"Ever since that night we invaded Iraq and my wife and I had sex for the first time in 30 years and caused my pacemaker to short out on me I've been seeing strange figures following me when I go to bed at night."
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Dick's Secret Thoughts
"Ever since that night we invaded Iraq and my wife and I had sex for the first time in 30 years and caused my pacemaker to short out on me I've been seeing strange figures following me when I go to bed at night."
9/11 Panel Invites Cheney to Give Evidence
FrankenCheney
Sat Jun 19, 6:34 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Nearing the end of its work, the Sept. 11 commission is inviting Vice President Dick Cheney to provide any evidence he has that would show links between al-Qaida and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, a panel member said Saturday.
He said the panel also wants to follow up its questioning of President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and CIA Director George Tenet.
The Cheney request culminates a week in which the commission said it found no evidence of collaboration between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaida, while the White House stuck by its position that the two had significant links.
Cheney told the CNBC network that there probably were things about Iraq's links to terrorists that the commission members did not learn during their 14-month investigation.
After hearing the vice president's comment, commission members said they would like to see any intelligence reports that Cheney is referring to.
"We would certainly welcome any information bearing on the issue of assistance or collaboration with al-Qaida by any government including Iraq," said commission member Richard Ben-Veniste. Commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton made similar comments to The New York Times.
The Bush administration used the assertion of collaboration between al-Qaida and Saddam's regime as one of its reasons for invading Iraq.
Commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said the commission is not making another formal request for documents from the White House.
"We have made an extensive document request of the administration, and they have responded to our requests," said Felzenberg. The panel is saying, he added: "If the vice president or anybody else has any information on this subject that they would like the commission to examine, the commission would very much like to see it."
Regarding additional questioning of witnesses, Ben-Veniste said, "We are following up on interviews and other investigative leads at the same time we begin finalizing the factual accounts which will be contained in the final report."
"Following up with Dr. Rice and George Tenet are two obvious areas of interest."
The Los Angeles Times first reported the panel's desire for further questioning of Bush's national security adviser and the CIA director. The Times said Tenet, who leaves office in July, had agreed to be re-interviewed, and the commission might submit written questions to Rice.
Without addressing whether the commission wants to question Rice and Tenet again, Felzenberg said, "It is not unusual to go back to someone with more questions."
The commission has a July 26 deadline for completing its final report.
Friday, June 18, 2004
New Information Shows Bush Indecisive, Paranoid, Delusional
By TERESA HAMPTON
Editor, Capitol Hill Blue
Jun 17, 2004, 08:47
The carefully-crafted image of George W. Bush as a bold, decisive leader is cracking under the weight of new revelations that the erratic President is indecisive, moody, paranoid and delusional.
“More and more this brings back memories of the Nixon White House,” says retired political science professor George Harleigh, who worked for President Nixon during the second presidential term that ended in resignation under fire. “I haven’t heard any reports of President Bush wondering the halls talking to portraits of dead Presidents but what I have been told is disturbing.”
Two weeks ago, Capitol Hill Blue revealed that a growing number of White House aides are concerned about the President’s mental stability. They told harrowing tales of violent mood swings, bouts with paranoia and obscene outbursts from a President who wears his religion on his sleeve.
Although supporters of President Bush dismissed the reports as “fantasies from anonymous sources,” a new book by Dr. Justin Frank, director of psychiatry at George Washington University, raises many similar questions about the President’s mental stability.
"George W. Bush is a case study in contradiction," Dr. Frank writes in Bush On The Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. "Bush is an untreated ex-alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies."
In addition, a new film by documentary filmmaker, and frequent Bush critic, Michael Moore shows the President indecisive and clearly befuddled when he learned about the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
While conservative critics who have not yet seen Fahrenheit 9/11 dismiss the work as an anti-Bush screed, Roger Friedman of the normally pro-Bush Fox News Network has seen the film and calls it “a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.”
Friedman also says the films “most indelible moment” comes when Bush, speaking to a group of school kids in Florida, is first informed of the 9/11 attacks.
“Instead of jumping up and leaving, he instead sat in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11 minutes,” Friedman says. “Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you that no one who sees this film forgets this episode.”
Dr. Frank says the episode is typical of how Bush deals with death and tragedy. He notes that Bush avoids funerals.
“President Bush has not attended a single funeral - other than that of President Reagan. In my book I explore some possible reasons for that, whether or not it is "presidential". I am less interested in judging his behavior on political grounds than I am in thinking about its meaning both to him and to the rest of us,” Dr. Frank says. “He has spent a lifetime of avoiding grief, starting with the death of his sister when he was 7 years old. His parents didn't help him with what must have been confusing and frightening feelings. He also has a history of evading responsibility and perhaps his not attending funerals has to do with not wanting to see the damage his policies have wrought.”
In his book, Dr. Frank also suggests Bush resents those in the military.
“Bush's behavior strongly suggests an unconscious resentment toward our own servicemen, whose bravery puts his own (nonexistent) wartime service record to shame,” he wrote.
Supporters of President Bush dismiss Frank’s book as the work of a Democrat who once headed the Washington Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, but his work has been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.
Dr. Carolyn Williams, a psychoanalyst who specializes in paranoid personalities, is a registered Republican and agrees with most of Dr. Frank’s conclusions.
“I find the bulk of his analysis credible,” she said in an interview. “President Bush grew up dealing with an absent but demanding father, a tough mother and an overachieving brother. All left indelible impressions on him along with a desire to prove himself at all cost because he feels surrounded by disapproval. He behavior suggests a classic paranoid personality. Additionally, his stated belief that certain actions are 'God's Will' are symptomatic of delusional behavior.”
Ryan Reynolds, a childhood friend of Bush, concurs.
“George wanted to please his father but never felt he measured up, especially when compared to Jeb,” Reynolds said.
Dr. Williams wonders if the Iraq war was not Bush’s way of “proving he could finish something his father could not by deposing Saddam Hussein.”
But Bush's desire to please his father may have backfired. Former President George H.W. Bush has remained silent publicly about the war, saying he will only discuss it with his son "in private." Close aides say that is because he disapproves of his son's actions against Iraq.
"Former President Bush does not support the war against Iraq," says former aide John Ruskin. "It is as simple at that."
While current White House aides and officials would not allow their names to be used when commenting about Bush’s erratic behavior, others like former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill confirm concerns about Bush’s mood swings.
O’Neill says Bush was moody in cabinet meetings and would wander off on tangents, mostly about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Bush, O’Neill says, seemed more focused on Iraq than on finding Osama bin Laden and would lash out at anyone who disagreed with him.
Harleigh says it is not unusual for White House staffers to refuse to go public with their concerns about the President’s behavior.
“We saw the same thing in the Nixon years,” he says. “What is unusual is that the White House has not been able to trot out even one staffer who is willing to go public and say positive things about the President’s mental condition. That says more than anything else.”
Dr. Frank, the Democrat, says the only diagnosis he can offer for the President’s condition is removal from office.
Dr. Williams, the Republican, says she must “reluctantly agree.”
“We have too many unanswered questions about the President’s behavior,” she says. “You cannot have those kinds of unanswered questions when you are talking about the leader of the free world.”
© Copyright 2004 by Capitol Hill Blue
Thursday, June 17, 2004
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON IRAQI TERRORISM
(Note the Date)
By
Larry C. Johnson
27 January 2003
The course of action the United States pursues against Iraq in the coming months holds profound implications for the war on terrorism. As the Bush Administration marshals U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf region and prepares to invade Iraq, it has devoted little attention to Iraq’s role in the war on terrorism other than to make unsubstantiated claims that Saddam Hussein has backed Al Qaeda. With the end of the first Gulf War and the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq was obligated to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and end all support for terrorism. Inexplicably the international community focused its attention on finding and destroying Iraq’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons but ignored Baghdad’s continuing support for terrorism.
An invasion of Iraq will topple Hussein and eliminate Baghdad’s ability to develop or use weapons of mass destruction for the foreseeable future, but it will do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks. In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world—a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers—and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.
CLARIFYING IRAQ’S TERRORIST RECORD:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. From 1991 thru 2001 there were 4143 international terrorist attacks throughout the world. Saddam Hussein and his regime were implicated in at least 73 of these incidents, which accounted for fewer that two hundred fatalities. According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. As reported in Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000, Saddam Hussein’s regime “has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993. However, Iraq continued to aggressively target and attack anti-regime opponents and UN personnel working in Iraq.”
During the Gulf War (1990-1991) Iraq made a concerted but futile effort to launch terrorist attacks against the U.S. led coalition. Saddam Hussein dispatched at least 40 two-man terrorist teams around the world. Most of these teams were apprehended or deterred. The few that reached their targets were incompetent or deterred by security measures. One team, for example, attempted to bomb the US Cultural Center in Manila on 19 January 1991, but the device prematurely detonated. The blast killed one of the Iraqi agents and badly injured the other. In Indonesia a team left a bomb in a flower box outside the US Ambassador’s residence in Jakarta. It was discovered by a gardener and rendered safe. The perpetrators escaped undetected. In another case an informant alerted Bangkok police to four terrorists plotting to attack U.S. airline offices.
Within months of signing off Security Council Resolution 687 Iraq launched attacks against Kurds, relief workers, and regime opponents operating in Northern Iraq. Starting with the 1992 PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM and continuing thru 2001, the U.S. Government annually admitted that Iraq was violating the terrorism provisions of 687. But no punitive actions were taken or proposed. With the United States unwilling to hold the Hussein regime accountable for violating the prohibitions pertaining to international terrorism, there should be little surprise that the Iraqis as well as other Middle Eastern governments assumed that Iraq had tacit approval to punish anti-regime dissidents and help anti-Iranian terrorists.
Iraq has directed most of its support for terrorism to groups that have attacked Iran and Israel. The United States Government accuses Iraq of providing sanctuary and/or assistance to six groups:
• Arab Liberation Front
• Palestine Liberation Front (PLF & Abu Abbas)
• Abu Nidal (ANO)
• 15 May (Abu Ibrahim)
• The Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK)
• Mujahedin-e-Khalq
The Arab Liberation Front (ALF) is part of the PLO. The ALF, like the other factions of the Palestine Liberation Organization, left Lebanon in a US-brokered deal after Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Many ALF combatants ended up in Baghdad. Although the ALF continues to funnel money to Palestinians who carry out terrorist attacks against Israel, State Department has not identified this group with any significant terrorist attack in any issue of PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM since 1990.
The Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) split with the PFLP-GC in the mid-1970s. It subsequently split again, according to the U.S. State Department, into pro-PLO, pro-Syrian, and pro-Libyan factions. The pro-PLO faction, led by Muhammad Abbas (Abu Abbas), established a presence in Baghdad. Abbas’s group was responsible for the October 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship. The PLF also launched a failed 1990 seaborne raid against Israel. This group continues to focus its wrath on Israel. During 2002 Israel recovered documents and arrested PLF members who testified that had received military training for terrorist operations in Iraq.
Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) was one of the most active and deadly terrorist groups in the 1970s and 1980s. Its leader, Sabri Al-Banna masterminded attacks that included the December 1985 Rome and Vienna airport massacres, the September 1986 hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73, and the July 1988 assault on the City of Poros day-excursion ship. During the 1990s ANO dramatically scaled back its activities and was implicated in only two terrorist attacks, with the last one occurring in 1995. Al-Banna disappeared from public view after seeking refuge in Baghdad in 1998, but resurfaced in August 2002 with the news that he shot himself several times in a successful “suicide” attempt while resisting Iraqi agents who were trying to arrest him.
The 15 May Organization, led by Muhammad al-Umari (aka Abu Ibrahim), was formed in 1979 and disbanded in the mid-1980s. 15 May was implicated in the 1981 bombings of El Al’s Rome and Istanbul, the August 1982 bombing of a Pan Am flight enroute from Tokyo to Honolulu, and attacks against the Israeli Embassies in Athens and Vienna. It has not been linked to terrorist attacks since 1984. Abu Ibrahim reportedly still lives in Iraq.
The Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) has received sanctuary in Iraq but the bulk of its support came from Syria and Greece. Since the arrest of its leader Abdullah Ocalan in 1999 in the car of the Greek Ambassador to Kenya, the PKK has scaled back its terrorist activities in Turkey and Europe.
Not surprisingly, Iran, the longstanding enemy of Baghdad, remains a primary target of Iraqi-backed terrorism. The Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) aka The National Liberation Army of Iran has received significant support from Saddam Hussein since it was expelled from Iran in 1979. Of all the terrorist groups with sanctuary in Iraq, the MEK has been among the most active and the most deadly. According to the U.S. State Department, the MEK killed 70 high-ranking Iranian officials in a series of bombings in 1981. In April 1992 the MEK attacked Iranian Embassies in 13 different countries. Iraq provided direct support to MEK operatives in 1999 who assassinated several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran’s Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April.
Israel has been the other major target of Iraqi terrorism. Iraq’s funding and training of members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) and the PLF now is beyond dispute. Documents seized by Israel in raids against Palestinian Authority offices in the West Bank during 2002 detail Iraq’s funding of Palestinian terrorism. Israeli officials provided CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl documents in September showing that Saddam's closest deputy, Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan, personally signed checks made out to Palestinian terrorist leaders who had organized suicide-bombing attacks. Kenneth Timmerman reported in a recent article in Insight Magazine that:
captured documents included ledgers of "martyrs" who have carried out suicide operations against Israel, showing how much and when each was paid and the number of the check. It included internal memoranda, computer disks, hard drives, videotapes and bank statements.
IRAQ, AL QAEDA AND ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS
In response to the Bush Administration’s stepped up efforts to confront Saddam over his continuing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, Iraq apparently has opened contacts with elements of Al Qaeda. Unlike Iran, who has a longstanding strategic relationship with Bin Laden and his terrorist network, Iraq’s ties are more recent and more tenuous. Nonetheless Iraq’s apparent willingness to share knowledge about chemical and biological weapons with Al Qaeda operatives may enable Bin Laden to acquire the capability that has so far eluded him.
The Bush Administration is particularly worried about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda operative, Abu Musab Zarqawi, who reportedly received medical treatment in Iraq and is linked to a Taliban-style Islamic group in Northern Iraq that is battling Kurds. While this evidence is limited, it does suggest Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless, it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.
