These are the new scripts on the walls of Babylon: فليكن سقوط شارون سقوطاً للصهيونية What was created from lies, and nurtured by lies, must face the destiny of lies, too; Or did their God choose brain-dead mokeys unable to see beyond their sick ego's and their ugly noses ! [sic , Sharon !]

Al-Arab Blog - مدونة العرب

Iraqi Quagmire for The American Empire

2004/11/01

No Comment Needed !




More than 100,000 Iraqis have died

The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all

More than 100,000 Iraqis have died - and where is our shame and rage?

Scott RitterMonday November 1, 2004

The Guardian The full scale of the human cost already paid for the war on Iraq is only now becoming clear. Last week's estimate by investigators, using credible methodology, that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them women and children - have died since the US-led invasion is a profound moral indictment of our countries. The US and British governments quickly moved to cast doubt on the Lancet medical journal findings, citing other studies. These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.

Civilian deaths have always been a tragic reality of modern war. But the conflict in Iraq was supposed to be different - US and British forces were dispatched to liberate the Iraqi people, not impose their own tyranny of violence.

Reading accounts of the US-led invasion, one is struck by the constant, almost casual, reference to civilian deaths. Soldiers and marines speak of destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles that turned out to be crammed with civilians. US marines acknowledged in the aftermath of the early, bloody battle for Nassiriya that their artillery and air power had pounded civilian areas in a blind effort to suppress insurgents thought to be holed up in the city. The infamous "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad produced hundreds of deaths, as did the 3rd Infantry Division's "Thunder Run", an armoured thrust in Baghdad that slaughtered everyone in its path.


It is true that, with only a few exceptions, civilians who died as a result of ground combat were not deliberately targeted, but were caught up in the machinery of modern warfare. But when the same claim is made about civilians killed in aerial attacks (the Lancet study estimates that most of civilian deaths were the result of air attacks), the comparison quickly falls apart. Helicopter engagements apart, most aerial bombardment is deliberate and pre-planned.

US and British military officials like to brag about the accuracy of the "precision" munitions used in these strikes, claiming this makes the kind of modern warfare practised by the coalition in Iraq the most humanitarian in history.

But there is nothing humanitarian about explosives once they detonate near civilians, or about a bomb guided to the wrong target. Dozens of civilians were killed during the vain effort to eliminate Saddam Hussein with "pinpoint" air strikes, and hundreds have perished in the campaign to eliminate alleged terrorist targets in Falluja. A "smart bomb" is only as good as the data used to direct it. And the abysmal quality of the intelligence used has made the smartest of bombs just as dumb and indiscriminate as those, for example, dropped during the second world war.

The fact that most bombing missions in Iraq today are pre-planned, with targets allegedly carefully vetted, further indicts those who wage this war in the name of freedom. If these targets are so precise, then those selecting them cannot escape the fact that they are deliberately targeting innocent civilians at the same time as they seek to destroy their intended foe. Some would dismiss these civilians as "collateral damage". But we must keep in mind that the British and US governments made a deliberate decision to enter into a conflict of their choosing, not one that was thrust upon them. We invaded Iraq to free Iraqis from a dictator who, by some accounts, oversaw the killing of about 300,000 of his subjects - although no one has been able to verify more than a small fraction of the figure. If it is correct, it took Saddam decades to reach such a horrific statistic. The US and UK have, it seems, reached a third of that total in just 18 months.

Meanwhile, the latest scandal over missing nuclear-related high explosives in Iraq (traced and controlled under the UN inspections regime) only underscores the utter deceitfulness of the Bush-Blair argument for the war. Having claimed the uncertainty surrounding Iraq's WMD capability constituted a threat that could not go unchallenged in a post-9/11 world, one would have expected the two leaders to insist on a military course of action that brought under immediate coalition control any aspect of potential WMD capability, especially relating to any possible nuclear threat. That the US military did not have a dedicated force to locate and neutralise these explosives underscores the fact that both Bush and Blair knew that there was no threat from Iraq, nuclear or otherwise.

Of course, the US and Britain have a history of turning a blind eye to Iraqi suffering when it suits their political purposes. During the 1990s, hundreds of thousands are estimated by the UN to have died as a result of sanctions. Throughout that time, the US and the UK maintained the fiction that this was the fault of Saddam Hussein, who refused to give up his WMD. We now know that Saddam had disarmed and those deaths were the responsibility of the US and Britain, which refused to lift sanctions.

There are many culpable individuals and organisations history will hold to account for the war - from deceitful politicians and journalists to acquiescent military professionals and silent citizens of the world's democracies. As the evidence has piled up confirming what I and others had reported - that Iraq was already disarmed by the late 1990s - my personal vote for one of the most culpable individuals would go to Hans Blix, who headed the UN weapons inspection team in the run-up to war. He had the power if not to prevent, at least to forestall a war with Iraq. Blix knew that Iraq was disarmed, but in his mealy-mouthed testimony to the UN security council helped provide fodder for war. His failure to stand up to the lies used by Bush and Blair to sell the Iraq war must brand him a moral and intellectual coward.

But we all are moral cowards when it comes to Iraq. Our collective inability to summon the requisite shame and rage when confronted by an estimate of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians in the prosecution of an illegal and unjust war not only condemns us, but adds credibility to those who oppose us. The fact that a criminal such as Osama bin Laden can broadcast a videotape on the eve of the US presidential election in which his message is viewed by many around the world as a sober argument in support of his cause is the harshest indictment of the failure of the US and Britain to implement sound policy in the aftermath of 9/11. The death of 3,000 civilians on that horrible day represented a tragedy of huge proportions. Our continued indifference to a war that has slaughtered so many Iraqi civilians, and will continue to kill more, is in many ways an even greater tragedy: not only in terms of scale, but also because these deaths were inflicted by our own hand in the course of an action that has no defence.


· Scott Ritter was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 and is the author of Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America
WSRitter@aol.com
The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all

More than 100,000 Iraqis have died - and where is our shame and rage?

Scott RitterMonday November 1, 2004

The Guardian The full scale of the human cost already paid for the war on Iraq is only now becoming clear. Last week's estimate by investigators, using credible methodology, that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them women and children - have died since the US-led invasion is a profound moral indictment of our countries. The US and British governments quickly moved to cast doubt on the Lancet medical journal findings, citing other studies. These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.

Civilian deaths have always been a tragic reality of modern war. But the conflict in Iraq was supposed to be different - US and British forces were dispatched to liberate the Iraqi people, not impose their own tyranny of violence.

Reading accounts of the US-led invasion, one is struck by the constant, almost casual, reference to civilian deaths. Soldiers and marines speak of destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles that turned out to be crammed with civilians. US marines acknowledged in the aftermath of the early, bloody battle for Nassiriya that their artillery and air power had pounded civilian areas in a blind effort to suppress insurgents thought to be holed up in the city. The infamous "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad produced hundreds of deaths, as did the 3rd Infantry Division's "Thunder Run", an armoured thrust in Baghdad that slaughtered everyone in its path.


It is true that, with only a few exceptions, civilians who died as a result of ground combat were not deliberately targeted, but were caught up in the machinery of modern warfare. But when the same claim is made about civilians killed in aerial attacks (the Lancet study estimates that most of civilian deaths were the result of air attacks), the comparison quickly falls apart. Helicopter engagements apart, most aerial bombardment is deliberate and pre-planned.

US and British military officials like to brag about the accuracy of the "precision" munitions used in these strikes, claiming this makes the kind of modern warfare practised by the coalition in Iraq the most humanitarian in history.

But there is nothing humanitarian about explosives once they detonate near civilians, or about a bomb guided to the wrong target. Dozens of civilians were killed during the vain effort to eliminate Saddam Hussein with "pinpoint" air strikes, and hundreds have perished in the campaign to eliminate alleged terrorist targets in Falluja. A "smart bomb" is only as good as the data used to direct it. And the abysmal quality of the intelligence used has made the smartest of bombs just as dumb and indiscriminate as those, for example, dropped during the second world war.

The fact that most bombing missions in Iraq today are pre-planned, with targets allegedly carefully vetted, further indicts those who wage this war in the name of freedom. If these targets are so precise, then those selecting them cannot escape the fact that they are deliberately targeting innocent civilians at the same time as they seek to destroy their intended foe. Some would dismiss these civilians as "collateral damage". But we must keep in mind that the British and US governments made a deliberate decision to enter into a conflict of their choosing, not one that was thrust upon them. We invaded Iraq to free Iraqis from a dictator who, by some accounts, oversaw the killing of about 300,000 of his subjects - although no one has been able to verify more than a small fraction of the figure. If it is correct, it took Saddam decades to reach such a horrific statistic. The US and UK have, it seems, reached a third of that total in just 18 months.

Meanwhile, the latest scandal over missing nuclear-related high explosives in Iraq (traced and controlled under the UN inspections regime) only underscores the utter deceitfulness of the Bush-Blair argument for the war. Having claimed the uncertainty surrounding Iraq's WMD capability constituted a threat that could not go unchallenged in a post-9/11 world, one would have expected the two leaders to insist on a military course of action that brought under immediate coalition control any aspect of potential WMD capability, especially relating to any possible nuclear threat. That the US military did not have a dedicated force to locate and neutralise these explosives underscores the fact that both Bush and Blair knew that there was no threat from Iraq, nuclear or otherwise.

Of course, the US and Britain have a history of turning a blind eye to Iraqi suffering when it suits their political purposes. During the 1990s, hundreds of thousands are estimated by the UN to have died as a result of sanctions. Throughout that time, the US and the UK maintained the fiction that this was the fault of Saddam Hussein, who refused to give up his WMD. We now know that Saddam had disarmed and those deaths were the responsibility of the US and Britain, which refused to lift sanctions.

