In this issue:

Cheney's Chickenhawks Arrange Meeting of Iraqi Dissidents with the President

Cheney Active on Korea Front, Too

French Newsletter Charges Rumsfeld Developing Militias Against U.S. Military Establishment

Novak: Leading GOP Senators on Warpath Against Rumsfeld, Pentagon

Polish President Visits Washington

California PUC Votes To Cancel Electricity Deregulation

New Nazi Medicine Policy? Administration Says States Can Limit Emergency Health Care for Medicaid

Washington's Greater Southeast Hospital About To Go Under

Will Lieberman Go to Sharon's Patrons for His Campaign Finances?

NASA Says Bush Will Fund Nuclear-Powered Rocket Program

From Volume 2, Issue Number 3 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Jan. 20, 2003

United States News Digest

Cheney's Chickenhawks Arrange Meeting of Iraqi Dissidents with the President

According to the Jan. 12 New York Times, Vice President Dick Cheney and his Chickenhawk neoconservatives are in full mobilization for war, among other things, having arranged a meeting in the Oval Office with various Iraqi dissidents.

Convicted bank embezzler Ahmed Chalabi and two other Iraqi "dissidents" visited President Bush there Jan. 10, to tell him that American soldiers "would be greeted with 'sweets and flowers,' " if the U.S. invades Iraq.

The conclusion to be drawn from this crazy meeting, and other reports of the activities of Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, et al., is that the Cheney Chickenhawks are on an offensive to put an early Iraq war on the agenda, and are mobilizing every resource they have in the Administration, press, and think tanks to capture the Presidency.

Cheney and "other senior White House aides," along with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, arranged for President Bush to meet the three Iraqi dissidents, led by fraudster Ahmed Chalabi, "for the first time" in an hour-long meeting in the Oval Office. Chalabi is crowing that this is an "in-your-face-Saddam" event which will be followed by an "in-your-face-Saddam gathering" inside Iraq after Jan. 15, to designate a "small group" of opposition leaders to determine what kind of Iraq will be formed "after Saddam Hussein is gone." The Iraqi government has already filed an official complaint with the United Nations that the training of an Iraqi dissident army (now taking place in Hungary), is a violation of national sovereignty.

Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, surfaced in London Jan. 10, where the Daily Telegraph reported that he said the U.S. would launch a war without consensus or authorization from the UN Security Council.

In the "reality check" department, the Oval Office meeting was definitely a fallback, since a full Iraq opposition meeting was called off inside northern Iraq because of feuding among the six main groups. And despite Chalabi's statements that war is certain, President Bush reportedly told the group that he has not decided whether to go to war.

Cheney Active on Korea Front, Too

At the same time as he is intervening on the Iraq front, Vice President Dick Cheney is, according to the Jan. 13 New York Times, leading a faction in the Administration urging isolation of North Korea, and applications of sanctions against Pyongyang.

The Times says that, over opposition from some advisers in the Administration, President Bush approved allowing two North Korean diplomats to travel from the UN in New York, to talk to incoming New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (formerly Clinton's man at the UN). Secretary of State Powell is reported to favor diplomatic contacts and to oppose economic sanctions. The Times adds that a faction led by Vice President Dick Cheney is urging isolation and economic pressure as a way of either getting North Korea to respond, or to force it implode under stress, as they believe the Soviet Union did.

French Newsletter Charges Rumsfeld Developing Militias Against U.S. Military Establishment

The Paris-based electronic newsletter Reseau Voltaire of Jan. 10 claims that Donald Rumsfeld is developing parallel military forces against the U.S. military establishment. "By developing very rapidly its special forces, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld aims not only at giving the United States the means of intervention run totally outside of international controls; he is, above all, creating a parallel army aimed at eliminating all resistance from the military establishment," RV writes, asserting that the opposition to Rumsfeld is coming from "high-level officers who view themselves as responsible for collective security and who are wary, on principle, of having weapons do their talking for them; as well as from diplomats who, by nature, are not inclined to want generalized confrontations. These partisans of multilateralism have made Secretary of State Colin Powell their spokesman."

RV describes a situation of "permanent obstruction" against Rumsfeld's policies coming from the Pentagon and the State Department, leading to a "partial paralysis of the Chiefs of Staff" and making any reform and even nominations very difficult. It is in this situation that Rumsfeld decided to turn the special forces into a new body, separate from all the rest of the Armed Forces, no longer under the control of any military body, but under that of the National Security Council, RV charges (although there seems to be some confusion on the part of RV's French authors as to the actual U.S. chain of command, and the role of the President as Commander in Chief).

Novak: Leading GOP Senators on Warpath Against Rumsfeld, Pentagon

According to syndicated columnist Robert Novak, writing Jan. 13, "Republican Senators gathering last Wednesday [Jan. 8] for their session-opening 'retreat' should have been happy, blessed with a regained majority and a popular President. They were not. Instead, they complained bitterly of arrogance by the Bush Administration, especially the Pentagon, in treatment of Congress along the road to war.