The Islamic extremists who attacked the United States on 9-11 are guided by the ephemeral goal of the caliphate—a worldwide Islamic government. Driven by a deeply held belief that a restoration of Islamic ideas and practices will usher in a new reign of peace, Bin Laden and his cohorts have proselytized with mixed results. Although many newborns in Muslim countries reportedly have been named Osama, his calls for Muslims to rise up and attack US citizens and facilities have gone largely unheeded.
If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers. The lesson of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, however, is not a simple matter of angry Muslims rising up to fight infidels. External support from the United States and other governments, particularly Pakistan, played critical roles in providing jihadists with the money, organization, intelligence, and materiel that transformed them into an effective fighting force.
CONCLUSION
If war is averted and weapons inspectors remain in Iraq the United Nations must still deal with the issue of Iraqi support for terrorism. Unlike the seemingly impossible task of searching for weapons of mass destruction, reining in Iraqi support for terrorism is feasible. Compliance with UN Resolution 687 should include the following steps:
• The arrest of terrorists Abu Abbas and Abu Ibrahim.
• The closure of all offices and support companies linked to the PLF, ALF, ANO, PKK, MEK, PFLP-GC, and 15 May.
• The expulsion from Iraq of all members of these terrorist groups.
• Confiscation of all financial resources connected with these groups (and other terrorist groups).
• Inspection of suspected terrorist training camps.
If we go to war we must prudently prepare for expanded terrorist activity, at least in the short term, from Islamic extremists and their sympathizers. While we can hope that a US invasion will unleash a pent up Jeffersonian democracy inside Iraq, odds are that the United States and its UN allies will be forced to occupy Iraq for the foreseeable future. No occupying force, no matter how benign or charitable, will face opposition at some point from the local population. Add to this mix a belligerent outsider, like Iran, and the potential for terrorist attacks against the “occupying” force increases dramatically.
Anger alone is not enough to create a force willing to pursue a terrorist campaign. Support from other countries is critical. Eliminating terrorist training camps in Iran and Lebanon must remain at the top of the agenda or else the infrastructure for attacking US forces in Iraq will remain intact. Remnants of Al Qaeda, as well as Hezbollah and Hamas, activists may find themselves receiving encouragement and materiel support from Islamic extremists in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to carry out attacks against “infidel” occupiers in Iraq.
International terrorism requires safehaven, money, and training if it is to be effective. Destroying Saddam’s ability to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction is a separate task from destroying the infrastructure that supports and sustains international terrorism. Doing both is not impossible but it requires we fully understand the task before us.
Larry Johnson is a former CIA analyst and a U.S. State Department counter terrorism official.
By
Larry C. Johnson
27 January 2003
The course of action the United States pursues against Iraq in the coming months holds profound implications for the war on terrorism. As the Bush Administration marshals U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf region and prepares to invade Iraq, it has devoted little attention to Iraq’s role in the war on terrorism other than to make unsubstantiated claims that Saddam Hussein has backed Al Qaeda. With the end of the first Gulf War and the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq was obligated to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and end all support for terrorism. Inexplicably the international community focused its attention on finding and destroying Iraq’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons but ignored Baghdad’s continuing support for terrorism.
An invasion of Iraq will topple Hussein and eliminate Baghdad’s ability to develop or use weapons of mass destruction for the foreseeable future, but it will do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks. In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world—a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers—and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.
CLARIFYING IRAQ’S TERRORIST RECORD:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. From 1991 thru 2001 there were 4143 international terrorist attacks throughout the world. Saddam Hussein and his regime were implicated in at least 73 of these incidents, which accounted for fewer that two hundred fatalities. According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. As reported in Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000, Saddam Hussein’s regime “has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993. However, Iraq continued to aggressively target and attack anti-regime opponents and UN personnel working in Iraq.”
During the Gulf War (1990-1991) Iraq made a concerted but futile effort to launch terrorist attacks against the U.S. led coalition. Saddam Hussein dispatched at least 40 two-man terrorist teams around the world. Most of these teams were apprehended or deterred. The few that reached their targets were incompetent or deterred by security measures. One team, for example, attempted to bomb the US Cultural Center in Manila on 19 January 1991, but the device prematurely detonated. The blast killed one of the Iraqi agents and badly injured the other. In Indonesia a team left a bomb in a flower box outside the US Ambassador’s residence in Jakarta. It was discovered by a gardener and rendered safe. The perpetrators escaped undetected. In another case an informant alerted Bangkok police to four terrorists plotting to attack U.S. airline offices.
Within months of signing off Security Council Resolution 687 Iraq launched attacks against Kurds, relief workers, and regime opponents operating in Northern Iraq. Starting with the 1992 PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM and continuing thru 2001, the U.S. Government annually admitted that Iraq was violating the terrorism provisions of 687. But no punitive actions were taken or proposed. With the United States unwilling to hold the Hussein regime accountable for violating the prohibitions pertaining to international terrorism, there should be little surprise that the Iraqis as well as other Middle Eastern governments assumed that Iraq had tacit approval to punish anti-regime dissidents and help anti-Iranian terrorists.
Iraq has directed most of its support for terrorism to groups that have attacked Iran and Israel. The United States Government accuses Iraq of providing sanctuary and/or assistance to six groups:
• Arab Liberation Front
• Palestine Liberation Front (PLF & Abu Abbas)
• Abu Nidal (ANO)
• 15 May (Abu Ibrahim)
• The Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK)
• Mujahedin-e-Khalq
The Arab Liberation Front (ALF) is part of the PLO. The ALF, like the other factions of the Palestine Liberation Organization, left Lebanon in a US-brokered deal after Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Many ALF combatants ended up in Baghdad. Although the ALF continues to funnel money to Palestinians who carry out terrorist attacks against Israel, State Department has not identified this group with any significant terrorist attack in any issue of PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM since 1990.
The Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) split with the PFLP-GC in the mid-1970s. It subsequently split again, according to the U.S. State Department, into pro-PLO, pro-Syrian, and pro-Libyan factions. The pro-PLO faction, led by Muhammad Abbas (Abu Abbas), established a presence in Baghdad. Abbas’s group was responsible for the October 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship. The PLF also launched a failed 1990 seaborne raid against Israel. This group continues to focus its wrath on Israel. During 2002 Israel recovered documents and arrested PLF members who testified that had received military training for terrorist operations in Iraq.
Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) was one of the most active and deadly terrorist groups in the 1970s and 1980s. Its leader, Sabri Al-Banna masterminded attacks that included the December 1985 Rome and Vienna airport massacres, the September 1986 hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73, and the July 1988 assault on the City of Poros day-excursion ship. During the 1990s ANO dramatically scaled back its activities and was implicated in only two terrorist attacks, with the last one occurring in 1995. Al-Banna disappeared from public view after seeking refuge in Baghdad in 1998, but resurfaced in August 2002 with the news that he shot himself several times in a successful “suicide” attempt while resisting Iraqi agents who were trying to arrest him.
The 15 May Organization, led by Muhammad al-Umari (aka Abu Ibrahim), was formed in 1979 and disbanded in the mid-1980s. 15 May was implicated in the 1981 bombings of El Al’s Rome and Istanbul, the August 1982 bombing of a Pan Am flight enroute from Tokyo to Honolulu, and attacks against the Israeli Embassies in Athens and Vienna. It has not been linked to terrorist attacks since 1984. Abu Ibrahim reportedly still lives in Iraq.
The Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) has received sanctuary in Iraq but the bulk of its support came from Syria and Greece. Since the arrest of its leader Abdullah Ocalan in 1999 in the car of the Greek Ambassador to Kenya, the PKK has scaled back its terrorist activities in Turkey and Europe.
Not surprisingly, Iran, the longstanding enemy of Baghdad, remains a primary target of Iraqi-backed terrorism. The Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) aka The National Liberation Army of Iran has received significant support from Saddam Hussein since it was expelled from Iran in 1979. Of all the terrorist groups with sanctuary in Iraq, the MEK has been among the most active and the most deadly. According to the U.S. State Department, the MEK killed 70 high-ranking Iranian officials in a series of bombings in 1981. In April 1992 the MEK attacked Iranian Embassies in 13 different countries. Iraq provided direct support to MEK operatives in 1999 who assassinated several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran’s Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April.
Israel has been the other major target of Iraqi terrorism. Iraq’s funding and training of members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) and the PLF now is beyond dispute. Documents seized by Israel in raids against Palestinian Authority offices in the West Bank during 2002 detail Iraq’s funding of Palestinian terrorism. Israeli officials provided CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl documents in September showing that Saddam's closest deputy, Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan, personally signed checks made out to Palestinian terrorist leaders who had organized suicide-bombing attacks. Kenneth Timmerman reported in a recent article in Insight Magazine that:
captured documents included ledgers of "martyrs" who have carried out suicide operations against Israel, showing how much and when each was paid and the number of the check. It included internal memoranda, computer disks, hard drives, videotapes and bank statements.
IRAQ, AL QAEDA AND ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS
In response to the Bush Administration’s stepped up efforts to confront Saddam over his continuing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, Iraq apparently has opened contacts with elements of Al Qaeda. Unlike Iran, who has a longstanding strategic relationship with Bin Laden and his terrorist network, Iraq’s ties are more recent and more tenuous. Nonetheless Iraq’s apparent willingness to share knowledge about chemical and biological weapons with Al Qaeda operatives may enable Bin Laden to acquire the capability that has so far eluded him.
The Bush Administration is particularly worried about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda operative, Abu Musab Zarqawi, who reportedly received medical treatment in Iraq and is linked to a Taliban-style Islamic group in Northern Iraq that is battling Kurds. While this evidence is limited, it does suggest Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless, it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.
The Islamic extremists who attacked the United States on 9-11 are guided by the ephemeral goal of the caliphate—a worldwide Islamic government. Driven by a deeply held belief that a restoration of Islamic ideas and practices will usher in a new reign of peace, Bin Laden and his cohorts have proselytized with mixed results. Although many newborns in Muslim countries reportedly have been named Osama, his calls for Muslims to rise up and attack US citizens and facilities have gone largely unheeded.
If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers. The lesson of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, however, is not a simple matter of angry Muslims rising up to fight infidels. External support from the United States and other governments, particularly Pakistan, played critical roles in providing jihadists with the money, organization, intelligence, and materiel that transformed them into an effective fighting force.
CONCLUSION
If war is averted and weapons inspectors remain in Iraq the United Nations must still deal with the issue of Iraqi support for terrorism. Unlike the seemingly impossible task of searching for weapons of mass destruction, reining in Iraqi support for terrorism is feasible. Compliance with UN Resolution 687 should include the following steps:
• The arrest of terrorists Abu Abbas and Abu Ibrahim.
• The closure of all offices and support companies linked to the PLF, ALF, ANO, PKK, MEK, PFLP-GC, and 15 May.
• The expulsion from Iraq of all members of these terrorist groups.
• Confiscation of all financial resources connected with these groups (and other terrorist groups).
• Inspection of suspected terrorist training camps.
If we go to war we must prudently prepare for expanded terrorist activity, at least in the short term, from Islamic extremists and their sympathizers. While we can hope that a US invasion will unleash a pent up Jeffersonian democracy inside Iraq, odds are that the United States and its UN allies will be forced to occupy Iraq for the foreseeable future. No occupying force, no matter how benign or charitable, will face opposition at some point from the local population. Add to this mix a belligerent outsider, like Iran, and the potential for terrorist attacks against the “occupying” force increases dramatically.
Anger alone is not enough to create a force willing to pursue a terrorist campaign. Support from other countries is critical. Eliminating terrorist training camps in Iran and Lebanon must remain at the top of the agenda or else the infrastructure for attacking US forces in Iraq will remain intact. Remnants of Al Qaeda, as well as Hezbollah and Hamas, activists may find themselves receiving encouragement and materiel support from Islamic extremists in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to carry out attacks against “infidel” occupiers in Iraq.
International terrorism requires safehaven, money, and training if it is to be effective. Destroying Saddam’s ability to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction is a separate task from destroying the infrastructure that supports and sustains international terrorism. Doing both is not impossible but it requires we fully understand the task before us.
Larry Johnson is a former CIA analyst and a U.S. State Department counter terrorism official.
Iraq War Eroded U.S. Security, Former Diplomats Say
Wed Jun 16, 4:41 PM ET
By Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush led the United States into an ill-planned Iraq war that has weakened U.S. security, retired diplomats and military officers said on Wednesday in a direct challenge to one of Bush's main arguments for re-election.
"We all believe that current administration policies have failed in the primary responsibilities of preserving national security and providing world leadership," said a statement signed by the 27 retired officials. "We need a change."
The rare criticism by career officials came from a group that included members of both major political parties, a former CIA director, two former ambassadors to the Soviet Union and a retired chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In attacking Bush's national security record, they challenged a key Bush argument for his re-election against Democrat Sen. John Kerry, that the Iraq war has made America safer and that Bush is an effective wartime president.
"Our security has been weakened," the group said.
The former officials, some of whom said they had voted for Bush in 2000, said the Republican president manipulated intelligence on Iraq to lead the United States into an "ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain."
Bush has maintained an "overbearing" approach to foreign policy that relied excessively on military power, spurned the concerns of traditional U.S. allies and disdained the United Nations, the group said.
"It justified the invasion of Iraq by manipulation of uncertain intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, and by a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda and the attacks of September 11," it said. "The evidence did not support this argument."
"Never in the two and a quarter centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted," it added.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher denied the Bush administration had forsaken diplomacy in favor of force, said it won four unanimous Security Council resolutions on Iraq and sought to dismiss the group's stance as a "political."
"As far as the facts of this administration's fight against terrorism with diplomatic, military, intelligence and law enforcement means ... This administration has a record that it is happy to stand on," he said.
The group, which included retired admiral Stansfield Turner who headed the Central Intelligence Agency under President Jimmy Carter, did not explicitly back Kerry in the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential election.
But several members made clear that they believed the Massachusetts Democrat would do a better job than the Republican incumbent.
Retired Gen. Tony McPeak, a former chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, said the Pentagon had only about half the troops in Iraq that were needed.
"Because of the Pollyannaish assumptions that were made by the administration in going in there that bouquets would be thrown at us and so forth, we were totally unprepared for the post-combat occupation," said McPeak, who said he supported Bush in 2000 but was now advising Kerry.
