Hannah's Blog

Tough Decisions

The pundit flap over Senator John Kerry's refusal to cross a picket line in order to address the nation's mayors has finally let me understand a phrase we hear all too often, "hard choices and tough decisions."

Of course it wasn't Senator Kerry who provided the clarification. He was faced with a choice between two undesirable situations and picked the one that affected the fewest people--i.e. the executives of the nation's cities who probably weren't too keen on hearing from him anyway.

No, the illumination came from the Republican Governor, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who wasn't content to simply step into the limelight but had to get in a dig. "A mayor, a governor, and a president have a responsibility for making tough decisions and balancing budgets; a senator doesn't" is what he said and I finally understood that a tough decisions is one that hurts someone else.

Usually someone whose well-being the speaker holds in his hands and usually someone who carries out orders for a living. It's the sophisticated version of administering a spanking and claiming "this hurts me more than you." Gee, I'm glad I finally got that straight.

Terror Insurance

The Dean Fest organizers can get terror insurance for an extra hundred dollars. But, any damage done has to be done by "certified" terrorists!!!!

Iraqi Sovereignty

"Sovereignty" has been handed over to Iraq two days early.

It seems a good time to repost my concerns from May 1st because the questions haven't been answered, or even asked. Six permanent American bases are being constructed as we pretend to be beginning the process of disengagement.

positioning of our military assets. Will we bring them home or keep them
dispersed around the globe to generate antagonism and resentment?"

Stage Zero

September 20, 2003
Stage Zero
The Moral Development of George W. Bush

By CAROL NORRIS

If George wasn't driving the world down the road to extinction with his wars, his environmentally disastrous choices and world alienating policies--"Look at me, ma, no hands" he says while sitting behind the wheel of our children's future--I'd think he was almost fascinating.

Fascinating the way one who is steeped in myriad psychological issues is.

I'm a psychotherapist. And, having never seen George in therapy, despite my open invitation, it would be unethical for me to make an official diagnosis of him. So, I won't. But, I can kick some thoughts around.

Remember Tom Hanks' movie, "Big," when the kid, by an accident of fate, finds himself turned into an adult, playing grown-up roles he is not developmentally ready for? This is George. I don't mean this maliciously or satirically; I really mean it. I think developmentally speaking George is a big kid. Lots of people are. The difference is they don't have the means to bomb human beings into "pink mist," obliterate the infrastructures of countries, and poison the world with coal and pesticides and carbon dioxide and depleted uranium and napalm, as they play grown up.

Nowhere was George playing grown-up more conspicuous than his staged re-election photo op on the USS Lincoln. When I saw him all dressed up pretending to be a naval aviator, I kept waiting for him to pull out his GI Joe doll with karate action, sit down and start playing: "Bring 'em on. We can take 'em. Huh, Joe? Take that--heeeyah," while making Joe do a big karate chop as the real soldiers look on, saluting their Commander in Chief.

And now KB Toys has come out with an Elite Force Naval Aviator Action Figure to immortalize George's "historic" day of pretend play. And with that, in a moment of unintentional, yet brilliant psychological mindedness, they have placed George, the pretend combat-ready naval aviator, exactly where he belongs--in the make believe world of the 10 and under set.

In short, George is stuck.

Without getting into too much psychobabble, in human development terms this means he had some significant issue or trauma at one stage in his development that precluded him from advancing to higher stages. Again, theorists would argue that we all have developmental issues to one degree or another. And we do. But, again, most of us are playing out our intrapsychic havoc in the battlefields of our minds, not the battlefields of the world. Our casualties, disastrously enough, are often our relationships, not the lives of U.S. soldiers and civilian mothers and children bombed out of their homes in far away neighborhoods.

There are many ways to think about human development. One could explore cognitive, psychosexual or psychosocial development. I suspect George is developmentally stuck in many ways, so we could look at any of these.

But perhaps more than any other president I can think of, George evokes pure morality as a rationale for his policy decisions. This, as opposed to choices based on reason and facts and evidence informed by morality. [Example: George's rationale for going to war were WMD's that were an imminent threat to the U.S. Oops. No WMD's. Now George says in essence, "Yeah, well, so? Saddam is bad. Really bad. And we're good. So, us being good and Saddam being bad justifies all the lying and misleading about this illegal war."]

So, while I don't psychologically assess people from a moral perspective, it makes sense for George. You have to meet people where they are.

A preeminent theorist on moral development is Lawrence Kohlberg, a famous Harvard professor, who demonstrated through his scientific studies that people progress in their moral reasoning (i.e., in their bases for ethical behavior) through a series of levels. He delineated three levels, further broken down into six stages.

The first is "the Preconventional Level," where one usually finds oneself in elementary school. The first stage of this level is where George, I believe, makes his home. It's called: Stage Zero.

Kohlberg writes: "Stage Zero: Egocentric judgment. The child makes judgments of good on the basis of what he likes and wants or what helps him, and bad on the basis of what he does not like or what hurts him. He has no concept of rules or of obligations to obey or conform to independent of his wish."

I know! It's uncanny.

We saw George's egocentric judgment during his college years as he publicly argued for the right of his fraternity, DKE, to use cruel hazing rituals, such as branding, on its pledges. After all, George said, "the resulting wound is 'only a cigarette burn.'" (New York Times, November 8, 1967).

We saw it in AWOL George, who didn't see the need to fulfill his obligations, his promised duties in the National Guard because it didn't align with his wishes.

And we have seen unprecedented self-serving judgment time and time and time again during Bush's tenure as president.

One example among thousands: The current administration is seeking to create legislation that will make some 18 year old kid who wrongly downloads a song off the Internet without permission a felon. A felon. Such a label will dog her and impede her for the rest of her life. This, as Kenneth Lay, who robbed countless families of their life savings is not held accountable, but is running free, living not off his wife as he pretends, but off the fruits of his manipulation. So, what's the moral here? Rob a corporate buddy of George's of a buck fifty and, because it's technically illegal, you're forever bad. Run a corporation, be a buddy of George's, rob your employees of thousands upon thousands of dollars and, although it's illegal, you're still good.

A summation of George's egocentric philosophy might very well be his words to Bob Woodward: "I am the commander, see. I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they need to say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

What a profoundly childlike thing to say (not to be confused with childish). It sounds to me like a kid trying desperately, yet transparently, to convince people he is fit for a role he secretly is unsure he can fulfill and discuss.

An appropriate response by Woodward to George's subtext might've been, "Such a big boy, Georgie! Yes you are!!"

I'm not a big Clinton fan, believe me, but can you imagine those words coming out of his mouth during the absurd Lewinsky debacle?

An interviewer asks: "But didn't you say you did not have sexual relations with that woman?"

"I am the commander, see. I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president...I don't feel I owe anybody any explanation."

Now, we all know many a president has lied and distorted the truth in office. But, the difference is they kept in mind the concept of rules and obligations that they had to at least pretend to obey and conform to. Not just George, but this entire administration has completely flouted what every other administration previously has not--the need to pretend to play by the rules. The rules are forever changed, they tell us. Remember 911!

Speak brashly and carry a big photo of Ground Zero is their new philosophy. And Remember 911! is the battle cry that drowns out any dissenting skirmish this administration finds itself in. Remember 911! Is the catch-all response that replaces any obligation to account for their actions. It is the cozy, protective cloak that has made the Bush administration all but impervious to questioning and doubt.

And not can they be heard crying, Remember 911!, but Beware The Terrorist Hiding in Your Underwear Drawer! Code Orange. Code Orange. Duct tape at the ready! Of course, a terrorist attack could absolutely happen again. We'd be foolish to think otherwise. But, this in no way negates the fact that the Bush administration has brilliantly and unabashedly exploited our post-911 apprehension. There is no greater fuel for righteous indignation and the resulting lack of critical thinking than fear. And the Bush administration is fanning the flames of fear every chance it gets.

So, through our post-9.11 eyes, many of us have very understandably come to see the radical (yes, the Bush administration is not conservative, it is radical) egocentric judgment of the Bush administration as truth. And in many cases, it has become law. The Patriot Act is the radical, egocentric judgment of a few, turned law.

And it is from the same Stage Zero mindset that a plethora of alarming legislation is being passed as hard fought civil liberties are being overturned. It is from Stage Zero that John Ashcroft and the proposed "Patriot Act II" will be enforced. Ashcroft's egocentric judgment--the same judgment that spent $8,000 of tax payers' money to cover a stone breast apparently too titillating for John's libido--is going to determine who is a terrorist and who isn't, who can be expatriated and who can't. It will be Ashcroft, the same man who reportedly thinks Calico cats are signs of the devil, who is the final arbiter of right and wrong, good and bad. And let's not forget that Rumsfeld was reportedly all too recently considered so way out there his colleagues didn't take him seriously.

While the causes of all this egocentric morality are beyond the scope of this article, it is worth saying that, in George's case, it is surely informed by his particularly privileged background that has left him without a realistic sense of how the vast majority of us live and struggle. As he said in a moment of uncharacteristic truth telling to Reverend Jim Wallis, "I don't understand how poor people think."

In addition, his morality and subsequent choices are surely informed and perhaps superceded by his addiction issues and by his deep-seated shame and desperate need for validation.

