[Peace] News notes 2006-04-16

[Carl Estabrook]

	==================================================
	Notes from last week's "global war on terrorism,"
	for the April 16, 2006, meeting of AWARE, the
	"Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort" of Champaign-Urbana.
	(Sources provided on request; paragraphs followed
	by a bracketed source are substantially verbatim.)
	==================================================

	"Opportunities for education and organizing abound.  As in the
	past, rights are not likely to be granted by benevolent
	authorities, or won by intermittent actions -- attending a few
	demonstrations or pushing a lever in the personalized quadrennial
	extravaganzas that are depicted as 'democratic politics.' As
	always in the past, the tasks require dedicated day-by-day
	engagement to create -- in part to re-create -- the basis for a
	functioning democratic culture in which the public plays some role
	in determining policies, not only in the political arena, from
	which it is largely excluded, but also in the crucial economic
	arenas, from which it is excluded in principle.  There are many
	ways to promote democracy at home, carrying it to new dimensions.
	Opportunities are ample, and failure to grasp them is likely to
	have ominous repercussions: for the country, for the world, and
	for future generations."
		--Noam Chomsky, Failed States: The Abuse of Power
		and the Assault on Democracy (Henry Holt, 2006), p. 263

[1] AUGURIES.  It was an auspicious week.  It's Easter weekend in the
Western church; it's Passover; the Prophet's birthday was last week,
according to the lunar calendar; and the Buddha's birthday was a week ago.
In his first Easter message, Pope Benedict -- a surprise to many (as some
predicted: e.g., <www.counterpunch.org/estabrook05052005.html>) -- called
on Sunday for an "honorable solution" to the nuclear standoff with Iran, a
truly independent Palestinian state, and global cooperation to combat
terrorism.

[2] QUISLINGS. Efforts to form a unity government suffered a new setback
Sunday as Iraqi leaders postponed a parliament session after failing to
agree on a prime minister. Bombs targeted Shiites near a mosque and on a
bus as attacks nationwide killed at least 35 people. Four more Marines
were reported killed in fighting west of Baghdad as the U.S. death toll
for this month rose to 47 -- compared with 31 for all of March. [AP]

[3] REPUBLICANS. The United States should hold direct talks with Iran on
its nuclear program and go slow on pressing for sanctions, contrary to
Bush administration strategy, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
chairman said on Sunday.  Breaking with President George W. Bush's
insistence on a multilateral approach through the U.N. Security Council,
Sen. Richard Lugar said direct U.S. talks with Iran would be useful as
part of a broad dialogue on energy. [Reuters]
	The Republican Party is in serious danger of losing political
ground in November elections if it does not enact reforms that eliminate
waste and hold the federal bureaucracy to higher standards, former House
Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Sunday.  "I think they're in very serious
danger of having a very bad election this fall," Gingrich said on Fox News
Sunday. [Reuters]
	Some rather different Republicans celebrated the 90th anniversary
of the Easter Rebellion this weekend.

[4] IRANIANS. Iran has expanded its uranium conversion facilities in
Isfahan and reinforced its Natanz underground uranium enrichment plant, a
U.S. think tank said, amid growing concern over possible U.S. military
action. Talk of a U.S. attack has topped the international news agenda
since a report in New Yorker magazine said this month that Washington was
mulling the option of using tactical nuclear weapons to knock out Iran's
subterranean nuclear sites. Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani said on Sunday any U.S. attack on Iran would plunge the region
into instability. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan also warned that U.S.
military intervention in Iran was not the best solution to resolve the
nuclear standoff and a leading U.S. senator called for direct U.S. talks
with Iran. The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS)
said in an email sent to news media that Iran has built a new tunnel
entrance at a uranium processing plant in Isfahan. [Reuters]
	A U.S. conflict with Iran could be even more damaging to America's
interests than the war with Iraq, former White House counterterrorism
chief Richard Clarke wrote in Sunday's New York Times. In an op-ed article
co-authored with Steven Simon, a former State Department official who also
worked for the National Security Council, Clarke wrote reports that the
Bush administration is contemplating bombing nuclear sites in Iran raised
concerns that "would simply begin a multi-move, escalatory process" ...
The authors concluded by warning that "the parallels to the run-up to the
war with Iraq are all too striking: remember that in May 2002 President
Bush declared that there was 'No war plan on my desk' despite having
actually spent months working on detailed plans for the Iraq invasion."
Congress "must not permit the administration to launch another war whose
outcome cannot be known, or worse, known all too well," they said.
[Reuters]

