Saturday, January 15, 2005

Counter Inaugural links -in New Orleans and DC

Counter Inaugural protests are scheduled through the US and in some parts of the world to speak up against the Bush regime and the consequences of US policy abroad and in this country.

Many coalitions are serving as information centers for those who wish to participate in one of these actions:

In New Orleans:

An excellent central list of DC and out of DC events is available from:

Legal advice and other resources are also available through

Duelfer Report, Election, LA Natl Guard, Protocols of the Elders of Pipes, SS

1) Let's unpack this story a bit, avoiding the US
media's placid "there's nothing new here" spin to the
import of the story. Remember two years ago, when the
Iraqi government, through Amer al-Sa'adi (the credible
one, NOT "Baghdad Bob," who is now reportedly in the
Gulf somewhere), stated that they absolutely had no
WMD's and were providing every shred of information
available, and that the UN weapons inspectors had
carte blanche to inspect every space in the country?
Remember when they provided the UN with 12,000 pages
of documentation on CD-ROMs? Remember when the Bush
Administration insisted that there was no time, that
the threat was imminent, and that the weapons
inspectors would be completely unable to find anything
while the current government was in power? Well, I

This story carries even stronger implications,
however. According to Duelfer's report, Iraq had
destroyed all of its WMD stocks nearly 10 years ago --
just as Amer al-Sa'adi claimed in 2002. What does
that say about the sanctions regime following roughly
1995? Who on the Security Council insisted that they
remain in place, besides the US and UK? Basically,
this report provides a strong legal argument that the
US and UK owe Iraq compensation not only for the
widespread destruction, cultural looting, and
estimated 100,000 deaths of the past two years -- but
also owes compensation for the years of sanction
following 1995.

If I were the Iraqi Government, I would simply state,
"That'll be 500 billion USD, cash up front, please.
You can post your USAID staff to another country.
We're not interested in their program."

Bush's justification? "I felt like we'd find weapons
of mass destruction..." Would that stand up in any
court of law? Still, he feels "absolutely" justified
in launching this war that is bleeding America dry
financially, killing an awful lot of American kids
(six last week from Louisiana alone), and destroying
Iraq for yet another generation. This is a perfect
parallel to The Onion's portrayal of WWII's beginning:
"Hitler saves Europe from Polish aggression!"

And what about Amer al-Sa'adi? He's still in prison,
asking for more books. His German wife, who was at
the UN HQ appealing for his freedom when it was bombed
in August 2003, is still trying to get him free. I
believe they've got two teenage German Iraqi children,
living in Germany. I wonder what their opinion of US
Liberation is? I know what mine would be, in a
similar situation.


US gives up search for Saddam's WMD

Iraq Survey Group concludes dictator destroyed weapons
years before invasion

Julian Borger in Washington and Jonathan Steele
Thursday January 13 2005
The Guardian

The US investigators searching for Saddam Hussein's
alleged weapons of mass destruction have given up the
hunt and left Iraq with an appeal to the Pentagon for
the release of several Iraqi scientists still being
questioned, it was reported yesterday.

Charles Duelfer, who led the Iraq Survey Group, has
returned to the US and will deliver a final report in
the spring that will be almost identical to the
interim assessment he delivered to Congress last

That assessment found Saddam had destroyed his last
weapons of mass destruction more than 10 years ago,
and his capacity to build new ones had been dwindling
for years by the time of the second Gulf war.

"Charlie has left Iraq," an intelligence official said
yesterday. "In terms of the weapons hunt in a
proactive sense, it has concluded, and the report is
being tweaked a bit but it will be largely unchanged."
But he added: "There is a considerable amount of
document exploitation to be done that will continue to
occur and leads that come out of the exploitation will
be followed up."

The Washington Post said the ISG had made "several
pleas" to the Pentagon to release the Iraqi
scientists, who have been held for nearly two years
and who have been interviewed extensively.

The scientists include General Amir al-Saadi, who
negotiated with UN inspectors on behalf of the Saddam
regime; Rihab Taha, a biologist also known as Dr Germ;
her husband, Amir Rashid, a former oil minister; and
Huda Amash, a biologist nicknamed Mrs Anthrax by UN

Gen Saadi's German-born wife Helma told the Guardian
last night that she had heard from US sources that
Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, had
approved her husband's release some weeks after the
October report was submitted. He had checked with the
Iraqi justice minister who said he had no objection.

"I understand the matter is with the prime minister,
Ayad Allawi, now. I don't know why it is taking so
long," she said.

By chance, the Red Cross arranged yesterday for Gen
Saadi to make a rare phone call to his wife. "He
didn't sound optimistic," she said. "He said he's kept
in the dark. No one tells him anything. He asked for
more books."

