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]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] News, 13-20/9/02 (2)

News, 13-20/9/02 (2)


*  Bush and clergy at odds on Iraq
*  Group at Hoover helping to steer administration's drive toward Iraq
*  Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
*  Bishops Question Bush's Iraq Plans
*  Has Colin Powell Saved Saddam?
*  Vermont Gov. [Howard Dean] Won't Support Iraq Attack
*  Rumsfeld: Vote Quickly on Iraq
*  Saddam's foreign exile may help avoid war: Rumsfeld
*  America plans PR blitz on Saddam
*  Bush still holds grudge against Saddam
*  Powell: UN Resolution 'Essential' Before Sending Inspectors to Iraq
*  A text of the joint resolution that President Bush asked Congress to


*  US and British warplanes violate Iraq's airspace
*  Saddam in sneaky bid to down U.S. Plane
*  US, UK planes attack Iraqi sites
*  U.S. Takes New Approach To Enforcing 'No-Fly' Zones


*  Reid says Iraq war would crush airlines
*  'CNN effect' would hurt Vegas casinos in war


by Eric Convey
Boston Herald, 15th September

As recent presidents go, few have been as overtly religious as is George W.

He was the candidate who named Jesus Christ as the philosopher who most
influenced him. He credits God with saving him from alcohol abuse.

But with war drums beating at the White House, the nation's most famous
United Methodist finds himself at odds with a broad swath of religious
leaders, including leaders of the denomination to which he and Vice
President Dick Cheney belong.

"Our church categorically opposes interventions by more powerful nations
against weaker ones," said Jim Winkler, general secretary of the United
Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society. "We recognize the
first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every
dispute that arises between or among nations."

He went on in the statement last week to accuse the administration of
pressing for war with Iraq "with unprecedented disregard for democratic
ideals and with an astonishing lack of evidence justifying such a
pre-emptive attack."

Moreover, Winkler said, the course upon which the White House has embarked
is "contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ."

The Executive Council of the Episcopal Church in the United States recently
took a stance to "oppose unilateral military action against Iraq" and
"promote the eradication of terrorism through justice and reconciliation

Mainline Protestants are far from the only religious leaders expressing
concern about invading Iraq.

A top Vatican official issued a cautionary statement last week.

If Bush seems undeterred, it might be in part because the Evangelical
Protestants to whom he turned for support in the 2000 election have had
little to say negatively on the Iraq question.

Some 85 percent of white Evangelicals voted for Bush in 2000, said Richard
Pierard, a historian and scholar in residence at Gordon College in Wenham.
"Most of that group would be quite willing to go along with him if he wants
to have a war."

Another reason may be what some observers see as a schism between the
positions of mainline Protestant leaders and those of the faithful who fill
the pews on Sundays.

Those leaders "(don't) speak for more than a small minority of their
churches' members," said Diane Knippers, president of the Institute on
Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. The organization promotes
conservative political and theological stances within mainline

"These church officials can be relied upon to oppose any U.S. military
action in defense of U.S. interests, no matter how carefully or lawfully
waged," Knippers added.

Pierard agreed. "Mainline church leaders have a habit of not speaking for
their churches very effectively," he said. "They tend often to be isolated
from their memberships. They had the same problem back in the Vietnam

The Rev. Diane C. Kessler, executive director of the Massachusetts Council
of Churches, an organization of mainline denominations, questioned whether
such a rift exists.

"What I saw after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan . . . was considerable
conflictedness, a sense of ambiguity, among religious leaders, among clergy
and certainly among laity," she said.

"It was as if it was too painful, even, to talk about," she continued. "I
don't sense the same reluctance to talk about it, to question it, as the
possibility of military invasion of Iraq is discussed."

The Massachusetts Council of Churches has not tackled the Iraq question
directly, but its leaders have called for an environment in which citizens
are free to question what may be popular policy decisions.

If Bush is feeling lonely for taking heat from his church over public policy
matters, he doesn't need to look far for comfort. His father, George H. W.
Bush, also waged war against Iraq against the entreaties of his own church
leader, in his case the Episcopal presiding bishop. But the elder Bush was
far less vocal about his religious beliefs than is the sitting president.

The first President Bush also saw his popularity soar with quick triumph in

Pierard, who wrote the 1988 book "Civil Religion and the Presidency," said
the younger Bush could have trouble maintaining support - even with his
Evangelical supporters - if things go badly this time around.

"I think it would erode quickly if they didn't achieve the objective of a
quick knockout blow," he said.

by Robert Collier
San Francisco Chronicle, 15th September

Stanford -- The Bush administration, as it moves toward a possible war with
Iraq, has been leaning on advice from the Bay Area.

