[Peace] News notes 2005-02-06

[C. G. Estabrook]

        Notes from last week's "global war on terrorism" [GWOT],
        for the AWARE meeting, Sunday, February 6, 2005.
        (Sources provided on request; a paragraph followed by a
        bracketed source is substantially verbatim.)

	Anti-war, anti-racism (Observer/UK 2/6/05):
	"Martin Mubanga went on holiday to Zambia, but ended up spending
	33 months in Guantanamo Bay: '...He comes back with a mop and dips
	it in the pool of urine. Then he starts covering me with my own
	waste, like he's using a big paintbrush, working methodically,
	beginning with my feet and ankles and working his way up my legs.
	All the while he's racially abusing me, cussing me: "Oh, the poor
	little negro, the poor little nigger."  He seemed to think it was
	funny.'" --"How I entered the hellish world of Guantanamo Bay," by
	David Rose <http://207.44.245.159/article7980.htm>

AL-JAZEERA REPORTED THIS MORNING [Sun. 6 Feb.] that "Experts from the U.S.
Defense Department, the Pentagon and Israel have put final touches to a
plan to launch a military strike targeting Iran's nuclear facilities,
experts at the European Commission based in Brussels, revealed on Sunday."
	
It's not clear that that's true, but it may be a purposeful leak: the
European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, warns in a broadcast
today that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be "a
mistake", while SOS Rice called on Europe to show "unity of purpose" with
Washington. The news this week is of American imperial arrogance --
perhaps largely bluff but nevertheless dangerous to the world.

[1] IMPERIAL ARROGANCE. The new American SOS made her maiden trip to
Europe and the Middle East an occasion to threaten the rest of the world
with war and deny economic aid from the world's richest country, while her
masters at hone were transferring wealth from the poor to the rich.  At a
press conference with the sycophantic British foreign secretary, Rice said
that a military strike against Iran was "simply not on the agenda [pause]
at this point [pause] in time." Obviously she meant to convey the opposite
of the literal meaning of her words, a point she underscored by hastily
adding the curious clause, "nobody asks an American President to take any
option off his table." And American (in)actions spoke even louder than her
awkward words. The NYT writes as follows:
	Less than a day after President Bush declared he was "working with
European allies" to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program, ... Rice
said the United States [rejects European] requests to participate directly
in offering incentives for Iran to drop what is suspected of being a
nuclear arms program...
	Rice also declared that the Tehran government's record on human
rights was "something to be loathed" -- a harsh comment that comes at a
time when many European leaders have asked the United States to help lower
tensions with Iran. Rice said "I don't think anybody thinks that the
unelected mullahs who run that regime are a good thing for the Iranian
people and for the region." She also condemned Iran for having a "abysmal
human rights record". During his State of the Union Wednesday President
Bush described Iran as "the world's primary sponsor of terror." [AP] The
references to the region and terror (meaning the Lebanese political party
Hezbollah) is of course Neocon/Israeli lobby language.
 
Ms. Rice made her remarks as the Iranians, the Europeans and many in
Washington were dissecting Mr. Bush's comments about Iran -- and far
gentler words about Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- in his State of the Union
address on Wednesday night. In the address, Mr. Bush seemed to invite the
people of Iran to liberate themselves from their clerical rulers, ...
matching a specific nation to his Inauguration Day call for an end to
tyranny around the world. "Today, Iran remains the world's primary state
sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of
the freedom they seek and deserve." ...
	In Iran on Thursday, the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, predicted that Mr. Bush, like every other American president
since Iran's 1979 revolution, would fail to overthrow the Islamic
republic. "Bush is the fifth U.S. president who wants to destroy the
Islamic republic," the ayatollah told university students. "But he will
fail as did Jimmy Carter, Reagan, Bush senior and Clinton." Branding the
United States "one of the heads of the dragon of world oppression," he
charged that Mr. Bush had been installed in the White House by "Zionist
and non-Zionist companies and capitalists to serve their interests."
	Mohammad Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's ambassador to Paris, said in an
interview on Thursday that Iran should be rewarded, not punished, by the
United States for supporting the democratic electoral process in Iraq. "We
were the only country in the region to fully support elections in Iraq,"
Mr. Kharazi said. "And in return we get President Bush's negative body
language. America just doesn't want to understand our reality. Is it fair?
No." [NYT]