Last night the White House press secretary, Scott
McClellan, said there no longer was an active search
for weapons. "There may be a couple, a few people,
that are focused on that," he said, "but it has
largely concluded." He added: "If they have any
reports of [weapons of mass destruction] obviously
they'll continue to follow up on those reports.

"A lot of their mission is focused elsewhere now."

He said the final Duelfer report "is not going to
fundamentally alter" the earlier findings, which said
Saddam not only had no weapons of mass destruction and
had not made any since 1991, but that he had no
capability of making any either.

Many thousands of pages of Saddam-era documents are
still being translated and analysed, but most weapons
experts believe they are unlikely to change the
fundamental ISG assessment that the former regime had
rid itself of weapons of mass destruction many years
before the invasion.

After Mr Duelfer's presentation to Congress in
October, a senior ISG official said he was only
returning to Baghdad "to tie up odds and ends", with
no real expectation of further discoveries.

US officials said the operation was being wrapped up
because there was little expectation of finding any
substantial new evidence and the hunt could no longer
be justified in view of the rising danger to the

Despite the end of the search, President George Bush
last night said he remained convinced that he was
right to go to war on Saddam.

In an interview with ABC television's Barbara Walters,
Mr Bush admitted: "I felt like we'd find weapons of
mass destruction, or like many many
here in the United States, many around the world, the
United Nations, thought he had weapons of mass

But asked directly whether the invasion of Iraq was
worth the cost of an increasingly violent war, Mr Bush
said: "Oh, absolutely."

2) On Iraqi Elections:,2763,1389292,00.html

This election could plunge Iraq further into the abyss
Rigged polls held under foreign occupation have a
notorious pedigree

Seumas Milne
Thursday January 13 2005
The Guardian

They are routinely described by the BBC as Iraq's
first free and democratic elections - sometimes for
half a century, sometimes in the country's history.
During his lightning stopover in Baghdad last month,
Tony Blair insisted that whatever you had thought of
the war, no one could now avoid taking sides in what
had become a simple "battle between democracy and
terror" in Iraq. And even if enthusiasm for the
elections scheduled for January 30 is usually tempered
by an admission that they are bound in practice to
prove "imperfect", there is a widespread view in the
occupying countries that they offer the best chance to
begin to lift the country out of its current misery.

We have, of course, been here before. Every landmark
since the US and British invasion nearly two years ago
has been claimed as a turning point for the
occupation, the moment when support for the resistance
would start to recede and a new, showcase Iraq emerge
from the blood-drenched devastation. And no doubt for
those who thought Iraqis would welcome their invaders
with flowers, that they wouldn't resist foreign
occupation, that Saddam Hussein's capture would take
the wind out of the fighters' sails, that last June's
handover of sovereignty would be seen as genuine and
that the punitive destruction of Falluja would break
the back of the insurgency - for them, this month's
planned ballot will surely seem to be the crucial
event that must at last deliver legitimacy to the
puppet regime holed up in Baghdad's infamous green

But, in reality, the elections are likely at best to
be irrelevant, at worst to plunge Iraq deeper into the
abyss. Both common sense and first principles dictate
that no election in a country invaded and controlled
by foreign troops can conceivably be regarded as free
and fair. The poll due on January 30 is part of a
process imposed by Bush's proconsul Paul Bremer,
transparently designed to entrench US plans for Iraq
and the wider Middle East; all the main politicians
and parties taking part owe their position and
physical survival to US protection and power; and
voting will take place in a country under martial law,
where a full-scale guerrilla war is raging and whose
heartlands are under daily bombardment.

Falluja, a city of 350,000 people, has been razed to
the ground in the past couple of months and its people
expelled to refugee camps, where they have less chance
to vote (even if they wanted to) than Iraqi refugees
living in Britain. The US-appointed government has
cracked down on the recalcitrant press and expelled
the independent al-Jazeera TV station, while the hands
of any future administration have been tied by a
US-imposed neoliberal economic programme.

Add to that the fact that major political groups and
politicians are boycotting the elections (including
the popular Shia leader Moqtada al-Sadr) as
illegitimate under occupation - while security is so
bad in four of the country's provinces (accounting
for more than half the population) that both the US
ground forces commander and US-installed prime
minister Ayad Allawi said this week it would be too
dangerous for many people to vote. And just as
intimidation is expected to enforce a boycott in some
Sunni-dominated areas, pro-regime militias are
expected to dragoon Shia voters to the polls in parts
of the south. Without election observers, the scope
for fraud is clearly extensive. Most candidates' names
on party lists have been withheld - giving new meaning
to the term "secret ballot" - while voter registration
forms are being widely traded for dollars.

