Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
absolutely... fuck, fuck, fuck...Sensei wrote:So... Can I come into the Politics-all-the-frickin'-day thread and just say "Fuck"?
DVD, it is "muzzle" and unfortunately/fortunately i imagined a mussel help against a man's head... (not a strikingly imposing image)
mussel
noun: black marine bivalves usually steamed in wine
noun: marine or freshwater bivalve mollusk that lives attached to rocks etc.
muzzle
noun: the open circular discharging end of a gun
noun: forward projecting part of the head of certain animals
noun: a leather or wire restraint that fits over an animal's snout (especially a dog's nose and jaws) and prevents it from eating or biting
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
September 22, 2004
First, Find the Forger
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Whoever, having devised any scheme or artifice to defraud transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. " U.S. Criminal Code, Chapter 63, Section 1343.
WASHINGTON — At the root of what is today treated as an embarrassing blunder by duped CBS journalists may turn out to be a felony by its faithless sources.
Some person or persons conceived a scheme to create a series of false Texas Air National Guard documents and append a photocopied signature to one of them. The perpetrator then helped cause the fraudulent file to be transmitted by means of television communication to millions of voters for the purpose of influencing a federal election.
That was no mere "dirty trick"; it could be a violation of the U.S. criminal code. If the artifice had not been revealed by sharp-eyed bloggers, a national election could have been swung by a blatant falsehood.
Who was the forger? Did others conspire with him or her to present a seeming government document - with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to defraud, which is a felony in Texas? Who was to benefit and how?
CBS News belatedly apologized and agreed to appoint independent examiners. That's a start.
The government and the courts have no business forcing journalists to reveal sources. But no ethic requires a journalist to protect a source who lied. Accordingly, Dan Rather went to the Texas ranch of his source and telecast Bill Burkett's admission of having falsely "thrown out the name" of someone who gave him the false evidence. Burkett now claims his real source was some hard-to-find mystery woman.
What benefit did the Bush-hating Burkett gain from CBS in return for his fake documents? One plausible answer: he got coveted access to someone high up in the Kerry campaign.
We learned last week that Burkett had reached Kerry's convention introducer, former Senator Max Cleland, to plead for access to higher-ups so as to launch a "counterattack." Cleland confirms getting the call and says he told him to try the D.N.C., (where Terry McAuliffe, as former prosecutor Joseph DiGenova noted on MSNBC, carefully denied a role only in the preparation of the documents).
When his call to headquarters was not returned, Burkett then asked Mary Mapes, the CBS producer, to help him gain the top-level Kerry access he so highly valued.
Only days before the telecast, Mapes or some other "60 Minutes" staff member delivered the goods: their "unimpeachable" source was paid off with a call from Joe Lockhart, the Clinton press aide newly hired to strip nuance out of Kerry's message. With the number supplied by CBS, Lockhart called Burkett. We don't know what was said, but the call from on high was payoff in itself.
What should CBS do now? First, release Rather's interview with Burkett in its entirety; viewers are entitled to the outtakes now. Next, let Mary Mapes, at the center of all this, speak to reporters. Third, expend some Viacom resources to track down the possible original sources, including the man whose name Burkett says he "threw out" to mislead CBS.
Appointing independent reviewers should not be a device to duck all others' questions; that's Kofi Annan's trick to stonewall his oil-for-food scandal. But lacking the power of a grand jury's subpoena or testimony under oath, victimized CBS cannot put real heat on the perpetrator or conspirators. We have hard evidence of crimes by low-level operatives here - from wire fraud to forgery - as well as the potential of high-level political involvement. Is no prosecutor prepared to enforce the law?
Conservatives should stop slavering over Dan Rather's scalp, and liberals should stop pretending that noble ends justify fake-evidence means. Both should focus on the lesson of the early 70's: from third-rate burglaries to fourth-rate forgeries, nobody gets away with trying to corrupt American elections.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
First, Find the Forger
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Whoever, having devised any scheme or artifice to defraud transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. " U.S. Criminal Code, Chapter 63, Section 1343.
WASHINGTON — At the root of what is today treated as an embarrassing blunder by duped CBS journalists may turn out to be a felony by its faithless sources.
Some person or persons conceived a scheme to create a series of false Texas Air National Guard documents and append a photocopied signature to one of them. The perpetrator then helped cause the fraudulent file to be transmitted by means of television communication to millions of voters for the purpose of influencing a federal election.
That was no mere "dirty trick"; it could be a violation of the U.S. criminal code. If the artifice had not been revealed by sharp-eyed bloggers, a national election could have been swung by a blatant falsehood.
Who was the forger? Did others conspire with him or her to present a seeming government document - with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to defraud, which is a felony in Texas? Who was to benefit and how?
CBS News belatedly apologized and agreed to appoint independent examiners. That's a start.
The government and the courts have no business forcing journalists to reveal sources. But no ethic requires a journalist to protect a source who lied. Accordingly, Dan Rather went to the Texas ranch of his source and telecast Bill Burkett's admission of having falsely "thrown out the name" of someone who gave him the false evidence. Burkett now claims his real source was some hard-to-find mystery woman.
What benefit did the Bush-hating Burkett gain from CBS in return for his fake documents? One plausible answer: he got coveted access to someone high up in the Kerry campaign.
We learned last week that Burkett had reached Kerry's convention introducer, former Senator Max Cleland, to plead for access to higher-ups so as to launch a "counterattack." Cleland confirms getting the call and says he told him to try the D.N.C., (where Terry McAuliffe, as former prosecutor Joseph DiGenova noted on MSNBC, carefully denied a role only in the preparation of the documents).
When his call to headquarters was not returned, Burkett then asked Mary Mapes, the CBS producer, to help him gain the top-level Kerry access he so highly valued.
Only days before the telecast, Mapes or some other "60 Minutes" staff member delivered the goods: their "unimpeachable" source was paid off with a call from Joe Lockhart, the Clinton press aide newly hired to strip nuance out of Kerry's message. With the number supplied by CBS, Lockhart called Burkett. We don't know what was said, but the call from on high was payoff in itself.
What should CBS do now? First, release Rather's interview with Burkett in its entirety; viewers are entitled to the outtakes now. Next, let Mary Mapes, at the center of all this, speak to reporters. Third, expend some Viacom resources to track down the possible original sources, including the man whose name Burkett says he "threw out" to mislead CBS.
Appointing independent reviewers should not be a device to duck all others' questions; that's Kofi Annan's trick to stonewall his oil-for-food scandal. But lacking the power of a grand jury's subpoena or testimony under oath, victimized CBS cannot put real heat on the perpetrator or conspirators. We have hard evidence of crimes by low-level operatives here - from wire fraud to forgery - as well as the potential of high-level political involvement. Is no prosecutor prepared to enforce the law?
Conservatives should stop slavering over Dan Rather's scalp, and liberals should stop pretending that noble ends justify fake-evidence means. Both should focus on the lesson of the early 70's: from third-rate burglaries to fourth-rate forgeries, nobody gets away with trying to corrupt American elections.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
I'd comment, but I'm still stuck on that 'agree with Pat Buchanan line'.
Ordinarily, I'd say a godd lobotomy'd cure something like that, but, in a case like this, it'd probably make things worse...
And may I say, 'fuck, and yes, fuck again'(thank you sensei)
noob? nope, not me.
lurker. That should say it all. Abandoned everything else I'd written and adopted lurker years ago, when the 'lurker thread' started way back then. Thought I was being clever.
HA.
But I like it. I like to lurk
Ordinarily, I'd say a godd lobotomy'd cure something like that, but, in a case like this, it'd probably make things worse...
And may I say, 'fuck, and yes, fuck again'(thank you sensei)
noob? nope, not me.
lurker. That should say it all. Abandoned everything else I'd written and adopted lurker years ago, when the 'lurker thread' started way back then. Thought I was being clever.
HA.
