Dissonance Our Exit Strategy The delusional Bush, his quagmire and November by Marc Cooper MAY 28 - JUNE 3, 2004

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

t r u t h o u t | 05.27

Chalabi 'Boasted of Iranian Spy Link'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052704A.shtml

Al Gore | Bush Has Humiliated Us
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052704B.shtml

New York Times Apologizes for Its Iraq Coverage
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052704C.shtml

Army: Abuse of Captives More Widespread
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052704D.shtml

"U.S. Pulling Out All Stops to Preempt War-Crimes Prosecution"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052704E.shtml

Who Would Try Civilians of U.S.? No One in Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052704F.shtml

Bush Muzzles Officials as Parks Fall into Disrepair
http://www.truthout.org/environment.shtml

Patrick Sabatier | The Narrow Path
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052704H.shtml

Bush's Plan Gets Tepid Response from Europe, Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052704I.shtml

Andy Rooney | Our Darkest Days Are Here
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052704J.shtml

Occupation Made World Less Safe, Pro-War Institute Says
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052704K.shtml

Uri Avnery | The Rape of Rafah
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052704L.shtml

Click to SUBSCRIBE -> mailto:join-three-to@lists.truthout.org
Go direct to our HomePage : http://www.truthout.org

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

From the Al-Asharq Awsat paper, a pro Saudi, London based newspaper. Caption reads "Coming Changes." (Photo: The Washington Post) Courtesy of t r u t h o u t

What Bush Should Have Said His Iraq speech was only a year late: By Fred Kaplan, Posted Tuesday, May 25, 2004, at 1:51 PM PT

Subject: What do you think about Iraq?

Dear MoveOn Member,

Yesterday, President Bush tried to respond to mounting criticism of his management of the crisis in Iraq. The American people were looking for a sign that Bush understands the situation and is adapting American policy to the realities on the ground. But in this speech, the administration just repackaged failed U.S. policy as a five-step plan. They obviously don't get it. We've got to do better.

First, of course, we're demanding accountability from the Bush administration. We're demanding a change in leadership at the Pentagon. Without this change, nothing in U.S. policy will change. But the problem remains: even with new leadership, how do we get out of this disastrous situation?

Most of the people we've talked with share two conflicting instincts: (1) that the U.S. occupation must end before Iraq can move forward but (2) that we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to protect them from a descent into civil war. The Bush administration has failed to project any plan ending the U.S. occupation, and instead is focusing on an almost meaningless June 30th turn over of "soveriegnty." Recently, two mainstream policy analysts, James Steinberg and Michael O'Hanlon, made an interesting proposal in a Washington Post Op Ed, a call to "set the date" for the end to the U.S. occupation. We've attached the Op Ed below.

What do you think? We'd like to know where people stand, so that we can craft our campaigns going forward. Let us know what you think at:

http://www.moveon.org/iraqsurvey.html

Do you support immediate withdrawal? Do you support setting a date certain to end the military occupation? Or do you support President Bush's call to "stay the course"? Or do you see a better way to proceed?

Steinberg and O'Hanlon make the case that setting a date to pull out would (1) dampen the popular support for insurgency by demonstrating good American intentions, and (2) allow the establishment of indigenous Iraqi security forces, with international support, to avoid civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, which could grow into a broader Middle East crisis. The importance of a timetable is even more important now that it has become clear to everyone, and especially the Iraqis, that Bush's June 30th turnover of "sovereignty" is a sham.

The Bush administration's lack of a credible plan is almost shocking. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz recently told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "We don't know what it will be," he said. "We've had changes, as you know, month by month. We've had several different plans."

Setting a real date for pulling out, and sticking to it, will almost certainly be opposed by the neoconservatives who have gotten us into this mess. Although they say that the occupation is about establishing freedom and democracy, their geopolitical calculus is far more cynical. Their agendas include long-term military bases, significant influence over Iraqi oil policy, and unrestricted foreign investment in Iraq. They still haven't faced the reality of the situation they've created.