There are many culpable individuals and organisations history will hold to account for the war - from deceitful politicians and journalists to acquiescent military professionals and silent citizens of the world's democracies. As the evidence has piled up confirming what I and others had reported - that Iraq was already disarmed by the late 1990s - my personal vote for one of the most culpable individuals would go to Hans Blix, who headed the UN weapons inspection team in the run-up to war. He had the power if not to prevent, at least to forestall a war with Iraq. Blix knew that Iraq was disarmed, but in his mealy-mouthed testimony to the UN security council helped provide fodder for war. His failure to stand up to the lies used by Bush and Blair to sell the Iraq war must brand him a moral and intellectual coward.

But we all are moral cowards when it comes to Iraq. Our collective inability to summon the requisite shame and rage when confronted by an estimate of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians in the prosecution of an illegal and unjust war not only condemns us, but adds credibility to those who oppose us. The fact that a criminal such as Osama bin Laden can broadcast a videotape on the eve of the US presidential election in which his message is viewed by many around the world as a sober argument in support of his cause is the harshest indictment of the failure of the US and Britain to implement sound policy in the aftermath of 9/11. The death of 3,000 civilians on that horrible day represented a tragedy of huge proportions. Our continued indifference to a war that has slaughtered so many Iraqi civilians, and will continue to kill more, is in many ways an even greater tragedy: not only in terms of scale, but also because these deaths were inflicted by our own hand in the course of an action that has no defence.


· Scott Ritter was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 and is the author of Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America
WSRitter@aol.com

بن لادن .. ضربة 29 أكتوبر



بن لادن .. ضربة 29 أكتوبر


مفكرة الإسلام: مشهد مغرق في غرابته لزعيم القاعدة وهو يقف أمام المنصة الثالثة للمناظرة بين المتنافسين للانتخابات الرئاسية الأمريكية .. ربما هذا ما تراءى أمام عيني, وقد يتراءى أمام أعين كسيرة: بينما الأحداث تسير برتابتها في فيلم أمريكي؛ فإذ بنجم 'الأكشن' يظهر في اللحظة الأخيرة لتطيش معه جميع الحسابات .. وقد يشاهده آخرون كحدث عابر لم يدلَّ في ظهوره إلا على عبثية هذا التنظيم المتمرد.. وقد يخاله بعض فلاسفة الإعلام مشهدًا مرتبًا من أحد الحزبين الأمريكيين بالاتفاق مع ابن لادن لإطاحة الآخر!!


ومهما يكن من أمر, فلم يكن توقع ظهور ابن لادن في هذا التوقيت بالذات ضربًا من ضروب التنجيم و'قراءة الطالع', بل كان أمرًا متوقعًا جدًا من كثيرين, وأزعم أنني توقعته ـ مع الآخرين ـ منذ أكثر من عام لأسباب عديدة: فابن لادن لم يرَ نفسه قد استكمل جميع 'مكتسباته' من العملية الصاعقة التي جرت منذ ثلاث سنوات ونيِّف, وابن لادن يرى أن بمقدوره أن يعبث بملف الانتخابات الأمريكية مثلما فعل في الانتخابات الأسبانية بعد تفجيرات مدريد, وابن لادن لا يعتبر أن تنظيمه مهما بلغت قدراته على لملمة جراحه واجترار ثوريته العسكرية قادر في هذه اللحظة التاريخية على تكرار عملية صواعق سبتمبر؛ وإن عليه إذ ذاك أن ينفخ في رماد هذه العملية من جديد قبل أن يفكر أو يحاول تكرار مثيلتها, وابن لادن الذي يعتبر أيديولوجيًا وفقهيًا أن قتلى 11 سبتمبر من المدنيين الأمريكيين ليسوا في الحقيقة 'ضحايا' برأيه لأنهم بالفعل مشاركين بالعدوان بانتخابهم أباطرة الحرب وقياصرتها, ولذا يحتاج لأن يذكرهم بمسؤوليتهم الشخصية عن خيارهم الانتخابي.. وابن لادن في الأخير إذا ما أراد أن يقول: إنني قوي, ومقاتل عنيد فلن يجد كهذه فرصة للفخار وإغاظة عدوه اللدود.


في آخر خطوات الماراثون الانتخابي الأمريكي أبى زعيم القاعدة إلا أن ينصب جريدة مسننة تدمي قدمي المرشحين الأبرزين؛ الخاسر منهما والفائز.. واستدعى منهما تغيير أجندة اللحظات الأخيرة لهذه الانتخابات ليزايد كل منهم على الآخر في مسألة وضعها المرشحان في صدر اهتمام الناخب الأمريكي؛ وهي مسألة أمن 'الأمة الأمريكية'.

A simple explanation as to how the American Television “News” media has

Learn a bit how media deception works




Cartoon by K. Bendib, all rights reserved.

Lies come in many forms. Partial truths, selective facts, out of context quotes and information, partial historical perspective and out right misrepresentation of facts. It is easy to manipulated the public. If you become aware of the methods of deception you are better prepared to sift through the propaganda for the few facts that are actually made available by our broadcast our news media. Learn their tricks, stay on your toes and become a better informed (responsible) citizen.

Learn a bit how media deception works. Take “the Cycle”. Click here to start and then click “Next” on the bottom of each page. It’s a short trip through the basics of media deception.
Journalism: 'j&r-n&l-"i-z&m - : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation and without opinion.

News: 'nüz, 'nyüz - A report of recent events”

When opinion enters journalism exits. - TvNewsLies.org

The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history — worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility. - Paul Krugman
“Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such manipulation of American opinion, since the War in Vietnam” - John Brady Keisling - Career US Diplomat 27-Feb-2003
“It is reported that more than half of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This means that the U.S. media have utterly, spectacularly, shamefully and pathetically failed.” - THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! THE MEDIA IS 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN!!! 100% THEY ARE GUILTY! PERIOD; END OF STORY!!! - TvNewsLies.org

"In my 35 years in politics, one of the things that makes me saddest is that I've seen a deterioration of the coverage of government in the media" - Congressman Barney Frank

“Here's a quiz for you: Name the best-known and most influential conservative commentators in America? Rush Limbaugh? George F. Will? Bill O'Reilly? Now, quick, who are their liberal counterparts? If you can't think of any, you're not alone.” - Thane Peterson

“Most of us whose bylines appear in the American media should be embarrassed to look our readers, viewers and listeners in the eye. We are being held up for ridicule by real journalists, such as Webb, from nations that once looked upon us as the epitome of truth and integrity. The ridicule is richly deserved.” - DAVID HUNDTER - June 30, 2003


Donate! - Or we we’ll be gone soon!

A Little History - Lesson 1

The Main Problem - Lesson 2

The Main Culprits - Lesson 3

The indications - Lesson 4

The Techniques of Deceptions - Lesson 5

Polls - The media’s way of creating support where it does not exist. - :Lesson 6

The Liberal Media

DERELICTION of DUTY - THE EXODUS OF INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM

How the Media Fuels Conspiracy Theories

AN EPITAPH TO THE TV NEWS NETWORKS - 2003 – A YEAR OF DISGRACE

C-SPAN’S SUBLIMINAL SEDUCTION - HOW WASHINGTON JOURNAL HELPS FIX THE ELECTION

Why America Does Not Need a Liberal News Network
TvNewsLies Tracks Iraq Invasion Coverage
TvNewsLies Tracks Media Consolidation
TvNewsLies Tracks the Israel Stories Ignored by US TV
TvNewsLies Tracks the Lapdog Press

A Guide to Responsible News Watching! - Download this guide to so that will help you understand when and how you are beig deceived.

AMBER ALERT

Your Media is Killing You - The American mainstream television news media, in whole and in part, has catastrophically failed the American people and is singularly responsible for the untimely deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. - Meanwhile, during the period beginning with the O.J. trial and concluding with the impeachment extravaganza, the Taliban was taking control of Afghanistan in the wake left by the completion of our anti-Soviet policies in that nation. A man named Osama bin Laden was preparing to attack anything and everything American he could get close to. UNSCOM weapons inspectors under Scott Ritter were taking Iraq's chemical and biological warfare capabilities apart literally brick by brick, and the sanctions against that nation, which were killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, were also reducing Saddam Hussein's conventional arsenal to a large collection of formidable paperweights.
One Nation Divisible - THE APPALLING AMERICAN INFORMATION RIFT

Ex-Watergate writer laments 'idiot culture' - Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein told about 200 people in Tampa that today's media is more gossip and trash than news.- Bernstein, the former Washington Post journalist who, along with fellow reporter Bob Woodward, unearthed the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon, said much of today's news has deteriorated into gossip, sensationalism and manufactured controversy. - That type of news panders to the public and insults their intelligence, ignoring the context of real life, he said. Good journalism, Bernstein said, "should challenge people, not just mindlessly amuse them." - Bernstein also turned his attention Thursday to the coming election, calling President Bush "the most radical president of my lifetime and perhaps in the century." - Bernstein said Bush "is radical in every degree," from a favoritism of the wealthy to a pre-emptive foreign policy to a lack of concern for civil rights.

Second world press freedom ranking - 2003 Index - United States and Israel singled out for actions beyond their borders - Reporters Without Borders is publishing its second world press freedom ranking. As in 2002, the most catastrophic situation is to be found in Asia, especially North Korea, Burma and Laos. Second from last in the ranking, Cuba is today the world's biggest prison for journalists. The United States and Italy were given relatively low rankings. - Special situation of the United States and Israel The ranking distinguishes behaviour at home and abroad in the cases of the United States and Israel. They are ranked in 31st and 44th positions respectively as regards respect for freedom of expression on their own territory, but they fall to the 135th and 146th positions as regards behaviour beyond their borders. - The Israeli army's repeated abuses against journalists in the occupied territories and the US army's responsibility in the death of several reporters during the war in Iraq constitute unacceptable behaviour by two nations that never stop stressing their commitment to freedom of expression.

