The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Hello all,
these articles come from Ken Freeland
[mailto:kenfree@ev1.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 9:29 AM To: christiansocialist; Not In Our Name; Barry'sList; hprt Subject: FW: Iraq Likely To Be Next "Phase" They're interesting, so I pass them on to the CASI-list. Greetings.
Dirk Adriaensens.
PS: strange things happened to mij computer lately.
I regularly send messages to Iraq. I start having terrible problems with my PC.
It seems like they're bombing me with viruses. And I'm not the only one !! And
what's worst: the viruses come not in attachments, but IN the mail, AND they are
not recognised by Norton Antivirus or Norton Firewall. I'm not paranoid, but I
start to think, that these viruses (and they come on daily basis!!!) are
deliberately put on the net to try to stop the contacts between Iraq and
anti-sanctions militants. You might think this is a crazy thought, but I
believe "they" are capable to do this. Has anyone of you had trouble with
viruses or trojan horses? If anyone needs proof: this virus-message came today:
15/10/2001 - Detected Virus List -Time,Infected
File Name,Virus Name,Action on Virus,User Name,Scan Type 20:37:38,The World does
not know much about,PE_MAGISTR.B,Clean failed. The file was passed.,observer
<observer@uruklink.net>,Real-time Mail Scan
The following articles will repay close reading.
The first and third article report the growing momentum in the Bush
adminstration to launch an attack against Iraq, using the anthrax scare as the
pretext. When you read the first article, which reviews all the "evidence"
against Iraq, you will not believe what you're reading. This whole argument is
so suppositious that any seventh-grader should be able to see through it. It is
just one long list of innuendo. In the third article, we read:
'In a conversation on Wednesday, Mr. Woolsey
suggested that he was building a legal case against Iraq.
'"The first thing we have to do is develop some
confidence that Iraq is involved in terrorist incidents against us, not meaning
Sept. 11," he said.'
Note that Mr. Woolsey is not in the slightest
interested in determining whether or not Iraq is guilty, only in demonstrating
the "fact." Who's Bush kidding with this one?
The third article also makes clear the US intent to
seize Iraqi oil wells.
The second article provides an update on the many
demonstrations against the war taking place in Europe over the
weekend
Peace,
Ken -----Original Message----- From: MER [mailto:MERL@MiddleEast.Org] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 7:40 AM To: MER Subject: Iraq Likely To Be Next "Phase" _______ ____ ______ / |/ / /___/ / /_ // M I D - E A S T R E A L I T I E S / /|_/ / /_/_ / /\\ Making Sense of the Middle East /_/ /_/ /___/ /_/ \\(c) http://www.MiddleEast.Org News, Information, & Analysis That Governments, Interest Groups, and the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know! -------------------------------------------- IF YOU DON'T GET MER, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT! To receive MER regularly and free - http://www.MiddleEast.Org/subscribe ------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON SCENE: PREPARATIONS TO GET PUBLIC READY FOR WAR EXPANSION TO IRAQ...EVEN AS ANTI-WAR PROTESTS GROW PEACE DEMOS GROWING - 20,000 IN LONDON SAT - MORE EXPECTED 27 OCT IN WASHINGTON MID-EAST REALITIES (c) - MER - www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 10/14: A powerful coalition of "hawkish" government officials, lobbyists (especially those connected with the Israelis and the arms corporations), conservative press publications and columnists, many of the national Jewish organizations, as well as millions of Christian fundamentalists associated with Pat Robertson and his daily TV "700 Club" program, is mobilized to make sure that "America's new war" does not end with Afghanistan and al-Qaeda. Amazingly the persons in official Washington considered most "moderate and reasonable" are a four-star General who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon before becoming Secretary of State, followed by former right-wing Secretary of Defense, now Vice-President Plans for further war "phases" beyond Afghanistan
have already begun to be seriously made not only at the Pentagon but throughout
the American capital. In many ways that's what the war mobilization, the call
out of the National Guard, and the preparations for a kind of low-scale
"permanent warfare" on the "homefront" are really all about. Some of the best
experts in Washington believe the basic decision to attack Iraq and replace the
Bathist regime there -- and then to go after Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad,
and all other major forces in the Middle East that have the will and capability
to oppose American/Israeli designs in the region or to topple any of the key
American "client regimes" -- has already been made, "telegraphed" in various
not-so-ambiguous ways to Washington's political establishment. But Cheney and
Powell have prevailed so far at least in trying to hush public discussion of
what is to come because of the very sensitive situation known as "coalition
building" needed to carry out Phase 1 -- very sensitive indeed with key American
Arab and Muslim allies practically pleading with Washington not to move on to
further "phases" involving military attacks on any countries beyond
Afghanistan.