George's egocentric judgment is also given credibility under the auspices of his religious conviction. I do believe George is a religious man. But, he has in many ways prostituted his religion to serve his true dogma--the advancement of the corporation.

So, for all his touting of religious and moral imperatives, George's policy decisions constitute nothing less than a moral failure. They have nothing to do with God, despite George's fantasy of divine rule, they have nothing to do with compassion, and they have nothing to do with helping you and me in any real way. Intrapsychically, they have everything to do with George's wish to finally be more than what he fears he is--a moral/business/personal failure. And interpersonally, they have to do with paybacks and power jockeying.

I believe George's handlers exploit his insecurities, posing him as an Air Force Naval Aviator here and a Friend of the Poor there, feeding into his need to play those rolls. At the same time, it fills their need to have an affable, malleable front man, willing to please and needy enough to believe the rolls in which he is cast. Karl and Dick and Co., I believe, are to a certain extent manipulating George just as they are trying to manipulate us.

So, why don't we all see through this and call them on it? Because George's handlers and speechwriters and the rest of the gang are very adept at pretending to be at a stage where they aren't: Stage 5.

Kohlberg writes: "Stage 5: The social-contract legalistic orientation. Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights and standards that have been critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society... The result is an emphasis upon the "legal point of view," but with an additional emphasis upon the possibility of changing the law in terms of rational considerations of social utility...The "official" morality of the American government and Constitution is at this stage."

This is where most of us Americans believe we are, or at least we used to. Because this is much of what our country was founded on. And the Bush administration knows this and they exploit it. They talk the talk of Stage 5 as they walk the walk of Stage Zero.

But such incongruity is crazy making. It's like a mother who beats her child as she tells him she loves him and would never hurt him.

Like the abused kid, many of us want to believe George is telling the truth and is looking after our best interest. He seems like a nice enough guy. We try to contort our sense of morality and reality to fit his, questioning our own. But, while we hear George tell us the economy is recovering, we see thousands upon thousands in our communities laid off with no future job prospects. And we can only contort and deny so long until finally something gives. So now, the facade is cracking and many people are starting to see the real, ugly, self-serving picture behind George's wall of pretty words. And it is through this crack that activists, progressive politicians and those of us concerned about the once unimaginable state of our country must thoughtfully, respectfully and gently enter and begin to mobilize and organize.

The final of Kohlberg's stages is Stage 6. Again, Kohlberg writes: "Stage 6. The universal ethical-principle orientation. Right is defined by the decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen ethical principles that appeal to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency... At heart, these are universal principles of justice, of the reciprocity and equality of the human rights, and of respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons."

Kohlberg believed many people never truly reach Stage 6. But, I think it is not unreasonable to hope that the man who is running our country and our world should aspire to this stage. Having a Stage Zeroling behind the wheel is a sure sign our world will be driven into an enormous ditch before you can say Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

To help clients move through the stages, Kohlberg believed a therapist should present him or her with moral dilemmas to discuss. Never have I considered, nor do I plan on doing therapy with clients this way. But, I think it is my patriotic duty to help our morality-touting Commander in Chief rise out of Stage Zerohood and step into a stage more fitting of his position.

So, again, I invite you, George, to come see me in therapy and work out some of your moral development issues, just as I invited you to work out some of your shame issues a while back.

In the meantime, here is a moral dilemma for you to chew on to help you work your way up the moral ladder. Hope it helps.

Moral Dilemma: You are an exceptionally privileged man who has a long history of personal and business failures. Despite yourself, you find you are appointed to the most powerful position in the land through the help of friends and family in high places.

You say you are compassionate (burning the flesh of others aside). Yet in your short tenure in office, you have instituted public policies and norms that have irretrievably pockmarked the face of the world such as walking away from international treaties, years in the making: The Kyoto Treaty, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the International Criminal Court Treaty, and the Land Mines Ban Treaty, making our world infinitely more dangerous.

You have created the largest federal budget deficit in American history, as you blithely accept the highest unemployment rate in decades, (the upturn of the last economic quarter was mostly due to payments to the coffers of a few defense contractors. So only a few of your friends have seen the benefits of the slight upturn. And the small unemployment decrease was due to people so frustrated they just dropped out of the job market).

And as the US now boasts the highest proportion of children born into poverty in the "developed" world (22%) and 43 million Americans have no health insurance, your administration is slowly but surely gutting all our country's safety nets, which will ultimately add fuel to your privatization frenzy and create a truly vicious cycle.

Through this same privatization, you are pilfering the jobs and futures of millions of federal employees in the name of national security, effectively gutting the Civil Service Act of 1883, dragging federal employment practices back to the good old days of nepotism and cronyism while you do your best to pass a law to cut the overtime pay of hard working citizens.

Your administration reportedly instructed the EPA to lie to the people of New York City about the toxic air they have been breathing since 9.11, which has caused very serious respiratory illnesses. You ask soldiers to continue to die, to expose themselves to higher and higher levels of toxic depleted uranium that promise years of subsequent health problems, as you show a uniquely George-esque brand of "supporting our troops"--ignoring the demands of the family members of active troops who are clamoring for some answers and accountability for this war; trying to block the pay raises of those on active duty; and pledging to veto a bill that would overturn an old law that, in effect, makes veterans pay for their own benefits.

Do you have Laura look up what the word compassionate means in the dictionary and pick a new, more appropriate word like, say, self-interested? Do you have a moral reckoning and become the man you pretend to be? Or, do you forever remain "...a white Republican guy who doesn't get it..." as you said to Reverend Jim Wallis and, true to your pervasive pattern, continue to pull an Orwell and tell us War is Peace, Occupation is Liberation, and Self-Interest is Compassion? Discuss.

Carol Norris is a psychotherapist, freelance writer and member of CODEPINK: Women for Peace. She can be contacted at writing4justice@planet-save.com.

Upholding the Law

Letter sent to the United States Congress regarding recent human rights issues in Iraq

June 16, 2004

To: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

As members of university faculties in law, international relations, diplomacy, and public policy, we write to register our objection to the systematic violation of human rights practiced or permitted by authorities of the United States within occupied Iraq during recent months: we request Congressional action to ensure accountability for such violations and to safeguard against such egregious abuses in the future. Current circumstances require that all transcend partisan politics or considerations. Action by Congress is necessary to promote a rule of law produced and enforced through a democratic process and to protect the physical and psychological integrity of all people consistent with the traditions of our nation.

I. Accountability for human rights violations
Congressional action is necessary to examine and ensure accountability for the organizational and individual failures that allowed persons within the control of U.S. forces to be subjected to acts of torture and to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

There can be no doubt that the acts of abuse in Abu Ghraib prison constitute violations of both the domestic and international legal obligations of the United States and its agents. Executive Branch officials have admitted as much. International humanitarian law provides that those classified as prisoners of war are entitled to special protections against such abuses under the Third Geneva Convention, ratified by the United States in 1955. Inhabitants of occupied territories are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention, also ratified by the United States in 1955, against physical or moral coercion to obtain information from them. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the United States in 1994, requires that States party take measures to prevent both torture, and other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The Constitution of the United States protects prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment.

Accepting the applicability of international and domestic law, military officials have initiated prosecutions of lower level personnel. That response, while necessary, is clearly insufficient. Congress has an obligation to investigate and assess responsibility at all levels of the Executive Branch from the highest officers on down for the abuses in Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi prisons.

Despite clear and repeated notice [1], abuse of detainees has been both frequent and pervasive during the military occupation of Iraq. The fact that military officials failed after such notice to identify and eradicate the pattern of abuse itself constitutes a grave breach of responsibility.

In addition, a growing body of evidence indicates that the abuses practiced on detainees under American control are the consequence of policies developed at the highest levels in the months and years immediately preceding the scandal. First, there are reports that harsh interrogation tactics, designed for use against only the most serious terrorist suspects and themselves violative of humanitarian law, have been authorized and applied generally against detainees in Iraq. Second, authorization to coerce detainees to speak creates the potential for grave abuse. It is thus evident that very clear lines must be established and vigorously policed. Yet authorities failed to supervise subordinates adequately, or to establish minimal safeguards against abuse. Third, the dilatory response by military and other officials to reports by international agencies, human rights groups, and the media concerning egregious abuse operated as a predictable signal to those on various levels below that their admittedly illegal conduct was condoned, accepted, or encouraged. Fourth, Executive Branch officials have diverged from past practice by asserting presidential power to designate certain prisoners as not entitled to any judicial or other meaningful review of any aspects of the legality of their confinement, including imposition of torture. That approach to detainees created a culture facilitating disregard for the protections required to be accorded prisoners in Iraq.

II. Democratic definition of policies involving coercion

Military and intelligence officials have acknowledged that official U.S. policy now involves use of coercive methods that are morally questionable and that may violate international and domestic law. The question whether various forms of coercion against persons under American control can be justified goes to the heart of our identity as a democratic community.

Given the profound problems it may raise as a moral, legal, and constitutional matter, any decision to adopt a coercive interrogation policy and the definition of any such policy, if adopted, should be made within the strict confines of a democratic process. While the Executive Branch should retain sufficient authority to conduct military affairs, basic principles and policies regarding human rights must be defined by a representative and accountable body acting in transparent and deliberative fashion. In turn, the courts must retain ultimate responsibility for judicial oversight in order to ensure that the law meets constitutional requirements.