The stupefaction of a nation: Corporate media propaganda and its weapons of mass distraction - Propaganda in this nation has never been more incessant than today. From the hundreds of lies, misrepresentations and deceits being told to us by both government and corporate media about battles, deaths, injuries, the resistance, security and the deteriorating state of the occupation of our quagmire in Iraq to the distortions and chicanery the Bush administration seemingly launches at us in wave after wave of lies to the purposeful distortion and omission by corporate media of the corrupt going-ons of the embarrassment and scandal that is the bordello called Congress.

WHAT WE REALLY NEED - LOOK HERE - WE CAN TAKE ACTION!

Discuss Media Lies - Visit the NEW TvNewsLies.org reader BBS forums.
Tim Robbins speech to the National Press Club - BRILLIANT! You can view the video at c-span.org.
Terrorism Scare Used to Censor Press
The Jerry Bruckheimer White House

An Erosion of Trust - The Times scandal has only heightened public cynicism about the press. Why we’re all poorer for it

One Nation, Under Informed
CONTROL THE PICTURES, CONTROL THE TRUTH
Clinton Sees Distorted Media
Big Media is losing credibility fight
Trust in media keeps on slipping

Public Remains Skeptical of News Media - Majority of Americans believe news organizations often get facts wrong - TVNL comments: Skeptical? They should be outraged!

U.S. media's negligence threatens our democracy - Uncounted stories of magnitude and relevance go untold by a negligent and conflicted United States press -- the disgrace runs deep.

Our government controlled press - CIA Origins - American government utilized radio during WWII with Voice of America and Radio Free Europe during the Cold War. Both programs started out as justifiable, freedom-inspiring endeavors.

America's shame: A public happy to be conned - TVNL points out: It is the media that is pulling the con job!

News media abandon historic role -- and public suffers - Millions of Americans accept what they are told and think they understand what they see. And what they are told and what they see is most often news as a manipulated commodity. But the facts that really count rarely reach a significant number of the public's ears or eyes. - Also, most reporters know governments lie, mislead and deceive. They also know that the press is ostensibly there to keep an eye on governments, to dissect errors and omissions by offering more truthful counter-narratives.

Democracy Dumbed Down! - With the news media abandoning its duel function of being a watchdog of government and informing the public, while embracing news as entertainment for the highest ratings, citizens are uninformed and democracy is crippled.

Rethinking Objective Journalism - Journalists (and journalism) must acknowledge, humbly and publicly, that what we do is far more subjective and far less detached than the aura of objectivity implies – and the public wants to believe. If we stop claiming to be mere objective observers, it will not end the charges of bias but will allow us to defend what we do from a more realistic, less hypocritical position.

Media Cover-up - Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press
Bush's Four Horsemen - People are beginning to grasp and resent the attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to allow the Four Horsemen of Big Media — Viacom (CBS, UPN), Disney (ABC), Murdoch's News Corporation (Fox) and G.E. (NBC) — to gobble up every independent station in sight.

Mike Hersh covers the media

Media lose access to information - Government clamps down on what's allowed out in name of national security - Indeed, in two years since the terrorist attacks, journalists across the country have found themselves losing access togovernment-held information on various matters -- much of which has nothing to do with national security.

Al Gore Would Rather be Ailes than President - "He thinks the country is disserved by the absence of truth in news, by the absence of honesty in public-official presentation, by the apparently infinite cynicism of those who currently hold high office,"

Bill Moyers is Insightful, Erudite, Impassioned, Brilliant and the Host of PBS' "NOW" - A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW - But for right now, you don't need to turn on the television to partake of the incisive, erudite perspective that Bill Moyers brings to an understanding of what's gone wrong with today's media. For right now, Bill Moyers will enlighten you right here on BuzzFlash.com.

NRA looks to buy media outlet, be exempt from election rules - Hoping to spend as much as it wants on next year's elections, the National Rifle Association is looking to buy a television or radio station and declare that it should be treated as a news organization, exempt from spending limits in the campaign finance law. - If the NRA were to be considered a media organization, it would be free to say what it wanted about candidates at any time and spend corporate money to do so, such as for commercials.

The Photos We'll Never See - There are no enduring photos, for instance:

Media Censorship That Doesn't Speak Its Name - Reducing journalism to a branch of corporate and government public relations is the hidden agenda of the media deregulators, in Britain and America.

Journalists faced 'record censorship' in 2003 - RSF says that "arrests of journalists and censorship of media reached a record high in 2003," and that this is "undoubtedly linked to the fight against terrorism and to anti-terror laws adopted by some countries since the 11 September attacks".

Media Spin Can Separate War From Death - A dozen years after the Gulf War, public perceptions of it are now very helpful to the White House. That's part of a timeworn pattern. Illusions about previous wars make the next one seem acceptable. As George Orwell observed: "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."

Group List Underreported World Stories - ``It's clearly a valid criticism when applied most broadly to the American media” - Nicolas de Torrente, the executive director of the U.S. branch of MSF, also known as Doctors Without Borders, told The Associated Press that the list focuses on U.S. news coverage because American media underreport international events in general, except for security issues and the Middle East.

US Media Review: Journalism’s Imbalanced Objective - Journalistic standards are evolving. The Society for Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics refers to journalists “seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.” – in other words, they seek an objective account of relevant facts. Unfortunately with the advent of advocacy news services, the journalistic standard of objectivity has been subsumed into a desire to be viewed as “balanced”.

Journalists Not Loath to Donate To Politicians - Media Companies' Policies Vary Widely - More than 100 journalists and executives at major media companies, from NBC's top executive to a Fox News anchor to reporters or editors for the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, USA Today, CBS and ABC, have made political contributions in recent years. - Melanie Kirkpatrick, associate editor of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, donated $20,000 to the Republican National Committee and $1,000 to Bush's 2000 presidential campaign.- TVNL Comment: Isn't it enough that they provide free infomercials disguised as news to the Bush/PNAC administration?

Journalist Novak Poking Fun at CIA Leak - Dressed as Wilson in top hat and cutaway coat, Novak sings of himself: ``Novak had a secret source ... so he outed a girl spy the way princes of darkness do. ... Now John Ashcroft asks Bob who and how, could be headed to the old hoosegow.'' - TVNL Comment: This leaves us speechless. Robert Novak should be fired and never permitted to work again as a journalist as a result of this. He thinks it is funny that he outed a CIA agent and that the White house is involved? Outragous!

AP president proposes media lobby to fight government secrecy - Denouncing increased official secrecy, Associated Press President and CEO Tom Curley unveiled a plan Friday for a media advocacy center to lobby in Washington for open government. - "The powerful have to be watched, and we are the watchers," Curley said, "and you don't need to have your notebook snatched by a policeman to know that keeping an eye on government activities has lately gotten a lot harder." - At every level of government, records are being sealed and requests for information denied, and courts are imposing gag orders and sealing documents, Curley said, speaking in the Hays Press-Enterprise Lecture series. - "The point I want to make with these brief examples is an elemental one: The government's power is overwhelming. Its agents are armed and authorized to use force if they have to," Curley said. - "News is our business. We are the watchers," Curley said. "Open government is the personal interest and constitutional right of every citizen. But we of the fourth estate have by far the greatest means and incentive to speak and fight for it." - TVNL Comment: BRAVO! Simply BRAVO!

MEDIA MALPRACTICE 9/11THE ABYSMAL VACUUM - FILLED BY THE MIGHTY MICHAEL MOORE

Inter-American Press Association Criticizes U.S. Press Restrictions - The Inter-American Press Association criticized the U.S. government on Sunday for placing restrictions on foreign journalists' travels and for recent court rulings ordering reporters to reveal secret sources.
TvNewsLies.org’s Suggested

A simple explanation as to how the American Television “News” media has

Learn a bit how media deception works

Cartoon by K. Bendib, all rights reserved.

Lies come in many forms. Partial truths, selective facts, out of context quotes and information, partial historical perspective and out right misrepresentation of facts. It is easy to manipulated the public. If you become aware of the methods of deception you are better prepared to sift through the propaganda for the few facts that are actually made available by our broadcast our news media. Learn their tricks, stay on your toes and become a better informed (responsible) citizen.

Learn a bit how media deception works. Take “the Cycle”. Click here to start and then click “Next” on the bottom of each page. It’s a short trip through the basics of media deception.
Journalism: 'j&r-n&l-"i-z&m - : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation and without opinion.

News: 'nüz, 'nyüz - A report of recent events”

When opinion enters journalism exits. - TvNewsLies.org

The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history — worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility. - Paul Krugman
“Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such manipulation of American opinion, since the War in Vietnam” - John Brady Keisling - Career US Diplomat 27-Feb-2003
“It is reported that more than half of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This means that the U.S. media have utterly, spectacularly, shamefully and pathetically failed.” - THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! THE MEDIA IS 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN!!! 100% THEY ARE GUILTY! PERIOD; END OF STORY!!! - TvNewsLies.org

"In my 35 years in politics, one of the things that makes me saddest is that I've seen a deterioration of the coverage of government in the media" - Congressman Barney Frank

“Here's a quiz for you: Name the best-known and most influential conservative commentators in America? Rush Limbaugh? George F. Will? Bill O'Reilly? Now, quick, who are their liberal counterparts? If you can't think of any, you're not alone.” - Thane Peterson

“Most of us whose bylines appear in the American media should be embarrassed to look our readers, viewers and listeners in the eye. We are being held up for ridicule by real journalists, such as Webb, from nations that once looked upon us as the epitome of truth and integrity. The ridicule is richly deserved.” - DAVID HUNDTER - June 30, 2003


Donate! - Or we we’ll be gone soon!