Iran said on Sunday it was impervious to remarks ... "Such threats will
not have much effect on the Islamic Republic and we will continue our path
of sovereignty, independence and saying no to hegemony," Foreign Ministry
spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a news conference. Iran denies
Washington's charges that it is seeking nuclear warheads and argues it
wants nuclear fuel only to run nuclear power stations such as the one it
is building at the southern port of Bushehr ... In remarks recorded on
Friday in London but broadcast on Sunday by the BBC, Rice broadened her
attack against the Islamic Republic from atomic bombs and human rights to
Iran's support for Palestinian militia. "One of the most important
barriers to getting to that (Middle East) peace is the activity of
Palestinian rejectionist groups and of groups like Hizbollah. Iran is the
key supporter of these rejectionist groups," she said. Iran insists it
only offers moral support to Palestinians. Rice declined to comment on
whether Washington would give Israel the green light to bomb nuclear
targets in Iran but said it was up to Tehran to avert such an attack.
[Reuters]
	On the European Union's plan to lift its arms embargo against
China, Dr Rice moved swiftly to close down questions, saying that the
issue had not featured in her breakfast talks with Mr Straw and Tony
Blair.  But US officials later cautioned strongly against the plan, which
has caused deep concern in Washington. They explained that Congress was
growing increasingly alarmed at the prospect of the US military one day
having to come to the defence of Taiwan against a China equipped with
European arms. [Times/UK]
	
The United States unexpectedly poured cold water yesterday over British
hopes for a bold G7 initiative to increase aid flows to the world's
poorest countries. Despite attempts by Gordon Brown to woo Washington over
fresh financial help for Africa, the US delegation to today's meeting of
finance ministers in London bluntly rejected both of the chancellor's
principal ideas ...
	Mr Brown had made it clear earlier this week that he and ministers
from other European countries would use this weekend's meeting of the
Group of Seven leading economies to pressure the US to back a novel
financing plan that would essentially bring forward aid flows in an
attempt to meet the UN's Millennium Development Goals by 2015.  Mr Brown's
scheme, known as the international financing facility, would involve the
selling of bonds on international markets, which would then be paid back
out of future aid budgets. The chancellor hopes to raise up to $100bn
(£53bn) over the next decade.
	But arriving in London, the US treasury undersecretary, John
Taylor, was dismissive: "Not only does the IFF not work for the United
States, we don't need the IFF." [Guardian]

Washington also said it was not keen on a separate Brown idea of rerating
the undervalued gold reserves of the International Monetary Fund to
finance a debt-write off. It has its own plan to offer grants to poor
countries with conditions that may be unpalatable to recipients. British
officials put on a brave face on the reluctance to stump up so much money
so fast, something many say is the only way to meet a U.N. goal of halving
world poverty by 2015. The U.S. rejection of the plan for Africa may also
be seen as a personal blow to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose
unfailing backing for the U.S. over Iraq has not been rewarded with the
support on debt he has sought from Washington. The G7 includes the United
States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Canada. [Reuters]

Even Europe's backing seemed to be fading as both Italy and Germany said
they would prefer something less ambitious than the proposal British
finance minister Gordon Brown put to a meeting of the Group of Seven rich
nations. But former South African president Nelson Mandela said he would
accept no half measures. It was an outrage to let Africa sink further into
disease and poverty, he said. "We are here to claim justice," the frail
86-year-old told the G7 ministers. "Do not delay while poor people
continue to suffer," he said, demanding a full write-off of African debt
and $50 billion extra a year in aid for the next decade. [Reuters]

[2] TORTURE BOY. The Senate has voted to confirm Alberto Gonzales, one of
the architects of the US torture policy, as Attorney General. Fewer
senators voted against him (36) than voted against John Ashcroft (42).
Robert Collier writes in the San Francisco Chronicle, "the Bush
administration is likely to claim that Congress has given a firm mandate
for its interrogation policies, just as President Bush said his
re-election victory in November was a new mandate for his policies on
Iraq." After Gonzales was confirmed, the American Civil Liberties Union
called on Gonzales to immediately appoint an outside special counsel to
investigate and prosecute any criminal acts by civilians in the torture or
abuse of detainees by the U.S. government.
	The WP reports that newly confirmed Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales will be taking three White House attorneys with him to the
Justice Department to be his top aides, despite his assertions during
confirmation hearings that he sees a difference between representing the
White House and representing the country. Two of the lawyers were in
charge of the White House's response to the investigation into the leak of
CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. [Slate]
	One of four Britons freed last week from US detention in
Guantanamo Bay has described being tortured, witnessing the killing of
fellow detainees by US interrogators and receiving threats to his family.
Moazzam Begg's testimony was quoted in Britain's Independent on Sunday
today...
	"Two of these beatings resulted in the deaths of two detainees in
June and December 2002. I was witness to both, in some fashion," said Mr
Begg, who was arrested in Pakistan in January 2001. He also said he was
interrogated more than 250 times during his detention, according to the
newspaper... He said a confession he signed at Guantanamo Bay was executed
"by coercion, and under duress". He and Richard Belmar, Martin Mubanga and
Feroz Abbasi returned to Britain on Tuesday. They were arrested by British
police immediately, but released on Wednesday without being charged.