Please help by letting us know what you think. Thanks for everything,

Sincerely,
--Wes Boyd
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004

P.S Here's the Washington Post Op Ed:

Set a Date to Pull Out
The danger is not that we will cut and run
but that the Iraqis will insist that we get out.
By James Steinberg and Michael O'Hanlon
Tuesday, May 18, 2004

American policy in Iraq faces a crisis. Mainstream U.S. political leaders, including President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry, have continued to insist that we must "stay the course" and that "failure is not an option." But these slogans are not enough to rescue a failing policy. The success of our mission has depended from the outset on the perception by the Iraqi people that our presence is necessary to secure their own future. Today that premise is increasingly in doubt.

Unless we restore the Iraqi people's confidence in our role, failure is not only an option but a likelihood. Critical to achieving our goal is an announced decision to end the current military deployment by the end of next year, following the Iraqi adoption of a constitution, together with greatly intensified training for the Iraqi security forces. Otherwise, the issue may well be not how long we want to stay but how soon the Iraqis kick us out.

From the beginning the administration's strategy assumed that the United States would be welcomed as "liberators" by most Iraqis. Yet the failure of the U.S.-led provisional authority to provide basic security for many, and the slow pace of reconstruction, has eroded support for our presence. The Abu Ghraib outrages and the recent escalation of fighting have further undermined our position. A majority of Iraqis now believe their country is worse off than before Saddam Hussein was overthrown, according to a recent poll.

This dramatic loss of support undermines the legitimacy of our continued military presence. It also makes our task of stabilizing the country nearly impossible.

The problem is compounded by our own ambivalence about the political transition in Iraq. Although we defined our mission as liberation, we have been deeply reluctant to trust the Iraqi people to set their own course. From the decision to install a handpicked interim governing council, to our initial reluctance to support early elections for the limited authority we plan to grant the transition government after June 30, the message is that we will not permit self-determination in Iraq until Iraqis choose a government that meets our goal: a Western-style democracy broadly supportive of U.S. interests in the region.

That objective was wildly ambitious even before the military operation began; today it is simply unattainable in the near term. The more we talk about staying "as long as it takes" the more it appears we are trying to impose our vision on Iraq -- further alienating the Iraqi public. The danger is not that we will cut and run but that the Iraqis will insist that we get out, leaving behind a security vacuum that could ignite civil war and wider regional strife.

How can we avoid such a disaster? First, we must make clear that our military presence in Iraq is designed to permit the Iraqis to freely choose their own future -- even if it is not fully to our liking. We should indicate not just that we will leave if asked but that we will ourselves plan to end the deployment of coalition forces following the election of an Iraqi government and the adoption of a new constitution next year. We should make clear that we (as part of a wider international coalition) would be prepared to stay beyond that time -- but only at the request of the new Iraqi government, and as part of a new, U.N.-sponsored mandate on terms that are acceptable to the new Iraqi government and to us.

Second, we must be clear about our legitimate security interests in Iraq. We have a right to insist that a new Iraqi government not threaten peace and security -- by developing weapons of mass destruction, harboring terrorists or attacking other nations. And we should certainly seek to use our influence to encourage a tolerant, pluralist society. But because this is a responsibility Iraq owes to all, not just us, we should shift the focus away from the United States as the enforcement arm of the international community to Iraq's neighbors and others that share these interests, including NATO and the United Nations. We should begin by convening a major international summit on Iraq, involving not only Western allies but also Arab leaders and Iraqis, at the time of the NATO summit next month in Istanbul. And we should invite the International Atomic Energy Agency to play a role in ensuring that a new Iraqi government does not pursue weapons programs.

Third, we should accelerate the training and equipping of new security forces for Iraq. Less than 10 percent of the necessary numbers of soldiers and police have been properly trained to date. Filling this vacuum is critical to the success of this strategy, because indigenous forces are far more likely than foreign forces to succeed in defeating the residual Baathist and foreign fighters in Iraq. If Arab countries and NATO devoted just 10 percent of their police and military training capacity to Iraqi forces, we could complete an intensified training process by next year.

