MORE ABOUT THE PAKISTAN POWDERKEG-
Stratfor.com
In Pakistan, a Delicate Political Dance
Summary
Pakistan's main opposition Islamist coalition, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), has declared March 28 a "nationwide protest day," and it plans massive rallies in Peshawar and Quetta shortly thereafter. MMA has called for the removal of U.S. forces from Pakistan and warned that Washington will target Pakistan after it defeats Iraq. But both the MMA and the Pakistani government are walking carefully to prevent tipping their hand to the other.
Analysis
After holding a large-scale and peaceful march in Lahore on March 23 to denounce U.S. military action in Iraq, Pakistan's main opposition Islamist coalition, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), has declared March 28 a "nationwide protest day." Coalition leaders also plan follow-on marches in Peshawar on March 30 and in Quetta on April 2. The MMA is using the demonstrations to strengthen its position domestically and to challenge the ruling Pakistani Muslim League (Quaid-i-Azam) (PML-QA), which backs President Pervez Musharraf.
But while the MMA calls on the U.S. military and FBI personnel to leave Pakistan and warns that Washington will set its sights on the country after it defeats Iraq, the coalition is still being careful not to overstep its limits. The Musharraf government, too, is carefully balancing its relations with the United States, its anti-war stance and its handling of the MMA. Both the MMA and the government are playing a delicate game -- one that could be tipped into chaos should either side misstep."
Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
"While birds can fly, only humans can argue. Argument is the affirmation of our being. It is the principal instrument of human intercourse. Without argument the species would perish. As a subtle suggestion, it is the means by which we aid another. As a warning, it steers us from danger. As exposition, it teaches. As an expression of creativity, it is the gift of ourselves. As a protest, it struggles for justice. As a reasoned dialogue, it resolves disputes. As an assertion of self, it engenders respect. As an entreaty of love, it expresses our devotion. As a plea, it generates mercy. As charismatic oration it moves multitudes and changes history. We must argue -- to help, to warn, to lead, to love, to create, to learn, to enjoy justice, to be." Gerry Spence
The War Comes Alive in the Living Room
Maha Akeel, Arab News Staff
JEDDAH, 26 March 2003 — The streets of Jeddah have been unusually quiet throughout the day and night over the last few days. People wake up to images of war on their television screen. Those who stayed up all night in the run up to the war on Iraq, saw the strikes on Baghdad live. But how “live” was it?
No matter how emotionally involved and mentally focused we are on those ugly scenes of destruction, they remain scenes from a distant place, almost like watching a movie. Modern information technology gives us instant, clear pictures of events as they are unfolding on the ground in a real place far removed from us. Modern warfare technology gives us precision bombing and weapons of mass destruction operated by button as the military men and women sit comfortably in their bunkers.
Yes, the hot bunkers, heavy equipment and cumbersome gear are comfortable compared to the old days of face-to-face combat when a man killed another man and saw the blood, smelled the decaying flesh and heard the awful noises of the dying and the equally awful silence of the dead.
We know that US President George W. Bush has never experienced war. But his ignorance does not excuse his indifference. On the other hand, we also know that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has no conscience, causing the death and destruction of his people and that his country is ultimately irrelevant to him. So who do we blame for this terrible, unjustifiable, unnecessary and unprovoked war?
We listen to the political analysts, the military experts, and the economic gurus, and it all seems like a show to us. But the fact remains that there are people dying, and that they may be fortunate compared to those who are maimed and will suffer life-long disability or illness. It is a shame that we can watch in awe as all this power destroys Baghdad, and forget that it is a city with a long history of civilization and culture that should be protected by all means and by the whole international community.
Unfortunately, all the millions of protesters around the world could not stop a few warmongers from executing their plans.
Watching the events on television with some family members, the reaction varied. The grandmother’s eyes filled up with tears thinking of the innocent lives particularly of children. “War is always terrible no matter what the reasons for it,” she said.
The 12-year old boy clapped his hands in excitement. “They’ve blown up a building,” he exclaimed. To him it’s like a video game, he does not comprehend the reality of it.
The 14-year old girl realized what was going on but what she really cared about was whether her school would be closed. The rest watched mostly in silence, except for a few words of grief for the Iraqis, a few words of anger toward Saddam and few words of disappointment for the US.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maha Akeel, Arab News Staff
JEDDAH, 26 March 2003 — The streets of Jeddah have been unusually quiet throughout the day and night over the last few days. People wake up to images of war on their television screen. Those who stayed up all night in the run up to the war on Iraq, saw the strikes on Baghdad live. But how “live” was it?
No matter how emotionally involved and mentally focused we are on those ugly scenes of destruction, they remain scenes from a distant place, almost like watching a movie. Modern information technology gives us instant, clear pictures of events as they are unfolding on the ground in a real place far removed from us. Modern warfare technology gives us precision bombing and weapons of mass destruction operated by button as the military men and women sit comfortably in their bunkers.
Yes, the hot bunkers, heavy equipment and cumbersome gear are comfortable compared to the old days of face-to-face combat when a man killed another man and saw the blood, smelled the decaying flesh and heard the awful noises of the dying and the equally awful silence of the dead.
We know that US President George W. Bush has never experienced war. But his ignorance does not excuse his indifference. On the other hand, we also know that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has no conscience, causing the death and destruction of his people and that his country is ultimately irrelevant to him. So who do we blame for this terrible, unjustifiable, unnecessary and unprovoked war?
We listen to the political analysts, the military experts, and the economic gurus, and it all seems like a show to us. But the fact remains that there are people dying, and that they may be fortunate compared to those who are maimed and will suffer life-long disability or illness. It is a shame that we can watch in awe as all this power destroys Baghdad, and forget that it is a city with a long history of civilization and culture that should be protected by all means and by the whole international community.
Unfortunately, all the millions of protesters around the world could not stop a few warmongers from executing their plans.
Watching the events on television with some family members, the reaction varied. The grandmother’s eyes filled up with tears thinking of the innocent lives particularly of children. “War is always terrible no matter what the reasons for it,” she said.
The 12-year old boy clapped his hands in excitement. “They’ve blown up a building,” he exclaimed. To him it’s like a video game, he does not comprehend the reality of it.
The 14-year old girl realized what was going on but what she really cared about was whether her school would be closed. The rest watched mostly in silence, except for a few words of grief for the Iraqis, a few words of anger toward Saddam and few words of disappointment for the US.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PRINCE OF DARKNESS SELLING U.S. OUT TO THE CHINESE---WILL THE GOP HEROES CALL HIM ON THIS --"A LA CLINTON"?? :)
Harvesting Pearls
By Al Kamen
Wednesday, March 26, 2003; Page A15
There's been some to-do of late about Defense Department adviser Richard N. Perle working to get federal approval for bankrupt Global Crossing Ltd.'s sale to two Asian companies, Hong Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. and Singapore Technologies Telemedia.
Perle is selling his services at bargain-basement rates: $125,000 for his time, and $600,000 if the sale is successful. Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, told the New York Times's Stephen Labaton that there's no conflict of interest or other ethical problem as long as he doesn't give advice to the board on something in which he has an interest. The deal must be approved by a government committee that reviews foreign investment in this country.
But Perle's going to have to do some very heavy lifting to snag those 600 large. The FBI and Pentagon reportedly are opposed to the sale because a Chinese company would control Global Crossing's state-of-the-art fiber-optic network, which is used by the federal government.