Members also condemned Bush's Middle East policies and said claims Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- which have not been found -- had eroded U.S. credibility.
By Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush led the United States into an ill-planned Iraq war that has weakened U.S. security, retired diplomats and military officers said on Wednesday in a direct challenge to one of Bush's main arguments for re-election.
"We all believe that current administration policies have failed in the primary responsibilities of preserving national security and providing world leadership," said a statement signed by the 27 retired officials. "We need a change."
The rare criticism by career officials came from a group that included members of both major political parties, a former CIA director, two former ambassadors to the Soviet Union and a retired chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In attacking Bush's national security record, they challenged a key Bush argument for his re-election against Democrat Sen. John Kerry, that the Iraq war has made America safer and that Bush is an effective wartime president.
"Our security has been weakened," the group said.
The former officials, some of whom said they had voted for Bush in 2000, said the Republican president manipulated intelligence on Iraq to lead the United States into an "ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain."
Bush has maintained an "overbearing" approach to foreign policy that relied excessively on military power, spurned the concerns of traditional U.S. allies and disdained the United Nations, the group said.
"It justified the invasion of Iraq by manipulation of uncertain intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, and by a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda and the attacks of September 11," it said. "The evidence did not support this argument."
"Never in the two and a quarter centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted," it added.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher denied the Bush administration had forsaken diplomacy in favor of force, said it won four unanimous Security Council resolutions on Iraq and sought to dismiss the group's stance as a "political."
"As far as the facts of this administration's fight against terrorism with diplomatic, military, intelligence and law enforcement means ... This administration has a record that it is happy to stand on," he said.
The group, which included retired admiral Stansfield Turner who headed the Central Intelligence Agency under President Jimmy Carter, did not explicitly back Kerry in the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential election.
But several members made clear that they believed the Massachusetts Democrat would do a better job than the Republican incumbent.
Retired Gen. Tony McPeak, a former chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, said the Pentagon had only about half the troops in Iraq that were needed.
"Because of the Pollyannaish assumptions that were made by the administration in going in there that bouquets would be thrown at us and so forth, we were totally unprepared for the post-combat occupation," said McPeak, who said he supported Bush in 2000 but was now advising Kerry.
Members also condemned Bush's Middle East policies and said claims Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- which have not been found -- had eroded U.S. credibility.
Bush's Team Needs a Coach
(Sheesh, even Max Boot is drawing just short of calling the President an idiot)
Max Boot
June 17, 2004
Sometimes a little incident can tell you a lot.
In April, the State Department released its annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report, based on data from the CIA, the FBI and other agencies, which claimed that terrorist attacks in 2003 had declined to the lowest level since 1969. Senior Bush administration officials touted this as evidence that we're winning the war on terror.
However, when social scientists Alan Krueger and David Laitin looked at the data, they found all sorts of anomalies. In a Washington Post Op-Ed article, they pointed out that the report did not count some significant terrorist acts, such as the November bombings in Turkey that killed 61 people. Even by State's own calculations, the number of "significant" terrorist attacks rose between 2002 and 2003.
Last week, the State Department sheepishly admitted that its report was in error. Rather than showing that terrorism declined last year, the corrected report will show that it increased.
Oops.
This risible mishap will provide further fodder for those on the left who believe that the administration lies routinely. I don't think that's the case. A report like this would not fool an intelligent 10-year-old. If the State Department were really bent on deception, it would not have appended a handy index of "significant" terrorist events, allowing anyone to check its calculations and find them in error.
This is evidence not of duplicity but of incompetence. Again.
When President Bush's foreign policy players came into office, the widespread assumption was that they would be cautious but competent. Sort of like the last Bush administration. Instead they've been great at enunciating bold policies — such as preempting terrorism — and terrible at executing them.
Look at the hash the administration made of diplomacy before the invasion of Iraq. It couldn't even bring the Turks on board. Nothing better exposed its ham-handedness than the speech Vice President Dick Cheney made in August 2002 declaring there was no need to send U.N. weapons inspectors back to Iraq. When just a few weeks later Bush asked for the inspectors to be dispatched, his sincerity was widely questioned.
Things haven't improved much during the occupation of Iraq. The heavy-handed U.S. proconsul, L. Paul Bremer III, managed to alienate pretty much every Iraqi politician. Contributing to the disarray has been the flip-flopping on such basic questions as the role of the U.N. and of Ahmad Chalabi, a situation that reflects deep divisions within the administration.
Meanwhile, the administration has failed to develop a coherent approach to the nuclear crises looming in Iran and North Korea. Administration hard-liners have argued for regime change. Soft-liners have suggested striking deals with Pyongyang and Tehran. Rather than following either policy, the president has dithered as atomic production lines have geared up.
What's behind these failures? Every administration-watcher I've talked to, Republican or Democrat, points to a dysfunctional interagency process. The National Security Council is supposed to coordinate departments and produce a coherent policy. It hasn't done its job. The State and Defense departments are constantly at odds, and neither NSC chief Condoleezza Rice nor her deputy, Stephen Hadley, has knocked heads together to produce a unified approach. In the fruitless search for internal consensus, they usually wind up deferring difficult decisions.
When goof-ups occur, no one is held responsible. The only senior national security official to leave the administration, CIA Director George J. Tenet, is retiring apparently because of pressure from outside investigators, not from the president. In fairness to Rice and Hadley, they have a difficult job in dealing with such outsize personalities as Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, to say nothing of their strong-willed deputies, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Richard L. Armitage. Ultimately it's up to Bush to hold his aides accountable and force them to work together. Because he has often failed to do so, the blunders keep on coming.
Bush can take some comfort from the fact that his hero, Ronald Reagan, presided over similar bureaucratic chaos and it didn't prevent him from achieving his major objectives — reviving the economy and defeating communism. But Bush is taking his Reagan redux approach a bit too far if he insists on emulating the Gipper's weaknesses as well as his strengths.
Max Boot
June 17, 2004
Sometimes a little incident can tell you a lot.
In April, the State Department released its annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report, based on data from the CIA, the FBI and other agencies, which claimed that terrorist attacks in 2003 had declined to the lowest level since 1969. Senior Bush administration officials touted this as evidence that we're winning the war on terror.
However, when social scientists Alan Krueger and David Laitin looked at the data, they found all sorts of anomalies. In a Washington Post Op-Ed article, they pointed out that the report did not count some significant terrorist acts, such as the November bombings in Turkey that killed 61 people. Even by State's own calculations, the number of "significant" terrorist attacks rose between 2002 and 2003.
Last week, the State Department sheepishly admitted that its report was in error. Rather than showing that terrorism declined last year, the corrected report will show that it increased.
Oops.
This risible mishap will provide further fodder for those on the left who believe that the administration lies routinely. I don't think that's the case. A report like this would not fool an intelligent 10-year-old. If the State Department were really bent on deception, it would not have appended a handy index of "significant" terrorist events, allowing anyone to check its calculations and find them in error.
This is evidence not of duplicity but of incompetence. Again.
When President Bush's foreign policy players came into office, the widespread assumption was that they would be cautious but competent. Sort of like the last Bush administration. Instead they've been great at enunciating bold policies — such as preempting terrorism — and terrible at executing them.
Look at the hash the administration made of diplomacy before the invasion of Iraq. It couldn't even bring the Turks on board. Nothing better exposed its ham-handedness than the speech Vice President Dick Cheney made in August 2002 declaring there was no need to send U.N. weapons inspectors back to Iraq. When just a few weeks later Bush asked for the inspectors to be dispatched, his sincerity was widely questioned.
Things haven't improved much during the occupation of Iraq. The heavy-handed U.S. proconsul, L. Paul Bremer III, managed to alienate pretty much every Iraqi politician. Contributing to the disarray has been the flip-flopping on such basic questions as the role of the U.N. and of Ahmad Chalabi, a situation that reflects deep divisions within the administration.
Meanwhile, the administration has failed to develop a coherent approach to the nuclear crises looming in Iran and North Korea. Administration hard-liners have argued for regime change. Soft-liners have suggested striking deals with Pyongyang and Tehran. Rather than following either policy, the president has dithered as atomic production lines have geared up.
What's behind these failures? Every administration-watcher I've talked to, Republican or Democrat, points to a dysfunctional interagency process. The National Security Council is supposed to coordinate departments and produce a coherent policy. It hasn't done its job. The State and Defense departments are constantly at odds, and neither NSC chief Condoleezza Rice nor her deputy, Stephen Hadley, has knocked heads together to produce a unified approach. In the fruitless search for internal consensus, they usually wind up deferring difficult decisions.
When goof-ups occur, no one is held responsible. The only senior national security official to leave the administration, CIA Director George J. Tenet, is retiring apparently because of pressure from outside investigators, not from the president. In fairness to Rice and Hadley, they have a difficult job in dealing with such outsize personalities as Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, to say nothing of their strong-willed deputies, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Richard L. Armitage. Ultimately it's up to Bush to hold his aides accountable and force them to work together. Because he has often failed to do so, the blunders keep on coming.
Bush can take some comfort from the fact that his hero, Ronald Reagan, presided over similar bureaucratic chaos and it didn't prevent him from achieving his major objectives — reviving the economy and defeating communism. But Bush is taking his Reagan redux approach a bit too far if he insists on emulating the Gipper's weaknesses as well as his strengths.
Tout Torture, Get Promoted
Defending cruelty can be a career booster in Bush's administration.
Robert Scheer
June 15, 2004
What a revelation to learn that the Justice Department lawyer who wrote the infamous memo in effect defending torture is now a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge. It tells you all you need to know about the sort of conservative to whom George W. Bush is turning in his attempt to pack the federal courts.
Conservatives once were identified with protecting the rights of the individual against the unbridled power of government, but this is not your grandfather's conservatism. The current brand running things in D.C. holds that the commander in chief is above all law and that the ends always justify the means. This has paved the way for the increasingly well-documented and systematic use of torture in an ad hoc gulag archipelago for those detained anywhere in the world under the overly broad rubric of the "war on terror."
Those still clinging to the hopeful notion that photographic evidence of beatings, dead detainees, sexual degradation and threats of electric shock were all the work of a few twisted reservists aren't reading the newspapers. Press accounts are following the paper trail up the chain of command to a heated and lengthy debate inside the White House about how much cruelty constitutes torture.
On Sunday, the Washington Post published on its website an internal White House memo from Aug. 1, 2002, signed by then-Assistant Atty. Gen. Jay S. Bybee, which argued darkly that torturing Al Qaeda captives "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted under President Bush. The memo then continued for 50 pages to make the case for the use of torture.
Was it as a reward for such bold legal thinking that only months later Bybee was appointed to one of the top judicial benches in the country? Perhaps he was anointed for his law journal articles bashing Roe vs. Wade and legal protection for homosexuals, or for his innovative attack on the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides for the popular election of U.S. senators. But it's hard to shake the notion that his memo to Counsel to the President Alberto Gonzales established Bybee's hard-line credentials for an administration that has no use for moderation in any form.
This president has turned his war on terror into an excuse for undermining due process and bypassing Congress. For Bybee and his ideologue cohorts, however, the American president is now more akin to a king, and legal or moral restraints are simply problems that can be overcome later, if anybody bothers to question the tactics: "Finally, even if an interrogation method might violate Section 2340A [of the U.S. Torture Convention passed in 1994], necessity or self-defense could provide justification that would eliminate any criminal liability."
In fact, though, this was an argument of last resort for Bybee, whose definition of torture "covers only extreme acts … where the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure…. Because the acts inflicting torture are extreme, there is [a] significant range of acts that, though they might constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, fail to rise to the level of torture."
Bybee's generous standard should bring comfort to the totalitarian governments that find the brutal treatment of prisoners a handy tool in retaining power or fighting wars. Even Saddam Hussein, who always faced the threat of assassination and terrorism from foreign and domestic rivals, can now offer in his defense Bybee's memo that his actions were justifiable, on the grounds of "necessity or self-defense."
When confronted by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee with the content of Bybee's torture defense, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft responded that the memo did not guide the administration. Yet, the Bybee memo was clearly the basis for the working group report on detainee interrogations presented to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld a year later. And if Bybee's work was rejected as reprehensible, why was he rewarded — with Ashcroft's deepest blessings — with a lifetime appointment on the judicial bench only one level below the Supreme Court?
Frighteningly, the Bybee memo is not some oddball exercise in moral relativism but instead provides the most coherent explanation of how this administration came to believe that to assure freedom and security at home and abroad, it should ape the tactics of brutal dictators.
Robert Scheer
June 15, 2004
What a revelation to learn that the Justice Department lawyer who wrote the infamous memo in effect defending torture is now a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge. It tells you all you need to know about the sort of conservative to whom George W. Bush is turning in his attempt to pack the federal courts.
Conservatives once were identified with protecting the rights of the individual against the unbridled power of government, but this is not your grandfather's conservatism. The current brand running things in D.C. holds that the commander in chief is above all law and that the ends always justify the means. This has paved the way for the increasingly well-documented and systematic use of torture in an ad hoc gulag archipelago for those detained anywhere in the world under the overly broad rubric of the "war on terror."
Those still clinging to the hopeful notion that photographic evidence of beatings, dead detainees, sexual degradation and threats of electric shock were all the work of a few twisted reservists aren't reading the newspapers. Press accounts are following the paper trail up the chain of command to a heated and lengthy debate inside the White House about how much cruelty constitutes torture.
On Sunday, the Washington Post published on its website an internal White House memo from Aug. 1, 2002, signed by then-Assistant Atty. Gen. Jay S. Bybee, which argued darkly that torturing Al Qaeda captives "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted under President Bush. The memo then continued for 50 pages to make the case for the use of torture.
Was it as a reward for such bold legal thinking that only months later Bybee was appointed to one of the top judicial benches in the country? Perhaps he was anointed for his law journal articles bashing Roe vs. Wade and legal protection for homosexuals, or for his innovative attack on the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides for the popular election of U.S. senators. But it's hard to shake the notion that his memo to Counsel to the President Alberto Gonzales established Bybee's hard-line credentials for an administration that has no use for moderation in any form.