[5] POLLS. First question from the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll:
"Overall, taking into consideration everything you have heard or read
about the situation with Iran, do you think Iran will be stopped from
getting nuclear weapons through diplomatic solutions, or only through
military action, or do you think Iran will eventually get nuclear
weapons?" Iran isn't interested in obtaining nuclear weapons? Not a
possible answer. Just "how can we stop them" and "are they too incompetent
to manage it"? Next question: "If Iran continues to produce material that
can be used to develop nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose the
U.S. taking military action against Iran?" Iran hasn't produced any
material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons. None. At the same
link, we find a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Here's their first
question: "Which one of the following do you think is the most likely
outcome for the situation with Iran trying to obtain nuclear weapons? (1)
Iran will be stopped from getting nuclear weapons through diplomatic
solutions. (2) Iran will be stopped from getting nuclear weapons through
military action. (3) Iran will eventually get nuclear weapons." Here's a
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: "What do you think the United States should do
to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program: take military action against
Iran now, use economic and diplomatic efforts but not take military action
right now, or take no action against Iran at this time?" And a Pew
Research Center poll: "Who should take the lead in dealing with Iran's
nuclear program: the United States or countries in the European Union?"
and "Which is your greater concern when it comes to dealing with Iran's
nuclear program -- that we will take action too quickly, or that we will
wait too long?" The closest anyone comes to an unbiased question without
implicit assumptions is this CBS News Poll: "Which comes closer to your
opinion? Iran is a threat to the United States that requires military
action now. Iran is a threat that can be contained with diplomacy now. OR,
Iran is not a threat to the United States at this time." And even there,
that "at this time" carries the implicit assumption of future threat.
[lefti.blogspot.com]
	Here is the opening sentence from the New York Times article on
the subject today: "Western nuclear analysts said yesterday that Tehran
lacked the skills, materials and equipment to make good on its immediate
nuclear ambitions." There simply is no allowance for any debate on the
"fact" that Iran has "nuclear ambitions." I admit that "immediate nuclear
ambitions" could in principle refer only to nuclear power, but reading the
whole article in context, it's pretty clear that is not what it means.
After all, if that was Iran's only "ambition," this would be a non-story.
Which it would be, were it not for the war-mongering U.S. government and
U.S. media. [lefti.blogspot.com]

[6] BRITS. Tony Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer
military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move
wins the backing of the international community, government sources
claimed yesterday. Amid increasing tension over Tehran's attempts to
develop a military nuclear capacity, the Prime Minister has laid bare the
limits of his support for President Bush, who is believed to be
considering an assault on Iran, Foreign Office sources revealed. US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is calling on the United Nations to
consider new sanctions against Tehran when the Security Council meets next
week to discuss the developing crisis. Blair is expected to support the
call for a "Chapter 7" resolution, which could effectively isolate Iran
from the international community. [Scotsman]

[7] BUREAUCRATS. The New York Times [today]... examines how a provision of
the Deficit Reduction Act ... will require Medicaid recipients to produce
documentation proving their citizenship. [Slate]
	The Boston Globe is reporting thousands of low-income Americans
are at risk with the pending activation of a federal law that would
require them to show proof US of citizenship in order to receive health
care. The requirement was attached to the Deficit Reduction Act, which
President Bush signed into law this year. Healthcare advocates said the
requirements could adversely affect undocumented immigrants and Medicaid
recipients who will be unable to provide the necessary documentation. Bill
Walczak, chief executive officer of the Codman Square Health Center in
Massachusetts [blocks from my former home--CGE], said: "We didn't create
the healthcare centers to become citizenship enforcement centers." [DN]

[8] EMERGENCIES. The multi-agency flu plan outlined in the WP [contains
the curious remark that] the Treasury Department has plans to produce
currency elsewhere should U.S. mints need to close. [Slate]

[9] CROOKS. The WP lets the blogosphere do the investigative work (but
leaves it uncredited) and reports on the little scam Rep. John Doolittle
is running with his wife Julie. Through her company, whose clients include
Doolittle's campaign committee and his leadership PAC, Mrs. Doolittle gets
a cut of every donation made to Mr. Doolittle's campaign. There's nothing
unethical about this, says the congressman's office. [Slate]