An even greater hurdle doubtless will be intense opposition to his effort on the Hill, most likely from a number of influential GOP senators, perhaps Sens. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Trent Lott (Miss.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), James M. Inhofe (Okla.) and Wayne Allard (Colo.).
About 31/2 years ago, that group and others pushed for a resolution asking Panama to review a contract it awarded for operating container ship terminals at both ends of the canal. That contract had been awarded to none other than Hutchison Whampoa, which Lott said at the time had "reported Chinese military and intelligence ties."
"It alarms me that these Chinese companies, frankly, they do what the government tells them to do," Lott said then at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to look into this alarming situation, which he had said "could, in fact, be a threat to our national security."
"This administration [the Clinton administration] is allowing a scenario to develop where U.S. national security interests could not be protected without confronting the Chinese communists in the Americas," Lott wrote the Pentagon, saying, "We have given the farm away without a shot being fired."
Former defense secretary Caspar W. Weinberger told the committee that the canal's operations would always be threatened if the Chinese controlled the ports.
Hutchison Whampoa, is controlled by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing. He and his empire, according to the Miami Herald, are linked to several companies known as fronts for Chinese military and intelligence agencies. One of the companies has been indicted for smuggling automatic weapons into the United States for sale to Los Angeles street gangs, the paper reported and "Li himself has been accused of helping to finance several deals in which military technology was transferred from American companies to the Chinese Army."
Nothing has happened at the canal, of course, but that may be only because the Chicoms haven't issued orders for their troops there to march north. Remember, it's only a two-day drive from there to Harlingen, Tex. -- in a Ferrari.
And if the Senate was worried about Communist Chinese control of the canal, imagine how senators will feel when they find out about possible commie control of a huge chunk of the communications infrastructure, not of Panama, but of the American homeland.
Copyright 2003NYTimesCompanies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :) :) :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Harvesting Pearls
By Al Kamen
Wednesday, March 26, 2003; Page A15
There's been some to-do of late about Defense Department adviser Richard N. Perle working to get federal approval for bankrupt Global Crossing Ltd.'s sale to two Asian companies, Hong Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. and Singapore Technologies Telemedia.
Perle is selling his services at bargain-basement rates: $125,000 for his time, and $600,000 if the sale is successful. Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, told the New York Times's Stephen Labaton that there's no conflict of interest or other ethical problem as long as he doesn't give advice to the board on something in which he has an interest. The deal must be approved by a government committee that reviews foreign investment in this country.
But Perle's going to have to do some very heavy lifting to snag those 600 large. The FBI and Pentagon reportedly are opposed to the sale because a Chinese company would control Global Crossing's state-of-the-art fiber-optic network, which is used by the federal government.
An even greater hurdle doubtless will be intense opposition to his effort on the Hill, most likely from a number of influential GOP senators, perhaps Sens. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Trent Lott (Miss.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), James M. Inhofe (Okla.) and Wayne Allard (Colo.).
About 31/2 years ago, that group and others pushed for a resolution asking Panama to review a contract it awarded for operating container ship terminals at both ends of the canal. That contract had been awarded to none other than Hutchison Whampoa, which Lott said at the time had "reported Chinese military and intelligence ties."
"It alarms me that these Chinese companies, frankly, they do what the government tells them to do," Lott said then at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to look into this alarming situation, which he had said "could, in fact, be a threat to our national security."
"This administration [the Clinton administration] is allowing a scenario to develop where U.S. national security interests could not be protected without confronting the Chinese communists in the Americas," Lott wrote the Pentagon, saying, "We have given the farm away without a shot being fired."
Former defense secretary Caspar W. Weinberger told the committee that the canal's operations would always be threatened if the Chinese controlled the ports.
Hutchison Whampoa, is controlled by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing. He and his empire, according to the Miami Herald, are linked to several companies known as fronts for Chinese military and intelligence agencies. One of the companies has been indicted for smuggling automatic weapons into the United States for sale to Los Angeles street gangs, the paper reported and "Li himself has been accused of helping to finance several deals in which military technology was transferred from American companies to the Chinese Army."
Nothing has happened at the canal, of course, but that may be only because the Chicoms haven't issued orders for their troops there to march north. Remember, it's only a two-day drive from there to Harlingen, Tex. -- in a Ferrari.
And if the Senate was worried about Communist Chinese control of the canal, imagine how senators will feel when they find out about possible commie control of a huge chunk of the communications infrastructure, not of Panama, but of the American homeland.
Copyright 2003NYTimesCompanies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :) :) :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Who Seeks to Profit From This War?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A665-2003Mar20.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/business/23REBU.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=top
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0%2C12239%2C919897%2C00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24074-2003Mar25.html
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/news/F68AFEB9F4C424BB86256CF100533492?OpenDocument&highlight=2%2CBILL%2CLAMBRECHT&headline=Iraq's+oil+fields+garner+intense+interest
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/business/0303/23holsen.html
AND AFTER THE WAR, WHO WILL REBUILD AMERICA????????????????
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A665-2003Mar20.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/business/23REBU.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=top
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0%2C12239%2C919897%2C00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24074-2003Mar25.html
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/news/F68AFEB9F4C424BB86256CF100533492?OpenDocument&highlight=2%2CBILL%2CLAMBRECHT&headline=Iraq's+oil+fields+garner+intense+interest
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/business/0303/23holsen.html
AND AFTER THE WAR, WHO WILL REBUILD AMERICA????????????????
"Who could have guessed that barely a decade later the United States, forsaking the very legal, democratic traditions that were its most admired characteristics, would be going to war to impose its will by force upon an alarmed, angry, frightened world united against it?"
A fantastic article by Jonathan Schell/ The Nation.
Excerpt:
"The tragedy of America in the post-cold war era is that we have proved unequal to the responsibility that our own power placed upon us. Some of us became intoxicated with it, imagining that we could rule the world. Others of us--the Democratic Party, Congress, the judiciary, the news media--abdicated our obligation to challenge, to check and to oppose, letting the power-hungry have their way. The government of the United States went into opposition against its own founding principles, leaving it to the rest of the world to take up our cause. The French have been better Americans than we have. Because the Constitution, though battered, is still intact, we may still have time and opportunity to recoup. But for now, we will have to pay the price of our weakness. The costs will be heavy, first of all for the people of Iraq but also for others, including ourselves. The international order on which the common welfare, including its ecological and economic welfare, depends has sustained severe damage. The fight for "freedom" abroad is crippling freedom at home. The war to stop proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has provoked that very proliferation in North Korea and Iran. More ground has already been lost in the field of proliferation than can be gained even by the most delirious victory in Baghdad. Former friends of America have been turned into rivals or foes. The United States may be about to win Iraq. It has already lost the world."
A fantastic article by Jonathan Schell/ The Nation.
Excerpt:
"The tragedy of America in the post-cold war era is that we have proved unequal to the responsibility that our own power placed upon us. Some of us became intoxicated with it, imagining that we could rule the world. Others of us--the Democratic Party, Congress, the judiciary, the news media--abdicated our obligation to challenge, to check and to oppose, letting the power-hungry have their way. The government of the United States went into opposition against its own founding principles, leaving it to the rest of the world to take up our cause. The French have been better Americans than we have. Because the Constitution, though battered, is still intact, we may still have time and opportunity to recoup. But for now, we will have to pay the price of our weakness. The costs will be heavy, first of all for the people of Iraq but also for others, including ourselves. The international order on which the common welfare, including its ecological and economic welfare, depends has sustained severe damage. The fight for "freedom" abroad is crippling freedom at home. The war to stop proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has provoked that very proliferation in North Korea and Iran. More ground has already been lost in the field of proliferation than can be gained even by the most delirious victory in Baghdad. Former friends of America have been turned into rivals or foes. The United States may be about to win Iraq. It has already lost the world."
