In this issue:

State Department Spokesman Refutes Leak on Sanctions Against North Korea

President Bush: Korea Crisis Can Be Solved Peacefully

Al Gore's Svengali Says Bush Is a Wimp for Not Bombing North Korea to Pieces

Rangel, Conyers Call for Restarting Military Draft

Appeals Court Upholds Use of Secret Evidence

L.A. Times: Is Wall Street Sending Dire Message?

Free-Trade Accord Between U.S. and Ibero-America Faces Fight from States

New York Times Editorial Calls for End to 'Southern Strategy,' Keeps Mum on Own Confederate Roots

The Race Begins: Democrats Out of the Starting Gate for 2004

From Volume 2, Issue Number 1 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Jan. 6, 2003

UNITED STATES NEWS DIGEST

State Department Spokesman Refutes Leak on Sanctions Against North Korea

State Department spokesman Philip Reeker on Dec. 30 refuted the anonymous leak to the Dec. 29 New York Times on sanctions against North Korea. Asked if the U.S. sanctions on North Korea would be re-imposed "in light of what has happened over the last two or three [days]," Reeker responded: "I don't think anybody has suggested at this point imposing sanctions, The Secretary [Colin Powell] has not asked any nation to take economic action against this desperately poor country, North Korea." The reporter pushed him, asking if he were "absolutely confident that there's no consideration of it," but Reeker said no, and pointed to Powell's several interviews on Dec. 29 in which he asserted that the U.S. is looking for a diplomatic solution to the crisis; Reeker said, "That's what we're focussed on."

President Bush: Korea Crisis Can Be Solved Peacefully

Twice in three days, in remarks to the White House press pool at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, President Bush has reiterated that he believes the crisis over North Korea can be resolved peacefully.

On Dec. 31, in response to provocative questions from reporters, President Bush said that the North Korea situation is not a military but a diplomatic showdown.

Bush was asked by a reporter: "I'd like to ask, if I could, why are you not considering military action against a defiant, unstable, unpredictable nuclear-armed North Korea?"

"I view the North Korean situation as one that can be resolved peacefully through diplomacy," Bush responded. "The international community, particularly those countries close to North Korea, understand the stakes involved."

"I had a very good visit with President-elect Roh of South Korea," the President added. "I've obviously talked to [China's] Jiang Zemin right here in Crawford about a nuclear weapons-free peninsula. There's strong consensus, not only amongst the nations in the neighborhood and our friends, but also at the international organizations, such as the IAEA, that North Korea ought to comply with international regulations. I believe this can be done peacefully through diplomacy, and we will continue to work that way and take--all options of course are always on the table for any President, but by working with these countries, we can resolve this."

"So you're not currently contemplating military action?" a reporter asked.

"I believe this is not a military showdown," Bush said. "This is diplomatic showdown. And we can resolve this peacefully and intend to work to resolve it peacefully. We've got good progress in talking to our friends. And I look forward to the fact that [South Korean] President-elect Roh is sending some people over here and that he himself will come after he has been inaugurated."

Again, on Jan. 2, the President repeated to reporters, "As I said, it's a diplomatic issue, not a military issue, and we're working on all fronts."

The Jan. 2 Washington Times reported that the Bush Administration plans to continue food shipments to North Korea, despite the flare-up over its nuclear reactor. "We expect to continue providing the same level of aid to the [UN] World Food Program in Korea as we have in the past," a senior Administration official is quoted as saying. "We don't use food as a political weapon."

In fact, as Lyndon LaRouche has specified, the Bush Administration ought to massively increase the amount of food being shipped to North Korea, not simply maintain it at the existing level.

Al Gore's Svengali Says Bush Is a Wimp for Not Bombing North Korea to Pieces

In a New Year's Day op-ed in the New York Times, Al Gore's former national security adviser and controller Leon Fuerth gave a different perspective to Gore's criticism of the Bush plans for war on Iraq, by declaring that the President is in essence a wimp for failing to use his "preemptive war" strategy against North Korea, as a prime example of a country that builds and proliferates nuclear technology and weapons of mass destruction. Although Fuerth himself writes, "War on the Korean peninsula is almost too horrible to contemplate," he nonetheless proceeds to contemplate it with gusto.