[10] MEDIA. Yesterday Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a speech.
The only clip I saw of him on any news show was the sentence where he
declared that Iran had "joined the nuclear club." Literally every word I
have heard from every talking head on TV, before or since his speech,
simply assumes that Iran is embarked on a course of developing nuclear
weapons, and that the only questions are "how far away are they" and "how
can 'we' stop them"? I have literally not heard a single person or a
single word which challenged that conventional "wisdom."
	No surprise, then, that after catching Ahmadinejad's entire speech
on C-SPAN (not a direct link), I was unable after considerable effort to
find any kind of transcript of his complete remarks. I mean, maybe you
don't believe a word he says, but shouldn't you at least want to know what
he said? Since I couldn't find a transcript, I made one. Here it is; you
be the judge. I should say this isn't a complete transcript, but it is a
transcript of the most relevant portion. I have, I admit, left out the
part where he said "Death to America, death to England, death to the
infidels, death to Israel." You can take that for what it was worth too.
    "Sciences and technologies thanks to the faith in God is in the
service of humanity. It is science tempered by faith that serves peace and
progress. We have declared on numerous occasions that we seek peace and
stability on the basis of faith in humanity, in a unitary God, and in
justice for the entire human race. We have declared many times, and we
declare again, that our nuclear technology is in the service of peaceful
goals. We declare that mass destruction weapons are sought by those who
still think in the mode of 50 years ago. Those who think that political
equations and cultural and economic equations can be solved to their
benefit by relying on arsenals of mass destruction weapons. Our nation is
a civilized nation, a cultured nation, that relies on the faith and will
of its young nationals. Our nation, in order to achieve its aspiration,
relies on the thoughts and beliefs and enhanced values that lie in the
Islamic culture and Iranian culture. Our nation does not elicit its power
from nuclear weapons. The power of our nation is rooted in the justice of
its beliefs.
    "We have declared and I declare again that the total sum of our
nuclear activities in all phases were under the full supervision of the
atomic agency, and today we also wish to stay under the supervision of the
IAEA and continue our activities. What we have achieved and will achieve
in the future will be in the framework of the legitimate rights of Iran
and based on the universally accepted laws including the laws of our
nation and the IAEA under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We, on the basis
of international rules and our legitimate rights, continue our path
towards having nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, our nation in its
advancement path, faces some bad temper, some law-breaking, and some
coercion by some nations. Of course it is not without precedent in our
history. In the movement for nationalizing our oil industry which was our
legitimate right, some of these same powers stood up against us and boldly
defied the legitimate rights of Iran. Of course, the product of this was a
permanent hatred of them rooted in the hearts of our nation. And they
today, with the same argument, with the same literature, and with
psychological warfare, they try to prevent Iran's access to its legitimate
rights. I advise them not to repeat the bitter experience of the past and
to respect the rights of the Iranian people. I urge them not to create a
permanent hatred in the hearts of the Iranian nation for themselves and in
the world.
    "We have declared many times and I declare here again that the Iranian
progress and power will always be in the service of peace and stability
for its neighbors and the entire world, and it will be such in the
future."[lefti.blogspot.com]

[11] DANGER. In a story that could mark a major development in the
Israel-Palestinian conflict, Al Jazeera is reporting the Hamas-led
Palestinian government is willing to recognize Israel if Israel agrees to
fully withdraw from the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem.
The stance would mark a significant shift for Hamas, which is sworn to
Israel's destruction. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip last summer but
maintains full control over its borders and airspace. It has rejected
calls for a full withdrawal from the West Bank, where it continues to
expand settlements deep into Palestinian territory. [DN]

[12] UN. Meanwhile at the United Nations, the US has blocked a proposed
Security Council statement that expressed concern over Israel's ongoing
shelling of the Gaza Strip. At least 16 Palestinians have been killed in
the attacks. In the most widely-publicized incident, an eight-year girl
was killed and seven of her siblings injured when an Israel shell hit
their home. Israel says it will continue the shelling until militants halt
launching rockets at bordering Israeli towns. Israel has been accused of
carrying out a harsh response because the rockets have not caused any
injuries. US Ambassador John Bolton said the UN's draft statement was
unfairly critical of Israel. But supporters of the resolution said it had
also called on Palestinians to prevent rocket attacks and suicide
bombings. Referring to the US, Palestinian UN observer Riyad Mansour said:
"It was obvious they did not want the Security Council to have a
position."
	In Gaza, thousands of Palestinians marched Tuesday at the funeral
of a young Palestinian girl killed by an Israeli rocket shell. Four-year
old Hadeel died when Israeli forces fired on her house in the Northern
Gaza Strip Monday. 12 people, including five children, were injured in the
attack. Meanwhile, the US, Canada, and the European Union have now all cut
off financial aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian authority. The aid freeze
will continue until Hamas renounces violence and recognizes Israel. On
Tuesday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas renewed his calls
for direct negotiations with the Israeli government. Israel says it will
speak to Abbas but will not engage in final status peace talks. [DN]