Thus, insofar as Executive Branch officials have authored and implemented a coercive interrogation policy, that policy must be submitted to Congress for examination and debate. Congress should determine afresh its wisdom, its consistency with basic democratic principles of humane treatment, and its conformity with international and domestic law. If any such policy were to be adopted by Congress, the reviewability of such law through the operation of the courts in due course must be assured.

Conclusion

Given the accumulation of reliable evidence demonstrating the practice of torture and degrading treatment of detainees by U.S. forces, and given Executive responsibility for creating the conditions enabling such practice to occur, and with regard for democratic responsibility with respect to these issues at the heart of our understanding of our nation, its culture and values, we ask that Congress take action to:

(1) assess responsibility for the abuses that have taken place, identifying the officials at all levels who must be held accountable for enabling these abuses to occur and for the failure to investigate them, and determining what sanctions, including impeachment and removal from office of any civil officer of the United States responsible, may be appropriate;

(2) decide whether the U.S. should have an official policy of coercion in connection with interrogation, and if so what form it should take as well as what safeguards it should include to protect against abuses in violation of the policy.

Sincerely,

[The undersigned]

[1] As summarized in a recent letter to President Bush:

For the past year and a half, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, Newsday, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, and other leading newspapers have repeatedly quoted unnamed U.S. intelligence officials boasting about the use of torture and other ill-treatment of prisoners. Numerous detainees have been killed or attempted suicide in custody in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay prompting unprecedented expressions of concern by the International Committee of the Red Cross; suspects have been turned over to the foreign intelligence services of countries, such as Syria, with records of brutal torture; the ICRC has also specifically expressed concern about conditions at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; and now, the US military's own inquiry has found "systemic and illegal abuse of detainees" at Abu Ghraib.

Letter of May 7, 2004 to President George W. Bush from William Schulz, Amnesty International USA, et al.

Petition

Dean Speaks

Speaking this past weekend on behalf of Nancy Farmer in Missouri, Governor Howard Dean, MD uttered what has to be my favorite comment:

"The Republicans don't manage money. They spend it and borrow," he said.

Now while that might just be a play on the Republican riff about "tax and spend" liberals, the sequence of the words is important. To "borrow and spend" doesn't mean the same as "spend and borrow." Because, if you borrow money for a big purchase or a long term investment, what you intend it for is part of the consideration of those who are going to lend it. But, if you spend too much and then have to borrow to make it up, you're not planning for the future; you're a spend-thrift who expects someone else to bail him out.
And the next stop, of course, is bankruptcy court. When George W. Bush was a simple oil man, his Saudi friends bailed him out. Who's going to bail us out of the hole he's dug for the U.S?

Wildlife Report

The swallows have moved into the new garage. This is important because they used to nest in our basement, somewhat inconvenient because having to leave the door open not only caused the walls to sweat, but made it possible for larger critters like grey squirrels and the cats that hunt them to visit.

Anyway, last year the garage was not attractive and we worried that we had lost our mosquito hunters for good. But, they're back and working hard to scoop up every last bug.
The grey squirrels seem to have been replaced by little red ones--too small to reach the holes in the bird-feeder while perching on the top. Of course, if they are patient, the sparrows will drop enough seed to feed both the squirrels and the chipmonks. The sparrows, as usual, nest in the box by the pond and then bring their young to teach them to nosh at the feeder. That may be why we seem to host multiple broods every summer. We are not, however, over-run by sparrows. Unlike the swallows, they seem to depart whenever the young are fully fledged and then brood again. The swallows, on the other hand hang around until the weather changes and they head south. They expect to be able to return to the structure in which they nested. If there's a wire for them to perch on, they'll sit there together and poop to their heart's content. Another reason to keep them out of the basement.
That we can now keep the basement closed is particularly good since we have recently been visited by a black bear and her three cubs. The other morning they were sitting in the neighbor's tree, but they seem to be frequent visitors to the garbage cans at the pre-school down the road and another neighbor's birdfeeder (he now takes his in at night).
The biggest thing I've ever seen at our birdfeeder was a raccoon who sat on the branch from which it hangs and reached down into the tube from which he had dislodged the top. These critters sure are clever.

War Crimes

While it is true that laws are an evolving body of dos amd donts, whatever
laws a community has agreed to at a particular point in time are the ones
that the members of that community are obligated to follow. A violation is
a crime, regardless of whether a particular violator agrees with the laws
or not.
Given that understanding, the determination by the Center for Economic and
Social Rights that the United States has seriously violated the laws of
occupation to which it has subscribed, and continues to do so, is nothing
short of shameful.
Although the Center has identified ten areas in which crimes have been
committed, the one that seems to be growing most rapidly at the moment
concerns the prohibition against fundamentally changing the economy of an
occupied country.
According to the CESR report:
As an Occupying Power, the U.S. is prohibited from
imposing major legal, political or economic changes in
Iraq. However, the Coalition Provisional Authority has
issued a number of executive orders that aim to privatize
Iraq's economy for the benefit of American corporations,
with little consideration for the welfare and rights of
the Iraqi people. These changes violate international
law and have no binding legal effect.
That seems pretty clear. The only question remaining is who's going to
bring the United States to account?

Violation #1

Failure to Allow Self-Determination. The "full sovereignty" that the Bush administration claims will be restored to Iraq on June 30, 2004 is a sham without legal effect. Genuine self-determination requires the free exercise of political choice, full control over internal and external security, and authority ofver social and economic policy. Until that happens, Iraq is, and will remain , an occupied country, and the U.S will remain subject to the laws of occupation.

Violation # 2

Failure to provide public order and safety. The US violated international law and caused untold damage to the people and heritage of Iraq by allowing the wholesale looting of Iraq's public, religious, cultural, and civilian institutions and propterties. The US also created a climate of unbridled lawlessness by dismissing the entire army, security, and law enforcement personnel without a back-up plan to maintin public safety--predictably resulting in a sharp increase in Violent crime, especially directed against women.

Violation # 3

Unlawful Attacks. US forces have routinely conducted indiscriminate attacks on populated areas of Iraq, causing widespread and unnecessary civilian casualties. Ambulances, medical staff and facilities have been targeted by snipers and regular forces in violation of the Geneva Conventions. To date there has been no official effort to seek accountability for these war crimes.

Violation # 4

Unlawful Detention and Torture. It is regular policy for US forces to indiscriminately arrest and detain Iraqi civilians without charge or dur process. Up to 90 % of the 43,000 Iraqis detained under the occupation are reported to be innocent bystanders wept up in illegal mass arrests. The much-publicized torture, rape, and murder of detainees is a systemic practice in US prisons throughout Iraq, the result of decisions made at the highest levels of the Bush Administration.

Violation # 5

Collective Punishment. Taking a cue from Israeli tactics in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that have been widely condemned as war crimes, the US has imposed collective punishment on Iraqi civilians. These tactics include demolishing civilian homes, ordering curfews in populated areas, preventing free movement through checkpoints and road closures, sealing off entire towns and villages, and using indiscriminate, overwhelming force in crowded urban areas.

Violation # 6

Failure to Ensure Vital Services. The US is legally required to meet the needs of Iraq's population by maintaining electricity, water, sanitation, and other services vital to people's life, health and well-being. Yet despite the Bush Administration's funneling billions of taxpayer dollars to majore corporate contributors in secret deal to "reconstruct" Iraq, these essential services remain in disrepair, often in worse condition than before the occupation.

Violation # 7

Failure to Protect the Rights to Health and Life. The US is violating Iraqis' rights to life and health by failing to ensure access to healthcare and to prevent the spread of contagious disease. The Health infrastructure is in disrepair, unsanitary conditions are widespread even in hospitals, drugs and medical supplies are in short supply, clean water and sanitation are largely unavailable, and medical statistics report disease outbreaks and increased mortality throughout the country.

Violation # 8

Failure to Protect the Rights to Food and Education. The US is required to ensure that the population has physical and financial access to food and education. Yet 60% of the population depends on a monthly food ration and 11 million Iraqis are classified as food insecure. The education system is in shambles, with two-thirds of school-age children in Baghdad skipping school because of dilapidated conditions, lack of teachers, and well-founded fears of crime.

Violation # 9

Failure to Protect the Right to Work. In violation of the right to work, the US summarily dismissed more than half a million workers, civil servants, teachers and other professionals--without any evidence of wrongdoing or opportunity to defend themselves. Moreover, American corporations in Iraq generally rely on foreign rather than Iraqi contractors, exacerbating the unemployment crisis, and slowing the reconstruction process. More than 60% of Iraqis are unemployed.

Violation # 10

Fundamentally Changing the Economy. As an Occupying Power, the US is prohibited from imposing major legal, political or economic changes in Iraq. However, the Coalition Provisional Authority has issued a number of executive orders that aim to privatize Iraq's economy for the benefit of American corporations, with little consideration for the welfare and rights of the Iraqi people. These changes violate international law and have no binding legal effect.

Jane Harman for VP

Congresswoman Jane Harman
Ranking Democrat, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Los Angeles World Affairs Council
Remarks as prepared
January 16th, 2004

"The Intelligence on Iraq's WMD: Looking Back to Look Forward"
In four days, the President will deliver his annual State of the Union address before both houses of Congress, his Cabinet, the Ambassadorial Corps, the Supreme Court, and a worldwide television audience.