But I like it. I like to lurk
"Life is like a box of razor blades. Sharp, shiny, and good for removing unwanted body hair"
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
something historical
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smiths ... tions.html
Four Fateful Elections
What if Lincoln had lost in 1860, or if Theodore Roosevelt had won in 1912? How did Franklin Roosevelt, in 1932, and Ronald Reagan, in 1980, emerge to lead a dispirited nation?
Among George Washington's many distinctions, one of the most enduring must be that he was twice elected president unanimously and without opposition. Only one of his successors came close to that feat: the unopposed James Monroe, who, in 1820, won every electoral vote except the one cast for Secretary of State John Quincy Adams by an elector from ever-unpredictable New Hampshire. (The prickly and reserved Adams, who wasn't even running for president, was embarrassed by the vote.) Since that time, every U.S. presidential election has not only involved multiple candidates but hinged on the choices of a broader public, as more and more states moved to elect rather than appoint their representatives in the electoral college.
And those choices, as Americans well know, can have fateful consequences. In the impassioned run-up to this year's presidential election—the 55th in our history—we asked four eminent historians to illuminate earlier contests that they felt were momentous: Lincoln scholar David Herbert Donald on the election of 1860, historian and international affairs expert James Chace on 1912, FDR biographer Geoffrey C. Ward on 1932, and Reagan biographer Lou Cannon on 1980. In some, such as the election of 1860, the choices were especially stark: between freedom and slavery, unity and division, war and peace. In others, like the tumultuous four-way race of 1912 that charted the future of the Republican Party and set the high-water mark for America's Progressives and Socialists, the importance of the outcome became clear only with the passage of time. Of course, every American doubtless has his or her own ideas about which elections have done the most to shape our nation's history—for good or ill. But even a cursory reading of that history proclaims another underlying truth: that every election matters, and every vote counts.
Four Fateful Elections
What if Lincoln had lost in 1860, or if Theodore Roosevelt had won in 1912? How did Franklin Roosevelt, in 1932, and Ronald Reagan, in 1980, emerge to lead a dispirited nation?
Among George Washington's many distinctions, one of the most enduring must be that he was twice elected president unanimously and without opposition. Only one of his successors came close to that feat: the unopposed James Monroe, who, in 1820, won every electoral vote except the one cast for Secretary of State John Quincy Adams by an elector from ever-unpredictable New Hampshire. (The prickly and reserved Adams, who wasn't even running for president, was embarrassed by the vote.) Since that time, every U.S. presidential election has not only involved multiple candidates but hinged on the choices of a broader public, as more and more states moved to elect rather than appoint their representatives in the electoral college.
And those choices, as Americans well know, can have fateful consequences. In the impassioned run-up to this year's presidential election—the 55th in our history—we asked four eminent historians to illuminate earlier contests that they felt were momentous: Lincoln scholar David Herbert Donald on the election of 1860, historian and international affairs expert James Chace on 1912, FDR biographer Geoffrey C. Ward on 1932, and Reagan biographer Lou Cannon on 1980. In some, such as the election of 1860, the choices were especially stark: between freedom and slavery, unity and division, war and peace. In others, like the tumultuous four-way race of 1912 that charted the future of the Republican Party and set the high-water mark for America's Progressives and Socialists, the importance of the outcome became clear only with the passage of time. Of course, every American doubtless has his or her own ideas about which elections have done the most to shape our nation's history—for good or ill. But even a cursory reading of that history proclaims another underlying truth: that every election matters, and every vote counts.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
Finally, have finished reading all 83 pages of topic incl. most of the cites and have visited many of the sites too. Fascinating!
Ok, so yes, I'm a noob (so sorry) but am probably not a "troll", badge, or whatever. Could someone cite definition of "troll" at BRC so I can make sure I'm not one!? Ha!
[/u]
Ok, so yes, I'm a noob (so sorry) but am probably not a "troll", badge, or whatever. Could someone cite definition of "troll" at BRC so I can make sure I'm not one!? Ha!
[/u]
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
FBI ordered to release file on John Lennon
Saturday, October 2, 2004 - Page A15
Los Angeles -- A U.S. judge has ordered the FBI to release its file on the late Beatle John Lennon, who was targeted by U.S. security services as a counterculture icon, a report said yesterday.
Under the order, made Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Robert Takasugi in Los Angeles, the Federal Bureau of Investigation must unseal the last 10 pages of the 300-page file that history professor Jon Wiener has fought a two-decade battle to get. AFP
Saturday, October 2, 2004 - Page A15
Los Angeles -- A U.S. judge has ordered the FBI to release its file on the late Beatle John Lennon, who was targeted by U.S. security services as a counterculture icon, a report said yesterday.
Under the order, made Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Robert Takasugi in Los Angeles, the Federal Bureau of Investigation must unseal the last 10 pages of the 300-page file that history professor Jon Wiener has fought a two-decade battle to get. AFP
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Denmark aims to claim the North Pole and hunt for oil in high Arctic regions that may become more accessible because of global warming, the Science Ministry said Monday.
It said Denmark would send an expedition to try to prove the seabed beneath the Pole was a natural continuation of Greenland, the world's biggest island and a Danish territory whose northern tip is just 450 miles from the Pole.
Science Minister Helge Sander said last week success would give Denmark access to "new resources such as oil and natural gas."
The potential return would outweigh the 150 million crowns ($25 million) that Denmark has allocated to the investigation.
The Danish bid rests on a U.N. convention allowing coastal nations to claim rights to offshore seabed resources. Countries that ratify it have 10 years to prove they have a fair claim to the offshore territory and its resources.
"First we have to make the scientific claim. After that there will be a political process with the other countries," said Science Ministry official Thorkild Meedom.
Denmark obviously hasn't heard of the Sea Shepherd Society
It said Denmark would send an expedition to try to prove the seabed beneath the Pole was a natural continuation of Greenland, the world's biggest island and a Danish territory whose northern tip is just 450 miles from the Pole.
Science Minister Helge Sander said last week success would give Denmark access to "new resources such as oil and natural gas."
The potential return would outweigh the 150 million crowns ($25 million) that Denmark has allocated to the investigation.
The Danish bid rests on a U.N. convention allowing coastal nations to claim rights to offshore seabed resources. Countries that ratify it have 10 years to prove they have a fair claim to the offshore territory and its resources.
"First we have to make the scientific claim. After that there will be a political process with the other countries," said Science Ministry official Thorkild Meedom.
Denmark obviously hasn't heard of the Sea Shepherd Society
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
[quote="cowboyangel"]COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Denmark aims to claim the North Pole and hunt for oil in high Arctic regions that may become more accessible because of global warming, the Science Ministry said Monday.
It said Denmark would send an expedition to try to prove the seabed beneath the Pole was a natural continuation of Greenland, the world's biggest island and a Danish territory whose northern tip is just 450 miles from the Pole.
Science Minister Helge Sander said last week success would give Denmark access to "new resources such as oil and natural gas."
The potential return would outweigh the 150 million crowns ($25 million) that Denmark has allocated to the investigation.
The Danish bid rests on a U.N. convention allowing coastal nations to claim rights to offshore seabed resources. Countries that ratify it have 10 years to prove they have a fair claim to the offshore territory and its resources.
"First we have to make the scientific claim. After that there will be a political process with the other countries," said Science Ministry official Thorkild Meedom.
Denmark obviously hasn't heard of the Sea Shepherd Society[/quote]
http://www.seashepherd.org/
CA, are you inferring that Denmark does not have the sovereign right to undertake a scientific experiment? Sounds a little heavy handed and hypocritical from a citizen from a known polluter like the USA...
It said Denmark would send an expedition to try to prove the seabed beneath the Pole was a natural continuation of Greenland, the world's biggest island and a Danish territory whose northern tip is just 450 miles from the Pole.
Science Minister Helge Sander said last week success would give Denmark access to "new resources such as oil and natural gas."
The potential return would outweigh the 150 million crowns ($25 million) that Denmark has allocated to the investigation.
The Danish bid rests on a U.N. convention allowing coastal nations to claim rights to offshore seabed resources. Countries that ratify it have 10 years to prove they have a fair claim to the offshore territory and its resources.