[13] CONSCIENCE. In Britain, a doctor in the Royal Air Force has been
sentenced to eight months in jail for refusing to go to Iraq. Flight
Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith maintained he is refusing his assignment
in order to not take part in an illegal war. "Now more so than ever he
feels that his actions were totally justified and he would not if placed
in the same circumstances seek to do anything differently," Justin
Hugheston-Roberts, the lawyer representing Kendall-Smith, said after the
sentencing. [DN]

[14] HO-HUM. Here in the United States, another high-ranking retired
military commander has publicly called for the ouster of Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld. In an interview with the New York Times, Major General
Charles Swannack Jr. said: "I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the
right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing
the war against Saddam in Iraq." Up until 2004, Swannack was the commander
of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. He is now the sixth retired general
to call for Rumsfeld's resignation in recent weeks. On Thursday White
House spokesperson Scott McClellan defended Rumsfeld, saying he is doing a
"very fine job." [DN]

[15] LIE. Meanwhile, for the second straight day Thursday, White House
spokesperson Scott McLellan could not tell reporters when President Bush
or other administration officials were informed a Pentagon fact-finding
mission had found no mobile biological weapons labs in Iraq. The timing of
the fact-finding mission's report has come under intense scrutiny. Just
two days after it was submitted, President Bush cited the trailers as
proof the US had discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The
President and other administration officials continued to make the faulty
claim for more than a year -- and never once said their claim had been
disputed.
	The White House is coming under intense scrutiny after the
Washington Post revealed that the administration kept asserting it had
uncovered mobile biological labs in Iraq even after a team of Pentagon
investigators had concluded no such labs had been found. On May 27, 2003
the Pentagon made its findings available. Two days later President Bush
said, "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
laboratories." Days later Secretary of State Colin Powell said. " We have
already discovered mobile biological factories. There is no question in
our mind that that's what their purpose was. Nobody has come up with an
alternate purpose that makes sense." The Bush administration continued
with its faulty claim for more than a year.
	In Washington, Press Secretary Scott McClellan attempted to spin
the controversy of mobile labs by criticizing the press for covering a
story based on what he described as "rehashed, old information." He called
the story "an embarrassment for the media and irresponsible" because the
Bush administration has already admitted its pre-war intelligence on Iraq
was mistaken. But McClellan could not answer whether the President knew of
the Pentagon's conclusions before he publicly said the trailers were proof
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. [DN]

[16] IRAQ. Earlier this week veteran Middle East correspondent Patrick
Cockburn of the London Independent wrote: "I am becoming convinced that
[Iraq] will not survive I have been covering the war ever since it began
three years ago and I have never seen the situation so grim." The US
military has announced the deaths of four more American troops, bringing
the US death toll this month to 35 higher than it was for all of March.
[DN]

[17] SECRETS. Telecom giant AT&T is asking a civil liberties group to
return documents that allegedly show the company provided detailed records
on millions of Americans to the National Security Agency. In February, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit alleging AT&T assisted the
NSA in eavesdropping on the phone calls and Internet usage of U.S.
citizens without court warrants. A former AT&T technician named Mark Klein
leaked the internal company documents that describe how AT&T had a secret
room in its San Francisco hub which the NSA used to monitor e-mail
messages, Internet phone calls, and other Internet traffic. Klein
concluded that the equipment permitted "vacuum-cleaner surveillance" of
Internet traffic. [DN]

[18] SMARM. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is now saying neither
he nor his aides believed Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat before the
US-led invasion. In an interview with journalist Robert Scheer, Powell
said the President was convinced by nuclear claims given to him by Vice
President Dick Cheney and the CIA. Powell said: "The CIA was pushing the
aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what
our guys wrote." Asked about President Bush's faulty claim that Saddam
Hussein attempted to buy nuclear material from Niger in his State of the
Union speech, Powell reportedly answered: "It should never have been in
the speech... I never believed it." [DN]

[19] MEMORY-HOLE. The National Security Archive has revealed that the
government agency responsible for state archives colluded with the CIA and
other intelligence agencies to remove thousands of previously declassified
historical documents that were previously available to the public. In a
secret agreement, the National Archives and Records Administration agreed
to remove the archival records and re-classify them in order to avoid
scrutiny from researchers. The re-classification scheme was disclosed
earlier this year but details of how it came about were largely unknown.
[DN]

