"The
Great Terror"
"It is little wonder, given this, that people of goodwill are groping for a safer alternative. But wishful thinking in the face of mortal danger is bad policy." (The Economist)
News and commentary on Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Part 1: 2001/06/18 - 2002/06/27
Part 2: 2001/07/05 - 2002/08/30
Part 3: 2002/09/02 - 2002/09/30
Part 4: 2002/10/01 - 2002/10/30
Part 5: 2002/11/01 - 2002/11/30
Part 6: 2002/12/01 - 2002/12/31
Part 7: 2003/01/01 - 2003/01/31August 2002
Monday, August 26, 2002 - Saturday, August 31, 2002
"That Lonesome Road" (Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard, 2002/08/30)
"The Future Is Now" (Stanley Kurtz, National Review, 2002/08/30)
"If Churchill were alive today, he would strike at Saddam" (John Keegan, The Daily Telegraph, 2002/08/29)
"Secret files on Baghdad's weapons plans" (Michael Evans, The Times, 2002/08/29)
"Saudi Foreign Minister Says Iraq Attack 'Unwise'" (Reuters/Yahoo! News, 2002/08/28)
"Secretary Rumsfeld at Camp Pendleton Town Hall Meeting" (Donald Rumsfeld, DefenseLINK, 2002/08/28)
"The Terrible Logic of Nukes" (Charles Krauthammer, TIME, from the 2002/09/02 issue)
"Double Standards Make Enemies" (Salman Rushdie, The New York Times, 2002/08/28)
"Preparing for war" (Galal Nassar, Al-Ahram Weekly On-line, from the 22 - 28 August 2002 issue)
"Cheney Argues for Preemptive Strike on Iraq" (Dana Milbank, The Washington Post, 2002/08/26)
"Stealth Bomber" (Janine Zacharia, The New Republic, 2002/08/26)
"Take It to the Security Council" (Richard C. Holbrooke, The Washington Post, 2002/08/26)Monday, August 19, 2002 - Sunday, August 25, 2002
"To Fire on Iraq, Use a Trigger" (Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, from the 2002/09/02 issue)
"The Right Way to Change a Regime" (James A. Baker III, The New York Times, 2002/08/25)
"How Kurdistan's first suicide bomber changed his mind" (Jason Burke, The Observer, 2002/08/25)
"Saddam killed Abu Nidal over al-Qa'eda row" (Con Coughlin, The Daily Telegraph, 2002/08/25)
"The Loyal Opposition" (Bill Keller, The New York Times, 2002/08/24)
"Attack Saddam now and let history judge, says Rumsfeld" (David Rennie, The Daily Telegraph, 2002/08/21)
"Source: Abu Nidal Died After Visit by Iraqi Agents" (Diala Saadeh, Reuters/Yahoo! News, 2002/08/20)
"U.S. Monitors Kurdish Extremists" (Robert Burns, AP/Yahoo! News, 2002/08/20)Monday, August 12, 2002 - Sunday, August 18, 2002
"If We Must Fight . . ." (Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Washington Post, 2002/08/18)
"Kidnapped by the Times" (Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, 2002/08/18)
"Brent Scowcroft is Wrong: We Must Attack Saddam" (Daniel Pipes and Jonathan Schanzer, FrontPageMagazine, 2002/08/16)
"Muslims 'must defend Saddam'" (Anton La Guardia, The Daily Telegraph, 2002/08/16)
"Iraq: U.N. Weapons Inspections Over" (Salah Nasrawi, AP/Yahoo! News, 2002/08/12)Monday, August 5, 2002 - Sunday, August 11, 2002
"Who will save Iraq?" (Nick Cohen, The Observer, 2002/08/11)
"Steps on the way to ousting Saddam from Iraq" (Henry Kissinger, HoustonChronicle, 2002/08/09)
"What Do Iraqis Think About Life After Hussein?" (Michael Rubin, The New York Times, 2002/08/09)
"'I tracked Iraq's biological weapons'" (BBC News, 2002/08/08)
"'E-bomb' may see first combat use in Iraq" (David Windle, New Scientist, 2002/08/08)
"Iraqi Strategy Centers on Cities" (Greg Miller and John Hendren, Los Angeles Times, 2002/08/08)
"Saddam warns against Iraq attack" (BBC News, 2002/08/08)
"Sophisticated Stupidity" (James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal/Best of the Web Today, 2002/08/07)
"'And then what?' is no defence against action in Iraq" (Tim Hames, The Times, 2002/08/07)
"Justice for Iraqis" (The Daily Telegraph, 2002/08/07)
"Howell Raines in Power" (Benjamin Zycher, National Review, 2002/08/06)Thursday, August 1, 2002 - Sunday, August 4, 2002
"Whitehall dossier says Saddam plans biological weapons for Palestinians" (Michael Evans, The Times, 2002/08/03)
"UN rejects offer to let inspectors back into Iraq" (James Bone, The Times, 2002/08/03)
"U.N. Arms Inspector Is Invited to Iraq" (Colum Lynch, The Washington Post, 2002/08/02)
"U.S. Returns to Theory of Iraq Link to Sept. 11" (Bob Drogin et al., Los Angeles Times, 2002/08/02)
"The case for war" (The Economist, 2002/08/01)
"Stopping the war" (Andrew Sullivan, andrewsullivan.com, 2002/08/01)
"US Senate told of Iraq's deadly virus laboratory" (Roland Watson, The Times, 2002/08/01)
July 2002
"In Assessing Iraq's Arsenal, The 'Reality Is Uncertainty'" (Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, 2002/07/31)
"U.S. Exploring Baghdad Strike as Iraq Option" (David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker, The New York Times, 2002/07/29)
"Oust Saddam First, Then Pursue Peace" (Ehud Sprinzak and Robert J. Lieber, Los Angeles Times, 2002/07/28)
"Kurds Savor a New, and Endangered, Golden Age" (John F. Burns, The New York Times, 2002/07/28)
"Iraq seeks steel for nukes" (Bill Gertz, The Washington Times, 2002/07/26)
"Iraq: Suicide bombings legitimate" (William M. Reilly, UPI, 2002/07/25)
"The Coming War with Saddam" (Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard, from the 2002/07/29 issue)
"Bush Renews Pledge to Strike First to Counter Terror Threats" (David E. Sanger, The New York Times, 2002/07/20)
"Baghdad by Christmas" (Bruce Anderson, The Spectator, from the 2002/07/20 issue)
"Saddam vows to defeat United States" (UPI, 2002/07/17)
"Sontag Award Nominee" (andrewsullivan.com, 2002/07/15)
"Iraq building up deadly arsenal, say defectors" (Michael Evans and Roland Watson, The Times, 2002/07/11)
"Put a war with Iraq in the diary for January" (Tim Hames, The Times, 2002/07/10)
"Iraq says Farrakhan tells of U.S. Muslims' support" (Thanaa Imam, UPI/The Washington Times, 2002/07/09)
"US 'to attack Iraq via Jordan'" (Jason Burke et al., The Observer, 2002/07/07)
"U.S. Plan for Iraq Is Said to Include Attack on 3 Sides" (Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, 2002/07/05)
"That Lonesome Road" (Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard, 2002/08/30)
"On consecutive days this week, China and France insisted that the Bush administration seek U.N. approval before sending troops to Iraq. ... But France and China, along with longtime Iraq ally Russia, are among the practical reasons that President Bush should be highly skeptical of any return to the United Nations in dealing with Iraq. Those countries, which occupy three of the five permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council, (the United States and Britain have the other two) have used that influential perch for more than a decade to thwart many of the serious efforts to disarm Iraq, despite Saddam's obvious and arrogant flouting of the U.N. resolutions requiring him to do so.""The Future Is Now" (Stanley Kurtz, National Review, 2002/08/30)
Kurtz argues that both sides in the debate over an invasion of Iraq might be right: "But this is the unspoken truth: Even now, our troops face the possibility of serious casualties and disruption from a weapons of mass destruction attack by Saddam Hussein. Yet that prospect, frightening as it is, cannot compare to the consequences of allowing an invasion to be called off by the fear of a WMD attack on our troops. It's better to have our forces facing chemical and biological attack now, than to subject our troops, and the country itself, to WMD attacks when Saddam is even stronger. ... That means both sides are right. This war is a lot more dangerous than the public may yet realize. Yet failing to go to war at this critical juncture of history will land us in much deeper danger - with the power equation between nations in danger of shifting radically through the proliferating technology of mass terror. ... If we can't take action in Iraq, and keep sufficient troops on hand to deal with the consequences, we shall shortly enter a deeply dangerous new era in which proliferating weapons of mass destruction essentially neutralize America's military dominance, freeing up rogue regimes to act with impunity throughout the globe. More than we know, this may already be happening.""If Churchill were alive today, he would strike at Saddam" (John Keegan, The Daily Telegraph, 2002/08/29)