A Little History - Lesson 1

The Main Problem - Lesson 2

The Main Culprits - Lesson 3

The indications - Lesson 4

The Techniques of Deceptions - Lesson 5

Polls - The media’s way of creating support where it does not exist. - :Lesson 6

The Liberal Media

DERELICTION of DUTY - THE EXODUS OF INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM

How the Media Fuels Conspiracy Theories

AN EPITAPH TO THE TV NEWS NETWORKS - 2003 – A YEAR OF DISGRACE

C-SPAN’S SUBLIMINAL SEDUCTION - HOW WASHINGTON JOURNAL HELPS FIX THE ELECTION

Why America Does Not Need a Liberal News Network
TvNewsLies Tracks Iraq Invasion Coverage
TvNewsLies Tracks Media Consolidation
TvNewsLies Tracks the Israel Stories Ignored by US TV
TvNewsLies Tracks the Lapdog Press

A Guide to Responsible News Watching! - Download this guide to so that will help you understand when and how you are beig deceived.

AMBER ALERT

Your Media is Killing You - The American mainstream television news media, in whole and in part, has catastrophically failed the American people and is singularly responsible for the untimely deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. - Meanwhile, during the period beginning with the O.J. trial and concluding with the impeachment extravaganza, the Taliban was taking control of Afghanistan in the wake left by the completion of our anti-Soviet policies in that nation. A man named Osama bin Laden was preparing to attack anything and everything American he could get close to. UNSCOM weapons inspectors under Scott Ritter were taking Iraq's chemical and biological warfare capabilities apart literally brick by brick, and the sanctions against that nation, which were killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, were also reducing Saddam Hussein's conventional arsenal to a large collection of formidable paperweights.
One Nation Divisible - THE APPALLING AMERICAN INFORMATION RIFT

Ex-Watergate writer laments 'idiot culture' - Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein told about 200 people in Tampa that today's media is more gossip and trash than news.- Bernstein, the former Washington Post journalist who, along with fellow reporter Bob Woodward, unearthed the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon, said much of today's news has deteriorated into gossip, sensationalism and manufactured controversy. - That type of news panders to the public and insults their intelligence, ignoring the context of real life, he said. Good journalism, Bernstein said, "should challenge people, not just mindlessly amuse them." - Bernstein also turned his attention Thursday to the coming election, calling President Bush "the most radical president of my lifetime and perhaps in the century." - Bernstein said Bush "is radical in every degree," from a favoritism of the wealthy to a pre-emptive foreign policy to a lack of concern for civil rights.

Second world press freedom ranking - 2003 Index - United States and Israel singled out for actions beyond their borders - Reporters Without Borders is publishing its second world press freedom ranking. As in 2002, the most catastrophic situation is to be found in Asia, especially North Korea, Burma and Laos. Second from last in the ranking, Cuba is today the world's biggest prison for journalists. The United States and Italy were given relatively low rankings. - Special situation of the United States and Israel The ranking distinguishes behaviour at home and abroad in the cases of the United States and Israel. They are ranked in 31st and 44th positions respectively as regards respect for freedom of expression on their own territory, but they fall to the 135th and 146th positions as regards behaviour beyond their borders. - The Israeli army's repeated abuses against journalists in the occupied territories and the US army's responsibility in the death of several reporters during the war in Iraq constitute unacceptable behaviour by two nations that never stop stressing their commitment to freedom of expression.

The stupefaction of a nation: Corporate media propaganda and its weapons of mass distraction - Propaganda in this nation has never been more incessant than today. From the hundreds of lies, misrepresentations and deceits being told to us by both government and corporate media about battles, deaths, injuries, the resistance, security and the deteriorating state of the occupation of our quagmire in Iraq to the distortions and chicanery the Bush administration seemingly launches at us in wave after wave of lies to the purposeful distortion and omission by corporate media of the corrupt going-ons of the embarrassment and scandal that is the bordello called Congress.

WHAT WE REALLY NEED - LOOK HERE - WE CAN TAKE ACTION!

Discuss Media Lies - Visit the NEW TvNewsLies.org reader BBS forums.
Tim Robbins speech to the National Press Club - BRILLIANT! You can view the video at c-span.org.
Terrorism Scare Used to Censor Press
The Jerry Bruckheimer White House

An Erosion of Trust - The Times scandal has only heightened public cynicism about the press. Why we’re all poorer for it

One Nation, Under Informed
CONTROL THE PICTURES, CONTROL THE TRUTH
Clinton Sees Distorted Media
Big Media is losing credibility fight
Trust in media keeps on slipping

Public Remains Skeptical of News Media - Majority of Americans believe news organizations often get facts wrong - TVNL comments: Skeptical? They should be outraged!

U.S. media's negligence threatens our democracy - Uncounted stories of magnitude and relevance go untold by a negligent and conflicted United States press -- the disgrace runs deep.

Our government controlled press - CIA Origins - American government utilized radio during WWII with Voice of America and Radio Free Europe during the Cold War. Both programs started out as justifiable, freedom-inspiring endeavors.

America's shame: A public happy to be conned - TVNL points out: It is the media that is pulling the con job!

News media abandon historic role -- and public suffers - Millions of Americans accept what they are told and think they understand what they see. And what they are told and what they see is most often news as a manipulated commodity. But the facts that really count rarely reach a significant number of the public's ears or eyes. - Also, most reporters know governments lie, mislead and deceive. They also know that the press is ostensibly there to keep an eye on governments, to dissect errors and omissions by offering more truthful counter-narratives.

Democracy Dumbed Down! - With the news media abandoning its duel function of being a watchdog of government and informing the public, while embracing news as entertainment for the highest ratings, citizens are uninformed and democracy is crippled.

Rethinking Objective Journalism - Journalists (and journalism) must acknowledge, humbly and publicly, that what we do is far more subjective and far less detached than the aura of objectivity implies – and the public wants to believe. If we stop claiming to be mere objective observers, it will not end the charges of bias but will allow us to defend what we do from a more realistic, less hypocritical position.

Media Cover-up - Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press
Bush's Four Horsemen - People are beginning to grasp and resent the attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to allow the Four Horsemen of Big Media — Viacom (CBS, UPN), Disney (ABC), Murdoch's News Corporation (Fox) and G.E. (NBC) — to gobble up every independent station in sight.

Mike Hersh covers the media

Media lose access to information - Government clamps down on what's allowed out in name of national security - Indeed, in two years since the terrorist attacks, journalists across the country have found themselves losing access togovernment-held information on various matters -- much of which has nothing to do with national security.

Al Gore Would Rather be Ailes than President - "He thinks the country is disserved by the absence of truth in news, by the absence of honesty in public-official presentation, by the apparently infinite cynicism of those who currently hold high office,"

Bill Moyers is Insightful, Erudite, Impassioned, Brilliant and the Host of PBS' "NOW" - A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW - But for right now, you don't need to turn on the television to partake of the incisive, erudite perspective that Bill Moyers brings to an understanding of what's gone wrong with today's media. For right now, Bill Moyers will enlighten you right here on BuzzFlash.com.

NRA looks to buy media outlet, be exempt from election rules - Hoping to spend as much as it wants on next year's elections, the National Rifle Association is looking to buy a television or radio station and declare that it should be treated as a news organization, exempt from spending limits in the campaign finance law. - If the NRA were to be considered a media organization, it would be free to say what it wanted about candidates at any time and spend corporate money to do so, such as for commercials.

The Photos We'll Never See - There are no enduring photos, for instance:

Media Censorship That Doesn't Speak Its Name - Reducing journalism to a branch of corporate and government public relations is the hidden agenda of the media deregulators, in Britain and America.

Journalists faced 'record censorship' in 2003 - RSF says that "arrests of journalists and censorship of media reached a record high in 2003," and that this is "undoubtedly linked to the fight against terrorism and to anti-terror laws adopted by some countries since the 11 September attacks".

Media Spin Can Separate War From Death - A dozen years after the Gulf War, public perceptions of it are now very helpful to the White House. That's part of a timeworn pattern. Illusions about previous wars make the next one seem acceptable. As George Orwell observed: "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."

Group List Underreported World Stories - ``It's clearly a valid criticism when applied most broadly to the American media” - Nicolas de Torrente, the executive director of the U.S. branch of MSF, also known as Doctors Without Borders, told The Associated Press that the list focuses on U.S. news coverage because American media underreport international events in general, except for security issues and the Middle East.

US Media Review: Journalism’s Imbalanced Objective - Journalistic standards are evolving. The Society for Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics refers to journalists “seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.” – in other words, they seek an objective account of relevant facts. Unfortunately with the advent of advocacy news services, the journalistic standard of objectivity has been subsumed into a desire to be viewed as “balanced”.

Journalists Not Loath to Donate To Politicians - Media Companies' Policies Vary Widely - More than 100 journalists and executives at major media companies, from NBC's top executive to a Fox News anchor to reporters or editors for the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, USA Today, CBS and ABC, have made political contributions in recent years. - Melanie Kirkpatrick, associate editor of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, donated $20,000 to the Republican National Committee and $1,000 to Bush's 2000 presidential campaign.- TVNL Comment: Isn't it enough that they provide free infomercials disguised as news to the Bush/PNAC administration?

Journalist Novak Poking Fun at CIA Leak - Dressed as Wilson in top hat and cutaway coat, Novak sings of himself: ``Novak had a secret source ... so he outed a girl spy the way princes of darkness do. ... Now John Ashcroft asks Bob who and how, could be headed to the old hoosegow.'' - TVNL Comment: This leaves us speechless. Robert Novak should be fired and never permitted to work again as a journalist as a result of this. He thinks it is funny that he outed a CIA agent and that the White house is involved? Outragous!