News Release
SEPTEMBER 11th FAMILIES FOR PEACEFUL TOMORROWS STATEMENT ON THE IRAQ WAR
Information:
Colleen Kelly, 646-408-5676
Kelly Campbell, 415-518-1991
David Potorti, 919-608-7322
"The past is prophetic in that it asserts that wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows. One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. How much longer must we play at deadly war games before we heed the plaintive pleas of the unnumbered dead and maimed of past wars?"
--Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows condemns unconditionally the illegal, immoral, and unjustified US-led military action in Iraq. As family members of September 11th victims, we know how it feels to experience "shock and awe," and we do not want other innocent families to suffer the trauma and grief that we have endured. While we also condemn the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime, it does not justify the brutality, death and destruction being visited upon Iraq and its citizens by our own government.
What others may view as a policy decision, we see clearly as the murder of innocent people. Death among the civilian population in Iraq will be immediate: the result of bombing that kills indiscriminately. Especially at risk are the children who make up 50% of Iraq's population. Death will also come later, from malnutrition and disease caused by the interruption of vital relief services and the destruction of infrastructure for supplying food and medicine. More deaths will occur years from now, as a result of the horrendous environmental impacts of waging war using lethal contaminants such as depleted uranium, a substance banned by the European Union.
We are also concerned about this war’s consequences for America's military personnel, brave women and men who enlisted to defend our country, only to find themselves sent to fight an unjust war of aggression. Our prayers are with them and their families, and our hopes are that they will return soon.
Meanwhile, American citizens will bear the staggering costs of military action and the resulting reduction in spending on domestic infrastructure and social programs. We assert that Congress's lack of accountability for this war is a serious threat to our Democracy. We call on the House and the Senate to fulfill their Constitutional roles, both as representatives of the public will and as a check against the abuse of power by the Executive branch. And we call on them to defend America from all of the threats—economic, political, and military—that gather against it.
This war will not make America safer. On the contrary, it has already resulted in heightened anti-American sentiment around the world, and is likely to promote further terrorist attacks, not just today, but years from today. It will not protect American families from another September 11th
Therefore, members of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows will continue to oppose this war and to draw attention to its civilian victims. We will demand compensation for them, as we did for innocent civilians killed and injured by our bombs in Afghanistan. These casualties must be included as we tally the costs of choosing to wage war.
Finally, we will keep the faith with millions of people across the United States and around the world who have formed a truly international community favoring peace and declaring this war immoral. We are confident that, in spite of the events of today, the wisdom of their views will prevail as the 21st century unfolds, and as we continue to build a global community that honors humanity, keeps families whole, and renders war obsolete.
SEPTEMBER 11th FAMILIES FOR PEACEFUL TOMORROWS STATEMENT ON THE IRAQ WAR
Information:
Colleen Kelly, 646-408-5676
Kelly Campbell, 415-518-1991
David Potorti, 919-608-7322
"The past is prophetic in that it asserts that wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows. One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. How much longer must we play at deadly war games before we heed the plaintive pleas of the unnumbered dead and maimed of past wars?"
--Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows condemns unconditionally the illegal, immoral, and unjustified US-led military action in Iraq. As family members of September 11th victims, we know how it feels to experience "shock and awe," and we do not want other innocent families to suffer the trauma and grief that we have endured. While we also condemn the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime, it does not justify the brutality, death and destruction being visited upon Iraq and its citizens by our own government.
What others may view as a policy decision, we see clearly as the murder of innocent people. Death among the civilian population in Iraq will be immediate: the result of bombing that kills indiscriminately. Especially at risk are the children who make up 50% of Iraq's population. Death will also come later, from malnutrition and disease caused by the interruption of vital relief services and the destruction of infrastructure for supplying food and medicine. More deaths will occur years from now, as a result of the horrendous environmental impacts of waging war using lethal contaminants such as depleted uranium, a substance banned by the European Union.
We are also concerned about this war’s consequences for America's military personnel, brave women and men who enlisted to defend our country, only to find themselves sent to fight an unjust war of aggression. Our prayers are with them and their families, and our hopes are that they will return soon.
Meanwhile, American citizens will bear the staggering costs of military action and the resulting reduction in spending on domestic infrastructure and social programs. We assert that Congress's lack of accountability for this war is a serious threat to our Democracy. We call on the House and the Senate to fulfill their Constitutional roles, both as representatives of the public will and as a check against the abuse of power by the Executive branch. And we call on them to defend America from all of the threats—economic, political, and military—that gather against it.
This war will not make America safer. On the contrary, it has already resulted in heightened anti-American sentiment around the world, and is likely to promote further terrorist attacks, not just today, but years from today. It will not protect American families from another September 11th
Therefore, members of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows will continue to oppose this war and to draw attention to its civilian victims. We will demand compensation for them, as we did for innocent civilians killed and injured by our bombs in Afghanistan. These casualties must be included as we tally the costs of choosing to wage war.
Finally, we will keep the faith with millions of people across the United States and around the world who have formed a truly international community favoring peace and declaring this war immoral. We are confident that, in spite of the events of today, the wisdom of their views will prevail as the 21st century unfolds, and as we continue to build a global community that honors humanity, keeps families whole, and renders war obsolete.
Candidates tangle over Iraq
John Edwards and John Kerry dispute deception accusations by Howard Dean.
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
Register Staff Writer
03/25/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean on Monday accused rivals John Edwards and John Kerry of being intentionally deceptive about their positions supporting the Bush administration's war with Iraq.
"It seems to me he has changed his position," Dean said of Edwards. "Senator Kerry to this day continu0es to be ambivalent about his position."
Edwards and Kerry said they have been clear and consistent on Iraq. They accused Dean, who opposes the war, of distorting their positions for political purposes.
Dean was in Des Moines on Monday for the second day of a two-day campaign trip.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Edwards and John Kerry dispute deception accusations by Howard Dean.
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
Register Staff Writer
03/25/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean on Monday accused rivals John Edwards and John Kerry of being intentionally deceptive about their positions supporting the Bush administration's war with Iraq.
"It seems to me he has changed his position," Dean said of Edwards. "Senator Kerry to this day continu0es to be ambivalent about his position."
Edwards and Kerry said they have been clear and consistent on Iraq. They accused Dean, who opposes the war, of distorting their positions for political purposes.
Dean was in Des Moines on Monday for the second day of a two-day campaign trip.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
While Baghdad burns, the real powderkeg edges up closer to explosion
Excerpts:
"ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN – US forces may have ousted the Taliban regime in Afghanistan more than a year ago, but their influence still permeates across the border in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier province. Last weekend, a new fundamentalist government there announced plans to establish a version of sharia (Islamic law) similar in many ways to the rigid code practiced by the Taliban."
"In a state founded on religious ideology, it is impossible to revert laws or any other thing for that matter, that's brought forward and imposed on the basis of religion. Questioning the law becomes questioning the religion" says a human rights activist, Amir Murtaza.