[20] BUM. And in Washington, Vice President Dick Cheney was greeted with
loud boos Tuesday when he threw out the ceremonial pitch at the opener for
Major League Baseball's Washington Nationals. This wasn't the first time
Cheney has gotten a hostile reception at a baseball game -- in June 2004,
Cheney was booed at a Yankees game here in New York. [DN]

[21] IMMIGRATION. As many as two million people took to the streets in
more than 100 cities and towns across the country on Monday to march for
immigrants' rights. Undocumented workers, legal immigrants, labor unions,
immigrant rights advocates and their supporters demonstrated in what was
billed as the National Day of Action for Immigrant Justice. In New York,
more than one thousand demonstrators crossed the Brooklyn Bridge and
packed the streets in lower Manhattan for a rally near City Hall. In
Atlanta, as many as 80,000 people flooded the streets. In Phoenix, an
estimated 100,000 rallied at the Arizona Capitol. 25,000 marched in
Madison, Wisconsin. 10,000 in Boston. 8,000 in Omaha, Nebraska. The
rallies Monday followed a day of demonstrations in San Diego, Miami,
Birmingham, Alabama, Utah, Idaho and Iowa. A rally in Dallas drew half a
million people, the largest protest in the city's history. In Washington
DC, hundreds of thousands streamed past the White House to a rally on the
National Mall. The demonstration took place just yards from the Capitol,
where Senators last week failed to reach agreement on wide-ranging
immigration reform that would allow the more than 11 million undocumented
immigrants living in this country a chance to work here legally and
eventually become U.S. citizens. [DN]

[22] MADNESS. In his first public comments on Iran since reports emerged
that his administration has drawn up plans for an attack, President Bush
was dismissive -- but did not issue an explicit denial: "The doctrine of
prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a
nuclear weapon. I know -- I know we're here in Washington; you know,
prevention means force. It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case,
it means diplomacy. And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers
this weekend. There was just wild speculation, by the way. What you're
reading is wild speculation, which is kind of a, you know -- happens quite
frequently here in the nation's capital."
	The issue has received renewed attention following a recent piece
by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. The article
cites defense officials saying the Bush administration has drawn up
elaborate plans to use tactical weapons against Iranian nuclear sites.
Seymour Hersh was also in Washington Monday, where he discussed the
possibility of a US attack. Hersh said: "It's going into what they call
operational planning, in which there's serious, consistent very carefully
drawn up bombing campaigns and what you will. I mean, there's no decision
made about what to do but it's not just pie in the sky, this is serious
stuff." [DN]

[23] LEAKER. During the same appearance on Monday, President Bush
struggled to answer a question on new evidence linking him to the outing
of CIA operative Valerie Plame: "You can't talk about -- you're not
supposed to talk about classified information, and so I declassified the
document. I thought it was important for people to get a better sense for
why I was saying what I was saying in my speeches. And I felt I could do
so without jeopardizing, you know, ongoing intelligence matters, and so I
did."
	President Bush has been forced to defend his role in the Plame
scandal following former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby's recent
testimony the President authorized him to secretly disclose Iraq
intelligence to a reporter in the buildup to the Iraq war. On Sunday, the
New York Times reported the intelligence was leaked despite the fact the
administration knew its accuracy had been disputed. During his appearance
Monday, President didn't answer whether he had authorized Libby to leak
the information to a reporter. [DN]

[24] SUPPORT. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll has found that the
President's approval rating remains near an all time low of 38 percent.
Sixty percent of Americans disapprove of the President's performance. On
Capitol Hill, support for the Republican-controlled Congress is at its
lowest point in nine years. Barely one-third of voters approve of the
Congress' performance. 55 percent of voters say they plan to vote for the
Democratic candidate in their House district come November's mid-term
elections. [DN]
	The latest Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll found ... just 37
percent said they believe Bush when he says a lot of progress is being
made [in Iraq], down from 45 percent who said they believed him in
January. Forty-eight percent said they would support military action
against Iran if it continues to produce material that can be used to
develop a nuclear bomb, down from 57 percent in January. Forty percent
oppose military action, up from 33 percent in January. A majority -- 54
percent -- said they "don't trust" Bush to make the right decision about
whether the U.S. should go to war with Iran, compared with 42 percent who
said they do trust him. Forty percent said the Iraq experience had made
them less supportive of military action against Iran, while 38 percent
said it had no impact.  ... Crude oil climbed on Monday to the highest
level since shortly after Hurricane Katrina last year on concern supplies
from Iran could be disrupted by a confrontation over the country's nuclear
program. The Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll found mounting skepticism
about the Iraqi conflict, with 38 percent of Americans saying it was worth
fighting compared to 58 percent who said it was not. Seventy-four percent
said the situation would worsen or remain the same over the next year
while 23 percent thought it would improve. Americans are split on
establishing a deadline for pulling out of Iraq, with 45 percent saying
Bush should set a date for withdrawal of all U.S. troops while he is still
in office while 49 percent said he should not, a statistically
insignificant difference. [Bloomberg]