"First we have to make the scientific claim. After that there will be a political process with the other countries," said Science Ministry official Thorkild Meedom.
Denmark obviously hasn't heard of the Sea Shepherd Society[/quote]
http://www.seashepherd.org/
CA, are you inferring that Denmark does not have the sovereign right to undertake a scientific experiment? Sounds a little heavy handed and hypocritical from a citizen from a known polluter like the USA...
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
Simply Joel wrote:[quote="cowboyangel"]COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Denmark aims to claim the North Pole and hunt for oil in high Arctic regions that may become more accessible because of global warming, the Science Ministry said Monday.
It said Denmark would send an expedition to try to prove the seabed beneath the Pole was a natural continuation of Greenland, the world's biggest island and a Danish territory whose northern tip is just 450 miles from the Pole.
Science Minister Helge Sander said last week success would give Denmark access to "new resources such as oil and natural gas."
The potential return would outweigh the 150 million crowns ($25 million) that Denmark has allocated to the investigation.
The Danish bid rests on a U.N. convention allowing coastal nations to claim rights to offshore seabed resources. Countries that ratify it have 10 years to prove they have a fair claim to the offshore territory and its resources.
"First we have to make the scientific claim. After that there will be a political process with the other countries," said Science Ministry official Thorkild Meedom.
Denmark obviously hasn't heard of the Sea Shepherd Society
http://www.seashepherd.org/
CA, are you inferring that Denmark does not have the sovereign right to undertake a scientific experiment? Sounds a little heavy handed and hypocritical from a citizen from a known polluter like the USA...[/quote]
ah yes...most of my GreenPeace actions were directed against US polluters. Denmark is hell bent on extracting north slope oil and they'll go to any length to prove it.......why can't we have at least one fucking virgin place left on this poor old planet?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
So....like...uuhmmmm...........how about this, I stated this already in the "Fox" thread:
What about the above statement?
So can we stick to politics.Bottom line is the facts.
the current administration are incompetent liars.
That is a fact.
The most that can be said about Kerry and Edwards is they got dupped and are suckers to have belived this administration.
What about the above statement?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
because humans are a problem making/solving species?cowboyangel wrote:why can't we have at least one fucking virgin place left on this poor old planet?
and... you ought to be directing that question in a multiple language method to ask other countries.. China, Russia and former Soviet satelites, N/S Korea... etc.. 'cause we aren't the only polluter on the planet.
no, i don't have a cite for that statement but i do believe it to be relatively common knowledge....
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
SADDAM LIVES
By William F. Buckley Jr.
It seems curious that back in March 2003, we tried to kill Saddam Hussein. We had it all worked out that he was in hiding at a particular dwelling in Baghdad, and we launched a missile attack against it. Our eagerness was such that we were willing to initiate the military engagement against Iraq hours before general operations were scheduled. The clouds of doubt on the legality of the war weren't quite so vividly drawn, in March '03, the U.N. position being that we needed a supplementary vote to proceed, the U.S.-Brit position being that existing resolutions were sufficient.
In any event, our anxiety then to kill Saddam Hussein is in sharp contrast to our desire now to keep him alive until some judicial body (unspecified at the moment) escorts him -- where? To the gallows? To another jail?
A formal trial began in July and faced immediate difficulties. To begin with, there is the question of the detachment of Saddam Hussein from his large executive retinue. We have an estimated 5,500 Iraqis under lock and key and have not yet arrived at a judgment on how many of them are to be tried as criminals.
But we did train particular attention on 11 people in intimate association with Saddam Hussein, and right away the question arose whether they should all be tried together. This would not mean necessarily that they would be tried en banc. We could proceed as in Nuremberg, laying down the corporate case against the Saddam regime, and then enunciating, one by one, the specific liability of each individual defendant. In Nuremberg there were 22, and the sentences varied from hanging (11) to exoneration (3).
By what standards should Saddam be charged? At Nuremberg we articulated a law that did not exist, a law against wars of aggression. By some readings, we engaged therefore in ex post facto proceedings strictly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. We were attempting, in 1945, to promulgate universal laws defining war crimes. We did this, and don't really need to make the point all over again, because there are plenty of local laws violated under Saddam Hussein. It's not legal, under Islamic practice or Iraqi law, to slaughter other Iraqis, let alone tens of thousands of them.
It is to be expected that Saddam's lawyers will raise every conceivable objection to the proceedings, among them the matter of the language used before the court. A scholar, writing for Vanguard Online, gave an example. Awa U. Kalu, Esq., wrote last month of an "avuncular" judge in a Nigerian court who advised the defendant that he could select the language in which the trial would take place. That's easy, the defendant said: He would like to be tried in Igbo. To the defendant's dismay, the presiding officer immediately began to speak in Igbo. Discouraged, the defendant switched to "flawless English," and then went on to another expedient, advising that what he had been charged with doing was in fact the work of Satan -- who of course was not subpoenable by the prosecutor.
The work of Saddam can vividly be described as the work of Satan. Meanwhile, the man responsible is in an undisclosed military compound in or near Baghdad; it is reported that he recently requested cigars. What hems in the prosecution is the thousands of Iraqis who have filed complaints against Saddam et al. on behalf of family members allegedly murdered by the regime. In order to examine these complaints thoroughly, one would need, among other things, to dig up cemeteries containing thousands of corpses, presumably in search of bullet holes or broken heads.
To undertake this in a country in which insurrectionaries, many of them surviving Baathist supporters of Saddam Hussein, strike out every day against the coalition powers, against the Iraqi government, against the police, is simply not feasible. The prosecution needs drastically to reduce the number of plaintiffs and the scope of their complaints in order to proceed against discrete crimes with available witnesses, who would presumably need to testify secretly, in shrouded courtrooms. But of course when such practices as those are resorted to, cries of victors' justice spring forth and ACLU-types are there to plead the invalidation of the trial.
It is piquant that the man we tried to kill with a surprise missile attack flaunts judicial extravagances to stay alive even as his dispossessed supporters continue to terrorize and to kill. If we can't arraign, prosecute, convict and hang Saddam Hussein, his supporters will be encouraged by western ambivalence, and a natural and commendable public thirst for symbolic vindication will continue unslaked.
By William F. Buckley Jr.
It seems curious that back in March 2003, we tried to kill Saddam Hussein. We had it all worked out that he was in hiding at a particular dwelling in Baghdad, and we launched a missile attack against it. Our eagerness was such that we were willing to initiate the military engagement against Iraq hours before general operations were scheduled. The clouds of doubt on the legality of the war weren't quite so vividly drawn, in March '03, the U.N. position being that we needed a supplementary vote to proceed, the U.S.-Brit position being that existing resolutions were sufficient.
In any event, our anxiety then to kill Saddam Hussein is in sharp contrast to our desire now to keep him alive until some judicial body (unspecified at the moment) escorts him -- where? To the gallows? To another jail?
A formal trial began in July and faced immediate difficulties. To begin with, there is the question of the detachment of Saddam Hussein from his large executive retinue. We have an estimated 5,500 Iraqis under lock and key and have not yet arrived at a judgment on how many of them are to be tried as criminals.
But we did train particular attention on 11 people in intimate association with Saddam Hussein, and right away the question arose whether they should all be tried together. This would not mean necessarily that they would be tried en banc. We could proceed as in Nuremberg, laying down the corporate case against the Saddam regime, and then enunciating, one by one, the specific liability of each individual defendant. In Nuremberg there were 22, and the sentences varied from hanging (11) to exoneration (3).
By what standards should Saddam be charged? At Nuremberg we articulated a law that did not exist, a law against wars of aggression. By some readings, we engaged therefore in ex post facto proceedings strictly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. We were attempting, in 1945, to promulgate universal laws defining war crimes. We did this, and don't really need to make the point all over again, because there are plenty of local laws violated under Saddam Hussein. It's not legal, under Islamic practice or Iraqi law, to slaughter other Iraqis, let alone tens of thousands of them.
