Hannah's Blog

Iraqi Dispatch

Heavy-Handed Raid Backfires, This Time
by Dahr Jamail, The NewStandard
web version:
http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches/archives/000286.html

April 28 (commentary) - The 26 April explosions at a chemical warehouse
being raided by the U.S. military constitute yet another example of
heavy-handed tactics gone awry. US officials say they had reason to believe
the facility was being used to manufacture chemical munitions. Rather than
use other means to investigate, such as better human intelligence or a more
discreet method of entry, the military used its preferred reconnaissance
approach: a cadre of soldiers, armored vehicles and a blowtorch. Troops
stormed their way into the facility, with horrendous consequences.

The US military reports two soldiers died and fifteen were wounded in two
massive explosions that immediately followed troops attempt to access the
building.

When I arrived at the scene, a witness told me, People were jumping and
dancing on the burning Humvees because of the hatred towards the Americans
due to their dealings with Iraqis. People were cheering for Falluja. Images
of the aftermath were broadcast and printed throughout the Western media.

In order for Western observers to understand why the deaths of people
presented to Western audiences as liberators would be cheered by those
supposedly being liberated, the media would need to present the hundreds of
raids that result in Iraqi suffereng. Mondays perfume factory calamity was
certainly not the first time a military raid in occupied Iraq has backfired
on the soldiers carrying it out.

But botched raids typically go unnoticed by the international media because
officials are loathe to point them out and reporters rarely follow the
numerous leads that circulate around Baghdad and beyond.

Earlier in this month, for instance, the Army conducted an early morning
raid searching for weapons in the Abu Hanifa Mosque in a Sunni neighborhood
of Baghdad. The fruits for crashing through two gates with tanks, for
driving a Humvee over and destroying three tons of food-aid stockpiled for
Falluja, for holding 210 people inside the mosque at gunpoint, for smashing
through classroom doors and for shooting up walls and ceilings? Not one
bullet. The raid wasn't entirely without results for occupation forces,
though. The U.S. military gained even more resentment, distrust and rage
from the Iraqis in Baghdad.

Troops conduct home raids throughout Iraq on a daily basis. At times these
do produce weapons, and sometimes even a person engaged in the increasingly
popular resistance to the US-UK occupation. However, a great number of them
yield nothing but anguish.

In one case I reported on last winter, a late night raid on a house found
soldiers breaking the door to the home of two Baghdad University professors,
even though they were offered free access. The home was destroyed, furniture
broken and torn apart, bags of rice dumped on the kitchen floor, and the
husband and son detained.

The next day soldiers revisited the home, I was told, excusing themselves
for having had poor information. The husband and son remain in detention,
whereabouts unknown to the family.

The raid on 26 April erupted into more than the two explosions reported by
eyewitnesses. The warehouse incident is symbolic of so many raids the
occupation forces have conducted. One witness told me he saw the warehouses
owner offer a key to the soldiers before they entered, but they refused it,
preferring instead to force their way in.

Stories such as this abound on the Iraqi street. More often than not, they
end in dead, beaten or detained Iraqis and personal property stolen by
soldiers.

This time, because it ended in American deaths, the raid received at least
some mention in the Western press.

When human rights organizations estimate that at least half of the 13,000
detainees in the horrid, overflowing Abu Ghraib prison had no affiliation
with the armed resistance prior to being arrested by occupation forces, one
can imagine how they, their families and friends now view the Anglo-American
occupation of their country.

----------------------------------------------
Dahr Jamail is Baghdad correspondent for The NewStandard. He is an Alaskan devoted to covering the untold stories from occupied Iraq. You can help Dahr continue his crucial work in Iraq by making donations. For more information or to donate to Dahr, visit http://newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches .

==============================================
The Iraq Dispatches list exists to keep readers of The NewStandard updated on reports by Baghdad correspondent Dahr Jamail. To manage subscriptions, or for more information and an archive of Dahr's writings and photographs:
http://newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches

To contribute to The NewStandard and support Dahr Jamail's crucial work in Iraq, go to:
https:/secure.peoplesnetworks.net/estore/?action=show_donation_registration

The above message is Copyright 2004 Dahr Jamail and The NewStandard. Reprinting for commercial purposes is restricted. Permission is readily granted for nonprofit, noncommercial purposes as long as (1) adequate credit is provided in the byline (author and source), (2) a link back to http://newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches is prominently posted along with the text and (3) the journalist's bio at the end of the text is kept in tact. For commercial/for-profit usage, express, written permission is required.

March For Women's Lives

EXECUTIVE RUN

Doesn't it seem just a bit peculiar that the executive in charge of our whole nation is comparing his record to that of a man whose history of service is primarily in the legislative arena? Wouldn't it make more sense to point out his accomplishments in the oval office and let the electorate judge that?
Well, of course. But that's just the point isn't it? The current Administration can point to NO successes--just a lot of projects started and a lot of unfinished business. It isn't just the major tax cuts that are scheduled to kick in later, after the next election. There's also that prescription drug program that might or might not get set up in a couple of years, depending on whether there's any money left over from the war in Iraq.
Maybe that's why a comparison with Senator Kerry's record as a law-maker is being trotted out early. Maybe in the later stages of the campaign they'll make the point that, if what's been promised for later is to be accomplished, the Administration needs another term in office.
Maybe they figure that if they can just delay the discussion of the facts long enough, it will be too late to make the case that nothing, other than making a lot of people angry, has been accomplished.
In other words, Senator Kerry's legislative history is just a diversion. But, if we look very closely, we'll see there's another reason the current Administration wants to attack it. Because, you see, it's the legislative directives with which the executive disagrees and which his refusal to carry out has brought us to the point where nothing is getting done.
That's their story, you see. If they were just allowed to do things THEIR way and they didn't have to be bothered with congressional directives, then all the good things that were promised would already be done.
Being a mother, I don't believe it. That excuse reminds me too much of someone who hasn't done his homework because the teacher gave a stupid assignement.

Better Late

From "NewsDesk"
Date Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:44:37 -0500

April 24, 2003 News media contact: Joretta Purdue7(202) 546-87227Washington
10-71B{241}

By United Methodist News Service

A one-page advertisement in The Christian Century magazine, signed by more
than 100 United Methodists, has called on U.S. President George Bush to
"repent" of certain domestic and foreign policies, including the use of
violence in dealing with Iraq.

The ad, titled, "A Prophetic Epistle from United Methodists Calling Our
Brother George W. Bush to Repent," appeared in the magazine's April 5 issue.

The message was written and signed before U.S.-led forces began military
action against Iraq on March 19, explained the Rev. Jennifer Kimball Casto, a
signer and pastor of New Life United Methodist Church in Columbus, Ohio.

"It was our hope that it would be a prophetic word to our nation's leaders to
consider other options - other than going to war," she said. "Unfortunately,
it came out after we had already engaged in war in Iraq."

Casto said she believed the ad's signers share the belief from Scripture that
"we don't overcome evil with more evil, but we overcome evil with good."

The Rev. Eric A. Stone, the chaplain-director of the Wesley Foundation at
Central Michigan University, wrote the document as a petition to his annual
conference. Someone suggested that he make it an ad, "and I felt that a
distinctly United Methodist voice (among the other ads and online petitions)
would be appropriate in challenging one of our own" members. President Bush
is a United Methodist.

"Since we do not excommunicate people in our denomination, I ruminated on
possible ways I might respond to someone who I feel should be held
accountable," Stone said.

He felt that the best step "would be to call brother George to repent," he
explained. His friend, the Rev. Thomas E. Sagendorf, circulated the document
and asked the signers to help pay the cost of running the ad. Sagendorf told
United Methodist News Service that he began circulating the document in the
last week of February, and the ad cost $1,565.

Using the language of religion, the document called Bush "to repent from
domestic and foreign policies that are incompatible with the teaching and
example of Christ."

"It is our judgment that some policies advanced by your administration give
evidence of the spiritual forces of wickedness that exist in our world
today," the ad stated. It called the notion of "pre-emptive violence"
incompatible with Christ and his teaching.

"Violence is not the way of Christ, and yet you threaten the very earth and
all its inhabitants with open discussion of the use of nuclear weapons," the
ad stated. "As Christians we are convinced that weapons of mass destruction
are not justifiable for any leader or nation."

The ad also challenged the president's domestic policy and urged a
Christ-like focus on "justice for the poor and oppressed, not (on) making the
rich richer."

"I wanted this call to repentance to reflect the prophetic role of our
heritage," Stone recalled. "... The one who is ultimately responsible must be
called to turn away - to turn away from the myth of redemptive violence, to
turn away from war without end, to turn away from the idolatry of placing
trust in weapons of mass destruction (and) to turn away from policies that
increase the wealth of the wealthiest while ignoring the needs of the poor
and hungry."

The Rev. Scot H. Ocke, senior pastor at Marysville (Ohio) First United
Methodist Church and a member of the board of the Evangelical Fellowship of
West Ohio, disagreed with the ad's message. "The United Methodist Church has
had a longstanding opposition to slavery, injustice and terrorism. The church
has also declared its support for those in the armed forces.

"President Bush's decision on Iraq has not been quick tempered, but a firm
and measured response to free the innocent people of Iraq from a brutal
regime, economic poverty and to protect neighboring nations from a
historically legitimate threat of weapons of mass destruction," Ocke said.

"The signing and release of the mentioned document does not support the armed
forces called there, or their families, and brings no viable solutions or
hope to the injustices there that have long been ignored by our church under
the disguise of peace and justice," he said.

More than half the people who signed the ad, which was clearly labeled "paid
advertisement" in the magazine, were clergy. The seven bishops were Melvin H.
Wheatley Jr., Judith Craig, Melvin G. Talbert, Joseph H. Yeakel, James S.
Thomas, Jesse R. DeWitt and C. Joseph Sprague.

# # #

*************************************
United Methodist News Service
Photos and stories also available at:
http://umns.umc.org

SILLY WORD POLICE

As you'll notice in the following paragraph, which I posted on the Democracy for America blog yesterday evening, the word vagina had to have some of its letters substituted by askerisks in order for it to be posted.

I do wish you all would stop talking about "allowing abortions." An abortion, whether spontaneous or induced, is a natural event. Not something that can be regulated by laws. The surgical extraction of fetal tissue, whether throught the va***nal opening or by cutting open the abdomen, is another matter.
I don't think it can be disputed that a surgical procedure should be regulated. But, except in cases of gross negligence or malfeasance, it should not be regulated by laws and the jusdicial system.

The blog software is obviously biologically challenged. For, in addition to vagina, it objects to the word "dick," regardless of whether it refers to the VP of the United States or happens to be part of the name, Dickson. Nor does it recognize that the word "bitch" is a perfectly acceptable reference to a female dog.
Of course, in the latter instance, the blog is in good company. Almost every major newpaper in the country excised yesterday's Doonesbury comic because a soldier whose leg had been removed reacted with the exclamation "Son of a bitch."
Why there is so much sensitivity about the word, is not quite clear. But, if I remember correctly it was our former First Lady, Barbara Bush, who established some sort of standard by refusing to use that word about her successor, saying instead that "it rhymes with witch."