[3] OIL POLITICS. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has ordered
the former head of the oil for food program in Iraq to be disciplined
following the publication of a report that harshly criticized the
official, Benon Sevan. The independent report determined that Sevan has
secretly made a deal with Iraqi officials under Saddam Hussein to sell oil
at below market rates to a company owned by a personal friend. The author
of the UN report Paul Volcker said "In making such solicitations, Mr Sevan
created a grave and continuing conflict of interest. His conduct was
ethically improper and seriously undermined the integrity of the United
Nations." The oil for food program was set up in 1996 to allow Iraq to
sell oil to buy food and medicine to ease the effects of international
sanctions.
	Meanwhile CNN is reporting that it has obtained documents that
show the United States knew about, and even condoned, embargo-breaking oil
sales by Saddam Hussein's regime. It was reportedly done to shore up
alliances with Iraq's neighbors. CNN reports the oil trade with countries
such as Turkey and Jordan appears to have been an open secret inside the
U.S. government and the United Nations for years.

[4] LOYAL OPPOSITION. On the social security front, 43 of the 44
Democratic Senators signed a letter Thursday to President Bush charging
that his plan to privatize social security was "immoral, unacceptable, and
unsustainable." The Senators quoted from the Bible to make their case. The
letter read, "We are spending enough of our kids' money. Our country needs
to get back to following the teachings of Romans 13:8, which says we
should 'let no debt remain outstanding.' "
	A new study in the journal Health Affairs has found that half of
all personal bankruptcies in the United States are now caused by soaring
medical bills.

[5] TAME CONGRESS. The declaratory moment of the SOTU address was --
unsurprisingly for this president -- not verbal but visual, an entangling
embrace between the mother of a dead American marine and an Iraqi voter.
And of course it was a set-up. The Iraqi woman, Sofia Taleb Al Souhail.
was "held up as a shining example of why we've spent $200 billion and
wasted 1,500 [American] lives and counting ... she doesn't live in Iraq,
has been affiliated with right-wing organizations, her father was killed
in Lebanon while planning a coup against Saddam, and her family claims the
US was complicit in his assassination." She was sitting in the seat
occupied last year by the disgraced Ahmed Chalabi, the great and good
friend of Judith Miller of the NYT, classmate oF Wolowitz, and source of
the famous bad intelligence.
	The cream of the jest is the report that Chalabi's name was on
Shi'ite leader Sistani's election list, which seems to have won the Iraqi
election in a landslide, and therefore may well be a minister of the new
Iraqi government -- perhaps even PM as the Neocons have always wanted.
	The unreality of Bush's actual speech was so great that it
couldn't be missed even by an associate editor of the Washington Post
(which editorialized on Monday that the US-staged election shows that its
"mission in Iraq remains a just cause"). In a live blog, Robert Kaiser
wrote, "Bush often describes a world whose features are all highly
debatable, if not simply invented. He proposes 'a comprehensive health
care agenda' that will leave perhaps 50 million Americans without health
insurance. Is that comprehensive in any meaningful sense? He promises big
economic benefits from legal changes, 'tort reform,' that independent
economists say cannot have more than a small economic effect even if
enacted, which is not likely. [And] he promises to increase the size of
Pell Grants, not noting that they have shrunk far below the level he
promised when he came into the White House."
	Haaretz reports that Israel will get $50-80 million of the special
aid package Bush promised the Palestinian Authority.
	The most sickening sight was that of the members of Congress
leaping to their feet in unison time and again, looking for all the world
like the Romanian parliament a generation ago. Shortly before he died in
1989, the eminent American writer Robert Penn Warren, author of All The
King's Men, a novel about a democratic demagogue and dictator, was asked
if he foresaw [a fascist president]. "Well, it'll probably be someone you
least expect under circumstances nobody foresaw," he said. "And, of
course, it'll come with a standing ovation from Congress." [Roger Morris,
Globe & Mail]

