 11. Knowing where the "big bucks" that he needs for his 2004 Presidential campaign, are, Lieberman is on a campaign attacking President George W. Bush for "going soft" on terrorists because of his "concessions" to the Palestinians.

On April 14 in Orlando, Fla., in the midst of the Israeli massacres in Jenin and other places, Lieberman attacked Bush at a Democratic Party fundraiser. He admonished Bush by saying, "the Bush Administration has publicly and persistently pressured Israel not to do exactly what we ourselves have done to fight terror in Afghanistan.... The President risks losing the moral high ground and compromising our own war on terrorism.... How can we credibly continue to search for and destroy the remaining al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan—and all over the world—while demanding that the Israelis stop doing exactly that in the West Bank. The answer is: we cannot....

"We need a consistent foreign policy that doesn't bend to pressure.... And those who fight these terrorists are friends of the American people. No ifs, ands, or buts. And that is why America cannot rest until the most dangerous anti-American terrorist is the world, Saddam Hussein, is removed from power in Baghdad. And that day can't come to soon."

O'Neill: $400-Billion Current Account Deficit Not a Problem

Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill Showed his usual unconcern with what he has in the past called "the so-called current account deficit," at a hearing before hostile, skeptical, and incredulous Senators on May 1.

The real issue here, is the threat of a collapse of the U.S. dollar. O'Neill said that his "feeling" about this deficit, is that it is "financed by international capital flows, which have risen because of foreign interest in investing in the United States. As long as we continue to have the best investment climate in the world, people in other nations will send their savings here, where those resources fuel our economic growth and job creation. I believe we should strive in both the private and public sectors to always be the best place on earth to invest. As long as we are the most productive economy in the world, our nation will continue to be prosperous."

Pursued on the current-account deficit question, O'Neill cited a report by Alan Sinai, which claimed to show that any attempt to reduce this deficit "hurts the U.S. economy, as compared to leaving the current account deficit alone." Most Senators were complaining about the elimination of industries in their states (Zell Miller about the timber industry in Georgia, for example), which they said could not compete internationally at today's high dollar-exchange rate. But John Corzine of New Jersey, more correctly pointed to the possibility of sudden, catastrophic foreign disinvestment from the U.S., as the sort of problem to be feared.

Rumsfeld: U.S. Troops Overstretched; $$ Needed, Lots of It

Newsweek reporter John Barry reports in the issue dated May 6, that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld secretly warned that "it is time to aggressively reduce our current commitments." Although Rumsfeld has publicly blasted the officers who have warned about the U.S. military being stretched thin, in a March 13, 2002 memo to the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force, Rumsfeld himself said: "The entire force is facing the adverse results of the high-paced optempo [number of operations] and perstempo [the strain on troops]." He warned, "We are past the point where the [Defense] Department can, without an unbelievably compelling reason, make any additional commitments." And, "It is time [to] begin to aggressively reduce our current commitments."

Why did Rumsfeld rebuke General John Ralston and Admiral Dennis Blair for saying in Congress what he had earlier said himself? Clearly, he had gotten slapped down for what he had said—how and by whom, would be interesting to know. Newsweek reports that the U.S. Budget Office will only cover $3.5 billion of the $5.3-billion cost, in the current fiscal year, for calling up 83,000 Reserves and National Guard. Rumsfeld thus decided to send 14,500 of the reservists back home—thus increasing the strain on remaining troops.

All rights reserved © 2002 EIRNS