Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Bush wants war, Military Increasingly Against It
Some Pentagon staffers point to last weekend’s antiwar rally in Washington, where they say the crowd included many veterans of Desert Storm.
Jan 22, 2003
Senior Pentagon officials are quietly urging President George W. Bush to slow down his headlong rush to war with Iraq, complaining the administration’s course of action represents too much of a shift of America’s longstanding “no first strike” policy and that the move could well result in conflicts with other Arab nations.
“We have a dangerous role reversal here,” one Pentagon source tells Capitol Hill Blue. “The civilians are urging war and the uniformed officers are urging caution.”
Capitol Hill Blue has learned the Joint Chiefs of Staff are split over plans to invade Iraq in the coming weeks. They have asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumseld to urge Bush to back down from his hard line stance until United Nations weapons inspectors can finish their jobs and the U.S. can build a stronger coalition in the Middle East.
“This is not Desert Storm,” one of the Joint Chiefs is reported to have told Rumseld. “We don’t have the backing of other Middle Eastern nations. We don’t have the backing of any of our allies except Britain and we’re advocating a policy that says we will invade another nation that is not currently attacking us or invading any of our allies.”
Intelligenced sources say some Arab nations have told US diplomats they may side with Iraq if the U.S. attacks without the backing of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues at the Pentagon and has told the President he may be pursuing a "dangerous course."
An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be “extremely angry” at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief.
“The President considers this nation to be at war,” a White House source says,” and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason.”
But conversations with sources within the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the FBI and the intelligence community indicate a deepening rift between the professionals who wage war for a living and the administration civilians to want to send them into battle.
Sources say the White House has ordered the FBI and CIA to “find and document” links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
“The implication is clear,” grumbles one longtime FBI agent. “Find a link, any link, no matter how vague or unproven, and then use that link to justify action against Iraq.”
While Hussein and Iraq have been linked to various terrorist groups in the past, U.S. intelligence agencies have not been able to establish a provable link with bin Laden’s al Qaeda forces.
“There may be one,” says another FBI source. “There should be one. All logic says there has to be one, but we haven’t established it as a fact. Not yet.”
Pentagon planners privately refer to the pending Iraq conflict as a “Bush league war,” something that may be fought more for political gain than anything else.
“During Desert Storm, the line officers wanted to finish the job, wanted to march into Iraq and take out Hussein and his government, but President Bush and JOC Chairman (Colin) Powell pulled the plug on the operation,” says one Pentagon officer. “We had our chance. We had the justification. We had the support. We don’t have it now.”
Some Pentagon staffers point to last weekend’s antiwar rally in Washington, where they say the crowd included many veterans of Desert Storm.
“This wasn’t just a bunch of tree huggers and longhairs marching,” says Arnold Giftos of Huntington, West Virginia, who served in Desert Storm and who came to march. “Go to any meeting of veterans groups in this country and you will see serious discussion on whether or not we should be getting into this war.”
Reporters covering the marches on Saturday and Sunday say they counted about 500 marchers among the 30,000 who carried signs or other items identifying themselves as veterans.
“I served in Vietnam,” said Robert Brighton of Detroit, who marched in Washington. “I supported Desert Storm. I don’t support this. It’s madness.”
In addition, Capitol Hill Blue has learned that both House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have told the White House that they have “increasing” numbers of Republicans in both Houses raising doubts about the war.
“Nobody in the party wants to come out publicly and tell the President he’s wrong,” says one Hill source close to the GOP leadership, “but we don’t have the kind of unity we need on this thing. It could blow apart on us at any time.”
Public support for a war with Iraq is also slipping. In November of 2001, just two months after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, 78 percent of Americans favored military action against Iraq. That support has slipped to as low as 52 percent in January polls. A Washington Post-ABC news poll taken last week shows Americans evenly split over Bush's handling of the crisis with Iraq.
Spokesmen for the White House, Pentagon and Congressional leadership offices would not comment on the record for this report.