[6] INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY? The Bush administration must let foreign terror
suspects challenge their confinement in U.S. courts, a judge said Monday
in a ruling that found unconstitutional the hearing system set up by the
Pentagon. U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green also raised concerns about
whether detainees have been tortured during interrogations. Judges, she
said, should make sure people are not detained indefinitely based on
coerced and unreliable information. Foreigners from about 40 different
countries have been held at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba --
some for more than three years -- without being charged with any crimes.
They were mainly swept up in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. The
government contends the prisoners are dangerous "enemy combatants" who,
because they are foreigners, are not entitled to the same constitutional
protections as Americans. Judges are trying to sort out detainee rights
following a landmark Supreme Court ruling last summer that federal courts
are open to appeals on behalf of the foreigners.
	Green's ruling conflicts with a decision about two weeks ago by
another federal judge in the same court who considered a similar lawsuit
brought by a different group of detainees. Judge Richard Leon found that
while the Supreme Court gave detainees access to courts, it did not
provide them the legal basis to try to win their freedom. Viet Dinh, a
Georgetown Law School professor who worked on terrorism issues as an
assistant to Attorney General John Ashcroft, said because the two
decisions "are so stark, it's more likely than not the Supreme Court will
have to weigh in." That would mean many more months of legal wrangling,
including hearings at an appeals court. While the additional time lets the
Bush administration continue holding people indefinitely, it also risks
further angering other countries over the jailing of their citizens...
Green's decision was a sharp, but courteous, rebuke of the government.
"Although this nation unquestionably must take strong action under the
leadership of the commander in chief to protect itself against enormous
and unprecedented threats," she wrote, "that necessity cannot negate the
existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of
this country have fought and died for well over 200 years." Hearings being
held to determine if the prisoners are enemy combatants are
unconstitutional, the judge said, because detainees are not represented by
lawyers and are not told of some of the evidence against them -- including
some information that may have been obtained by torture or coercion...
	Green, named to the bench by President Carter, was assigned to
sort out issues in claims filed in federal court in Washington on behalf
of about 50 detainees. Olshansky said more petitions are being filed this
week. Leon, put on the bench by President Bush three years ago, declined
to have his cases coordinated with others. He concluded that foreign
citizens captured and detained outside the United States have no rights
under the Constitution or international law. Green, however, said
detainees may fight their imprisonment as a violation of their
constitutional due process rights. And some Taliban fighters may be
entitled to hearings to determine if they are prisoners of war, she said.
The president is not authorized "to rule by fiat that an entire group of
fighters" has few legal rights, she said in a 75-page decision that had
sections blacked out because of security concerns... The decision is
available at: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/02-299b.pdf. [AP]

[7] SHAM DEFENSE. The Wednesday Washington Post fronts "turf battles" that
have been adding to the Department of Homeland Security's already
well-documented problems. One "former official" referred to "a civil war"
within the department that has caused paralysis on, among other things,
shoring up shipping container safety. Meanwhile, DHS's investigative
branch got in some sort of funding tiff and has been operating with so
little money "that use of agency vehicles and photocopying were at times
banned." [Slate]
	The new nominee for head of the DHS, Michael Chertoff, buried
early evidence of Bush's torture campaign in Afghanistan : "It is
outrageous that Chertoff didn't allow testimony about Lindh's torture by
American forces to come out," The nominee for new Homeland Security
secretary, back in 2002, worked hard to keep the public from hearing
courtroom testimony that would have revealed the Bush government's new
campaign of torture, allowing it to spread from Afghanistan to Guantanamo
to Iraq.
	Meanwhile, Bush promoted Elliott Abrams, convicted Iran-Contra
perjuror, neocon family member, and Israeli lobbyist -- to be deputy
national security adviser.

[8] ACADEMIC FREEDOM? University of Colorado administrators Thursday took
the first steps toward a possible dismissal of a professor who likened
World Trade Center victims to a notorious Nazi. Interim Chancellor Phil
DiStefano ordered a 30-day review of Ward Churchill's speeches and
writings to determine if the professor overstepped his boundaries of
academic freedom and whether that should be grounds for dismissal. Also
Thursday, the Board of Regents issued an apology for Churchill's remarks
at a meeting and voted to support the university's review of Churchill ...
Democratic state Sen. Peter Groff cast the lone "no" vote, saying he
disagreed with Churchill but that the resolution provides him with
undeserved attention and attacks free speech. [AP]
	The French education ministry suspended far-right lawmaker Bruno
Gollnisch from his position as a university professor over controversial
comments he made about Nazi gas chambers. Gollnisch, a professor of
Japanese civilization and international law at the Jean-Moulin university
in Lyon, said he would appeal his suspension to the Conseil d'Etat, the
country's highest administrative court. The education ministry said
Gollnisch, who is a top deputy to far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen
within his National Front (FN) party, had been relieved of his duties "in
the interest of the department". Gollnisch told a press conference in
October: "I do not deny the existence of deadly gas chambers. But I'm not
a specialist on this issue, and I think we have to let the historians
debate it. And this debate should be free and open." The FN deputy said he
did not contest the "hundreds of thousands, the millions of deaths" during
the Holocaust, but added: "As to the way those people died, a debate
should take place."
	Le Pen sparked controversy last month when he described the Nazi
occupation of France during World War II as "not especially inhumane".
Paris prosecutors have launched a preliminary inquiry to determine whether
Le Pen's remarks constitute "denial of crimes against humanity" or
"apology for war crimes" -- both of which are criminal offenses. [AFP]