[25] DEMOS. In other news, France has scrapped a widely unpopular job law
that would have made it easier for employers to fire young workers. French
President Jacques Chirac announced the decision following two months of
protests attended by millions of people. Student groups and unions hailed
the decision as a major victory over a measure they claimed would have
only worsened job security in France. Chirac said the measure would be
replaced by a new initiative to help disadvantaged young people find work.
[DN]

[26] SET-UP. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez has threatened to expel
US ambassador William Brownfield. Chavez said Brownfield provoked a
protest on Sunday when he traveled to a poor neighborhood with a large
armed security detail. The ambassador's car was pelted with tomatoes and
eggs during the visit, with demonstrators shouting: "Get out, coup-backer!
Get out, rubbish!" [DN]

[27] PROPAGANDA. The Washington Post is reporting the Pentagon is
conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of al-Qaeda figure
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. Some military intelligence officials believe
the campaign may have exaggerated Zarqawi's importance and helped the Bush
administration link the Iraq war with the September 11 attacks. The
propaganda effort has also been reportedly used to build sentiment against
non-US foreigners in Iraq. One military briefing was entitled: "Villainize
Zarqawi/leverage xenophobia response." Another document lists "U.S. Home
Audience" as a target audience for the campaign. [DN]

[28] HERSH. A generation ago aspiring journalists looked up to the
Watergate team of Woodward and Bernstein as their idols. But times have
changed. One half of the Washington Post duo, Carl Bernstein, has moved
into academia, while Bob Woodward has grown rich and part of the
Washington establishment. His books on the Bush administration have leant
heavily on interviews granted by the president and his top aides. Far from
shaking the administration, they were advertised as recommended reading by
the Bush re-election campaign. The only investigative journalist from that
era who is still giving the administration sleepless nights is Seymour
Hersh, whose scoops in the New Yorker have become a centrepiece in the
debate over the US "global war on terror". This week's extraordinary
report alleging that George Bush had not only made up his mind to topple
the Iranian government, but was also toying with the idea of doing it with
a tactical nuclear weapon, was a telling example of his influence. If any
other journalist had produced the story, it would almost certainly have
been laughed off. Because Hersh wrote it, it was front-page news around
the world, notwithstanding Mr Bush's insistence it was all "wild
speculation". The White House stopped short of denying the story, saying
only that the Pentagon was conducting "normal military contingency
planning". The problem for the president is that the man known in
Washington as Sy has become an institution with more credibility than the
administrations that come and go in this fickle city. Hidden away in an
anonymous office block, he works out of two shabby rooms. The wall behind
him is covered with black skid marks inflicted by his penchant for leaning
back in his chair and putting his running shoes on his desk while on the
telephone. The other Washington reporters for the New Yorker recently set
up shop just around the corner in a pleasant and orderly suite of offices,
but Hersh has not joined them -- "because I am not (always) pleasant nor
orderly" he pointed out. One of his colleagues tersely agrees: "Sy does
not play well with others." Political journalism in Washington is
generally restrained. Hersh is not like that. He is excitable,
fast-talking and uses "fucking" more than any other adjective, with a
hard-edged accent honed on Chicago's South Side. Hersh has been publishing
scoops since long before Watergate, breaking the story of the US massacre
of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai in 1969 while he was a freelancer. He
won the Pulitzer prize for that and his office wall is densely covered
with other awards. In more than 30 years in the business, Hersh has had a
few slips. He initially fell for a set of forgeries purporting to show
Marilyn Monroe had blackmailed President John Kennedy, but the fraud was
uncovered before his 1998 book on the Kennedy White House, The Dark Side
of Camelot, was published. He has just passed his 69th birthday, but still
has a fire in his belly for new stories. "Get out of the way of the
fucking story," is his over-arching philosophy. His desk is covered with
manila files and yellow legal pads. Somewhere in the mess are his tax
returns which he was yesterday scrambling to finish by the deadline. "I
feel like I did in the Vietnam days -- I hate to pay taxes just so they
can go and bomb more people." He says he never puts notes that would
identify his sources on to his computer. He does talk to them by phone, at
least to arrange meetings.  "They'd be crazy to wiretap me," Hersh said,
explaining that some of his informants in the intelligence world would
find out. He says he does not have Deep Throat-like encounters in
underground car parks, but rather goes to see his government contacts at
their homes late at night or first thing in the morning. Before his
stories are published, his sources are called by New Yorker factcheckers
to verify every detail. "I can't deal with people who can't talk to the
factcheckers," he said. "My people will explain to the factcheckers things
they think I already know or understand, so they explain things much
better, and come out with details I hadn't even thought of." Finally,
Hersh sets out on late-night drives, dropping drafts of his stories
through the letterboxes of his sources to give them a chance to confirm he
has interpreted their information correctly and that he is not going to
publish anything that will put the US at risk. "I don't want to reveal
operational details. I'm an American, after all."  Often, he says, he ends
up publishing "one-hundredth of what I know". He picks up a file from a
stack on his desk and opens it to reveal a thick wad of confidential
memos. Each one could have made a splash in a British daily. One is
between two senior British official in the run-up to the Iraq war.  It
talks of the US determination to oust Saddam and the differences within
the administration. For a better understanding of the situation the memo
recommends reading one source in particular: Seymour Hersh. [Guardian]