"The odour of appeasement that permeates the Western world has apparently driven President George W Bush to seek strength by studying the career of Winston Churchill. ... When - it is not a question of if - Saddam acquires nuclear weapons, the moment when he could be crushed without risk to his opponents, or of provoking a wider war, or of truly destabilising the Middle East, will be gone. At the moment Saddam could be toppled quickly, cheaply and without difficulty. The moment will not last. Churchill would see the opportunity and, if in power, would grasp it. He would ignore the timidity of yesterday's men and strike. ... Britain did arise, at terrible cost. It could not have arisen had Hitler acquired nuclear weapons. The signs are, thank goodness, that President Bush is determined not to fall.""Secret files on Baghdad's weapons plans" (Michael Evans, The Times, 2002/08/29)
"Although the Government has been anxious to keep the contents of the dossier to itself, the thrust of its message has become clear: without the opportunity to send in international inspectors to check on suspected weapons-of-mass-destruction laboratories, the world will remain dangerously ignorant of what Saddam has managed to achieve in the past three and a half years. The sources said that Saddam had "several hundred" scientists and engineers fully employed on developing nuclear, chemical and biological systems. "All of them know from the experience of the few defectors who have managed to escape to America and Britain that Saddam takes ruthless revenge on the families of those who dare to betray the secrets of his weapons programme,"one said. ... He may be several years away from completing his nuclear bomb programme, but if he were to acquire sufficient fissile material, the countdown to his nuclear dream could start much earlier." (See also: "The dossier against a dictator" (The Times, 2002/08/29))"Saudi Foreign Minister Says Iraq Attack 'Unwise'" (Reuters/Yahoo! News, 2002/08/28)
I wonder if the Saudi Foreign Minister thinks it "gullible" to presume that Iraqis don't like to be gassed, executed or tortured to death?: "Saudi Arabia's foreign minister said in an interview broadcast on Wednesday it would be unwise for the international community to try to force Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and install its own replacement. Prince Saud al-Faisal said in an interview with the BBC that it was up to the Iraqi people to oust Saddam and it was gullible of people to think they knew better than the Iraqis what would be best for their country.""Secretary Rumsfeld at Camp Pendleton Town Hall Meeting" (Donald Rumsfeld, DefenseLINK, 2002/08/28)
Transcript of a "Town Hall meeting" with Donald Rumsfeld at Camp Pendleton held yesterday, in which he commented on the question of unanimity versus unilateralism regarding eventual action against Iraq: "I can go back to the buildup to World War II, but I don't suppose anyone else here can. But I remember, and during that period, the voices of concern about what Adolf Hitler was doing were very few. There was not unanimity. There were all kinds of diplomats running around, holding meetings with him. There were people saying, "Don't do anything; he'll stop. He won't do anything terrible." And as he - they occupied one country after another country after another country, it wasn't till each country was attacked that they stopped and said, "Well, maybe Winston Churchill was right." Maybe that lone voice expressing concern about what was taking place was the right voice. So, in unanimity, we often find an absence of rigorous thinking. And it's more important - it's less important to have unanimity than it is to be making the right decisions and doing the right thing, even though at the outset it may seem lonesome." (See also "Secretary Rumsfeld Town Hall Meeting" (Donald Rumsfeld, DefenseLINK, 2002/08/06): "What we have said, and I think it's terribly important, is that we've got a big, complicated world, and the mission has to determine the coalition. And you must not fashion a coalition and then let it determine the mission. To the extent you do that, you end up dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. And it seems to me that we can't do that.")"The Terrible Logic of Nukes" (Charles Krauthammer, TIME, from the 2002/09/02 issue)
"The iron law of the nuclear age is this: nuclear weapons are instruments of madness; their actual use would be a descent into madness, but the threat to use them is not madness. On the contrary, it is exceedingly logical. ... That is precisely why today we cannot allow bad guys like Saddam to get their hands on nukes: not merely because a crazed Saddam might actually use them on us but also because a rational Saddam, one not interested in committing suicide by attacking us out of the blue with nukes, could nonetheless use them as accessories to aggression. ... As it was, war against a nonnuclear Iraq was authorized by the U.S. Senate by a mere five votes. Had Saddam had nukes in 1991, he would probably today be king of all Arabia. We are in a race against time. Were Iraq to acquire a deliverable nuclear weapon, it would gain a measure of invulnerability. ... Nukes are not weapons of insanity. They have a logic. The U.S. showed it during the cold war. Pakistan showed it this year. Saddam would like to show it tomorrow. Which is why time is short. Nukes do not have to explode to be useful. Their value lies in mere possession. Possession creates an umbrella of inviolability. And there is nothing more dangerous than an inviolable aggressor.""Double Standards Make Enemies" (Salman Rushdie, The New York Times, 2002/08/28)
While I think it is wise to consider possible negative outcomes of an attack on Iraq, I would like to hear a viable alternative. Those against an attack are often the same people who are against the UN sanctions as well. But what is their alternative? Just leaving a megalomaniacal and genocidal tyrant, busy stocking up on chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, in place? Perhaps Rushdie would answer that the alternative is focusing on a peaceful solution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but given the history of that conflict, that could easily take years, if not decades. Which means the question remains: "And it is in Iraq that George W. Bush may be about to make his biggest mistake, and to unleash a generation-long plague of anti-Americanism that could make the present epidemic look like a time of rude good health. Inevitably, the reasons lie in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ...and if, in the present highly charged atmosphere, the United States does embark on the huge, risky military operation suggested Monday by Vice President Dick Cheney, then the result may very well be the creation of that united Islamic force that was bin Laden's dream. Saudi Arabia would almost certainly feel obliged to expel U.S. forces from its soil (thus capitulating to one of bin Laden's main demands). Iran - which so recently fought a long, brutal war against Iraq - would surely support its erstwhile enemy, and might even come into the conflict on the Iraqi side. The entire Arab world would be radicalized and destabilized. What a disastrous twist of fate it would be if the feared Islamic jihad were brought into being not by the al Qaeda gang but by the president of the United States and his close advisers.""Preparing for war" (Galal Nassar, Al-Ahram Weekly On-line, from the 22 - 28 August 2002 issue)
An interesting report from the Jordanian-Iraqi border on Iraqi preparations for war. Thanks to R G Fulton for the pointer: "Sources also confirm that the Iraqi leadership will resort to using its remaining weapons of mass destruction if US troops make significant progress on the ground. ... In addition, dozens of long range land-to-land missiles with a range of more than 1,000 kilometres have been moved into a western region of Iraq, which extends hundreds of kilometres in the direction of the Jordanian border. The deep caves that abound in this area and can provide cover for large amounts of massive equipment. From these locations, Iraqi missiles could strike at targets in the Gulf, neighbouring Arab countries and Israel. According to some sources, Hussein and Qusai have drawn up a parallel plan to strike at US interests in the event of an assault. The sources say that over the past weeks some 300 suicide fighters have received training and have been sent into various Arab, Asian and European countries. The suicide fighters are said to be under the command of the Iraqi Intelligence Agency and its covert operations department and will be supervised by special field agents.""Cheney Argues for Preemptive Strike on Iraq" (Dana Milbank, The Washington Post, 2002/08/26)