AP president proposes media lobby to fight government secrecy - Denouncing increased official secrecy, Associated Press President and CEO Tom Curley unveiled a plan Friday for a media advocacy center to lobby in Washington for open government. - "The powerful have to be watched, and we are the watchers," Curley said, "and you don't need to have your notebook snatched by a policeman to know that keeping an eye on government activities has lately gotten a lot harder." - At every level of government, records are being sealed and requests for information denied, and courts are imposing gag orders and sealing documents, Curley said, speaking in the Hays Press-Enterprise Lecture series. - "The point I want to make with these brief examples is an elemental one: The government's power is overwhelming. Its agents are armed and authorized to use force if they have to," Curley said. - "News is our business. We are the watchers," Curley said. "Open government is the personal interest and constitutional right of every citizen. But we of the fourth estate have by far the greatest means and incentive to speak and fight for it." - TVNL Comment: BRAVO! Simply BRAVO!

MEDIA MALPRACTICE 9/11THE ABYSMAL VACUUM - FILLED BY THE MIGHTY MICHAEL MOORE

Inter-American Press Association Criticizes U.S. Press Restrictions - The Inter-American Press Association criticized the U.S. government on Sunday for placing restrictions on foreign journalists' travels and for recent court rulings ordering reporters to reveal secret sources.
TvNewsLies.org’s Suggested

MEDIA INDIFFERENCE TO IRAQI DEATHS

MEDIA INDIFFERENCE TO IRAQI DEATHS

Eight marines were killed this morning in Iraq. The report came between a clip about the candidates’ schedules and the weather report. Nine marines were wounded. And, oh yes, there’ll be a Red Sox parade in Boston.

We’ve grown accustomed to the war. Cities are bombed, soldiers die, hostages are executed, chaos increases, but war news is no longer the big story. No more fanfare, no more flags waving, no more banners that celebrate Operation Iraqi Freedom. No totals of war dead. No photos of returning coffins, no funerals no images of grief.

And all the while, in every stump speech, George Bush raves about progress. Dick Cheney calls Iraq is a remarkable success story. Oh, yes, - that bit about missing explosives. They’ll check it out after the election. Yawn.

Uh, by the way, - did you hear that report about Iraqi deaths in the war? What was that number? Oh yes, - 100,000!!! ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND IRAQIS MAY HAVE BEEN KILLED AS A RESULT OF THE BUSH/PNAC INVASION. Not too important, considering that the Scott Peterson trial was winding up. And, oh yes – that lip-synch episode on SNL had to be aired over and over. Imagine it: 100,000 people would just about fill Fenway Park three times over. 100,000 people are dead because of an illegal, immoral and ill-planned war waged by this administration. 100,000 people - who remain ignored, forgotten, and irrelevant on the eve of this historic election.

The study was conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. Those are our guys, not some politically motivated propaganda group. They did their work because the US government does not keep records of Iraqi deaths. The number is apparently unimportant.

The study, however, concluded that violence accounted for most of the extra deaths seen since the invasion, and air strikes from coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths.

The survey said that most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. Women and children are not the bad guys. Women and children are George Bush’s collateral damage, his flotsam and jetsam. Iraqi blood is cheap; it requires no recognition, no concern, and no sentiment.

The media agree. They cited the report on some networks, - and let it go. There was no follow up. There were no interviews, no repeated coverage, no photos, no videos, no witnesses, and no comments. That makes sense; the study group had no connection to the Swift Boat Vets. Why bother?

On September 11th, 2001 three thousand people were killed in a terrorist attack in the United States. Those deaths will forever remain in our memories, as they should. On that same day, we rightly demanded that the murderers who perpetrated those attacks be brought to justice. The nation and the world expressed their horror and their outrage at the barbaric acts that resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians. As they should.

But where is the outrage at the indifferent and wanton slaughter of 100,000 people who were in no way involved in 9/11? Where is the horror that the Bush/PNAC warmongers are responsible for more than 30 times the lives lost on 9/11? There is never any mention in the media of the maimed or the horribly wounded Iraqis, either. No surprise, - we get no truth, no facts and no images of the horror that is Iraq. It makes George Bush look bad.

Nor do we get any facts and figures about the wounded servicemen and women who are being sacrificed each day as a result of this botched and failing war. Then why report the Iraqi casualties? The subliminal message to the American people is that Iraq has been a surgically precise war with a minimal loss of life. We’ve used smart bombs that fall far from populated areas and destroy only the enemy, whoever that is. That’s not so, none of it. We are lied to on a daily basis, by commission and by omission. What else is new?

The media have failed us, and in a few days the American public will go to the polls uninformed and unarmed. Somewhere, the Houdini transformation of George Bush is alive and well in the American psyche. George Bush sells himself as the leader who can save us from terrorists. Terrorists, after all, kill innocent people to further their cause. Of course, if the shoe fits…..George Bush should consider wearing it.

In the end, - Iraqis will continue to die. Americans and coalition troops will continue to die. They will all have died for nothing. They will all have died in the most disastrous miscalculation by any administration since Vietnam. As we honor our brave men and women in the military who truly believe they are fighting for our freedom, let’s also acknowledge the 100,000 Iraqi lives that have been so violently taken by the liars and plotters in the White House.

The apathy of the media regarding these deaths is unforgivable. Apathy here is akin to complicity. It really is.

In just days, Americans will elect a leader for the nation. Tragically, the people have been lied to and misled beyond belief for the past four years, - and the media have sworn to the deceptions. Restoring George Bush to the presidency would by a travesty. Giving George Bush four more years in the White House would be sanctioning his wars and ignoring his victims.

It must not happen.

The Next Bigger, Worse, Middle East War

US and ISRAEL Threatenand Prepare to Attack IRAN
Part 1 - The Next Bigger, Worse, Middle East War

"We must work together to prevent such a catastrophe. We must stop the next Middle East war before it starts. The US government must turn over to the United Nations the primary responsibility for resolving the deepening crisis in Iraq, and, immediately thereafter, withdraw US forces from the country. We must also prevail upon the Israelis to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and open all of their nuclear sites to IAEA inspectors. Only then can serious talks begin with Iran and other states to establish a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) in the Mid East –– so essential to the region’s long-term peace and security."

"A war that ostensibly began as an attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons will teeter on the brink of their use…"MIDDLEEAST.ORG - MER - Washington - 31 Oct: In a few days the American election itself will be history. The likelihood is the Bush/Cheney/neocon regime will remain in power; hard as that still is for so many to imagine and understand. Should the Democrats win the White House Middle East policies will be largely in the hands of the neoliberals and the super money-men like Haim Saban who when it comes to the Middle East and Israel have far more in common with the neocons than has yet been realized by many who will vote for them. Whatever happens on Tuesday next the build-up to attacking and if at all possible regime changing Iran is well underway and the showdown increasingly imminent.Meanwhile, from the bowels of Washington yesterday, the 'most credible' American journalist of yesteryear, Walter Cronkite, made a rather startling comment when asked about Friday's Bin Laden speech to Americans. Cronkite said he is "inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing."

Iran: A Bridge too Far?The weapon that could defeat the US in the Gulf

A word to the reader: The following paper is so shocking that, after preparing the initial draft, I didn’t want to believe it myself, and resolved to disprove it with more research. However, I only succeeded in turning up more evidence in support of my thesis. And I repeated this cycle of discovery and denial several more times before finally deciding to go with the article. I believe that a serious writer must follow the trail of evidence, no matter where it leads, and report back. So here is my story. Don’t be surprised if it causes you to squirm. Its purpose is not to make predictions –– history makes fools of those who claim to know the future –– but simply to describe the peril that awaits us in the Persian Gulf. By awakening to the extent of that danger, perhaps we can still find a way to save our nation and the world from disaster. If we are very lucky, we might even create an alternative future that holds some promise of resolving the monumental conflicts of our time. MG

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

by Mark Gaffney*
10/26/04: Last July, they dubbed it operation Summer Pulse: a simultaneous mustering of US Naval forces, world wide, that was unprecedented. According to the Navy, it was the first exercise of its new Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of which was to enable the Navy to respond quickly to an international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its increased force readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat power to any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation. Even the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean during operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion of Iraq, never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and August there were seven of them on the move, each battle group consisting of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full complement of 7-8 supporting ships, and 70 or more assorted aircraft. Most of the activity, according to various reports, was in the Pacific, where the fleet participated in joint exercises with the Taiwanese navy.But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What potential world crisis could possibly require more battle groups than were deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past years, when the US has seen fit to “show the flag” or flex its naval muscle, one or two carrier groups have sufficed. Why this global show of power?The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: “Saber Rattling Unnerves China”, and: “Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese.” But the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is viewed as a growing threat –– in the particular case of China, because of Peking’s newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired from Russia.“Nonsense!” you are probably thinking. That’s impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?”Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve “an asymmetric advantage” over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.The Sunburn MissileI was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons –– probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein’s Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today.”After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy’s largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also “saw” the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.Implications For US Forces in the GulfThe US Navy’s only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy’s approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes “see” everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf War –– termed “the great Scud hunt” –– and for similar reasons. Saddam Hussein’s mobile Scud launchers proved so difficult to detect and destroy –– over and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance with decoys –– that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to the Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in official reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop the Scud attacks. The launches continued until the last few days of the conflict. Luckily, the Scud’s inaccuracy made it an almost useless weapon. At one point General Norman Schwarzkopf quipped dismissively to the press that his soldiers had a greater chance of being struck by lightning in Georgia than by a Scud in Kuwait.But that was then, and it would be a grave error to allow the Scud’s ineffectiveness to blur the facts concerning this other missile. The Sunburn’s amazing accuracy was demonstrated not long ago in a live test staged at sea by the Chinese –– and observed by US spy planes. Not only did the Sunburn missile destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect bull’s eye, hitting the crosshairs of a large “X” mounted on the ship’s bridge. The only word that does it justice, awesome, has become a cliché, hackneyed from hyperbolic excess.The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure. Storm clouds have been darkening over the Gulf for many months. In recent years Israel upgraded its air force with a new fleet of long-range F-15 fighter-bombers, and even more recently took delivery of 5,000 bunker-buster bombs from the US –– weapons that many observers think are intended for use against Iran.The arming for war has been matched by threats. Israeli officials have declared repeatedly that they will not allow the Mullahs to develop nuclear power, not even reactors to generate electricity for peaceful use. Their threats are particularly worrisome, because Israel has a long history of pre-emptive war. (See my 1989 book Dimona: the Third Temple? and also my 2003 article Will Iran Be Next?