This president has turned his war on terror into an excuse for undermining due process and bypassing Congress. For Bybee and his ideologue cohorts, however, the American president is now more akin to a king, and legal or moral restraints are simply problems that can be overcome later, if anybody bothers to question the tactics: "Finally, even if an interrogation method might violate Section 2340A [of the U.S. Torture Convention passed in 1994], necessity or self-defense could provide justification that would eliminate any criminal liability."
In fact, though, this was an argument of last resort for Bybee, whose definition of torture "covers only extreme acts … where the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure…. Because the acts inflicting torture are extreme, there is [a] significant range of acts that, though they might constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, fail to rise to the level of torture."
Bybee's generous standard should bring comfort to the totalitarian governments that find the brutal treatment of prisoners a handy tool in retaining power or fighting wars. Even Saddam Hussein, who always faced the threat of assassination and terrorism from foreign and domestic rivals, can now offer in his defense Bybee's memo that his actions were justifiable, on the grounds of "necessity or self-defense."
When confronted by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee with the content of Bybee's torture defense, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft responded that the memo did not guide the administration. Yet, the Bybee memo was clearly the basis for the working group report on detainee interrogations presented to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld a year later. And if Bybee's work was rejected as reprehensible, why was he rewarded — with Ashcroft's deepest blessings — with a lifetime appointment on the judicial bench only one level below the Supreme Court?
Frighteningly, the Bybee memo is not some oddball exercise in moral relativism but instead provides the most coherent explanation of how this administration came to believe that to assure freedom and security at home and abroad, it should ape the tactics of brutal dictators.
Knowledge Is Preemption (LA TIMES EDITORIAL)
June 17, 2004
On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney declared that Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." A day later, President Bush pointed to Islamic militant Abu Musab Zarqawi, who may be hiding in Fallouja. "Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to Al Qaeda affiliates and Al Qaeda" in Iraq, he declared.
It's hard to imagine that either Bush or Cheney had an inkling of what an interim staff report of the independent 9/11 commission would say Wednesday. There is "no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States," the new report states. In fact, prewar Iraq spurned Al Qaeda's overtures. Though Zarqawi may be directing attacks against Americans in Iraq, and Baghdad may now be Terror Central, it is a consequence of the war itself.
On the other hand, the staff said, Al Qaeda probably forged ties early on with Hezbollah, the global terror group blamed for many of the attacks inside Israel. Those ties were not uncovered before 9/11. On the luckier side, a plan by the 9/11 terrorists for a much wider attack, involving 10 planes and other cities including Los Angeles, was scrapped by internal dissent and leadership doubts. Given that the Pentagon's air defenses were almost nonexistent on Sept. 11, according to the staff, any number of planes might have reached their targets.
The Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defense Command are predictably trying to play down their ineffectiveness, and the commission had to issue subpoenas to officers of the FAA and the command to appear before the panel today. Fortunately, the commission shows no signs of being cowed. Similarly, the CIA is trying to shield itself from blame. The agency has decided that about one-third of the commission's prospective final report should remain secret. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who heads the committee, should bluntly remind the CIA that it can edit out vital secrets but not embarrassment.
There are plenty of signs that Al Qaeda and its offshoots plan more violence against the U.S. The commission cites evidence that the terrorists are seeking nuclear, chemical and biological materials, a sort of gruesome twist on the shoddy prewar accusations that Iraq possessed such weapons and intended to use them against the U.S or furnish them to terrorists. As Bush himself declared in his State of the Union speech before the war: "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
Despite the administration's continued attempts to justify the war, it's become increasingly obvious that Iraq was not intent on creating that day. Al Qaeda is. A full accounting from the commission and the Senate can't single-handedly prevent such a disaster, but it can help avoid a repetition of dangerous errors.
On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney declared that Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." A day later, President Bush pointed to Islamic militant Abu Musab Zarqawi, who may be hiding in Fallouja. "Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to Al Qaeda affiliates and Al Qaeda" in Iraq, he declared.
It's hard to imagine that either Bush or Cheney had an inkling of what an interim staff report of the independent 9/11 commission would say Wednesday. There is "no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States," the new report states. In fact, prewar Iraq spurned Al Qaeda's overtures. Though Zarqawi may be directing attacks against Americans in Iraq, and Baghdad may now be Terror Central, it is a consequence of the war itself.
On the other hand, the staff said, Al Qaeda probably forged ties early on with Hezbollah, the global terror group blamed for many of the attacks inside Israel. Those ties were not uncovered before 9/11. On the luckier side, a plan by the 9/11 terrorists for a much wider attack, involving 10 planes and other cities including Los Angeles, was scrapped by internal dissent and leadership doubts. Given that the Pentagon's air defenses were almost nonexistent on Sept. 11, according to the staff, any number of planes might have reached their targets.
The Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defense Command are predictably trying to play down their ineffectiveness, and the commission had to issue subpoenas to officers of the FAA and the command to appear before the panel today. Fortunately, the commission shows no signs of being cowed. Similarly, the CIA is trying to shield itself from blame. The agency has decided that about one-third of the commission's prospective final report should remain secret. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who heads the committee, should bluntly remind the CIA that it can edit out vital secrets but not embarrassment.
There are plenty of signs that Al Qaeda and its offshoots plan more violence against the U.S. The commission cites evidence that the terrorists are seeking nuclear, chemical and biological materials, a sort of gruesome twist on the shoddy prewar accusations that Iraq possessed such weapons and intended to use them against the U.S or furnish them to terrorists. As Bush himself declared in his State of the Union speech before the war: "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
Despite the administration's continued attempts to justify the war, it's become increasingly obvious that Iraq was not intent on creating that day. Al Qaeda is. A full accounting from the commission and the Senate can't single-handedly prevent such a disaster, but it can help avoid a repetition of dangerous errors.
How Much Is That Uzi in the Window?
Another example of how ill-prepared American troops were under the leadership of Georg Bush. From the NY TIMES
By EVAN WRIGHT
LOS ANGELES
To the American troops in Iraq being subjected to a daily rain of fire from roadside bombs, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, it often seems that the insurgents have limitless stocks of munitions. In fact, in the time I spent embedded with a platoon there, I heard more than one marine joke that the insurgents must have more bullets to spare than the Americans.
But it's no joke: some military officials told me that the Iraqis have so many weapons that they are suspected of exporting them over the Syrian border. And for this bounty, they can thank the Pentagon. Of all the blunders American military leaders have made in Iraq, one of the least talked about is how they succeeded in arming the insurgents.
By the time of the coalition invasion, Iraq had one of the largest conventional arms stockpiles in the world. According to one American military estimate, this included three million tons of bombs and bullets; millions of AK-47's and other rifles, rocket launchers and mortar tubes; and thousands of more sophisticated arms like ground-to-air missiles. Much of the arsenal was stored in vast warehouse complexes, some of which occupied several square miles. As war approached, Iraqi commanders ordered these mountains of munitions to be dispersed across the country in thousands of small caches.
The marines I was embedded with — a forward reconnaissance unit at the front of the initial invasion — were stunned by the sheer amounts of weaponry they saw as we raced across some 400 miles to Baghdad. Along much of the route, Iraqi forces had dug holes every couple of hundred yards in which they'd piled grenades, mortars and other munitions. Village schools, health clinics and other government buildings had been turned into ammunition dumps. New rifles, sometimes still sealed in plastic bags, littered the roadsides like trash along a blighted American highway.
But under orders to reach Baghdad as quickly as possible, the marines rarely had a chance to remove, destroy or even mark the stockpiles. In one village, combat engineers (led by local children whom they had bribed with bags of Skittles candies) discovered an underground bunker crammed with dozens of sophisticated air-to-ground missiles. Yet higher-ups in the division insisted that there was no time to destroy them. The marines moved on, leaving the missiles unguarded.
The job of removing ordnance was complicated by the fact that many of the combat engineers in the invasion were not adequately trained for the task. Munitions are not easy to destroy. Bullets, bombs and rockets are designed to be shock-resistant. As the combat engineers often discovered, blowing up a stack of ammunition just scattered it, unexploded, in all directions.
Ordnance disposal is best carried out by specialized technicians; the entire First Marine Expeditionary Force (which was responsible for roughly half the invasion) had the services of only about 200. As one of those overworked technicians told me the day we reached Baghdad, it would have taken the experts attached to the First Division a year just to clear the munitions they discovered in the city's eastern suburbs.
And within 24 hours of the fall of the capital, the dangers posed by all those unchecked arms became obvious. The marines I was with occupied a warehouse in the Shiite slum now called Sadr City, which quickly became the center of armed insurgence in Baghdad. The moment it got dark, tracer fire lit up the sky, as gun battles erupted across the city.
The marines were told not to worry; their commanders informed them that the violence was a result of "red on red" engagements, meaning that Iraqis were shooting at other Iraqis. When American patrols entered Shiite neighborhoods starting the next day, locals begged them to get rid of the arms. They told us that semi-automatic rifles, nearly unobtainable during Saddam Hussein's rule, could now be obtained for about the cost of a pack of cigarettes. Heavier weapons were not much more expensive. Unexploded artillery shells (which are now being used to make the improvised roadside bombs) were free for the taking, scattered about backyards and alleys.
Yet several Marine commanders I spoke with at the time felt the nightly firefights were a positive development. "Mostly it's Shiites doing a lot of dirty work, taking out fedayeen and Sunni Baathists," one officer explained. A colonel told me that the armed Shiites were acting through "a sort of agreement with us to take out the bad guys." Some enlisted men even told me that their battalion commander ordered them to distribute thousands of AK-47's to Shiite militia members who pledged to take on America's enemies.
Of course, American commanders long ago abandoned the wildly naïve (or cynical) view that all those arms sloshing around Iraq were somehow falling into friendly hands. But by the time occupation authorities got serious about disarming Iraq, many of the munitions that American forces bypassed in the invasion had fallen into the hands of those bent on killing Americans.
American forces have now destroyed some 300,000 tons of munitions. Yet the troops on the ground still complain that the old regime's supply depots remain woefully underguarded. Nobody knows how long it will take to dispose of known stockpiles — American military estimates range from one year to 10. And then there are the unaccounted stashes, which, based on Iraqi documents, are thought to contain hundreds of surface-to-air missiles, tens of thousands of bombs and half a million pounds of C-4 plastic explosive.
There simply aren't enough technical experts to do the job in Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan). With the handover of sovereignty fast approaching, concern is rising that today's well-armed insurgency will become all-out civil war. American authorities may not be able to eliminate simmering hatreds, but it's still within their power to reduce the numbers of bombs and bullets available to all sides.
Evan Wright is the author of "Generation Kill," about a Marine platoon in combat in Iraq.
By EVAN WRIGHT
LOS ANGELES
To the American troops in Iraq being subjected to a daily rain of fire from roadside bombs, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, it often seems that the insurgents have limitless stocks of munitions. In fact, in the time I spent embedded with a platoon there, I heard more than one marine joke that the insurgents must have more bullets to spare than the Americans.
But it's no joke: some military officials told me that the Iraqis have so many weapons that they are suspected of exporting them over the Syrian border. And for this bounty, they can thank the Pentagon. Of all the blunders American military leaders have made in Iraq, one of the least talked about is how they succeeded in arming the insurgents.
By the time of the coalition invasion, Iraq had one of the largest conventional arms stockpiles in the world. According to one American military estimate, this included three million tons of bombs and bullets; millions of AK-47's and other rifles, rocket launchers and mortar tubes; and thousands of more sophisticated arms like ground-to-air missiles. Much of the arsenal was stored in vast warehouse complexes, some of which occupied several square miles. As war approached, Iraqi commanders ordered these mountains of munitions to be dispersed across the country in thousands of small caches.
The marines I was embedded with — a forward reconnaissance unit at the front of the initial invasion — were stunned by the sheer amounts of weaponry they saw as we raced across some 400 miles to Baghdad. Along much of the route, Iraqi forces had dug holes every couple of hundred yards in which they'd piled grenades, mortars and other munitions. Village schools, health clinics and other government buildings had been turned into ammunition dumps. New rifles, sometimes still sealed in plastic bags, littered the roadsides like trash along a blighted American highway.
But under orders to reach Baghdad as quickly as possible, the marines rarely had a chance to remove, destroy or even mark the stockpiles. In one village, combat engineers (led by local children whom they had bribed with bags of Skittles candies) discovered an underground bunker crammed with dozens of sophisticated air-to-ground missiles. Yet higher-ups in the division insisted that there was no time to destroy them. The marines moved on, leaving the missiles unguarded.
The job of removing ordnance was complicated by the fact that many of the combat engineers in the invasion were not adequately trained for the task. Munitions are not easy to destroy. Bullets, bombs and rockets are designed to be shock-resistant. As the combat engineers often discovered, blowing up a stack of ammunition just scattered it, unexploded, in all directions.
Ordnance disposal is best carried out by specialized technicians; the entire First Marine Expeditionary Force (which was responsible for roughly half the invasion) had the services of only about 200. As one of those overworked technicians told me the day we reached Baghdad, it would have taken the experts attached to the First Division a year just to clear the munitions they discovered in the city's eastern suburbs.
And within 24 hours of the fall of the capital, the dangers posed by all those unchecked arms became obvious. The marines I was with occupied a warehouse in the Shiite slum now called Sadr City, which quickly became the center of armed insurgence in Baghdad. The moment it got dark, tracer fire lit up the sky, as gun battles erupted across the city.
The marines were told not to worry; their commanders informed them that the violence was a result of "red on red" engagements, meaning that Iraqis were shooting at other Iraqis. When American patrols entered Shiite neighborhoods starting the next day, locals begged them to get rid of the arms. They told us that semi-automatic rifles, nearly unobtainable during Saddam Hussein's rule, could now be obtained for about the cost of a pack of cigarettes. Heavier weapons were not much more expensive. Unexploded artillery shells (which are now being used to make the improvised roadside bombs) were free for the taking, scattered about backyards and alleys.
Yet several Marine commanders I spoke with at the time felt the nightly firefights were a positive development. "Mostly it's Shiites doing a lot of dirty work, taking out fedayeen and Sunni Baathists," one officer explained. A colonel told me that the armed Shiites were acting through "a sort of agreement with us to take out the bad guys." Some enlisted men even told me that their battalion commander ordered them to distribute thousands of AK-47's to Shiite militia members who pledged to take on America's enemies.