"Vice President Cheney argued today for a preemptive attack on Iraq's Saddam Hussein, declaring there is "no doubt" the dictator has weapons of mass destruction and is preparing to use them against the United States and its allies. ... The White House quickly said that Cheney's remarks did not indicate the administration had decided to attack Iraq. But advocates of such a move interpreted Cheney's remarks, more forceful and detailed than any yet offered by a senior official, as a virtual battle cry." (See also Willam Kristol's comments as well as a full transcript of the speech: "'We Will Not Live at the Mercy of Terrorists'" (William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, 2002/08/26))
"Stealth Bomber" (Janine Zacharia, The New Republic, 2002/08/26)
"Still, while the Israeli public focuses on a missile attack, Israeli security and terrorism experts quietly worry about a more sinister prospect: that Saddam could equip Palestinian militants with deadly biological pathogens that, if disbursed clandestinely, could go undetected until scores of people fall ill. ... The agents at Saddam's disposal, according to varying reports, include botulinum toxin, anthrax, ricin, smallpox, and maybe the Ebola virus - the hardest of all to distribute. ... Which is why the easiest way for Saddam to circumvent these difficulties may be simply to equip a Palestinian terrorist with a slightly modified aerosol can, replace the deodorant with a test-tube-sized amount of smallpox (which is highly contagious and easily transmittable by air), and have the terrorist spray the virus in a shopping mall, movie theater, or school. ... Or he could use high-grade powdered anthrax, like that sent by U.S. mail. It would be enough, says Shoham "to open a test tube and shake it. ... If he is more sophisticated he could put it in the ventilation of the Azrieli building," a Tel Aviv skyscraper." (See also: "Whitehall dossier says Saddam plans biological weapons for Palestinians" (Michael Evans, The Times, 2002/08/03))"Take It to the Security Council" (Richard C. Holbrooke, The Washington Post, 2002/08/26)
"The road to Baghdad runs through the United Nations Security Council. This simple truth must be recognized by the Bush administration if it wants the international support that is essential for success in Iraq. To build such support, a new Security Council resolution is necessary, one that authorizes the use of force if Saddam Hussein refuses to allow an airtight weapons inspection regime - no-notice inspections anywhere, anytime. Such a resolution would provide those nations (Turkey, Britain) that want to support an effort to remove Hussein a vital legitimizing cover for action, and put great pressure on those (Germany, France, Saudi Arabia) that are wavering or opposed.""To Fire on Iraq, Use a Trigger" (Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, from the 2002/09/02 issue)
"Let me make a prediction. If the administration stays on its current path, there will be no conflict with Iraq. However justified the cause, the United States will not initiate a war against another country without a specific provocation. We are simply not going to do it. ... If the administration wants to take military action against Iraq - and I believe it should - it will have to find a provocation, a casus belli. ... All of which means, inevitably, that Washington will have to try to provoke a crisis over inspections. The United States should propose a new and vigorous system of U.N. inspections - with a clear deadline for compliance. ... Saddam Hussein is building nuclear weapons. In fact he wants them so badly that he has, over the past decade, forgone $160 billion in oil revenues so that he could keep his labs free of inspections. He has attacked his neighbors three times and used chemical weapons on his own people. Most important, all other methods of handling him have been exhausted. ... This problem is not going to go away. Unless Saddam is stopped, in a few years the world will almost certainly face a nuclear-armed megalomaniac. That's why we need to get to work, find a trigger and - then carefully start shooting.""The Right Way to Change a Regime" (James A. Baker III, The New York Times, 2002/08/25)
Baker, who was secretary of the state from 1989 to 1992, on how to effect a regime change in Iraq: "The United States should advocate the adoption by the United Nations Security Council of a simple and straightforward resolution requiring that Iraq submit to intrusive inspections anytime, anywhere, with no exceptions, and authorizing all necessary means to enforce it. ... Some will argue, as was done in 1990, that going for United Nations authority and not getting it will weaken our case. I disagree. By proposing to proceed in such a way, we will be doing the right thing, both politically and substantively. We will occupy the moral high ground and put the burden of supporting an outlaw regime and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on any countries that vote no. History will be an unkind judge for those who prefer to do business rather than to do the right thing.""How Kurdistan's first suicide bomber changed his mind" (Jason Burke, The Observer, 2002/08/25)
"A minute before he was to die Didar Mohammed was not nervous. He was calm and thinking of paradise. The 19 year old felt the weight of the TNT strapped around his waist and chest "like a comfort". But when it came to blowing himself, and half a dozen political officials, into oblivion Didar changed his mind. If he hadn't he would have become Kurdistan's first suicide bomber - and the Islamic extremists' tactic of 'martyrdom operations' would have spread to a new country and a new theatre of war. ... Last week the 19 year old spoke to The Observer, his first interview with any media. "I believed it was right to kill the officials because they were unbelievers. I was doing my duty in the holy struggle for a true Islamic state in Kurdistan," he said. "Until the last moment I was happy to die." Didar was a member of the Jund-ul-Islam, an extremist group with links to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organisation. In recent months the Jund-ul-Islam have occupied a series of villages and valleys close to the Iranian border and imposed a harsh Taliban-style administration complete with bans on television, reprisals against 'immodest' women and guerrilla training camps. ... Mullah Majjed and his secular counterparts blame a campaign of preaching linked to aid distribution by Islamic charities backed by wealthy Gulf governments - including that of Saudi Arabia - and private donors.""Saddam killed Abu Nidal over al-Qa'eda row" (Con Coughlin, The Daily Telegraph, 2002/08/25)
"Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, was murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein after refusing to train al-Qa'eda fighters based in Iraq, The Telegraph can reveal. Despite claims by Iraqi officials that Abu Nidal committed suicide after being implicated in a plot to overthrow Saddam, Western diplomats now believe that he was killed for refusing to reactivate his international terrorist network. ... While in Baghdad, Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, came under pressure from Saddam to help train groups of al-Qa'eda fighters who moved to northern Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan. Saddam also wanted Abu Nidal to carry out attacks against the US and its allies. When Abu Nidal refused, Saddam ordered his intelligence chiefs to assassinate him. ... "There is no doubt that Abu Nidal was murdered on Saddam's orders," said a US official who has studied the reports. 'He paid the price for not co-operating with Saddam's wishes.'""The Loyal Opposition" (Bill Keller, The New York Times, 2002/08/24)
Keller on the arguments against an invasion of Iraq: "Better to contain and deter Saddam. This assumes that a megalomaniac with a grudge against America and access to the anonymous delivery system of Global Terror Inc. can be deterred from using catastrophic weapons once he possesses them. How long do we want to bet on that? And deterrence runs both ways. When Saddam has a nuke, he can hold us at bay while he does as he likes.
The risk is too great. Under attack, Saddam will launch poisoned Scuds at Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey - or our troops in the region. This is a valid fear, and one any attack plan should be obliged to address with some confidence. But saying that Saddam is already too dangerous to attack just drives home the point about deterrence. ...