Memory Wall

From the New York Times

To the Editor:

While I cannot presume to know how a military family might feel, as a grateful citizen, I find the photos of flag-draped military coffins very moving (news article, April 23). The photos are a sad and terrible reminder of these soldiers' sacrifice.

By seeking to suppress these photos, the Pentagon and the White House are trying to distract Americans from the reality of the war in Iraq. If President Bush truly believes that "we should always honor and show respect" to our fallen soldiers, then he should be greeting these transport planes in person.

RUTH ADKINS
Portland, Ore., April 23, 2004

Doonesbury

Freedom of Information

>>> Since March 2003, a newly-enforced military regulation has forbidden taking or distributing images of caskets or body tubes containing the remains of soldiers who died overseas. [read more]

Immediately after hearing about this, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the following:

All photographs showing caskets (or other devices) containing the remains of US military personnel at Dover AFB. This would include, but not be limited to, caskets arriving, caskets departing, and any funerary rites/rituals being performed. The timeframe for these photos is from 01 February 2003 to the present.

I specified Dover because they process the remains of most, if not all, US military personnel killed overseas. Not surpisingly, my request was completely rejected. Not taking 'no' for an answer, I appealed on several grounds, and—to my amazement—the ruling was reversed. The Air Force then sent me a CD containing 361 photographs of flag-draped coffins and the services welcoming the deceased soldiers.

Score one for freedom of information and the public's right to know.

Military Records

Coffin Scandal

Woman loses her job over coffins photo

By Hal Bernton

Seattle Times staff reporter


TAMI SILICIO
Flag-draped coffins are shown inside a cargo plane April 7 at Kuwait International Airport, in a photograph published Sunday. The photographer said she hoped the image would help families understand the care with which fallen soldiers are returned home.

A Woman's Life

Some background...

For me, labor and delivery support options were in effect limited to
two hospitals, one very small and 5 minutes away, one medium sized and
45+ minutes away. Being a first-timer, I wanted to be attended by a
CNM or an OB, preferably a CNM. A home birth was available but only
with a direct entry or a lay midwife. Only the very small hospital
had a CNM on staff, but she might not be available for my delivery,
and several women I know who delivered there told horrific stories of
their deliveries involving nearly bleeding to death (another woman
did bleed to death!). On the other hand, the OBs involved in those
deliveries had since left the practice. In the end, I chose the CNM
at the small hospital because several more women I know who delivered
at the larger hospital had C-sections due to failure to progress with
posterior babies. These women were grateful to their OBs for saving
them and their babies, but to me their birth stories were tales of
callous torture by indifferent OBs who expected to solve any problem
eventually by C-section. None of the women knew about turning a
posterior baby in utero, and for none of them was a version even
attempted.

My top three fears were: #1 bleeding to death, #2 heavy-handed
medical interventions (particularly epidural or spinal taps, which I
hate) culminating in an unnecessary C-section, and #3 unmanageable
pain. #1 is low probability, even with an indifferent or incompetent
OB. #2 I knew I could mitigate by educating myself, by selecting a
midwife or OB who is not an interventionist, and by refusing unneeded
interventions. #3 was my least concern but took the most time to
research. By far the most helpful source, apart from birth stories
in m.k.p., was Robert Bradley's book "Husband-Coached Childbirth".
Although I think his Bradley Method is mostly a load of crap (and the
patterned breathing of the Lamaze Method even more so), I agreed 100%
with his point that minimizing fear is vastly helpful. I also read
Gray's Anatomy, and studied the illustrations carefully. I concluded
that most of the advice given women about when and how to push the
baby out is another load of crap! The specific muscles that push the
baby out are not under voluntary control, so the most useful thing the
woman can do is *relax*. Relaxing helps both muscles that are under
voluntary control and involuntary muscles (particularly the cervix)
that absolutely must relax to allow the baby to pass.

Now the story begins...

I went to work as usual on Wednesday March 24. My EDD was a week
away, but I had been slowly clearing the decks at work so I had not
much to do apart from the most mentally hard work. For some reason,
hard work was even harder to do than usual: perhaps because of the
almost constant contractions. I had been having very strong, very
long contractions for the past month. They were only occasionally
painful but usually lasted for 10 minutes or more. My uterus was firm
to hard as a rock almost without pause, rarely soft. That night DH
and I attended the last class of our childbirth course, then I went
straight to bed. Just in case my water might break one night in the
coming week, I put a rubberized flannel pad under the sheet beneath
me. Did I have a premonition?

At 11:30 I woke and headed for the bathroom. Normally I sleep through
the night but for most of the pregnancy I had to get up once a night
to pee. This time, though, I felt a new ache low in the right side of
my groin. As I entered the bathroom in the dark I felt a "pop" at the
site of the ache, and fluid gushed out of me. I turned on the light,
imagining I might be bleeding to death (!), but the fluid was clear.
I was not sure what had happened, in part because I was not entirely
awake, but also because I had trouble peeing. I mopped up the worst
of the mess, then went back to bed. There, I said to DH "I think my
water broke". Silence. After a few minutes I said "Did you hear me
say my water broke?" He answered "You said you *thought* your water
broke". More silence. I thought for a few more minutes about what to
do. My midwife (the CNM at the small hospital) had told me to stay
home until the contractions were less than 5 minutes apart but the
childbirth course instructor, a labor/delivery nurse at that hospital,
had told us all repeatedly to go to the hospital immediately if water
breaks. Then I realized I was having a contraction. In fact, it was
*another* contraction, which meant the prior one had been very short!
Just like a regular labor contraction. So, after another long pause
I continued to DH "Well now I am having contractions. I think it is
time to get dressed and go to the hospital." That got a reaction.
We rolled out of bed and I called the OB ward to report my water had
broken and I was having contractions 6-7 minutes apart, so I was
coming in. They said we should take our time. I had made a minimal
list of stuff to pack (books on tape, tape player, snacks, etc.) but
had not actually packed it. So we did that. But I had a peculiar
sense of urgency, so to dress I only put on pants and shoes under my
nightshirt.

The trip to the hospital was very uncomfortable for me! During the 5
minute drive I had 2 or 3 contractions, and they were becoming quite
emphatic. It was nice to have a break after each one. We had been
told that at night we should enter the hospital through the emergency
entrance. DH dropped me off by a sign that said "Emergency" and went
to park. Meanwhile I found no emergency room and no hospital staff,
only an unlocked side door. I went in...into a construction site.
That is a generous interpretation of the scene. Very surreal. Some
men in civilian dress were lounging around chatting; they looked to
me like patrons of a seedy bar. Trash everywhere. Naked lighbulbs.
No staff or other evidence consistent with the place being a hospital.
I found an elevator and took it to the OB floor in the correct
universe. There a nurse showed me to a huge room with a small
hospital bed, and told me to put on a hospital gown and get comfy in
the bed. Hah hah. She left. The bed had two built-in inflatable
cushions that were inflated and would not deflate. It was amazingly
uncomfortable. DH arrived. Time was 00:30 Thursday.

More nurses came and hooked me up to the external monitor machine.
That took a long time as they had trouble getting a steady signal of
the baby's pulse. Baby had been in perfect position, head down and
riding low, for over a month. This, plus my non-stop contractions,
had made it difficult for the midwife to feel the baby or hear a good
pulse on the Doppler, so each weekly check-up involved a very quick
sonogram. I knew without a doubt baby had not moved from position.
Fussing with the monitors, the nurses told me to hold still, which
grew increasingly intolerable. One started to prepare an IV but I
suggested she wait until it was needed, and she stopped. Eventually
I mentioned the fussing was starting to make me anxious and in any
case (ahem) the contractions were now running 2 minutes apart. Then
they asked about my last internal exam; I said I had not had any,
but that for weeks I had been feeling sensations consistent with my
cervix stretching. So a nurse checked and reported it fully effaced
and 6.5 cm dilated. Then there began a big rush to call the midwife
(only nurses were on duty that night; it is a very small hospital)
and bring in equipment carts. About then my contractions became far
more intense, and I started to zone out and ignore almost everything
going on around me.

I realized that if I wanted to wait for the midwife I would have to
resist the urge to push, which was already mounting. I suspect my
knowing this contributed to the pain of the contractions. I held the
headboard of the bed and with each contraction I rocked, pulling and
pushing against the headboard, groaning (which at some point segued
into yelling). That was the only motion I could find to satisfy my
need to move without disturbing the damned external monitor. Soon, I
began also clamping my knees together, to keep from pushing. After
maybe 10 more, increasingly intense contractions, I realized the last
two contractions were milder. I was already in the transition stage!
About then a nurse asked me to rate the maximum contraction pain on
a scale of 1 to 10; I said it was an 8. (For years, I had suffered
excruciating pain during my periods; that pain was my 10.) Although
DH said later that he felt mostly extraneous, he was a big help here,
reminding me to breath, breath slower, relax. I announced I could
not wait much longer and if I opened my knees the baby would shoot
out across the room. The nurses seemed to think that was funny.

Somewhere along in here the midwife arrived, got prepped, and checked
my cervix. Soon she said I could start to push, so I did. I upset
the external monitor so the band monitoring my contractions came off.
Entirely out of character for me, I shed the hospital gown; it was
contributing to the annoying fussing over the fool monitor. The band
monitoring the baby stayed on longer, until the nurses began to fuss
about the baby's pulse dropping below 100 during contractions. One
nurse startled me by putting an oxygen mask over my face. It made me
feel claustrophobic and really broke my concentration. I moved it to
cover just my nose, then the midwife told them to take it away and
also take off the second monitor band. She said the baby's pulse was
dropping due to head compression, perfectly normal.

With the external monitor removed at last, I was free to get up and
squat. They installed a cross bar for me to lean/hang on, and the
midwife and DH rubbed my back too, which felt wonderful. I squatted
until my thighs cramped, then leaned back against the bed (it had been
raised into a chair configuration) while the midwife and one of the
nurses massaged the cramped muscles. Relief! The bed had hand grips
on each side of my hips that I used to hold myself up in the bed. The
inflated cushions in the bed made me feel as if I would slip off if I
did not hold myself up. DH says this stage lasted about half an hour;
I am glad it was not longer because holding my position was tiring. I
wish my position in the bed had been secure enough that I could free
up one hand to feel the baby's head as it emerged, but I am glad I was
able to maintain a good upright, semi-squatting position for the full
time I was permitted to do so.