Of course, American commanders long ago abandoned the wildly naïve (or cynical) view that all those arms sloshing around Iraq were somehow falling into friendly hands. But by the time occupation authorities got serious about disarming Iraq, many of the munitions that American forces bypassed in the invasion had fallen into the hands of those bent on killing Americans.
American forces have now destroyed some 300,000 tons of munitions. Yet the troops on the ground still complain that the old regime's supply depots remain woefully underguarded. Nobody knows how long it will take to dispose of known stockpiles — American military estimates range from one year to 10. And then there are the unaccounted stashes, which, based on Iraqi documents, are thought to contain hundreds of surface-to-air missiles, tens of thousands of bombs and half a million pounds of C-4 plastic explosive.
There simply aren't enough technical experts to do the job in Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan). With the handover of sovereignty fast approaching, concern is rising that today's well-armed insurgency will become all-out civil war. American authorities may not be able to eliminate simmering hatreds, but it's still within their power to reduce the numbers of bombs and bullets available to all sides.
Evan Wright is the author of "Generation Kill," about a Marine platoon in combat in Iraq.
The Plain Truth
Bush hasn't the intellectual curiosity to seek out the truth. Here's from a NY TIMES editorial:
It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.
Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.
Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.
Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. Last September, Mr. Bush had to grudgingly correct Mr. Cheney for going too far in spinning a Hussein-bin Laden conspiracy. But the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.
On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.
The staff report issued by the 9/11 panel says that Sudan's government, which sheltered Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's, tried to hook him up with Mr. Hussein, but that nothing came of it.
This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough. The war on terror has actually suffered as the conflict in Iraq has diverted military and intelligence resources from places like Afghanistan, where there could really be Qaeda forces, including Mr. bin Laden.
Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.
It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.
Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.
Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.
Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. Last September, Mr. Bush had to grudgingly correct Mr. Cheney for going too far in spinning a Hussein-bin Laden conspiracy. But the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.
On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.
The staff report issued by the 9/11 panel says that Sudan's government, which sheltered Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's, tried to hook him up with Mr. Hussein, but that nothing came of it.
This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough. The war on terror has actually suffered as the conflict in Iraq has diverted military and intelligence resources from places like Afghanistan, where there could really be Qaeda forces, including Mr. bin Laden.
Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.
With 9/11 Report, Bush's Political Thorn Grows More Stubborn
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON, June 16 - The bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks further called into question on Wednesday one of President Bush's rationales for the war with Iraq, and again put him on the defensive over an issue the White House was once confident would be a political plus.
In questioning the extent of any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bush's justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.
Banned biological and chemical weapons: none yet found. Percentage of Iraqis who view American-led forces as liberators: 2, according to a poll commissioned last month by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Number of possible Al Qaeda associates known to have been in Iraq in recent years: one, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy.
That is the difficult reality Mr. Bush faces 15 months after ordering the invasion of Iraq, and less than five months before he faces the voters at home. The commission's latest findings fueled fresh partisan attacks on his credibility and handling of the war, attacks that now seem unlikely to be silenced even if the return of sovereignty to the Iraqis comes off successfully in two weeks.
Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, was quick to seize on the commission's report to reprise his contention that Mr. Bush "misled" the American people about the need for the war. Even some independent-minded members of Mr. Bush's own party said they sensed danger.
"The problem the administration has is that the predicates it laid down for the war have not played out," said Warren B. Rudman, the former Republican senator from New Hampshire, who has extensive experience in assessing intelligence about terrorism. "That could spell political trouble for the president, there's no question."
Mr. Bush has said that he knows of no direct involvement by Mr. Hussein and his government in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But the president has repeatedly asserted that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a position he stuck to on Tuesday when he was asked about Vice President Dick Cheney's statement a day earlier that Mr. Hussein had "long-established ties with Al Qaeda."
Mr. Bush pointed specifically on Tuesday to the presence in Iraq of Mr. Zarqawi, a Jordanian jihadist who sought help from Al Qaeda in waging the anti-American insurgency after the fall of Mr. Hussein, and who has been implicated by American intelligence officials in the killing of Nicholas Berg, the 26-year-old American who was beheaded by militants in Iraq in March.
The White House said Wednesday that there was a distinction between Mr. Bush's position and the commission's determination that Iraq did not cooperate with Al Qaeda on attacks on the United States.
The commission's report did not specifically address that distinction or Mr. Zarqawi's role. It found that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in 1994, but that Iraq never responded to Mr. bin Laden's subsequent request for space to set up training camps and help in buying weapons. It said there were reports of later contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
It quoted two senior associates of Mr. bin Laden denying adamantly "that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq." It concluded that there never was a meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence officer and Mohammed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers; in an interview with National Public Radio in January, Mr. Cheney cited intelligence reports about the possibility of such a meeting in asserting that there was not confirmation "one way or another" about links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Democratic strategists said there was now no question that Mr. Bush would be dogged through the rest of the campaign by questions about whether the war was necessary, justified and sufficiently well planned. But Mr. Bush's supporters said that in political terms, the amazing thing was how well he had weathered the problems thrown at him by Iraq.
"If you look at the last eight months at the White House and in particular the last 90 days, I've never seen more negative stories come out in a concentrated period," said Sig Rogich, a veteran Republican advertising consultant and fund-raiser. "Yet despite all that, the president is still even with John Kerry or, if you count the Electoral College votes in the battleground states, ahead. Then there's a creeping plus for George Bush, which is that the economy is taking off."
James M. Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations, who studies the interplay between foreign policy and domestic politics, said the issue now was less whether Mr. Bush was wrong in asserting a tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda than whether he could stabilize Iraq and show progress in bringing American forces home.
"Does the commission's finding make it easier for the Democrats to say, Look, the administration got it wrong?" Mr. Lindsay said. "The answer is yes. But the bigger question for the administration is whether it can succeed in getting Iraq to be stable. If it does that it will largely neutralize the threat the Iraq issue poses to the president's re-election."
The commission's findings were the latest in a string of Iraq-related developments this year that have kept Mr. Bush's campaign on the defensive, helping Mr. Kerry during a period when the White House's political strategy had hoped he would be especially vulnerable.
The official White House strategy for Wednesday may have been to deny any real differences with the commission. But on this day as on many others recently, its real goal appeared to be to stick a bandage on whatever wound it might have suffered, keep moving toward June 30, when the United States will return sovereignty to the Iraqis, and then bank on its ability to redefine the election on terms more favorable to Mr. Bush.
In one indication of the White House's doggedness, Mr. Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, held a conference call with reporters about the same time the commission was delivering its description of the Sept. 11 plot. His topic: the economy.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
The Serious Implications Of President Bush's Hiring A Personal Outside Counsel For The Valerie Plame Investigation
The Serious Implications Of President Bush's Hiring A Personal Outside Counsel For The Valerie Plame Investigation
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jun. 04, 2004
Recently, the White House acknowledged that President Bush is talking with, and considering hiring, a non-government attorney, James E. Sharp . Sharp is being consulted, and may be retained, regarding the current grand jury investigation of the leak revealing the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA covert operative.
(Plame is the wife of Bush critic and former ambassador Joe Wilson; I discussed the leak itself in a prior column , and then discussed further developments in the investigation in a follow-up column .)
This action by Bush is a rather stunning and extraordinary development. The President of the United States is potentially hiring a private criminal defense lawyer . Unsurprisingly, the White House is doing all it can to bury the story, providing precious little detail or context for the President's action.
According to the Los Angeles Times , Bush explained his action by saying, "This is a criminal matter. It's a serious matter," but he gave no further specifics. White House officials, too, would not say exactly what prompted Bush to seek the outside advice, or whether he had been asked to appear before the grand jury.
Nonetheless, Bush's action, in itself, says a great deal. In this column, I will analyze what its implications may be.
The Valerie Plame Grand Jury Investigation
The Plame investigation took a quantum leap in December 2003, when Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself. Ashcroft's deputy appointed a special counsel, who has powers and authority tantamount to those of the attorney general himself. That means, in practice, that Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States Attorney from Chicago , does not report to the Justice Department regarding his investigation. (In this sense, Fitzgerald's position is similar to that of an Independent Counsel under the now-defunct independent counsel statute.)
Those familiar with Fitzgerald's inquiry tell me that the investigative team of attorneys is principally from his office in Chicago , and that they do not really know their way around the workings of Washington . This has resulted in an investigation that is being handled Chicago-style - not D.C.-style. That's significant because in Washington , there is more of a courtesy and protocol toward power than exists in the Windy City .
The Fitzgerald investigation has not made friends with the Washington press corps, many of whom are being subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. Those journalists with whom I have spoken say they are not willing appeared before any grand jury to reveal their sources. So this issue is headed toward a showdown. And under existing law, a journalist cannot refuse to provide information to a grand jury.
Nor, based on the few existing precedents, can a sitting president refuse to give testimony to a grand jury. And that appears to be the broad, underlying reason Bush is talking with Washington attorney James Sharp.
Reasons the Plame Grand Jury May Want Bush's Testimony
Why might the grand jury wish to hear Bush's testimony? Most of the possible answers are not favorable for Bush.
There is, of course, one totally benign way to view the situation. "It is hard for me to imagine that Pat Fitzgerald is going to be going aggressively after the president," one Washington lawyer told the Los Angeles Times . "My guess is that he feels a need to conduct an interview because he needs to be in a position to say, 'I have done everything that could be done.'" The lawyer added, "If [Fitzgerald] closes the case without an indictment and has not interviewed the president, he is going to be criticized."
But from what I have learned from those who have been quizzed by the Fitzgerald investigators it seems unlikely that they are interviewing the President merely as a matter of completeness, or in order to be able to defend their actions in front of the public. Asking a President to testify - or even be interviewed - remains a serious, sensitive and rare occasion. It is not done lightly. Doing so raises separation of powers concerns that continue to worry many.
Instead, it seems the investigators are seeking to connect up with, and then speak with, persons who have links to and from the leaked information - and those persons, it seems, probably include the President. (I should stress, however, that I do not have access to grand jury testimony, and that grand jury proceedings are secret. But the facts that are properly public do allow some inference and commentary about what likely is occurring in the grand jury.)
Undoubtedly, those from the White House have been asked if they spoke with the president about the leak. It appears that one or more of them may indeed have done so. .
If so - and if the person revealed the leaker's identity to the President, or if the President decided he preferred not to know the leaker's identity. -- then this fact could conflict with Bush's remarkably broad public statements on the issue. He has said that he did not know of "anybody in [his] administration who leaked classified information." He has also said that he wanted "to know the truth" about this leak.
If Bush is called before the grand jury, it is likely because Fitzgerald believes that he knows much more about this leak than he has stated publicly.
Perhaps Bush may have knowledge not only of the leaker, but also of efforts to make this issue go away - if indeed there have been any. It is remarkably easy to obstruct justice, and this matter has been under various phases of an investigation by the Justice Department since it was referred by the CIA last summer.
It seems very possible the leaker - or leakers, for two government sources were initially cited by columnist Robert Novak -- may have panicked, covered up his (or their) illegality, and in doing so, committed further crimes. If so, did the President hear of it? Was he willfully blind? Was he himself the victim of a cover-up by underlings? The grand jury may be interested in any or all of these possibilities.
Bush Needs An Outside Attorney To Maintain Attorney-Client Privilege
Readers may wonder, why is Bush going to an outside counsel, when numerous government attorneys are available to him - for instance, in the White House Counsel's Office ?
The answer is that the President has likely been told it would be risky to talk to his White House lawyers, particularly if he knows more than he claims publicly.
Ironically, it was the fair-haired Republican stalwart Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr who decimated the attorney-client privilege for government lawyers and their clients - which, to paraphrase the authority Wigmore, applies when legal advice of any kind is sought by a client from a professional legal adviser, where the advice is sought in confidence.
The reason the privilege was created was to insure open and candid discussion between a lawyer and his or her client. It traditionally applied in both civil and criminal situations for government lawyers, just as it did for non-government lawyers. It applied to written records of communications, such as attorney's notes, as well as to the communications themselves.
But Starr tried to thwart that tradition in two different cases, before two federal appeals courts. There, he contended that there should be no such privilege in criminal cases involving government lawyers.
In the first case, In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum , former First Lady Hillary Clinton had spoken with her private counsel in the presence of White House counsel (who had made notes of the conversation). Starr wanted the notes. Hillary Clinton claimed the privilege.
A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with Starr. The court held that a grand jury was entitled to the information. It also held that government officials -- even when serving as attorneys -- had a special obligation to provide incriminating information in their possession.
In the second case, In re Lindsey , Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey refused to testify about his knowledge of President Clinton's relationship to Monica Lewinsky, based on attorney-client privilege. Starr sought to compel Lindsey's testimony, and he won again.
This time, Starr persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to follow the Eighth Circuit. The court ruled that exposure of wrongdoing by government lawyers fostered democracy, as "openness in government has always been thought crucial to ensuring that the people remain in control of their government."
Based on these precedents, President Bush has almost certainly been told that the only way he can discuss his potential testimony with a lawyer is by hiring one outside the government.
What Might a Private Attorney Advise Bush to Do?
It is possible that Bush is consulting Sharp only out of an excess of caution - despite the fact that he knows nothing of the leak, or of any possible coverup of the leak. But that's not likely.
On this subject, I spoke with an experienced former federal prosecutor who works in Washington , specializing in white collar criminal defense (but who does not know Sharp). That attorney told me that he is baffled by Bush's move - unless Bush has knowledge of the leak. "It would not seem that the President needs to consult personal counsel, thereby preserving the attorney-client privilege, if he has no knowledge about the leak," he told me.
What advice might Bush get from a private defense counsel? The lawyer I consulted opined that, "If he does have knowledge about the leak and does not plan to disclose it, the only good legaladvice would be to take the Fifth, rather than lie. The political fallout is a separate issue."
I raised the issue of whether the President might be able to invoke executive privilege as to this information. But the attorney I consulted - who is well versed in this area of law -- opined that "Neither 'outing' Plame, nor covering for the perpetrators would seem to fall within the scope of any executive privilege that I am aware of."
That may not stop Bush from trying to invoke executive privilege, however - or at least from talking to his attorney about the option. As I have discussed in one of my prior columns , Vice President Dick Cheney has tried to avoid invoking it in implausible circumstances - in the case that is now before the U.S .Supreme Court. Rather he claims he is beyond the need for the privilege, and simply cannot be sued.