Pre-emptive war violates international law and sets a bad example. Do we want India to pre-empt Pakistan? Or China Taiwan? This is a strong argument, but not for letting Saddam be. Israel's pre-emptive attack on Iraq's plutonium-making Osirak reactor aroused global indignation in 1981, but it evokes mostly relief today, knowing what we now know about the pace of Saddam's nuke-building effort. This is, though, a strong argument for the Bush administration to internationalize the case against Iraq.""Attack Saddam now and let history judge, says Rumsfeld" (David Rennie, The Daily Telegraph, 2002/08/21)
"America cannot afford to wait for proof that Saddam Hussein is building weapons of mass destruction, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has declared. Mr Rumsfeld, a leading advocate of military action against Baghdad, flatly rejected calls from Washington, Europe and the Arab world for hard evidence of Iraqi ill-doing before any attack. "Think of the prelude to World War Two," Mr Rumsfeld said in an interview on Fox Television. "Think of all the countries that said, well, we don't have enough evidence. I mean, Mein Kampf had been written. Hitler had indicated what he intended to do." Millions died as a result of such miscalculations, he said. If the next attack against the West involved chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, inaction could leave hundreds of thousands of people dead, Mr Rumsfeld said.""Source: Abu Nidal Died After Visit by Iraqi Agents" (Diala Saadeh, Reuters/Yahoo! News, 2002/08/20)
"Palestinian guerrilla chief Abu Nidal was killed or committed suicide when Iraqi security men confronted him over his anti-government activity, a senior Palestinian source said Tuesday. ... In the latest version, the source said his contacts in Baghdad told him Iraqi security agents went to Abu Nidal's apartment several days ago to take the leader of the Fatah-Revolutionary Council away for questioning. Iraqi authorities, the source said, discovered Abu Nidal had opened channels to Iraqi guerrillas in Syria and Jordan opposed to President Saddam Hussein and wanted to put a stop to the activity before any U.S. military operations against Iraq began. The source said Abu Nidal, 65, went to get his gun, but it was not clear whether he shot himself or was killed by the agents. Sources in Abu Nidal's group said Monday he shot himself because he was suffering from cancer and addicted to painkillers." (See also: "Attacks linked to Abu Nidal's group" (USA Today, 2002/08/20) and "Iraq Says Abu Nidal Committed Suicide in Baghdad" (Nadim Ladki, Reuters/Yahoo! News, 2002/08/20): "Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz confirmed on Tuesday that Palestinian guerrilla commander Abu Nidal had died in Baghdad, saying he committed suicide. ... He did not elaborate, but an Iraqi source said Abu Nidal had committed suicide at his Baghdad home last week after he was confronted with charges that he was plotting against Iraq.")"U.S. Monitors Kurdish Extremists" (Robert Burns, AP/Yahoo! News, 2002/08/20)
"U.S. intelligence agencies have stepped up monitoring of an Islamic extremist group operating in northern Iraq that may have ties both to the al-Qaida terrorist network and to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, officials said Tuesday. The group, called Ansar al-Islam, is an offshoot of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan, a broad political party that controls a portion of northern Iraq. It is based at Halabja, site of a 1988 chemical attack by the Iraqi army that killed thousands, and controls a handful of villages near the Iranian border. U.S. intelligence recently monitored an Ansar al-Islam site in northern Iraq where chemical or biological weapons experiments were conducted with farm animals. It initially was feared this might constitute a significant chemical-biological threat, but U.S. officials decided it was not serious enough to justify a military strike, American officials said Tuesday." (See also: "Bush Cancels Iraqi Strike" (John McWethy, ABC News, 2002/08/20): "Most of the experiments, sources say, involved a poison called ricin, a byproduct of the widely available castor bean plant. ... Once a person is exposed to sufficient quantities, by inhalation or ingestion, ricin is deadly. "There is currently no treatment and no vaccine for ricin exposure," Tucker explained. ... Intelligence sources told ABCNEWS there is evidence the terrorists tested ricin in water, as a powder and as an aerosol. They used it to kill donkeys, chickens and at one point allegedly exposed a man in an Iraqi market. They then followed him home and watched him die several days later, sources said.")"If We Must Fight . . ." (Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Washington Post, 2002/08/18)
"Ultimately what is at stake is something far greater than Iraq: It is the character of the international system and the role in it of what is, by far, the most powerful state. Neither the White House nor the American people should ignore the fact that America's enemies will, whatever happens, do everything possible to present the United States as a global gangster. Yet without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy. America must thus walk a fine line in determining when, in what circumstances and how it acts as such in initiating the use of force.""Kidnapped by the Times" (Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, 2002/08/18)
"Not since William Randolph Hearst famously cabled his correspondent in Cuba, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war," has a newspaper so blatantly devoted its front pages to editorializing about a coming American war as has Howell Raines's New York Times. Hearst was for the Spanish-American War. Raines (for those who have been incommunicado for the last year) opposes war with Iraq. ... Then there are the constant references to growing opposition to war with Iraq - in fact, the polls are unchanged since January - culminating on Aug. 16 with the lead front-page headline: "Top Republicans Break with Bush on Iraq Strategy." ... How can one possibly include Kissinger in this opposition group? He writes in the very article the Times cites: "The imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system and the demonstrated hostility of Hussein combine to produce an imperative for preemptive action." There is hardly a more succinct statement of the administration's case for war." (See also: "Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy" (Todd S. Purdum and Patrick E. Tyler, The New York Times, 2002/08/16) and "Steps on the way to ousting Saddam from Iraq" (Henry Kissinger, HoustonChronicle, 2002/08/09))"Brent Scowcroft is Wrong: We Must Attack Saddam" (Daniel Pipes and Jonathan Schanzer, FrontPageMagazine, 2002/08/16)
"'Don’t Attack Saddam,' Brent Scowcroft implored President George W. Bush in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday. ... Here are two main holes in Scowcroft’s argument: Saddam only seeks weapons of mass destruction (WMD), he says, to "deter [America] from intervening to block his aggressive designs" and will not use them. Whence does he get such an idea? Saddam assuredly will use them if circumstances make this useful to him. For a start, note that he is the only ruler in power today who actually has deployed WMD, and he has done so often. During the 1980-1988 war with Iran, he showered chemical gases on Iranian soldiers. He also turned chemicals on his own Kurdish population. ... In a yet more worrisome development, Khidhir Hamza, former head of Saddam’s nuclear weapons development program and another defector from Iraq, estimates Saddam will need two to three years "to get the fissile material program going" for nuclear weapons production. "The bomb design and hardening," he says, "will probably take another year." Thus, Saddam will likely have gone nuclear by 2006, and one must count on his using them. This prospect makes a preemptive attack soon not only advisable but urgent." (See also: "Don't Attack Saddam" (Brent Scowcroft, The Wall Street Journal, 2002/08/16))"Muslims 'must defend Saddam'" (Anton La Guardia, The Daily Telegraph, 2002/08/16)
"Radical Islamic leaders in London yesterday told Muslims around the world that they had an obligation to rise up against Britain and America if there was an attack on Iraq. The declaration was issued by hardline Islamists after a chaotic day in which they tried to charge journalists a £30 "admission fee" to hear their pronouncement. ... Their declaration said: "We strongly believe that the hostile policies and the immature and irresponsible statements from US politicians, suggesting a crusade against Islam and Muslims, can only lead to a deepened desire for retaliation." The statement was issued by fax after their press conference turned into a stand-off between Sheikh Omar's devotees and journalists unwilling to pay the "admission fee". "We can live without you," said Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, who heads a group called al-Muhajiroun, when confronted with this display of infidel stubbornness. "You cannot live without us." Anjem Choudary, a senior lieutenant of Sheikh Omar, said: "We are doing you a favour by bringing you most of the Muslim personalities in Britain." The £30 fee, he said, was a "small price" for the honour of speaking to them.""Iraq: U.N. Weapons Inspections Over" (Salah Nasrawi, AP/Yahoo! News, 2002/08/12)
"Baghdad's information minister rejected the need for a resumption of U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq, saying Monday inspectors had finished their work four years ago when they left the country in advance of U.S. and British air strikes. Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf told the Arabic satellite television Al- Jazeera in an interview that the Bush administration was "confused" and was making inspections into an issue in an attempt to use them as a tool in the latest showdown between Washington and Baghdad. ... "This is a lie," he said of Washington's insistence Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction. "Inspections have finished in Iraq." Though Iraq feels the job is done, it was not clear whether al-Sahhaf's remarks were intended as a final rejection of any return of weapons inspectors, as demanded by the United States and the United Nations.""Who will save Iraq?" (Nick Cohen, The Observer, 2002/08/11)
