Last modified: Wed Aug 10 23:16:53 EDT 2005
| Links |
|---|
| Al-jazeerah Info Service (no, not the infamous news network) |
| Where's Raed blog |
| G's blog |
| ...turningtables... blog |
| My collection of documents related to the war |
Two items today: first, the New York Times, picking up on a story that broke in the Wall Street Journal, reported that administration lawyers concluded that President Bush was not prohibited, either by international treaty or federal law, from authorizing the torture of prisoners in the war on terrorism; his authority as commander in chief allows him to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.
Second, I've discovered some web sites that provide detailed information on casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan:
Both of these sites describe their counting methodology in detail and seem highly credible.As of today, 832 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq; about 4900 have been wounded. About 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed.
Yesterday Donald Rumsfeld was on "Face the Nation", along with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, and CBS News' Bob Schieffer, the moderator. This exchange (with some stammers edited out) took place. The topic of discussion was the decision to invade Iraq.
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?Doh. Don't you hate it when that happens?
Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's what's happened. The president went...
SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.
Sec. RUMSFELD: I can't speak for everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.
SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...
Sec. RUMSFELD: If you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.
Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued ' --this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.' [Silence] It was close to imminent. [chuckle]
Sec. RUMSFELD: [Pause] Well, I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I suppose I've...
Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'
Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.
A transcript of the segment is available, as is a short video clib (Windows media). See also the discussion of the incident at the web site of the Center for American Progress.
DIANE SAWYER: When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons and now the inspectors say that there's no evidence of these weapons existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger. George Tenet has said that shouldn't have been in your speech. Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence -- the inspectors have said they can't confirm this, they can't corroborate.PRESIDENT BUSH: But what David Kay did discover was they had a weapons program, and had that, that -- let me finish for a second. Now it's more extensive than, than missiles. Had that knowledge been examined by the United Nations or had David Kay's report been placed in front of the United Nations, he, he, Saddam Hussein, would have been in material breach of 1441, which meant it was a causis belli. And look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there's no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.
SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still --
BUSH: So what's the difference? [...] If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That's, that's what I'm trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be de -- dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger. And so we got rid of him and there's no doubt the world is a safer, freer place as a result of Saddam being gone.
My God - what have we done?!?
AlterNet has silently edited their copy of an article by John Dean that contained a widely-disseminated, but inaccurate, quote of Paul Wolfowitz. Get the whole story here.
An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.
This New York Times article has more information, and leads off with this:Engineering experts from the Defense Intelligence Agency have come to believe that the most likely use for two mysterious trailers found in Iraq was to produce hydrogen for weather balloons rather than to make biological weapons, government officials say.The article goes on to quote this piece of classic baloney:
Today, a Defense Department official said of Iraq, "There is not doubt in our minds that they had mobile biological weapons trailers." But the official said there was disagreement within the Defense Intelligence Agency about whether those found so far were used to produce biological weapons or hydrogen.How long do we have to not find trailers before there will be any doubt in "our minds"?
Meanwhile, Senator Robert Byrd's words before the Senate on October 3, 2002 were remarkably accurate in their depiction of post-war Iraq.
Initially I will collect documents that relate to this war: United Nations Security Council resolutions, speeches, acts of Congress, etc. Later, I hope to add my own commentary and arguments against the war, and proposals for action.
Unfortunately, it's not possible to provide links to pages served by Thomas, as the web site is fully dynamic. Instead I will provide search terms that should enable you to locate the referenced document and provide a copy of the document.
This resolution was passed in mid-October of 2002, just weeks before the 2002 mid-term Congressional elections. It is considered by many (notably the author of this web site...) to have been a political plot to force Democrats to take a position on war against Iraq immediately before the elections.
Thomas doesn't seem to have the full text of the provision in any obvious place, so I used this version, obtained from Yale Law School's Avalon Project web site, a compendium of "Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy".
It is my belief that, if you care at all about the state of the world we live in, it is your duty as a citizen to let your elected officials - at all levels of government - know where you stand on the issues of the day. Voting is not enough.
Furthermore, it's important to do more than just send email. It's entirely too easy to send - or to fabricate - email, and, for better or worse, Congress by-and-large ignores email. You need to call or, better still, write a letter.
Your comments need not be long or particularly eloquent, but they should be your own. A typical phone comment might be something as simple as this:
I'm calling to express my opposition to war in Iraq unless explicitly authorized by a U.N. Security Council resolution.
A letter to a member of Congress can be equally simple:
Dear Senator FooBar:It's not hard to find contact information for Congress and the White House, but here it is anyway:
I'm writing to ask you to do anything you can to oppose war in Iraq unless explicitly authorized by a U.N. Security Council resolution. I believe that a pre-emptive war against Iraq makes the United States appear both arrogant and fearful, and robs us of moral authority in our dealings with other countries.
Sincerely,
John Q. Public
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
COMMENTS: 202-456-1111
SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
To locate the names, addresses and phone numbers of your Congressional representatives:
Write or call even if your Senators and Representative are already doing what you desire; a "thank you" note lets them know you appreciate their stance, and subtly puts them on notice that you're watching.
Jerry Callen