Suffice it to say that whatever the meaning of Bush's decision to talk with private counsel about the Valerie Plame leak, the matter has taken a more ominous turn with Bush's action. It has only become more portentous because now Dick Cheney has also hired a lawyer for himself, suggesting both men may have known more than they let on. Clearly, the investigation is heading toward a culmination of some sort. And it should be interesting.
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the President.
HALLIBURTON...
From the excellent CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS:
HALLIBURTON
Play Contractopoly
Last September, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on national television and denied that he had any advance knowledge of or involvement in lucrative government contracts given to his former employer, Halliburton. Cheney said, "I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government." But Cheney wasn't telling the truth. In a letter to the vice president on Sunday, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) reveals that the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby "was briefed in October 2002 about the proposal to issue the November 11 task order [contract] to Halliburton." Earlier this month, Time Magazine unearthed an e-mail which indicates that a $7 billion no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton on March 8, 2003 was "coordinated" with Cheney's office. Pentagon officials now acknowledge that Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith discussed the March 2003 Halliburton contract in advance with Cheney's office. But don't let Dick Cheney have all the fun. Check out Contractopoly – the new interactive game from American Progress that lets you win billions in sweetheart deals from the Bush administration as you rebuild Iraq.
HALLIBURTON CONTRACTS AWARDED BY POLITICAL APPOINTEES: Feith, a political appointee, was given ultimate responsibility to award the 2002 "task order" contract. Ordinarily, contracting officers, not political appointees, make those decisions "to avoid any appearance of political influence in the outcome." Steven L. Schooner, a government contracting expert at George Washington University Law School, said, "The suggestion that political appointees would be directing that type of investigation does not seem consistent with maintaining the appearance of propriety."
PENTAGON AUDITORS SAY HALLIBURTON RIPS OFF TAXPAYERS: An audit conducted by the Pentagon found "wide-spread deficiencies in the way Halliburton tracks billions of dollars of government contracts in Iraq and Kuwait, leading to 'significant' overcharges." According to the auditors, Halliburton failed "to follow the company's internal procedures or even to determine whether subcontractors had performed work." Earlier audits revealed Halliburton overcharged $27 million for meals and $61 million for gasoline.
HALLIBURTON EMPLOYEES SAY HALLIBURTON RIPS OFF TAXPAYERS: Several former Halliburton employees "issued signed statements charging that the company routinely wasted money." According to David Wilson and James Warren, both of whom worked for Halliburton, "brand new $85,000 trucks were abandoned or 'torched' if they got a flat tire or experienced minor mechanical problems." Former Halliburton logistics specialist Marie deYoung has documentation proving "Halliburton paid $45 per case of soda and $100 per 15-pound bag of laundry." According to deYoung, "Halliburton did not comply with the Army's request to move Halliburton employees from a five-star hotel in Kuwait, where it costs taxpayers approximately $10,000 per day to house the employees." Michael West, who worked as a foreman for Halliburton, said "he and other employees spent weeks in Iraq with virtually nothing to do, but were instructed to bill 12-hour days for 7 days a week on their timesheets." Want more? Here's a long look at Halliburton and its numerous transgressions.
TELL TOM DAVIS TO STOP COVERING UP THE FACTS: Despite the gravity of the allegations by the Halliburton employees, House Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA) has refused to allow them to testify under oath during the committee's hearing on government contracting today. Davis claims that "the committee staff needs more time to investigate their allegations." But Waxman notes that, in the past, "promises to investigate in the future have served to deflect criticism of the committee's inaction, but the actual investigations have not been pursued as vigorously as the circumstances warrant." E-mail Tom Davis at tom.davis@mail.house.gov and tell him to let the former Halliburton employees speak.
MEDICARE
Hold On To Your Teeth, Gladys
President Bush traveled to Liberty, MO, on the tax-payer's dime yesterday in an effort to promote the beleaguered prescription drug card program. Attempting to sidestep criticism, he offered up a couple of seniors to tout the program, including Gladys Cole, who said, "I about dropped my false teeth" after learning about the program. Hold on to your teeth, Gladys; the messy drug card program is riddled with confusing details and features which do more to protect corporate interests than the medical needs of seniors. Even President Bush acknowledged the program was troubled; a move surprising in an administration loath to admit mistakes, he admitted there were concerns with his prescription drug program, saying, "we've got some problems."
THE PROBLEMS: In short, these are some of the top problems to which the president may have been referring: a) After signing up for a card, seniors are locked into it, while the drug companies are allowed to change prices as often as once a week; b) instead of acting to keep companies from changing benefits frequently, the White House is crossing its fingers. Leslie Norwalk, who oversees the drug program, said, "I suspect it may [happen] but I hope not often." Many of these companies the administration has decided to trust have been charged at the federal and/or state level with fraud; c) studies show seniors can find cheaper drugs without using the cards; d) the system is confusing, with 73 different cards all covering different medications and constantly changing benefits; e) drug card companies have already begun jacking up prices to offset the discount; and f) the complicated system provides an ideal atmosphere for fraud, as unscrupulous con artists can manipulate the confusion to swindle seniors.
SENIORS AREN'T BUYING IT: Most seniors are reacting to the drug cards with apathy. The White House predicted that 7 million people would sign up for a card by December 2004. The LA Times, however, writes, "Faced with confusing red tape and an array of choices, only about 3.3 million of Medicare's 42 million beneficiaries have enrolled in the program." Of those, "fewer than one-third of them have deliberately signed up; the rest were enrolled automatically by private health plans to which they belong." According to AARP spokesman Steve Hahn, "People are having a tough time…They are a bit confused, and they are getting overwhelmed with information." While about 49,000 people have contacted AARP to request information about [AARP's] card, only 5,900 have actually signed up.
DRUGS OR FOOD?: One egregious aspect of the prescription drug cards was overturned late last week. Under Agriculture Department policy, poor seniors who signed up for the Medicare prescription drug card and the $600 credit could lose their food stamps. A memo last March underscored this, saying food stamp recipients "may not claim a medical deduction for the cost of any prescriptions they receive free through use of the card." The White House revised this policy Friday, saying, "New benefits … cannot take away any existing federal benefits."
REIMPORTATION STEPS: The Medicare bill, under the influence of the powerful prescription drug lobby, blocked Medicare from using bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prices from the pharmaceutical companies. (The huge advantages in savings have been detailed by American Progress.) At the same time, the administration has resisted allowing seniors to import less-expensive medications from Canada. Yesterday, however, a bill to allow prescription drug imports narrowly cleared the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on agriculture. The new proposal "would prevent the FDA from spending funds to bar imports such as those from Canada."
HALLIBURTON
Play Contractopoly
Last September, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on national television and denied that he had any advance knowledge of or involvement in lucrative government contracts given to his former employer, Halliburton. Cheney said, "I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government." But Cheney wasn't telling the truth. In a letter to the vice president on Sunday, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) reveals that the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby "was briefed in October 2002 about the proposal to issue the November 11 task order [contract] to Halliburton." Earlier this month, Time Magazine unearthed an e-mail which indicates that a $7 billion no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton on March 8, 2003 was "coordinated" with Cheney's office. Pentagon officials now acknowledge that Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith discussed the March 2003 Halliburton contract in advance with Cheney's office. But don't let Dick Cheney have all the fun. Check out Contractopoly – the new interactive game from American Progress that lets you win billions in sweetheart deals from the Bush administration as you rebuild Iraq.
HALLIBURTON CONTRACTS AWARDED BY POLITICAL APPOINTEES: Feith, a political appointee, was given ultimate responsibility to award the 2002 "task order" contract. Ordinarily, contracting officers, not political appointees, make those decisions "to avoid any appearance of political influence in the outcome." Steven L. Schooner, a government contracting expert at George Washington University Law School, said, "The suggestion that political appointees would be directing that type of investigation does not seem consistent with maintaining the appearance of propriety."
PENTAGON AUDITORS SAY HALLIBURTON RIPS OFF TAXPAYERS: An audit conducted by the Pentagon found "wide-spread deficiencies in the way Halliburton tracks billions of dollars of government contracts in Iraq and Kuwait, leading to 'significant' overcharges." According to the auditors, Halliburton failed "to follow the company's internal procedures or even to determine whether subcontractors had performed work." Earlier audits revealed Halliburton overcharged $27 million for meals and $61 million for gasoline.
HALLIBURTON EMPLOYEES SAY HALLIBURTON RIPS OFF TAXPAYERS: Several former Halliburton employees "issued signed statements charging that the company routinely wasted money." According to David Wilson and James Warren, both of whom worked for Halliburton, "brand new $85,000 trucks were abandoned or 'torched' if they got a flat tire or experienced minor mechanical problems." Former Halliburton logistics specialist Marie deYoung has documentation proving "Halliburton paid $45 per case of soda and $100 per 15-pound bag of laundry." According to deYoung, "Halliburton did not comply with the Army's request to move Halliburton employees from a five-star hotel in Kuwait, where it costs taxpayers approximately $10,000 per day to house the employees." Michael West, who worked as a foreman for Halliburton, said "he and other employees spent weeks in Iraq with virtually nothing to do, but were instructed to bill 12-hour days for 7 days a week on their timesheets." Want more? Here's a long look at Halliburton and its numerous transgressions.
TELL TOM DAVIS TO STOP COVERING UP THE FACTS: Despite the gravity of the allegations by the Halliburton employees, House Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA) has refused to allow them to testify under oath during the committee's hearing on government contracting today. Davis claims that "the committee staff needs more time to investigate their allegations." But Waxman notes that, in the past, "promises to investigate in the future have served to deflect criticism of the committee's inaction, but the actual investigations have not been pursued as vigorously as the circumstances warrant." E-mail Tom Davis at tom.davis@mail.house.gov and tell him to let the former Halliburton employees speak.
MEDICARE
Hold On To Your Teeth, Gladys
President Bush traveled to Liberty, MO, on the tax-payer's dime yesterday in an effort to promote the beleaguered prescription drug card program. Attempting to sidestep criticism, he offered up a couple of seniors to tout the program, including Gladys Cole, who said, "I about dropped my false teeth" after learning about the program. Hold on to your teeth, Gladys; the messy drug card program is riddled with confusing details and features which do more to protect corporate interests than the medical needs of seniors. Even President Bush acknowledged the program was troubled; a move surprising in an administration loath to admit mistakes, he admitted there were concerns with his prescription drug program, saying, "we've got some problems."
THE PROBLEMS: In short, these are some of the top problems to which the president may have been referring: a) After signing up for a card, seniors are locked into it, while the drug companies are allowed to change prices as often as once a week; b) instead of acting to keep companies from changing benefits frequently, the White House is crossing its fingers. Leslie Norwalk, who oversees the drug program, said, "I suspect it may [happen] but I hope not often." Many of these companies the administration has decided to trust have been charged at the federal and/or state level with fraud; c) studies show seniors can find cheaper drugs without using the cards; d) the system is confusing, with 73 different cards all covering different medications and constantly changing benefits; e) drug card companies have already begun jacking up prices to offset the discount; and f) the complicated system provides an ideal atmosphere for fraud, as unscrupulous con artists can manipulate the confusion to swindle seniors.
SENIORS AREN'T BUYING IT: Most seniors are reacting to the drug cards with apathy. The White House predicted that 7 million people would sign up for a card by December 2004. The LA Times, however, writes, "Faced with confusing red tape and an array of choices, only about 3.3 million of Medicare's 42 million beneficiaries have enrolled in the program." Of those, "fewer than one-third of them have deliberately signed up; the rest were enrolled automatically by private health plans to which they belong." According to AARP spokesman Steve Hahn, "People are having a tough time…They are a bit confused, and they are getting overwhelmed with information." While about 49,000 people have contacted AARP to request information about [AARP's] card, only 5,900 have actually signed up.
DRUGS OR FOOD?: One egregious aspect of the prescription drug cards was overturned late last week. Under Agriculture Department policy, poor seniors who signed up for the Medicare prescription drug card and the $600 credit could lose their food stamps. A memo last March underscored this, saying food stamp recipients "may not claim a medical deduction for the cost of any prescriptions they receive free through use of the card." The White House revised this policy Friday, saying, "New benefits … cannot take away any existing federal benefits."
REIMPORTATION STEPS: The Medicare bill, under the influence of the powerful prescription drug lobby, blocked Medicare from using bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prices from the pharmaceutical companies. (The huge advantages in savings have been detailed by American Progress.) At the same time, the administration has resisted allowing seniors to import less-expensive medications from Canada. Yesterday, however, a bill to allow prescription drug imports narrowly cleared the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on agriculture. The new proposal "would prevent the FDA from spending funds to bar imports such as those from Canada."
Top Senate Democrat wants probe of Halliburton
The Halliburton fraud and waste was rampant in Iraq. And Cheney, who has had his fingers in EVERYTHING, claims to be "out of the loop" (remember when Bush I claimed that about Iran/Contra?) on dealings for his old company which still pays him MILLIONS OF DOLLARS (how the hell is that possible?!!!!!!).
This kind of corruption can not stand. Support John Kerry for president and wash these criminally immoral creeps into the gutter where they belong this November.
Top Senate Democrat wants probe of Halliburton
Tue Jun 15, 7:00 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The leader of Senate Democrats called Tuesday for a probe of energy behemoth Halliburton, which he accused of "outrageous" billing of the US government for services in Iraq.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said at a press conference that he was "absolutely appalled" at alleged excessive billing and profligate spending by Halliburton.
"In a couple of instances, rather than fix what appears to be relatively minor repairs on 85,000 dollar trucks, they destroyed them and simply went out and bought a new truck," Daschle said.
In another incident, "they had a 10,000 dollar hotel bill in Kuwait when they could have had a room for 600 dollars ... in another hotel," Daschle said.
"These are examples of the outrageous behavior of people who see no need for accountability, and it's why it's so critical for us to insist on adequate oversight, insist that we pressure Halliburton for answers. And so far, we just have not received them."
The energy company, which already is being investigated by the US government for allegedly overcharging the military for fuel delivered to Iraq, recently became the subject of a probe into whether a Halliburton joint venture broke US anti-bribery laws to win construction contracts for a gas plant in Nigeria.