Eight high-profile members of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University
have been meeting regularly with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and White
House officials to help shape the evolution of the administration's Iraq

The representatives from Hoover, including former Secretary of State George
Shultz and former California Gov. Pete Wilson, belong to the 28-member
Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon advisory panel that has been a key exponent
of an unyielding stance toward Saddam Hussein.

The Hoover Institution has been influential in previous Republican
administrations, its members holding Cabinet positions dealing with
economics and social policy. Many high level Republican officials have done
a stint at Hoover after leaving Washington.

But Hoover's involvement in the Iraq debate offers the most potent proof yet
of its influence on foreign policy.

The board "has had a major impact on the administration," said Edward
Walker, president of the Middle East Institute, a Washington think tank, and
former assistant secretary of state for the Mideast during the Clinton
administration. "They clearly have the ear of Rumsfeld and (Vice President
Dick) Cheney."

"It's taken seriously enough that the secretary (Rumsfeld) meets with us
every time we meet, and there's a very high degree of interaction," said
Wilson, a visiting fellow at Hoover.

In addition to Shultz and Wilson, the board's Hoover members include: Martin
Anderson, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Nobel
Prize-winning economist Gary Becker; former National Security Adviser
Richard Allen; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; political science
Professor Kiron Skinner; and Henry Rowen, a former assistant secretary of

Amid the administration's internal debate over Iraq, which has pitted
administration hawks against the more dovish Secretary of State Colin
Powell, the board -- chaired by former Assistant Secretary of Defense
Richard Perle, nicknamed by opponents "the Prince of Darkness" -- has
repeatedly urged unilateral action. It will continue to do so, says Wilson,
if the U.N. Security Council fails to endorse Bush's request to authorize an
Iraq invasion.

"We would much prefer to have the United Nations be involved as coalition
members, but you can't afford to delay because you haven't achieved the
coalition that you would like to have," Wilson said.

"Very frankly, our allies have not contributed enormously (to the war on
terrorism), except for the Brits and a few others."

Wilson, who spent eight years on the Senate Armed Services Committee when he
was a U.S. senator, was dismissive of those who argue that the United States
should not go it alone.

"The most foolish thing in the world would be to give up some kind of
strategic or tactical advantage to secure the nominal contribution of
partners who won't contribute much and who seem, almost ironically, to have
an unlimited capacity for temporizing."

Another prominent advocate of unilateral action is Shultz, who was secretary
of state for eight years under President Ronald Reagan and is currently the
Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow at Hoover.

In a telephone interview Friday, Shultz warned that the administration could
be wasting time by asking the United Nations for new authority.

"Maybe there will be still another attempt at (U.N.) weapons inspection. I
don't think it will get very far, and the more time passes, the more
possibility Saddam has to build a nuclear arsenal, with greater risk of loss
of life -- not just in his region but everywhere in the world."

Shultz also expressed skepticism about the United Nations' role. "We had the
experience of the League of Nations, which didn't act, and nobody took it
seriously. . . . The U.N. Security Council is in danger of being put in that

He also downplayed fears that a U.S. "pre-emptive strike" against Iraq would
be used by other nations, for example by India against Pakistan, or Russia
against Georgia.

"The rules have changed. We're in what clearly is a new doctrine," he said.
"But the effort hasn't jelled yet to try to develop what the new rules are.
We're just saying that here's the case of Iraq, and it's important to be
able to act. That doesn't mean every case. It's a big conceptual

However, critics of the Defense Policy Board, who include some Republicans,
portray it as a group of gung ho armchair generals.

"They come at it from an intellectual perspective versus having sat in
jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off,"
said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a Vietnam veteran who has expressed
skepticism about an Iraq invasion.

But board members say the critics are merely playing inside-the-Beltway

The board "is being attacked because we're at a time when really important
decisions (on Iraq) are being made, and because of the high-profile people
on the board," said Rowen, who served in the Pentagon under the first
President George Bush.

"The board has visibility, and (opponents of a war) want to prevent certain
decisions. This is a democracy, and there's no end of opinions out there."

by Neil Mackay
Sunday Herald, 15th September
A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and
his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime
change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global
Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W
Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The
document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And
Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo
conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf
region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United
States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional
security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the
Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US
pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American principles and

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future
as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and
decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new
American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written
by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial
nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger
regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

‹ refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient
means of exercising American global leadership';

‹ describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political
leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

‹ reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

‹ says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf
regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a
threat to US interests as Iraq has';

‹ spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the
presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to
'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of
democratisation in China';

‹ calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the
total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against
the US;

‹ hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of
mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which
the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack
-- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ...
combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and
perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that
can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the
realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

‹ and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and
says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide
command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the
leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from
right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen
the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who
were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their
making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to
control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should
have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

The Associated Press, 17th September

America's Roman Catholic bishops have told President Bush they have grave
reservations about a unilateral U.S. strike against Iraq and urged him to
use the United Nations to pressure Saddam Hussein for change.

Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, acknowledged in a statement Tuesday that Iraq posed a threat, but
said it would be difficult to justify a pre-emptive attack under Catholic
teachings on warfare.

Last November, the bishops overwhelmingly backed the United States' right to
use military force against terrorists in Afghanistan as part of a broader
foreign policy protecting human rights and easing poverty.

But in a letter Gregory said he delivered personally to National Security
Adviser Condoleeza Rice, he wrote, "we believe Iraq is a different case,"
because of the potential to cause greater harm than good, possibly
destabilizing the Mideast and killing civilians.

"We find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq,
absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of
Sept. 11 or of an imminent attack of a grave nature," he wrote. "We hope you
will persist in the very frustrating and difficult challenges of building
broad international support for a new, more constructive and effective


by Frank Gaffney, Jr.
Fox News, 17th September

Who says history can't repeat itself? The circumstances may
be different, but for the second time in 11 years, the presidency of a
man named George Bush is being undermined by a senior official named Colin
Powell determined to keep Saddam Hussein in power.

In 1991, then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Powell -- who vociferously had argued
against military action in response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait --
insisted that allied units stop their destruction of Iraqi forces heading
home along the so-called "Highway of Death."

The successful extrication of those elite Republican Guard units with their
tanks and other heavy equipment provided the Butcher of Baghdad with the
loyal troops necessary to assure his physical and political survival
post-Desert Storm. As a result, Saddam Hussein remained in power and
metastasized as a danger to U.S. interests and security long after George
H.W. Bush left the White House.

It could be said that the first President Bush was repudiated at the polls
by an American electorate that came to believe his administration had made a
monumental strategic error in failing to finish the job in Iraq.

In recent months, Powell, now the secretary of state, has reverted to form.
He has campaigned inside the administration of the current President Bush,
in public and through proxies, for the president to give Saddam one more
chance. Framing the issue in terms of Iraq's non-compliance with 16 United
Nations resolutions led inexorably to the logic that President Bush could
safely go to the U.N. and seek its approval for action against Saddam.

U.N. approval, it was said, would make it easier for the president to get
bipartisan support in Congress and to secure the assistance of allies around
the globe for whatever military steps might be needed.

The problem is that in 2002, as 11 years before, Colin Powell has gotten it
completely wrong. It was absolutely predictable -- and predicted -- that
Saddam would relent and accept international inspectors, once he was
convinced that the U.S. was prepared and willing to use force to accomplish
"regime change" in Iraq. Although President Bush did an admirable job in
making his case before the U.N., the inevitable result of his appearance,
and the Powell-advocated approach he followed there, was to remove the
initiative from the Oval Office and surrender it, once again, to the
Security Council.

Far from clearing the way for military action to liberate the people of Iraq
and finally ending Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program,
Colin Powell has seriously impeded these initiatives. 

Saddam's so-called "unconditional" acceptance of inspections will enable his
friends in the Security Council (notably, veto-wielding Russia, China and
France) to insist that any resolution now adopted have very different goals.

No one should be under any illusion, however. The wily Iraqi will, of
course, proceed to diddle the inspectors and the international community
they represent, as he has done so many times before. The protracted period
involved in getting them organized, in place and snooping about will
translate into further time for him to amass and refine the concealment of
his weapons of mass destruction.

Over time if not early on, Saddam's cooperation will prove to be far less
than complete, his acceptance of inspections hardly unconditional.

Carefully gauging the international community's negligible appetite for
confrontation, and the check that represents on an America willing to let
its national security actions be governed by the U.N., Saddam Hussein's
contempt for both will only grow, his stature in the Arab world will be
enhanced and he will be emboldened to become still more dangerous.

Saddam understands, moreover, a fact that Secretary Powell and other
proponents of inspections apparently do not: Even if, miraculously, every
one of Iraq's secret weapons sites were found and their contents destroyed,
as long as Saddam remains in power and has access to technicians, know-how
and oil resources, it will be but a matter of months before he is back in
the WMD business.

In short, inspections without regime change amount to nothing more than an
expensive, but ultimately futile postponement of the day of reckoning with
Saddam Hussein.

Colin Powell has also likely undone the president on Capitol Hill. In recent
days, President Bush had positioned himself to obtain an overwhelming
bipartisan mandate to take action against Saddam Hussein before Congress
recessed for the mid-term elections. The White House may say that it is not
satisfied with Saddam's response; it will try to get Powell to seek, and the
rest of the Security Council to accept, a resolution which Iraq cannot
abide; but such an outcome is exceedingly unlikely.