Observers say fundamentalists have intentionally decided to go ahead with their plans, hoping to avoid criticism while the world is diverted toward Iraq."
In the 1980s China transferred the key technologies required to give Pakistan the capability to build an "Islamic Bomb".
"China now faces a nuclear India to its south-west, a potentially nuclear Japan and South Korea to its east, and a Taiwan ready to go nuclear to its south - apart from the Russian arsenal to the north, and an American capability everywhere. Arizona Sen. John McCain, an influential Republican, said on Jan. 5 that the best way to make it in China’s interests to persuade North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to change his mind on nuclear weapons would be “to remove our objections to Japan developing nuclear weapons”. Almost certainly an early sign of things to come."
The prospect for the future spread of nuclear technology from Pakistan is increasing as the political power balance shifts towards Islamist parties. President Musharraf and his spokesman Lt. Gen. Rashid Qureshi have stated that Pakistan would never proliferate such technology; Musharraf has personally given a 400% non-proliferation guarantee to US Secretary of State Colin Powell and a 500% assurance to the Japanese government (a differential that has perplexed some official Japanese observers). Yet over the past decade, Pakistan has either transferred or proposed to transfer nuclear technology and/or know-how to all three countries listed in US President George Bush's "axis of evil" - Iraq, North Korea and Iran. Some Pakistani scientists are currently under detention on suspicion of supplying information on how to build nuclear weapons to Al Qaida and the Taliban, while others are reported to have fled to Burma (another "rogue" state), or simply "disappeared" to unknown destinations.
Excerpts:
"ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN – US forces may have ousted the Taliban regime in Afghanistan more than a year ago, but their influence still permeates across the border in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier province. Last weekend, a new fundamentalist government there announced plans to establish a version of sharia (Islamic law) similar in many ways to the rigid code practiced by the Taliban."
"In a state founded on religious ideology, it is impossible to revert laws or any other thing for that matter, that's brought forward and imposed on the basis of religion. Questioning the law becomes questioning the religion" says a human rights activist, Amir Murtaza.
Observers say fundamentalists have intentionally decided to go ahead with their plans, hoping to avoid criticism while the world is diverted toward Iraq."
In the 1980s China transferred the key technologies required to give Pakistan the capability to build an "Islamic Bomb".
"China now faces a nuclear India to its south-west, a potentially nuclear Japan and South Korea to its east, and a Taiwan ready to go nuclear to its south - apart from the Russian arsenal to the north, and an American capability everywhere. Arizona Sen. John McCain, an influential Republican, said on Jan. 5 that the best way to make it in China’s interests to persuade North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to change his mind on nuclear weapons would be “to remove our objections to Japan developing nuclear weapons”. Almost certainly an early sign of things to come."
The prospect for the future spread of nuclear technology from Pakistan is increasing as the political power balance shifts towards Islamist parties. President Musharraf and his spokesman Lt. Gen. Rashid Qureshi have stated that Pakistan would never proliferate such technology; Musharraf has personally given a 400% non-proliferation guarantee to US Secretary of State Colin Powell and a 500% assurance to the Japanese government (a differential that has perplexed some official Japanese observers). Yet over the past decade, Pakistan has either transferred or proposed to transfer nuclear technology and/or know-how to all three countries listed in US President George Bush's "axis of evil" - Iraq, North Korea and Iran. Some Pakistani scientists are currently under detention on suspicion of supplying information on how to build nuclear weapons to Al Qaida and the Taliban, while others are reported to have fled to Burma (another "rogue" state), or simply "disappeared" to unknown destinations.
I think we need to carefully consider the daily-changing reasons, fabrications and innuendo our own government has thrown out into the ether in order to justify this war.
The visions of cheering, dancing sugar-plums and Iraqis waiting with open arms and open hearts for their liberation.
People were led to believe this would be the case. The media reinforced that vision every day.
It just isn't so.
A lot of things the government has been telling us haven't turned out to be "so".
When we fail to question, we fail as a democracy.
We just can't assume a sense of blind loyalty and think our best interests are at the heart of all this.
The visions of cheering, dancing sugar-plums and Iraqis waiting with open arms and open hearts for their liberation.
People were led to believe this would be the case. The media reinforced that vision every day.
It just isn't so.
A lot of things the government has been telling us haven't turned out to be "so".
When we fail to question, we fail as a democracy.
We just can't assume a sense of blind loyalty and think our best interests are at the heart of all this.
HOWARD DEAN ON THE IRAQ WAR ..this week in Iowa.
"Dean declined to say whether he supported the bombing of Baghdad, but renewed his criticism of the war. "It's a conflict I prefer we not be in. I think we could have contained Saddam Hussein without resorting to a pre-emptive strike," he said.
Dean said he will offer his support for American troops while criticizing Bush for attacking Iraq.
"The president has made his choice, and I certainly think we want to be in a position where we don't criticize the soldiers because they are there doing what their duty is under the Constitution," he said.
STATEMENT FROM HOWARD DEAN on Friday
"I'm very hopeful there will be minimal civilian casualties. Any time you carpet-bomb a place, you risk killing an enormous number of innocent people. Once the president went in, which as you know I do not support, I was hoping this would go very quickly and with minimal civilian casualties. It looked like we were making pretty good progress. You never want to see wholesale carnage of civilians."
Gov. Howard Dean
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Outcome of war will dictate impact on Iowa caucuses
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
Register Staff Writer
DesMoines Register
03/21/2003
Depending on the war's outcome, the Democrats running for president in Iowa could be helped or haunted by their positions on Iraq.
If the war goes well, it's good news for the House and Senate members who cast their lot behind the war last fall by supporting broad authority for President Bush to launch an attack.
But an unsuccessful invasion could cripple their chances to win the Democratic nomination to challenge Bush in 2004.
"The war's successes will fade quickly, but failures will mark those seen as being complicit," said Ohio State University political science professor John Mueller.
The odds favor those who supported the resolution, he said.
"It's got to go on for months, with high American casualties, for that to occur," Mueller said of the disaster scenario, "and, by all estimates, the war is supposed to be over in a couple weeks."
U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and U.S. Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut all voted for a resolution last fall giving President Bush the authority to pursue war without United Nations backing.
On the other side, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, U.S. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York opposed the Bush war resolution.
Democrats backing the president already were getting the cold shoulder from some caucus activists weeks before Bush issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
"It is certainly causing strong feelings among a lot of Democratic activists," said caucus activist Teri Goodmann, the former Dubuque County Democratic Party chairwoman. "It's forced me to look for someone who does have experience in foreign relations."
Caucus voters tend to be a little more liberal than the average Democrat, caucus experts say. To cast a vote in a caucus, one has to be willing to attend a precinct meeting, typically on a cold winter's night. It's no place for the faint-hearted.
Discovery by troops of atrocities linked to Saddam or evidence he obstructed U.N. weapons inspectors would make the anti-war candidates' calls for continuing inspections and diplomacy seem out of touch, said Dianne Bystrom, director of the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University.
"If the war goes well, it could help the Democrats who sounded most like George Bush. If it doesn't go well, it could benefit someone like Howard Dean or Bob Graham," she said.
Bystrom doesn't expect a clear-cut political winner or loser to emerge, based strictly on the war. But she says the war has cast a shadow over the early caucus campaign.
"This is a whole different election than we've had in many years because of the situation with Iraq," she said.