© Copyright 2003 Capitol Hill Blue
Senior Pentagon officials are quietly urging President George W. Bush to slow down his headlong rush to war with Iraq, complaining the administration’s course of action represents too much of a shift of America’s longstanding “no first strike” policy and that the move could well result in conflicts with other Arab nations.
“We have a dangerous role reversal here,” one Pentagon source tells Capitol Hill Blue. “The civilians are urging war and the uniformed officers are urging caution.”
Capitol Hill Blue has learned the Joint Chiefs of Staff are split over plans to invade Iraq in the coming weeks. They have asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumseld to urge Bush to back down from his hard line stance until United Nations weapons inspectors can finish their jobs and the U.S. can build a stronger coalition in the Middle East.
“This is not Desert Storm,” one of the Joint Chiefs is reported to have told Rumseld. “We don’t have the backing of other Middle Eastern nations. We don’t have the backing of any of our allies except Britain and we’re advocating a policy that says we will invade another nation that is not currently attacking us or invading any of our allies.”
Intelligenced sources say some Arab nations have told US diplomats they may side with Iraq if the U.S. attacks without the backing of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues at the Pentagon and has told the President he may be pursuing a "dangerous course."
An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be “extremely angry” at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief.
“The President considers this nation to be at war,” a White House source says,” and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason.”
But conversations with sources within the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the FBI and the intelligence community indicate a deepening rift between the professionals who wage war for a living and the administration civilians to want to send them into battle.
Sources say the White House has ordered the FBI and CIA to “find and document” links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
“The implication is clear,” grumbles one longtime FBI agent. “Find a link, any link, no matter how vague or unproven, and then use that link to justify action against Iraq.”
While Hussein and Iraq have been linked to various terrorist groups in the past, U.S. intelligence agencies have not been able to establish a provable link with bin Laden’s al Qaeda forces.
“There may be one,” says another FBI source. “There should be one. All logic says there has to be one, but we haven’t established it as a fact. Not yet.”
Pentagon planners privately refer to the pending Iraq conflict as a “Bush league war,” something that may be fought more for political gain than anything else.
“During Desert Storm, the line officers wanted to finish the job, wanted to march into Iraq and take out Hussein and his government, but President Bush and JOC Chairman (Colin) Powell pulled the plug on the operation,” says one Pentagon officer. “We had our chance. We had the justification. We had the support. We don’t have it now.”
Some Pentagon staffers point to last weekend’s antiwar rally in Washington, where they say the crowd included many veterans of Desert Storm.
“This wasn’t just a bunch of tree huggers and longhairs marching,” says Arnold Giftos of Huntington, West Virginia, who served in Desert Storm and who came to march. “Go to any meeting of veterans groups in this country and you will see serious discussion on whether or not we should be getting into this war.”
Reporters covering the marches on Saturday and Sunday say they counted about 500 marchers among the 30,000 who carried signs or other items identifying themselves as veterans.
“I served in Vietnam,” said Robert Brighton of Detroit, who marched in Washington. “I supported Desert Storm. I don’t support this. It’s madness.”
In addition, Capitol Hill Blue has learned that both House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have told the White House that they have “increasing” numbers of Republicans in both Houses raising doubts about the war.
“Nobody in the party wants to come out publicly and tell the President he’s wrong,” says one Hill source close to the GOP leadership, “but we don’t have the kind of unity we need on this thing. It could blow apart on us at any time.”
Public support for a war with Iraq is also slipping. In November of 2001, just two months after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, 78 percent of Americans favored military action against Iraq. That support has slipped to as low as 52 percent in January polls. A Washington Post-ABC news poll taken last week shows Americans evenly split over Bush's handling of the crisis with Iraq.
Spokesmen for the White House, Pentagon and Congressional leadership offices would not comment on the record for this report.