"The bad faith of the anti-war movement is revealed in what it doesn't say. For all its apparent self-confidence, the Left, reinforced by a small army of bishops, mullahs and retired generals, lacks the nerve to state that the consequence of peace is the ruin of the hopes of Iraqi democrats. The evasion is on a Himalayan scale. ... The opponents of Saddam therefore include many brave men and women who are paying dearly to uphold the values of at least a part of the liberal-Left. They champion human rights and the protection of the Kurdish minority. Yet when they ask their natural allies to pressure Blair into supporting a democratic Iraq they are met with indifference or the preposterous slander that they are the stooges of the CIA. ... There are honourable grounds for upholding the authority of the United Nations and opposing American global domination. What is dishonourable - indeed insufferable - is the pretence of everyone from Trots to archbishops that their animating concern is the sufferings of the peoples of Iraq.""Steps on the way to ousting Saddam from Iraq" (Henry Kissinger, HoustonChronicle, 2002/08/09)
"In an eloquent address in June at West Point, President Bush stressed that new weapons of mass destruction no longer permit America the luxury of waiting for an attack, that we must "be ready for pre-emptive action when necessary to defend our liberty." ... The new approach is revolutionary. Regime change as a goal for military intervention challenges the international system established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which, after the carnage of the religious wars, established the principle of nonintervention in the domestic affairs of other states. And the notion of justified pre-emption runs counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force in self-defense only against actual, not potential, threats. ... The administration should be prepared to undertake a national debate because the case for removing Iraq's capacity of mass destruction is extremely strong. The international regimen following the Treaty of Westphalia was based on the concept of an impermeable nation-state and a limited military technology which generally permitted a nation to run the risk of awaiting an unambiguous challenge. But the terrorist threat transcends the nation-state; it derives in large part from transnational groups that, if they acquire weapons of mass destruction, could inflict catastrophic, even irretrievable, damage." (Note: Thanks to Barry Kaplovitz for the pointer.)"What Do Iraqis Think About Life After Hussein?" (Michael Rubin, The New York Times, 2002/08/09)
"In all the debate, however, one thing is forgotten: What the Iraqis themselves say about their post-Saddam Hussein future. ... The Iraqis I know would shed few tears if Saddam Hussein were to go. As one university professor in Sulaimaniya, in northeast Iraq, asked me, 'Why do people in the West think we want to live under Saddam any more than they would?'""'I tracked Iraq's biological weapons'" (BBC News, 2002/08/08)
Terry Taylor, a UN weapons inspector, recalls searching for Iraq's biological weapons: "We had some successes but it took four-and-a-half years to produce enough evidence to force the Iraqis to admit that they did indeed have a biological weapons programme. That just shows how difficult and challenging the task was, the enormous effort the Iraqis took in hiding this programme. ... One of our successes was to uncover the main production facility at Hakam, about 60km outside Baghdad, which appeared to be making an additive for animal food and a biological pesticide. We managed through documentation to prove that they were actually producing anthrax and botulinum toxin, two of the most deadly agents. ... Biological weapons have great potency, especially when you take into account the advances in biotechnology over the past 10 years, advances the Iraqis had been exploiting. I believe there is a sufficient case to do something about Iraq on the weapons of mass destruction basis alone. To do nothing, or to do little, or to attempt to negotiate with the present regime could be more dangerous than trying to do something more dynamic.""'E-bomb' may see first combat use in Iraq" (David Windle, New Scientist, 2002/08/08)
"Weapons designed to attack electronic systems and not people could see their first combat use in any military attack on Iraq. ... US intelligence reports indicate that key elements of the Iraqi war machine are located in heavily-fortified underground facilities or beneath civilian buildings such as hospitals. This means the role of non-lethal and precision weapons would be a critical factor in any conflict. High Power Microwave (HPM) devices are designed to destroy electronic equipment in command, control, communications and computer targets and are available to the US military. They produce an electromagnetic field of such intensity that their effect can be far more devastating than a lighting strike.""Iraqi Strategy Centers on Cities" (Greg Miller and John Hendren, Los Angeles Times, 2002/08/08)
"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has told regional government officials that he aims to thwart any U.S. invasion by avoiding open desert fighting and massing his military in major cities where civilian and American casualties would be highest, current and former U.S. intelligence officials say. ... Urban fighting is one of the most daunting scenarios U.S. military planners face. Baghdad in particular is a sprawling setting, where Hussein's forces would have significant advantages. Military targets in Baghdad are sprinkled among a population approaching 5 million. Hussein has constructed an elaborate warren of underground bunkers and escape routes. U.S. soldiers would probably have to slog through Baghdad's streets wearing chemical-weapons suits and carrying extra equipment.""Saddam warns against Iraq attack" (BBC News, 2002/08/08)
"In his first public remarks since US President George W Bush vowed last month to see the Iraqi leader replaced, Saddam Hussein said that "evil people" who threaten Arab and Muslim countries would be left "in the dustbin of history". ... In his address, marking the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988, Saddam Hussein said the way to achieve "peace and security" was through "equitable dialogue and on the basis of international law and international covenants". ... But, he said, "the enemy" refused to listen to appeals from Arab and Muslim countries and had "rejected all the initiatives and calls for peace, which we had proposed more than once". ... The Iraqi leader urged Iraqis to be prepared "with all the force you can to face your enemies", adding 'the forces of evil will carry their coffins on their back to die in a disgraceful failure.'" (See also transcript of full speech: "Speech of His Excellency President Saddam Hussein on the occasion of 14th Anniversary of the Day of the Great Victory" (Iraqi News Agency, 2002/08/08): "The forces of evil will carry their coffins on their backs, to die in disgraceful failure, taking their schemes back with them, or to dig their own graves, after they bring death to themselves on every Arab or Muslim soil against which they perpetrate aggression, including the Iraq, the land of Jihad and the banner. We say this to refute the grumbling and sibiliation of those bragging their power, governed by the devil, their master in every evil act and crime which they perpetrate against the land of the Arabs and Muslims, while they wade in the rivers of innocent blood they shed in the world, believing that the people of the world should become slaves to Tyranny and its threats, both declared and executed threats.")"Sophisticated Stupidity" (James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal/Best of the Web Today, 2002/08/07)
"George Orwell is said to have observed that some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them. A wonderful example comes from columnist James Carroll in the Boston Globe. Carroll uses yesterday's anniversary of the nuking of Hiroshima to argue that Saddam Hussein is no worse than America. ... "If we used the nuclear weapon as much to send a signal to the Soviet Union as to end World War II, then all the wickedness unfolding from that use - not only the arms race, but the demonic new idea that national power can properly depend on the threat of mass destruction - belongs to us. If Saddam Hussein wants weapons of mass destruction for the sake of the strategic diplomatic power they will give him, he is playing by rules written in Washington." This is like arguing that cops have guns, so we shouldn't begrudge them to criminals. In Carroll's blinkered view, there is no moral distinction between America - which ultimately used the power of its nuclear weapons to liberate the Soviet Union and most of its world-wide empire from communism - and Saddam's Iraq, a barbaric regime whose raison d'être is the glorification and enrichment of a murderous lunatic." (See also: "A mistake and a crime", James Carroll, The Boston Globe, 2002/07/06)"'And then what?' is no defence against action in Iraq" (Tim Hames, The Times, 2002/08/07)