Some will see this as cut-and-run. It is not. Unlike the case with most previous stabilization missions, our own enduring commitment to success in Iraq is beginning to work against us. It breeds cynicism among Iraqis that we are like the colonialists of old, planning to stay indefinitely to keep our hands on their oil and to use Iraq for our own, broader foreign policy objectives. The lesson of our history is that our best partners are those who freely choose to be. We must give the Iraqis the opportunity to seize that possibility for themselves.

James Steinberg was deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration and is vice president and director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution; Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow there.

The time is now.

Subject: Anybody But Bush Update: Bay of Goats
From: msanger@aol.com Add to Address Book
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 21:30:47 -0700


((((((((((((((((( Anybody But Bush Update: Bay of
Goats )))))))))))))))))

May 23, 2004


------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.anybodybutbush.info/archives/000229.html



------------------------------------------------------------------------

By MAUREEN
DOWD
Published: May 23, 2004

So let me get this straight:

We ransacked the house of the con man whom we
paid millions to feed us
fake intelligence on W.M.D. that would make the
case for ransacking the
country that the con man assured us would be a
cinch to take over
because he wanted to run it.

And now we're shocked, shocked and awed to
discover that a crook is a
crook and we have nobody to turn over Iraq to,
and the Jordanian
embezzler-turned-American puppet-turned-accused
Iranian spy is trying
to foment even more anger against us and the U.N.
officials we've
crawled back to for help, anger that may lead to
civil war.

The party line that Paul Bremer was notified
about the raid on Ahmad
Chalabi's house after the fact is absurd. The
Iraqi police, who can't
seem to do anything without us, were just
proxies. We were going after
the very guy who persuaded us to go after Saddam,
the con man the naïve
neo-cons cast as de Gaulle; the swindler who sold
himself to Dick
Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz as Spartacus.

One diplomat from the region grimly cited an old
Punjabi saying: "It's
very bad when grandma marries a crook, but it is
even worse when she
divorces the crook."

Mr. Chalabi's wealthy family was swept out of
Iraq in a coup in 1958
and he spent much of his life plotting a coup to
take back his
homeland, a far-fetched scheme that took on life
when he hooked up with
Mr. Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Doug Feith, who
had their own dream of
staging a coup of American foreign policy to do
an extreme Middle East
makeover.

The hawks dismissed warnings from their own
people — such as the Bush
Middle East envoy Gen. Anthony Zinni — that the
Iraqi National Congress
was full of "silk-suited, Rolex-wearing guys in
London." As General
Zinni told The Times in 2000: "They are pie in
the sky. They're going
to lead us to a Bay of Goats, or something like
that."

The C.I.A. and State Department, too, grew
disgusted with Mr. Chalabi,
even though State paid his organization $33
million from 2000 to 2003.

Cheney & Company swooned over Mr. Chalabi because
he was telling them
what they wanted to hear, that it would be simple
to go back and
rewrite the Persian Gulf war ending so that it
was not bellum
interruptus.

The president and his hawks insisted that only a
"relatively small
number" of "thugs," as Mr. Perle told George
Stephanopoulos last month,
were keeping the country from peace. Mr. Perle
said the solution was
"to repose a little bit of confidence in people
who share our values
and our objectives . . . people like Ahmad
Chalabi." The neo-cons still
think he can be Churchill.

On Thursday, an Iraqi judge, Hussain Muathin,
also lamented the actions
of "a small number of thugs." But he was
announcing warrants for the
arrest of thugs around Mr. Perle's own George
Washington, Chalabi
henchmen suspected of kidnapping, torture and
theft. Didn't we sack
Saddam to stop that stuff?

Now we're using Saddam's old generals to restore
order — reversing the
de-Baathification approach that Mr. Chalabi
championed — while Mr.
Chalabi snakes around like a bus-and-truck Tony
Soprano, garnering less
trust than Saddam in polls of Iraqis.