[9] FREE SPEECH? A new survey of high school students has found that one
in three students feel that newspapers should get "government approval" of
stories prior to publication. One third of students also said the press
has "too much freedom." Jack Dvorak, director of the High School
Journalism Institute at Indiana University in Bloomington said the survey
confirms that students are not learning enough about the First Amendment
in school. [KR]
	Hard on the heels of the alarming Knight Foundation survey of U.S.
teens, showing our high-schoolers' disdain for the niceties of the First
Amendment, comes now a survey of the attitudes of first-year college
students with some more bad news. Sponsored by the Higher Education
Research Institute at the University of California/Los Angeles, the
just-released survey shows, among other things, that:
	~ a solid majority (58.6%) of freshmen think colleges should
prohibit racist/sexist speech on campus, which shows little understanding
of what the First Amendment really means -- as does the finding that 43.7%
believe that colleges have the right to ban extreme speakers;
	~making marriage equality for same-sex couples legal is supported
by only a minority (48.3%) of first-year college males--which strongly
suggests this could still be a hot-button electoral issue for years to
come--while 38% of male freshmen believe it is important to have laws
prohibiting homosexual relationships, a disturbingly large number.
	~a slim majority (50.4%) believe that affirmative action in
college admissions should be abolished (the number is higher among males
at 56.1%)
	~only a slim majority (53.9%) believe that abortion should be
legal
	~A significant majority believes there is too much concern in the
courts for the rights of criminals (58.1% -- but among males the number
jumps to 61.0%), which indicates that demagogic law-and-order themes will
still bring electoral profit with the coming generation.
	Moreover, as the Chronicle of Higher Education noted in its report
on the survey, "A growing number of students appeared unlikely to have a
diverse set of friends in college. Only 63.1 percent reported that they
expected to socialize with people outside their own racial or ethnic
group, the lowest level since the question was first added to the survey
in 2000.
	~Only 29.7 % cited 'helping to promote racial understanding' as an
'essential' or 'very important' goal for them, compared with 46.4 percent
in 1992 ... More students also said they believed that racial
discrimination was no longer a problem in America, with 22.7 percent
agreeing with that statement, the highest level in the history of the
survey...." [Doug Ireland]

[10] FREE PRESS? The oil-rich country Qatar may sell the popular and often
inflammatory Al Jazeera television station and web site in order to get
the US government off its back ... The news operation has an audience of
between 30 and 50 million people. It also has been the source for
broadcasting tapes of Al Qaeda terrorists ...Al Jazeera also reports daily
on the Israeli "occupation" of Judea, Samaria and Gaza and generally
portrays Israel in a negative light. Arab countries also have been the
target of Al Jazeera criticism, which has angered Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Egypt. Qatar subsidizes the news operation with $40 million annually,
one-third of its budget.[israelnationalnews.com]

[11] STAY THE COURSE. Under pressure to start bringing U.S. troops home
from Iraq after Sunday's election, President Bush said on Saturday that
the U.S. mission must keep going to help the new government get its
footing. "As democracy takes hold in Iraq, America's mission there will
continue," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Our military forces,
diplomats and civilian personnel will help the newly elected government of
Iraq establish security and train Iraqi military police and other forces."
	Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, a critic of Bush's
Iraq policy, said on Thursday that the United States should start to
withdraw militarily and politically from Iraq and aim to pull out all
troops as early as possible next year. At least 12,000 U.S. troops should
leave at once to send a signal about U.S. intentions to "ease the
pervasive sense of occupation," Kennedy said. Bush has resisted setting a
timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal, but in a news conference on
Wednesday, he seemed to suggest that by the end of the year the mission to
train and equip Iraqi forces to protect themselves could be complete.
[Reuters]
	In mainstream newspapers, only the comic strip Doonesbury is
discussing the fact that "the US is building permanent bases throughout
Iraq, digging in for the long haul," regardless of the outcome of the
elections.

[12. FREEDOM'S DEFENDER] A senior U.S. Marine Corps general who said it
was "fun to shoot some people" should have chosen his words more carefully
but will not be disciplined, military officials said on Thursday. Lt. Gen.
James Mattis, who led troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, made the comments at
a conference Tuesday in San Diego. "Actually it's quite fun to fight 'em,
you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be
right up front with you, I like brawling," said Mattis. "You go into
Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because
they didn't wear a veil," Mattis said during a panel discussion. "You
know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a
lot of fun to shoot them." In a statement, Gen. Michael Hagee, commander
of the Marine Corps, praised Mattis as "one of this country's bravest and
most experienced military leaders." "While I understand that some people
may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to
reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war," Hagee said. "I have
counseled him concerning his remarks and he agrees he should have chosen
his words more carefully," Hagee added. Maj. Jason Johnston, a Marine
spokesman at the Pentagon, said Hagee did not plan any disciplinary action
against Mattis. Johnston declined to provide details of how Hagee had
counseled Mattis, calling it a private matter. At a Pentagon briefing on
Thursday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he could not comment on
the remarks, but Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, praised the general as having set a stellar example for troops in
his service abroad. Mattis is commander of the Marine Corps Combat
Development Command at Quantico, Virginia, south of Washington. [Reuters]