It is to be expected that Saddam's lawyers will raise every conceivable objection to the proceedings, among them the matter of the language used before the court. A scholar, writing for Vanguard Online, gave an example. Awa U. Kalu, Esq., wrote last month of an "avuncular" judge in a Nigerian court who advised the defendant that he could select the language in which the trial would take place. That's easy, the defendant said: He would like to be tried in Igbo. To the defendant's dismay, the presiding officer immediately began to speak in Igbo. Discouraged, the defendant switched to "flawless English," and then went on to another expedient, advising that what he had been charged with doing was in fact the work of Satan -- who of course was not subpoenable by the prosecutor.
The work of Saddam can vividly be described as the work of Satan. Meanwhile, the man responsible is in an undisclosed military compound in or near Baghdad; it is reported that he recently requested cigars. What hems in the prosecution is the thousands of Iraqis who have filed complaints against Saddam et al. on behalf of family members allegedly murdered by the regime. In order to examine these complaints thoroughly, one would need, among other things, to dig up cemeteries containing thousands of corpses, presumably in search of bullet holes or broken heads.
To undertake this in a country in which insurrectionaries, many of them surviving Baathist supporters of Saddam Hussein, strike out every day against the coalition powers, against the Iraqi government, against the police, is simply not feasible. The prosecution needs drastically to reduce the number of plaintiffs and the scope of their complaints in order to proceed against discrete crimes with available witnesses, who would presumably need to testify secretly, in shrouded courtrooms. But of course when such practices as those are resorted to, cries of victors' justice spring forth and ACLU-types are there to plead the invalidation of the trial.
It is piquant that the man we tried to kill with a surprise missile attack flaunts judicial extravagances to stay alive even as his dispossessed supporters continue to terrorize and to kill. If we can't arraign, prosecute, convict and hang Saddam Hussein, his supporters will be encouraged by western ambivalence, and a natural and commendable public thirst for symbolic vindication will continue unslaked.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
October 7, 2004
The Battle of the Pump
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
If all the shortsighted policies of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, none have been worse than their opposition to energy conservation and a gasoline tax. If we had imposed a new gasoline tax after 9/11, demand would have been dampened and gas today would probably still be $2 a gallon. But instead of the extra dollar going to Saudi Arabia - where it ends up with mullahs who build madrasas that preach intolerance - that dollar would have gone to our own Treasury to pay down our own deficit and finance our own schools. In fact, the Bush energy policy should be called No Mullah Left Behind.
Our own No Child Left Behind program has not been fully financed because the tax revenue is not there. But thanks to the Bush-Cheney energy policy, No Mullah Left Behind has been fully financed and is now the gift that keeps on giving: terrorism.
Mr. Bush says we're in "a global war on terrorism.'' That's right. But that war is rooted in the Arab-Muslim world. That means there is no war on terrorism that doesn't involve helping this region onto a more promising path for its huge population of young people - too many of whom are unemployed or unemployable because their oil-rich regimes are resistant to change and their religious leaders are resisting modernity.
A former Kuwaiti information minister, Sad bin Tefla, wrote an article in a London Arabic daily, Al Sharq Al Awsat, last Sept. 11 entitled "We Are All Bin Laden.'' He asked why Muslim scholars and clerics had eagerly supported fatwas condemning Salman Rushdie to death after he wrote a novel deemed insulting to Islam, "The Satanic Verses,'' but to this day no Muslim cleric has issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden for murdering nearly 3,000 innocent civilians, badly damaging Islam.
Building a decent Iraq is necessary to help reverse such trends, but it is not sufficient. We need a much more comprehensive approach, particularly if we fail in Iraq. The Bush team does not offer one. It has treated the Arab-Israeli issue with benign neglect, failed to find any way to communicate with the Arab world and adopted an energy policy that is supporting the worst Arab oil regimes and the worst trends. Phil Verleger, one of the nation's top energy consultants and a longtime advocate of a gas tax, puts it succinctly: "U.S. energy policy today is in support of terrorism - not the war on terrorism."
We need to dramatically cut our consumption of oil and bring the price back down to $20 a barrel. Nothing would do more to stimulate reform in the Arab-Muslim world. Oil regimes do not have to modernize or govern well. They just buy off their people and their mullahs. Governments without oil have to reform to create jobs. People do not change when you tell them they should - they change when they tell themselves they must.
The Arab-Muslim world is in a must-change human development crisis, "but oil is like a narcotic that kills a lot of the pain for them and prevents real change,'' says David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Where is all the innovation in the Arab world today? In the places with little or no oil: Bahrain is working on labor reform, just signed a free-trade agreement with the U.S. and held the first elections in the Arab gulf, allowing women to run and vote. Dubai has made itself into a regional service center. And Jordan has a free-trade agreement with the U.S. and is trying to transform itself into a knowledge economy. Who is paralyzed or rolling back reforms? Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, all now awash in oil money.
When did Jordan begin privatizing and deregulating its economy and upgrading its education system? In 1989 - after oil prices had slumped and the Arab oil states cut off Jordan's subsidies. In 1999, before Jordan signed its U.S. free-trade accord, its exports to America totaled $13 million. This year, Jordan will export over $1 billion worth of goods to the U.S. In the wake of King Abdullah II's reforms, Jordan's economy is growing at an annual rate of over 7 percent, the government is installing computers and broadband Internet links in every school, and it will soon require anyone who wants to study Islamic law and become a mosque preacher to first get a B.A. in something else, so mosque leaders won't just come from those who can't do anything else. "We had to go through a crisis to accept the need for reform," says Jordan's planning minister, Bassem Awadallah.
We have the power right now to stimulate similar trends across the Arab world. It's the best way to fight a global war on terrorism. If only we had a president and vice president tough enough to fight this war.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
The Battle of the Pump
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
If all the shortsighted policies of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, none have been worse than their opposition to energy conservation and a gasoline tax. If we had imposed a new gasoline tax after 9/11, demand would have been dampened and gas today would probably still be $2 a gallon. But instead of the extra dollar going to Saudi Arabia - where it ends up with mullahs who build madrasas that preach intolerance - that dollar would have gone to our own Treasury to pay down our own deficit and finance our own schools. In fact, the Bush energy policy should be called No Mullah Left Behind.
Our own No Child Left Behind program has not been fully financed because the tax revenue is not there. But thanks to the Bush-Cheney energy policy, No Mullah Left Behind has been fully financed and is now the gift that keeps on giving: terrorism.
Mr. Bush says we're in "a global war on terrorism.'' That's right. But that war is rooted in the Arab-Muslim world. That means there is no war on terrorism that doesn't involve helping this region onto a more promising path for its huge population of young people - too many of whom are unemployed or unemployable because their oil-rich regimes are resistant to change and their religious leaders are resisting modernity.
A former Kuwaiti information minister, Sad bin Tefla, wrote an article in a London Arabic daily, Al Sharq Al Awsat, last Sept. 11 entitled "We Are All Bin Laden.'' He asked why Muslim scholars and clerics had eagerly supported fatwas condemning Salman Rushdie to death after he wrote a novel deemed insulting to Islam, "The Satanic Verses,'' but to this day no Muslim cleric has issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden for murdering nearly 3,000 innocent civilians, badly damaging Islam.
Building a decent Iraq is necessary to help reverse such trends, but it is not sufficient. We need a much more comprehensive approach, particularly if we fail in Iraq. The Bush team does not offer one. It has treated the Arab-Israeli issue with benign neglect, failed to find any way to communicate with the Arab world and adopted an energy policy that is supporting the worst Arab oil regimes and the worst trends. Phil Verleger, one of the nation's top energy consultants and a longtime advocate of a gas tax, puts it succinctly: "U.S. energy policy today is in support of terrorism - not the war on terrorism."