A half-dozen dunderheads who thought they knew
everything assumed they
could control Mr. Chalabi and use him as the
instrument of their
utopian fantasies. But one week after getting cut
off from the
$335,000-a-month Pentagon allowance arranged by
his neo-con buddies, he
glibly accepts the street cred that goes with
bashing America. And he
still won't give us all of Saddam's secret files,
which he confiscated
and is using to discredit his enemies.

Going from Spartacus to Moses, he proclaims to
America, "Let my people
go" — even as he plays footsie with the country
that once denounced the
U.S. as the Great Satan.

On Friday at Louisiana State University,
President Bush told graduates:
"On the job and elsewhere in life, choose your
friends carefully. The
company you keep has a way of rubbing off on you
— and that can be a
good thing, or a bad thing. In my job, I got to
pick just about
everybody I work with. I've been happy with my
choices — although I
wish someone had warned me about all of Dick
Cheney's wild partying."

Mr. Bush thought he was kidding, but too bad he
didn't get that warning
before Dick Cheney took the world on such a wild
ride.

E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com

--
Powered by Movable Type
Version 2.64
http://www.movabletype.org/

David Corn: Conquest games: Just when Iraq gets ugly, neocons talk of taking over the world. Why are these people so nuts?

Dear MoveOn member,

It's time to raise the stakes in our demand that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld be fired. We need your help today to put a powerful new TV ad on the air.

We now know Rumsfeld personally approved a policy that "encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners," violating their fundamental human rights under the Geneva convention.1 Our new ad will help make sure everyone in the country knows about Rumsfeld’s direct responsibility for the prisoner debacle, but to air it we need your help. Here's the script:

The screen pans slowly up the Statue of Liberty, ultimately revealing that her head is hooded. The narrator says:

"They said we were going to Iraq to bring American values: democracy, liberty, justice. But something has gone terribly wrong."

"It's been reported that Donald Rumsfeld initiated a plan that encouraged the physical coercion and sexual humiliation of prisoners, violations of international law. Rumsfeld has placed the men under his command in even more danger."

"Why hasn't George Bush fired this man?"

Click here to help us put this ad on the air:

https://www.moveon.org/hooded/

New evidence of Rumsfeld's responsibility for the torture at Abu Ghraib prison is surfacing daily,2 and on Tuesday his top deputy admitted seriously miscalculating the Iraqis' willingness to put up with the American occupation.3 Yet President Bush still refuses to remove Rumsfeld from his post.

Although Bush has apologized to the world for the torture, every day Rumsfeld keeps his job sends the opposite message -- that Americans don't mind all that much.

Every day Rumsfeld stays, Iraq grows more volatile, increasing the danger to our troops. Every day he stays, Iraqis who work with us are killed, recently including the president of the Iraqi Governing Council. And every day Rumsfeld stays, potential terrorists harden in their anger toward America. Yet, in the face of this snowballing disaster, Bush's posture boils down to an arrogant "so what?".

It's time to make our demand for accountability impossible for Bush to ignore. We're taking our campaign to the next level, beginning with this TV ad. We'll also run radio and print ads soon, and next week we'll hold constituent meetings with dozens of key Senate and House offices, calling for Rumsfeld's ouster.

Michael Berg, whose son Nicholas was recently beheaded in Iraq, said: "I can't stand even more than those murderers who took my son's life, those who sit and make policies to end lives and break the lives of the still living."4

We need your help today to jump-start our campaign to fire Rumsfeld. Click here to help get our ads on the air:

https://www.moveon.org/hooded/

Every time we ask for your help, you step up. Thank you, more than we can say.