[13] IRAQI OPINION. Zogby International did a poll of 805 Iraqis between
January from January 19 to 23, 2005 in the cities of Baghdad, Hilla,
Karbala and Kirkuk, as well as Diyala and Anbar provinces. Results:
	Sunni Arabs who say they will vote on Sunday: 9%
	Sunni Arabs who say they definitely will not vote on Sunday: 76%
	Shiites who say they likely or definitely will vote: 80%
	Kurds who say they likely or definitely will vote: 56%
	Sunni Arabs who want the US out of Iraq now or very soon: 82%
	Shiites who want the US out of Iraq now or very soon: 69%
	Sunni Arabs who believe US will hurt Iraq over next 5 years: 62%
	Shiites who believe US will hurt Iraq over next five years: 49%
	Shiites who want to hold elections on Jan. 30: 84%
	Kurds who want to hold elections on Jan. 30: 64%
	Sunni Arabs who want to postpone elections: 62%
	Sunni Arabs who consider guerrilla resistance against the
Americans legitimate: 53%
	Iraqis who would support a religious government: 33%

In a clear reference to Iraq's weekend balloting, a statement purportedly
made by Osama bin Laden's top deputy says holy war, not "rigged
elections," is the only path for reform in Islamic nations. The written
statement, said to have been the transcript of an audio taped recording of
a speech by al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri, first appeared on several
Islamist Internet sites Tuesday. "Reform can't be achieved under
governments installed by the (foreign) occupier through rigged elections
conducted under the supervision of the United Nations and protected by
B-52s and Apache helicopter rockets," al-Zawahri said. "There is no reform
except through holy war." ...
	Al-Zawahri, who is believed to be hiding with bin Laden in remote,
mountainous regions along the Pakistani-Afghanistan border, renewed his
attack on the United States for invading Afghanistan and Iraq, saying,
"America is seeking by every means to fight the Islamic community." The
undated statement also referred to recent events like Egypt's December
signing of a trade agreement with Israel and the United States. The deal
paves the way for establishing Qualified Industrial Zones, where Egypt --
which signed a 1979 peace treaty with Israel -- can export goods to
America duty-free as long as a minimum 11.7 percent of their value is made
in the Jewish state. "No reform could be achieved while our (Arab) rulers
are pursuing a normalization policy with Israel to destroy our economy to
achieve their personal interests," the statement said.

[14. WORLD OPINION] A poll of 21 countries published yesterday -
reflecting opinion in Africa, Latin America, North America, Asia and
Europe -- showed that a clear majority have grave fears about the next
four years. Fifty-eight per cent of the 22,000 who took part in the poll,
commissioned by the BBC World Service, said they expected Mr Bush to have
a negative impact on peace and security, compared with only 26% who
considered him a positive force. The survey also indicated for the first
time that dislike of Mr Bush is translating into a dislike of Americans in
general...
	But yesterday's poll pointed to the deep suspicion of Mr Bush that
exists across the world. It found that the bulk of people in 18 of the 21
countries surveyed had negative feelings towards the president.
Traditional US allies in western Europe were among those expressing the
most negative feelings about the re-election. In Britain, 64% of those
polled said they disagreed with the proposition that the US would have a
mainly positive impact on the world. The figures were even higher in
France (75%) and Germany (77%). Mr Bush's victory was viewed positively in
only three of the 21 countries: the Philippines, Poland and India.
	One of the organisers of the poll, Steven Kull, the director of
the Programme on International Policy Attitudes at the University of
Maryland, said: "This is quite a grim picture for the US." Another of the
organisers, Doug Miller, president of the polling firm GlobeScan, said he
had been monitoring trends since the start of 2003 and the figure for
those who disagreed that the US was having a mainly positive impact on the
world had risen from 46% then to 49% last year, and had now jumped to 58%.
	"Our research makes very clear that the re-election of President
Bush has further isolated America from the world," he said. "It also
supports the view of some Americans that unless his administration changes
its approach to world affairs in its second term, it will continue to
erode America's good name, and hence its ability to effectively influence
world affairs." Asked how Mr Bush's re-election had affected their
feelings towards Americans, 72% of those polled in Turkey said it made
them feel worse about Americans, 65% in France, 59% in Brazil and 56% in
Germany. There was also overwhelming opposition to sending troops to Iraq,
even among close allies such as Britain.
	"Fully one in four British citizens say the Bush re-election has
made them more opposed to sending troops to Iraq, resulting in a total of
63% now opposed," Mr Miller said. The poll was conducted between November
15 and January 3 in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China,
France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico,
Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey and the UK.
A separate poll, for the Los Angeles Times, shows Americans are also
polarised over the prospect of a second term, including over the conduct
of the war in Iraq. Mr Bush's job approval rating stands at 50%, with 47%
disapproving. In recent times, only Richard Nixon at the start of his
second term in 1972 recorded poll ratings as poor.