[29] SINKING. Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House,
told students and faculty at the University of South Dakota Monday that
the United States should pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there,
just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany. "It was an enormous mistake
for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003," Gingrich said
during a question-and-answer session at the school. "We have to pull back,
and we have to recognize it."  [huffingtonpost]

[20] ESTABLISHMENT. Western defense sources and analysts told a meeting of
the Council on Foreign Relations that Britain and the United States are
preparing for the prospect of air strikes against Iran's nuclear
facilities in late 2006 if diplomatic efforts at the United Nations
Security Council are not succesful. "In just the past few weeks I've been
convinced that at least some in the administration have already made up
their minds that they would like to launch a military strike against
Iran," Joseph Cirincione, director of the Washington-based
Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, said. At an April 5 seminar by the Council on Foreign Relations,
Cirincione said he based his assessment on conversations with those with
"close connections with the White House and the Pentagon."
	Led by a familiar clutch of neoconservative hawks, major
right-wing publications are calling on the administration of President
George W. Bush to urgently plan for military strikes and possibly a wider
war against Iran in the wake of its announcement this week that it has
successfully enriched uranium to a purity necessary to fuel nuclear
reactors. In a veritable blitz of editorials and opinion pieces published
Wednesday and Thursday, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and
National Review warned that Tehran had passed a significant benchmark in
what they declared was its quest for nuclear weapons and that the
administration must now plan in earnest to destroy Iran's known nuclear
facilities, as well as possible military targets, to prevent it from
retaliating. Comparing Iran's alleged push to gain a nuclear weapon to
Adolf Hitler's 1936 march on the Rhineland, Weekly Standard editor William
Kristol called for undertaking "serious preparation for possible military
action including real and urgent operational planning for bombing strikes
and for the consequences of such strikes." "[A] great nation has to be
serious about its responsibilities," according to Kristol, a leading
neoconservative champion of the Iraq war and co-founder of the Project for
the New American Century, "even if executing other responsibilities has
been more difficult than one would have hoped." [worldtribune.com]

[31] LEAVING? The U.S. government/military has been illegally squatting on
Cuban soil for more than a century. Now AP reports on the new U.S.
"embassy" being built in Baghdad:
    The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be
the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the
population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power
and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future.
    The embassy complex -- 21 buildings on 104 acres, according to a U.S.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee report -- is taking shape on riverside
parkland in the fortified "Green Zone."
    "Embassy Baghdad" will dwarf new U.S. embassies elsewhere, projects
that typically cover 10 acres. The embassy's 104 acres is six times larger
than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the acreage
of Washington's National Mall.
    It will have its own water wells, electricity plant and
wastewaster-treatment facility, "systems to allow 100 percent independence
from city utilities," says the report, the most authoritative open source
on the embassy plans.
    Security, overseen by U.S. Marines, will be extraordinary: setbacks
and perimeter no-go areas that will be especially deep, structures
reinforced to 2.5-times the standard, and five high-security entrances,
plus an emergency entrance-exit, the Senate report says. [AP]