We need to dramatically cut our consumption of oil and bring the price back down to $20 a barrel. Nothing would do more to stimulate reform in the Arab-Muslim world. Oil regimes do not have to modernize or govern well. They just buy off their people and their mullahs. Governments without oil have to reform to create jobs. People do not change when you tell them they should - they change when they tell themselves they must.
The Arab-Muslim world is in a must-change human development crisis, "but oil is like a narcotic that kills a lot of the pain for them and prevents real change,'' says David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Where is all the innovation in the Arab world today? In the places with little or no oil: Bahrain is working on labor reform, just signed a free-trade agreement with the U.S. and held the first elections in the Arab gulf, allowing women to run and vote. Dubai has made itself into a regional service center. And Jordan has a free-trade agreement with the U.S. and is trying to transform itself into a knowledge economy. Who is paralyzed or rolling back reforms? Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, all now awash in oil money.
When did Jordan begin privatizing and deregulating its economy and upgrading its education system? In 1989 - after oil prices had slumped and the Arab oil states cut off Jordan's subsidies. In 1999, before Jordan signed its U.S. free-trade accord, its exports to America totaled $13 million. This year, Jordan will export over $1 billion worth of goods to the U.S. In the wake of King Abdullah II's reforms, Jordan's economy is growing at an annual rate of over 7 percent, the government is installing computers and broadband Internet links in every school, and it will soon require anyone who wants to study Islamic law and become a mosque preacher to first get a B.A. in something else, so mosque leaders won't just come from those who can't do anything else. "We had to go through a crisis to accept the need for reform," says Jordan's planning minister, Bassem Awadallah.
We have the power right now to stimulate similar trends across the Arab world. It's the best way to fight a global war on terrorism. If only we had a president and vice president tough enough to fight this war.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
Simply Joel wrote:The New York Times
April 7, 2004
Iraq Needs a Credible U.N.
For the first time since last May, word came yesterday that American forces were engaged in serious combat in Iraq, this time against Iraqi insurgent forces who attacked American marines in a city southwest of Baghdad, and against an armed Sunni resistance in the town of Falluja. Reports of significant casualties on both sides in the pitched battle in the city of Ramadi were a grim and powerful reminder of how badly the United States needs a strong, credible and engaged United Nations.
Unfortunately, not only is the role of the U.N. still unsettled, the world organization is suffering from two self-inflicted wounds. One is a kickback scandal of multibillion-dollar proportions swirling around the U.N.-run oil-for-food program that kept ordinary Iraqis from starving during the long years of punishing economic sanctions. The other is the recent finding by an independent investigative panel that oversights in U.N. security management may have worsened the death toll in last August's terrorist bombing of the Baghdad headquarters.
Urgent steps, including high-level demotions and dismissals, are already under way to address the security failures. U.N. officials returning to Iraq face unavoidable risks, but everything that can be done to make them safer must be done. Ferreting out the murky details of the financial scandal, and meting out appropriate punishments, is no less urgent or important.
At the heart of the scandal are reports that Iraq collected billions of unmonitored dollars from oil surcharges and kickbacks for awarding consumer goods contracts under the oil-for-food program. U.N. officials clearly failed to supervise effectively the roughly $10 billion a year in transactions and may have been involved in illicit deals.
The oil-for-food program began in the mid-1990's, at Washington's behest, as a way to maintain political support for sanctions in the face of Iraqi civilian suffering. It seems to have fairly well served the limited goals of keeping sanctions intact enough to prevent Iraq from rebuilding unconventional weapons and of easing the burdens on ordinary Iraqis. But exporting the oil and buying the consumer goods required working with a corrupt Iraqi government, with Security Council members eager to maximize commercial gains and with some of Iraq's less than scrupulous neighbors.
U.N. officials have been reporting systematic corruption in the program for years, but the Security Council never insisted on a thorough cleanup. Washington acquiesced, since the faulty program was the only way to maintain support for the sanctions. Now there is finally some political will to investigate, and details of the corruption are emerging from documents seized by American occupation authorities in Iraq.
The U.N. investigation now under way can be credible only if it is independent of Security Council control. The investigators must put aside diplomatic niceties and concentrate on cleansing the U.N.'s reputation.
Report: U.N. Program Full of Corruption
By DESMOND BUTLER, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Vivid allegations by the top U.S. arms inspector of widespread corruption at the U.N. oil-for-food program have added credibility to accusations the United Nations looked the other way while Saddam Hussein's government skimmed billions of dollars and offered kickbacks to European and Arab countries and officials.
The inspector's report implicates the top U.N. official overseeing the $60 billion program, accusing him of accepting bribes in the form of vouchers for Iraqi oil sales, and details Iraqi manipulation to illegally enrich Saddam's government and influence Security Council members.
The alleged schemes included an Iraqi system for allocating lucrative oil vouchers, which permitted recipients to purchase certain amounts of oil at a profit, according to the report issued Wednesday by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.
He said the Iraqi government manipulated the U.N. program from 1996 to 2003 to acquire billions of dollars in illicit gains and to import illegal goods, including parts for missile systems. The report estimates Saddam generated $10.9 billion in hard currency through illicit means from 1990 to 2003 during the entire U.N. sanctions period after the Gulf War.
The report also said vouchers "provided Saddam with a useful method of rewarding countries, organizations and individuals willing to cooperate with Iraq to subvert U.N. sanctions."
Vice President Dick Cheney jumped on the allegations.
"The suggestion is clearly there by Mr. Duelfer that Saddam had used the program in such a way that he had bought off foreign governments and was building support among them to take the sanctions down," Cheney said Thursday during an appearance in Miami.
Responding to the report, a high-ranking Republican congressman demanded the United Nation's independent inquiry speed up its timetable and release documents to Congressional investigators.
"The world cannot wait years for answers to the growing body of evidence implicating senior U.N. officials in outright corruption," said Rep. Henry Hyde, who chairs the House International Relations Committee.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan in April appointed former Fed chairman Paul Volcker to lead an independent investigation. He has said his committee will not deliver a report before mid-2005. Volcker has refused to share with Congress documents for their probes, including 55 internal audits of the oil-for-food program produced by the United Nations.
The Duelfer report said Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. program, is among dozens of people who allegedly received secret oil vouchers, with Saddam personally approving the list of recipients. The voucher list was dominated by Russian, French and Chinese recipients, in that order, with Saddam spreading the wealth widely to prominent business leaders, politicians, foreign government ministries and political parties, the report said.
U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard refused comment on "any specific allegation against Mr. Sevan or anyone else."
"This is in the hands of Paul Volcker," he added. "We are cooperating with him fully. Benon Sevan is cooperating with him fully, and we will wait for Volcker's judgment. Benon, meanwhile, stands by his statement that he's done nothing wrong."
The report also names former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri and the Russian radical political figure Vladimir Zhirinovsky as voucher recipients and other foreign governments range from Yemen to Namibia.
Zhirinovsky denied the allegations.
"I never took a drop (of oil), or a single dollar from Iraq or from any other country. I have never dealt with oil," Russia's Interfax news agency cited Zhirinovsky as saying Thursday. "I do not care what (bribes) someone might have received. I personally gained nothing."
Zhirinovsky has visited Iraq frequently and called for increased trade between the two countries. The oil companies mentioned included top Russian producers Yukos and Lukoil. Company officials could not immediately be reached to comment on the allegations.
In France, Foreign Ministry spokesman Herve Ladsous counseled caution.
"It is important to assure oneself very precisely on the veracity of this information," he said. "We understand that these accusations against companies and individuals were not verified either with the people themselves or with the authorities of the countries concerned."
Marty Natalegawa, a spokesman for the Indonesian foreign ministry said: "There is no credence to these allegations. It's a fact that we took part in the oil for food program, but this notion of vouchers is far fetched. There were no dealings other than the oil for food."
The names of American companies and individuals who may have been involved in oil deals weren't released because of U.S. privacy laws, the report said.
The program was designed to allow limited oil sales to pay for humanitarian goods.
The governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt also did a brisk illicit oil trade with Iraq — more than $8 billion from 1991 until 2003, the report said: "These governments were full parties to all aspects of Iraq's unauthorized oil exports and imports.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
Many Helped Iraq Evade U.N. Sanctions On Weapons
Fri Oct 8, 9:11 AM ET
By Craig Whitlock and Glenn Frankel, Washington Post Foreign Service
BERLIN, Oct. 7 -- As part of its stealth effort to evade U.N. sanctions and rebuild its military, the Iraqi government under President Saddam Hussein found that it had no shortage of people around the world who were willing to help. Among them: a French arms dealer known only as "Mr. Claude," who made a surreptitious visit to Iraq four years ago to provide technical expertise and training.
Mr. Claude worked for Lura, a French company that sold tank carriers to Iraq, according to documents recovered by the top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq. The mysterious Frenchman may have also helped the Iraqis attempt to acquire military-related radar and microwave technology, despite a U.N. ban on such trade with Iraq since the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Other French military contractors came to Baghdad with offers to supply the Iraqi government with helicopters, spare parts for fighter aircraft and air defense systems after 1998, when U.N. weapons inspectors withdrew under pressure, according to a report issued this week by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector. The report cites evidence that contacts between the French suppliers and Hussein's government continued until last year, less than one month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
While not denying that the transfers took place, a spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry, Herve Ladsous, said the accusations "were not verified either with the people themselves or with the authorities of the countries concerned," according to the Associated Press.
The French were hardly alone in helping Hussein to reinvigorate his military forces during the 12 years that Iraq was under strict U.N. sanctions. Arm dealers and military suppliers from the former Eastern Bloc -- Russia, Poland, Romania, Belarus and Ukraine -- provided critical assistance to Iraq as it tried to build a long-range missile program and other systems that weapons inspectors feared could have been used someday to launch chemical, biological or even nuclear attacks.
"It was well known within the U.S. government that individuals and companies were selling Iraq various kinds of prohibited items," said Gary Samore, a nonproliferation specialist in the Clinton administration who now works as an analyst for the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
While the United States sought to shut down suppliers through diplomatic and other means, Samore said, it was common knowledge that Iraq was able to bypass sanctions by buying in small quantities and paying high prices, using a network of front companies in Jordan, Syria and other countries in the Middle East.
"The world is awash in conventional arms, and every time there's been an arms embargo on a country they've been able to circumvent it," he said. "It's much more difficult to buy more exotic technologies like nuclear weapons, but there are so many private dealers and corrupt state entities, especially in the former Soviet Union. The best you can do is slow down sales, obstruct them or make it more expensive."
Numerous other nations bought and sold on the Iraqi military shopping network, including such dictatorships as North Korea (news - web sites) and the former Yugoslavia before the downfall of President Slobodan Milosevic. While some of the countries were politically friendly with or sympathetic to Iraq, the biggest motivation was usually money, according to Duelfer's report to the CIA.
"As long as the regime had enough cash to pay for these items, it really wouldn't have been too much of a problem to obtain these things and smuggle them in," said Jeremy Binnie, Middle East editor for Jane's Sentinel Security Assessments, a London-based magazine. "It just takes people with enough money and the ability to find the right contacts to get their hands on this stuff."
The Iraqi pipeline extended to four countries -- Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and Ukraine -- that later sent troops to Iraq to join the U.S.-led military coalition.
In Poland, Iraqi intelligence officers helped set up a front company called Ewex, which obtained engines and guidance components for surface-to-air missiles from Polish scrap dealers and middlemen who scoured military surplus stockpiles for the parts, the report said.
U.S. inspectors estimated that Iraq bought about 280 engines from Poland from 2001 to 2003 with the intent of using them to equip a new missile that violated U.N. range limits. The engines had been removed from Polish missiles decommissioned after the Cold War.
Polish authorities arrested some Ewex executives in 2003 on charges of making illegal arms deliveries to Iraq. Purchasing documents confiscated later showed that many of the engines were funneled through Syria.
In Bulgaria, a firm called the JEFF Co. exported more than $7 million worth of warheads, missiles and launcher units to Baghdad in 2002 in violation of U.N. sanctions, the report found. Other Bulgarian traders sold chemicals and machine tools to Iraq that could be used for civilian purposes but were really intended for missile components and other military purposes.
In Romania, Iraqi intelligence agents used diplomatic pouches to send photos of tanks and other military equipment available for sale in that nation back to Baghdad. Although weapons inspectors said it was unclear how much equipment was purchased by the Iraqi government, they did uncover documents after the war showing that a Romanian firm, Uzinexport SA, signed a contract in October 2001 to sell magnets to Iraq that "could have been suitable" for a uranium enrichment program.
In most cases, U.S. weapons inspectors found no clear evidence that officials in those countries were involved in the arms deals. One exception was Ukraine, where leaders gave their blessing to military sales to Iraq.
The Duelfer report calls Ukraine "one of the countries involved in illicit military-related procurement with Iraq" after the 1991 Gulf War, noting that President Leonid Kuchma personally approved the sale of a $100 million antiaircraft radar system to Iraq via a Jordanian intermediary in 2000. Ukrainian officials have since said the sale was never completed, and weapons inspectors said they had not found any evidence that the radar system was shipped to Iraq.
In 2001, Iraqi intelligence agents also bought five motors from a Ukrainian company as part of a project to develop unmanned spy planes. The motors were shipped to Iraq from Ukraine in diplomatic pouches to avoid the attention of international inspectors, the report said.
A Ukrainian electronics professor whose private firm transferred missile engines and motors to Iraqi companies was rewarded with vouchers and credits for more than 7.5 million barrels of Iraqi oil from 1998 to 2000, the report found. The professor, identified as Yuri Orshansky, made about $1.85 million in profits under the U.N. oil-for-food program, which was designed to generate revenue for the Iraqi people under economic sanctions.
Some of the clearest evidence of government corruption, according to the report, involved Russia, a country that has vast storehouses of military technology.
Although the Russian government has denied past accusations that it played a role in supplying arms and military equipment to Hussein's government, U.S. weapons inspectors reported finding "a significant amount of captured documentation showing contracts between Iraq and Russian companies."
In one case, a Russian general, Anatoly Makros, formed a joint company with Iraqi partners in 1998 "just to handle the large volume of Russian business," according to the report, which also cited a former Iraqi diplomat as saying that Russian customs officials ignored the illegal commerce in exchange for bribes.
Trade with Russia was so brisk that Iraqi Embassy officials smuggled military supplies on weekly charter flights from Moscow to Baghdad, according to the former Iraqi diplomat, who was not named in the report. The equipment included radar jammers, night-vision goggles and small missile components.
One Russian company signed contracts valued at about $20 million to provide material for Iraq's missile systems. Another Russian firm, Uliss, negotiated a deal to support a tank project dubbed "Saddam the Lion," according to the report.
Frankel reported from London.
Fri Oct 8, 9:11 AM ET
By Craig Whitlock and Glenn Frankel, Washington Post Foreign Service
BERLIN, Oct. 7 -- As part of its stealth effort to evade U.N. sanctions and rebuild its military, the Iraqi government under President Saddam Hussein found that it had no shortage of people around the world who were willing to help. Among them: a French arms dealer known only as "Mr. Claude," who made a surreptitious visit to Iraq four years ago to provide technical expertise and training.
Mr. Claude worked for Lura, a French company that sold tank carriers to Iraq, according to documents recovered by the top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq. The mysterious Frenchman may have also helped the Iraqis attempt to acquire military-related radar and microwave technology, despite a U.N. ban on such trade with Iraq since the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Other French military contractors came to Baghdad with offers to supply the Iraqi government with helicopters, spare parts for fighter aircraft and air defense systems after 1998, when U.N. weapons inspectors withdrew under pressure, according to a report issued this week by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector. The report cites evidence that contacts between the French suppliers and Hussein's government continued until last year, less than one month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
While not denying that the transfers took place, a spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry, Herve Ladsous, said the accusations "were not verified either with the people themselves or with the authorities of the countries concerned," according to the Associated Press.