[15. BRITISH OPINION] Can the ballot box in the UK be used to stop the
occupation of Iraq and still return a Labour government in Britain? Labour
Against the War believes it can ... Anti-war Labour MPs and activists will
meet to try to wrestle with the dual dilemmas of how to enthuse anti-Iraq
voters to give Labour a third term -- and how to persuade the Labour
leadership to end the occupation. That chewy conundrum -- in the wake of
the fact that the government in fact committed an extra 220 troops to Iraq
last week -- will form the basis of Labour Against The War's annual
conference in London, as the party gears up to an election probably only
12 weeks away. Although the party's high command is dismissing the idea
that Iraq will play a major part in the election, last weekend's Iraqi
elections and bellicose noises from president Bush about Iran, have kept
foreign policy, and the Middle East in particular, on the agenda and in
the minds of party activists... "The invasion of Iraq is over, but the
occupation remains. We cannot pretend the issue has gone away and just
move on. We have to ask - and answer -- the question: how can we use the
ballot box in the UK to stop the bombs and bullets in Iraq and still
return a Labour government in Britain," the agenda runs. Alan Simpson,
chairman of Labour Against the War, believes the "political ground has
shifted" because of the work of the LATW in the run up to the Iraq war.
The Nottingham South MP says: "Looking ahead at Iran, I think it would now
be impossible for Tony Blair to get any UK involvement in an invasion, or
even an attack, on Iran. "The political ground has gone from under him.
Indeed, if any evidence emerged that UK special forces had cross the
Iranian border, then everything would hit the fan." On the subject of the
forthcoming UK election, he is unapologetic. "I actually don't have a
particular desire for Iraq to play a part in the election -- it's just
that I don't think it will go away. "But what we will be trying to say on
Saturday to those who have left the party, or those who are considering
it, is that there are a lot of members who voted for the amendment that
'the case for war is not proven'. They should actively support those
candidates who opposed the war. Indeed, as peace campaigners, there is a
moral case that they must canvass for those opponents of the war." ...
	On last weekend's election in Iraq, he says: "The view is that
it's a relief for many people to have got through the elections with such
limited fatalities. However, I don't think of us are under any illusions
about those elections. There were no parties that we're opposing the
occupation, or the US imposed constitution, no free or critical media were
allowed and even al-Jazeera were banned. "The resistance to the occupation
is ongoing and will not end until the troops leave. The UN mandate runs
out at the end of the year - that provides an obvious time to leave."
	Tony Benn, who addressed the million-plus peace demonstration in
Hyde Park two years ago, and will also be at the event, agrees.  "My
message to the peace movement and Labour Against the War will be 'we were
right last time'. We didn't stop the Iraq war, but it will now be very
difficult for Blair to support an Iran intervention," he says. "The idea
of an election held under 200,000 troops, with 12 bases, and a fixed
constitution is ludicrous. "The Iraq war was illegal, immoral and
unwinnable - and the most important element of that is unwinnable. The US
has the biggest empire the world has ever known, but it is now a bit
overstretched. Bush wants an exit strategy, so long as he can keep his 12
military bases, the oil and a pliant regime in place.
	"Bush and Blair will both be gone in four years. The problem is,
with Bush saying he was appointed by God, he's started a religious war,
and they are measured in centuries, not years. That's my fear."  He added:
"I will be comparing the money spent on the war with what would be needed
for Africa, and about the loss of civil liberties. The UK election is a
chance to recapture the chance to debate.
	"Look at civil liberties, I never thought I'd live under a Labour
government which introduced house arrest."  The platform will not only
consist of Labour members, however. Polish-born activist and journalist
Eva Jansiewicz , who spent June 2003 to February 2004 in Iraq, says: "I'm
not a Labour party member and I've spent a lot of the last 12 months
abroad, but I shall be telling members that Labour is now known as the
party of war across Europe and the world - that much was clear at the
European Social Forum in London last year.
	"There are decent and honest politicians within it but why did not
a single Labour MP support [Plaid Cymru's] Adam Price's bid to impeach the
prime minister? Come out in the open and let the leadership have a battle
with you, but nobody had the courage to do it.
	"But I don't believe power lies with political parties - they
can't survive without business support. I will be telling delegates about
the civil society I encountered in Iraq such as the Basra-based
Organisation of Women's Freedom, the Union of Unemployed and the
Federation of Workers' Council."