Retired Drake University political science professor Hugh Winebrenner said not since George McGovern's 1972 campaign have anti-war Democrats been such a factor in setting the tone of the Iowa caucuses.
"In 1972, McGovern attempted to make an issue of the (Vietnam) war," and finished second to U.S. Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine, building momentum that helped propel the South Dakota senator to his party's nomination, said Winebrenner, a caucus historian.
The war could have another potential impact on the caucuses. It could expand the field of candidates.
Retired NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark is a good bet to get in if the war goes poorly, Bystrom said. Clark, who retired in 2000, has spent much of the past year as a guest military expert on CNN, traveling with an Arkansas financial firm and meeting influential Democrats. He has said he is not a candidate, but is widely believed to be considering a run. Clark's staff made introductory calls to Iowa Democratic operatives late last year.
"I think we are going to see people getting into this race after Iraq," Bystrom said. "We might see people drop out if it goes well and Bush is flying high. We just don't know right now."
If the Iraqi invasion goes well, it's possible that by the time of the caucuses, scheduled for Jan. 19, 2004, war won't be a dominant campaign issue.
Winebrenner said no one knows better than President Bush's father how quickly a successful war can fade from the minds of American voters. The elder Bush enjoyed huge popularity at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, but lost his re-election bid a year later.
"Obviously, victory in the Gulf didn't have much of a lasting effect for Bush senior," Winebrenner said. "A similar scenario is possible now."
Copyright 2003DesMoinesRegister
"Dean declined to say whether he supported the bombing of Baghdad, but renewed his criticism of the war. "It's a conflict I prefer we not be in. I think we could have contained Saddam Hussein without resorting to a pre-emptive strike," he said.
Dean said he will offer his support for American troops while criticizing Bush for attacking Iraq.
"The president has made his choice, and I certainly think we want to be in a position where we don't criticize the soldiers because they are there doing what their duty is under the Constitution," he said.
STATEMENT FROM HOWARD DEAN on Friday
"I'm very hopeful there will be minimal civilian casualties. Any time you carpet-bomb a place, you risk killing an enormous number of innocent people. Once the president went in, which as you know I do not support, I was hoping this would go very quickly and with minimal civilian casualties. It looked like we were making pretty good progress. You never want to see wholesale carnage of civilians."
Gov. Howard Dean
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Outcome of war will dictate impact on Iowa caucuses
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
Register Staff Writer
DesMoines Register
03/21/2003
Depending on the war's outcome, the Democrats running for president in Iowa could be helped or haunted by their positions on Iraq.
If the war goes well, it's good news for the House and Senate members who cast their lot behind the war last fall by supporting broad authority for President Bush to launch an attack.
But an unsuccessful invasion could cripple their chances to win the Democratic nomination to challenge Bush in 2004.
"The war's successes will fade quickly, but failures will mark those seen as being complicit," said Ohio State University political science professor John Mueller.
The odds favor those who supported the resolution, he said.
"It's got to go on for months, with high American casualties, for that to occur," Mueller said of the disaster scenario, "and, by all estimates, the war is supposed to be over in a couple weeks."
U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and U.S. Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut all voted for a resolution last fall giving President Bush the authority to pursue war without United Nations backing.
On the other side, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, U.S. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York opposed the Bush war resolution.
Democrats backing the president already were getting the cold shoulder from some caucus activists weeks before Bush issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
"It is certainly causing strong feelings among a lot of Democratic activists," said caucus activist Teri Goodmann, the former Dubuque County Democratic Party chairwoman. "It's forced me to look for someone who does have experience in foreign relations."
Caucus voters tend to be a little more liberal than the average Democrat, caucus experts say. To cast a vote in a caucus, one has to be willing to attend a precinct meeting, typically on a cold winter's night. It's no place for the faint-hearted.
Discovery by troops of atrocities linked to Saddam or evidence he obstructed U.N. weapons inspectors would make the anti-war candidates' calls for continuing inspections and diplomacy seem out of touch, said Dianne Bystrom, director of the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University.
"If the war goes well, it could help the Democrats who sounded most like George Bush. If it doesn't go well, it could benefit someone like Howard Dean or Bob Graham," she said.
Bystrom doesn't expect a clear-cut political winner or loser to emerge, based strictly on the war. But she says the war has cast a shadow over the early caucus campaign.
"This is a whole different election than we've had in many years because of the situation with Iraq," she said.
Retired Drake University political science professor Hugh Winebrenner said not since George McGovern's 1972 campaign have anti-war Democrats been such a factor in setting the tone of the Iowa caucuses.
"In 1972, McGovern attempted to make an issue of the (Vietnam) war," and finished second to U.S. Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine, building momentum that helped propel the South Dakota senator to his party's nomination, said Winebrenner, a caucus historian.
The war could have another potential impact on the caucuses. It could expand the field of candidates.
Retired NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark is a good bet to get in if the war goes poorly, Bystrom said. Clark, who retired in 2000, has spent much of the past year as a guest military expert on CNN, traveling with an Arkansas financial firm and meeting influential Democrats. He has said he is not a candidate, but is widely believed to be considering a run. Clark's staff made introductory calls to Iowa Democratic operatives late last year.
"I think we are going to see people getting into this race after Iraq," Bystrom said. "We might see people drop out if it goes well and Bush is flying high. We just don't know right now."
If the Iraqi invasion goes well, it's possible that by the time of the caucuses, scheduled for Jan. 19, 2004, war won't be a dominant campaign issue.
Winebrenner said no one knows better than President Bush's father how quickly a successful war can fade from the minds of American voters. The elder Bush enjoyed huge popularity at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, but lost his re-election bid a year later.
"Obviously, victory in the Gulf didn't have much of a lasting effect for Bush senior," Winebrenner said. "A similar scenario is possible now."
Copyright 2003DesMoinesRegister
Monday, March 24, 2003
From the "You Know You're Living in a Parellel Universe When..."-Department:
PRINCE OF DARKNESS THANKS GOD FOR DEATH OF UN
Thank God for the death of the UN
Its abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order
Richard Perle
Friday March 21, 2003
The Guardian
Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The "good works" part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.
As free Iraqis document the quarter-century nightmare of Saddam's rule, let us not forget who held that the moral authority of the international community was enshrined in a plea for more time for inspectors, and who marched against "regime change". In the spirit of postwar reconciliation that diplomats are always eager to engender, we must not reconcile the timid, blighted notion that world order requires us to recoil before rogue states that terrorise their own citizens and menace ours.
A few days ago, Shirley Williams argued on television against a coalition of the willing using force to liberate Iraq. Decent, thoughtful and high-minded, she must surely have been moved into opposition by an argument so convincing that it overpowered the obvious moral case for removing Saddam's regime. For Lady Williams (and many others), the thumb on the scale of judgment about this war is the idea that only the UN security council can legitimise the use of force. It matters not if troops are used only to enforce the UN's own demands. A willing coalition of liberal democracies isn't good enough. If any institution or coalition other than the UN security council uses force, even as a last resort, "anarchy", rather than international law, would prevail, destroying any hope for world order.
This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France. When challenged with the argument that if a policy is right with the approbation of the security council, how can it be wrong just because communist China or Russia or France or a gaggle of minor dictatorships withhold their assent, she fell back on the primacy of "order" versus "anarchy".