Almost one year ago, on January 28th, 2003, the President devoted one-third of his State of the Union address to what he described as "a serious and mounting threat to our country" posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. He spoke, in those famous 16 words, about efforts by Iraq to secure enriched uranium from Africa. He talked about aluminum tubes "suitable for nuclear weapons production." He described stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said, "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs."

One week later, on February 5th, Secretary of State Colin Powell, with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet sitting behind his right shoulder, used charts and photographs to elaborate on the Administration's WMD case. "These are not assertions," Powell said, "these are facts corroborated by many sources." Among Powell's claims were:

That "we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to various locations?"

That "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."

Pictures of what he called "active chemical munitions bunkers" with "sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions."

Powell has subsequently said that he spent days personally assessing the intelligence. He included only information he felt was fully supported by the analysis. Hence, no mention of enriched uranium from Africa, no claim that al Qaeda was involved in 9-11.

The effect was powerful. Veteran columnist for the Washington Post Mary McGrory, known for liberal views and Kennedy connections, wrote an op-ed the following day entitled "I Am Persuaded". Members of Congress, like me, believed the intelligence case. We voted for the resolution on Iraq to urge U.N. action and to authorize military force only if diplomacy failed. We felt confident we had made the wise choice.

But as the evidence pours in?

the Intelligence Committee's review of the pre-war intelligence;

David Kay's interim report on the failure to find WMD in Iraq;

an impressive study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace;

the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board's critique;

thoughtful commentaries like that of Ken Pollack in this month's Atlantic Monthly;

and investigative reporting including a lengthy front page story by Barton Gellman of the Washington Post on January 7,

we are finding out that Powell and other policymakers were wrong, British intelligence was wrong, and those of us who believed the intelligence were wrong. Indeed, I doubt there would be discussions of David Kay's possible departure if the Iraq Survey Group were on the verge of uncovering large stockpiles of weapons or an advanced nuclear weapons program.

Let me be clear. There were good reasons to support regime change in Iraq - which was the policy of the Clinton Administration and was supported by an over-whelming vote in Congress in 1998. It is also true that Iraq violated 16 UN resolutions by failing to prove it had dismantled its WMD and continuing efforts to deceive UN inspectors.

But if 9/11 was a failure to connect the dots, it appears that the Intelligence Community, in the case of Iraq's WMD, connected the dots to the wrong conclusions. If our intelligence products had been better, I believe many policymakers, including me, would have had a far clearer picture of the sketchiness of our sources on Iraq's WMD programs, and our lack of certainty about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities.

Let me add that policymakers-including members of Congress -- have a duty to ask tough questions, to probe the information being presented to them. We also have a duty to portray that information publicly as accurately as we can.

A far clearer picture of the true nature of the intelligence information could have led to more policy options -- more time for diplomacy to work, and more time to build international support for military action, which was likely inevitable given the ruthless, deluded characters of Saddam and his sons.

With more time, there would have been a greater ability to learn the lessons for the post-war from five prior nation-building efforts in the last decade -- more time to prepare a careful strategy and build an effective budget for the real costs of winning the peace.

Finally, if the threat from Iraq was less urgent, we could have continued to focus more heavily on the threat from Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda. Instead, we diverted attention and resources to a war in Iraq in the midst of our hunt for the true villains of September 11.

The October 2002 NIE on Iraq's WMD Programs

The intelligence community communicates its judgments to senior officials in many ways - in verbal briefings, in short memos, and in longer reports. The cornerstone document on Iraq's WMD before the war was the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD published in October 2002. NIEs are the most carefully written, methodically coordinated products of the intelligence agencies.

Having studied the 19 volumes of source materials that went into the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, and having read that NIE carefully, my conclusion is it was a significantly flawed document.

While the Intelligence Community has portrayed that NIE as consistent with judgments throughout the 1990s, in fact, it included at least two important new statements:

First, that Baghdad possessed chemical and biological weapons;

And second, that Baghdad was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

These were centerpieces of the NIE and of the case for war and it appears likely that both were wrong.

Recently, I met with the senior analysts who wrote the October 2002 NIE. Describing their mindset at the time, they believed the decision to go to war had already been made. They wrote as if they were advising the military commanders on the likely status of Iraq's weapons as they prepared for a war. It was a mindset that, according to the analysts, focused on "making the case" and "making the tough calls". They felt they had to come down on one side or the other - did Saddam have chemical and biological weapons or didn't he? Would he use them on our troops?

I think the intelligence community misunderstood its audience and its role. Let's remember that this NIE was requested by Congress -- by my colleague Senator Bob Graham, then head of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- in order to inform Members' decisions about the timing and need for military action. It was published a few days before the key vote in the Senate to authorize the use of force. This is a very different audience - and purpose - than the military commander preparing to fight.

Almost twelve years ago, departing DCI Robert Gates, a Rebublican who served in the first Bush Administration, articulated standards to ensure intelligence analysts and managers stayed free from political pressure or personal bias. Gates said it is not the analyst's job to make the tough calls. Their job is to describe as accurately as possible what is known, "make explicit what is not known, and clearly distinguish between fact, inference, and judgment."

Gates insisted that dissenting views receive prominence: "we must not dismiss alternatives or exaggerate our certainty under the guise of making the 'tough calls'. We are analysts, not umpires, and the game does not depend on our providing a single judgment?"

In testimony before our Committee last fall, former Deputy Secretary of Defense and CSIS President John Hamre underscored another of Gates' warnings: to protect against "groupthink," an institutional mindset that fails to challenge arguments which take on the patina of "truth".

A troubling example of groupthink, as we are coming to learn, was the unquestioned assumption that the failure to prove that Saddam Hussein destroyed weapons of mass destruction after 1991 was proof that they still existed. That tautology infected intelligence reporting around the world, and was the centerpiece of Colin Powell's UN address.

The Intelligence Community in a State of Denial

Four months ago, Republican Committee Chairman Porter Goss and I sent a bipartisan letter to the DCI outlining shortcomings we had identified in pre-war intelligence. Subsequently, questions have also been raised by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which, like our Committee, plans to issue a report. We said that collection had not provided sufficient insights into an admittedly very tough intelligence target. In addition, the departure of the U.N. weapons inspectors from Iraq in 1998 ended the world community's best window into what Iraq was doing. Analysis failed clearly to present alternative hypotheses or contrary information, such as claims that Iraq had destroyed weapons, or that its WMD programs were hollowed out by deception, corruption and deceit among players in the regime. The Chairman and I have yet to receive a serious substantive response to our letter.

I believe that unanswered questions regarding U.S. intelligence have left the nation in a precarious position and endanger our ability to understand and deal with threats posed over three administrations since the end of the Cold War.

Last month, the Los Angeles Times ran a detailed piece casting doubt on the Intelligence Community's judgments about North Korea's nuclear program. A recent Washington Post piece suggested that China is also skeptical of the assessment that North Korea has a uranium enrichment program in part because of questions regarding the credibility of U.S. intelligence in Iraq. Several days ago, the North Koreans claimed their own statements had been exaggerated. Our intelligence community has been vocal about the North Korea threat: how good are its assessments?

Libya's recent decision to abandon its WMD programs provides the intelligence community with the chance to compare its assessments with the truth on the ground. These should be viewed as opportunities for lessons learned rather than a time to circle the wagons.

Policymakers, too, should be learning lessons from the Iraq and Libya experiences to improve strategies to combat WMD proliferation. Libya seems to have recognized that relinquishing WMD is a surer path to security than possessing WMD. Sanctions and patient diplomacy - backed by the threat of military force - appear to have worked. Patience was something notably lacking in the Administration's approach to building a coalition for Iraq.

The Imperative of Intelligence Community Reform

Why does all this matter? I often say it is important to look back in order to look forward. The lessons of our pre-war intelligence on Iraq must inform and shape the intelligence community over coming years.

Leadership. There is no reform as important as ensuring that the right leadership sets the right tone. It is essential to have a work environment that welcomes constructive criticism and opportunities for lessons learned.

Leadership also requires the power and institutional structures necessary to get the job done and be held accountable. We ought to be thinking seriously about reorganizing the intelligence community and creating a Director of National Intelligence, a cabinet position with full statutory and budget authority, to run it.

This idea has long had bipartisan support. Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft has recommended it, and the bicameral Joint Congressional Inquiry on 9-11, on which I served, endorsed it. The current structure is a mess. The Director of Central Intelligence only has direct authority over the CIA. The bulk of the community's technical signals and imagery collection efforts are in agencies that report to the Secretary of Defense. The FBI is part of the Justice Department. And Congress recently reorganized 22 agencies into a mammoth Department of Homeland Security that is both an important new customer of intelligence and contains its own intelligence function.

Collaboration. We also need to build stronger collaborative capabilities to take on the new threats. The new Terrorist Threat Integration Center, a joint venture of intelligence agencies to fuse intelligence analysis, and the new Terrorist Screening Center to strengthen watchlisting, are potential bright spots in devising new capabilities.

More traditional targets, such as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, also require greater collaboration across the intelligence community. Technical experts and regional experts must work hand-in-glove. And we will never effectively penetrate and understand foreign targets without greater emphasis on language skills and a more diverse workforce.