Except when it comes to public relations and timing
these pleas -- however genuine or made up of crocodile tears -- are not
resonating; and are certainly not likely to prevail. When King Abdullah came
visiting hoping to help out the Americans at a tense time and make sure of the
U.S. commitment to protect his regime's hold on power, he returned to the region
to state that he had obtained an American promise not to attack any Arab
country. But he was very quickly and very publicly humiliated by the Bush
Administration saying the King was simply wrong and must have "misunderstood"
the discussions he had in Washington. The Saudis and Egyptians too have been
similarly toyed with, but they are too weak, too scared, and too co-opted to
really do anything about it.
As for the Pakistanis, the U.S. will support
General Musharraf as long as he is compliant and in firm command; but should
that situation change it is certainly possible the Americans, urged on by both
the Israelis and the Indians, could turn their warplanes on Pakistan and at
least destroy Pakistan's "Muslim bomb" nuclear weapons capabilities. This is no
longer a totally fictional scenario should chaos erupt in Pakistan and it truly
be "in danger" of becoming a "Muslim State", which it already is by
constitution. That same powerful coalition now mobilizing for Phase 2 against
Iraq surely has this potential scenario in mind for when further phases in the
new unending "war against terrorism" begin to emerge from their usually secret
deliberations.
More on the Pakistani situation in our next
article.
IRAQ 'BEHIND U.S. ANTHRAX OUTBREAKS' · Pentagon hardliners press for strikes on Saddam · Britain's GPs put on full alert over deadly disease By David Rose and Ed Vulliamy
[The Observer - London, New York - Sunday October
14, 2001]: American investigators probing anthrax outbreaks in Florida and New
York believe they have all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack - and have named
Iraq as prime suspect as the source of the deadly spores.
Their inquiries are adding to what US hawks say is
a growing mass of evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved, possibly
indirectly, with the 11 September hijackers.
If investigators' fears are confirmed - and
sceptics fear American hawks could be publicising the claim to press their case
for strikes against Iraq - the pressure now building among senior Pentagon and
White House officials in Washington for an attack may become
irresistible.
Plans have been discussed among Pentagon
strategists for US air strike support for armed insurrections against Saddam by
rebel Kurds in the north and Shia Muslims in the south with a promise of
American ground troops to protect the oilfields of Basra.
Contact has already been made with an Iraqi
opposition group based in London with a view to installing its members as a
future government in Baghdad.
Leading US intelligence sources, involved with both
the CIA and the Defence Department, told The Observer that the 'giveaway' which
suggests a state sponsor for the anthrax cases is that the victims in Florida
were afflicted with the airborne form of the disease.
'Making anthrax, on its own, isn't so difficult,'
one senior US intelligence source said. 'But it only begins to become effective
as a biological weapon if they can be made the right size to breathe in. If you
can't get airborne infectivity, you can't use it as a weapon. That is extremely
difficult. There is very little leeway. Most spores are either too big to be
suspended in air, or too small to lodge on the lining of the
lungs.'