Baby started to crown and the midwife applied hot wet towels to my
perineum: more relief! Near the end I said I thought I was tearing
but the midwife assured me it only felt that way (but see below). The
tearing sensations were exquisitely painful yet brief, and I knew the
end was very near. In any case, the pain was a productive kind, not
something to be feared. Then baby's head was out, the nurses dropped
the back of the bed, and I laid back while baby finished coming out
and they put him (!) on my chest. Time was just short of 02:00, so
the entire labor and delivery took about 2.5 hours.

DH was beside himself with excitement, and speechless. He held my
hand. I said only "Oh my" and "Yep, a boy." We had asked not to know
the sex but every sonogram gave it away; boys tend to be so obvious.
His color was a deep purple, as expected given the altitude here, but
he was breathing and moving and making faint squeaking noises. (His
Apgar scores were 7 and 9.) A nurse suctioned some goo from his mouth
while I stroked him and felt amazed. DH declined to cut the cord so
I got to do it. I expected it to be rubbery but I was very surprised
that it was transparent! This has led me to reflect for some hours on
the evolutionary history of transparent flesh, which today is mostly
restricted to deep-sea animals and to the early embryo stages of land
animals. Once the cord was cut, nurses put him in a small portable
incubator with oxygen while they cleaned him up a bit and suctioned
him some more. DH thought DS was not breathing and waited anxiously
for him to start crying. DS obliged, a little; he is not a big cry
baby.

The placenta was delivered uneventfully and intact; to me it looked
large and healthy. There was one small "dead" spot, I suspect where
DS had been in the habit of pressing a foot against my ribcage. I
was sore there for the final three months of the pregnancy.

I was ready to go home 12 hours later, but hospital protocol was to
stay 2 nights for observation. Ironically, just after the day shift
ended and the MDs went home, there arrived a flood of women in labor
and suddenly the nurses were eager to have me go home. Too late! And
too bad for me; I wanted to go home early because I could not sleep
in the hospital. I kept DS with me the entire time, which contributed
indirectly to the problem. Between the very uncomfortable bed and
constant disruptions from nurses and others coming in to do routine
temperature and blood pressure checks on me or DS (each check done by
a separate nurse!), orderlies, and DS himself, I was soon exhausted.
If a stranger enters a room where I am sleeping, I *will* wake up. I
asked for a do not disturb order on my chart, but apparently the order
was written as "do nothing", which at least one nurse took to mean "do
not discharge"; most of the nurses continued their routine checks.
Finally, we went home the next morning, after a total of 34 hours in
the hospital.

Looking back...

Full term at birth 38 weeks, 5 days from his probable date of
conception, DS weighed 5 lb 13 oz and was 18 inches long (2.6 kg, 46
cm). He is a little Monkey Boy, very active, with big hands, feet,
and head. Weight and length were at or below 5th percentile, but head
circumference was 25th percentile. Now, at 3 weeks, he is 6 lb 14 oz
and 20 inches (3.1 kg, 51 cm). At birth his nose was badly mashed to
one side, perhaps due to his riding low in my pelvis for weeks. The
nose is gradually becoming straighter, but still has some way to go.

I was surprised to realize after the fact that during the entire labor
and delivery no thoughts of getting pain relief ever crossed my mind.
I didn't even think to ask for an analgesic after the delivery. But
then I was only mildly sore, for only a couple of days. Perhaps this
is because I waited for the contractions and when I felt one building
I allowed it to build. Pushing consisted of nothing more than letting
go to help it along. I would not say that I pushed the baby out; my
body did it and I was mostly an observer in my body.

My perineum did not tear, although there was some swelling and a few
"skid marks". I am glad to have dispensed with the added injury of an
episiotomy. Unfortunately, I did suffer a small internal tear: I have
nerve damage that has caused partial paralysis in my perineum and
urinary stress incontinence that at first was complete. I was shocked
and devastated by this outcome, but the midwife says that significant
incontinence is very common, although it is more common after slower,
more difficult deliveries. The incontinence is slowly getting better,
and now I feel confident of an eventual complete recovery.

Although I had asked a friend, a CNM affiliated with a hospital not
available to me, to be our doula, she lives over an hour away. So,
given the abruptness of my delivery, there was not enough time to call
her. But even though the labor and delivery were easy and I was very
happy with the midwife, a doula would have been helpful for improved
communication with the nurses!

March For Women's Lives

Overtime Pay

One of the things that makes our form of government really unique is that one part, the elected Representatives, sets both the policies and programs that government should carry out, and another part, the executive under the leadership of the President, does the carrying out.
Sometimes, of course, it turns out that what the Representatives want is an impossible task.  Then the executive comes back with recommendations about how the policies and programs ought to be changed in order to make them work.
That's not what the current Administration is about.  Most of the executive's "recommendations" to Congress are the result of disagreements.  That is, the President's men don't think they should do what they've been directed to do.  So, like a teenager who keeps violating his curfew, they are trying to change the rules.
But that's not all.  For some reason, the President's men don't like the rules that apply to other people either, especially when they protect the interests of the ordinary working man and woman.  Which is why they now want to deny millions of wage-earners of the opportunity to get paid over-time when they put in more hours a week than the usual forty.  It isn't enough that their corporate friends already save by paying their experienced workers time and a half, instead of hiring someone new to double the labor cost.
Maybe the idea behind this proposal is the assumption that, if people don't get paid, they won't work.  But I think it's more likely an effort to squeeze more out of workers at a time when the possibility of getting laid off is very real.  In any case, the executive's interference in labor relations smacks of relying on a new threat to distract people from its own miserable performance.

Disappearing Rights

Hi all
Are you an enemy combatant?
On April 20 and 28 the Supreme Court will hold hearings to determine if
the prez can decide your fate at his whim.
http://www.nlg.org/eccases/

Can the Rights of People Simply Disappear by Presidential Order?

>What does it mean when the President of the United States can on his own
> >designate a citizen in the U.S. as an "?enemy combatant," and order the
> >military to hold that person incommunicado, indefinitely, and without
> >charges? The U.S. Supreme Court is now deciding whether the courts even
> >have the right to question the President's action.
> >
> >What does it mean when the U.S. military internationally can literally
> >snatch people off the street, designate them as "enemy combatants," and
> >assert that they are beyond the reach of either U.S. or international
> >law? Many are transported to a facility under total U.S. control and
> >funded by Congressional appropriations, where they are held
> >incommunicado, indefinitely, without charges and some are threatened with
> >trials before a military commission that falls short of basic standards
> >of justice.
> >If the Supreme Court upholds these actions, it will condone the
> >President's claim of virtually unlimited "wartime powers" without a
> >formal declaration of war by the Congress, and with no or extremely
> >limited oversight by the courts or the Congress.
> >
> >On April 20 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the
> >President's alleged right to create a "law free zone" at the Guantanamo
> >detention center in Cuba. And on April 28, the Court will hear oral
> >arguments on the President's asserted right to designate citizens as
> >"enemy combatants," hold them at the U.S. Navy base in Charleston, SC,
> >and deny them the ability to challenge the lawfulness of their detention.
> >
> >We believe that the President cannot be allowed to create a "legal Black
> >Hole" into which people are dropped with no recourse to the courts or to
> >international law. Among us we hold many varied views on how and why this
> >situation has arisen and what is ultimately needed to ensure justice. But
> >we all agree that this dangerous new presidentially-designated category
> >of "enemy combatants" who have no legal rights is unjust, illegal, and
> >immoral, and cannot be allowed to stand.
> >
> >The silence over this perilous issue must be broken, and public
> >opposition must be manifested. Join us in front of the U.S. Supreme Court
> >on April 20 and April 28 to declare a resounding NO! Legally permitted,
> >non-violent demonstrations will occur on both days from 9:30 am to 12:30
> >pm with a program of speakers beginning at 11:am.
> >
> >Our future and the future of hundreds of anonymous detainees now hang in
> >the balance. This is a watershed event in history. What is at stake is
> >just how much the President will be allowed to get away with. Your
> >silence will be taken as assent.
> >

Some DFA blog people

Oscar

Sitka

Page

Witness Iraq

Chaos at Fallujah
A Christian pacifist describes the sights and sounds of Iraq at war.

by Le Anne Clausen


Last year, Beliefnet featured dispatches from pacifist Christians, members of Christian Peacemaker Teams, who went to Baghdad to act as human shields during the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A year later, many of those CPT members are still there, and new ones have arrived. They still send email dispatches to friends around the world. Here is the latest, filed during the uprising in Fallujah.

April 12, 2004

Colleagues of Christian Peacemaker Teams, who returned Sunday from an overnight humanitarian mission to Fallujah, report that U.S. Marine snipers are firing at everyone moving. Six international and six Iraqi peace volunteers entered the city on April 10 in a bus loaded with medical supplies from agencies in Baghdad. The city had been under siege for six days.

Hospital workers report 518 Iraqis killed by U.S. fire as of Sunday, including at least 157 women and 146 children. Of the children, one hundred are under age 12 and of those, 46 are under age five. More than 1,200 have been wounded.

U.S. forces bombed and destroyed the main hospital in Fallujah earlier this week. Medical staff opened a makeshift clinic in an area garage, but the volunteers report there are no sanitary facilities there in which to work. Aid is getting through, but the clinic needs more supplies, such as blood donation and testing kits, tracheotomy kits, and Cesarean section tools. There are neither anesthesia nor blankets in the medical center.

Exhausted doctors struggled to respond to the constant streams of wounded. The volunteers saw several older women and two children arrive with numerous gunshot wounds. The two children died. The volunteers saw one man who was burned from head to foot, and another who was bleeding from several wounds. The men reported being injured by a cluster bomb.

One of the volunteers accompanied an ambulance crew to pick up a woman who was going into premature labor. On the way, U.S. snipers began firing at the ambulance. The ambulance turned off its sirens, then its lights, but the soldiers continued firing. The ambulance began backing away from the soldiers, but they continued firing and blew out the vehicle?s tire. The crew escaped without injury, but they were unable to reach the woman.

Elsewhere in Fallujah, Marines granted the volunteers permission to evacuate wounded persons, women, children, and the elderly from houses. An officer added, ?We?re going to begin ?clearing? the houses shortly.? When the volunteers pressed for details, the officer explained that they would go from house to house to pick up any men of fighting age and any weapons. They described men of fighting age as ?anyone under 45.? Jo Wilding, one of the volunteers, later said, ?not all men are armed and not all want to fight. Still, they are trapped.?

The volunteers also retrieved bodies of Iraqis killed. One body of an unarmed man lying face-down in the road had only a small bullet entry hole in his back, but massive abdominal ?exit? wounds, indicative of high-velocity bullets. When the volunteers turned the body over to reveal the wound, children in the nearest house began screaming and crying ?Baba! Baba! (Daddy! Daddy!)? The volunteers loaded the body into a pickup truck and evacuated the wife and children. The family said their father had just stepped out of house when he was shot. The family had no way to reach the body in the street before the volunteers secured permission from the Marines.