"Virtual reorganization." A DNI may be far off. Meanwhile, several distinguished groups, such as the Markle Foundation Task Force, have identified important steps that could be taken toward a "virtual reorganization,"using today's business models and information technology tools. Make it easier for analysts in different agencies to find each other and compare notes in real time. Facilitate the capability to "surge" and create "task forces" by changing personnel policies and providing virtual workspaces. Move from a "need to know" culture to a "need to share" culture. Create career incentives for community assignments. All of these steps could significantly enhance intelligence capabilities.

For another model, we should look at how the Defense Department has been transformed by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 and the "jointness" that it instilled across fiefdoms. Goldwater-Nichols sorted out the Defense Department's capabilities. It assigned the Services to "organize, train, and equip" forces, and assigned the various commands called "CINCs" to run operations. Similarly, the intelligence community might focus the directors of agencies like NSA on organizing, training, and equipping intelligence forces, while stronger community "CINCs" are established to manage joint operations against specific targets.

Laws. Finally, the new missions and new threats require an appropriately strong and effective legal framework to guide them. That framework must recognize, as the Founding Fathers did, that security and liberty are mutually reinforcing. To remain strong, we need both.

Conclusion

The U.S. military is stretched dangerously thin, relationships with key allies seriously strained, and the costs of war and homeland security are contributing to a budget deficit which has broken all previous records. In these circumstances, the Intelligence Community's responsibilities are staggering. There is no margin of error and no room left for surprises in the coming year - and, if there's one thing we can count on, it's surprises.

The good news is the quality and courage of the professionals in the Intelligence Community who work so tirelessly to keep us safe and to protect our national interests. I've met and thanked hundreds of them all around the world. They put the country ahead of their own safety and comfort, and deserve our gratitude and our respect.

They clearly share our desire for the best intelligence possible. To get it, things must change, starting with the Intelligence Community's acknowledgement of deficiencies in the pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

Quite frankly, this willingness to learn lessons should start at the top. The President should lead the effort to improve his intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. I urge him in his State of the Union address next Tuesday to acknowledge the problems and outline specific steps to fix them.

Chiseled on the main entrance to the CIA are the words "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." Freedom depends on accurate, timely, and actionable intelligence. It is the point of the spear in the war on terrorism. We must do better.

Iraqi Dispatch

Baghdad, June 16 -- Dr. Faiq Amin, the manager of the Medico Legal Institute
(ie, the Baghdad morgue), told me a couple of days ago that their maximum
holding capacity is 90 bodies.

Since Janurary an average of over 600 bodies each month have been brought
there. Of these, at least half have died of gunshots or explosions. He also
pointed out that these numbers do not include the heavy fighting areas of
Fallujah and Najaf.

In addition, Dr. Amin said, "We deal only with suspicious deaths, not deaths
from natural causes."

The crime rate in Baghdad is out of control. According to Dr. Amin, this
current rate of bodies brought to the Baghdad Morgue is 3-4 times greater
than it ever was during the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Dr. Amin said that despite the number of bodies being delivered to his
morgue on a daily basis, "I am sure that not all of the bodies that should
come here do." He paused before diplomatically explaining, "Because our
legal system has some problems right now."

Before the invasion, there was a coordinated system between Baghdad and the
other governorates which allowed his morgue to track deaths throughout the
country, but this too has been smashed along with the rest of the
infrastructure of his country.

Outside of the morgue today, a man is mourning the loss of his 5 year-old
daughter Najala. Mr. Jassim and his family were driving, he tells me, when
an American Humvee abruptly pulled in front of their car, causing him to
lose control. His car flipped over, and Najala was crushed.

He was frustrated with the fact that he was being forced to wait yet another
day to pick up her body.

"Why can't we take her? They insist on an autopsy, yet she was crushed to
her death because we tried to avoid the Americans and our car flipped. So I
must wait to bury my daughter."

Abu Talat and I give him our condolences, and begin to walk away when Mr.
Jassim says, "Be careful, don't die in Iraq!"

Earlier we had visited the Baghdad headquarters of the Iraqi Police for
interviews and to obtain handwritten permission to visit a police station
from Brigadier General Amer Ali, who is also the Assistant Commander of the
Iraqi Police in the capital.

He isn't happy with the situation in his country. "Now everything is
smashed," he told me. "We are in a crashed country."

Major Said, the Information Officer for the Baghdad police, was overtly
negative about the occupiers of his country. He said: "The Americans invaded
our country. They are the invaders, so of course Iraqis don't like to work
with them."

He addressed the ongoing problem of US soldiers occupying their police
stations.

"While the Americans are in our stations, nobody comes to us for help
because they are afraid of them," he said. "This is interfering with our men
doing their job, as well as Iraqis getting assistance."

He was frustrated, and the longer we talked the more it came out, and at one
point he was almost ranting.

"We didn't want this 'democracy' to come. This is not democracy here. Even
if I say this as a civilian and not as a police officer, I can say it would
be better if the Americans let us do our work and stayed out of our
stations. The Americans are making IPs into targets."

While walking out of his office, since we'd told Major Said we were heading
towards Adhamiya for some lunch, he said, "Adhamiya is the next Fallujah."

Over in Adhamiya we were dining on tasty kebabs on a sidewalk roughly 200
meters from the Adhamiya Palace, which is the US encampment in the heavily
pro-resistance area of Baghdad. At 2pm three huge explosions sounded from
inside the US base. Mortars, promptly followed by a huge black billowing
plume of smoke from the target.

Everyone in the café was watching the smoke and spontaneous celebrations
erupted as men clapped, cheered and yelled. "Here they go! The Americans
have been killed!"

We continued eating, not missing a beat in our conversation. Abu Talat and I
have grown very accustomed to the explosions that rock Baghdad on a regular
basis these days. He looked at me and said: "You know, Dahr, I used to read
about how the Lebanese got used to the bombs in Beirut. I never thought that
could happen to me, yet here I am."

"I know, and now me too," I said, and we laughed together at the insanity of
what has become our everyday life while working in occupied Baghdad.

We left Adhamiya and traveled to the Asha'ab Iraqi Police station. As I
mentioned before, we had obtained written permission from Brigadier General
Amer Ali from the Central Command Headquarters of the Iraqi Police in
Baghdad. General Ali is also the Assistant Commander of all of the IPs in
Baghdad.

So we felt pretty confident about getting into this police station to
conduct some more interviews.

At Asha'ab Police Station, US soldiers were scattered across the roof, and a
Humvee sat near the entrance at the suicide blockades.

Nevertheless, we wheeled around back and attempted to enter. After all, we
were carrying our handwritten permission from the Assistant Commander of the
Iraqi Police.

Our entry was denied. Despite seeing our permission letter, an American
Military Policeman named Schneider took my passport and disappeared inside
for 15 minutes. He returned, handed me my passport after calling in a check
to the CPA and told me: "You must contact the Public Affairs Officer at the
CPA for information about the Iraqi Police stations. Press aren't allowed
inside."

So, in sum, a US MP effectively usurped the authority of an Iraqi Police
Brigadier General who is the Assistant Commander of all of the police in
Baghdad.

So much for sovereignty.

It brought to mind something said by Bassim Mahmoud Hamid, the Iraqi Police
spokesman for the Ministry of the Interior, in a recent interview at the
CPA:

"We are ready to take over the security situation, because we know how to do
this. The Americans will commit the biggest mistake in their life if they
don't let the Iraqis control the security situation."

----------------------------------------------
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 .

TERROR TAX?

Some people are rethinking their positions.

There's a very simple reason why the theory of the free market can't be realized. It assumes that the information and interest of the buyer and seller are equal or can be equalized when sufficient information is provided. But that just isn't possible. The seller has the benefit of experience, while the buyer has to proceed on the basis of expectation. Those are two very different conditions.
Additionally, the interests of the seller and buyer are fundamentally different. The seller has something he knows he doesn 't want. The buyer thinks or is led to think he wants something he doesn't know. It is in the interest of the seller to misrepresent or at least deny that he doesn't want what he's got. It is in the interest of the buyer to be accurately informed about what he's going to get--information that the seller is reluctant to provide. Which is why it is almost indispensible that there be some third party to keep everything on the up-and-up, so to speak. And that means that the participants in the market have to rely on someone and are, by definition, not free.
Ulterior motives such as acquiring political power are another matter entirely. Which suggests that Pinkerton is on the right track now in two respects. Anyway, judge for yourselves.