"The "and then what?" position might seem to be more sophisticated than the "can't be done" philosophy but, if so, appearances are deceptive. It is, in truth, an absolutely extraordinary doctrine. If upheld, it would require any proposed military venture to provide, in advance, a detailed blueprint of how every post-conflict practicality might be handled. Yet the Allies, for example, did not have even an outline plan for postwar Germany until January 1945, but they realised that the defeat of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis was rather more important than achieving a consensus on the optimal model of proportional representation that might be put in place afterwards. ... What "containment and deterrent" means in practice is that we should hope that either Saddam drops dead at some convenient moment, or that he finds the whole process of seeking to accumulate weapons of mass destruction too arduous and abandons it, or that having succeeded in accumulating this poisonous kit he decides to go straight and not so much as threaten to use it. At the end of all this, a point which will be reached in two or three years' time, perhaps less, it will be his neighbours and the West who have been contained and the only deterrent that will operate on Iraq is that which Saddam's regime chooses to apply to itself. And then what?""Justice for Iraqis" (The Daily Telegraph, 2002/08/07)
"The future Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has signed the Pax Christi declaration on the "legality and morality of war against Iraq" that was presented at Number 10 yesterday. ... There is much muddled thinking here. It is not "the most powerful nations" that regard war as acceptable; rather, it is smaller tyrannical nations such as Iraq, unfettered by such forms of accountability, that treat war as an "acceptable" instrument of policy. ... But the worst aspect of the petition is its moral equilateralism. Massive Iraqi atrocities are acknowledged, but the West's role is treated as being at least as bad. Indeed, the emotional force behind the statement is mainly directed at the West for murdering thousands of Iraqi children. Even if this were true - and it is not - it would scarcely be a matter of deliberate policy as it is with Saddam." (See also: "Clergy protest against war on Iraq" (BBC News, 2002/08/06))"Howell Raines in Power" (Benjamin Zycher, National Review, 2002/08/06)
"Stop me if you've heard this one, but the New York Times really, really, really believes that the inadvisability of a forced regime change in Baghdad is front-page above-the-fold News Fit to Print. And for so many reasons: The Europeans will stomp their feet. The Arab Street will throw more rocks. "Instability" will follow a removal from power of Saddam Hussein, romance novelist, nurturer of sons, killer of Kurds, Shiites, Jews, Americans. The House of Saud will find it more difficult to pursue their pro-U.S. war against terror and Islamic fascism. The Iranians and Iraqis will be forced into each other's arms. Hosni Mubarak will be unhappy. The Syrians will fail to leave Lebanon. The Peace Process will collapse. If Saddam is removed, the terrorists somehow will have won. Global warming/the ozone hole/AIDS/rain forest destruction/ extinction of the Arabian rat/subjugation of women/cancer/ad infinitum will be exacerbated.""Clergy protest against war on Iraq" (BBC News, 2002/08/06)
Or, rather, "Clergy protest against any war at all under any circumstances": "The next Archbishop of Canterbury is among 2,500 signatories of a Christian petition delivered to Downing Street opposing military action against Iraq. The declaration drawn up by the Christian peace group Pax Christi calls any attack on Iraq "immoral and illegal". It is signed by members of a variety of religious groups and several Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops, including Dr Rowan Williams, who will take over the Church of England's top job in October. ... It states: 'It's deplorable that the world's most powerful nations continue to regard war, and the threat of war, as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy.'" (Note: Best of the Web Today points out this dispatch on Williams: "The next Archbishop of Canterbury was inducted as an honorary white druid yesterday at an open-air ceremony in Wales reminiscent of a scene from a Monty Python sketch." ("Archbishop in waiting becomes druid" (Richard Savill, The Daily Telegraph, 2002/08/06)) See also: "Tales of Canterbury's Future?" (Peter Mullen, The Wall Street Journal, 2002/07/12))"The logic of empire" (George Monbiot, The Guardian, 2002/08/06)
Or, rather, "The logic of neo-Marxist anti-Americanism": "There is something almost comical about the prospect of George Bush waging war on another nation because that nation has defied international law. Since Bush came to office, the United States government has torn up more international treaties and disregarded more UN conventions than the rest of the world has in 20 years. ... Even its preparedness to go to war with Iraq without a mandate from the UN security council is a defiance of international law far graver than Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with UN weapons inspectors. ... As the US government discovers that it can threaten and attack other nations with impunity, it will surely soon begin to threaten countries that have numbered among its allies. As its insatiable demand for resources prompts ever bolder colonial adventures, it will come to interfere directly with the strategic interests of other quasi-imperial states. ... To accept that the US presents a danger to the rest of the world would be to acknowledge the need to resist it. ... And we should cross our fingers and hope that a combination of economic mismanagement, gangster capitalism and excessive military spending will reduce America's power to the extent that it ceases to use the rest of the world as its doormat.""Iraq to use bio-weapons 'soon'" (The Australian, 2002/08/05)
"An Iraqi politician says President Saddam Hussein will soon use weapons of mass destruction. Opposition Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi warned: "Saddam has advanced chemical weapons, he has advanced biological weapons, and he has produced and engineered biological weapons which contain a combination of viruses such as smallpox and ebola. "Those are very, very dangerous weapons and I think, in his hands, he is bound to use them in terrorist action very soon." He told Fox television the Iraqi president is 'working very hard ... to position people and to move with biological and chemical terrorism across the important centers of the world'.""Whitehall dossier says Saddam plans biological weapons for Palestinians" (Michael Evans, The Times, 2002/08/03)
"Saddam Hussein is suspected of planning to arm a Palestinian terrorist group with biological weapons to attack either American or Israeli targets. A Whitehall dossier containing a detailed assessment of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programme, which has been circulated to the Prime Minister and other senior Cabinet ministers, is understood to focus on Iraq’s biological weapons capability. ... The latest assessment in Washington and London is that Saddam's plan is to produce a basic weapon that can be used by a terrorist group to attack the Iraqi leader’s enemies, the United States and Israel. In the same way that Iran has funded and trained terrorist groups to carry out attacks from Lebanon against Israel, Saddam, according to the assessment, could be banking on recruiting a Palestinian terrorist group to act on his behalf.""UN rejects offer to let inspectors back into Iraq" (James Bone, The Times, 2002/08/03)
"The United Nations Secretary-General, taking care not to fall foul of the United States, rejected an Iraqi offer yesterday to invite the chief UN weapons inspector to Baghdad. Kofi Annan said that an Iraqi letter calling for a further round of technical talks with Hans Blix, the head inspector, set conditions "at variance" with the demands of the 15-nation Security Council. The Iraqi invitation to Mr Blix seemed intended to split the big powers at the UN as the drumbeat of war in Washington grew louder.""U.N. Arms Inspector Is Invited to Iraq" (Colum Lynch, The Washington Post, 2002/08/02)
"Iraq today invited the chief U.N. weapons inspector to visit Baghdad to discuss the possible return of U.N. arms inspectors for the first time since 1998. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, in a letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, said his government is willing to meet with the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, in Baghdad to review the status of Iraq's weapons program and to "establish a solid basis for the next stage of monitoring and inspection activities and to move forward to that stage." It was unclear whether Iraq is serious about allowing U.N. inspections to resume. ... "The United States is always skeptical about Iraqi claims to comply with Security Council resolutions," said Richard Grenell, the spokesman at the U.S. mission to the United Nations. 'But we would welcome any movement.'""U.S. Returns to Theory of Iraq Link to Sept. 11" (Bob Drogin et al., Los Angeles Times, 2002/08/02)
"Despite deep doubts by the CIA and FBI, the White House is now backing claims that Sept. 11 skyjacker Mohamed Atta secretly met five months earlier with an Iraqi agent in the Czech capital, a possible indication that President Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the terrorist attacks. In an interview, a senior Bush administration official said that available evidence of the long-disputed meeting in Prague "holds up." The official added, 'We're going to talk more about this case.'""The case for war" (The Economist, 2002/08/01)