But is the security council capable of ensuring order and saving us from anarchy? History suggests not. The UN arose from the ashes of a war that the League of Nations was unable to avert. It was simply not up to confronting Italy in Abyssinia, much less - had it survived that debacle - to taking on Nazi Germany.
In the heady aftermath of the allied victory, the hope that security could be made collective was embodied in the UN security council - with abject results. During the cold war the security council was hopelessly paralysed. The Soviet empire was wrestled to the ground, and eastern Europe liberated, not by the UN, but by the mother of all coalitions, Nato. Apart from minor skirmishes and sporadic peacekeeping missions, the only case of the security council acting during the cold war was its use of force to halt the invasion of South Korea - and that was only possible because the Soviets were not in the chamber to veto it. It was a mistake they did not make again.
Facing Milosevic's multiple aggressions, the UN could not stop the Balkan wars or even protect its victims. It took a coalition of the willing to save Bosnia from extinction. And when the war was over, peace was made in Dayton, Ohio, not in the UN. The rescue of Muslims in Kosovo was not a UN action: their cause never gained security council approval. The United Kingdom, not the United Nations, saved the Falklands.
This new century now challenges the hopes for a new world order in new ways. We will not defeat or even contain fanatical terror unless we can carry the war to the territories from which it is launched. This will sometimes require that we use force against states that harbour terrorists, as we did in destroying the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
The most dangerous of these states are those that also possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one, but there are others. Whatever hope there is that they can be persuaded to withdraw support or sanctuary from terrorists rests on the certainty and effectiveness with which they are confronted. The chronic failure of the security council to enforce its own resolutions is unmistakable: it is simply not up to the task. We are left with coalitions of the willing. Far from disparaging them as a threat to a new world order, we should recognise that they are, by default, the best hope for that order, and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the UN.
Copyright 2003GuardianCoUK
PRINCE OF DARKNESS THANKS GOD FOR DEATH OF UN
Thank God for the death of the UN
Its abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order
Richard Perle
Friday March 21, 2003
The Guardian
Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The "good works" part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.
As free Iraqis document the quarter-century nightmare of Saddam's rule, let us not forget who held that the moral authority of the international community was enshrined in a plea for more time for inspectors, and who marched against "regime change". In the spirit of postwar reconciliation that diplomats are always eager to engender, we must not reconcile the timid, blighted notion that world order requires us to recoil before rogue states that terrorise their own citizens and menace ours.
A few days ago, Shirley Williams argued on television against a coalition of the willing using force to liberate Iraq. Decent, thoughtful and high-minded, she must surely have been moved into opposition by an argument so convincing that it overpowered the obvious moral case for removing Saddam's regime. For Lady Williams (and many others), the thumb on the scale of judgment about this war is the idea that only the UN security council can legitimise the use of force. It matters not if troops are used only to enforce the UN's own demands. A willing coalition of liberal democracies isn't good enough. If any institution or coalition other than the UN security council uses force, even as a last resort, "anarchy", rather than international law, would prevail, destroying any hope for world order.
This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France. When challenged with the argument that if a policy is right with the approbation of the security council, how can it be wrong just because communist China or Russia or France or a gaggle of minor dictatorships withhold their assent, she fell back on the primacy of "order" versus "anarchy".
But is the security council capable of ensuring order and saving us from anarchy? History suggests not. The UN arose from the ashes of a war that the League of Nations was unable to avert. It was simply not up to confronting Italy in Abyssinia, much less - had it survived that debacle - to taking on Nazi Germany.
In the heady aftermath of the allied victory, the hope that security could be made collective was embodied in the UN security council - with abject results. During the cold war the security council was hopelessly paralysed. The Soviet empire was wrestled to the ground, and eastern Europe liberated, not by the UN, but by the mother of all coalitions, Nato. Apart from minor skirmishes and sporadic peacekeeping missions, the only case of the security council acting during the cold war was its use of force to halt the invasion of South Korea - and that was only possible because the Soviets were not in the chamber to veto it. It was a mistake they did not make again.
Facing Milosevic's multiple aggressions, the UN could not stop the Balkan wars or even protect its victims. It took a coalition of the willing to save Bosnia from extinction. And when the war was over, peace was made in Dayton, Ohio, not in the UN. The rescue of Muslims in Kosovo was not a UN action: their cause never gained security council approval. The United Kingdom, not the United Nations, saved the Falklands.
This new century now challenges the hopes for a new world order in new ways. We will not defeat or even contain fanatical terror unless we can carry the war to the territories from which it is launched. This will sometimes require that we use force against states that harbour terrorists, as we did in destroying the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
The most dangerous of these states are those that also possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one, but there are others. Whatever hope there is that they can be persuaded to withdraw support or sanctuary from terrorists rests on the certainty and effectiveness with which they are confronted. The chronic failure of the security council to enforce its own resolutions is unmistakable: it is simply not up to the task. We are left with coalitions of the willing. Far from disparaging them as a threat to a new world order, we should recognise that they are, by default, the best hope for that order, and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the UN.
Copyright 2003GuardianCoUK
From The Sun magazine:
"Resist thinking this is all there is....Realize that for every on-going war and religious outrage and environmental devastation and bogus Iraqi attack plan, there are a thousand counterbalancing acts of staggering generosity and humanity and art and beauty happening all over the world, right now, on a breath-taking scale, from flower box to cathedral....Resist the temptation to drown in fatalism, to shake your head and sigh and just throw in the karmic towel....Realize that this is the perfect moment to change the energy of the world, to step right up and crank your personal volume; right when it all seems dark and bitter and offensive and acrimonious and conflicted and bilious.... there's your opening. Remember magic. And, finally, believe you are part of a groundswell, a resistance, a seemingly small but actually very, very large impending karmic overhaul, a great shift, the beginning of something important and potent and unstoppable."
"Resist thinking this is all there is....Realize that for every on-going war and religious outrage and environmental devastation and bogus Iraqi attack plan, there are a thousand counterbalancing acts of staggering generosity and humanity and art and beauty happening all over the world, right now, on a breath-taking scale, from flower box to cathedral....Resist the temptation to drown in fatalism, to shake your head and sigh and just throw in the karmic towel....Realize that this is the perfect moment to change the energy of the world, to step right up and crank your personal volume; right when it all seems dark and bitter and offensive and acrimonious and conflicted and bilious.... there's your opening. Remember magic. And, finally, believe you are part of a groundswell, a resistance, a seemingly small but actually very, very large impending karmic overhaul, a great shift, the beginning of something important and potent and unstoppable."
The Lords of Vengeance
William Rivers Pitt's latest article will convince any American who may be "on the fence" about the right and wrong of the war on Iraq.
Excerpt:
"Many of you believe this must happen because you have been told, time and again, that Saddam Hussein possesses an awesome arsenal of mass destruction weapons that he will gladly give to terrorists for use against us. Your belief that this is so stems from your loyalty – the President has told you it is true, and so it must be true. It is fearful indeed to consider weapons like this in the hands of terrorists.
You must know, however, that no proof of either prohibited weapons possession or connections to terrorism on the part of Saddam Hussein has been offered by the administration. They have made many accusations, and offered chunks of evidence, but over the last weeks and months each and every bit of evidence put forth has been debunked. Sometimes, the press has proven them wrong, sometimes the weapons inspectors in Iraq proved them wrong, and sometimes our own intelligence services proved them wrong. No proof offered by the Bush administration has stood up.
None."