Sincerely,
--Carrie, Joan, Noah, Peter, and Wes
The MoveOn.org Team
Thursday, May 20th, 2004

Footnotes:

1. THE GRAY ZONE, How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib, by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker

2. These recent stories reinforce this:
Soldier Says Intelligence Directed Abuse
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/international/middleeast/20ABUS.html?hp
Officer Says Army Tried to Curb Red Cross Visits to Prison in Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/politics/19PAPP.html

3. Washington Post: U.S. Faces Growing Fears of Failure: Wolfowitz Concedes Errors as Damage Control Continues

4. Statement of Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg, to the U.K.'s Stop The War Coalition, May 16th, 2004

THE GRAY ZONE: by SEYMOUR M. HERSH How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib. of 2004-05-24 Posted 2004-05-15"

Hey there, check out for a huge load of article links to keep you buzzing on a Irak/U.S. aggression information high. Bzzzzzzzzzz. Peace

((( Anybody But Bush Update: Iraqi prisoner
prefers Saddam's torture )))

May 03, 2004


------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.anybodybutbush.info/archives/000224.html



------------------------------------------------------------------------

by ttagaris
Mon May 3rd, 2004 at 02:37:09 EST

I really wish this headline came from The Onion,
or maybe Mad Magazine,
but it doesn't; the article comes from the
Associated Press.

When I read quotes like this, I begin to worry:

"Al-Shweiri said that while jailed by Saddam's
regime, he was
electrocuted, beaten and hung from the ceiling
with his hands tied
behind his back.

"But that's better than the humiliation of being
stripped naked," he
said. 'Shoot me here,' he added, pointing between
his eyes, 'but don't
do this to us."

read
the associated press article


Diaries :: ttagaris's diary ::

Now, I was in the United States Marine Corps, and
I really don't want
to pass judgement on anyone committing these acts
against Iraqis,
whoever they may be.

In my eyes, the vast majority of people that I
served with were great
people, some of the best I have ever met in my
life, and I am proud to
have served with each and every one of them.

What gives me pause, and makes me sad above all
else, is the
transformation many of our men and women must
have gone through since
arriving in Iraq. The people I served, I could
not fathom
participating in acts such as these.

While I have never served in combat, I know we
have all heard from
friends, relatives, or accounts on television and
through conversations
on-line about how you come back a changed person.
The experience of war
and death up-close is so powerful, that it
demands a mental
transformation as a defense mechanism.

I can't help but shake the feeling that these
troops that tortured
Iraqis are not just a few bad apples, but these
are just a small
handful of the good apples that have have gone
rotten after exposure to
the horrors of war.

I can't speak for the friends that I served with,
maybe they wish to
stay in Iraq. The last I heard they were digging
graves every day from
the time they woke up, until they were done for
the day. I can't
imagine that job doing any help for the fragile
mind of a young man
10's of thousands of miles away from home,
watching death up-close
every day. I would like them to come home.

Tim

Save The Date! August 29, 2004, The World Says No to the Bush Agenda MASS WORLDWIDE PROTEST DURING THE 2004 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION IN NEW YORK CITY From: United for Peace and Justice

hello. how are you? here are some Ted Rall editorials.

PIN THE TALE ON THE DONKEY
Desperate, Bush Blames Democrats for Iraq

WHERE WAS THE AIR FORCE?
The Real Question on 9-11

CUT AND RUN NOW
Only Lunatics Keep Fighting an Unwinnable War

BILL CLINTON CAUSED 9/11

PRESIDENT KERRY

keep it peaceful.

IF WAR IS WORLDWIDE, SO MUST BE DIALOGUE

This week on www.openDemocracy.net, our electronic roundtable about
terrorism, democracy and war after Madrid continues with contributions
from Mai Ghoussoub, Kirsty Hughes and John Lloyd.

John Hulsman in Washington seeks transatlantic unity against al-Qaida;
Sari Nusseibeh in Jerusalem measures Palestine’s future after Sheikh
Yassin; Sabine Freizer in Tbilisi uncovers the Uzbek market bombings and
Paul Rogers in Yorkshire places Iraqi fury in the context of a pattern of
violence across south Asia.