Critics also have called for an investigation into the legality of a multibillion-dollar no-bid oil deal awarded to Halliburton. Time Magazine earlier this month cited an internal Pentagon e-mail indicating that a top defense official was tasked with shepherding the contract, which faced no competing bids. There were questions as to whether Vice President Dick Cheney facilitated the contract.
Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive officer between 1995 and 2000.
This kind of corruption can not stand. Support John Kerry for president and wash these criminally immoral creeps into the gutter where they belong this November.
Top Senate Democrat wants probe of Halliburton
Tue Jun 15, 7:00 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The leader of Senate Democrats called Tuesday for a probe of energy behemoth Halliburton, which he accused of "outrageous" billing of the US government for services in Iraq.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said at a press conference that he was "absolutely appalled" at alleged excessive billing and profligate spending by Halliburton.
"In a couple of instances, rather than fix what appears to be relatively minor repairs on 85,000 dollar trucks, they destroyed them and simply went out and bought a new truck," Daschle said.
In another incident, "they had a 10,000 dollar hotel bill in Kuwait when they could have had a room for 600 dollars ... in another hotel," Daschle said.
"These are examples of the outrageous behavior of people who see no need for accountability, and it's why it's so critical for us to insist on adequate oversight, insist that we pressure Halliburton for answers. And so far, we just have not received them."
The energy company, which already is being investigated by the US government for allegedly overcharging the military for fuel delivered to Iraq, recently became the subject of a probe into whether a Halliburton joint venture broke US anti-bribery laws to win construction contracts for a gas plant in Nigeria.
Critics also have called for an investigation into the legality of a multibillion-dollar no-bid oil deal awarded to Halliburton. Time Magazine earlier this month cited an internal Pentagon e-mail indicating that a top defense official was tasked with shepherding the contract, which faced no competing bids. There were questions as to whether Vice President Dick Cheney facilitated the contract.
Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive officer between 1995 and 2000.
Report Singles Out Halliburton in Iraq Mismanagement
The fraud, manipulation and waste combined with the inept planning is beyond contempt. This administration is so corrupt AND with a Vice President that makes profits off the war! Only the John Kerry Broom will do this coming election. Time to sweep these bums out of office and then prosecute them for their criminal acts, negligence and immoral behavior.
Report Singles Out Halliburton in Iraq Mismanagement
Wed Jun 16, 7:55 AM ET
By T. Christian Miller Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon may have wasted billions of dollars in Iraq because of a lack of planning and poor oversight, top congressional and Defense Department investigators said Tuesday.
David M. Walker, head of the General Accounting Office, told a congressional panel that Defense Department planners had failed to determine adequately the needs of U.S. soldiers in Iraq or effectively oversee the billions of dollars' worth of contracts they had issued.
While Pentagon officials defended their efforts by blaming any mistakes on the pressure of the war's early days, the investigators said that they had found ongoing waste in the contracting process a year after the invasion began.
In remarks to reporters, Walker speculated that the total losses due to waste could amount to "billions."
"There are serious problems, they still exist and they are exacerbated in a wartime climate," Walker told members of the House Government Reform Committee, which is charged with preventing waste, fraud and abuse in the government.
Tuesday's testimony by the GAO, Congress' investigative arm, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the Pentagon's auditors, was the most complete picture to date of the U.S. military's decision to pay private contractors billions of dollars to help wage the war and rebuild Iraq.
While much of the contracting was done well, the two agencies said, U.S. military contract managers and the companies they oversaw were frequently overwhelmed by the magnitude of the tasks in Iraq.
The two agencies singled out the contract awarded to Halliburton Co. -- the Houston-based oil services giant that supplies food, housing and other logistics services to the military -- as a particularly egregious example of poor oversight by the government and overcharging by the company.
The U.S. military, for instance, did not develop adequate plans to support its troops in Iraq until May 2003, two months after the invasion, when Halliburton was ordered to supply more dining facilities and housing, a GAO report said. Since then, Halliburton's contract to supply the troops in Kuwait and Iraq has been adjusted by the Army more than 176 times, or more than once every two days.
In addition, at one point reservists with no more than two weeks' training were overseeing the Halliburton contract, said Neal Curtin, the GAO director charged with investigating Halliburton and other companies with logistics contracts. Even now, the Pentagon only has twice as many overseers monitoring contracts in Iraq as it did in Bosnia, though it is spending 15 times as much money.
"What you saw was a real thin layer of oversight capability," Curtin said.
Other U.S. government actions also came under fire Tuesday.
The GAO found that most of the biggest contracts awarded without bidding in the early days of the war were justified by their emergency nature. But in some instances, the investigators said, Pentagon officers "overstepped" their authority by issuing billion-dollar jobs under existing contracts, without putting the work out to bid as required by law.
Pentagon procurement officials said significant progress has been made in Iraq, with new bridges, water systems and power stations up and running. But they acknowledged that mistakes were made, especially in the aftermath of the invasion.
"Have we accomplished this tremendous mission without missteps? No, we have not," said Tina Ballard, the Army's head of contracting.
As for Halliburton, which has total contracts in Iraq worth up to $18.2 billion, Pentagon auditors believe that the company has been billing U.S. taxpayers for millions of meals never served to U.S. troops. While Halliburton has objected, the auditors have recommended that the government withhold $186 million in payments until the dispute is settled.
In a related development, the Army recently renegotiated a contract that Halliburton had with a Kuwaiti company to provide meals. By contracting directly with the Kuwaiti company instead of going through Halliburton, the Army knocked 40 percent off the cost of the contract.
"Halliburton is a company whose business base expanded extremely rapidly" after they won contracts for work in Iraq, said Bill Reed, the head of the audit agency. "They were not adequately prepared to keep pace."
The findings by unbiased sources add fuel to Democrats' efforts to draw attention to Halliburton, which was run by Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995 to 2000.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., who as one of Halliburton's fiercest critics has issued more than 35 news releases about the company since last year, demanded that the committee probe more deeply into the links between Halliburton and Cheney.
While the investigators testified that there has been no evidence that Cheney influenced the award of any contracts to his former company, Waxman said more investigation was necessary.
He pointed to recent revelations that a Pentagon political appointee had informed Cheney's chief of staff about a decision that led to a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, winning a $7 billion contract to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure.
"Halliburton is gouging the taxpayer, and the Bush administration doesn't seem to care," Waxman said.
But Halliburton officials defended their actions in Iraq, saying that they "strongly" disagree with the auditors' contention on overbilling for meals.
"We expected there would be attempts before the end of June to deflect attention from the progress being made in Iraq, but we didn't think so much of it would originate here at home," Wendy Hall, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said in a prepared statement. "It is one thing to learn through experience, as we have, that war is difficult, but another to find that critics are using the war for purely political purposes."
Halliburton was not the only company singled out. San Diego-based Titan Corp., which employed two people identified in the investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, also came under fire.
Auditors found that Titan was failing to keep track of its workers' hours and recommended withholding up to $4.9 million from the company's $402 million contract to supply translators to coalition forces in Iraq.
Titan also recently refunded the government $178,000 paid for the services of two workers involved in the prison scandal. Titan officials said that although the company has yet to be informed of problems, it made the refund in case the government investigation turns up wrongdoing.
"We don't know what the investigation will entail, so we took the measure to be conservative," said Ralph "Wil" Williams, a Titan spokesman.
Report Singles Out Halliburton in Iraq Mismanagement
Wed Jun 16, 7:55 AM ET
By T. Christian Miller Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon may have wasted billions of dollars in Iraq because of a lack of planning and poor oversight, top congressional and Defense Department investigators said Tuesday.
David M. Walker, head of the General Accounting Office, told a congressional panel that Defense Department planners had failed to determine adequately the needs of U.S. soldiers in Iraq or effectively oversee the billions of dollars' worth of contracts they had issued.
While Pentagon officials defended their efforts by blaming any mistakes on the pressure of the war's early days, the investigators said that they had found ongoing waste in the contracting process a year after the invasion began.
In remarks to reporters, Walker speculated that the total losses due to waste could amount to "billions."
"There are serious problems, they still exist and they are exacerbated in a wartime climate," Walker told members of the House Government Reform Committee, which is charged with preventing waste, fraud and abuse in the government.
Tuesday's testimony by the GAO, Congress' investigative arm, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the Pentagon's auditors, was the most complete picture to date of the U.S. military's decision to pay private contractors billions of dollars to help wage the war and rebuild Iraq.
While much of the contracting was done well, the two agencies said, U.S. military contract managers and the companies they oversaw were frequently overwhelmed by the magnitude of the tasks in Iraq.
The two agencies singled out the contract awarded to Halliburton Co. -- the Houston-based oil services giant that supplies food, housing and other logistics services to the military -- as a particularly egregious example of poor oversight by the government and overcharging by the company.
The U.S. military, for instance, did not develop adequate plans to support its troops in Iraq until May 2003, two months after the invasion, when Halliburton was ordered to supply more dining facilities and housing, a GAO report said. Since then, Halliburton's contract to supply the troops in Kuwait and Iraq has been adjusted by the Army more than 176 times, or more than once every two days.
In addition, at one point reservists with no more than two weeks' training were overseeing the Halliburton contract, said Neal Curtin, the GAO director charged with investigating Halliburton and other companies with logistics contracts. Even now, the Pentagon only has twice as many overseers monitoring contracts in Iraq as it did in Bosnia, though it is spending 15 times as much money.
"What you saw was a real thin layer of oversight capability," Curtin said.
Other U.S. government actions also came under fire Tuesday.
The GAO found that most of the biggest contracts awarded without bidding in the early days of the war were justified by their emergency nature. But in some instances, the investigators said, Pentagon officers "overstepped" their authority by issuing billion-dollar jobs under existing contracts, without putting the work out to bid as required by law.
Pentagon procurement officials said significant progress has been made in Iraq, with new bridges, water systems and power stations up and running. But they acknowledged that mistakes were made, especially in the aftermath of the invasion.
"Have we accomplished this tremendous mission without missteps? No, we have not," said Tina Ballard, the Army's head of contracting.
As for Halliburton, which has total contracts in Iraq worth up to $18.2 billion, Pentagon auditors believe that the company has been billing U.S. taxpayers for millions of meals never served to U.S. troops. While Halliburton has objected, the auditors have recommended that the government withhold $186 million in payments until the dispute is settled.
In a related development, the Army recently renegotiated a contract that Halliburton had with a Kuwaiti company to provide meals. By contracting directly with the Kuwaiti company instead of going through Halliburton, the Army knocked 40 percent off the cost of the contract.
"Halliburton is a company whose business base expanded extremely rapidly" after they won contracts for work in Iraq, said Bill Reed, the head of the audit agency. "They were not adequately prepared to keep pace."
The findings by unbiased sources add fuel to Democrats' efforts to draw attention to Halliburton, which was run by Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995 to 2000.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., who as one of Halliburton's fiercest critics has issued more than 35 news releases about the company since last year, demanded that the committee probe more deeply into the links between Halliburton and Cheney.
While the investigators testified that there has been no evidence that Cheney influenced the award of any contracts to his former company, Waxman said more investigation was necessary.
He pointed to recent revelations that a Pentagon political appointee had informed Cheney's chief of staff about a decision that led to a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, winning a $7 billion contract to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure.
"Halliburton is gouging the taxpayer, and the Bush administration doesn't seem to care," Waxman said.
But Halliburton officials defended their actions in Iraq, saying that they "strongly" disagree with the auditors' contention on overbilling for meals.
"We expected there would be attempts before the end of June to deflect attention from the progress being made in Iraq, but we didn't think so much of it would originate here at home," Wendy Hall, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said in a prepared statement. "It is one thing to learn through experience, as we have, that war is difficult, but another to find that critics are using the war for purely political purposes."
Halliburton was not the only company singled out. San Diego-based Titan Corp., which employed two people identified in the investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, also came under fire.
Auditors found that Titan was failing to keep track of its workers' hours and recommended withholding up to $4.9 million from the company's $402 million contract to supply translators to coalition forces in Iraq.
Titan also recently refunded the government $178,000 paid for the services of two workers involved in the prison scandal. Titan officials said that although the company has yet to be informed of problems, it made the refund in case the government investigation turns up wrongdoing.
"We don't know what the investigation will entail, so we took the measure to be conservative," said Ralph "Wil" Williams, a Titan spokesman.
9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden
The 9/11 panel has looked at all the evidence. There were no links between Hussein and Al Qaida. Dick Cheney pressured the CIA to manipulate false evidence of Iraqi ties to Bin Laden to boster their argument to invade Iraq. Someone out of the White House committed treason to expose a CIA agent that pointed out their political lies about this manipulation. Cheney is worse than Bin Laden as he and Halliburton have directly profited from the war. IMHO Dick Cheney IS the Great Satan.
9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.
In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were "apparently quite good." Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to "think creatively about ways to commit mass murder," it added.
Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan (news - web sites) and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.
While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship."
The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq (news - web sites).
On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator "had long established ties with al-Qaida."
The bipartisan commission issued its findings as it embarked on two days of public hearings into the worst terrorist attacks in American history.
The panel intends to issue a final report in July on the hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001 that killed nearly 3,000, destroyed the World Trade Centers in New York and damaged the Pentagon outside Washington. A fourth plane commandeered by terrorists crashed in the countryside in Pennsylvania.
The staff report pieced together information on the development of bin Laden's network, from the far-flung training camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to funding from "well-placed financial facilitators and diversions of funds from Islamic charities."
Reports that bin Laden had a huge personal fortune to finance acts of terror are overstated, the report said.
The description of the training camp operations contained elements of faint, grudging praise.
"A worldwide jihad needed terrorists who could bomb embassies or hijack airliners, but it also needed foot soldiers for the Taliban in its war against the Northern Alliance, and guerrillas who could shoot down Russian helicopters in Chechnya or ambush Indian units in Kashmir," it said.
According to one unnamed senior al-Qaida associate, various ideas were floated by mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the commission said. The options included taking over a launcher and forcing Russian scientists to fire a nuclear missile at the United States, mounting mustard gas or cyanide attacks against Jewish areas in Iraq or releasing poison gas into the air conditioning system of a targeted building.
"Last but not least, hijacking an aircraft and crashing it into an airport or nearby city," it said.
The Iraq connection long suggested by administration officials gained no currency in the report.
"Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded," the report said. "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred" after bin Laden moved his operations to Afghanistan in 1996, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," it said.
"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq," the report said.