"The danger Mr Hussein poses cannot be overstated. He is no tinpot despot, singled out for arbitrary American punishment. Nor is Iraq a banana republic. With the possible exception of North Korea, but perhaps not even then, Mr Hussein is the world's most monstrous dictator, who by the promiscuous use of violence has seized unfettered control of a technologically advanced country with vast oil reserves. ... Next time you hear someone ask why, in a world full of bad men, it is Mr Hussein who is being picked on, please bear all of the above in mind. He may very well be the worst. ... The unique danger in Iraq is that this country's advanced technology and potential oil wealth could very soon give this aggressive, cruel and reckless man an atomic bomb. ... None of this is to argue that a war to remove Mr Hussein should be undertaken lightly. ... The casualties this time - especially the civilian casualties - could be much larger than they were before. It is little wonder, given this, that people of goodwill are groping for a safer alternative. But wishful thinking in the face of mortal danger is bad policy.""Stopping the war" (Andrew Sullivan, andrewsullivan.com, 2002/08/01)
"The London Times' Simon Jenkins sneers at the notion that Iraq is a threat to Britain or America. He describes the military campaigns in Serbia and Afghanistan as failures. He describes post-9/11 American foreign policy as "catatonic." He likens Tony Blair to the premier of an East European state under Soviet tyranny. This isn't in the Guardian or the Independent, it's in the Times. But here's the classic sentence: "If the Government is right and al-Qaeda remains a threat to Britain the more reason for caution in the minefields of Middle East politics. It is a reason for listening and watching, not blundering into the region with bombs and tanks." You can't get a more concise description of appeasement than that. Don't fight back, because it could make them even angrier! Just listen and watch - exactly what the peaceniks urged on the West in the 1930s and throughout the Cold War and throughout the 1990s." (See also: "If we must go to war, for God's sake tell us why" (Simon Jenkins, The Times, 2002/07/31))"US Senate told of Iraq's deadly virus laboratory" (Roland Watson, The Times, 2002/08/01)
"Saddam Hussein is producing deadly plague viruses in an underground laboratory beneath a hospital, evidence put before a congressional hearing indicated yesterday. Richard Butler, the former head of the United Nations weapons inspections team in Iraq, said recent signs that the Iraqi President was manufacturing the plague and the highly contagious Ebola virus were "very credible". He also said that Iraq was close to developing a nuclear capability. Khidir Hamza, a former Iraqi nuclear engineer who defected in 1994, said that Saddam was within three years of equipping three nuclear weapons with bombgrade uranium. ... The nuclear programme, like the chemical and biological programmes, were pursued by apparently civilian bodies. "Saddam has managed to create the perfect cover, and in effect turn the whole Iraq science and engineering enterprise into a giant weapon-making body," Mr Hamza said.""In Assessing Iraq's Arsenal, The 'Reality Is Uncertainty'" (Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, 2002/07/31)
"U.S. intelligence analysts have been closely examining satellite images of the west bank of the Tigris River in Baghdad for signs of a laboratory rumored to exist there. Called Tahhaddy, or "Challenge," the lab is purported to have 85 employees and a top-secret mission: making biological weapons for Iraq's military. Details about the lab have trickled out of Iraq in recent months in accounts from defectors and Iraqi exiles opposed to President Saddam Hussein. They tell of underground test chambers, heavy security and a viral strain code-named "Blue Nile," which sounds suspiciously like the Ebola virus."U.S. Exploring Baghdad Strike as Iraq Option" (David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker, The New York Times, 2002/07/29)
"As the Bush administration considers its military options for deposing Saddam Hussein, senior administration and Pentagon officials say they are exploring a new if risky approach: take Baghdad and one or two key command centers and weapons depots first, in hopes of cutting off the country's leadership and causing a quick collapse of the government. The "inside-out" approach, as some call this Baghdad-first option, would capitalize on the American military's ability to strike over long distances, maneuvering forces to envelop a large target. Those advocating that plan say it reflects a strong desire to find a strategy that would not require a full quarter-million American troops, yet hits hard enough to succeed.""Oust Saddam First, Then Pursue Peace" (Ehud Sprinzak and Robert J. Lieber, Los Angeles Times, 2002/07/28)
"Many critics of U.S. Mideast policy scold the Bush administration for wanting to go after Saddam Hussein before progress toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace is achieved. ... But focusing on Arafat distracts attention from the powerful forces that stand behind him and that sustain his intransigence - a powerful post-Oslo Arab and Muslim rejectionist front that has never been more influential. This front is made up of four camps: the traditional rejectionist governments of Iraq, Syria and Libya; the Muslim government of Iran; the jihadist movement and followers of Osama bin Laden; and the "Arab street," which includes young Palestinian activists who hope that suicidal violence will force Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, as it did from Lebanon. ... Hussein is the front's central figure. With the collapse of the Taliban and Bin Laden's disappearance, the Iraqi leader remains the great symbol of virulent anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-peace defiance. ... Hussein's removal from power and the fall of his regime would thus be a devastating blow to the rejectionist front. It would immediately change the balance of political and propaganda power in the Middle East and the entire Muslim world. It would send an unequivocal message to Syria, its Hezbollah ally in southern Lebanon and the ayatollahs in Iran that the regional rejectionist party is over.""Kurds Savor a New, and Endangered, Golden Age" (John F. Burns, The New York Times, 2002/07/28)
A report from the Iraqi Kurds' domain: "'An idea is born here: The Middle East could be different,' said Barham Salih, 41, a British-educated Muslim who heads the government of one of the Kurds' political entities, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which controls the territory's eastern half. To the west, a separate regional government operates under the control of a rival group, the Kurdistan Democratic Party. In both regions, there are opposition parties and dozens of free-ranging newspapers and satellite television channels, as well as international telephone calls and Internet cafes where people are free to visit any Web site they like. All this is banned or restricted in Mr. Hussein's Iraq, where, for example, Internet cafes are open only to those with police permits, and then only for access to approved Web sites. ... In this Iraq, the United States and Britain are hailed as liberators, for the daily patrolling of Kurdish skies that has cost the two countries nearly $10 billion to maintain. When children here wave at aircraft tracing vapor trails high above, they are saluting the powers that banished, with the no-flight zone, the terrors of Mr. Hussein.""Iraq seeks steel for nukes" (Bill Gertz, The Washington Times, 2002/07/26)
"Iraq's government is trying to buy special equipment used in producing fuel for nuclear weapons, The Washington Times has learned. Procurement agents from Iraq's covert nuclear-arms program were detected as they tried to purchase stainless-steel tubing, uniquely used in gas centrifuges and a key component in making the material for nuclear bombs, from an unknown supplier, said administration officials familiar with intelligence reports. U.S. intelligence agencies believe the tubing is an essential component of Iraq's plans to enrich radioactive uranium to the point where it could be used to fashion a nuclear bomb.""Iraq: Suicide bombings legitimate" (William M. Reilly, UPI, 2002/07/25)
"Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations said Wednesday Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel were "legitimate suicidal actions in accordance with international law" against the "Zionist entity." Speaking at an emergency Arab-requested U.N. Security Council meeting on Israel's Gaza City attack, Abdul Al-Kadhe defended Palestinian actions and criticized the United States for indulging "the Zionist entity"... ... "The United States is using its power as a military machine and its power in the media for its own narrow ends," he said. "We are all aware that falsifications of the facts, attempts to mislead, derive from the world wide Zionist movement which is characterized by racism ... if not deriving from Nazism and so forth and we will not continue with this." But, it wasn't the first time Iraq mentioned Israel and Nazism in the same breath. Last August in another council debate on the Middle East, Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed Aldouri said 'the neo Nazi entity ... the criminal entity, the Zionist entity ... the Nazis occupying Palestinian territory, have the blessing of the American authorities.'""The Coming War with Saddam" (Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard, from the 2002/07/29 issue)
"On November 22, 2001, the Ummat, a Pakistani newspaper with close ties to the Taliban and al Qaeda, published a shocking report. It claimed that Taha Husseyn, a high-ranking Iraqi diplomat, had traveled to Kandahar for a meeting with Mavlana Jalal ud-Din Haqqani, a Taliban representative. According to the paper, Husseyn was dispatched by Saddam Hussein to offer whatever support he could - arms, money, sanctuary - to Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar. ... Of course, it's nearly impossible to assess the credibility of such reports. (The paper today regularly runs front-page pictures of bin Laden, along with his hateful exhortations to harm Jews and Americans.) Still, if the report of a Saddam-al Qaeda alliance were true, successfully prosecuting the war on terrorism would become even more urgent. Why, skeptics might ask, would Saddam essentially invite the war to Iraq? It's a fair question, but one with an obvious answer: Saddam has long viewed U.S.-led attacks as inevitable.""Bush Renews Pledge to Strike First to Counter Terror Threats" (David E. Sanger, The New York Times, 2002/07/20)
