United States News Digest
CIA's 'Confession' of Responsibility for State of the Union Blunder Further Heats Up Scandal
On July 10, President George Bush and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that it was the responsibility of the CIA to remove the false story about Iraq seeking African uraniumbased on a British reportfrom the President's State of the Union address, delivered on Jan. 28, 2003. On July 11, CIA Director George Tenet issued a letter saying that he is ultimately responsible for the decision not to remove the reference from the speecheven while Tenet made clear that the CIA had removed the Niger "yellow cake" uranium false information from all of its briefings, and reports.
But Tenet's letter and Condi Rice's one-hour interview with reporters travelling with President Bush in Africa on July 11, will do little to slow the momentum of the scandal. If anything, the Tenet letter, and new intelligence leaks on the scandal, pose further questions that the Administration will be forced to answer.
On July 12, the New York Times and Washington Post ran front-page stories reporting on Tenet's letter. The details and the chronology of events, as reported in these articles, are most revealing.
*First, according to both papers, the CIA, back in September 2002, attempted, unsuccessfully, to convince the British government not to include the reference to the Iraqi quest for African uranium in the now infamous Blair dossier. The CIA warnings that the information was suspect were ignored.
*Next, in early October 2002, both the CIA and the State Department's INR section, succeeded in removing references to the uranium deals in President Bush's speech, delivered Oct. 7 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Shortly afterwards, the CIA issued a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD, which expressed further doubts about the fragments of intelligence, suggesting Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain uranium from Sudan, Gabon, and Niger. Condi Rice acknowledged that the State Department added a "standard footnote" to the NIE, emphasizing their doubts about the reliability of the uranium stories, which, Rice told reporters, "The President was unaware of, as was I."
*In January 2003, prior to the President's State of the Union address, National Security Council official Dr. Robert G. Joseph, the NSC director of proliferation, counterproliferation and homeland security, telephoned CIA officer Alan Foley, reported the New York Times July 12, in an article by reporters David Sanger and James Risen.
The article says, "Mr. Foley was said to recall that before the speech, Mr. Joseph called him to ask about putting into the speech a reference to reports that Iraq was trying to buy hundreds of tons of yellow cake from Niger. Mr. Foley replied that the CIA was not sure that the information was right. Mr. Joseph then came back to Mr. Foley and pointed out that the British had already included the information in a report. Mr. Foley said yes, but noted that the CIA had told the British that they were not sure that the information was correct. Mr. Joseph then asked whether it was accurate that the British reported the information. Mr. Foley said yes."
In April 2001, EIR published a profile of Dr. Robert Joseph, revealing that he was one of two "plants" on the NSC who were protégés of Richard Perle. During the Reagan Administration, Joseph had been Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, under Perle. He is a member of the advisory board to Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, the biggest hotbed of chickenhawks in Washington. The fact that Dr. Joseph was the NSC staffer responsible for the reference to the discredited Africa uranium hoax into the President's speech is an enormous scandal in its own right.
Returning to the chronology of events catalogued in the July 12 articles: Three days after the State of the Union address, CIA Director Tenet met with Secretary of State Colin Powell and others, to prepare Powell's testimony before the UN Security Council, scheduled for Feb. 5, 2003. It had been earlier reported that a first draft of that testimony, prepared by Dick Cheney's chief national security aide and chief of staff Lewis Libbya leader and protector of the Administration Chickenhawkshad included an explicit reference to the Niger yellow cake allegations, and Powell had ripped up the draft, calling it "B.S." Powell decided that there would be no reference to the Africa uranium controversy at all in his UN testimony. We have not heard the last of this story.
Under Heavy Pressure, Congress Is Moving Along the Lines LaRouche Has Proposed
Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey and 15 other House Democrats who voted for the Iraq war, wrote to Bush on July 10, with a detailed list of questions on the Niger yellow-cake fraud, beginning with how this got into his State of the Union address when it was known to be based on a forgery. A press release from Markey's office said the signers are "questioning the erroneous information provided to Congress ... to convince Members to vote in favor of House Joint Res. 114, authorizing military force in Iraq."
The letter goes on to quote former Ambassador Joe Wilson on the fact that Cheney triggered his, Wilson's, trip of February 2002, and that Wilson is "absolutely convinced" that Cheney got a report of it afterwards. Markey and the others ask, "What input did the Vice President have into your State of the Union speech? Did the Vice President's office receive one or more drafts of the speech prior to its delivery, and if so, when?" At the end, the Congressmen ask for the detailed intelligence underlying all of Bush's other claims of Iraq WMD, and whether that intelligence was erroneous.
The letter is signed by 16 Democratic Members of Congress: Markey (Mass); Kennedy (RI); Bishop (Ga); Meehan (Mass); Pascrell (NJ); Weiner (NY); Tauscher (Calif); Dooley (Calif); Taylor (Miss); Hill (Ind); Wexler (Fla); Berry (Ark); Rothman (NJ); Berkley (Nev); Ackerman (NY); Israel (NY).