William Rivers Pitt's latest article will convince any American who may be "on the fence" about the right and wrong of the war on Iraq.
Excerpt:
"Many of you believe this must happen because you have been told, time and again, that Saddam Hussein possesses an awesome arsenal of mass destruction weapons that he will gladly give to terrorists for use against us. Your belief that this is so stems from your loyalty – the President has told you it is true, and so it must be true. It is fearful indeed to consider weapons like this in the hands of terrorists.
You must know, however, that no proof of either prohibited weapons possession or connections to terrorism on the part of Saddam Hussein has been offered by the administration. They have made many accusations, and offered chunks of evidence, but over the last weeks and months each and every bit of evidence put forth has been debunked. Sometimes, the press has proven them wrong, sometimes the weapons inspectors in Iraq proved them wrong, and sometimes our own intelligence services proved them wrong. No proof offered by the Bush administration has stood up.
None."
Thursday, March 13, 2003
From The Madison Capitol Times, 3/13/03:
U.S. failing on N. Korea
By Edward Reed
We are witnessing one of the greatest failures of United States
diplomacy in the last 50 years, and one of the most dangerous.
I am not talking about Iraq, though the current crisis would certainly
be in the running.
I am speaking of North Korea.
Look how far we have fallen.
In October 2000, Gen. Jo Myong Rok, head of the North Korean military
and personal representative of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il,
held discussions in the Oval Office with President Clinton.
A joint communique issued by the United States and North Korea at that
time included the following paragraph:
"The United States and the DPRK have stated that they are prepared to
undertake a new direction in their relations. As a crucial first step,
the two sides stated that neither government would have a hostile
intent toward the other and confirmed the commitment of both
governments to make every effort in the future to build a new
relationship free from past enmity."
This meeting was the culmination of months of synchronized diplomacy
by the Clinton administration and Kim Dae Jung, then president of
South Korea.
The United States and South Korea agreed that security on the
peninsula could best be assured, not by confrontation, but by
encouraging change in North Korea.
Their aim was to create a climate in which North Korean leaders would
feel safe to embark on a major overhaul of their failing system.
The summit meeting between the leaders of the two Koreas in June 2000
reassured the North that South Korea was ready to be part of the
solution to their problems and not a threat.
This was followed by a burst of economic, military and cultural
consultations and agreements across the dividing line.
The mood on the Korean peninsula changed dramatically.
North Korea then reached out to normalize relations with all of our
allies, including the countries of the European Union, Australia and
Canada.
After the October 2000 meeting with Clinton, negotiations began on a
formal agreement to limit North Korean missile sales in exchange for
U.S. support for accelerated economic change in the North.
For Koreans in the South and North, after 50 years of hostile
division, peace was tantalizingly in sight.
Where are we just over two years later?
In a breathtaking tit-for-tat escalation, the 1994 Agreed Framework
freezing North Korea's nuclear program has come totally unraveled.
North Korea, convinced that it is next in line after Iraq for a
pre-emptive U.S. attack, is moving quickly to acquire at least the
appearance of a nuclear deterrence and to demonstrate its military
resolve.
President Bush has specifically mentioned the possibility of a
military solution if diplomacy fails.
But, where is the diplomacy?
The Bush administration rejects North Korea's offer to resolve the
stand-off through dialogue.
As someone who has worked to promote dialogue and reconciliation with
North Korea for over 10 years, I am deeply saddened, frustrated and
angry that it has come to this.
How and why did things deteriorate so rapidly?
The revelation last October that North Korea has been seeking
technology to develop nuclear weapons was certainly shocking.
The most surprising thing was that it didn't fit the pattern.
There was overwhelming evidence that North Korea's leaders were moving
toward a normal political and economic relationship with the rest of
the world.
Even after 9-11, North Korea issued a statement of sympathy and
quickly ratified two pending international anti-terrorism conventions.
Why would North Korea throw away the diplomatic and economic progress
it had made?
I believe that if approached in a way that allowed their leaders to
assess their options carefully, North Korea would have chosen a
different path.
Using quiet diplomacy rather than confrontation, the U.S. could have
acknowledged the positive trends in North Korea while pointing out
that a nuclear program was not compatible with the goals of economic
opening and normal relations.
Giving North Korea an opportunity to consider and respond to this
information may have yielded a very different outcome, one that
maintained the momentum toward engagement and peace.
It is hard not to suspect that the Bush administration did not desire
this outcome.
They came into office viewing President Clinton's negotiations with
North Korea as appeasement.
After including North Korea in the "axis of evil" the nuclear issue
was seized upon as confirmation of this label.
So far, the United States has rejected North Korea's offer for direct
talks to defuse the situation.
North Korea's leaders are certainly not blameless in this.
They have overreacted with unnecessary provocation.
But, their reaction was completely predictable based on past behavior
and their perception of U.S. threats to their security.
History clearly shows that a policy of isolation, sanctions and
military threat will not work with North Korea.
It is a policy that is opposed even by South Korea, our closest allies
and those directly under North Korea's guns.
It can only lead to catastrophe.
The progress over the last two years clearly indicates a better
approach.
The Bush administration must return to the path of dialogue.
To refuse to even begin a conversation with an adversary who has
consistently sought it is to fail at the most fundamental task of
diplomacy.
Talking is not a reward for bad behavior; it is the fundamental
requirement for diplomacy.
If the United States continues to refuse the invitation to talk, the
North Koreans will be confirmed in their conclusion that the kind of
war planned for Iraq will soon be turned on them.
And I will begin to wonder if "bringing North Korea down," no matter
what the consequences to millions in Korea and the region, has been
the Bush administration's policy from the beginning.
___________________________________________________
U.S. failing on N. Korea
By Edward Reed
We are witnessing one of the greatest failures of United States
diplomacy in the last 50 years, and one of the most dangerous.
I am not talking about Iraq, though the current crisis would certainly
be in the running.
I am speaking of North Korea.
Look how far we have fallen.
In October 2000, Gen. Jo Myong Rok, head of the North Korean military
and personal representative of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il,
held discussions in the Oval Office with President Clinton.
A joint communique issued by the United States and North Korea at that
time included the following paragraph:
"The United States and the DPRK have stated that they are prepared to
undertake a new direction in their relations. As a crucial first step,
the two sides stated that neither government would have a hostile
intent toward the other and confirmed the commitment of both
governments to make every effort in the future to build a new
relationship free from past enmity."
This meeting was the culmination of months of synchronized diplomacy
by the Clinton administration and Kim Dae Jung, then president of
South Korea.
The United States and South Korea agreed that security on the
peninsula could best be assured, not by confrontation, but by
encouraging change in North Korea.
Their aim was to create a climate in which North Korean leaders would
feel safe to embark on a major overhaul of their failing system.
The summit meeting between the leaders of the two Koreas in June 2000
reassured the North that South Korea was ready to be part of the
solution to their problems and not a threat.
This was followed by a burst of economic, military and cultural
consultations and agreements across the dividing line.
The mood on the Korean peninsula changed dramatically.
North Korea then reached out to normalize relations with all of our
allies, including the countries of the European Union, Australia and
Canada.
After the October 2000 meeting with Clinton, negotiations began on a
formal agreement to limit North Korean missile sales in exchange for
U.S. support for accelerated economic change in the North.
For Koreans in the South and North, after 50 years of hostile
division, peace was tantalizingly in sight.