The volunteer team recovered two additional bodies lying near a U.S. checkpoint, but abandoned a completely burnt third body, due to outbursts of gunfire and the Marines' return fire. ?We don?t know if that is friendly or hostile fire, so we have to respond,? the soldiers said.

On Sunday, the volunteers returned to Baghdad with 14 wounded people. As they passed the checkpoint out of Fallujah, they saw long lines of people waiting to flee. The volunteers hope to return, although deteriorating conditions within the city may prevent them from carrying out further work.

?This was a massacre,? said Wilding, ?and it will get worse.?

Iraq Report

Iraqi Health Minister Presses Authorities to Explain U.S. Targeting of
Falluja Ambulances
weblog entry by Dahr Jamail, The NewStandard

Baghdad, April 17 -- A thundering explosion rocked my bed at just before 8am
this morning ... followed by the cracking of light weapons fire. I met a few
of my friends shortly thereafter atop our apartment building, looking for
the smoke that often follows roadside bombs, but we were unable to spot the
location of the attack.

Life in Baghdad today continues to be lived on edge -- pins and needles
really -- awaiting the outcome of the Najaf standoff between U.S. troops and
Muqtada Al-Sadr. Everyone shudders to think what will occur if the U.S.
decides to invade the holy city where the radical Shia cleric is holed up.

Yet the U.S. policy of threatening him, then announcing the goal of
detaining or killing him has drawn more followers towards his radical and
violent ways. While Al-Sistani continues to attempt to keep his followers in
line, more are drawn to Al-Sadr for his open vehement thrashing of the
U.S.-led occupation. He refuses to acknowledge any legitimacy of the U.S. in
his country, and more and more Iraqis are nodding in agreement with his
speeches.

The danger, of course, lies in having Sistani and his followers drawn into
this conflict between Sadr and the U.S. military here.

I attended a press conference today at the Ministry of Health, led by the
Iraqi Minister of Health himself. In short, he held the press conference to
stave off criticism of not doing enough to assist (medically) the besieged
and suffering residents of Falluja, as well as some of the areas down south
where fighting has occurred.

Al-Iraqia television, the Coalition Provisional Authority-run propaganda
station that most of my Iraqi friends call the "CIA Station", was at the
press conference. They packed up and left promptly after the minister and
his two doctors finished their discussion, entirely missing the pointed
questions that were to follow.

A stunning surprise, however, was that the minister acknowledged the U.S.
military had been intentionally targeting ambulances in Falluja. He
expressed his outrage over the matter, and stated that he had personally
pressed the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) and Bremer for explanations about
why these human rights violations, as well as violations of the Geneva
Conventions, are occurring.

He said that the U.S. military had accused mujahedeen in Falluja of using
ambulances for fighting, and that is why Marines were firing on them.
Perhaps there is some truth in this, but at the same time, ambulances that
were being used legitimately are being targeted as well, and innocents are
dying. My personal friends Jo Wilding and David Martinez were riding in one
of these that received 5 sniper rounds through it. I can vouch that they are
not mujahedeen.

The minister said that he tried to negotiate with the military, promising to
try to insure that ambulances were cleared, and not being used by the
mujahedeen.

I asked the minister if he would comment on the U.S. military using cluster
bombs in Falluja. When I was in Falluja last weekend I took several
statements from citizens there that said cluster bombs were being used on
civilians (that they are being used at all in Falluja is a war crime), and
when my friends Jo and David returned there several days ago, they reported
hearing the distinctive sound cluster bombs make often through the night in
Falluja.

I too have heard the horrendous sound, for during my last trip in Iraq when
Al-Dora was being bombed on a nightly basis for a few nights, I heard the
other worldly sound--a long buzz which sounds almost like a roar, then an
explosion, another buzz, followed by several random explosions going off
(these would be the "bomblets"). It's really difficult to describe with
words, as I've never heard anything quite like it. A gruesome sound, knowing
that on the other end of it is found shredded and burning bodies.

A doctor sitting n

Iraq = 51 st State?

I currently have two cameramen/reporters doing
work for me in Iraq for my movie (unbeknownst to
the Army). They are talking to soldiers and
gathering the true sentiment about what is really
going on. They Fed Ex the footage back to me each
week. That's right, Fed Ex. Who said we haven't
brought freedom to Iraq! The funniest story my
guys tell me is how when they fly into Baghdad,
they don't have to show a passport or go through
immigration. Why not? Because they have not
traveled from a foreign country -- they're coming
from America TO America, a place that is ours, a
new American territory called Iraq.

Iraq News

A Threatening Leaflet, a Threatening Mr. Bush
weblog entry by Dahr Jamail, The NewStandard
web version:
http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches/archives/000190.html

Baghdad, April 15 -- Save us from the horrendous rumor mill of Baghdad.
Yesterday we heard a good one: that the Mehdi militia is spreading leaflets
around sections of Baghdad instructing people to inform them of any
westerners residing in their area.

Almost everyone I know, including most of the NGOs, is leaving now the first
chance they get. I've still been able to work yesterday and today, but when
that becomes impossible, there is no use in my staying here any longer. The
biggest threat is, of course, being kidnapped.

One can work around the fighting -- just stay away from it. But the
randomness of the kidnapping is another story. We are all completely
powerless over that situation.

Fortunately I was able to work some today. Over in Adhamiya we had an
interview with Professor Adnan Mohammed Salman al-Dulainy at the Diwan
Wakfa-Sunni. He is the director of the board in charge of all of the Sunnis
in Iraq, with over 10,000 Imams under his control, who also serve as the
Friday prayer speakers in the mosques.

He has been a teacher for 51 years. His first words to us were, "Our
situation is bad. We are struggling now." He went on to tell us that in the
past few days, three mosques in Baghdad have been attacked by the Americans:
Abu Hanifa, which I reported on yesterday, and two others on Palestine
Street.

He discussed the obviousness of the problems: high unemployment and the
dissolving of the Iraqi Army by Bremer as being two huge problems caused by
the American occupation that need to be resolved promptly if there is to be
any stability here.

He went on to say, "Mr. Bush declared Iraq will be the example of democracy
for the Middle East. What has happened here does not give that impression."

His deep frustration with the fact that so many Sunni Imams have been
killed, as well as many detained by the Americans, is obvious.

Afterwards I was at an internet cafe run by the son of a good friend. Ali
speaks English well, and walked up to me with a leaflet he said had just
been passed to him by a car that was distributing them throughout Baghdad.
It read:

"To our people of Baghdad. Please do not leave your houses. Do not go to
schools, colleges, offices or markets. Close all commercial shops. This is
in effect from April 15-April 23.

Because your brothers of the mujahedeen from Ramadi, Khaldia and Falluja
will bring the resistance to the capital of Baghdad, to help their brothers
the mujahedeen from the Mehdi Army to liberate you from the occupation.

We told you.

Signed, Mujahedeen Troops"

Threatening leaflets similar to these were distributed around Baghdad last
fall, causing a three-day rest in the city when the majority of people
followed its instructions. While there were some attacks, it ended up being
not too big of a departure from the usual resistance to the occupation.

While this leaflet is quite disturbing, it does seem a bit hard to believe
that any of the mujahedeen from Falluja would decide to leave there to come
fight in Baghdad as they more than have there hands full at home for the
time being.

Nevertheless, in Baghdad today chaos, uncertainty, fear and anxiety reign.
Everyone is on pins and needles awaiting the outcome in Falluja and Najaf.
Everyone I've spoken with here feels that if the U.S. launches an attack on
either city, this already horrendous situation will explode in a way most
don't want to even think about.

Yet Mr. Bush has discussed that America cannot fail here, and that he will
use any means necessary to bring "democracy" to Iraq.

Does anyone else feel like the Bush Administration is pushing us as fast it
can towards the abyss of unbridled violence and chaos in Iraq and beyond?

As the purported "ceasefire" in Falluja continues, U.S. war planes are
bombing homes, and the bodies of women, children and other unarmed civilians
are reported by hospitals there to be piling up.

I recently wrote another version of my Falluja story for The Nation's
website. The piece has since been attacked by a couple of right-wingers, one
questioning my credibility and even insinuating that I may have not have
even gone to Falluja. Amazing that someone sitting behind a desk in America
would have the gall to even suggest this of anyone who is willing to work in
this mayhem of Iraq.

It feels like the calm before the storm today. Aside from the Sheriton Hotel
being hit by another rocket not long ago, it's been strangely quiet in
Baghdad today.

----------------------------------------------
Dahr Jamail is Baghdad correspondent for The NewStandard. He is an Alaskan devoted to covering the untold stories from occupied Iraq. You can help Dahr continue his crucial work in Iraq by making donations. For more information or to donate to Dahr, visit http://newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches .

War is Profitable for Bushes

All in the (Profiteering) First Family

Close relatives of President George W. Bush continue to benefit financially from the Iraq invasion, as revealed by sources including regulatory filings.

St. Louis-based Engineered Support Systems Inc. (EASI), where William H.T. Bush, an uncle of George W. Bush, joined the board of directors in 2000, is a major military contractor. Following the 2000 election and 9/11, the company, which declined to comment for this article, has seen its federal contracts, revenues, and stock price increase.
Engineered Support Systems receives contracts from all branches of the military. The Defense Department listed EASI in its top 100 contractors in 2001, with $330 million in contracts; and in 2002, with $380 million in contracts. Estimates for 2003 are over $380 million.

As luck would have it, company products include "Field Deployable Environmental Control Units" (FDECUs) to deal with weapons of mass destruction. On Jan. 17, 2003, the company announced orders from the Air Force and the Marines for these units, complete with Nuclear Biological Chemical Kits, in preparation for secret arsenals of WMDs hidden, the White House insisted, by Saddam Hussein.

On Jan. 22, 2003, President Bush returned to St. Louis, which is also home base for his cousin George Herbert Walker III, now US ambassador to Hungary, to deliver one of his several speeches there. Bush delivered the famous State of the Union address linking Saddam's Iraq to WMDs and illicit nuclear material on Jan. 28.

In March 2003, the company announced an Army order for its "Chemical Biological Protected Shelter" (CBPS) systems, bringing Army orders for this product to a total of 204 units. On March 25, the Bush administration requested supplemental funding from Congress "to cover military operations, relief and reconstruction activities in Iraq, and ongoing operations in the global war on terrorism."

On May 1, Engineered Support Systems announced the acquisition of its Maryland subsidiary, TAMSCO, the day President Bush made his televised flight-suit appearance to announce "mission accomplished" in Iraq.

The following week, TAMSCO announced that it had begun technology support for US Army logistics operations in the Middle East, stating that this tech support began linking the US, Kuwait and Germany in February 2003.
The White House has not responded to repeated requests for comment.