And now, less-than-robust Democrats and Republicans in Congress have an
alternative to accepting the president's leadership in going to war: They
can instead accept Secretary Powell's lead in dodging war with the false
promise of further inspections.

It is inevitable that Colin Powell's disastrous diplomacy will be compared
to that of Neville Chamberlain in 1938. The accolades being showered upon
him for finessing a potentially violent confrontation are all too
reminiscent to the response to the British leader's fatuous claim to have
secured "peace for our time" from Adolf Hitler by appeasing him.

This may be unfair to Prime Minister Chamberlain. After all, at least he did
not repeat his mistake after an 11-year-long opportunity to study and learn
the fatal error of his ways.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. held senior positions in the Reagan Defense Department.
He is currently president of the Center for Security Policy.

by Will Lester
Las Vegas Sun, 18th September

WASHINGTON (ASSOCIATED PRESS ): Most Democrats considering a run for
president in 2004 are taking an aggressive stance on military action against
Iraq, but Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Wednesday he has not seen enough
evidence to warrant that step.

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support
for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a phone interview. "He has done
neither yet."

Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of
mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and that he has the
means to use them. He also needs to explain to the American public that a
war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment in that country - up
to a decade.

"He's an evil man," Dean said. "But we don't send our kids to die to get rid
of every evil person in the world."

Dean's position may be out of step with current public support for military
action against Iraq, but it could be in tune with Democratic voters in
states with early presidential contests like Iowa and New Hampshire.

The likely front-runner if he decides to run, Al Gore, is expected to spell
out his policy on Iraq Monday in San Francisco before the Commonwealth Club.
The former vice president is expected to support military action, but urge
that it be done along with allies, associates say.

The 2000 Democratic nominee supported military action against Iraq in the
Gulf War a decade ago as a senator. In an appearance before young Democrats
this summer, Gore said he supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, but
questioned whether the timing was right.

Other potential candidates like House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt of
Missouri, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Sens. John
Kerry of Massachusetts, John Edwards of North Carolina and Joe Lieberman of
Connecticut have indicated they are likely to support military action
against Iraq, if necessary. They have voiced some differences on the
conditions under which military action would be appropriate.

by Matt Kelley
Las Vegas Sun, 18th September

WASHINGTON (ASSOCIATED PRESS): Congress must authorize the use of military
force against Iraq before the U.N. Security Council votes on the issue,
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress Wednesday.

"No terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the
security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq," Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee.

"The goal isn't inspections, the goal is disarmament," Rumsfeld said. "That
is what Iraq agreed to do."

Rumsfeld's testimony came shortly after President Bush said Saddam is "not
going to fool anybody" with his promise to admit weapons inspectors and
predicted the United Nations will rally behind his Iraq policy despite signs
of unease.

In an Oval Office meeting with congressional leaders, Bush thanked Democrats
and Republicans alike for their commitment to vote on a congressional
resolution on Iraq before November's elections.

"I think it's an important signal for the world to see that this country is
united in its resolve," the president said.

Rumsfeld said that message must be given before further U.N. action on Iraq.

"Only certainty of U.S. and U.N. purposefulness can have even the prospect
of affecting the Iraqi regime," Rumsfeld said. "It is important that
Congress send that message as soon as possible - before the U.N. Security
Council votes."

Two protesters, chanting "Inspections, not war," briefly interrupted
Rumsfeld's testimony. A police officer escorted the women, who held banners
with the same slogan, out of the hearing room.

Rumsfeld said the incident reminded him of the value of free speech, which
he said Iraq does not provide its citizens.

Rumsfeld said Iraq has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and is
trying to get enough weapons-grade material to build a nuclear bomb. He said
the U.S. goal is to prevent Saddam from using such weapons of mass
destruction to attack America or its allies.

"The last thing we want is a smoking gun. A gun smokes after it has been
fired," Rumsfeld said. "The goal must be to stop Saddam Hussein before he
fires a weapon of mass destruction against our people."


Times of India, 19th September

WASHINGTON (AFP): US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested late
Wednesday that a decision by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the
country and go into exile would help avoid US military action against Iraq.

"Now, if Saddam Hussein and his family decided that the game was up and
we'll go live in some foreign country like other leaders have done,"
Rumsfeld said in an interview with PBS's "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer"
program when asked what, if anything, could satisfy the administration of
President George W. Bush short of military action against Baghdad.

He did not finish the sentence. "There have been any number of leaders who
have departed recognizing that the game was up, that it was over, that they
had run their term. So that could happen," said the defense secretary citing
the examples of former shah of Iran Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Ugandan president
Idi Amin and Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier.

The Bush administration has declared regime change in Baghdad the key goal
of his Iraq policy.

Rumsfeld said that, in his view, it was entirely possible that the people of
Iraq could decide that Saddam Hussein's time was up and change the regime
from inside.