Plus: Antje Vollmer, vice-president of Germany’s Bundestag, resists the
conscription of Immanuel Kant into the “coalition of the willing”.

--------------

THE WEEK'S TOP FIVE

PALESTINE’S PROSPECTS AFTER GAZA: AN INTERVIEW WITH SARI NUSSEIBEH
Israel’s killing of Hamas’s leader convulsed the region. But the leading
Palestinian scholar SARI NUSSEIBEH, talking to LINDA BENEDIKT, takes a
longer-term view
http://www.opendemocracy.net/email/ed3705/benedikt_010404.jsp

IMMANUEL KANT AND IRAQ: A REPLY TO ROGER SCRUTON
The German Green politician ANTJE VOLLMER disagrees with the English
philosopher ROGER SCRUTON: the philosopher of reason and law would have
opposed the war
http://www.opendemocracy.net/email/ed3705/vollmer_010404.jsp

MIDNIGHT IN TASHKENT
The reclusive Central Asian state of Uzbekistan is reeling from a surge
of anti-state violence. A lesson for the autocratic Tashkent regime and
its international sponsors alike, says SABINE FREIZER
http://www.opendemocracy.net/email/ed3705/freizer_010404.jsp

HIJAB HYSTERIA: FRANCE AND ITS MUSLIMS
France has banned the Islamic headscarf in schools. Undemocratic and
illiberal, argues SVEND WHITE – but Muslims too must examine their hijab
obsession
http://www.opendemocracy.net/email/ed3705/white_010404.jsp

ATOCHA: A VIEW FROM WASHINGTON
After the Madrid terrorist bombings, America and Europe need to unify
against a common enemy, says JOHN C. HULSMAN of the Heritage Foundation
http://www.opendemocracy.net/email/ed3705/hulsman_010404.jsp

--------------

THE MOMENT TO SUPPORT
Since the Madrid bombings, we have brought you a serious, wide-ranging,
international discussion of the implications for Europe and the “war on
terror”. The space for debate and constructive dialogue created by
openDemocracy has rarely seemed so vital. With this in mind subscriptions
stay independent and free to members who can't afford to pay. Just
£25/$40/€40 will make sure that we stay accessible to everyone. Click
here to pay online or call Theo Edwards at +44 (0) 207 608 2000
http://www.openDemocracy.net/SUPPORT5.html

ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER?
Does openDemocracy leave you feeling inspired, serene, angry, alarmed?
Get it out. Email me, Sarah Lindon at: readerseditor_at_opendemocracy_dot_net

50--------------

COLUMNS

EDITOR’S NOTE: VOICING AMERICA
In this crucial election year, openDemocracy seeks an engagement with
America that opens minds and crosses frontiers, says ANTHONY BARNETT
http://www.opendemocracy.net/email/ed3705/barnett_010404.jsp

GLOBAL SECURITY: A WEEK OF VENGEANCE
In Iraq, ferocious violence; in Uzbekistan, market bombs; in southern
Thailand, turmoil; in Pakistan, humiliation; in London, fear. PAUL ROGERS
tracks a spreading arc of conflict
http://www.opendemocracy.net/email/ed3705/rogers_010404.jsp

OUR ELECTION YEAR: THE PRESIDENT’S MEN
TODD GITLIN, in the Greek home of democracy, is struck by how the evasive
wordplay even of “international” media exculpates the Bushites
http://www.opendemocracy.net/email/ed3705/gitlin_010404.jsp

WHAT DO WE HAVE FAITH IN? MODERATE DREAMS AND INSPIRATION
After utopia, pragmatism; after millennial dreams, negotiated
improvements. DAVE BELDEN asks if romance can be found in small change
http://www.opendemocracy.net/email/ed3705/belden_010404.jsp

WORLD DIARY: RECIPE FOR DISASTER
DOMINIC HILTON keeps his weekly engagement with reality
http://www.opendemocracy.net/email/ed3705/worlddiary_010404.jsp

---------------

Please forward this email to friends and colleagues!