He concludes that Bush should "reverse course and engage with North Korea. However, if such a process doesn't stop the North Korean nuclear enterprise, and quickly, then the administration must either accept a monumental blow to the security of the U.S., or prepare for a second major military enterprise in Korea--one that would take place simultaneously, or nearly so, with action against Iraq."

Rangel, Conyers Call for Restarting Military Draft

Two prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus will ask the House of Representatives to reinstate the military draft. "If indeed the President believes war is necessary in terms of our national welfare, then he has to believe that sacrifices have to be made, and those sacrifices have to be shared," Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) said. "We have to kick up a notch the sense of patriotism and the sense of obligation." The other CBC member who will call for reinstatement of the draft is Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich).

In an NPR interview Jan. 3, Rangel focussed on Congress's cavalier attitude toward going to war against Iraq. He pointed to a recent study which showed that no member of the House has a son or daughter in the military, and only one member of the Senate does.

On NBC's "Today" show this morning, the host asked if he was including in the people who don't understand what war is like, the President and Donald Rumsfeld. "Are you talking for all those people in the higher echelon, all the way up to the top, not being aware of the cost of minorities? Are you saying that?"

Rangel answered: " After you get past Colin Powell, they haven't the slightest clue as to the pain of war, the sacrifice of war...."

"Wait a minute," said the host. "You're talking about Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary. You're saying he doesn't have an idea of the cost, the pain of war? The President of the United States?"

Rangel (who was awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star) responded: "Well, when Rumsfeld gets on television and says, 'We can fight more than one war at a time; we can fight in North Korea; we can fight in Afghanistan; we can fight'--when the President of the United States says, 'I've made a New Year's resolution to eat less cheeseburgers, and not to go to war in Iraq if I can avoid it'--that's no way to be talking about war."

Rangel continued, saying, "When I talk with people who support the war, I ask, 'Do you have any idea, do you know anybody who has anybody in the military that would be exposed to this pain and this sacrifice?' And they don't, because these people are not able to negotiate for themselves. And others have treated this as though it was the French Foreign Legion. After all, they volunteered. They're being paid to fight. And a lot of those kids and their families have been on food stamps."

Appeals Court Upholds Use of Secret Evidence

A Federal appeals court ruled Dec. 31 that the government can freeze the assets of a U.S.-based Islamic charity that it claims is linked to al-Qaeda without providing its evidence to defense lawyers. The ruling upholds a key element of the USA Patriot Act and other counter-terrorism measures implemented after the Sept. 11 attacks.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago held that the government had the right to freeze the assets of the Global Relief Foundation in 2001 because of allegations that it was tied to terrorism--and that it could do so without presenting its evidence in a public forum.

Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley called the ruling "precedent-setting," and noted that before 9/11, defense lawyers in cases involving national security were given either special clearance to review classified information or specially edited versions of such documents. But "since Sept. 11, the government has said it would share nothing with defense lawyers," he said. "This is a problem that has become evident in a variety of areas--the freezing of terrorist assets, the Moussaoui case, the Guantanamo detainee cases."

Roger Simmons, a lawyer for Global Relief, said the ruling was a continuation of unfair U.S. government actions that have effectively shut down one of the largest Islamic charities in the world, since the Treasury Department first linked it to terrorism more than a year ago. "What's bad about this is that the key issue in the case is the question of whether we supported terrorism, and that the government can rely upon secret evidence to make its case. How do you go about proving your innocence when the government can rely on secret evidence that you can't even see?" Simmons argued that Global Relief has not been charged with any crime, and that its leaders have never been accused of violence or supporting terrorism of any kind. "If there is such evidence," he said, "it's evidence I've never seen."

The appellate court did say that Global Relief had a right to contest the specific allegations levelled against it, and it ordered a hearing on the issue at a lower court level.

L.A. Times: Is Wall Street Sending Dire Message?

A Los Angeles Times New Year's Day analysis by Tom Petruno warns that three consecutive years of Wall Street losses may reflect more than the deflating of the 1990s stock market speculative bubble. "Beyond the obvious financial pain to tens of millions of investors in this extended decline, there is the question of whether it also holds a dire message: Is the stock market warning that something is, or soon will be, terribly wrong with the economy?"