The stock adviser service VectorVest, which puts out a daily list of 7500 American stocks ranked by value, safety and timing, has more than once ranked EASI stock first. Directors of the company including Bush's uncle received monthly consulting fees and options to buy stock at $28.42 per share. Company stock, which increased by 53% in two weeks after 9/11 and then tripled, now trades at $53. In January 2003, William Bush owned 33,750 shares. In January 2004, he owned 56,251 shares. Directors also own stock as a group.
This company track record is only part of a larger pattern.

Former president George H.W. Bush resigned in fall 2003 from the giant Carlyle Group, heavily into the military and security sectors, which received $677 million in contracts in 2002 and $2.1 billion in contracts in 2003. Carlyle recently sold $335 million in stock from its chief military subsidiary.

Neil M. Bush, a younger brother of George W. Bush, has obtained a $60,000-per-year contract from a principal in D.C.-based New Bridge Strategies, a private firm set up to generate contracts in Iraq.

A controversial $327 million contract awarded in January by the US Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq potentially benefited Winston Partners, the private investment firm of Marvin P. Bush. The contract, to equip the Iraqi armed forces and Civil Defense Corps, went to Nour USA, a Virginia company formed last May, which also received an $80 million CPA contract in July. The contract has now been canceled, and the CPA has re-opened the competition. Nour USA is under scrutiny for its ties to Ahmed Chalabi, a member of the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council.

The new company, or consortium, also has ties to Bush family interests. The Nour group claims ties to several companies backed or owned by Winston Partners: Hobart West, a Fortune 500 personnel-services company; LogoTel, a clothing company; and Axolotl, a computer-services company in medical care.

Other companies in Winston Partners' portfolio, including AMSEC, where Bush's partner, L. Scott Andrews, sits on the board of directors, also benefit from federal contracts. The new CEO of AMSEC, Michael Braham, formerly worked for L. Paul Bremer, now head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.
These business links suggest that Chalabi, a London-based Iraqi exile, has ties to the White House along with his known ties to Vice President Cheney and the Pentagon. At a House Government Reform Committee hearing on Iraq contracts on March 11, some congressmen began to raise questions about private connections behind some of the contracts. However, committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., cut off the questions before witnesses could answer.
It looks more than ever as though Bush planned all along to invade Iraq, but whatever his motives, it is certain that the war benefits his own family.

Margie Burns, a native Texan, writes from Cheverly, Md. Email

margie.burns@verizon.net. An earlier version of this appeared in the Prince George's County (Md.) Journal.

What's Up in Florida?

Dem ad threatens Rumsfeld

By From Rich Phillips CNN

MIAMI, Florida -- An ad placed in a Florida community newspaper by a city Democratic club attacks President Bush and U.S. policy in Iraq, and threatens Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The ad says of Rumsfeld, "We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say, 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger."

The ad was placed by the St. Petersburg Democratic Club in last week's issue of The Gabber, a weekly community newspaper based in Gulfport, next to St. Petersburg on Florida's Gulf Coast.

No one from the club could be reached for comment, but the ad was condemned by other Democrats, including the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry.

"We are calling the Pinellas County Democratic Party chair about this ad and demand that it be retracted," Kerry campaign spokesman Stephanie Cutter told CNN. "John Kerry does not condone this type of advertising and believes that it is wrong."

Pinellas County Democratic Party Chairman Kevin Jensen told CNN that he, too, was outraged by the ad, and said party officials "don't condone this type of stupidity."

The club, listed on the Pinellas County Democratic Party's Web site as one of its "officially chartered" clubs, does not speak for the county party, he said.

The ad refers to a quote made by the secretary of defense, who said recently that in Iraq, 'We have our good days and our bad days."

It asks, "How many have to be killed before the Bush Bunch is satisfied? How many burial services of our Iraq dead has Bush attended?" It calls for the United States to leave Iraq and asks people to send "any amount of money you can afford" to "John Kerry for President."

Ken Reichart, co-owner of the The Gabber, told CNN that an apology from the newspaper as well as a retraction by the Democratic club would be carried in the next issue of the paper. He said he expected a retraction to be delivered shortly.

"It should not have been printed," Reichart said. "We printed it in error. It's one of those things that would normally not appear in this paper based on our history of 36 years."

He said the advertisement came in just before deadline.

"I obviously can't change what happened," he said. "I believe it was unethical. ... He threatened somebody literally."

The newspaper goes to print Wednesday afternoons and hits the stands on Thursday. It was founded in 1968 and has a circulation of 9,700.

Dover Effect

Iraq Deceived--Why?

Wanniski

Dec 19 2003

Memo on the Margin

Looking Back: Saddam`s Invasion of Kuwait

Memo To: Website Fans, Browsers, Clients
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Background to the 1991 Gulf War

This is a memo on the margin I posted here on July 7 of this year about how the 1991 Gulf War came about in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. It is again timely because of the capture of Saddam Hussein and the tussle over which tribunal will try him for war crimes. The report in today’s Washington Post by Dana Priest on Donald Rumsfeld’s 1984 trip to Baghdad further adds to the memo’s timeliness. The administration hawks are certainly wary of what Saddam will say on the witness stand about all this, with the President himself already saying he will not believe anything the despot says under oath. The problem will not be Saddam’s veracity, but documentation and testimony of other witnesses who will be in a position to deny or confirm his account of this period of history. Remember all the charges against him will relate to the years prior to 1992 as there have been no charges of crimes committed by his regime in the years since.

Early last year, I decided there were so many public misconceptions of what was going on in Iraq that I would write a book about the roots of the 1990 Gulf War and the events of the last decade. I wrote several chapters but abandoned the project when I could find no publisher interested in a book that would view the history from the Iraqi perspective as well as from Washington's. Here is an excerpt from the chapter on Saddam’s rationale for invading Kuwait, material largely forgotten in the years since, but worth reviewing today. It consists largely of a letter from Saddam to President Bush and the transcript of a conversation with the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad. In reading the transcript, we may get some idea of how Saddam will comport himself at his trial next year.

* * * * *

On July 25, 1990, a week before Iraq invaded Kuwait, a neighbor so tiny one American diplomat called it a gas station in the desert, Saddam Hussein summoned the American Ambassador, a career civil servant named April Glaspie, to his office. To critics of the Gulf War, what happened at that meeting has been known since as “the green light.” Saddam essentially explains his economic predicament, complains of the economic warfare being waged against Iraq by Kuwait, and asks for the official U.S. government view. Ms. Glaspie, acting under instructions from Washington, knows the situation in the neighborhood is tense, as the Iraqi army has massed at a short distance from its border with Kuwait.

The transcript provides the best sense of Saddam Hussein’s calculations on how to proceed and also leaves the impression, especially with Ambassador Glaspie, that things will almost certainly work out in the weekend discussions between Iraq and Kuwait. Note she says at the end of the meeting that she thought perhaps she might delay her vacation trip, but given the tone of the meeting with him, she will proceed to Washington and perhaps be able to deliver his letter to President Bush in person. As you see here, the transcript of that meeting was not made publicly available until it appeared in the New York Times more than seven weeks later. By that time the Bush administration had already determined that Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was an aggression comparable to the fascist power grabs of the 1930s. The charges that he had gassed his own people in an Arabic holocaust were dusted off after having been dismissed earlier in 1990 by a U.S. Army War College report. Most of the best informed political leaders in Washington have never read the transcript, let alone the American people. I would be astonished if I learned that President Bush ever even knew of its existence. It is reprinted here in its entirety, with my comments at the conclusion:

* * * * *

THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1990

Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy

Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 -- On July 25, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq summoned the United States Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, to his office in the last high-level contact between the two Governments before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 2. Here are excerpts from a document described by Iraqi Government officials as a transcript of the meeting, which also included the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz. A copy was provided to The New York Times by ABC News, which translated from the Arabic. The State Department has declined to comment on its accuracy.

SADDAM HUSSEIN: I have summoned you today to hold comprehensive political discussions with you. This is a message to President Bush. You know that we did not have relations with the U.S. until 1984 and you know the circumstances and reasons which caused them to be severed. The decision to establish relations with the U.S. were taken in 1980 during the two months prior to the war between us and Iran.

When the war started, and to avoid misinterpretation, we postponed the establishment of relations hoping that the war would end soon.

But because the war lasted for a long time, and to emphasize the fact that we are a non-aligned country, it was important to re-establish relations with the U.S. And we choose to do this in 1984.

It is natural to say that the U.S. is not like Britain, for example, with the latter's historic relations with Middle Eastern countries, including Iraq. In addition, there were no relations between Iraq and the U.S. between 1967 and 1984. One can conclude it would be difficult for the U.S. to have a full understanding of many matters in Iraq. When relations were re-established we hoped for a better understanding and for better cooperation because we too do not understand the background of many American decisions. We dealt with each other during the war and we had dealings on various levels. The most important of those levels were with the foreign ministers.

U.S.-Iraq Rifts

We had hoped for a better common understanding and a better chance of cooperation to benefit both our peoples and the rest of the Arab nations.

But these better relations have suffered from various rifts. The worst of these was in 1986, only two years after establishing relations, with what was known as Irangate, which happened during the year that Iran occupied the Fao peninsula.

It was natural then to say that old relations and complexity of interests could absorb many mistakes. But when interests are limited and relations are not that old, then there isn't a deep understanding and mistakes could have a negative effect. Sometimes the effect of an error can be larger than the error itself.

Despite all of that, we accepted the apology, via his envoy, of the American President regarding Irangate, and we wiped the slate clean. And we shouldn't unearth the past except when new events remind us that old mistakes were not just a matter of coincidence.

Our suspicions increased after we liberated the Fao peninsula. The media began to involve itself in our politics. And our suspicions began to surface anew, because we began to question whether the U.S. felt uneasy with the outcome of the war when we liberated our land.

It was clear to us that certain parties in the United States -- and I don't say the President himself -- but certain parties who had links with the intelligence community and with the State Department -- and I don't say the Secretary of State himself -- I say that these parties did not like the fact that we liberated our land. Some parties began to prepare studies entitled: "Who will succeed Saddam Hussein?" They began to contact gulf states to make them fear Iraq, to persuade them not to give Iraq economic aid. And we have evidence of these activities.

Iraqi Policy on Oil

Iraq came out of the war burdened with $40 billion debts, excluding the aid given by Arab states, some of whom consider that too to be a debt although they knew -- and you knew too -- that without Iraq they would not have had these sums and the future of the region would have been entirely different.

We began to face the policy of the drop in the price of oil. Then we saw the United States, which always talks of democracy but which has no time for the other point of view. Then the media campaign against Saddam Hussein was started by the official American media. The United States thought that the situation in Iraq was like Poland, Romania or Czechoslovakia. We were disturbed by this campaign but we were not disturbed too much because we had hoped that, in a few months, those who are decision makers in America would have a chance to find the facts and see whether this media campaign had had any effect on the lives of Iraqis. We had hoped that soon the American authorities would make the correct decision regarding their relations with Iraq. Those with good relations can sometimes afford to disagree.