But most crucially of all, whatever the turnout and
relative votes for the different lists, the result
cannot and will not reflect the popular will over the
most important issue facing the country: the
occupation. Opinion polls show most Iraqis want
foreign troops to leave now. But none of those with a
chance of being elected - all compromised by their
links to the current administration - supports such a
demand. Without foreign troops, they would fear for
their own skins.

None of this should come as much of a shock. We are
familiar with "managed" elections the world over. And
phoney polls under foreign occupation have a long
pedigree. Take the US client regime in South Vietnam,
where fraudulent but contested elections were held
from the 1950s to the 1970s, including at the height
of the American war. Just as in Iraq, newspapers were
suppressed and parties staged boycotts or were banned,
while polling was often suspended in
Vietcong-controlled areas - or alternatively the
government won a miraculously high vote. Then there
were Iraq's own rigged elections under the
British-installed regime before 1958: as in Iraq
today, thousands of prisoners were held without trial,
newspapers and parties were banned and torture was

The credibility of Iraq's January 30 poll is so
flagrantly in doubt, it is no wonder that there is
pressure both from within the US administration and
prominent Iraqi politicians for a postponement. The
danger is that the election won't simply lack
credibility, but could actually intensify Iraq's
crisis by fuelling sectarian divisions. The
combination of the effective truce with Sadr's Mahdi
army while the US military concentrates its fire on
the Sunni-based resistance, lack of Shia support for
Fallujans during November's onslaught and the
commitment to the elections by the governing Shia
parties has strained relations to the limit. There are
increasing fears among Iraqis that the US is
deliberately fostering sectarian tension to divide and
rule - or even open the way to the de facto partition
of the country. When the New York Times's Thomas
Friedman argues that "we have to have a proper
election in Iraq so we can have a proper civil war"
and Charles Krauthammer suggests in the Washington
Post that we should "see Iraqi factionalisation as a
useful tool", it's hardly surprising such ideas

The US-British occupation has failed to deliver
Iraqis' most basic needs and security, let alone their
freedom. The resistance, dismissed as "dead-enders"
and "remnants" after the fall of the Saddam regime,
has mushroomed to the point where Iraqi intelligence
puts it at 200,000-strong, a senior US military
officer has told Newsweek "we are losing" and the
Pentagon is reaching into the sewer of its history for
the "Salvador option": the use of local paramilitary
death squads to wage a dirty war against the

Britain's small band of occupation cheerleaders, who
comprehensively lost the argument about the war, are
now taking refuge in self-righteous denunciations of
the Iraqi resistance, the very forces they helped
bring into being by supporting the unprovoked invasion
of an independent state.

They would do better to remind their friends that
there can be no democracy without genuine sovereignty
and self-determination. The only way to hold free and
fair elections in Iraq - and draw the sting of mass
resistance - is for the aggressor states to withdraw
their forces and let the Iraqis run their own affairs.

3) Louisiana National Guard losses:,1280,-4730712,00.html

La. Mourns for Soldiers Killed in 1 Day

Thursday January 13, 2005 3:16 PM
Associated Press Writer

HOUMA, La. (AP) - Six members of the Louisiana
National Guard were killed last week in a single bomb
blast in Iraq. They came from the same company and
grew up in towns along the bayous of southeast
Louisiana. Now they've come home - together - to a
heartbroken state.

In civilian life, Bradley Bergeron was an air
conditioning technician. Kurt Comeaux was a probation
officer and Warren Murphy a tugboat deckhand. You
could find Christopher Babin behind the wheel of his
truck. Armand Frickey and Huey Fassbender III worked
in restaurants....

4) Pipes applauds Hollywood's whipping up fears of the
populace from "everyday Muslims". Sometimes these
plots become self-fulfilling prophecies, life
imitating art. Also, I think it would be fair to
label this article the "Protocols of the Elders of

Daniel Pipes: Hooray for Fox for Running a Prime Time
Show that Deals with Islamist Terrorism

Daniel Pipes, at (1-6-05):

The war on terror has not been the subject of a single
American feature film nor, so far as I know, is there
one in the works. But television is proving a bit
braver and things should get interesting on Sunday,
Jan. 9, when Fox begins a new season of its action
show, called 24.

Why the absence of movies on the current war? Jack
Valenti, then-head of the Motion Picture Association
of America, once replied with questions of his own:

Who would you have as the enemy if you made a picture
about terrorism? You'd probably have Muslims, would
you not? If you did, I think there would be backlash
from the decent, hard-working, law-abiding Muslim
community in this country.

That's what some call a pre-emptive cringe. Others
call it dhimmitude.