As claims about an Iraqi link grew, senior health
officials in Britain revealed they warned all the country's GPs last week to be
vigilant about the disease. 'I think we have to be prepared to think the
unthinkable,' said the Government's Chief Medical Officer, Dr Liam Donaldson.
The Department of Health confirmed the Government is conducting an urgent review
of Britain's ability to cope with chemical or biological attacks.
It also emerged last night that three people who
worked in the Florida buildings at the centre of anthrax scares are now in the
UK and undergoing tests for the disease. And in America a letter sent from
Malaysia to a Microsoft office was found to contain traces of
anthrax.
In liquid form, anthrax is useless - droplets would
fall to the ground, rather than staying suspended in the air to be breathed by
victims. Making powder needs repeated washings in huge centrifuges, followed by
intensive drying, which requires sealed environments. The technology would cost
millions.
US intelligence believes Iraq has the technology
and supplies of anthrax suitable for terrorist use. 'They aren't making this
stuff in caves in Afghanistan,' the CIA source said. 'This is prima facie
evidence of the involvement of a state intelligence agency. Maybe Iran has the
capability. But it doesn't look likely politically. That leaves
Iraq.'
Scientists investigating the attacks say the
bacteria used is similar to the 'Ames strain' of anthrax originally cultivated
at Iowa State University in the 1950s and later given to labs throughout the
world, including Iraq.
According to sources in the Bush administration,
investigators are talking to Egyptian authorities who say members of the
al-Qaida network, detained and interrogated in Cairo, had obtained phials of
anthrax in the Czech Republic.
Last autumn Mohamed Atta is said by US intelligence
officials to have met in Prague an agent from Iraqi intelligence called Ahmed
Samir al-Ahani, a former consul later expelled by the Czechs for activities not
compatible with his diplomatic mission.
The Czechs are also examining the possibility that
Atta met a former director of Saddam's external secret services, Farouk Hijazi,
at a second meeting in the spring. Hijazi is known to have met Bin
Laden.
It was confirmed yesterday that Jim Woolsey, CIA
director from 1993 to 1996, recently visited London on behalf of the hawkish
Defence Department to 'firm up' other evidence of Iraqi involvement in 11
September.
Some observers fear linking Saddam to the terrorist
attacks is part of an agenda being driven by US hawks eager to broaden the war
to include Iraq, a move being resisted by the British government.
The hawks winning the ear of President Bush is
assembled around Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz,
and a think tank, the Defence Policy Advisory Board, dubbed the 'Wolfowitz
cabal'.
Their strategy to target Iraq was hammered out at a
two-day seminar in September, of which the dovish Secretary of State Colin
Powell had no knowledge.
The result was a letter to President Bush urging
the removal of Saddam as a precondition to the war. 'Failure to undertake such
an effort,' it said, 'will constitute a decisive surrender in the war against
terrorism'.
In a swipe at Powell's premium on
coalition-building, it continues: 'coalition building has run amok. The point
about a coalition is "can it achieve the right purpose?" not "can you get a lot
of members?"'
Administration officials close to the group told
The Observer : 'We see this war as one against the virus of terrorism. If you
have bone marrow cancer, it's not enough to just cut off the patient's foot. You
have to do the complete course of chemotherapy. And if that means embarking on
the next Hundred Years' War, that's what we're
doing.'
THOUSANDS IN EUROPE PROTEST BOMBING By Simone Weichselbaum [Associated Press, 13 October, LONDON]: -- An
estimated 20,000 people marched through central London in the largest of several
demonstrations in Europe on Saturday against the military strikes in
Afghanistan.
Some sang, others chanted, a few attempted to burn
American and British flags, but police said the march, on an unseasonably warm
day, was peaceful.
The organizers, the Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament, welcomed the large turnout, saying they hope to a create a broad
coalition with protesters abroad.
"It is just remarkable of the high level of
interest," said Nigel Chamberlain, spokesman of CND. "We might be in a minority
in public opinion, but we are here to show that there are thousands of people
against the war."