"Two years of growing discontent boiled over during the closed-door meeting at the Library of Congress. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was there to hear grievances from President Bush's Senate base, that it is ignored and insulted by the Administration, particularly by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in preparing for war against Iraq. Recital of complaints began with Sen. John Warner, a pillar of the Senate GOP establishment....

"Republican Senators appreciate that they have returned to majority status thanks to George W. Bush's bold midterm election strategy and his popularity leading the war against terrorism. But their unease about a divided Administration on the brink of attacking Iraq is deepened because they are neither consulted nor informed about war plans.

"No Senator more solidly supports Bush's national security policy than Warner, the 75-year-old chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who was re-elected last year to a fifth Senate term from Virginia. A veteran of the Navy (World War II) and Marine Corps (Korean War) and a former Secretary of the Navy, he has devoted long public service to America's national defense. Consequently, Warner had his colleagues' attention when he addressed Card. 'I will not tolerate,' he boomed, 'a continuation of what's been going on the last two years.' He cited cavalier treatment that denies information even to the venerable top Senate Republican on Armed Services. To specify whom he was talking about, Warner said he had breakfast scheduled the next morning with Rumsfeld, and would tell the Secretary of Defense the same thing.

"Next up was Sen. Pat Roberts, a former Marine officer who has spent the last 40 years on Capitol Hill. Roberts, a plain-spoken Midwesterner from Dodge City, Kan., is the new Senate Intelligence Committee chairman. He told Card to mark him down agreeing with everything Warner just said.

"Senator Kit Bond of Missouri next got up to tell Card that the Administration had better put out more information justifying military action against Iraq as part of the war against terrorism. 'What is the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda?' Bond asked. 'Don't worry,' replied Card, indicating the information would come along.

"Two days before the GOP retreat, another leading Republican Senator—Ted Stevens of Alaska, incoming chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the new Senate president pro tem—sent a letter of protest to the Pentagon. The notoriously short-fused Stevens was furious that Rumsfeld [on advice of Newt Gingrich—ed.] had eliminated funding for two of the eight high-tech Army brigades mandated by Congress. The brigades are built around the new eight-wheeled Stryker combat vehicles. Stevens, with Sen. Dan Inouye of Hawaii (top Democrat on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee), wrote that elimination of two Stryker brigades 'is yet another example of the disregard of the Congress, and existing law, by the senior leadership of the Defense Department.' Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz responded ... with a conciliatory letter that made no concessions. Wolfowitz's chief is usually less conciliatory. An old Senate Republican hand explained to me why the Senators are upset: 'Rumsfeld's behavior toward Senators is dismissive, barely civil, bordering on rude. He has no interest in us other than to get the money, no interest in our opinions.'...

"Card responded to complaints by Warner and Roberts with a 'Thank you. I'll pass that along.' According to Administration sources, Bush is aware of the problem but has not yet addressed it" (some punctuation added).

Polish President Visits Washington

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniweski—whom some Polish commentators like to describe as a "Trojan horse" for the Anglo-Americans, and who is being mooted in the press as a possible successor next year to NATO General-Secretary Lord Robertson of Britain—spoke at the National Defense University in Washington last week during a visit to the United States.

The Polish President's first official meeting was with Vance D. Coffman, chairman of Lockheed Martin, which produces F-16 fighter plane, 48 of which were just purchased by Poland. The most important meeting during Kwasniweski's U.S. trip was, of course, his meeting with President Bush to discuss the Iraq crisis.

California PUC Votes To Cancel Electricity Deregulation

According to a Jan. 16 wire from Reuters, circulated under the headline "Calif. Vote Spells End of Energy Deregulation," the five-person California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) voted on the 16th to cancel a Commission order from April 20, 1994, permitting homeowners and businesses to "choose" their electricity provider. The 1994 action—peddled as allowing "competition" and therefore (supposedly) lower prices—was the precursor to the 1996 state deregulation law, and the subsequent debacle of 2000-01 in California's energy prices. CPUC Commissioner Carl Wood last week denounced deregulation as "the most expensive public policy mistake in the history of California."

None of the Commissioners who promoted dereg now sits on the CPUC. Wood said that the former CPUC members' "almost religious belief in market forces rather than regulation created an epic disaster for ratepayers."

Wood called the new cancellation order "historically significant," and said that "restructuring the energy market" is now moot. He said, "The Commission should close this deregulation proceeding, not just because there is no continuing need for it, but also because it was a disaster for ratepayers, utilities, and their employees."

In Washington, D.C., also Jan. 16, a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) judge issued a pro-dereg ruling that California cannot easily get out of its long-term (high-priced) contracts signed with electricity suppliers over the period late 2000 and early 2001 (while the state was being bilked by Enron, Calpine, and other energy pirates, under conditions of being held hostage to its own stupid deregulation law). The judge said the state must come up with a high burden of proof to justify cancellation of these contacts. The FERC is to decide by the end of March on the case. The new California Public Utility decision indicates what would be the moral high ground for "burden of proof"—namely, it is obligatory to dump all vestiges of the disastrous dereg mistakes, and get on with real "public utility."