Where are we just over two years later?
In a breathtaking tit-for-tat escalation, the 1994 Agreed Framework
freezing North Korea's nuclear program has come totally unraveled.
North Korea, convinced that it is next in line after Iraq for a
pre-emptive U.S. attack, is moving quickly to acquire at least the
appearance of a nuclear deterrence and to demonstrate its military
resolve.
President Bush has specifically mentioned the possibility of a
military solution if diplomacy fails.
But, where is the diplomacy?
The Bush administration rejects North Korea's offer to resolve the
stand-off through dialogue.
As someone who has worked to promote dialogue and reconciliation with
North Korea for over 10 years, I am deeply saddened, frustrated and
angry that it has come to this.
How and why did things deteriorate so rapidly?
The revelation last October that North Korea has been seeking
technology to develop nuclear weapons was certainly shocking.
The most surprising thing was that it didn't fit the pattern.
There was overwhelming evidence that North Korea's leaders were moving
toward a normal political and economic relationship with the rest of
the world.
Even after 9-11, North Korea issued a statement of sympathy and
quickly ratified two pending international anti-terrorism conventions.
Why would North Korea throw away the diplomatic and economic progress
it had made?
I believe that if approached in a way that allowed their leaders to
assess their options carefully, North Korea would have chosen a
different path.
Using quiet diplomacy rather than confrontation, the U.S. could have
acknowledged the positive trends in North Korea while pointing out
that a nuclear program was not compatible with the goals of economic
opening and normal relations.
Giving North Korea an opportunity to consider and respond to this
information may have yielded a very different outcome, one that
maintained the momentum toward engagement and peace.
It is hard not to suspect that the Bush administration did not desire
this outcome.
They came into office viewing President Clinton's negotiations with
North Korea as appeasement.
After including North Korea in the "axis of evil" the nuclear issue
was seized upon as confirmation of this label.
So far, the United States has rejected North Korea's offer for direct
talks to defuse the situation.
North Korea's leaders are certainly not blameless in this.
They have overreacted with unnecessary provocation.
But, their reaction was completely predictable based on past behavior
and their perception of U.S. threats to their security.
History clearly shows that a policy of isolation, sanctions and
military threat will not work with North Korea.
It is a policy that is opposed even by South Korea, our closest allies
and those directly under North Korea's guns.
It can only lead to catastrophe.
The progress over the last two years clearly indicates a better
approach.
The Bush administration must return to the path of dialogue.
To refuse to even begin a conversation with an adversary who has
consistently sought it is to fail at the most fundamental task of
diplomacy.
Talking is not a reward for bad behavior; it is the fundamental
requirement for diplomacy.
If the United States continues to refuse the invitation to talk, the
North Koreans will be confirmed in their conclusion that the kind of
war planned for Iraq will soon be turned on them.
And I will begin to wonder if "bringing North Korea down," no matter
what the consequences to millions in Korea and the region, has been
the Bush administration's policy from the beginning.
___________________________________________________
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
To me, it's astounding how different two Christian men's opinions can be.
I'm thinking of the opinion of Jimmy Carter as a Christian vs. GWB as a Christian.
Same professed love of Christ...polar opinions on this preemptive war.
To me, if Bush says his faith is leading him toward war, it's wrong-minded faith.
It's faith tainted with a ruling mind.
If Bush listened to his real King, he would be humbled.
If one of them is twisting God to fit their plan, I would have to say it's Bush.
Carter's opinion is clearly more deeply-rooted in goodness...rooted in the spirit of love.
You may say to yourself, "But Bush is trying to protect all of us..that is loving"
I say to you: "Loving isn't ONLY about loving people because they are members of a nation.
Love is universal and should be applied to all of humanity...every soul considered sanctified."
Jimmy Carter's view is far more deeply rooted in the meaning of love and compassion.
I'm thinking of the opinion of Jimmy Carter as a Christian vs. GWB as a Christian.
Same professed love of Christ...polar opinions on this preemptive war.
To me, if Bush says his faith is leading him toward war, it's wrong-minded faith.
It's faith tainted with a ruling mind.
If Bush listened to his real King, he would be humbled.
If one of them is twisting God to fit their plan, I would have to say it's Bush.
Carter's opinion is clearly more deeply-rooted in goodness...rooted in the spirit of love.
You may say to yourself, "But Bush is trying to protect all of us..that is loving"
I say to you: "Loving isn't ONLY about loving people because they are members of a nation.
Love is universal and should be applied to all of humanity...every soul considered sanctified."
Jimmy Carter's view is far more deeply rooted in the meaning of love and compassion.
Fox and CNN are glossing over a lot of important details with their endless repetition of mundane details 24/7...ad nauseum. No cable news journalist today is going to delve into details that haven't already been passed on to them through the "powers-that-be"...whether it's the White House or the "corporate taskmaster".
There are no Woodwards/Bernsteins/Cronkites anynmore. Even Woodward/Bernstein have become a watered-down version of what they once were.
The REAL consequences of a unilateral US vs Iraq action will not be seen in the short time it takes to run over Hussein's weak regime.
It will rear its head for years to follow..at OUR expense..the civilians of this nation..who will be blamed because it was perceived by those outside our nation that we people have a true choice in our representative's decisions..which I believe, as each day passes, that we really do not.
And I agree with Gary Hart's March 9 Washington Post op-ed- that it seems that Bush has little trust, respect or regard for the people of this nation...the ones he claims to be protecting.
I am concerned about what will happen in the Arab world. We aren't going to be able to handle the load when they all unite and we have no international forum to rely upon because WE made them "irrelevant". What a recipe for sheer disaster for this nation.
Credibility down the tubes....citizens disrespected and made just as irrelevant as the UN itself.
And no decent investigative journalist to talk about it.
There are no Woodwards/Bernsteins/Cronkites anynmore. Even Woodward/Bernstein have become a watered-down version of what they once were.
The REAL consequences of a unilateral US vs Iraq action will not be seen in the short time it takes to run over Hussein's weak regime.
It will rear its head for years to follow..at OUR expense..the civilians of this nation..who will be blamed because it was perceived by those outside our nation that we people have a true choice in our representative's decisions..which I believe, as each day passes, that we really do not.
And I agree with Gary Hart's March 9 Washington Post op-ed- that it seems that Bush has little trust, respect or regard for the people of this nation...the ones he claims to be protecting.
I am concerned about what will happen in the Arab world. We aren't going to be able to handle the load when they all unite and we have no international forum to rely upon because WE made them "irrelevant". What a recipe for sheer disaster for this nation.
Credibility down the tubes....citizens disrespected and made just as irrelevant as the UN itself.
And no decent investigative journalist to talk about it.
Hart blasts Bush on Iraq
Detour From the War on Terrorism By Gary HartSunday, March 9, 2003; Page B07
Detour From the War on Terrorism By Gary HartSunday, March 9, 2003; Page B07
War is not pretty
Let's say Saddam Hussein does have any weapons of mass destruction or chem/bio weapons (*insert no actual proof here*), why are we shocked that he is most likely to use them if provoked?
The Bush administration seems single-mindedly bent on this invasion. It almost seems that they are bitterly disappointed whenever there's a hint that the weapons inspections are actually working.
A UN resolution with absolutely NO ambiguity is what we need. It is not America's place to preemptively strike Iraq. I firmly believe it is not in the best interest of the American people at this point in time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An Alternative to War
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)