But he acknowledged that "it would be a very difficult thing to do."

"But clearly the overwhelming majority of the people even the army don't
want Saddam Hussein there," Rumsfeld said.

The defense secretary dismissed Iraq's agreement to allow UN weapons
inspectors to resume their work in the country, saying "it looks a lot like
earlier ploys and plays and moves that Iraq has taken."

Iraq signaled its readiness to readmit the inspectors after a four-year
hiatus in a letter delivered to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on Monday.

But Rumsfeld said that since the unveiling of the letter, Iraqi
anti-aircraft batteries had fired at US and British planes patrolling no-fly
zones over northern and southern Iraq six times.

"If that isn't a signal as to what they have in mind, I don't know what it
is," the defense secretary said.,,3-418110,00.html

by Tim Reid
The Times, 17th September

The Bush Administration is to launch a multimillion-dollar PR blitz against
Saddam Hussein, using advertising techniques to persuade crucial target
groups that the Iraqi leader must be ousted.

The campaign will consist of dossiers of evidence detailing Saddam?s
breaches of UN resolutions, and will be launched this week at American and
foreign audiences, particularly in Arab nations sceptical of US policy in
the region.

The White House is aware that it lacks substantial new intelligence on
Saddam?s nuclear programme or evidence directly linking Baghdad to the
September 11 attacks. But it will build on the contents of President?s
Bush?s speech made to the UN General Assembly last week, in which he listed
Saddam?s violations of UN resolutions.

The campaign, which will initially receive over $200 million (£130 million),
will be overseen by the Office of Global Communications, whose existence
will not be formally announced until next month.

by Jennifer Harper
Washington Times, 19th September

"I hate Saddam Hussein. I don't hate a lot of people. I don't hate easily,
but I think he's, as I say, his word is no good and he's a brute. He's used
poison gas on his own people. So, there's nothing redeeming about this man,"
Mr. Bush said in a CNN interview yesterday.

"I have nothing but hatred in my heart for him. But he's got a lot of
problems. But immortality isn't one of them," Mr. Bush told CNN's Paula

He also defended his decision to stand down victorious U.S. troops once the
Iraqis had fled Kuwait.

"I know what would have happened. I know that the coalition would have
shattered," Mr. Bush said. "My only regret is that I was wrong, as was every
other leader, in thinking that Saddam Hussein would be gone."

American military commanders got orders to liberate Kuwait ‹ so that's what
they did, he said.

"We told our military commanders, 'Here's your objective.' They saluted from
halfway around the world and said, 'Mission complete, sir.' And that's the
way it was, and that's the way it should have been," Mr. Bush recalled.

"Now, am I happy Saddam Hussein is there? Absolutely not. But am I going to
be moved by the Monday morning critics who now say we should have done it
differently [when they] were totally silent back then? No."

But Mr. Bush refused to speculate about the fate of Saddam now, 11 years

"That's the problem facing the president of the United States of America,
not me," Mr. Bush said.

by David Gollust
Voice of America, 20th September

Secretary of State Colin Powell says any new U.N. Security Council
resolution on Iraq must spell out the consequences for the regime of Saddam
Hussein if it fails to disarm. In congressional testimony Thursday, Mr.
Powell also urged lawmakers to act quickly on a measure backing the use of
force by the United States if needed to get Iraqi compliance.

Mr. Powell says the notion advanced by some Security Council members to send
weapons inspectors back to Iraq without a new resolution or new powers is a
"recipe for failure" that the United States will not support.

Appearing before the House International Relations Committee, the secretary
said if inspectors do go back in, it should be without any conditions and
with a clear understanding of what would happen if there is further defiance
of the U.N.

"This must be an essential element of any road going forward, any plan to go
forward from the Security Council," he said. "We must determine what
consequences this time will flow from Iraq's failure to take action. That is
what makes this different. This time, unlike any time over the previous 12
years of Iraqi defiance, there must be hard consequences. This time, Iraq
must comply with the U.N. mandate or there will be decisive action to compel

Mr. Powell urged immediate action on a congressional resolution authorizing
President Bush to use force if necessary to prompt Iraq to disarm. He said
it would show the world that Americans are united, and give a "powerful
signal" of support for U.S. diplomatic efforts at the United Nations. He
also stressed the administration wants to hold out the option of unilateral
action if the U.N. fails to act.

"President Bush is hoping that the U.N. will act in a decisive way," he
said. "But at the same time, as he has made clear and as our other
colleagues in the administration have made clear, and I make clear today, if
the United Nations is not able to act and act decisively, and I think that
would be a terrible indictment of the U.N., then the United States will have
to make its own decision as to whether the danger posed by Iraq is such that
we have to act in order to defend our country and to defend our interests."