London police estimated that 20,000 people joined
the march from Hyde Park, Piccadilly and Trafalagar Square. Police intervened to
stop attempts to burn an American flag and a paper or cardboard Union Jack flag
of Britain.
In Germany, more than 25,000 peace protesters took
to the streets. The largest turnout was in the capital, Berlin, where some
15,000 protesters held a protest in the central Gendarmenmarkt square, police
said. The rally was preceded by several peace marches held throughout the city
under the motto "No War - Stand Up for Peace."
Demonstrators from peace, church and student
groups, as well as some unions, called for an immediate halt to the attacks,
warning of an escalation of violence in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.
They also called on world leaders to encourage development in the region as a
way to "root out terrorism at its base."
The U.S.-led coalition began its military campaign
against Afghanistan on Oct. 7 after the ruling Taliban refused to hand over
Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants to the United States. Bin Laden, a Saudi
exile, is the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington
in which about 6,000 people were killed.
In the southern German city of Stuttgart, about
10,000 peace protesters called on the United States to leave Afghanistan and for
Germans to stand together against the war.
"This war threatens to spread a fire of hatred,"
Sybille Stamm, local head of the giant ver.di service union told a crowd
gathered for a rally in downtown Stuttgart. Stamm criticized the government for
increasing spending on state security, at the cost of social
programs.
Before the rally, police said about 80 people took
part in a protest vigil near the barracks where the U.S. military's headquarters
for Europe are stationed. No incidents were reported.
In Sweden, several thousand people marched
peacefully in the country's three biggest cities Saturday to protest the
bombings.
"It's absolutely unacceptable that the world's
richest country bombs the world's poorest people," said Ann-Cathrin Jarl of the
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.
In Italy, youths demonstrated peacefully in Rome,
Naples and several smaller cities. The biggest turnout was in Naples, with about
2,000 people. Many of the protesters were preparing to head on Sunday to Umbria,
in central Italy, for a peace march organizers predict will draw tens of
thousands of people.
In Glasgow, Scotland, around 1,500 people gathered
in George Square for an anti-war protest.
Thousands of people across Australia rallied
Saturday for peace. The demonstrations in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide
had been planned for more than a year to protest the militarization of space,
but became forums to oppose the military offensive in Afghanistan.
"No one supports the Sept. 11 attacks but no one
supports what's happening now in Afghanistan, either. The way to remember the
dead of Sept. 11 is not by building another mound of innocent people's bodies,"
said Denis Doherty, a rally organizer.
SOME PENTAGON OFFICIALS AND ADVISERS SEEK TO OUST IRAQ'S LEADER IN WAR'S NEXT PHASE By ELAINE SCIOLINO and PATRICK E. TYLER [New York Times - WASHINGTON, Oct. 11]: A
tight-knit group of Pentagon officials and defense experts outside government is
working to mobilize support for a military operation to oust President Saddam
Hussein of Iraq as the next phase of the war against terrorism, senior
administration officials and defense experts said.
The group, which some in the State Department and
on Capitol Hill refer to as the "Wolfowitz cabal," after Deputy Secretary of
Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, is laying the groundwork for a strategy that
envisions the use of air support and the occupation of southern Iraq with
American ground troops to install a Iraqi opposition group based in London at
the helm of a new government, the officials and experts said.
Under this notion, American troops would also seize
the oil fields around Basra, in southeastern Iraq, and sell the oil to finance
the Iraqi opposition in the south and the Kurds in the north, one senior
official said.
"The takeover would not be dissimilar to the area
we occupied in the gulf war," the official said.
The group is building its case despite President
Bush's declaration that the war against Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden's
terrorist network, Al Qaeda, must be fought first. The idea is to prepare for
what its members see as the coming debate over the next phase of the
war.
The group has largely excluded the State
Department, where Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has adamantly argued that
such an attack would destroy the international coalition that President Bush has
assembled. Both Mr. Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney have said there is no
evidence linking Iraq to the attacks.