Abolish the terror tax
> People who hate America are flush with money from oil sales -- we should stop subsidizing them by becoming more energy independent.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> By James P. Pinkerton
>
>
>
> June 15, 2004 | When I think about Ronald Reagan's legacy, one question haunts me: Was his national energy policy also, inadvertently, a terror-subsidy policy? A quarter-century later, it appears that Reagan's presidency helped bring to America a plentiful supply of energy -- and also oil-financed terrorists.
>
> In 1973, during America's first energy crisis, brought on by the Arab oil embargo, President Nixon declared a national goal of "energy independence" by 1980. For the rest of that decade, Republican and Democratic presidents alike emphasized such independence, to be achieved by a combination of statist means -- price controls, conservation decrees, Uncle Sam-funded ventures such as the Synthetic Fuels Corp. But they didn't work. In 1973, oil imports accounted for 26 percent of U.S. consumption; seven years later, in 1980, imports had risen to 38 percent of the national total. In the meantime, oil prices had soared 1,300 percent.
>
> Enter Reagan, a free marketer and avowed opponent of "utopian schemers." On July 17, 1980, as he accepted the Republican Party's presidential nomination, he declared, "Those who preside over the worst energy shortage in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil, gasoline and natural gas a little more slowly." The Gipper continued, "Well, now, conservation is desirable ... But conservation is not the sole answer to our energy needs. America must get to work producing more energy." Reagan's idea was to liberate the oil companies from controls, as part of his belief in "getting government off our backs." In my role as a low-level staffer on his campaign, I cheered those libertarian words.
>

> And I cheered more as the newly inaugurated 40th president swept away all the Nixon-Ford-Carter-era rules and regulations -- although he also helped kill off solar-power programs, a legacy of the loathed Carter presidency. Yet at that time, few complained. Indeed, what came next was a miracle of the marketplace: During Reagan's two terms, oil prices fell by three-fourths, and the real output of the U.S. economy grew by a third.
>
> Lower prices? More wealth? What's not to like? Only this: The market produces miracles, but it's nonetheless blind; it makes no distinction between a barrel of oil pumped in Oklahoma and a barrel pumped in Saudi Arabia. If the foreign crude is 1 cent cheaper, that's what Adam Smith's "invisible hand" selects. Oil, said the Reaganites, is just another commodity; it doesn't matter where it comes from. So while the economy boomed, the vision of energy independence withered.
>
> And thus the catch: The free market lowered the price of energy, but since the United States was a high-cost producer, domestic production was a big loser. And the long-term decline in U.S. oil production -- accelerated, too, by environmental concerns -- continued through the Reagan years and has kept on ever since. Today, the United States imports 59 percent of its oil; it has gone from being one-quarter dependent on foreign sources to three-fifths dependent.
>
> And what happens to the dollars we export in return for this oil? Many of them go to our mortal enemies. New York Gov. George Pataki, referring to the trillions that the United States and the West have sent to Arab "oilocracies" over the past 30 years, has spoken of a "terror tax." That is, we send them money and they send us al-Qaida. And the problem could get worse. Even assuming that Saudi Arabia follows through on its plan to increase production, the desert kingdom could easily take in $100 billion in the coming year, around a quarter of that from the United States.
>
> Yet despite -- or perhaps because of -- all that money, Saudi Arabia is becoming "Osama Arabia." In light of the continuing attacks on Americans and other foreigners working in that nation, it is worth taking a closer look at what it is doing with its petrodollars. The desert kingdom recently announced a crackdown on "charities" caught funding terror, but the targeted groups were relatively small. The just-dissolved Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, for example, distributed a mere $50 million a year. Meanwhile, the Saudis are promising to set up a new, "transparent" philanthropic entity, the Saudi National Commission for Charitable Work Abroad, which is to give away $100 million a year. Even assuming that that $100 million is all "clean," one is left wondering what the Saudis will do with the other $99.9 billion they'll receive for oil over the next 12 months. A Washington source told me that Saudi Arabia has in fact given an average of $4 billion a year in "foreign aid" over the past decade.
>
> Where's all the money going? Nobody really knows. And nobody -- at least in the United States -- seems very interested in finding out. On Saturday, the New York Times reported that a task force on Saudi terror funding at the Council on Foreign Relations is about to announce that Riyadh has "not fully implemented its new laws and regulations, and because of that, opportunities for the witting or unwitting financing of terrorism persist." But, the Times notes, one sentence was deleted from the task force's final document -- "The Bush administration has done very little to push the implementation of the rules and regulations" -- possibly at the behest of the Bush White House.
>
> Thus even after 9/11 and the resulting war on terror, the U.S.-Saudi relationship appears fundamentally unchanged. Saudi Arabia sells us oil while telling us -- via high-priced P.R. spokesmen and lobbyists -- that it is our ally. In return, America offers the Al-Saud family a geopolitical security blanket and a cloak for financial transactions.
>
> The consequences of the free market's "invisible hand" are now visible: People who hate America are engorged with American money. Having worked for the Gipper for five years, I believe that if he were in office today, he would concede that blind fealty to the free market has brought unintended consequences -- big-time. And so he would take a second look at renewable energy. Although Reagan believed in free markets and limited government, he was pro-science; he strongly supported the space program, for example, and the never-built supercolliding superconductor. Reagan also would understand what was required to win the war on terror -- the de-funding of those who are funding terrorists, even at the risk of upsetting big GOP constituencies.
>
> It's time for a geostrategic shift -- and a return to the idea of energy independence. It's time to revisit energy conservation; we must get serious about hydrogen, solar, wind and other renewable-energy sources.
>
> It won't be easy to gain complete energy independence from the oilocratic foes we are financing, but at least we can start reducing the terror tax. After a long detour -- and after realizing that the free market is paradoxically aiding our worst enemies -- we can get back on the path to energy independence.
>
>
> About the writer
>
> James P. Pinkerton is a columnist for Newsday. From 1979 to 1984, he worked in the election and reelection campaigns of Ronald Reagan and in the Reagan White House.
>

Kerry's Plans

This is what came in the mail this morning:

WHAT: Roundtable discussion with Gov. Jeanne Shaheen about College
Tuition and Middle Class Debt

WHEN: Tuesday, June 15th
1:45 PM

WHERE: Memorial Union Building, Wildcat Den
83 Main St.
Durham, NH

RSVP: nclemons@johnkerry.com

Gov. Shaheen, the national chair of John Kerry's presidential campaign,
will address the concerns of students and families struggling under George
Bush's failed economic policies. She will highlight John Kerry's plan to
strengthen the middle class by offering young Americans affordable education
in return for national service. To RSVP or for any questions, please email
nclemons@johnkerry.com.

See you there,

New Hampshire for Kerry

You'd think that with a week off the campaign trail, they could have got the invitations out more than a day before. In any case, the following is my admittedly snarky response:

I will not be attending the roundtable discussion of John Kerry's education agenda. However, I do want to share my opinion that since an educated person is ipso facto going to provide service to the nation, I do not agree with the notion that education should be paid for by the student.
While an educated person may expect to receive more money for the services he is empowered by his education to provide, that is not necessarily the case. My husband, for example, was a university professor for forty years and never earned a salary over forty thousand dollars per year.
It is quite likely that if students are forced to "pay for their education" with unpaid or minimally paid "national service" they will be even less inclined to see their careers as one of service to the nation.
Service is not something that should be extracted by force or threats.
If the young people of this country are not moved to serve and defend on their own, then the senior population is doing something wrong--a wrong that cannot be righted by conscripting the young.
What we really need is to reduce our investment of money and talent in military hardware. The problem with military hardware is that, if it isn't used up in warfare, the resources expended on it are effectively removed from the economy (much as gold used to be removed and melted down into idols and gold plate for churches) to be watched over and preserved in storage, but not productive of any good. Warehousing armaments is about as productive as keeping a large percentage of the young male population locked up in prisons and jails.
(Armaments that blow things to smitherenes at least prepare the gound for building something new).
What, by the way, is the Kerry campaign going to do if, for some reason as yet not known, GWB is not the GOP nominee? Phrasing the discussion of higher education in terms of Middle Class Debt is not an indication of forward thinking.
Posted by Monica Smith at June 14, 2004 08:13 AM

President So-so

The mawkish memorialization of the Ronald Reagan myth must have outraged some of the people who were mis-treated, mis-led, and made miserable during his administration. I know it did me.
But, while the recollection by Former President George H.W. Bush that Ronald Reagan returned from his meeting with Bishop Desmond Tutu and quipped that it had been "So-so," may cause additional outrage, if history concludes that the presidency of Ronald Reagan was simply "so-so," his adherents and supporters can consider themselves lucky.
Because, at this point, only the Second George Bush's record is worse. Even Richard Nixon, who resigned in order to avoid being totally disgraced, is beginning to look better.
Of course, if Nixon's crimes had been appropriately dealt with, we might have avoided the criminal behavior of the Reagan and current Bush administrations.
If the punishment of crime is supposed to send a message to those who are similarly inclined, perhaps being removed from office isn't punishment enough.

Better Late?

MoveOn.org is launching a new ad campaign to expose the shoddy job Halliburton is doing in Iraq. Some of the evidence is included in this, admittedly old report. Nevertheless, it would seem to indicate that management skills have been lacking for a long time.

AFP , WASHINGTON
Sunday, Dec 14, 2003,Page 7

The Pentagon repeatedly warned contractor Halliburton-KBR that the food it served to US troops in Iraq was "dirty," as were as the kitchens it was served in, NBC News reported on Friday.

Halliburton-Kellogg Brown and Root's promises to improve "have not been followed through," according to a Pentagon report that warned "serious repercussions may result" if the contractor did not clean up.

The Pentagon reported finding "blood all over the floor," "dirty pans," "dirty grills," "dirty salad bars" and "rotting meats ... and vegetables" in four of the military messes the company operates in Iraq, NBC said, citing Pentagon documents.

The report came as President George W. Bush fended off Pentagon reports that Halliburton-KBR overcharged US$61 million for gasoline it sold the military in Iraq. Dick Cheney ran Halliburton for five years until becoming vice president.

The company feeds 110,000 US and coalition troops daily at a cost of US$28 per troop per day, NBC said.