Mr. Powell's appearance capped a full day of expert testimony in the key
House committee on how to deal with Iraq.

Former Clinton administration official Jessica Matthews, now head of
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, proposed that weapons inspectors
sent to Iraq be backed up by a heavily armed international force that would
insure that inspectors get to see what they want.

But she said for such an approach to work, the United States would have to
foreswear military action on "regime change" in Iraq as long as the
inspectors were being allowed to do their work.

"The United States has to walk, in policy, a very fine line here," she said.
"It must first convince Iraq and other countries that if it does not comply,
we will use force. I think we're close to having conveyed that message,
certainly to other countries if not to Saddam Hussein, but we are close. But
secondly and equally important, we have to convey the message that if Iraq
does comply with inspections, we will not [use force]."

However another witness, former CIA Director James Woolsey told the panel
Ms. Matthews' idea of so-called "coercive inspections" is probably
unworkable because it would require Saddam Hussein to accept the indefinite
presence of a foreign armed force.

"We should not be under any illusion that we would be able to have some
solution to this problem and then leave," he said. "So I believe what one is
talking about for any really effective way of ridding Iraq of weapons of
mass destruction and ballistic missiles of greater than 150 kilometers range
is an occupying force of very substantial size and a fundamental change in
the nature of Iraqi regime. That Iraq would agree to that, I find

Mr. Woolsey said Saddam Hussein may be close to having a nuclear capability
and that it is too risky to allow the status quo in Iraq to continue for
more than a few more months.

Most committee members said they would support a resolution authorizing
military action against Iraq. However Texas Republican Ron Paul said there
is no firm evidence Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons and he warned that
military action would further inflame the Muslim world against the United

"We're willing to go to war over phantom weapons," he said. "And I think
we're falling into a serious trap. And the trap is that we are going to look
like we support the Christian west against the Muslim east, which they've
been arguing all along. Twenty Arab nations have condemned this proposal to
go to war. And I think this is going to turn out to be a monstrous mistake."

Bush administration officials say they hope to get a Congressional
resolution on Iraq, early next month before Congress breaks to campaign for
the November 5 elections.

Associated Press, 19th September

Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against

Whereas Congress in 1998 concluded that Iraq was then in material and
unacceptable breach of its international obligations and thereby threatened
the vital interests of the United States and international peace and
security, stated the reasons for that conclusion, and urged the president to
take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance with its international
obligations (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq remains in material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and
develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively
seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist
organizations, thereby continuing to threaten the national security
interests of the United States and international peace and security;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population, including the Kurdish peoples, thereby threatening
international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release,
repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its
own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility
toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by
attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on
many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces
engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the
attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of
American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of Sept. 11, 2001. underscored the
gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to
international terrorist organizations;

Whereas the United States has the inherent right, as acknowledged in the
United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defend itself;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the high risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States
or its armed forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do
so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States
and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify the use of force by
the United States in order to defend itself;

Whereas Iraq is in material breach of its disarmament and other obligations
under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, to cease repression of
its civilian population that threatens international peace and security
under United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and to cease
threatening its neighbors of United Nations operations in Iraq under United
Nations Security Council Resolution 949, and United Nations Security Council
Resolution 678 authorizes use of all necessary means to compel Iraq to
comply with these "subsequent relevant resolutions;"

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the president to use the Armed
Forces of the United States to achieve full implementation of Security
Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and
677, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 678;

Whereas Congress in section 1095 of Public Law 102-190 has stated that it
"supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Security
Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 102 1)," that Iraq's repression of
its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution
688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and
stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress "supports the use
of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Resolution 688";

Whereas Congress in the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) has
expressed its sense that it should be the policy of the United States to
support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote
the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action in
order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the
United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to use force in
order to defend the national security interests of the United States;

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,


This joint resolution may be cited as the "Further Resolution on Iraq".


The president is authorized to use all means that he determines to be
appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations
Security Council resolutions referenced above, defend the national security
interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore
international peace and security in the region.


Arabic News, 14th September

A spokesman for the Iraqi Air Defense Command told INA that on Friday, the
US and British warplanes violated IraqÕs space coming from their bases in
Kuwait backed by AWACS coming from their bases in Saudi Arabia, and that
"IraqÕs Defense Units repulsed the enemy planes and forced them to retreat
to their bases in Kuwait" INA reported.

New York Post, from Associated Press, 14th September

September 14, 2002 -- Incirlik Air Base, Turkey - U.S. pilots who patrol the
no-fly zones over Iraq say Baghdad is continually changing tactics in a bid
to bring down an American pilot and score a huge propaganda victory.

For about a decade, American aircraft have been patrolling the northern and
southern no-fly zones to protect minority Kurds and Shiites from Saddam's
forces. Iraq considers the zones to be an affront to its sovereignty and in
1998 began shooting at the aircraft.