posted at < http://www.InformationClearingHouse.info/article3288.htm >)

Never mind that such a determination is not Israel’s to make, and belongs instead to the international community, as codified in the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). With regard to Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) recent report (September 2004) is well worth a look, as it repudiates facile claims by the US and Israel that Iran is building bombs. While the report is highly critical of Tehran for its ambiguities and its grudging release of documents, it affirms that IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access, without exception. Last year Iran signed the strengthened IAEA inspection protocol, which until then had been voluntary. And the IAEA has found no hard evidence, to date, either that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them. (The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: www.GlobalSecurity.org)In a talk on October 3, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei made the clearest statement yet: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program", he said, and then repeated himself for emphasis: “Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally don’t rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing that could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives.” No one disputes that Tehran is pursuing a dangerous path, but with 200 or more Israeli nukes targeted upon them the Iranians’ insistence on keeping their options open is understandable. Clearly, the nuclear nonproliferation regime today hangs by the slenderest of threads. The world has arrived at a fateful crossroads.A Fearful Symmetry?If a showdown over Iran develops in the coming months, the man who could hold the outcome in his hands will be thrust upon the world stage. That man, like him or hate him, is Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has been castigated severely in recent months for gathering too much political power to himself. But according to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who was interviewed on US television recently by David Brokaw, Putin has not imposed a tyranny upon Russia –– yet. Gorbachev thinks the jury is still out on Putin.Perhaps, with this in mind, we should be asking whether Vladimir Putin is a serious student of history. If he is, then he surely recognizes that the deepening crisis in the Persian Gulf presents not only manifold dangers, but also opportunities. Be assured that the Russian leader has not forgotten the humiliating defeat Ronald Reagan inflicted upon the old Soviet state. (Have we Americans forgotten?) By the mid-1980s the Soviets were in Kabul, and had all but defeated the Mujahedeen. The Soviet Union appeared secure in its military occupation of Afghanistan. But then, in 1986, the first US Stinger missiles reached the hands of the Afghani resistance; and, quite suddenly, Soviet helicopter gunships and MiGs began dropping out of the skies like flaming stones. The tide swiftly turned, and by 1989 it was all over but the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth in the Kremlin. Defeated, the Soviets slunk back across the frontier. The whole world cheered the American Stingers, which had carried the day.This very night, as he sips his cognac, what is Vladimir Putin thinking? Is he perhaps thinking about the perverse symmetries of history? If so, he may also be wondering (and discussing with his closest aides) how a truly great nation like the United States could be so blind and so stupid as to allow another state, i.e., Israel, to control its foreign policy, especially in a region as vital (and volatile) as the Mid-East. One can almost hear the Russians’ animated conversation:“The Americans! What is the matter with them?”“They simply cannot help themselves.”“What idiots!”“A nation as foolish as this deserves to be taught a lesson…”“Yes! For their own good.”“It must be a painful lesson, one they will never forget…”“Are we agreed, then, comrades?”“Let us teach our American friends a lesson about the limits of military power!”Does anyone really believe that Vladimir Putin will hesitate to seize a most rare opportunity to change the course of history and, in the bargain, take his sweet revenge? Surely Putin understands the terrible dimensions of the trap into which the US has blundered, thanks to the Israelis and their neo-con supporters in Washington who lobbied so vociferously for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, against all friendly and expert advice, and who even now beat the drums of war against Iran. Would Putin be wrong to conclude that the US will never leave the region unless it is first defeated militarily? Should we blame him for deciding that Iran is “one bridge too far”?If the US and Israel overreach, and the Iranians close the net with Russian anti-ship missiles, it will be a fearful symmetry, indeed…Springing the TrapAt the battle of Cannae in 216 BC the great Carthaginian general, Hannibal, tempted a much larger Roman army into a fateful advance, and then enveloped and annihilated it with a smaller force. Out of a Roman army of 70,000 men, no more than a few thousand escaped. It was said that after many hours of dispatching the Romans Hannibal’s soldiers grew so tired that the fight went out of them. In their weariness they granted the last broken and bedraggled Romans their lives…Let us pray that the US sailors who are unlucky enough to be on duty in the Persian Gulf when the shooting starts can escape the fate of the Roman army at Cannae. The odds will be heavily against them, however, because they will face the same type of danger, tantamount to envelopment. The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf’s northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field.Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I’ve mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although we’ve never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf. Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline? In 2001 Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was “optimized for attacks against carrier task forces.” Apparently its guidance system is “able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts.” The numbers were not disclosed…The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate in the first so-called surgical raids on Iran’s nuclear sites, that is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israel’s brand-new fleet of 25 F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives the green light, or is dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant Israel. Either way, the result will be the same. The Iranians will interpret US acquiescence as complicity, and, in any event, they will understand that the real fight is with the Americans. The Iranians will be entirely within their rights to counter-attack in self-defense. Most of the world will see it this way, and will support them, not America. The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors, even as the unfortunate US sailors in harm’s way become cannon fodder. In the Gulf’s shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes control of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in the net below will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run red with American blood…From here, it only gets worse. Armed with their Russian-supplied cruise missiles, the Iranians will close the lake’s only outlet, the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying Americans from help and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian Ocean will stand by helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist the survivors or bring logistical support to the other US forces on duty in Iraq. Couple this with a major new ground offensive by the Iraqi insurgents, and, quite suddenly, the tables could turn against the Americans in Baghdad. As supplies and ammunition begin to run out, the status of US forces in the region will become precarious. The occupiers will become the besieged…With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order. But, as always, because of the US veto the world body will be powerless to act...America will stand alone, completely isolated. Yet, despite the increasingly hostile international mood, elements of the US media will spin the crisis very differently here at home, in a way that is sympathetic to Israel. Members of Congress will rise to speak in the House and Senate, and rally to Israel’s defense, while blaming the victim of the attack, Iran. Fundamentalist Christian talk show hosts will proclaim the historic fulfillment of biblical prophecy in our time, and will call upon the Jews of Israel to accept Jesus into their hearts; meanwhile, urging the president to nuke the evil empire of Islam. From across America will be heard histrionic cries for fresh reinforcements, even a military draft. Patriots will demand victory at any cost. Pundits will scream for an escalation of the conflict.A war that ostensibly began as an attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons will teeter on the brink of their use…ConclusionFriends, we must work together to prevent such a catastrophe. We must stop the next Middle East war before it starts. The US government must turn over to the United Nations the primary responsibility for resolving the deepening crisis in Iraq, and, immediately thereafter, withdraw US forces from the country. We must also prevail upon the Israelis to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and open all of their nuclear sites to IAEA inspectors. Only then can serious talks begin with Iran and other states to establish a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) in the Mid East –– so essential to the region’s long-term peace and security. 10/26/04 "ICH" * Mark Gaffney’s first book, Dimona the Third Temple? (1989), was a pioneering study of Israel’s nuclear weapons program. He has since published numerous important articles about the Mid-East with emphasis on nuclear proliferation issues. Mhgaffney@aol.com

ElBaradei: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program"

"Iran has no nuclear weapons program", said ElBaradei

Al-Jazeera, 3 October 2004: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed that Iran is not developing any nuclear weapons program and that the issue of Iran’s nuclear file must be resolved diplomatically to avoid going through a similar bitter experience like Iraq, Al Asharq al-Awsat reported on Saturday.

“Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally don’t rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing which could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives,” ElBaradei said.

When asked about the IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program that is expected to be issued next month, ElBaradei told the daily, “We have actually started compiling the report and it will be ready at the specified time before the Board of Governors meeting. So far, nothing new has surfaced, and we still call on Iran to help resolve the outstanding issues. In order to resolve the problem we have asked them to suspend the enrichment of uranium as a confidence-building measure, and we are still negotiating.”

ElBaradei noted that it was too early to consider referring Iran’s nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council.

Worst-case scenario

He, moreover, stated that referring Iran’s nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council for violating the provisions of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would be the worst-case scenario.

“We hope we will not have to adopt obligatory measures (about Iran) and also prefer not to make judgments about Iran withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” he told the paper.

“Our findings in Iraq proved that the agency was right because we didn’t find anything which indicated the presence of nuclear weapons in Iraq. “If we want to take a lesson from Iraq, we should not rush before all realities are clarified, and this is what we want to do about Iran.”
In September 18, the IAEA adopted a tough resolution demanding Iran to halt its all enrichment-related activities. The IAEA Board is set to meet again on November 25.

Cracks in the Empire

Cracks in the Empire: Compilation of insiders who have criticized Bush's Iraq policy

http://www.btlonline.org/btlthosewhotold.html

By Anna Manzo and Scott Harris

When U.S. Defense Department analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the "Pentagon Papers" to the press during the Vietnam War, the 47-volume Defense Department internal study of the U.S. role in Southeast Asian conflicts over three decades was classified top secret. The documents chronicled the lies and deceit employed by government officials to justify U.S. military intervention in the region's wars. Ellsberg -- a strong supporter of the Vietnam War who later became a committed opponent -- faced felony charges that could have put him in prison for 115 years. Those charges were dismissed in 1973 on grounds of governmental misconduct, which led to the conviction of several White House aides. The targeting of Ellsberg was an important factor in the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon.