Email preferences:
To change your default email to html, and to manage other aspects of your
account, please log into the openDemocracy website and go to MY ACCOUNT.

openDemocracy.net never sends unsolicited email. To stop receiving this
free and informative email, please contact
theo.edwards@opendemocracy.net with the word REMOVE in the subject line
(don't forget to tell us why - we can always improve)

Send cheques, postcards and letters to:
openDemocracy, 23-25 Great Sutton Street, London EC1V 0DN, UK
tel: +44 (0)20 7608 2000
fax: +44 (0)20 7608 2666

Secrets of Timothy McVeigh Lingering questions about the Oklahoma City bombing by Jim Crogan MARCH 26 - APRIL 1, 2004 + Powerlines: Drip. Drip. Drip. Former counter-terrorism honcho Richard Clarke is the latest high-level tattler from the Bush administration. BY HAROLD MEYERSON # Dissonance: Oh, stop the gloating over Richard Clarke. The fiends who want to do us in are still out there. BY MARC COOPER

Subject: Urgent: Spread 9/11 and Iraq Revelations

Several days ago, former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke revealed how the Bush administration systematically mishandled 9/11 and Iraq. Help us get Clarke's comments in front of the American people in a new hard-hitting ad.
Dear MoveOn member,

As you may have heard, Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism advisor to Bush, and a registered Republican who has worked in every administration since Reagan, has exposed Bush's mishandling of 9/11 and the war on Iraq.1 In his book "Against All Enemies," Clarke does an amazing job of presenting the facts and connecting the dots. Instead of refuting Clarke's claims, the Bush Administration has launched a campaign of character assassination, hoping that the story will just go away.2

We're committed to stopping that from happening by making sure that the American public hears Clarke's extraordinary comments. If we can raise $300,000 in the next few days, we can run a hard-hitting ad nationally that highlights his message. You can see a rough story board of the ad and donate to get it on the air at:
https://www.moveonpac.org/clarkead.html?id=2487-3261555-xE9LEb2n3CqsdZQRdaDWEA

When the World Trade Center was hit on the morning of 9/11, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice dubbed Richard Clarke, the administration's top counter-terrorism official, "crisis manager."3 As the White House, which was thought to be the next target, was evacuated, Clarke heroically stayed on, coordinating the government's response from the Situation Room in the West Wing.4

Clarke is viewed by colleagues as a hawk, a "true believer" who doesn't play partisan politics.5 So the shocking facts he revealed about the Bush administration's approach to terrorism before 9/11 and its response after must be taken seriously. On Sunday, Clarke told reporters that the President and Defense Secretary downgraded counter-terrorism and ignored repeated warnings about an al Qaeda attack prior to 9/11. And, perhaps even more explosive, Clarke revealed that President Bush and senior administration officials wanted to bomb Iraq after 9/11 even though they knew that it had no connection to al Qaeda, and that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks.6

Already, the White House spin machine is in overdrive. Since they can't rebut Clarke's facts -- which independent witnesses have confirmed7 -- they're trying to paint him as an angry partisan, even though he's a Republican. But Clarke's words remain a searing indictment of the Bush Administration's campaign against terrorism. Together, if we act today, we can beat back the spin by widely airing a TV ad which gets these uniquely credible comments directly to TV viewers.

You can view a story board of the ad and help us get it on the air now at:
https://www.moveonpac.org/clarkead.html?id=2487-3261555-xE9LEb2n3CqsdZQRdaDWEA

In his own words, here are some of Clarke's revelations:

* Clarke repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about attacks from al Qaeda, starting in the first days of Bush's term. "But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on."8 According to another Bush administration security official, Clarke "was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S." The official added that Clarke was likely sidelined because he had served in the previous (Clinton) administration.9

* In face-to-face meetings, CIA Director George Tenet warned President Bush repeatedly in the months before 9/11 that an attack was coming. According to Clarke, Tenet told the President that "A major al-Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead."10