The French were hardly alone in helping Hussein to reinvigorate his military forces during the 12 years that Iraq was under strict U.N. sanctions. Arm dealers and military suppliers from the former Eastern Bloc -- Russia, Poland, Romania, Belarus and Ukraine -- provided critical assistance to Iraq as it tried to build a long-range missile program and other systems that weapons inspectors feared could have been used someday to launch chemical, biological or even nuclear attacks.
"It was well known within the U.S. government that individuals and companies were selling Iraq various kinds of prohibited items," said Gary Samore, a nonproliferation specialist in the Clinton administration who now works as an analyst for the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
While the United States sought to shut down suppliers through diplomatic and other means, Samore said, it was common knowledge that Iraq was able to bypass sanctions by buying in small quantities and paying high prices, using a network of front companies in Jordan, Syria and other countries in the Middle East.
"The world is awash in conventional arms, and every time there's been an arms embargo on a country they've been able to circumvent it," he said. "It's much more difficult to buy more exotic technologies like nuclear weapons, but there are so many private dealers and corrupt state entities, especially in the former Soviet Union. The best you can do is slow down sales, obstruct them or make it more expensive."
Numerous other nations bought and sold on the Iraqi military shopping network, including such dictatorships as North Korea (news - web sites) and the former Yugoslavia before the downfall of President Slobodan Milosevic. While some of the countries were politically friendly with or sympathetic to Iraq, the biggest motivation was usually money, according to Duelfer's report to the CIA.
"As long as the regime had enough cash to pay for these items, it really wouldn't have been too much of a problem to obtain these things and smuggle them in," said Jeremy Binnie, Middle East editor for Jane's Sentinel Security Assessments, a London-based magazine. "It just takes people with enough money and the ability to find the right contacts to get their hands on this stuff."
The Iraqi pipeline extended to four countries -- Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and Ukraine -- that later sent troops to Iraq to join the U.S.-led military coalition.
In Poland, Iraqi intelligence officers helped set up a front company called Ewex, which obtained engines and guidance components for surface-to-air missiles from Polish scrap dealers and middlemen who scoured military surplus stockpiles for the parts, the report said.
U.S. inspectors estimated that Iraq bought about 280 engines from Poland from 2001 to 2003 with the intent of using them to equip a new missile that violated U.N. range limits. The engines had been removed from Polish missiles decommissioned after the Cold War.
Polish authorities arrested some Ewex executives in 2003 on charges of making illegal arms deliveries to Iraq. Purchasing documents confiscated later showed that many of the engines were funneled through Syria.
In Bulgaria, a firm called the JEFF Co. exported more than $7 million worth of warheads, missiles and launcher units to Baghdad in 2002 in violation of U.N. sanctions, the report found. Other Bulgarian traders sold chemicals and machine tools to Iraq that could be used for civilian purposes but were really intended for missile components and other military purposes.
In Romania, Iraqi intelligence agents used diplomatic pouches to send photos of tanks and other military equipment available for sale in that nation back to Baghdad. Although weapons inspectors said it was unclear how much equipment was purchased by the Iraqi government, they did uncover documents after the war showing that a Romanian firm, Uzinexport SA, signed a contract in October 2001 to sell magnets to Iraq that "could have been suitable" for a uranium enrichment program.
In most cases, U.S. weapons inspectors found no clear evidence that officials in those countries were involved in the arms deals. One exception was Ukraine, where leaders gave their blessing to military sales to Iraq.
The Duelfer report calls Ukraine "one of the countries involved in illicit military-related procurement with Iraq" after the 1991 Gulf War, noting that President Leonid Kuchma personally approved the sale of a $100 million antiaircraft radar system to Iraq via a Jordanian intermediary in 2000. Ukrainian officials have since said the sale was never completed, and weapons inspectors said they had not found any evidence that the radar system was shipped to Iraq.
In 2001, Iraqi intelligence agents also bought five motors from a Ukrainian company as part of a project to develop unmanned spy planes. The motors were shipped to Iraq from Ukraine in diplomatic pouches to avoid the attention of international inspectors, the report said.
A Ukrainian electronics professor whose private firm transferred missile engines and motors to Iraqi companies was rewarded with vouchers and credits for more than 7.5 million barrels of Iraqi oil from 1998 to 2000, the report found. The professor, identified as Yuri Orshansky, made about $1.85 million in profits under the U.N. oil-for-food program, which was designed to generate revenue for the Iraqi people under economic sanctions.
Some of the clearest evidence of government corruption, according to the report, involved Russia, a country that has vast storehouses of military technology.
Although the Russian government has denied past accusations that it played a role in supplying arms and military equipment to Hussein's government, U.S. weapons inspectors reported finding "a significant amount of captured documentation showing contracts between Iraq and Russian companies."
In one case, a Russian general, Anatoly Makros, formed a joint company with Iraqi partners in 1998 "just to handle the large volume of Russian business," according to the report, which also cited a former Iraqi diplomat as saying that Russian customs officials ignored the illegal commerce in exchange for bribes.
Trade with Russia was so brisk that Iraqi Embassy officials smuggled military supplies on weekly charter flights from Moscow to Baghdad, according to the former Iraqi diplomat, who was not named in the report. The equipment included radar jammers, night-vision goggles and small missile components.
One Russian company signed contracts valued at about $20 million to provide material for Iraq's missile systems. Another Russian firm, Uliss, negotiated a deal to support a tank project dubbed "Saddam the Lion," according to the report.
Frankel reported from London.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
DISSIMULATION REIGNS
by Wm F Buckley Jr
Attention focuses on what exactly went through the minds of the major players on the scene. When John Kerry voted to authorize military action by the president, did he expect such action to be taken? If he expected something else, what was it? A supererogatory resolution by the Security Council? If so, why did he not stress the need for it at the time?
As for George Bush, when he and Dick Cheney declaimed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, do we think he really believed this? If not, he went to extraordinary pains to behave as though he did believe it, which included going to war, of course. And before that, supporting detachments of U.N. inspectors who prodded about that huge country looking for WMD until they were kicked out by Saddam Hussein. These inspectors were succeeded, at war's end, by U.S. military investigators who reported every day on what they found, which was mostly nothing.
What is most interesting is the question: What on earth was going on in the mind of Saddam Hussein? A man who builds himself 100 palaces has a high investment in longevity. But here was this autocrat in Baghdad teasing into combat the United States, which is the most formidable military power in the world. What was going through his mind? He had had a keen experience of U.S. military power only 12 years before. What was the Republican Guard supposed to come up with that would repel the invader? Weapons of mass destruction?
That is what was feared by the United States. Perhaps not nuclear weapons -- these were thought to be inoperative, ever since Israel struck Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. The talk was of chemical weapons and biological weapons. But not only were such weapons not deployed, the inspection team headed by Charles Duelfer reports that they were not extant. So what, one repeats, was Saddam Hussein counting on that would permit him an uninterrupted lifetime in his palaces?
We have learned through Duelfer that Saddam Hussein was a super-confident scofflaw, perhaps the richest in history. Iraq's oil production had been between 3 million and 3.5 million barrels per day. When the trading ban was activated, in 1990, oil sales were cut off. But quickly there was a hue and cry that the primary victims of the embargo were Iraqi civilians. Along came the oil-for-food program, which allowed the sale of 2.1 million barrels per day of Iraqi oil as a means of generating income to feed those civilians.
We are talking about a great deal of money. Two-plus million barrels per day yields 766 million barrels per year. If the oil was fetching a measly $15 per barrel, we are talking about $11.5 billion. We know now that a great scandal was born. We don't yet know how many profiteers were on the scene, but there is reason to guess that they were numerous, and that some of them were highly stationed and might at this moment be wearing red wigs and dark glasses to disguise themselves.
But Saddam surely knew who they were. His attitude toward the embargo was lordly in its arrogance. He reassured military leaders at a meeting in January 2000 that he would have no trouble at all getting the materiel he wanted: "We have said with certainty that the embargo will not be lifted by a Security Council resolution, but will corrode by itself."