The Pentagon found unclean conditions at four locations in Iraq, including one in Baghdad and two in Tikrit. Even the mess hall where Bush served troops their Thanksgiving dinner was dirty in August, September and October, according to NBC.

This adds up to "a company that arrogantly is overcharging when they can get away with it and not providing the quality of service that they agreed to do," Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, told NBC.

Halliburton-Kellogg Brown and Root told NBC that "hostile conditions" pose special challenges as they served the 21 million meals so far to the troops at 45 sites in Iraq.

"We have taken quick action to improve," the company said.

In Memoriam

Published on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 by the Agence France Presse
Reagan Played Decisive Role in Saddam Hussein's Survival in Iran-Iraq War

WASHINGTON - As Americans mourn the passing of president Ronald Reagan, almost forgotten is the decisive part his administration played in the survival of Iraq's president Saddam Hussein through his eight year war with Iran.

Reagan played decisive role in Saddam Hussein's survival in Iran-Iraq war

Reagan, determined to check arch-foe Iran, opened a back door to Iraq through which flowed US intelligence and hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees even as Washington professed neutrality in Baghdad's war with Tehran.

It was complemented by French weaponry and German dual-use technology that experts say wound up in Iraq's chemical and biological warfare programs.

Donald Rumsfeld, then Reagan's special Middle East envoy, is credited with establishing the back channel to Saddam on a secret trip to Baghdad in December 1983.

Define Sovereignty

Not a Happy Man

Water Problems in Iraq

Pollution Chokes the Tigris, a Main Source of Baghdad’s Drinking Water
by Dahr Jamail

Baghdad , Jun 6 - With reconstruction of a highly inadequate water treatment and distribution system at a near standstill throughout much of Central Iraq, some residents of Baghdad are left with little choice but to drink highly polluted water from the Tigris River. Aside from a newly formed Iraqi non-governmental organization that is focusing on the cleanup of one section of the river, not much is being done to improve Baghdad residents’ access to potable water, and US contractors appear unable or unwilling to help.

While many areas of Baghdad have access to drinking water from a few of the functional treatment plants, millions of residents remain without a clean, reliable source. All too many of these unfortunates turn to the rotten banks of the Tigris, which snakes prominently through the heart of Baghdad collecting toxins as it flows.

Abdul Salam Abdulali works on the river, running a dredging machine. A river man for most of his life, he has long been employed by a company that dredges the muddy Tigris, but which was recently incorporated into the Ministry of Water Resources.

"I am married to the water," he said standing atop his dredging machine as it floated atop the river. "But it is too polluted now. I wish I could eat the fish, but when I cut them open I can smell the oil."

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=481

Iraqi Captives

Some of the pictures we've seen and some of the torture of captives in Iraq
that we've read and heard about has been blamed on a small number of
sadistic soldiers and guards.

But there's one part of the story now being told by those recently released
from captivity which puts a lie to that interpretation. And that is the
fact that while they were captive, they were almost routinely moved from
one location to another, sometimes as far as from Baghdad to Basra.

Transporting captives isn't done on a whim. Organizing transport,
providing an escort and adjusting supplies to increasing and decreasing
numbers requires a certain level of organizational support from the
military administration. In other words, the management of the captives
provides clear evidence that the large number of innocents rounded up
didn't suffer abuse just because the system was over-whelmed and someone
forgot they were there.
they are referred to by the purveyor of this kind of gear, aren't something
the soldiers just happened to tuck in their bags. No, those were standard
issue hoods, bought right off the shelf in bulk by purchasing agents who
anticipated their use.

The capture of thousands of Iraqi was obviously part of the plan. They may
not have planned for the over forty thousand that have gone through the
mill so far, but the American military had a plan; that plan was carried
out; and the taking of captives was part of it.

Witness

"Why are they doing this to us?"
weblog entry by Dahr Jamail, NewStandard weblogs
http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches/archives/000518.html

Baghdad, June 3 -- He is a well spoken, handsome lawyer, just a year older
than I am. He worked as a diplomat who coordinated NGOs and foreign
governments in order to bring aid to his country during the sanctions.

He was detained and accused of being a spy for Saddam Hussein, even though
he is not even a Baathist.

He was hung from his ankles for hours in Abu Ghraib, until he passed out.

I ask him what else happened to him in there. He pulls up the legs of his
trousers to show me two electrical burns on the inside of his knees, and
points to two more on his elbows.

We all know the usual parts of this story: his head was bagged and hands and
ankles tied too tightly, roughly thrown in an armored vehicle and driven to
Baghdad Airport prison. Then to Abu Ghraib for 2 months, then to a prison in
Basra, then back to Abu Ghraib for seven months.

At the Airport prison (which Iraqis refer to as Guantanamo Airport) he was
interrogated five times, then ten more times at Abu Ghraib. At each place he
was beaten until he passed out, forced to beat other detainees, deprived of
food and water (he lost 25 kilos while in detention), offered no medical
care, received threats on his life, was threatened that his wife would
brought in and raped in front of him, had rats and cockroaches as cellmates.
He was kept in a cell 2 meters by 1.5 meters.

Or maybe you haven't heard all of this already...

Maybe you didn't hear that the lead CIA man who tortured him referred to
himself as "Satan." Or that while he was praying and reading his Koran
female soldiers came in and flashed their breasts at him, then sexually
humiliated and abused him.

What else is news? That there were 16 showers for 650 detainees. That there
was no medical treatment, except for 30 out of 650 detainees -- who were
given aspirin for infections and viruses. That when he was finally allowed
to use the toilet after being forced to wait for hours, soldiers would open
the door on him.

Of course there is more. There is much, much more. But I'll save that for
later, because it isn't easy to type when ones hands are shaking.

Since he has been out he has not slept much, and has nightmares when he does
manage to catch fleeting moments of shuteye.

His home was destroyed while he was in detention.

Then there is his aunt. I interviewed her tonight as well. A kind, 55
year-old woman who used to work as an English teacher. She was detained for
four months, in as many prisons: Samarra, Tikrit, one in Baghdad and of
course, Abu Ghraib. She was never allowed to sleep through a night, she was
interrogated, not given enough food or water, no access to a lawyer or her
family. She was abused verbally and psychologically.

But that isn't the worst part. Her 70 year-old husband was detained and
beaten to death. But that took 7 months.

She's crying as she speaks of him... as are Abu Talat (my translator) and I.

"I miss my husband," she says, standing up and addressing toward the room.
"I miss him so much."

She shakes her hands as if to fling water off of them... then holds her
chest and cries some more.

"Why are they doing this to us?" She doesn't understand what is happening.
Two of her sons were also detained, her family completely shattered. "We
didn't do anything wrong," she sobs.

After a short time we walk out towards the car to leave... it is already too
late to be out -- well past 10 p.m. She asks us to please stay for dinner,
in the midst of thanking me for my time, for listening, for writing about it
all.

I am speechless.

"No, thank you, we must get home now," says Abu Talat. We are all crying.

No words in the car as we drive toward the full moon. Finally, Abu Talat
asks me, "Can you say any words? Do you have any words?"

"No," I mumble. "No..."

----------------------------------------------
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 .

G8 Summit Deception

For the record, I think that the deception perpetrated by the Bush administration concerning the G8 Summit on Sea Island is despicable. All of the public information being provided pretends that Sea Island is near Savannah, Georgia when it is actually over 70 miles away near St. Simons Island.
If the thinking was that by misleading the public and the international media, potential terrorists would be misdirected, then the security services in this country are even more misguided than they were in the past.

Terrorists who knew enough to take a plane from Portland, Maine to hijack a plane leaving from Boston, are certainly going to be smart enough to get the lay of the land long before any meeting takes place. Putting missiles on roof-tops won't help much either. Indeed, it has been reported that there were missiles on rooftops in Florida on that day in September 2001 when none of our defensive systems seemed capable of responding to four planes that had gone astray.

Of course, the deception isn't limited to the location of the meeting. The initial proposal for Iraqi sovereignty which was supposed to be approved was a smoke screen, intended to hide the intent to leave American military assets in Iraq indefinitely.

Moreover, though the administration has been forced to agree to having our military removed whenever the Iraqis demand it, the failure to guarantee the interim government any source of funding other than from the sale of "natural resources" vitually assures that the central government will remain dependent on "contributions" or rents for the land on which the American military is becoming entrenched. The longer they stay there, the harder it will be to get them out.

While the Germans and French seem to be on the side of Iraqi sovereignty, they are probably ambivalent. On the one hand, they would like to be able to enter into profitable commercial contracts with a free and independent Iraq. On the other hand, the prospect of having the American military moved out of Western Europe and repositioned in the Persian Gulf region must be very tempting. Since our military presence isn't wanted in Saudi Arabia (bin Laden's goal was to get us out) and Qatar is obviously too small and Southeast Asia has rejected our offer to provide protection against "pirates" with out naval fleet, where are our assets going to go?

The logical answer would be to bring them home, but for some reason military bases on our own soil are suddenly too expensive. Or are they just too polluted and it's too expensive to clean them up?