Also reflecting the pressure on Congress, although avoiding the necessary focus on Cheney, the British Guardian reports that, also on July 10, the Senate agreed to an amendment written by Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin, that would authorize a "thorough and expeditious joint investigation" into assertions that Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Africa, and would require parts of that inquiry to be made public. The amendment was offered to the State Department authorization bill, which could be approved next week by the Senate.
Also on July 10, the Senate voted 97-0 its sentiment that NATO must be asked to send troops to Iraq. Of course that's not about to happen, but it reflects one source of heavy pressure on Congress: American troops and their families, both regular and reserve, who are furious.
House Panel Approves 'Shutdown' Budget For Amtrak
Even though 219 Representatives had signed a letter supporting Amtrak's budget request for FY 2004, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation approved an Amtrak budget of $580 million for the 2004 fiscal year starting Oct. 1less than one-third of the amount ($1.8 billion) that the national passenger railroad insists it needs to maintain existing services, not to mention funding needed for a backlog of repairs.
"As a practical matter, this is a shutdown scenario," warned Amtrak spokesman Chris Black, because the railroad spends $466 million annually just to maintain its existing capital equipment in the Northeast Corridor, and it could not function with the amount budgeted by the House panel. Last summer, Amtrak narrowly averted its first nationwide shutdown.
This budget "would strangle our national passenger rail system," cautioned Rep. John Olver of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the subcommittee. No major inter-city rail system in the world, he argued, operates profitably without government support.
Showing the level of support for Amtrak, Black said that 219 House members had signed a letter backing Amtrak's $1.8 billion budget request.
On the other hand, reflecting the 35-year push to destroy the U.S. physical economy based on "free trade" and "privatization," subcommittee chairman Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla) said Amtrak should operate on a "smaller scale;" while Rep. John Mica (R-Fla) is drafting legislation that would hand over commuter services in the highly profitable Northeast Corridor to a group of Northeastern states.
'Homeland Security'" Neglects Bioterror Readiness
The "war on terrorism" is a slogan dear to the neo-con warmongers in the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz cabal, but there is no drive in these circles to actually protect the American population. A study of U.S. preparedness for bioterror attack found serious and worsening shortages of medical, scientific and technical experts at five Federal agencies which must respond: the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Food and Drug Administration, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Food Safety and Inspection Service. The study was released July 8 by the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group founded in 2001, that seeks to attract more qualified people to government service.
"We have uncovered a serious underinvestment in the human side of addressing the bioterrorism threat," said Max Stier, president and chief executive of the group. The study added, "we found that the Federal employees responsible for our defenses against bioterrorist attacks constitute a 'civilian thin blue line,' that is retreating both in terms of capacity and expertise." The study also found that half of the employees in these critical jobs, are eligible to retire in the next five years.
'Neo-CONNED': The Extraordinary Speech of Rep. Ron Paul
Independent Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul, gave a lengthy speech entitled "Neo-CONNED," on the House floor July 10, which is being widely read in Washington. Representative Paul's reasoning is often reminiscent of what Democratic candidate Lyndon LaRouche has said, in launching the battle against the Straussians early this year, and more generally since early January 2001.
Short excerpts follow:
"More recently, the modern-day neo-cons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neo-cons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neo-cons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss' books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli's philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliott Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neo-con philosophy in some varying degree....
"More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neo-cons believe: 1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual. 2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so. 3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends. 4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the meansthat hardball politics is a moral necessity. 5. They express no opposition to the welfare state. 6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it. 7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive. 8. They believe a powerful Federal government is a benefit. 9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it. 10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised. 11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem. 12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate. 13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country. 14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many. 15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists). 16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary. 17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.
"It is no secretespecially after the rash of research and articles written about the neo-cons since our invasion of Iraqhow they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf Warwhich still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity....
"In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neo-con charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton Administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings...."
Paul notes how the events of Sept. 11 were used as the "opportunity" by the neo-cons to realize their imperial war policy. He continues:
"The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neo-con views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard.... It would have been difficult for the neo-cons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell's State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire....
"Let there be no doubt, those in the neo-con camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade ... even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in 'A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.'
"Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building and dying go on?.... Who knows where we'll go nextIran, Syria or North Korea?..."
Rep. Paul Warns About Michael Ledeen
In his July 10 speech to the House, Rep. Ron Paul, especially singled out the ideas espoused by Wolfowitz/Perle crony Michael Ledeen, whom EIW identifies as a "Universal Fascist" (see last week's EIW). Rep. Paul says:
"In Ledeen's most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machiavelli book. He specifically praises: 'Creative destruction ... both within our own society and abroad ... (foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.' Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: 'They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.'
"If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don't know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.....
"Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: 'In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to "enter into evil." This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging ... we are rotten,' argues Ledeen. 'It's true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.' In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in Washington?....
"Neo-consanxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle Eastclearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders....
"Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999): '...of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.'
"Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a 'lucky' event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for 'a Pearl Harbor event' that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential 'rival.'
"Recognizing a 'need' for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being 'lucky' are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but [that] this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing...."
The full speech can be found on the Internet at www.house.gov/paul.
|