But when planned and deliberate policy forces the price of oil down without good commercial reasons, then that means another war against Iraq. Because military war kills people by bleeding them, and economic war kills their humanity by depriving them of their chance to have a good standard of living. As you know, we gave rivers of blood in a war that lasted eight years, but we did not lose our humanity. Iraqis have a right to live proudly. We do not accept that anyone could injure Iraqi pride or the Iraqi right to have high standards of living.

Kuwait and the U.A.E. were at the front of this policy aimed at lowering Iraq's position and depriving its people of higher economic standards. And you know that our relations with the Emirates and Kuwait had been good. On top of all that, while we were busy at war, the state of Kuwait began to expand at the expense of our territory.

You may say this is propaganda, but I would direct you to one document, the Military Patrol Line, which is the borderline endorsed by the Arab League in 1961 for military patrols not to cross the Iraq-Kuwait border.

But go and look for yourselves. You will see the Kuwaiti border patrols, the Kuwaiti farms, the Kuwaiti oil installations -- all built as closely as possible to this line to establish that land as Kuwaiti territory.

Conflicting Interests

Since then, the Kuwaiti Government has been stable while the Iraqi Government has undergone many changes. Even after 1968 and for 10 years afterwards, we were too busy with our own problems. First in the north then the 1973 war, and other problems. Then came the war with Iran which started 10 years ago.

We believe that the United States must understand that people who live in luxury and economic security can each an understanding with the United States on what are legitimate joint interests. But the starved and the economically deprived cannot reach the same understanding.

We do not accept threats from anyone because we do not threaten anyone. But we say clearly that we hope that the U.S. will not entertain too many illusions and will seek new friends rather than increase the number of its enemies.
I have read the American statements speaking of friends in the area. Of course, it is the right of everyone to choose their friends. We can have no objections. But you know you are not the ones who protected your friends during the war with Iran. I assure you, had the Iranians overrun the region, the American troops would not have stopped them, except by the use of nuclear weapons.

I do not belittle you. But I hold this view by looking at the geography and nature of American society into account. Yours is a society which cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle.

You know that Iran agreed to the cease-fire not because the United States had bombed one of the oil platforms after the liberation of the Fao. Is this Iraq's reward for its role in securing the stability of the region and for protecting it from an unknown flood?

Protecting the Oil Flow

So what can it mean when America says it will now protect its friends? It can only mean prejudice against Iraq. This stance plus maneuvers and statements which have been made has encouraged the U.A.E. and Kuwait to disregard Iraqi rights.

I say to you clearly that Iraq's rights, which are mentioned in the memorandum, we will take one by one. That might not happen now or after a month or after one year, but we will take it all. We are not the kind of people who will relinquish their rights. There is no historic right, or legitimacy, or need, for the U.A.E. and Kuwait to deprive us of our rights. If they are needy, we too are needy.

The United States must have a better understanding of the situation and declare who it wants to have relations with and who its enemies are. But it should not make enemies simply because others have different points of view regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict.

We clearly understand America's statement that it wants an easy flow of oil. We understanding American staying that it seeks friendship with the states in the region, and to encourage their joint interests. But we cannot understand the attempt to encourage some parties to hard Iraq's interests.

The United States wants to secure the flow of oil. This understandable and known. But it must not deploy methods which the United States says it disapproves of -- flexing muscles and pressure.

If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you.

War and Friendship

You can come to Iraq with aircraft and missiles but do not push us to the point where we cease to care. And when we feel that you want to injure our pride and take away the Iraqis' chance of a high standard of living, then we will cease to care and death will be the choice for us. Then we would not care if you fired 100missiles for each missile we fired. Because without pride life would have no value.

It is not reasonable to ask our people to bleed rivers of blood for eight years then to tell them, "Now you have to accept aggression from Kuwait, the U.A.E., or from the U.S. or from Israel."

We do not put all these countries in the same boat. First, we are hurt and upset that such disagreement is taking place between us and Kuwait and the U.A.E. The solution must be found within an Arab framework and through direct bilateral relations. We do not place America among the enemies. We pace it where we want our friends to be and we try to be friends. But repeated American statements last year make it apparent that America did not regard us as friends. Well the Americans are free.

When we seek friendship we want pride, liberty and our right to choose.

We want to deal according to our status as we deal with the others according to their statuses.

We consider the others' interests while we look after our own. And we expect the others to consider our interests while they are dealing with their own. What does it mean when the Zionist war minister is summoned to the United States now? What do they mean, these fiery statements coming out of Israel during the past few days and the talk of war being expected now more than at any other time?

* * *

HUSSEIN: I do not believe that anyone would lose by making friends with Iraq. In my opinion, the American President has not made mistakes regarding the Arabs, although his decision to freeze dialogue with the P.L.O. was wrong. But it appears that this decision was made to appease the Zionist lobby or as a piece of strategy to cool the Zionist anger, before trying again. I hope that our latter conclusion is the correct one. But we will carry on saying it was the wrong decision.

You are appeasing the usurper in so many ways -- economically, politically and militarily as well as in the media. When will the time come when, for every three appeasements to the usurper, you praise the Arabs just once?

APRIL GLASPIE: I thank you, Mr. President, and it is a great pleasure for a diplomat to meet and talk directly with the President. I clearly understand your message. We studied history at school That taught us to say freedom or death. I think you know well that we as a people have our experience with the colonialists.

Mr. President, you mentioned many things during this meeting which I cannot comment on on behalf of my Government. But with your permission, I will comment on two points. You spoke of friendship and I believe it was clear from the letters sent by our President to you on the occasion of your National Day that he emphasizes --

HUSSEIN: He was kind and his expressions met with our regard and respect.

Directive on Relations

GLASPIE: As you know, he directed the United States Administration to reject the suggestion of implementing trade sanctions.

HUSSEIN: There is nothing left for us to buy from America. Only wheat. Because every time we want to buy something, they say it is forbidden. I am afraid that one day you will say, "You are going to make gunpowder out of wheat."

GLASPIE: I have a direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq.

HUSSEIN: But how? We too have this desire. But matters are running contrary to this desire.

GLASPIE: This is less likely to happen the more we talk. For example, you mentioned the issue of the article published by the American Information Agency and that was sad. And a formal apology was presented.

HUSSEIN: Your stance is generous. We are Arabs. It is enough for us that someone says, "I am sorry. I made a mistake." Then we carry on. But the media campaign continued. And it is full of stories. If the stories were true, no one would get upset. But we understand from its continuation that there is a determination.

GLASPIE: I saw the Diane Sawyer program on ABC. And what happened in that program was cheap and unjust. And this is a real picture of what happens in the American media -- even to American politicians themselves. These are the methods the Western media employs. I am pleased that you add your voice to the diplomats who stand up to the media. Because your appearance in the media, even for five minutes, would help us to make the American people understand Iraq. This would increase mutual understanding. If they American President had control of the media, his job would be much easier.

Mr. President, not only do I want to say that President Bush wanted better and deeper relations with Iraq, but he also wants an Iraqi contribution to peace and prosperity in the Middle East. President Bush is an intelligent man. He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq.

You are right. It is true what you say that we do not want higher prices for oil. But I would ask you to examine the possibility of not charging too high a price for oil.

HUSSEIN: We do not want too high prices for oil. And I remind you that in 1974 I gave Tariq Aziz the idea for an article he wrote which criticized the policy of keeping oil prices high. It was the first Arab article which expressed this view.

Shifting Price of Oil

TARIQ AZIZ: Our policy in OPEC opposes sudden jumps in oil prices.

HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.

GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.

I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.

HUSSEIN: We do not ask people not to be concerned when peace is at issue. This is a noble human feeling which we all feel. It is natural for you as a superpower to be concerned. But what we ask is not to express your concern in a way that would make an aggressor believe that he is getting support for his aggression.

We want to find a just solution which will give us our rights but not deprive others of their rights. But at the same time, we want the others to know that our patience is running out regarding their action, which is harming even the milk our children drink, and the pensions of the widow who lost her husband during the war, and the pensions of the orphans who lost their parents.

As a country, we have the right to prosper. We lost so many opportunities, and the others should value the Iraqi role in their protection. Even this Iraqi [the President points to their interpreter] feels bitter like all other Iraqis. We are not aggressors but we do not accept aggression either. We sent them envoys and handwritten letters. We tried everything. We asked the Servant of the Two Shrines -- King Fahd -- to hold a four-member summit, but he suggested a meeting between the Oil Ministers. We agreed. And as you know, the meeting took place in Jidda. They reached an agreement which did not express what we wanted, but we agreed.

Only two days after the meeting, the Kuwaiti Oil Minister made a statement that contradicted the agreement. We also discussed the issue during the Baghdad summit. I told the Arab Kings and Presidents that some brothers are fighting an economic war against us. And that not all wars use weapons and we regard this kind of war as a military action against us. Because if the capability of our army is lowered then, if Iran renewed the war, it could achieve goals which it could not achieve before. And if we lowered the standard of our defenses, then this could encourage Israel to attack us. I said that before the Arab Kings and Presidents. Only I did not mention Kuwait and U.A.E. by name, because they were my guests.

Before this, I had sent them envoys reminding them that our war had included their defense. Therefore the aid they gave us should not be regarded as a debt. We did not more than the United States would have done against someone who attacked its interests.

I talked about the same thing with a number of other Arab states. I explained the situation t brother King Fahd a few times, by sending envoys and on the telephone. I talked with brother King Hussein and with Sheik Zaid after the conclusion of the summit. I walked with the Sheik to the plane when he was leaving Mosul. He told me, "Just wait until I get home." But after he had reached his destination, the statements that came from there were very bad -- not from him, but from his Minister of Oil.

And after the Jidda agreement, we received some intelligence that they were talking of sticking to the agreement for two months only. Then they would change their policy. Now tell us, if the American President found himself in this situation, what would he do? I said it was very difficult for me to talk about these issues in public. But we must tell the Iraqi people who face economic difficulties who was responsible for that.

Talks with Mubarak

GLASPIE: I spent four beautiful years in Egypt.

HUSSEIN: The Egyptian people are kind and good and ancient. The oil people are supposed to help the Egyptian people, but they are mean beyond belief. It is painful to admit it, but some of them are disliked by Arabs because of their greed.

GLASPIE: Mr. President, it would be helpful if you could give us an assessment of the effort made by your Arab brothers and whether they have achieved anything.

HUSSEIN: On this subject, we agreed with President Mubarak that the Prime Minister of Kuwait would meet with the deputy chairman of the Revolution Command Council in Saudi Arabia, because the Saudis initiated contact with us, aided by President Mubarak's efforts. He just telephoned me a short while ago to say the Kuwaitis have agreed to that suggestion.