[12] OTHER IRAQ NEWS. "While our ultimate objectives are very ambitious we
will never achieve democracy and stability [in Iraq] without being willing
to commit 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have a
draft, and have some form of war compensation," [Carter NSA] Zbigniew
Brzezinski told the New America Foundation. For Brzezinski, the United
States faces either a "moment of wisdom" -- the willingness to fight
endlessly against an "insurgency" that logic dictates cannot be defeated,
so long as the Iraqi people view the United States as a foreign occupier
-- or "resign" itself to "cultural decay" and a "loss of credibility,"
that is to say abandon its role as hegemon and imperialist, the overriding
goal of U.S. foreign policy for more than a hundred years. [kurtnimmo.com]
	An Arabic television channel aired a videotape Monday purporting
to show insurgents firing a missile that downed a British transport plane
in Iraq.
	The U.S. occupation authority in Iraq was unable to keep track of
nearly $9 billion it transferred to government ministries, which lacked
financial controls, security, communications and adequate staff, an
inspector general has found.
	Under a new US Order, the saving and planting of seeds in Iraq
will be illegal and the market will only offer plant material produced by
transactional agribusiness corporations.
	At least 232 civilians have been killed while working on
U.S.-funded contracts in Iraq and the death toll is rising rapidly,
according to a U.S. government audit.
	The insurgency in Iraq will last at least a decade and American
troops alone will not be able to defeat it, a senior US military officer
in Baghdad has predicted.

[13] OTHER NEWS. "Two of the great ironies of history," said President
George W. Bush, "is there will be a Palestinian state and a democratic
Iraq."  Vladimir Putin noted that "as there were no good and bad fascists,
there cannot be good and bad terrorists."  China overtook the United
States as Japan's biggest trading partner. An international task force of
scientists, politicians, and business leaders warned that the world has
about ten years before global warming becomes irreversible. By then,
average global temperatures will have risen two degrees Celsius since the
start of the Industrial Revolution, resulting in major droughts, increased
disease, and the termination of the North Atlantic Gulf Stream.
Meteorologists were forecasting record thinning of northern Europe's ozone
layer in the coming weeks.  President Bush ordered his cabinet to stop
paying off journalists after syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher
admitted she had a $21,500 contract with the Health and Human Services
Department to endorse the agency's marriage initiative.  Two days later,
another columnist admitted he'd been paid $10,000 for the same purpose.
Social Security Administration workers testified that they had been
ordered "to promote the idea that Social Security is in crisis and that
Social Security privatization is the answer."  The Bush Administration
requested an additional $80 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
this year, totaling 13 times the Environmental Protection Agency's
allotment, and making the 2005 budget deficit the biggest in history.

	* * *

	PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
	LETTER TO CONGRESS ON INCREASING U.S. GROUND FORCES
	JANUARY 28, 2005

	Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and
	Representative Pelosi:

The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are
asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They
are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less
engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security,
global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in
the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today.
The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces
to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and
challenges.
	So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative
branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of
the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how
large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own
determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should
aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of
at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.
	There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing
missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and
alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting
current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant
General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse"
in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after
almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should
be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in
Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to
fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size
of the force available to our civilian leadership.
	The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new
reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the
fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of
the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can
afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we
can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed
for transformation of the military.
	In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are
spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time
during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or
shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the
military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other
responsibilities around the world.
	The men and women of our military have performed magnificently
over the last few years. We are more proud of them than we can say. But
many of them would be the first to say that the armed forces are too
small. And we would say that surely we should be doing more to honor the
contract between America and those who serve her in war. Reserves were
meant to be reserves, not regulars. Our regulars and reserves are not only
proving themselves as warriors, but as humanitarians and builders of
emerging democracies. Our armed forces, active and reserve, are once again
proving their value to the nation. We can honor their sacrifices by giving
them the manpower and the materiel they need.
	Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the
duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the
hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group
with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You
will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military
manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success
in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also
hopeful, world.

Respectfully,
        Peter Beinart Jeffrey Bergner Daniel Blumenthal
        Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Ivo H. Daalder,
        Thomas Donnelly, Michele Flournoy, Frank F. Gaffney, Jr.,
        Reuel Marc Gerecht, Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired),
        Bruce P. Jackson, Frederick Kagan, Robert Kagan,
        Craig Kennedy, Paul Kennedy, Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired),
        William Kristol, Will Marshall, Clifford May,
        Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired), Daniel McKivergan,
        Joshua Muravchik, Steven J. Nider, Michael O'Hanlon,
        Mackubin Thomas Owens, Ralph Peters, Danielle Pletka,
        Stephen P. Rosen, Major Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired),
        Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt,
        Walter Slocombe, James B. Steinberg

	###