In a separate report, the commission staff said that senior al-Qaida planner Khalid Shaihk Mohammed initially proposed a Sept. 11 attack involving 10 planes. An expanded target list included the CIA and FBI headquarters, unidentified nuclear plants and tall buildings in California and Washington state.
That ambitious plan was rejected by bin Laden, who ultimately approved a scaled-back mission involving four planes, the report said. Mohammed wanted more hijackers for those planes — 25 or 26, instead of 19.
The commission has identified at least 10 al-Qaida operatives who were to participate but could not take part for reasons including visa problems and suspicion by officials at airports in the United States and overseas.
From a seamless operation, the report portrays a plot riven by internal dissent, including disagreement over whether to target the White House or the Capitol that was apparently never resolved prior to the attacks. Bin Laden also had to overcome opposition to attacking the United States from Mullah Omar, leader of the former Taliban regime, who was under pressure from Pakistan to keep al-Qaida confined.
The United States toppled the regime in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, but Omar has eluded capture, as has al-Qaida.
9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.
In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were "apparently quite good." Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to "think creatively about ways to commit mass murder," it added.
Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan (news - web sites) and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.
While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship."
The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq (news - web sites).
On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator "had long established ties with al-Qaida."
The bipartisan commission issued its findings as it embarked on two days of public hearings into the worst terrorist attacks in American history.
The panel intends to issue a final report in July on the hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001 that killed nearly 3,000, destroyed the World Trade Centers in New York and damaged the Pentagon outside Washington. A fourth plane commandeered by terrorists crashed in the countryside in Pennsylvania.
The staff report pieced together information on the development of bin Laden's network, from the far-flung training camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to funding from "well-placed financial facilitators and diversions of funds from Islamic charities."
Reports that bin Laden had a huge personal fortune to finance acts of terror are overstated, the report said.
The description of the training camp operations contained elements of faint, grudging praise.
"A worldwide jihad needed terrorists who could bomb embassies or hijack airliners, but it also needed foot soldiers for the Taliban in its war against the Northern Alliance, and guerrillas who could shoot down Russian helicopters in Chechnya or ambush Indian units in Kashmir," it said.
According to one unnamed senior al-Qaida associate, various ideas were floated by mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the commission said. The options included taking over a launcher and forcing Russian scientists to fire a nuclear missile at the United States, mounting mustard gas or cyanide attacks against Jewish areas in Iraq or releasing poison gas into the air conditioning system of a targeted building.
"Last but not least, hijacking an aircraft and crashing it into an airport or nearby city," it said.
The Iraq connection long suggested by administration officials gained no currency in the report.
"Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded," the report said. "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred" after bin Laden moved his operations to Afghanistan in 1996, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," it said.
"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq," the report said.
In a separate report, the commission staff said that senior al-Qaida planner Khalid Shaihk Mohammed initially proposed a Sept. 11 attack involving 10 planes. An expanded target list included the CIA and FBI headquarters, unidentified nuclear plants and tall buildings in California and Washington state.
That ambitious plan was rejected by bin Laden, who ultimately approved a scaled-back mission involving four planes, the report said. Mohammed wanted more hijackers for those planes — 25 or 26, instead of 19.
The commission has identified at least 10 al-Qaida operatives who were to participate but could not take part for reasons including visa problems and suspicion by officials at airports in the United States and overseas.
From a seamless operation, the report portrays a plot riven by internal dissent, including disagreement over whether to target the White House or the Capitol that was apparently never resolved prior to the attacks. Bin Laden also had to overcome opposition to attacking the United States from Mullah Omar, leader of the former Taliban regime, who was under pressure from Pakistan to keep al-Qaida confined.
The United States toppled the regime in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, but Omar has eluded capture, as has al-Qaida.
Halliburton, Once Again
There is nothing lower than Halliburton on the planet.
LA TIMES EDITORIAL
Halliburton, Once Again
June 16, 2004
Vice President Dick Cheney's penchant for secrecy has repeatedly thrust him into an embarrassing spotlight. It began with his clandestine energy task force. Now it involves contracts in Iraq for Halliburton Inc., which Cheney ran from 1995 to 2000.
For months, Cheney has denied knowing about a controversial Pentagon contract awarded to Halliburton in 2002. Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 14, Cheney stated that he had not been informed about any Halliburton contracts and that political appointees were not involved with them. But Pentagon officials have acknowledged that Cheney's staff was briefed at least twice by political appointees who awarded Halliburton the contract.
The meetings may have been harmless, a simple notification of how the Pentagon intended to handle the restoration of Iraq's oil facilities after the war. And there is no evidence that Cheney used his influence to get Halliburton the contract. But what makes this more than just another Washington blip is the next chapter, the emergence of six whistle-blowers who have told Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, that Halliburton appears to be fleecing the U.S. Treasury on its cost-plus contracts.
The incentive for the company is strong. Cost-plus means Halliburton gets a set percentage above actual costs, so in general the more it spends, the more it makes.
Five of the whistle-blowers worked directly for Halliburton, and one for a major Halliburton subcontractor. The head of the Government Reform Committee, Tom Davis (R-Va.), refused to allow them to testify in a hearing Tuesday about Iraq and contracting.
David Wilson, a convoy commander for Halliburton, and James Warren, a Halliburton truck driver, stated that new $85,000 Halliburton trucks in Kuwait were "torched" if they got a flat tire. According to Wilson, the company "removed all the spare tires in Kuwait," presumably so the entire truck would have to be replaced after a blowout. In addition, they said, they were instructed not to change the oil on trucks. Warren claims that after he expressed his concerns to Randy Harl, the head of a Halliburton subsidiary, he was fired. Marie deYoung, who worked in the subcontracts department of Halliburton, said the company paid for a laundry service that was so inefficient it cost $100 a bag.
Other evidence suggests this is more than sour grapes from former employees. A May 13 Pentagon audit said Halliburton exercised little control over subcontractors and didn't monitor the costs of contracts. The General Accounting Office has also investigated and found numerous problems.
On Tuesday, Reps. Davis and Waxman made some progress by agreeing that Halliburton executives would be asked to testify to their committee and that the two House members would consult with each other on whether any documents should be subpoenaed. There may be nothing to hide in regard to the execution of the Halliburton contract. Holding open hearings is the way to demonstrate that.
LA TIMES EDITORIAL
Halliburton, Once Again
June 16, 2004
Vice President Dick Cheney's penchant for secrecy has repeatedly thrust him into an embarrassing spotlight. It began with his clandestine energy task force. Now it involves contracts in Iraq for Halliburton Inc., which Cheney ran from 1995 to 2000.
For months, Cheney has denied knowing about a controversial Pentagon contract awarded to Halliburton in 2002. Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 14, Cheney stated that he had not been informed about any Halliburton contracts and that political appointees were not involved with them. But Pentagon officials have acknowledged that Cheney's staff was briefed at least twice by political appointees who awarded Halliburton the contract.
The meetings may have been harmless, a simple notification of how the Pentagon intended to handle the restoration of Iraq's oil facilities after the war. And there is no evidence that Cheney used his influence to get Halliburton the contract. But what makes this more than just another Washington blip is the next chapter, the emergence of six whistle-blowers who have told Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, that Halliburton appears to be fleecing the U.S. Treasury on its cost-plus contracts.
The incentive for the company is strong. Cost-plus means Halliburton gets a set percentage above actual costs, so in general the more it spends, the more it makes.
Five of the whistle-blowers worked directly for Halliburton, and one for a major Halliburton subcontractor. The head of the Government Reform Committee, Tom Davis (R-Va.), refused to allow them to testify in a hearing Tuesday about Iraq and contracting.
David Wilson, a convoy commander for Halliburton, and James Warren, a Halliburton truck driver, stated that new $85,000 Halliburton trucks in Kuwait were "torched" if they got a flat tire. According to Wilson, the company "removed all the spare tires in Kuwait," presumably so the entire truck would have to be replaced after a blowout. In addition, they said, they were instructed not to change the oil on trucks. Warren claims that after he expressed his concerns to Randy Harl, the head of a Halliburton subsidiary, he was fired. Marie deYoung, who worked in the subcontracts department of Halliburton, said the company paid for a laundry service that was so inefficient it cost $100 a bag.
Other evidence suggests this is more than sour grapes from former employees. A May 13 Pentagon audit said Halliburton exercised little control over subcontractors and didn't monitor the costs of contracts. The General Accounting Office has also investigated and found numerous problems.
On Tuesday, Reps. Davis and Waxman made some progress by agreeing that Halliburton executives would be asked to testify to their committee and that the two House members would consult with each other on whether any documents should be subpoenaed. There may be nothing to hide in regard to the execution of the Halliburton contract. Holding open hearings is the way to demonstrate that.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
New Enron Tapes Are Proof of Manipulation -Lawmaker
George Bush said at the time it was a "market problem", not manipulation. He was supposed to be an "energy expert" and a "businessman" president who understood what was causing the "CA energy crisis" better than any person who had ever been in the White House. Though called upon by every leader in the state from the governor to dog catchers he refused to have FERC investigate the extreme price rises. While grandmothers and children suffered in the withering heat "good Christian" Bush refused to have FERC put price caps in place so a closer examination of the problem could be completed. That sort of negligence is now revealed to be a failure of leadership that borders on criminal while showing a lack of any moral understanding.
We don't have a president in office who works for the people, we have a clueless shill for corporate interests. Only a new broom wrought by John Kerry can sweep this corruption from the White House in November.
New Enron Tapes Are Proof of Manipulation -Lawmaker
Mon Jun 14, 4:14 PM ET
By Chris Baltimore
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employees at now-bankrupt Enron Corp. coached rookie traders on ways to overload California's power grid during the state's energy crisis and kept multiple sets of books to cover their tracks, according to evidence released on Monday.
Profanity-laced audio tapes where Enron traders chortle about boosting prices during the 2000-01 western power crisis at the expense of "poor grandmothers" have given Western states new ammunition in their quest for refunds at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Sen. Maria Cantwell, Washington Democrat, on Monday submitted to FERC some 750 pages of financial data and new taped conversations from Enron traders.
The new information gathered in a Justice Department criminal investigation shows that Enron illegally reaped $1.1 billion in profits from questionable trading schemes with nicknames like "Death Star" and "Get Shorty," Cantwell said.
The data is "clear and compelling evidence" that FERC should allow Western utilities to cancel or renegotiate billions of dollars in long-term contracts with Enron, she said.
On one tape, an Enron trader coaches a new employee on ways to overload California's transmission grid, and then collect a fee for relieving the fake congestion.
"If the line's not congested, then I just look to congest it," said a trader identified as "Mallory" on the transcript. "If you can congest it, that's a money-maker no matter what, 'cause you're not losing any money to move it down the line."
An Enron spokeswoman declined to comment on the tapes and said the company continues to "cooperate fully with all investigations."
FERC staff will review the new evidence but will act "based on the facts and the law and not on politics," an agency spokesman said.
The new data -- distilled from internal spreadsheets Enron traders used to track their trades -- offer more details into the transactions. In some instances, Enron employees used five different sets of accounting books to disguise the schemes, Cantwell said.
For example, on May 22, 2000, a day when California's grid operator declared an energy shortage, Enron collected about $223,000 for shipping electricity out of California and back again to avoid federal price caps, the documents show.
So far, FERC has stripped Enron of its power-trading license and an agency judge has recommended that the firm repay $32.5 million in profits from the Western crisis. Washington and California lawmakers say FERC must also allow utilities to cancel or renegotiate long-term contracts signed at the height of the energy crisis.
"FERC has fallen down on the job by conducting an inadequate investigation of Enron's market manipulation," Cantwell said.
FERC has approved about $3.3 billion in refunds for overcharges in short-term Western power markets, but has rejected requests by California and other Pacific Northwest states to cancel long-term contracts.
We don't have a president in office who works for the people, we have a clueless shill for corporate interests. Only a new broom wrought by John Kerry can sweep this corruption from the White House in November.
New Enron Tapes Are Proof of Manipulation -Lawmaker
Mon Jun 14, 4:14 PM ET
By Chris Baltimore
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employees at now-bankrupt Enron Corp. coached rookie traders on ways to overload California's power grid during the state's energy crisis and kept multiple sets of books to cover their tracks, according to evidence released on Monday.
Profanity-laced audio tapes where Enron traders chortle about boosting prices during the 2000-01 western power crisis at the expense of "poor grandmothers" have given Western states new ammunition in their quest for refunds at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Sen. Maria Cantwell, Washington Democrat, on Monday submitted to FERC some 750 pages of financial data and new taped conversations from Enron traders.
The new information gathered in a Justice Department criminal investigation shows that Enron illegally reaped $1.1 billion in profits from questionable trading schemes with nicknames like "Death Star" and "Get Shorty," Cantwell said.
The data is "clear and compelling evidence" that FERC should allow Western utilities to cancel or renegotiate billions of dollars in long-term contracts with Enron, she said.
On one tape, an Enron trader coaches a new employee on ways to overload California's transmission grid, and then collect a fee for relieving the fake congestion.
"If the line's not congested, then I just look to congest it," said a trader identified as "Mallory" on the transcript. "If you can congest it, that's a money-maker no matter what, 'cause you're not losing any money to move it down the line."
An Enron spokeswoman declined to comment on the tapes and said the company continues to "cooperate fully with all investigations."
FERC staff will review the new evidence but will act "based on the facts and the law and not on politics," an agency spokesman said.
The new data -- distilled from internal spreadsheets Enron traders used to track their trades -- offer more details into the transactions. In some instances, Enron employees used five different sets of accounting books to disguise the schemes, Cantwell said.
For example, on May 22, 2000, a day when California's grid operator declared an energy shortage, Enron collected about $223,000 for shipping electricity out of California and back again to avoid federal price caps, the documents show.
So far, FERC has stripped Enron of its power-trading license and an agency judge has recommended that the firm repay $32.5 million in profits from the Western crisis. Washington and California lawmakers say FERC must also allow utilities to cancel or renegotiate long-term contracts signed at the height of the energy crisis.
"FERC has fallen down on the job by conducting an inadequate investigation of Enron's market manipulation," Cantwell said.
FERC has approved about $3.3 billion in refunds for overcharges in short-term Western power markets, but has rejected requests by California and other Pacific Northwest states to cancel long-term contracts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)