GLASPIE: Congratulations.

HUSSEIN: A protocol meeting will be held in Saudi Arabia. Then the meeting will be transferred to Baghdad for deeper discussion directly between Kuwait and Iraq. We hope we will reach some result. We hope that the long-term view and the real interests will overcome Kuwaiti greed.

GLASPIE: May I ask you when you expect Sheik Saad to come to Baghdad?

HUSSEIN: I suppose it would be on Saturday or Monday at the latest. I told brother Mubarak that the agreement should be in Baghdad Saturday or Sunday. You know that brother Mubarak's visits have always been a good omen.

GLASPIE: This is good news. Congratulations.

HUSSEIN: Brother President Mubarak told me they were scared. They said troops were only 20 kilometers north of the Arab League line. I said to him that regardless of what is there, whether they are police, border guards or army, and regardless of how many are there, and what they are doing, assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them. When we meet and when we see that there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death, even though wisdom is above everything else. There you have good news.

AZIZ: This is a journalistic exclusive.

GLASPIE: I am planning to go to the United States next Monday. I hope I will meet with President Bush in Washington next week. I thought to postpone my trip because of the difficulties we are facing. But now I will fly on Monday. [End of Transcript.]

* * * * *

Take note on how this critical meeting concluded. Ambassador Glaspie knew the situation was critical, with Iraqi forces massed on Kuwait’s border. Yet she was so assured of Hussein’s intent in a peaceful conclusion of his discussions with Kuwait that she decided it would be all right if she went ahead with her planned vacation, her home leave. Saddam had told her: When we meet and when we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death, even though wisdom is above everything else. There you have good news.

If Saddam needed further assurance that the United States would not resist an Iraqi military solution, he got it over the BBC on July 31, when John Kelly, the assistant Secretary of State, appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to discuss the developments in the Middle East. Chairman Lee Hamilton first noted that Defense Secretary Richard Cheney had been quoted in the press saying the U.S. was committed to the defense of Kuwait if she were attacked. Hamilton asked if Kelly could clarify that:

Kelly: ... We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country...
Hamilton: ... Do we have a commitment to our friends in the Gulf in the event that they are engaged in oil or territorial disputes with their neighbors?
Kelly: ... As I said, Mr. Chairman, we have no defense treaty relationships with any of the countries. We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes or on internal OPEC deliberations...
Hamilton: If, for example, Iraq charged across the border into Kuwait, for whatever reason, what would be our position with regard to the use of U.S. forces?
Kelly: That, Mr. Chairman, is a hypothetical or a contingency, the kind of which I cant get into. Suffice it to say that we would be extremely concerned, but I cannot get into the realm of what if answers.
Hamilton: In that circumstance, is it correct to say, however, that we do not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage US forces?
Kelly: That is correct.

* * * * *

Ambassador Glaspie did go on her vacation, seemingly confident Saddam Hussein and the emir of Kuwait would work out their differences at their weekend meeting in Baghdad. Alas, the emir decided not to go to the meeting, perhaps out of assurances from the Pentagon and Mr. Cheney that he would be protected even without a treaty commitment. From Saddam's point of view, Iraq was being destroyed by Kuwait's "economic aggression." Kuwait had driven down the price of oil to $10 a barrel by producing well above its OPEC promises. It was "slant drilling" under its border to drain oil from Iraqi oil fields, adding insult to injury. And it was demanding full payment on its loans to Iraq during Baghdad's war against the Islamic fundamentalists of Iran. In contrast, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia forgave its war loans to Saddam. It was Saddam's claim that the national security of his country was facing the imminent threat of collapse and that he had no choice but to order the pre-emptive strike on Kuwait. JW

All contents (c) 2000-2003 Wanniski.com

http://wanniski.com/PrintPage.asp?TextID=3182

Not Ready Condi

Bush's Trifecta

How Bush Hit the 'Trifecta' on 9/11--and the Public Lost Big-Time
It is sickening to contemplate an administration intentionally looking the other way while terrorists scheme so that whatever havoc they wreak can provide cover for the president to raid Social Security.

by Brad Carlton
See letters sent us in response to this OP-ED
Bush, in the weeks before September 11, pledged to honor the sanctity of the Social Security lockbox except in the event of recession, war, or a national emergency. But after "everything changed" on 9/11, he reportedly gloated to his budget director, Mitch Daniels, "Lucky me--I hit the trifecta!" At the time, this comment (a variation of which is being recycled for laughs at current GOP fundraisers) seemed merely offensive. But in light of revelations that Bush's August 6 briefing memo was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.," Bush's "luck" and weird prescience are worth more than passing scrutiny.

Whenever someone is suspected of a crime, investigators look for a motive in addition to actual proof of guilt to determine, a posteriori, whether there was malice aforethought. In cases of criminal negligence, motive must also be deduced, a priori, to answer the question: were preventive failures due to craftiness or mere cluelessness?

The serial apologists of the Bush Is Not Stupid crowd are rather incongruously opting for the latter, this in the wake of the scandal about pre-9/11 failures to issue precisely the kinds of public warnings and security directives that accompanied the also "non-specific" Y2K threats. For now, it is difficult to say who knew what when because the administration is not exactly being forthcoming, preferring instead to use the scandal as an excuse to broaden the FBI's snoop powers. However: there was a potential motive for the administration to sit on perceived terrorist threats.

Think back to the days before 9/11. The topic on everyone's lips (Condit aside) was: what will happen when budget realities force Bush to raid Social Security? He had explicitly promised during his campaign to establish a contingency fund for severe emergencies that would keep Social Security untouched. But the economy was tanking and the costs of the tax cut made the raid inevitable. Even Daniels acknowledged that the government would be forced to tap Social Security to the tune of $14 billion to fund pending legislation. Strangely, Bush kept insisting, "We can work together to avoid dipping into Social Security." But, beginning August 24, he gave himself an escape clause: "I've said that the only reason we should use Social Security funds is in case of an economic recession or war." (Three days earlier he had said that there should be "special consideration" in the budget for these contingencies. Otherwise, this was completely new rhetoric.)

September 4: businessman and commentator Ben Cohen ran a mock "help wanted" ad reading, "Serious enemy needed to justify Pentagon budget increase. Defense contractors desperate." Same day: a CBS poll found that 66 percent of Americans did not think a recession (extant, but not yet confirmed) was reason enough to tap Social Security. September 6: Bush invented another exception. "The only time to use Social Security money is in times of war, times of recession, or times of severe emergency." September 11: he had all three. Lucky Bush.

Then, on the morning of September 12, Bush announced his very first post-9/11 policy move. Because the attacks were "more than acts of terror; they were acts of war, this morning I am sending to Congress a request for emergency funding authority." On cue, pundits like Tim Russert chirped, "Suddenly the Social Security lockbox seems so trivial." Since then the trust fund has been strip-mined to subsidize pork barrel and deficit spending with no political fallout for the president.

These extraordinary coincidences have gone unremarked in the media, who have entirely missed that the terms of the "trifecta"--note that the word connotes something you bet on--was never mentioned until two-and-a-half weeks after Bush's August 6 briefing and days before 9/11. (He has since claimed the 'trifecta' was a campaign promise. This is a lie.) It is sickening to contemplate an administration intentionally looking the other way while terrorists scheme so that whatever havoc they wreak can provide cover for the president to raid Social Security. But we journalists are paid to have strong stomachs, and we should be hardy enough to admit that the scenario is conceivable, for three reasons.

First and most obviously, defense contractors contributed more than $8.7 million to Republican campaigns in 2000. They stood to gain billions from the fallout of a successful terrorist strike.

Second, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill advocated the abolition of Social Security and Medicare in a May 20, 2001 interview with the Financial Times. "Able-bodied adults should save enough on a regular basis so that they can provide for their own retirement, and, for that matter, health and medical needs," he said, adding, "The president is also intrigued about the possibility of fixing this mess."

Third, and by far most importantly, Bush needed to save his presidency, which by August was already in serious danger of sinking into fiscal chaos and one-term ignominy. This is a viable motive. Whether or not Bush or someone in his administration acted on it by winking at hijacking threats remains to be seen.

But it was unsettling, though still inconclusive, to read in the May 17 Washington Post, "Members of congressional committees investigating the pre-Sept. 11 warnings said yesterday that there is far more damaging information that has not yet been disclosed about the government's knowledge of and inaction over events leading up to Sept. 11."

Outrageously, the public is now being told that there aren't sufficient votes in Congress to approve an investigation by a blue ribbon panel. The alternative intelligence committee investigation is only pro forma public anesthesia. It will not do: the committee's oversight role potentially implicates its own members. To clear up all doubts, there must be an independent, public inquiry. It is well past time to insist on a return to open government.
Brad Carlton is an investigative reporter currently living in South Carolina.

Copyright © 2003 The Baltimore Chronicle and The Sentinel. All rights reserved. We invite your comments, criticisms and suggestions.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on June 12, 2002.

Iraqidispatch

Continuing Slaughter, Kidnappings, US Rhetoric
by Dahr Jamail | Posted April 09, 2004 at 02:42 PM Baghdad time

The horrendous situation in Iraq continues to degrade. I write this holed up in an apartment in the Karrada district of Baghdad with my friends, all of us afraid to venture too far from our abode, and rightly so. We have three armed guards on the roof, as well as on the first floor of our small apartment building, and all of the lights on the outside are turned on.

We’ve heard reports of a British contractor in Nasariya who has been missing since Monday, 6 GMCs torched en route from Jordan, the passengers shot (unconfirmed), 3 Japanese civilians were kidnapped in the south and are being held with the demand that if the Japanese military doesn’t pull out of Iraq in 3 days, the civilians will be burned alive.

The videos of the blindfolded Japanese with men holding RPGs and Kalashnikovs behind them are rather disconcerting.

There’s more; seven Korean Christian workers were kidnapped en route from Amman to Baghdad (then later released), two Arabs who live in Jerusalem have been kidnapped here, the U.S. military aggression against Falluja continues -- the city remains powerless and without electricity, a mosque was bombed with 40 people killed (graphic images of dead women and children are being shown on Arab television), and in the last week 459 Iraqis have been killed by the Americans (280 in Falluja alone), along with at least 35 U.S. soldiers. In addition, several trucks delivering aid supplies to the besieged residents of Falluja were shot by the U.S. military. The U.S. military are also dropping cluster bombs on Falluja -- yet another war crime.

U.S. troops keep a watchful eye out for insurgents.

A close Iraqi friend angrily said to me tonight, “They kill 280 Iraqis in Falluja because four American mercenaries were killed? This is the justice? This is fair?”

In recent weeks, there was not much bloodshed in the north. However, U.S. troops shot 8 pro-Sadr demonstrators in the northern city of Kirkuk, inflaming the already angry population there. The U.S. military also opened fire on a busload of Iranian pilgrims traveling between Najaf and Kerbala, killing 4 and wounding several others.