* On September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld pushed to bomb Iraq even though they knew that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'"11

* Also on September 12, 2001, President Bush personally pushed Clarke to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks. From the New York Times: "'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything,' Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Bush told him. 'See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' When Mr. Clarke protested that the culprit was Al Qaeda, not Iraq, Mr. Bush testily ordered him, he writes, to 'look into Iraq, Saddam,' and then left the room."12

* The Bush Administration knew from the beginning that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but created the misperception in order to push their policy goals. "[Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush] did know better. They did know better. They did know better. We told them, the CIA told them, the FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11th, when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. I think for a commander-in-chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable."13

* The war on Iraq has increased the danger of terrorism. In his book, he writes that shifting from al Qaeda to Iraq "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."14

It's been well reported that President Bush intends to run on his record as a wartime President. Clarke's revelations show how deeply flawed that record is. But if we don't act fast, the public may not have a chance to evaluate the facts for themselves -- the story could go away quickly. With an ad, we can take Clarke's comments directly to the public. Can you help? Check out the script and donate whatever you can to get this story out there at:
https://www.moveonpac.org/clarkead.html?id=2487-3261555-xE9LEb2n3CqsdZQRdaDWEA

(By the way, if we're unable to use your contribution for the ad you specify, either because of oversubscription or for another unforeseen reason, it is our policy to use your contribution for other advertising, public relations, and advocacy activities.)

Richard Clarke had an intimate view -- perhaps the best view -- of how the Bush Administration responded to terrorism. So we should all listen carefully when he says:

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know. . . I think the way he has responded to al-Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe, absolutely. I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."15

Together, we can make sure every American knows what President Bush's true record on terrorism really is.

Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn PAC Team
March 24th, 2004

P.S. Salon has recently published a new interview with Clarke. You can read it at:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/24/clarke_moveon/

P.P.S. As the Administration strikes back, our friends at the Center for American Progress have put together an excellent rebuttal to their claims. Here's an example:

CLAIM #1: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." -- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. -- White House Press Release, 3/21/04

For the whole document, go to:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39828

Footnotes:

1. "Dissent from within on Iraq war," Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/24/04
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/8260216.htm?1c (Registration required)

2. "Bush Aides Blast Ex-Terror Chief," CBS News, 3/22/04
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/23/terror/main608107.shtml

3. "The book on Richard Clarke," Washington Post, 3/23/04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16192-2004Mar22.html (Registration required)

4. "Clarke's Take On Terror," CBS, 3/21/04
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

5. See 3, above.

6. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.

7. "Ex-Bush Aide Sets Off Debate as 9/11 Hearing Opens," New York Times, 3/23/04
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CLAR.html?hp (Registration required)

8. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.

9. See 7, above.

10. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.

11. "Sept. 11: Before And After," CBS News, 3/20/04
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/20/60minutes/main607622.shtml

12. "Excerpts from 'Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror' by Richard A. Clarke," posted on NYTimes.com, 3/23/04
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CWOR.html (Registration required)

13. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.

14. "Memoir Criticizes Bush 9/11 Response," Washington Post, 3/22/04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13607-2004Mar21.html (Registration required)

15. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.

PAID FOR BY MoveOn PAC
This message is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee
P.O. Box 9218, Berkeley, CA 94709

March 2004

.. Iraq, an overview; Kurdistan, what degree of separation? why Haiti’s revolution failed; Algeria, traumatised by past grief; Russia, nostalgic for the cosy old Soviet days; Balkans, democracy wobbles.. plus Germany remembers exodus and exile; France’s intolerance of Islam starts at school; Julio Cortázar, artist of encounters.. and more..

Next issue, April 12th

Bush attacked on terrorism record Aides have rejected the criticism of President Bush A former White House security expert has accused President Bush of doing a "terrible job" of tackling terrorism.

Carter savages Blair and Bush: 'Their war was based on lies' By Andrew Buncombe in Atlanta, 22 March 2004