[32] REDBAITING. The success of the immigrant rights movement isn't
scaring some people is it? You bet it is. Friday's Washington Post
features a major story on a supposed (and, from what I know, real) "split"
in the movement regarding the May 1 "Day without an immigrant." They claim
that some in the movement question "the strategic value of such a move so
soon after the wave of demonstrations, particularly as it would require
many illegal immigrants to risk their jobs by skipping yet another
workday," and no doubt there are legitimate discussions over strategy and
tactics. But then we get to this:
    "Skeptics have another pressing concern -- that a prominent antiwar
group may be playing a leading role in the boycott, linking its cause with
the immigrant rights campaign to promote its own agenda." Later, this
anonymous criticism is fleshed out:
    "Diaz [Ricardo Diaz, who helped organize two marches in
Philadelphia.], Contreras [Jaime Contreras, president of the National
Capital Immigrant Coalition and chairman of the local Service Employees
International Union in Washington, D.C.] and other leaders were alarmed
that the antiwar organization Act Now to Stop War and End Racism
co-sponsored an April 4 news conference in the District to announce the
boycott, even before the April 10 events. The group has been criticized by
conservatives as being affiliated with the Socialist Workers Party and
supporting the Palestinian uprising against Israel.
    "'Groups . . . that have done nothing on immigration have no reason to
stick their nose where it doesn't belong,' Contreras said. 'They have no
business saying, "Let's do a strike" when it will create a humongous
burden on immigrant groups. They need to stay in their box.'
    "Brian Becker, national coordinator of the antiwar organization, said
his group has long supported immigrant rights and is not trying to co-opt
the May 1 action. 'We are just part of the coalition; we are not
spearheading it at all,' he said. 'Whatever the immigrant rights community
calls for is what we support.'" Let's note just a few things about these
claims. First off, the mention of the Socialist Workers Party is ludicrous
in the extreme. The Socialist Workers Party does exist, but it has been
inactive in most if not all movements (e.g., the antiwar movement). The
Workers World Party, which split from the SWP in, if memory serves, 1957,
was a founding member of the ANSWER Coalition, but in mid-2004, they split
into two, with those who had been most active in ANSWER founding a new
party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which is now a member of
the ANSWER Coalition.  The upshot of all this is that someone mentioning
the Socialist Workers Party, whether it was the Washington Post writer or
one of the two cited people, shows they haven't a clue what they are
talking about. The second thing to note is the alleged criticism from
these unnamed conservatives. What are they? Aside from the incorrect
"affiliation with the SWP," it's "supporting the Palestinian uprising
against Israel." I'm sure you'll all note the language of that. Not
"supporting Palestinian rights," not "opposing Israeli occupation of
Palestine," not "opposing the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians," but
"supporting the Palestinian uprising." By the way, since Diaz and
Contreras are not "conservatives,"  that language clearly comes straight
from the reporter, and not from anyone else. The third thing to note is
what is missing. "Conservatives" also criticize ANSWER for opposing the
occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Isn't that a bit more central to what
ANSWER has been doing lately, and relevant? Why mention Palestine and not
Iraq? Isn't Iraq just as "irrelevant" (in the eyes of conservatives) to
the immigrant rights movement as Palestine? And, by the way, we might also
note that it's not just "conservatives" who criticize ANSWER's support for
the Palestinian people, but liberals as well. Just as an side. But the
central point, of course, is the claim by Contreras that ANSWER has "done
nothing on immigration" and Becker's counterclaim that "his group has long
supported immigrant rights." I'll provide the proof. Here's the Socialism
and Liberation issue for July, 2005, with a cover reading "The workers
struggle has no borders, " and articles entitled "Real I.D.  Act attacks
immigrants," "Fighting the racist Minutemen," and "The global struggle
against CAFTA." The current (April) issue, produced before all but one of
the recent wave of demonstrations, has as its cover article "Stop the war
on immigrants!," and features an article on the huge Chicago demonstration
which kicked off the latest wave. Of course this kind of attitude, and
activism, is hardly limited to the PSL and hardly began in July 2005; this
issue has been central to the left, and to the workers movement, for a
long, long time (probably since the time of Marx, but I'm not the Marx
scholar some are, so I'll leave that proof to others). And if you've been
reading the blog Politics in the Zeroes, written by an ANSWER activist in
Los Angeles, you know that that's one of the few places on the web you've
been able to read about these recent demos before they happened, because
Bob, and ANSWER-LA, were centrally involved in their planning. Not, as
Becker makes clear, "spearheading" the activity, but supporting it with
all their energy. The attempts to split the immigrant rights movement must
be resisted at all costs. That doesn't mean, as I said at the start, that
there can't be or aren't legitimate discussions over strategy and tactics.
But redbaiting, explicit or implicit, is completely unacceptable.
[lefti.blogspot.com]

  ===========================================================
  C. G. Estabrook, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  109 Observatory, 901 South Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
  ### <www.carlforcongress.org> <www.newsfromneptune.com> ###
  ===========================================================