The author cited the rise in gold prices, and the shift of American household funds into savings accounts--even though they are yielding interest rates of less than 1%--as indications that there is grave concern about a further economic shock, even beyond the layoffs and other manifestations of the current economic downturn. Since the beginning of 2000, deposits in U.S. household savings accounts have increased from $1.7 trillion to $2.7 trillion. In the same timeframe, investments in mutual funds have gone from $4 trillion down to $2.4 trillion.

David Levy, chairman of the Jerome Levy Forecasting Center, told the L.A. Times that, even if there is no Gulf war, the prospects of a deep economic recession in 2003 are higher than 60%. While these are tame statements, compared to the actual reality of the systemic crash process, the New Year's looming disasters have, for a change, not been kept out of the major media.

Free-Trade Accord Between U.S. and Ibero-America Faces Fight from States

The Bush Administration, trying to get a hemisphere-wide free-trade pact (the Free Trade Area of the Americas), faces likely demands from Brazil and other countries for concessions in citrus, sugar, steel, apparel, and other industries centered in states such as West Virginia and Florida, that will be key to Bush in the 2004 election. Brazilian President-elect Lula has indicated that Bush and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick would have to cut subsidies, tariffs, and quotas on sensitive items--especially farm products--if they want his cooperation.

The highest hurdles, say U.S. trade officials, involve the citrus and sugar industries, and the key electoral state of Florida, home to the $9.1-billion-a-year citrus industry with 90,000 employees in the state. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La), who won a run-off for the Senate seat in December in part because she claimed the Administration was preparing to make such concessions on sugar, has promised to fight any effort to loosen restrictions on sugar imports. "We cannot have this industry devastated by this kind of political deal-making," she said. Sugar- and citrus-industry lobbyists are planning a joint strategy--rallying Congressional allies and pressuring Zoellick--for protecting tariffs, subsidies, and quotas.

New York Times Editorial Calls for End to 'Southern Strategy,' Keeps Mum on Own Confederate Roots

The Dec. 29 New York Times ran a lead editorial on Sunday under the headline, "Up From the Southern Strategy," calling on President Bush to demonstrate, in a new bipartisan policy agenda, that the GOP is ready to move "beyond the shabby era of the Southern strategy." The editorial noted that "The Republicans' need for a makeover was evident to party strategists even before Senator Lott's alarming self-immolation. In analyzing the results of the 2000 election, party officials analyzing the embarrassing 500,000-vote popular margin won by Al Gore realized that they had essentially maxed out on four decades of pandering to angry white males." Bush won only one in 10 black votes in 2000--the worst Republican showing since Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Briefed on the Times editorial, Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche focussed on what the Times failed to mention. The key to Nixon's so-called Southern Strategy was that the hard-core fascists within the Establishment seized on the fact that, with Lyndon Johnson's civil rights legislation of 1964-65, the Southern Democrat "Boll Weevils" declared they had been "betrayed" by the President. Key to the Nixon strategy was the deal with these Boll Weevils, typified later by people like Phil Gramm. In missing this vital point, LaRouche observed, the New York Times' Confederate roots were showing.

The Race Begins: Democrats Out of the Starting Gate for 2004

On Jan. 4, Congressman Dick Gephardt (D-Mo) announced that he would be running for the 2004 Democratic Presidential nomination. Gephardt was forced out of the House Democratic Leadership post after November's Democratic election defeats, and after he came under harsh criticism for having backed President Bush's war powers resolution against Iraq. Gephardt tried for the nomination in 1988, but ran out of money early in the primaries and dropped out.

Also declaring he was forming an exploratory committee was North Carolina Democratic Senator John Edwards. A former personal injury attorney who made millions in that unsavory business, Edwards is two-thirds of the way through his first Senate term, having never been elected to anything previously; some think he represents the Democrats' "Southern Strategy."

The Rev. Al Sharpton of New York has also indicated he will seek the Democratic nomination. The first to form an exploratory committee was Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), and other hopefuls will likely include Senators Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) and Tom Daschle (D-SD).

The most important candidate for the 2004 Democratic Presidential nomination is, of course, Lyndon LaRouche, who was the only Democrat to seriously challenge Al Gore in the 2000 primaries.

All rights reserved © 2002 EIRNS