New Nazi Medicine Policy? Administration Says States Can Limit Emergency Health Care for Medicaid

The new Medicaid guidelines, outlined in a recent letter to state Medicaid directors, roll back standards established in a 1997 law, and in rules issued by the Bush Administration in June 2002. The 1997 law required that managed-care organizations provide coverage for Medicaid patients in any situation that a "prudent layperson" would regard as an emergency. "No restriction may be placed on access to emergency care," it stated. "Limits on the number of visits are not allowed." The Bush Administration's own rules last June did likewise, but not the Administration has ruled that states are permitted to place limits on the amount, duration, and scope of emergency services, "to allow for more appropriate use of preventive and primary care in outpatient settings."

Attacking the new policy, Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla), a principal author of the 1997 law, warned it "would undermine access to essential emergency services for low-income Americans," including children, the elderly, and the disabled.

"Congress enacted the prudent-layperson standard so that individuals would not be denied needed emergency care by arbitrary HMO network and prior-authorization restrictions," Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich), and other Democrats wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson on Jan. 17. The change, they warned, "raises questions about these statutory protections for patients, and may actually eviscerate them."

Health and Human Services did not respond to the charge that the limitations are in clear violation of the intent of Congress in 1997, although White House spokesman Ari Fleischer had said the Department would respond.

In a similar decision, the Department of Veterans Affairs is immediately cutting off access to its health-care system to veterans with annual incomes of at least $30,000, affecting about 164,000 veterans who were expected to enroll during the current fiscal year, but not affecting "Category 8" veterans who currently receive health care from the VA.

Washington's Greater Southeast Hospital About To Go Under

Doctors Community Healthcare Corp. (DCHC) and its Greater Southeast Community Hospital in Washington, D.C. have been unable to obtain Debtor-in-Possession financing, and are likely to go out of business, the Washington Times reported last week. "They will not survive bankruptcy," says a D.C. official.

"Given the overcrowding in all the city's emergency rooms, it is imperative that Greater Southeast remain open and be healthy to serve the community," says Robert Malson of the D.C. Hospital Association. "The city needs to take steps to ensure it remains."

The emergency room crisis was triggered by the shutdown of D.C. General Hospital—the capitol's only full-service public hospital—last year, a shutdown forced through by D.C. Mayor Williams, the Financial Control Board of Washington, and others, in order to open up the area for "redevelopment," for sports facilities and "gentrification." Greater Southeast was supposed to replace D.C. General, but it never was able to provide the same level of services—particularly in trauma care—as was predicted at the time the corrupt privatization deal was made.

Meanwhile, the District of Columbia's ranking in a nationwide quality-of-care health-care survey conducted by the Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has fallen from 31st to 37th in the country. The recent chaos in the D.C. health-care system is given as the reason for this by a private consultant, including D.C. General's shutdown, and Greater Southeast's bankruptcy.

Will Lieberman Go to Sharon's Patrons for His Campaign Finances?

Will newly declared 2004 Presidential candidate Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) go to Ariel Sharon's mafia patrons for his campaign financing? According to the Washington Post Jan. 12, Lieberman, who announced his Presidential candidacy that day, may forego public financing, in order to seek big donations. The Post noted that, among the field of anticipated Democratic candidates, only Lieberman has the ability to reach out to deep-pocket funders in the Zionist Lobby, on a scale that could match Bush's fundraising. What this would mean, clearly, is Lieberman turning to the very same U.S. mobsters—the Lansky, Dalitz, and Milken criminal circles—who have been exposed by EIR as the big illegal backers of Ariel Sharon's current campaign for reelection in Israel.

NASA Says Bush Will Fund Nuclear-Powered Rocket Program

The Bush Administration has signed off on an ambitious nuclear-rocket project, and the President may announce the initiative in his State of the Union Address, according to NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, in an interview he gave to the Los Angeles Times last week. The item was also front-page news in London newspapers, Jan. 18.

The nuclear-powered propulsion system would triple the speed of space travel, making it possible for humans to reach Mars in a two-month voyage. The nuclear rocket project would be an expansion of nuclear propulsion plans that NASA announced last year, when it said it might spend a modest $1 billion over the next five years to design a nuclear rocket. The L.A. Times reports that some analysts question whether the President would even mention NASA in his State of the Union address, in the midst of a budget crisis and a potential war in Iraq. The L.A. Times cites NASA Administrator O'Keefe saying that the Bush Administration has, so far, only supported the nuclear-rocket project, and not specifically the Mars landing. However, O'Keefe himself is cited in the British newspaper reports, calling for putting men on Mars as early as 2010. "We're talking about doing something on a very aggressive schedule to not only develop the capabilities for nuclear propulsion and power generation, but to have a mission using the new technology within this decade," O'Keefe is cited as saying.

EIR is investigating whether these reports can be confirmed.

Development of a nuclear-powered rocket for space travel, was a part of the United States' ambitious space colonization program, all the way back in the 1950s. Chemical-powered rockets burn out the great bulk of their fuel in leaving the atmosphere, and coast the rest of the way to their target. A rocket powered by an onboard nuclear fission plant, could produce continuous thrust and acceleration, greatly shortening the travel time.

All rights reserved © 2003 EIRNS