Was he ever right on that point. The Duelfer report is extremely informative in tracking down foreign agencies that violated the embargo and shipped sophisticated military equipment to Saddam. It quotes an Iraqi memo stating that the deputy general manager of the French company Sofema, a military component marketer, would be bringing to Baghdad a company catalog so that Iraqi officials could "discuss your needs with him."
The principal suppliers were North Korea and Belarus. But here is a handy list of nations whose arms producers, scorning the United Nations, trafficked with Saddam Hussein: Jordan, China, India, South Korea, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Cyprus, Egypt, Lebanon, Georgia, Poland, Romania, Taiwan, Italy and Turkey. Oh yes, and there were two U.S. citizens doing a little business with Baghdad. They were Shakir al-Khafaji and Samir Vincent.
So we have an odd coincidence. The coalition powers, led by the United States, believe that Saddam has weapons sufficient to repel the U.S. and to threaten other nations. Saddam thinks the very same thing. The U.S. acts on its assumption (it invades), and Saddam acts on the same assumption (he does nothing to abort war).
And a lot of countries whose merchants violated the U.N. embargo are angry with the United States for proceeding to war against a country whose threat against others could only have been realized by successful defiance of the U.N. embargo.
COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
by Wm F Buckley Jr
Attention focuses on what exactly went through the minds of the major players on the scene. When John Kerry voted to authorize military action by the president, did he expect such action to be taken? If he expected something else, what was it? A supererogatory resolution by the Security Council? If so, why did he not stress the need for it at the time?
As for George Bush, when he and Dick Cheney declaimed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, do we think he really believed this? If not, he went to extraordinary pains to behave as though he did believe it, which included going to war, of course. And before that, supporting detachments of U.N. inspectors who prodded about that huge country looking for WMD until they were kicked out by Saddam Hussein. These inspectors were succeeded, at war's end, by U.S. military investigators who reported every day on what they found, which was mostly nothing.
What is most interesting is the question: What on earth was going on in the mind of Saddam Hussein? A man who builds himself 100 palaces has a high investment in longevity. But here was this autocrat in Baghdad teasing into combat the United States, which is the most formidable military power in the world. What was going through his mind? He had had a keen experience of U.S. military power only 12 years before. What was the Republican Guard supposed to come up with that would repel the invader? Weapons of mass destruction?
That is what was feared by the United States. Perhaps not nuclear weapons -- these were thought to be inoperative, ever since Israel struck Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. The talk was of chemical weapons and biological weapons. But not only were such weapons not deployed, the inspection team headed by Charles Duelfer reports that they were not extant. So what, one repeats, was Saddam Hussein counting on that would permit him an uninterrupted lifetime in his palaces?
We have learned through Duelfer that Saddam Hussein was a super-confident scofflaw, perhaps the richest in history. Iraq's oil production had been between 3 million and 3.5 million barrels per day. When the trading ban was activated, in 1990, oil sales were cut off. But quickly there was a hue and cry that the primary victims of the embargo were Iraqi civilians. Along came the oil-for-food program, which allowed the sale of 2.1 million barrels per day of Iraqi oil as a means of generating income to feed those civilians.
We are talking about a great deal of money. Two-plus million barrels per day yields 766 million barrels per year. If the oil was fetching a measly $15 per barrel, we are talking about $11.5 billion. We know now that a great scandal was born. We don't yet know how many profiteers were on the scene, but there is reason to guess that they were numerous, and that some of them were highly stationed and might at this moment be wearing red wigs and dark glasses to disguise themselves.
But Saddam surely knew who they were. His attitude toward the embargo was lordly in its arrogance. He reassured military leaders at a meeting in January 2000 that he would have no trouble at all getting the materiel he wanted: "We have said with certainty that the embargo will not be lifted by a Security Council resolution, but will corrode by itself."
Was he ever right on that point. The Duelfer report is extremely informative in tracking down foreign agencies that violated the embargo and shipped sophisticated military equipment to Saddam. It quotes an Iraqi memo stating that the deputy general manager of the French company Sofema, a military component marketer, would be bringing to Baghdad a company catalog so that Iraqi officials could "discuss your needs with him."
The principal suppliers were North Korea and Belarus. But here is a handy list of nations whose arms producers, scorning the United Nations, trafficked with Saddam Hussein: Jordan, China, India, South Korea, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Cyprus, Egypt, Lebanon, Georgia, Poland, Romania, Taiwan, Italy and Turkey. Oh yes, and there were two U.S. citizens doing a little business with Baghdad. They were Shakir al-Khafaji and Samir Vincent.
So we have an odd coincidence. The coalition powers, led by the United States, believe that Saddam has weapons sufficient to repel the U.S. and to threaten other nations. Saddam thinks the very same thing. The U.S. acts on its assumption (it invades), and Saddam acts on the same assumption (he does nothing to abort war).
And a lot of countries whose merchants violated the U.N. embargo are angry with the United States for proceeding to war against a country whose threat against others could only have been realized by successful defiance of the U.N. embargo.
COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
-
Rabbi Dali Rick
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:28 am
- Location: Red Rock City, California
- Contact:
..................FEAR ME!!! I AM THE PRESIDENT.......
"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country."
- George W. Bush
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
- George W. Bush
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is
'to be prepared'."
- George W. Bush
"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."
- George W. Bush
"The future will be better tomorrow"
- George W. Bush
"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."
- George W. Bush
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
- George W. Bush
"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment
to Europe. We are a part of Europe."
- George W. Bush
"Public speaking is very easy."
- George W. Bush
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
- George W. Bush
"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
- George W. Bush
"For NASA, space is still a high priority"
- George W. Bush
"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."
- George W. Bush
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air
and water that are doing it."
- George W. Bush
"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."
- George W. Bush
perkyly,
the rebbi
-
Rian Jackson
- Posts: 3903
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:30 pm
- Location: In Rob's Head
Fuck, yanni, Fuck.
People are now literally starving in Gaza. Red Cross can't get in, the 'humanitarian' route is so bad. Even after getting green lights from Israeli officials they're being shot at and the Red Crescent ambulances are being shelled. People are drinking toilet water to survive. No electricity, no water, no food, no new medical supplies, and over 110 dead already; 316 injuries and counting. over a third of those are kids. and of course, anyone who wants to leave to safety CAN'T because the area is completely closed off. you're fucked if you live in Jabaliya, once 'cause you're a Palestinian, twice 'cause you're a refugee, three times since you live in gaza, and once again for dwelling in Jabaliya.
Yet another girl shot in her desk at school, emergency surgery might have saved her. we can hope.
And, of course, under scrutiny the Israeli officials have backed off from their claims of a missile loaded into a UN ambulance (i saw the stills, it looked suspiciously like a stretcher) which is great pretext for kicking the UN out.
UN is talking about a humanitarian crisis, and NOBODY GIVES A DAMN!!!
what the fuck, man. what. the. fuck.
People are now literally starving in Gaza. Red Cross can't get in, the 'humanitarian' route is so bad. Even after getting green lights from Israeli officials they're being shot at and the Red Crescent ambulances are being shelled. People are drinking toilet water to survive. No electricity, no water, no food, no new medical supplies, and over 110 dead already; 316 injuries and counting. over a third of those are kids. and of course, anyone who wants to leave to safety CAN'T because the area is completely closed off. you're fucked if you live in Jabaliya, once 'cause you're a Palestinian, twice 'cause you're a refugee, three times since you live in gaza, and once again for dwelling in Jabaliya.
Yet another girl shot in her desk at school, emergency surgery might have saved her. we can hope.
And, of course, under scrutiny the Israeli officials have backed off from their claims of a missile loaded into a UN ambulance (i saw the stills, it looked suspiciously like a stretcher) which is great pretext for kicking the UN out.
UN is talking about a humanitarian crisis, and NOBODY GIVES A DAMN!!!
what the fuck, man. what. the. fuck.
surlier than thou
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