No Representation Without Taxation

I have actually been meaning all day to say something about money. What really struck me in reading the interim constitution that's being foisted on Iraq is that the central government has no source of revenue, other than from the sale of the country's natural resources; presumably not just oil and gas, but also the minerals in the mountains, the water in the rivers and even the uninhabited desert lands that might make nice air bases for the US.
The absence of any other source of revenue can't be accidental. The country is being set up to be forced to sell or lease its natural resources.

In other words, the citizens of Iraq are not going to be subject to taxes or fees, except for those imposed by the local jurisdictions. That might seem like a good idea, as does the situation in other Arab states where the resources belong to the ruling families and the revenues from their sale are doled out to the citizens as their leaders please.
America was founded on the principle of "no taxation without representation" but it would be equally correct to say that there is no representation without taxation. That is, if the citizens don't pay into the state, they have no say in how it performs. The give and take involved in paying for something is the very essence of an egalitarian relationship.
When relationships are authoritarian or domineering, the stronger takes what he wants without a "by-your-leave" to anyone and the weaker are left with the crumbs. So, in fact, there would seem to be a direct relationship between the absence of an equitable and voluntary system of taxation and dictatorship. The dictator doesn't have to rely on citizens paying taxes. He just appropriates whatever suits him at a particular moment in time.
So really, taxes and democracy go hand in hand. Yes, the Democratic party is the party of taxation. Which means that it is not the party of theft.

Iraqi Dispatch

Violence in Baghdad, Wordplay in Fallujah
weblog entry by Dahr Jamail, NewStandard weblogs
http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches/archives/000513.html

Baghdad/Fallujah, June 3 -- A rumbling explosion just let off near my hotel.
This not too long after getting back from Adhamiya where I was talking to
witnesses at the scene of yet another car bomb; the third in as many days
here in Baghdad.

At the scene in Adhamiya the scorched, crumpled shell of the car was pushed
off to the side of the road. A brick wall nearby bore pockmark scars from
the shrapnel. Store windows 50 meters away were shattered. I passed a dried
pool of blood on the sidewalk near the small bomb crater while walking
slowly to a nearby shop where I met Abdel Halik Al-Samarri, a real estate
broker who witnessed the attack.

"Two armored vehicles passed up and down the street four times, then two
Land Cruisers of the Americans passed by the parked car," said Abdel, still
shaky hours after the bombing. "Just as they passed the car it exploded."

Ismail Obeidy, a lawyer who works at the real estate office with Abdel, ran
towards the burning car to assist a woman who had had pieces of shrapnel
lodged in her legs. "I carried her across the street, and put her in a car
which took her to the hospital," he said. Just three minutes after the first
blast as scores of people had congregated around the burning car to survey
the damage, a second, much larger explosion erupted which killed several
people and injured many more.

"If the Americans will stop invading our streets, no explosions will
happen," cried Ismail in frustration and anger. He went on to say that a
small crowd gathered and began yelling anti-American slogans at US troops
when they cordoned off the area.

Car bombs are becoming a daily occurrence in Baghdad, and there is nothing
the locals can do about it.

Both men told me that Abu Hanifa mosque had immediately issued a plea for
donations of blood, and was promptly besieged with donors.

Hopefully the dual explosions were a bomb malfunction, and not intentional.
I keep dreading the horrific strategy used in Beirut, where a second car
bomb would arrive to the scene of the first after the ambulances showed up.

Just prior to my visit to the scene of the car bomb, seven mortar blasts
shook the US base in Adhamiya. Also this afternoon three mortars landed near
a US base near Palestine Street, wounding at least one Iraqi.

Baghdad is a war zone, and the stress in the air is palpable. The randomness
of the attacks is the worst part. Nobody is safe here.

Earlier this morning I ventured out to Fallujah. While driving west out of
Baghdad with my trusty fixer Abu Talat I noticed an overpass which had
graffiti sloppily written which read, "Come back to your home," and, "You're
just monkeys," and a telling line which read, "We will ****love you." I had
read it before when going to Fallujah during the siege in April... the
scratched out word used to read "kill."

According to members of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) at their
headquarters in Fallujah, U.S. Marines who are at the main checkpoint will
be withdrawing this week. Several of the ICDC I spoke with were exceedingly
pleased with the fact that there were only two token US patrols into their
city per month. These, according the ICDC, resembled the symbolic first
patrol after the siege of April had come to a close, when several armored US
vehicles with ICDC and police protection rumbled a little over a mile down
the main street to the mayor's office for a 30-minute pause behind the
concrete barriers which surround the building -- then exited in similar
fashion.

Ali Abed, a 25 year-old member of the ICDC, said, "We are happy now because
it is so much better than before. Fallujah is secure now and you can stay
out late because it is safe."

He and several of other ICDC troops sat relaxed inside their headquarters,
drinking soda and laughing from time to time. Ali turned to me and added,
"As long as the Americans stay out, it is calm here."

Things have certainly changed in Fallujah. Journalists are now required to
go to the Al-Hadrah Al-Mohamudia mosque in the city in order to obtain a
press pass. Even with that, all of the ICDC who drove me and Abu Talat to
the mosque in their GMC were worried for me. "My cousin works for Al-Arabiya
television, and his camera was smashed just yesterday," said an ICDC member.
"And yesterday two German journalists were beaten because the people here
are very angry with foreigners."

Inside the mosque, with two armed ICDC on either side of me, Khassem
Mohammed Abdel Satar, the Vice Chairman for the chamber of the city, told me
the anger stems from the fact that nearly every family in Fallujah suffered
a member killed during the April assault. "In some cases, entire families
were killed," he said somberly.

He issued me a press pass, but told me I would conduct my interviews with
the ICDC in his office then I should go. All of them repeated that they were
worried for my safety.

Mr. Satar referred to the US soldiers as "invasion troops" and told me that
Fallujah is so much better off without them in the city. "We have Fallujah
completely under control now with the Iraqi Police and the ICDC," he said.
"The security in Fallujah hasn't been this good since the dawn of Baghdad."

He stated that he was proud that Fallujah is the first city in Iraq where
the US military has left because of the fighting, rather than through
negotiations. "We hope all cities in Iraq are liberated as Fallujah is," he
said.

According to Mr. Satar, the new clampdown on the press in Fallujah was for
our own security, and they were hard at work on a system which will allow
better access for the media inside the city. It was obvious to me that this
hadn't quite been sorted out. I certainly didn't see any other reporters
traveling inside GMC's with 5 armed ICDC accompanying them.

"We have clear information that the Americans are sending spies in to cause
problems between groups in Fallujah," added Mr. Satar, "but we have this
under good control."

Dhasin Jassim Hamadi, a major in the ICDC, told me that inside the city they
are fully independent and have no relations with the US military now.
"During April the Americans bombed our headquarters and killed three men,"
he said angrily. "But now we work under the supervision of the mayor and
conduct joint patrols with the police."

"We demanded independence from the Americans," he added with a large smile.
"And we got it."

Another ICDC member smugly told me that the last US patrol to the mayor's
office only stayed for 20 of the 30 allotted minutes.

All of them claimed they have more respect from the people of Fallujah now
that the US military are gone from the city. "It is obviously better here
without them, so of course the people respect us more," said Amin, a 28
year-old member of the ICDC.

He went on to say that after June 30th, if the US military is still in Iraq,
nothing will change as far as the ongoing fighting outside of Fallujah.

The subject of terrorism was breached, and Amin grew quickly frustrated. He
felt the US was being hypocritical in calling Arabs who fight against them
terrorists. "They are fighting to protect their city... why don't the
Americans call soldiers from Honduras here terrorists?" He continued, "They
are fighting Iraqisbut they are not called terrorists? What is the
difference?"

The difference continues to be in the choice of words. Even today the AP
referred to the city as "the guerilla stronghold of Fallujah," while the CPA
continues to go to great lengths to show that the US military are working in
conjunction with the ICDC and mayor of Fallujah to insure security.

But then, the military operations in Fallujah during April were said to be
carried out with the goal of "pacifying" the city... a city today where the
mayor and ICDC claim it is the calmest and most secure it has ever been.

----------------------------------------------
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 .

Buster Bombs

The coverage of the nuclear bunker buster bombs is a really good example of how the news is managed. First of all, Kerry didn't get anywhere near the front page because of that new Iraqi President in the traditional garb. He not only made for a good picture, but, despite having no actual power at this point, was considered important because the President talked about him with reporters.
Both the Times and the Boston Globe covered the Kerry speech, but, because the White House set up conference calls with supporters of its policies, what was covered in the stories was what the White House wanted emphasised--i.e. the proposal to accellerate the collection and securing of Russian and Soviet Union nuclear materials to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.

Chambliss of Georgia even went to far as to say that WMD are not a problem as long as there are no terrorists.
Oddly enough, mention of the commitment to abandon the development of NEW nuclear weapons by the United States popped up in a story about a speech on bioterrorism that hasn't even been delivered yet. In other words, the Associated Press put out a story on the basis of an advanced copy of a speech and the reporter, perhaps in the interest of actually presenting news about something that's already happened, included a mention of the bunker buster bombs.
It will be interesting to see if the European press picks up on it.
Can we blame those who are skeptical of our commitment towards arms control and nuclear disarmament when our government is gearing up to make new ones?

But the argument that WMD are only a problem in the hands of terrorists is a new one on me. Shouldn't be surprised though. It's consistent with the argument that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." So, the thing to do is to kill people who kill. Makes perfect sense.