"Every day I go out there I get shot at, and it continues to be that way,"
said Col. John Burgess, head of air operations for the northern no-fly zone.

Experts say that recently, Iraqi gunners have been firing from orchards,
where the guns are difficult to detect.

The Iraqis are also using decoys to lure the United States into attacks and
into thinking that they have destroyed more radar facilities than they have,
said Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies.

"They are getting to be masters of deception and camouflage," Heyman said of
the Iraqis.

The Iraqis have also been trying to trap U.S. warplanes by sending fighter
aircraft into areas where they put anti-aircraft missile batteries, experts

"We will avoid certain areas at certain times to ensure the safety of our
crews," said Brig. Gen. Robin Scott, U.S. commander of the northern no-fly
zone. "It is part of the normal cat and-mouse game in northern Iraq."

That may account for a rapid fall in the number of attacks over the no-fly
zones in recent years. In 2000, U.S. warplanes struck 80 times in both
zones, but only 37 times this year.

Times of India, 16th September

BAGHDAD (AP): US and British warplanes bombed Iraqi installations in the
southern no fly zone on Sunday, an Iraqi military spokesman told Iraq's
official news agency.

The agency report did not say if the raid in Dhi Qar province, about 350 km
south of Baghdad, caused any damage or casualties.

The US military confirmed the attack.

A statement released by US Central Command headquarters at MacDill Air Force
Base in Florida said coalition aircraft responded to Iraqi ground fire by
launching precision-guided weapons to strike an air defense communications

The Iraqi spokesman told the official agency US and British warplanes bombed
"civil and service installations."

"Our heroic missiles and anti-aircraft units fired at the aircraft, forcing
them to flee back to Kuwaiti territories," the spokesman said without
providing further details.

Sunday's raids brought to 38 the number of strikes reported this year by the
US and British coalition formed to patrol northern and southern Iraqi zones
following the 1991 Gulf War. The last attack was September 9.


Washington Post, 17th September

U.S. pilots patrolling the skies over Iraq are taking a new approach to
defending themselves against Iraqi gunners by striking at the command and
communications links in Iraq's air defense system rather than its guns and
radar, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday.

The switch, which Rumsfeld said he ordered more than a month ago, is
designed to do more long-lasting damage to Iraq's ability to shoot down the
American and British pilots whose fighter jets have been patrolling "no-fly"
zones over northern and southern Iraq for 11 years.

Rumsfeld said he could not say whether the new approach has left Iraq less
capable of defending itself in the event President Bush ordered airstrikes
as part of an operation to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. He said
the Iraqis have a history of replacing or repairing damaged parts of their
air defense system.

"Whether they are going to be net stronger or weaker in the event anything
were to occur in the future is a function of how fast they are able to
rebuild, replace and replenish that capability," he said.

"The recent strikes have degraded the air defense capabilities" of Iraq,
Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
added at the Pentagon news conference.

Pace said airstrikes in response to Iraqi attempts to shoot down warplanes
patrolling the zones since the 1991 Gulf War had in recent weeks been
directed at fixed targets such as key command and control buildings and
military airfields instead of difficult targets such as small, mobile

U.S. and British warplanes patrolling the zones have launched 38 strikes
this year and the pace has increased in the past two months.

"What has changed a little bit is the tactics that are being employed in
response" to Iraqi antiaircraft fire, said Pace. "The response to that by
the [U.S. and British] commanders on the ground has been to go after more of
the targets like communications buildings that are not easily moved and
striking those."

Iraq does not recognize the no-fly zones, set up after the 1991 Gulf War to
protect Kurdish minorities in the north and Shiite Muslims in the south from
attack by Baghdad's military.

Rumsfeld said in 2001 that Chinese experts were helping Iraq upgrade its air
defenses with fiber-optic cables, but said yesterday he did not know if such
aid was still being given.

He said flight patterns were changed slightly late last year or early this
year, but those patterns were later resumed and response to ground fire was

"We . . . changed it to go back to a set of flight patterns -- but attached
to those flight patterns response options that we felt would give us a
benefit that would merit the risks that were undertaken," Rumsfeld told


by Benjamin Grove
Las Vegas Sun, 17th September

WASHINGTON -- Airline officials are quietly telling lawmakers in Congress
that a war with Iraq likely would deal a crushing blow to their hobbled
industry, lawmakers said.

A group of executives making rounds on Capitol Hill huddled in a private
meeting with Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., last week. They told him: "If there is
a war in Iraq, we'll all go broke," Reid said today, recounting the
conversation in comments on the Senate floor.

The airline officials said they are worried a war with Iraq could send fuel
prices skyrocketing, said a source who was at the meeting. That's bad news
for a state like Nevada that depends on airlines and tourists.