"President Bush today used a visit to the troops that battled Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan to renew his vow that the United States will strike pre-emptively against countries developing weapons of mass destruction, telling 2,000 cheering troops that "America must act against these terrible threats before they're fully formed." As Mr. Bush stood surrounded by the camouflage-clad troops of the 10th Mountain Division, among the first sent to Uzbekistan and Afghanistan last fall, one of the soldiers yelled, "Let's get Saddam!" Mr. Bush, dressed in shirt sleeves, just smiled for a moment as a roar of approval raced through the crowd. He did not mention Iraq but hardly stepped in to quell the cheers.""Baghdad by Christmas" (Bruce Anderson, The Spectator, from the 2002/07/20 issue)
"Now that they have lost both the appetite and the capacity for power politics, the Europeans are in the grip of a contradiction. They insist that acts of war can only be justified by moral absolutes. They also insist that we live in a world of moral relativities. European governments had a double quarrel with Mr Bush's 'axis of evil' speech. They do not believe in the axis. Nor do they believe in the evil. They prefer to live in a world as depicted by Whistler, in which everything is a subtle symphony of endless grey. From this perspective, Saddam may be a bad man, but he is merely a darker shade of grey than Ariel Sharon. ... With Saddam, there is a difference. A man of such evil intentions cannot be allowed to acquire the capability to use weapons of mass destruction. There will be risks in preventing him; we are about to enter a most dangerous period in world history. But those risks are manageable, and ultimately containable. The risks of allowing him access to terrible weaponry are unmanageable and uncontainable.""Saddam vows to defeat United States" (UPI, 2002/07/17)
"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on Wednesday vowed to defeat any U.S. attack on Iraq, urging his people to stand fast and fight for the independence and sovereignty of their country. "Fight with eagerness and vitality and patience whenever you are forced to defend yourself. ... Your faith is the source of prosperity, freedom, independence, stability and justice to which you aspire," Saddam said in a speech broadcast on official television on the occasion of the 34th anniversary of the Baath Party's taking power in Iraq in a 1968 military coup. ... "Iraq will be victorious, victorious, victorious. ... All the foreign roaring you are hearing will be withered away by the wind, because the enemy is a greedy oppressor and enemy of God," Saddam said in the 40-minute speech." (See also full transcript: "Speech of His Excellency President Saddam Hussein on the occasion of the Thirty-forth Anniversery of the 17-30 July Revolution" (uruklink.net, 2002/07/17))"Sontag Award Nominee" (andrewsullivan.com, 2002/07/15)
Sullivan quotes a column by the British chomskyite John Pilger, combining the usual mix of topsy-turvy moral equivalence and conspiracy theorizing: "Having swept the Palestinians into the arms of the supreme terrorist Ariel Sharon, the Christian Right fundamentalists running the plutocracy in Washington, now replenish their arsenal in preparation for an attack on the 22 million suffering people of Iraq. Should anyone need reminding, Iraq is a nation held hostage to an American-led embargo every bit as barbaric as the dictatorship over which Iraqis have no control. Contrary to propaganda orchestrated from Washington and London, the coming attack has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction', if these exist at all. The reason is that America wants a more compliant thug to run the world's second greatest source of oil." (See also: "The great charade" (John Pilger, The Observer, 2002/07/14))"Iraq building up deadly arsenal, say defectors" (Michael Evans and Roland Watson, The Times, 2002/07/11)
"Saddam Hussein has made important progress in developing weapons of mass destruction capable of killing millions of people, senior Iraqi defectors say. That suggests that the Iraqi leader is pressing ahead with all three elements of his secret weapons project: nuclear, chemical and biological. The analysis is based on material gained from officials who worked on the programme and Intelligence on Iraqi agents trying to buy dual-use components. ... The production of biological agents such as anthrax, botulinum toxin and ricin, can be carried out under cover of legitimate pharmaceutical plants and small laboratories which remained intact after the Gulf War. Terence Taylor, a UN weapons inspector in Iraq for four years up to 1997, said he believed Saddams biological arsenal posed the greatest immediate threat. Since 1998, when the UN inspectors withdrew, Iraq has failed to account for 17 tons of growth media used for culturing anthrax and other biological agents.""Put a war with Iraq in the diary for January" (Tim Hames, The Times, 2002/07/10)
"And when that Iraqi operation starts, the repercussions will be considerable, but paradoxical. The reaction in Western Europe will be more genuinely hostile than that of those in charge of many Middle Eastern nations. In a further twist, the prospect of a swift American military triumph will again trigger far more concern in Berlin and Paris than Amman or Cairo. ... In Western Europe, though, an awesome demonstration of raw American power would be taken rather differently. The crowds would not take to the streets to hail the termination of the world's most dangerous weapons of mass destruction project. The complaints would be of American "unilateralism" and "hegemony". They would be amplified by the fact that in most EU countries the Left is in opposition and unencumbered by any sense of diplomatic responsibility. That a US invasion of Iraq might be popular with that country's citizens would not stop it being condemned as 'imperialism'.""Iraq says Farrakhan tells of U.S. Muslims' support" (Thanaa Imam, UPI/The Washington Times, 2002/07/09)
"Iraq's state-run media has quoted Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as saying during a visit to Baghdad that American Muslims are praying for an Iraqi victory in a war with the United States. ... Mr. Farrakhan held talks with Islamic Affairs Minister Abdul Munem Saleh on "ways to confront the American threats against Iraq," INA reported. The agency quoted the black Muslim leader as saying "the Muslim American people are praying to the almighty God to grant victory to Iraq." Mr. Saleh was quoted by INA as urging a common effort among the Muslims of the world to "expose the American and Zionist crimes toward the people of Iraq and Palestine." ... Mr. Farrakhan, heading a Nation of Islam delegation, also met with Health Minister Omeed Mubarak, who briefed him on the "effects of the sanctions on Iraq and the health reality represented by the death of 1.6 million people a year because of food and medical shortages," INA said.""US 'to attack Iraq via Jordan'" (Jason Burke et al., The Observer, 2002/07/07)
"American military planners are preparing to use Jordan as a base for an assault on Iraq later this year or early in 2003, The Observer can reveal. Although leaked Pentagon documents appear to show that Turkey, Kuwait and the small Gulf state of Qatar would play key roles, it is believed that Jordan will be the 'jumping-off' point for an attack that could involve up to 250,000 American troops and forces from Britain and other key US allies. ... Iraqi dissidents in Amman have told The Observer that hundreds of American advisers have arrived in Jordan in the past few months. The Amman-based Iraqi National Accord (INA), which contains many of the key military dissidents, has held talks in Washington about plans for a strike on Iraq.""U.S. Plan for Iraq Is Said to Include Attack on 3 Sides" (Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, 2002/07/05)
"An American military planning document calls for air, land and sea-based forces to attack Iraq from three directions - the north, south and west - in a campaign to topple President Saddam Hussein, according to a person familiar with the document. The document envisions tens of thousands of marines and soldiers probably invading from Kuwait. Hundreds of warplanes based in as many as eight countries, possibly including Turkey and Qatar, would unleash a huge air assault against thousands of targets, including airfields, roadways and fiber-optics communications sites. Special operations forces or covert C.I.A. operatives would strike at depots or laboratories storing or manufacturing Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to launch them."
Copyright © Watch 2001-2006. Copyrights of quoted materials
belong to their respective owners.
"When
people accept futility and the absurd as normal, the culture is decadent.
The term is not a slur; it is a technical label."
Articles
of the week
"Losing the Enlightenment" (Victor Davis Hanson, OpinionJournal, 2006/11/29)
"Allah’s England?" (Daniel Johnson, Commentary. November 2006)
"'Sex in the Park': The latest doings of the Danish imams" (Henrik Bering, The Weekly Standard, 2006/11/18)
"Narcissism on Stilts" (Harold Evans, New York Sun, 2006/11/16)
"Terrorists are recruiting in our schools, says MI5 boss" (Philip Johnston, The Daily Telegraph, 2006/11/10)
›
AOTW Archive
From the archives
Oriana Fallaci, R.I.P.
"The Rage, the Pride and the Doubt" (Oriana Fallaci, The Wall Street Journal, 2003/03/13)
"How the West Was Won and How It Will Be Lost" (Oriana Fallaci, The American Enterprise, from the January/February 2003 issue)
"On Jew-hatred in Europe" (Oriana Fallaci, dennisprager.com, 2002/04/13)
"Anger and Pride" (Oriana Fallaci, dennisprager.com, 2001/12/19)
Weekly archive
2006/12/04
- 2006/12/10
2006/11/27 - 2006/12/03
2006/11/20 - 2006/11/26