Any illusion of the U.S. having any control of the situation is just that. Any media that reports otherwise is simply not reporting the truth.

Everyone here is frightened, fearing for the worst, and just waiting. This is by far the most tense it has ever felt in Baghdad, even compared to when I was here in December and January when there were several large bombings as well as Saddam’s capture triggering widespread fighting against the occupation forces.

Meanwhile, we have live broadcasts of Condi Rice repeating her lies to the 9/11 Commission, General Sanchez is speaking of how things are under control in Iraq, and George Bush is at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Sadr’s militia have taken full control of the holy city of Najaf and of Kut, and the U.S. military, at least for now, will not enter Najaf to arrest him for fear of worsening the situation. This must be one of the few times I’ve ever seen them make a semi-wise decision, in the shadow of triggering this whole debacle to begin with by announcing Sadr will be arrested, after they’d closed his newspaper.

So here we are on the one year anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, and the U.S.-led coalition has lost control of two cities in Iraq to Muqtada Al-Sadr’s militia. This reminds me more and more of Afghanistan, where anywhere outside of Kabul is extremely dangerous, with the majority of the country controlled by warlords.

The military attacked Sadr’s office in Thaora, where I had recently interviewed a spokesman for Sadr. Today the images of the small compound with huge shell holes blasted in the walls and bullet pockmarks flashed across Arab television stations here.

What has this accomplished for the U.S. in Iraq? They are uniting the Shi’ite and Sunni populations against them. Sunni and Shia are fighting side by side in many places against the Americans. They are holding food, blood, and money drives to support their besieged countrymen and women in Falluja, Ramadi, Nasyria, Kut, Thaora, Shu’ala, and elsewhere throughout Iraq.

Even the followers of Sistani are outraged at the violence they are witnessing, as more and more Shia are joining the burgeoning violent resistance against the occupiers of their country.

In what is perhaps an ominous foreboding of things to come for the U.S. in Iraq, a huge demonstration of Shia and Sunni people broke through a U.S. military checkpoint on the perimeter of Falluja, chanting vehemently, “Sunni, Shia, we are united against Americans and fight for our country together!”

A mosque in the embattled city of Falluja, about 500 meters from the mosque that was the site of fierce fighting and numerous civilian deaths.

Dahr Jamail is Baghdad correspondent for The NewStandard. He is an Alaskan devoted to covering the untold stories from occupied Iraq. You can help Dahr continue his crucial work in Iraq by making donations. For more information or to donate to Dahr, visit The NewStandard.

Iraq News

Blood Bags of Solidarity
by Dahr Jamail | Posted April 08, 2004 at 12:08 PM Baghdad time

Khadamiya is usually a bustling, crowded and busy area in Baghdad. Today, the day after fighting here left three soldiers and at least one Iraqi dead, the streets are eerily empty.

I'd come here to talk to folks to get the Iraqi side of the story about what happened during the fighting. Shortly after entering the area, I found myself sitting with Sheikh Hassam, the Imam for Sadr's mosque in Khadamiya. A gentle, soft spoken man in his 30's, the Sheikh was more than happy to entertain questions about the recent horrific events caused, primarily, by his leader's reaction to Bremer's order to close Sadr's newspaper.

He is the Friday prayer leader, and the carrier of Sadr's messages to his followers in Khadamiya. While most of the predominantly Shia population in Khadamiya follow Sistani, there is still a large following for Sadr here.

According to the Sheikh, yesterday one Iraqi here was killed, and the US military entered Sadr's office and took all of the pictures of Muqtada Al-Sadr. He claimed that the people who attacked the Americans when the military opened fire were not from Sadr's Mehdi militia, but were other resistance fighters from outside the area.

However, when asked how the followers of Sadr would respond if he were arrested by the Americans, he replied, "Our country will be full of blood if Al-Sadr is arrested." He also claimed that he and Sadr are simply following in Sadr's dead father's footsteps, and that the Mehdi militia was only formed to protect the mosques and Imams. He said that the fighting we are seeing now are not the Mehdi, but an Intifada (uprising) against the Americans. Funny thing, that so many reports and photos of the Mehdi militia marching in Sadr City and fighting against the military over the last days directly contradict.

Never underestimate the power of propaganda on either side in a war. He also claimed that there has never been a problem between the Shia and Sunni people before in Iraq until the Americans came. The souls in the mass graves of Saddam would beg to differ.

Stopping in a small jewelry store near the main mosque, Abu Du'a, a Shi'ite, is a staunch follower of Sistani. He feels that 3/4 of the Shia in Iraq disagree with Sadr and his fiery talk and militant opposition to the occupation. He said, "Many people die these days. Why? Everyone followed his father, but we cannot say that because his father was great, he is great."

Both Abu Du'a and his friend talking with us, Abu Zahar, agreed that this current violence is useless. They both will wait as long as Sistani asks them to, even if it means more years like the chaotic, bloody one which just passed.

Yet Zahar's anger towards the Americans is obvious. He states, "We disagree with the American's too. They don't keep their promises. They rebuilt Kuwait in 4 months, but look at us here. They liberated us from Saddam, but they've done nothing for us here." Du'a nods in agreement as Zahar says, "If the American's dont fulfill their promises, I'll be the first to pick up my gun. All of us feel this way!"

Out the window a small but vocal group of Sadr followers marches down the street chanting support for their embattled leader.

Both men believed Sadr's followers were poor, uneducated thieves. The prejudice between the sects continues to rear its ugly head.

But Sistani's continued waiting... how long will it last? How many more Shia will die before an Intifada is called? How will Iraqis react when watching their countrymen slain en masse by the Americans on a daily basis?

Driving home past the Abu Hanifa mosque in Al-Aadamiyah, a mostly Sunni and very pro-resistance area of Baghdad, throngs of upset people are crowded about the mosque. Small trucks outside are being loaded with bags of food, boxes of bottled water, and death shrouds for the slain. The people of Aadamiyah, in solidarity with the people of Falluja currently under siege by the U.S. military, are gathering supplies to attempt to get it inside the city which is currently sealed off.

Omar Khalil, speaking with great conviction, tells me, "This is Islam! We give all of this aid on our own. We are calling for more trucks, because we already have 5 lories full of supplies."

Meanwhile the loudspeaker from the nearby mosque is giving instructions as people frantically load bags of potatoes, rice, flour, and other foodstuffs into the trucks. Each time a truck fills, another empty one pulls up and begins to be filled.

[Photo: Aadamiyah residents loads trucks full of food in front
of Abu Hanifa Mosque for Falluja residents under siege
by U.S. military.]

Salam Khasil, with tears in eyes, tells me loudly, "All Muslims have one heart. We help each other no matter what. We want the Americans to leave Iraq. It is the right of a people to be free in their own country. We are all one now: Sunni and Shia! Kerbala, Najaf, Shu'ala, we will help them all." He points to what I would estimate to be at least a thousand people crowding towards the mosque and says, "All of these people are coming to give blood to help their brothers! We will send it to Sadr City, and to anyone else who needs it!"

[Photo: Doctor outside of Abu Hanifa Mosque taking blood donations for Falluja residents.]

I begin walking into the mosque and a man named Khalil pulls me aside and passionately says, "This is the second Halabja! This is worse than what Saddam did in Halabja! Where is the freedom? Saddam did Halabja, but the Americans are doing a greater Halabja now!" (Halabja refers to the horrendous gassing of the Kurds by Saddam, estimated at 10,000 deaths.)

He then looks me in the eye and firmly says, "Why are 60 innocent people in Falluja killed because 4 Americans were killed there? If the American Army wants to stay in Iraq, you must kill all of the Iraqi people!"

Inside the mosque a huge group of men are yelling, "Allah is the one God!" over and over, the powerful chanting echoing throughout the huge mosque. I hold my camera up to film a clip and my hands shake from the adrenaline. The energy in this place is coursing through me. Women are crying, the men yelling in solidarity with their embattled countrymen in Falluja. The last sentence Khalil told me flashes to mind, and I believe it while in Abu Hanifa, standing amongst the crowd of shouting men, thrusting their fists into the air over and over.

After this rally, people are pushing their way to the blood bags, and men sit in small groups while doctors jab needles in their arms. Men sit furiously pumping their hands while their blood flows into the bags on the ground.

[Photo: Men giving blood for victims of U.S.
aggression in Falluja.]

While I type this the blood of Al-Aadamiyah is trying to make its way into the veins of bleeding Iraqis in Falluja, Ramadi, and elsewhere where it flows throughout Iraq tonight.

Dahr Jamail is Baghdad correspondent for The NewStandard. He is an Alaskan devoted to covering the untold stories from occupied Iraq. You can help Dahr continue his crucial work in Iraq by making donations. For more information or to donate to Dahr, visit The NewStandard.
COYLEFT NOTICE: The above message is Copyright © 2004 Dahr Jamail and The NewStandard. Reprinting for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited. Permission is readily granted for nonprofit purposes as long as (1) adequate credit is provided, (2) a link back to http://newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches is prominently posted along with the text and (3) the journalist's bio at the end of the text is kept intact.

Finger Food Only

It was a mouthwatering menu. Not that you'd expect less for $2,000 a plate.
Seered beef tenderloins with golden tomatoes on an herb-encrusted baguette. Grilled garlic chicken with smoked gouda on a honey wheat wrap. Fruits and gourmet olives and crudite. A gourmet luncheon with only one thing missing: something to eat it with.

The explanation was at the bottom of the menus distributed at President Bush's $1.5 million Charlotte fund-raiser Monday.

"At the request of the White House, silverware will not accompany the table settings," it said in discreetly fine print.

No silver. No plastic.

The lack of utensils might have been why many plates went virtually untouched.

The reason: So the tinkle of silver wouldn't disrupt the president's speech.

War President

Aloft in Iraq

There are reports from Iraq that:
At the end of March, building on his Order 39 of last September, Bremer passed yet another law further opening up Iraq's economy to foreign ownership, a law that Iraq's next government is prohibited from changing under the terms of the interim constitution. Bremer also announced the establishment of several independent regulators, which will drastically reduce the power of Iraqi government ministries. For instance, the Financial Times reports that "officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority said the regulator would prevent communications minister Haider al-Abadi, a thorn in the side of the coalition, from carrying out his threat to cancel licences the coalition awarded to foreign-managed consortia to operate three mobile networks and the national broadcaster."

Somehow, this doesn't sound like an independent Iraq is in the works.  When is the United States Congress going to address these plans for the permanent occupation of Iraq?

Iraq Today

Entering the Inferno
by Dahr Jamail
The NewStandard

April 5, 2004 - Baghdad - It began as a smooth entry into Iraq, crossing the
border in record time as the four U.S. soldiers watched us just d