The airlines are already reeling from decreased passenger loads and higher
fuel costs, Reid said in an interview today.

"The airline industry is having significant problems," Reid said.

Reid supports a war with Iraq if President Bush makes a compelling case for
it, he has said. "I'm a hawk, not a dove," he said today.

But the No. 2 Senate Democrat has urged caution and opposed plunging into an
attack in the immediate future. The effect a war would have on the airlines,
the economy and the national budget are among the factors that should be
carefully considered, he said.

On the floor, Reid quoted the Wall Street Journal, which reported that
Bush's chief economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey estimated a war in Iraq could
cost $200 billion.

Iraq's announcement that it would allow weapons inspectors back into the
nation also must be cautiously measured, Reid said.

"If in fact the inspections are unfettered, I support them," Reid said. "If
they are not unfettered, I support the president. We can't have Saddam
playing with us."

by Richard N. Velotta
Las Vegas Sun, 18th September

A U.S. military strike against Iraq would surely rattle the Las Vegas
economy, just as effects of the Gulf War damaged visitor volume in 1991,
gaming experts say.

Veteran White House watcher Sam Donaldson, an ABC television and radio
commentator, told gaming industry professionals they need to be wary of "the
CNN effect" on Las Vegas if President Bush's heated war of words escalates
into military action.

Donaldson was the keynote speaker Tuesday for the opening day of the Global
Gaming Expo at the Las Vegas Convention Center. More than 10,000 gaming
industry professionals from around the world are gathered for the four-day
event that will be highlighted today by a state-of-the-industry address by
Frank Fahrenkopf, president and chief executive officer of the American
Gaming Association.

Fahrenkopf and Donaldson have had a long-time friendship dating back to when
Fahrenkopf was national head of the Republican Party and Donaldson was
covering the likes of President Ronald Reagan.

In Donaldson's speech, which was heavy on current events but light on casino
industry information, the newsman predicted that Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein would break his promise to allow nuclear weapons inspectors into the
country, which ultimately would result in President Bush ordering military
action as he has threatened.

"If that happens, Vegas would again be subject to the CNN effect," Donaldson

He explained that after the United States confronted Hussein after his
invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the U.S. air strikes of Baghdad were captured
live on Cable News Network. Travel was curtailed and trips to Las Vegas were
canceled as nervous Americans parked in front of their televisions as the
war unfolded before them.

"It was just like the way things were on 9-11," added Shannon Bybee, a
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, professor who will be inducted into the
Gaming Hall of Fame in a convention dinner tonight.

"We went through it in '91," Bybee said. "People were busy watching things
happen on television."

Bybee said if the United States attacks Iraq, he wouldn't expect a Las Vegas
downturn would last long.

"People can only watch television for so long," Bybee said. "Eventually,
they'll look for an escape."

Marc Falcone, a gaming analyst with Deutsche Bank attending the convention,
said casino watchers have been keeping an eye on Bush's actions regarding

"We pay attention to it and we're cognizant of what a war with Iraq would
have on any leisure destination," Falcone said.

He said the locals' market would be hurt more than Strip properties if a
confrontation occurred because he expects action would be swift.

When the United States bombed Baghdad in 1991, the aftershocks had a
significant effect on the Las Vegas economy.

Visitation increased by about 1 million people a year from 1984 to 1989 and
then made a jump by about 2 million visitors from 1989 to 1990 to 21
million. But then, the numbers flattened out.

In 1991, there were 21.2 million visitors and 21.9 million in 1992.

Other indicators showed a similar flattening. From 1990 to 1991, hotel and
motel occupancy fell 4.4 points to 80.3 percent while inventory went up 4.1
percent to 76,879 rooms.

Room tax revenue leveled off at $49.4 million in 1991 and gross gaming
revenue for Clark County was flat at $4.1 billion.

Fahrenkopf said in a news conference Tuesday that Las Vegas suffered more
than most gaming destinations following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks,
primarily because Southern Nevada is so dependent on air traffic for its
visitors. The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority said about 46
percent of the city's visitors come by way of McCarran International

Other gaming markets, like Atlantic City, the Midwest and the Mississippi
Gulf Coast, are more dependent on drive-in traffic that didn't fall as
dramatically and rebounded faster than Las Vegas.

Fahrenkopf said the industry has rebounded stronger and many states will
have elections to consider new gaming initiatives. The reason: Economic
downturns in many states following Sept. 11 and an earlier recession have
left governments strapped for cash and many see taxing gambling ventures as
an easy way fill their coffers.

Fahrenkopf noted Tennessee voters will consider a lottery initiative while
10 counties in Iowa will have voters go to the polls to consider extending
existing gaming.

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]