Today, numerous Washington insiders are speaking out against what they allege are Bush administration violations of the public trust: most notably, the justifications cited for pre-emptive war in Iraq. In turn, high-level officials -- former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter -- and others have become victims of smear campaigns reportedly directed from the White House.

Compelling charges of secrecy and deception are leveled by former Nixon aide John Dean. In "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush," the former counsel to the president-turned whistle-blower reminds us that no one died in the Watergate scandal. Dean, whose testimony helped convince the House Judiciary Committee to vote for articles of impeachment against his former boss, charges that George Bush is guilty of impeachable offenses.

As Election Day draws near, presented here is an alphabetical, annotated list of several prominent government insiders -- many of them Republicans -- who have spoken out against President Bush's decision to launch the Iraq war his administration's conduct in managing the conflict.

Rand Beers, former anti-terrorism adviser to President George W. Bush, and now John Kerry's homeland security adviser. He said the administration is "underestimating the enemy;" has failed to address terrorism's root causes; and that difficult, long-term issues at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally under-funded. The Iraq war created fissures in U.S. counterterrorism alliances, he added, and could breed a new generation of al Qaeda recruits. Source: "Former Aide Takes Aim at War on Terror," Washington Post, June 16, 2003.

Doug Bereuter, retiring Republican Nebraska congressman who broke ranks with his party, reversed his earlier stance, saying the military strike against Iraq is a "mistake," and blasted a "massive failure" of intelligence before the war. Source: "Retiring GOP congressman breaks ranks on Iraq," CNN, Aug. 18, 2004

Robert L. Black, a retired Ohio judge of Hamilton County Common Pleas Court and the Ohio First District Court of Appeals, stated publicly that he believes the "Republican party candidate's record has a history not only of repeated violations of the key principles underlying our democracy, but of the core values of the Christian faith to which he claims commitment." Black says he will refuse to support his lifelong Republican party in the re-election of the incumbent president. " Source: A Republican Declares His Independence," The Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 13, 2004

Hans Blix, former U.N. chief weapons inspector in Iraq and author of "Disarming Iraq." Two weeks before attacking Baghdad, the U.S. unsuccessfully pressured him to tell the Security Council that Iraq was violating UN resolutions. He said that if inspections had continued, Iraq may have proven its lack of banned weapons. He also says the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq had failed tragically in its aim of making the world a safer place and succeeded only in stimulating terrorism. Sources: "U.N. Inspector Writes of Pressure From U.S. on Iraq: Blix's Book Said He Was Challenged About Arms Assessment on Eve of Last Report to Security Council," Washington Post, March 9, 2004. "Blix Says Iraq War Stimulated Terrorism," Reuters, Oct. 13, 2003

Paul Bremer, former U.S. official appointed by Bush to govern Iraq after the invasion, said that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Source: "Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels," Washington Post, Oct. 5, 2004

John Brown, foreign service officer in Eastern Europe and Moscow, was the second career U.S. diplomat who resigned to protest the Bush administration's Iraq policies. The 22-year veteran said the Bush administration is pursuing a narrow-minded strategy, jeopardizing relationships with long-time allies around the world. Source: "Second Foreign Service officer resigns in protest over Iraq," The Government Executive, March 12, 2003.

Vince Cannistraro, former CIA head of counter-terrorism and member of the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan. He said, "These have been an extraordinary four years for the CIA and the political pressure to come up with the right results has been enormous, particularly from Vice President Cheney. I'm afraid that the agency is guilty of bending over backwards to please the administration. George Tenet was desperate to give them what they wanted and that was a complete disaster." Source: "The CIA 'Old Guard' Goes to War with Bush," The Telegraph/UK, Oct. 11, 2004

Richard A. Clarke, former White House counter-terrorism chief. Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush, then served under President Clinton and the current President Bush. He said that in the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered him to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, despite being told there didn't seem to be one. His book, "Against All Enemies," is critical of the administration's early emphasis on removing Saddam Hussein from power; downplaying of al Qaeda's threat prior to 9/11; and diverting military resources to a war in Iraq, instead of fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan. In response, the administration called the career public servant an "opportunist." Sources: "Clarke's Take on Terror," 60 Minutes, March 30, 2004; "A White House Adept at Revenge," The Associated Press, March 27, 2004.
Robin Cook, a former British foreign minister under Tony Blair. Resigned and wrote a book saying the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was over-exaggerated. Source: "Cook Denies Saddam was Threat," The Guardian/UK, June 17, 2003

John Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, dared to tell him in 1973 that the web of lies surrounding the Watergate break-in of the Democratic Party headquarters had formed "a cancer on the presidency." Dean sees a worse scenario in the Bush White House. Sources: "Bush Puts a 'Cancer on the Presidency' - Watergate Insider calls this White House 'Scary'" Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2004; "Ex-Nixon Aide John Dean Tells Bill Moyers that Bush Should be Impeached," NOW with Bill Moyers, April 2, 2004

Marie deYoung, a former Army chaplain who audited accounts for Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root. After complaining of waste and fraud to her superiors to no avail, she says there was no effort to hold down expenses because all costs were passed directly on to taxpayers. DeYoung produced documents detailing alleged waste on routine services: $50,000 a month for soda, at $45 a case; $1 million a month to clean clothes - or $100 for each 15-pound bag of laundry. Source: "New Halliburton Waste Alleged," MSNBC, July 1, 2004

Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, 27 retired diplomats and generals -- including Arthur Hartman, former ambassador to the Soviet Union; Admiral Stansfield Turner, former director of the CIA; and General William Crowe, one-time chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- have signed a statement declaring that George W. Bush's foreign policy has harmed U.S. national security and that his administration must be defeated in the 2004 presidential election. Many served under Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Source: "Diplomats & Military Commanders for Change," www.diplomatsforchange.com

Fifty-two former diplomats signed a letter to British Prime Minister Tony Blair regarding their deepening concern with the policies which have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close cooperation with the U.S.. Signers included Francis Cornish (ambassador to Israel 1998-2001); Sir James Craig (ambassador to Saudi Arabia 1979-84); Richard Muir (ambassador to Kuwait 1999-2002); Sir Crispin Tickell (British permanent representative to the UN 1987-90); Sir Harold Walker (ambassador to Iraq 1990-91). Source: "Doomed to failure in the Middle East: A letter from 52 former senior British diplomats to Tony Blair," The Guardian, April 27, 2004

Charles Duelfer, chief U.S. weapons inspector with the Iraq Survey Group, reported that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and that Iraq's nuclear capability had decayed, not grown since the 1991 war. Source: "Report concludes no WMD in Iraq," BBC News, Oct. 7, 2004.

Sibel Edmonds, former FBI translator. Told the 9/11 commission that well before Sept. 11, 2001, the bureau had detailed information that terrorists were likely to attack the U.S. with airplanes. Sources: "We Should Have Had Orange or Red-Type of Alert in June/July of 2001," www.Salon.com, March 26, 2004; "Lawyers Try to Gag FBI Worker over 9/11," Independent/UK, April 26, 2004

Jay Garner, the U.S. general abruptly dismissed as Iraq's first occupation administrator after a month in the job. Garner said he fell out with Bush's circle because he wanted free elections and rejected an imposed privatization program: "My preference was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can, and do it with some form of elections ... I just thought it was necessary to rapidly get the Iraqis in charge of their destiny." Source: "General Sacked by Bush Says He Wanted Early Elections," Guardian/UK, March 18, 2004

Katharine Gun, a British government linguist who leaked an e-mail purportedly from U.S. intelligence services asking for help to spy on U.N. ambassadors. She faced a two-year prison term for charges filed under the British Official Secrets Act; the charges were dismissed. Sources: "GCHQ Translator Cleared Over Leak," BBC, Feb. 25, 2004; "U.S. Stars Hail Iraq War Whistleblower," Observer/UK, Jan. 18, 2004

Chuck Hagel, Republican senator of Nebraska, criticized the GOP party line of "staying the course in Iraq." He said that "crisp, sharp analysis of our policies is required" to avert a prolonged engagement similar to Vietnam. He said in a CBS "Face the Nation" interview, "We're in deep trouble in Iraq" and that it would take "probably two years" to get an Iraqi army and police force up to speed to secure the country. He said in 2002 that he could think of no historical case where the U.S. succeeded in an enterprise of such gravity and complexity as regime change in Iraq without the support of a regional and international coalition. Sources: "Republican discord in the Senate," The Boston Globe, Sept. 22, 2004; "CIA Analysis Holds Bleak Vision for Iraq's Future," The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sept. 16, 2004

Bill Harlow, former CIA spokesman who resigned with former director George Tenet, acknowledged that recent CIA leaks had been made from within the agency to undermine the Bush administration with a battery of damaging leaks and briefings about Iraq. "The intelligence community has been made the scapegoat for all the failings of Iraq. It deserves some of the blame, but not all of it. People are chafing at that." Source: "The CIA 'Old Guard' Goes to War with Bush," The Telegraph/UK, Oct. 11, 2004

David Kay, former Bush administration chief weapons inspector sent to Iraq to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Resigned saying he didn't believe Saddam Hussein's government had large-scale weapons production programs in the 1990s. Source: "Ex-Arms Hunter Kay Said No WMD Stockpiles in Iraq," Reuters, Jan. 23, 2004.

John Brady Kiesling, a former political counselor at the U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece, and first career U.S. diplomat to resign in protest of the Bush administration's Iraq policies. He wrote, "We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security." Source: "Diplomatic Offensive," TomPaine.com, March 14, 2003.

Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired lieutenant colonel formerly assigned to the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. Wrote an article revealing how "Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war" in a plan that was never made public. Source: "The New Pentagon Papers" Salon.com, March 10, 2004

Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst and State Department Office of Counterterrorism official, also a registered Republican who contributed financially to the 2000 Bush campaign. Said the White House smear campaigns against former officials -- Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill -- were mild compared to the vicious assault against Clarke. Source: "The War on Clarke," TomPaine.com, March 29, 2004
Richard Lugar, Indiana Republican senator and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said so little Iraq reconstruction money has been spent due to the "incompetence in the administration." He said at a hearing, "Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration -- what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd' -- that we just simply will be greeted with open arms. The nonsense of all that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent." Sources: "Republican discord in the Senate," The Boston Globe, Sept. 22, 2004; "CIA Analysis Holds Bleak Vision for Iraq's Future," The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sept. 16, 2004

Tom Maertens, former U.S. State Department deputy coordinator for counterterrorism. Described the Bush administration smear campaign against Clarke and confirmed Clarke's charges that the Bush administration ignored the threat from al Qaeda and instead chose to fight "the wrong war" by attacking Iraq. Source: "Clarke's Public Service," by Tom Maertens, Star Tribune, March 28, 2004

John McCain, Arizona Republican senator, who on a Fox Network interview, criticized the serious mistakes of not having enough ground troops sent into Iraq and said that Bush perhaps is not as straight with the American people "as we'd like to see." Source: "Republican discord in the Senate," The Boston Globe, Sept. 22, 2004

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA analyst. Said outgoing CIA Director George Tenet took the fall for faulty intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the motivation behind Bush's Iraq war policy. The policy was predicated on a neoconservative strategy to use military force to gain dominant influence over oil-rich Iraq and to eliminate any possible threat to Israel's security. He also described how former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's public denouncement of Bush
administration claims that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from the African nation Niger for their nuclear weapons, led to the White House outing of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative. The public disclosure is a felony. Sources: "Taking the Fall for Iraq," Miami Herald, June 7, 2004; "Critics Question Credibility of FBI Investigation into White House Leak Exposing CIA Operative," Between The Lines, Week Ending Oct. 17, 2003.

Roger Morris, a retired diplomat who quit over Nixon's invasion of Cambodia, sent out a call to Americans on the front lines of the Foreign Service, asking them to resign from the Bush administration, which Morris describes as "the worst regime by far in the history of the republic." Source: "A Call to Conscience," Common Dreams.org, May 25, 2004

National Intelligence Council, said Bush disregarded intelligence reports that prior to the invasion of Iraq a war could unleash a violent insurgency and rising anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East. Sources: "Bush Ignored Warnings on Iraq Insurgency Threat Before Invasion: Intelligence suggested country faced years of tumult," the Guardian/UK, Sept. 29, 2004; "CIA Analysis Holds Bleak Vision for Iraq's Future," The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sept. 16, 2004
Paul O'Neill, former Bush administration treasury secretary. He said in his book, "The Price of Loyalty," that 10 days after the inauguration -- eight months before 9/11 -- there was a "conviction" in the administration that Saddam Hussein was a "target" for removal. Source: "Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq," by CBS News, Jan. 11, 2004

Kevin Phillips, a one-time Republican strategist. Wrote in his book, "American Dynasty," that "[T]he Bush family has used all its resources to create a political dynasty that has gained the White House to further its family and ideological agenda, which would have horrified America's founding fathers. They, after all, led a revolution against a succession of royal Georges." Phillips also discusses the involvement of Prescott Bush and his father-in-law with Nazi-era German holding companies and how they became useful resources for the CIA during the Cold War. Source: "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush," Viking, 2004

Scott Ritter, the former lead inspector for the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) Concealment and Investigations team in Iraq for seven years and a registered Republican. He opposed the war before it was launched, saying Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. He also said Saddam Hussein's secular government was the antithesis of an Islamic fundamentalist, anti-American regime and had no links to the Sept. 11 attack. He blames senior officials in the Bush administration -- ideologues in pursuit of global hegemony -- for a war in Iraq that the "president elected to fight under false pretense." Source: "The Iraq War and The Bush Administration's Pursuit of Global Domination," Counterpoint, WPKN Radio, Sept. 15, 2003.
Michael Scheuer (originally "Anonymous,") a 22-year veteran CIA official, serving in a senior counterterrorism post and who headed the special office to track Osama bin Laden and his followers from 1996 to 1999. He has written a book, "Imperial Hubris," in which he warns that the U.S. is losing the war against radical Islam and that the Iraq invasion has played into the enemy's hands. Sources: "Book by C.I.A. Officer Says U.S. is Losing Fight Against Terror," New York Times, June 23, 2004; "Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands," The Guardian/UK, June 29, 2004; "CIA Felt Pressure to Alter Iraq Data, Author Says Agency analysts were repeatedly ordered to redo their studies of Al Qaeda ties to Hussein regime, a terrorism expert charges," the Los Angeles Times, July 1, 2004; "Boston Phoenix' IDs 'Anonymous' CIA Officer," Editor & Publisher, June 30, 2004

Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy, a nonpartisan group of experts in the field of national security and international politics. Over 725 foreign affairs specialists in the United States and allied countries have signed an open letter opposing the Bush administration's foreign policy and calling urgently for a change of course. Source: www.sensibleforeignpolicy.net
Gen. Eric Shinseki, former Army chief of staff. He was criticized by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz after he told Congress in February 2003 that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." Sources: "Ex-Army Boss: Pentagon Won't Admit Reality in Iraq," USA Today, June 3, 2003; "The High Costs of War with Iraq: The Administration Plays Russian Roulette with Our Economy," CommonDreams.org, March 1, 2003.

Clare Short, Britain's former international development secretary. She resigned from Prime Minister Tony Blair's government in protest after the Iraq invasion, and said she saw transcripts of conversations clandestinely recorded in UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's office. Source: "UK Spies Bugged UN Chief, Claims Short," The Independent/UK, Feb. 26, 2004
Tami Silicio, and her husband, David Landry, employees of Pentagon contractor Maytag Aircraft. They were fired because they "violated Department of Defense and company policies by photographing and releasing for publication, images of the flag-draped caskets of American servicemen and women being returned to the United States," defying a Bush administration ban on public dissemination of such photos. Source: "Bush Afraid to Let American People See Deadly Reality of Needless War," Niagara Falls Reporter, April 27, 2004

Greg Thielmann, former chief of the U.S. State Department's bureau of intelligence and research (INR) and aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell. He told journalist Sydney Blumenthal, "Everyone in the intelligence community knew that the White House couldn't care less about any information suggesting that there were no WMDs or that the UN inspectors were very effective." Source: "How Bush Misled the World," by Sydney Blumenthal, The Age, Feb. 6, 2004
Mike West, a Halliburton labor foreman in Iraq, was paid $82,000 a year but claims he never had any laborers to supervise. "They said just log 12 hours a day and walk around and look busy," he said. "OK, so we did." Source: "New Halliburton Waste Alleged," MSNBC.com, July 1, 2004

Thomas White, former Army secretary. He said in May 2003 that senior defense officials "are unwilling to come to grips" with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq. A series of public feuds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led to his firing. Source: "Ex-Army Boss: Pentagon Won't Admit Reality in Iraq," USA Today, June 3, 2003

Andrew Wilkie: former Australian Office of National Assessments intelligence analyst. He resigned, arguing that based on U.S. and other intelligence information he saw, there was no justification for war on Iraq. Source: "Australian Government Rocked by Resignation of Anti-War Official," InterPress Service, March 12, 2003

Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador. He investigated and refuted the White House claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger for a nuclear weapons program, and later publicly accused the White House of ignoring his findings. His wife, Valerie Plame, was then outed by columnist Robert Novak as a covert CIA operative, reportedly by a White House leak. Wilson believes the case, now before a grand jury, will reveal that the White House exposed his wife's identity to punish him and intimidate other critics from going public. Sources: "CIA Leak is Big Trouble for Bush," The Nation, Sept. 29, 2003; "Former Envoy Talks in Book About Source of C.I.A. Leak," New York Times, April 30, 2004.

Ann Wright, a career Foreign Service officer and Army Reserve colonel. The day of the invasion of Iraq, Wright resigned from the State Department in protest over several foreign and domestic Bush administration policies. She accused the administration of shunning the need for international cooperation on the Iraq issue and of "leaving the organizations [particularly the United Nations] in tatters that we have helped build." Wright also criticized the curtailment of civil liberties in the U.S. since the Sept. 11 attacks. Source: "Diplomat Resigns to Protest War," www.govexec.com, March 21, 2003

Anthony Zinni, former commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command, has co-written a book with Tom Clancy, "Battle Ready." He criticizes the handling of postwar Iraq and the abuses of the U.S. military: "In the lead-up to the Iraq War and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption." Sources: "Chaos Under Heaven, and More to Come," Inter Press Service, Jan. 25, 2004; "Battle Ready" book review, Publisher's Weekly.

Anna Manzo and Scott Harris are producers of Between The Lines radio newsmagazine, www.btlonline.org, heard on more than 35 radio stations in the U.S, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. An earlier version of this article was published in the Summer 2004 print edition of the magazine Toward Freedom, www.towardfreedom.com.


"Join this group"
مجموعة العروبيين : ملتقى العروبيين للحوار البناء من أجل مستقبل عربي افضل ليشرق الخير و تسمو الحرية
Google Groups Subscribe to Arab Nationalist
Email:
Browse Archives at groups-beta.google.com

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
.


Anti War - Anti Racism

Let the downFall of Sharon be end to Zionism



By the Late, great political cartoonist Mahmoud Kahil