"Our focus is on Afghanistan and the terrorist
network hiding in Afghanistan right now," Mr. Bush said tonight at his news
conference. But he called Mr. Hussein " an evil man."
"After all, he gassed his own people," Mr. Bush
added. "We know he's been developing weapons of mass destruction." He said the
administration was watching Mr. Hussein "very carefully."
On Sept. 19 and 20, the Defense Policy Board, a
prestigious bipartisan board of national security experts that advises the
Pentagon, met for 19 hours to discuss the ramifications of the attacks of Sept.
11. The members of the group agreed on the need to turn to Iraq as soon as the
initial phase of the war against Afghanistan and Mr. bin Laden and his
organization is over, people familiar with the meetings said. Both Secretary of
Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz took part in the meetings for part
of both days.
But while the group agreed on the goal of ousting
Mr. Hussein, they presented a range of views, including a discussion of the many
political and diplomatic obstacles to military action.
"If we don't use this as the moment to replace
Saddam after we replace the Taliban, we are setting the stage for disaster,"
Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House and a member of the group, said
in an interview.
Richard Perle, who shares Mr. Wolfowitz's view that
the Iraqi regime should be overthrown quickly with military force, said, "This
has never been a fringe issue."
Neither Mr. Gingrich nor Mr. Perle discussed the
substance of the meeting.
Other members of the group expressed concern that
they might be pawns in what had become a bureaucratic battle. "Both Pentagon and
State are probably using us to continue to support their arguments," said one
member of the group.
The 18-member board includes Harold Brown,
President Jimmy Carter's defense secretary; former Secretary of State Henry A.
Kissinger; R. James Woolsey, director of central intelligence in the Clinton
administration; Adm. David E. Jeremiah, the former deputy chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff; former Vice President Dan Quayle; and James R. Schlesinger a
former defense and energy secretary.
The State Department, including officials who work
on Iraq policy, was not briefed on the two-day meeting.
There are other signs of bureaucratic disarray with
regard to setting policy regarding the war on terrorism. The White House
inserted a far-reaching sentence into a letter from Ambassador John D.
Negroponte, the chief United States envoy to the United Nations, to the Security
Council last Sunday, senior administration officials said.
"Powell was surprised to find out about it and he
was quite distressed," a senior administration official said. "Somebody should
have called him."
The State Department determined that Stephen J.
Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, inserted the sentence, and that
Mr. Negroponte and at least two senior officials in the State Department saw the
final version of the letter but did not change it, officials said.
The letter put the Security Council on notice that
the United States might be forced to retaliate against other state sponsors of
terrorism if it turned up new evidence, stating, "We may find that our
self-defense requires further action with respect to other organizations and
other states."
In another development, the Knight Ridder newspaper
group reported today that senior Pentagon officials authorized Mr. Woolsey to
fly to London last month on a government plane, accompanied by Justice and
Defense Department officials, on a mission to gather evidence linking Mr.
Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks.
The State Department was unaware of the trip but
confirmed that it did take place, a senior State Department official said.
Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon's chief spokeswoman, said, "We just don't have any
information on it." Mr. Woolsey did not return phone calls seeking
comment.
In a conversation on Wednesday, Mr. Woolsey
suggested that he was building a legal case against Iraq.
"The first thing we have to do is develop some
confidence that Iraq is involved in terrorist incidents against us, not meaning
Sept. 11," he said.
Mr. Woolsey cited Iraq's alleged involvement in the
assassination attempt against former President George Bush in the spring of
1993, together with its work to develop weapons of mass destruction as terrorist
acts that made them "a prime candidate for regime replacement."
Mr. Woolsey added that eventually Mr. Hussein would
fall if subjected to a military offensive that would give the United States
control of the south, support from the Kurds in the north, defections of crucial
Iraqis and well-supported insurgencies.
The United States must be "willing to put up with
criticism from European states and other governments," Mr. Woolsey
said.
|