In any case, the most recent big-budget movie to deal
with terrorism was 2002's Sum of All Fears ("27,000
Nuclear Weapons. One Is Missing"), based on a Tom
Clancy novel of the same name. The novel had Arab
terrorists setting off a nuclear device at football's
Super Bowl but the movie, under pressure from Islamist
organizations, features neo-Nazi terrorists. ("I hope
you will be reassured," Director Phil Alden Robinson
wrote in early 2001 to the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, "that I have no intention of promoting
negative images of Muslims or Arabs, and I wish you
the best in your continuing efforts to combat

In an review of recent movies, Jonathan V. Last finds
that, "If anything, the PC pressure has been upped
since the war on terror began." The first break in the
silence came in mid-2004, when The Grid, a TNT
mini-series, took on radical Islam. Last termed it
"the bravest, most-daring piece of entertainment in
years," precisely because Tracey Alexander and Brian
Eastman, its executive producers, did not whitewash
all forms of Islam.

An excerpt from The Grid's second episode, concerning
a Lebanese national named Fuqara, arrested as he tries
to flee the United States after trying to murder an
FBI agent, gives its flavor. Fuqara is interrogated by
Agent Canary while his attorney tries to stop the

Agent Canary: Mr. Fuqara, who ordered you to commit
the assassination?

Fuqara: (Mutters in Arabic.)

Fuqara's Attorney (to Agent Canary): Can we have a
moment outside? (The two exit the room.) Don't you
dare threaten him with a rend writ.

Agent Canary: He has information about planned attacks
here that could threaten thousands of American lives.

Fuqara's Attorney: And that gives you the right to
summarily dismiss Mr. Fuqara's rights? Hey, why stop
there? Deport all the Muslims in America to win your

Agent Canary: I might suggest some rights stop at mass

Fuqara's Attorney: They don't. And until there is an
amendment to the constitution to that effect, I will
protect Mr. Fuqara's rights.

A second break will come in a few days, when the Fox
Channel's 24 shows four episodes depicting a Muslim
family as coming to the United States solely to
implement attacks against Americans. To do so, they
masquerade as just folk. Here is how Jim Finkle of
Broadcasting & Cable describes them: "One of the
villains is a Walkman-toting, bubble-gum-chewing
teenager who fights with his conservative Dad about
dating an American girl and talking on the phone."

But this is a disguise.

The young man also helps his parents mastermind a plot
to kill large numbers of Americans that begins with an
attack on a train. Over the breakfast table, the
father tells his son: "What we will accomplish today
will change the world. We are fortunate that that our
family has been chosen to do this." "Yes, father," his
son replies.

The terrorists manage to take the secretary of defense
as a hostage; and the movie climaxes with the
secretary shown on a gruesome Internet video like
those coming out of Iraq, then tried for "war crimes
against humanity."

Predictably, 24 has the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, the country's lead Islamist outfit, in a
tizzy. CAIR spokeswoman Rabiah Ahmed complains that
"They are taking everyday American Muslim families and
making them suspects. They're making it seem like
families are co-conspirators in this terrorist plot."

Melanie McFarland, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's
television critic, has no patience for such whining:
"this is 24, OK? Anyone who watches it knows the show
borrows aspects of real nightmares to drive its plots,
paying little attention to political correctness."

But there is another reason to stick with the plot as
it is. Nearly every terrorist suspect in the West is
said to be a regular guy or a wonderful gal, as I have
previously shown. The adjectives applied to Sajid
Mohammed Badat, a Briton, are typical: "a walking
angel," "the bright star of our mosque," "a friendly,
warm, fun-loving character," "a friendly, sociable,
normal young lad, who had lots of friends and did not
hold extreme views in any way." Despite those raves,
he has been indicted for helping shoe-bomber Richard C
Reid attempt to blow up an airliner and will face
trial on conspiracy charges (he was found with parts
for more shoe bombs like those Reid used).

Just last week, the Seattle Times reported on a Saudi
now being deported from the United States:

To his co-workers at the University of Washington
School of Nursing, Majid al-Massari was a happy guy
who bounced down the halls and seemed like a "big
teddy bear." What his friends didn't know about the
burly, bearded 34-year-old computer-security
specialist was that he had helped set up a Web site
for a group linked to al-Qaida, quoted Osama bin Laden
in his own Internet postings, lashed out against
American policies on his father's London-based radio
show and had landed in the sights of U.S. terrorism

This sort of surprise happens with such consistency
that I am tempted to generalize: On arrest, every
single Islamist in the West is initially hailed as a
delightful person, and never as a hate-filled brooding

So, hooray for Fox for portraying reality; and may it
not cave to the Islamists.

Posted by Editor on Thursday, January 6, 2005 at 3:40

5) Social Security Petition, Move-0n:

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?