© Copyright 2003 Capitol Hill Blue
For more information:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publ...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
As I see it, the entire Bush Administration is going to fall. Why? because there are only a few people in this administration who actually want a war so they can use it for their political gain. However under no circumstances whatsoever will they succeed in their endeavor. Before this administration can be successful they need the co-operation of the American public and the other international community. Hence, in America today the people have put the Bush Administration on notice that a war with Iraq will cause him not to be reelected in 2004. This on top of all the other problems are on a percentage basis to much to overcome. Regarding the Court of World opinion Bush has no support whatsoever. It is like playing poker Bush has no pair whatsoever and everyone else has a royal flush. His unwillingness not to be a litigator or learn is defeating him. People see through his and his administrations lip-service, sweet-words, and word-of mouth promises and sweet smiles. I.E. they do not work anymore.
Basil Loucas
There is currently an impeachment article that can be downloaded at mikedmalloy [at] earthlink.net and then sent to
senators or congressman. Dr Francis Boyle law professor
at Illinois University drew the articles of impeachment up,
and all we need is one representive sign it and bring it to the floor. Please pass this on we have to stop this mad man
he is obsessed and very dangerous please help us stop him
gary butler
thank you
![bush_awol_chickenhawk.jpg"]()
http://www.awolbush.com/Read the U.S.Constitution!
Impeach and convict Bush and Chaney becomes President.
Impeach and convict chaney and Hasterd becomes President.
Out of the frying pan and into the fire 2 times and you end up worse than before.
Better to work for a good Democratic policy platform to ensure that Bush becomes a one-term President.
VENEZUELA.
Interconnected to the many spins this episode is unfolding. I can say that we are getting deeper and deeper into a total uncertainty.
The hesitant movements of the Bush administration and its relation to the triangle of oil, which now includes, Venezuela, Iraq Arabia Soudite.
The aim of all this maneuvers seams on one hand, the eventual change of the form of government that exist in Iraq as well as Venezuela, and the further we all know is the oil that the industrial countries so desperately need. In our actual this theories will probably fail, and the reasons are as fallows.
The actuality of Iraq has transform itself into a self defeating game, no matter what the Bush administration does it will fall into the benefit of Bin Laden who seams to be the principal enemy in this adventure. The complexity of the situation and the methods that are employ give the Bin Laden side the advantage of benefiting from any action taking. A diplomatic victory imposed by force over Iraq will certainly weakens South Arabia, and created a vacuum of power which is just what Bin Laden is waiting for.
A reversal of the Iraqi government and an installation of democracy will weaken the kingdom of South Arabia. An armed defeat over Iraq will further enhance the power of Al Queda and bring a more powerful determination for the Arab world to expel foreigners from the Middle East. As you can see, even the UN resolutions are all bind together to a circular predicament. In other words seams you have underestimated the enemy once again.
In Venezuela, you happen to have a similar scenario, the Paro civico that is a force of upper class citizens, in contrast to the Chavez supporters. The main objective of the Paro Civico is to gain back control of the oil revenues of the country and remain as sole rulers of the income.
This general strike of the ruling class is as well doom to failure, exactly for the analogous reasons as the Iraqi catch-22.
The opposition on his desire to regain power has completely excluded the reason by which Chavez won the elections on 1998, their idea of democracy leaves out any progress towards democracy and proposes a return of the failed political parties that existed in the country before Chavez (AD COPIE). It is clear that the Bush administration favors the opposition; the problem is that the context is rapidly changing and the surroundings of Venezuela are no longer the same as there were in 1998.
The same phenomenon is shaping the Middle East now.
A collapse of the Chavez government will bring a divided population into the hands of the few clever businessmen that created the Paro Civico. They will declare democracy but the fractured country will most surely increase the divisions that they already exist, giving as a result a complete collapse of the economy and a possible contamination to a Colombian style guerrillas. The vanquisher will probably hate further more the lifeless.
A stalemate situation most surely will weaken the opposition as well as the government and give as a result a sparking start to a regional decline in the whole continent.
In the end, we got the same enemy we so desperately seek giving us another round of despair.
As you have experienced every single action of the Paro Civico has giving an opposite result. The brain washing of Globovision and local papers have little effect, in fact you can even link in the future both issues of misinformation (Iraq and Venezuela).
The antiwar demonstrations that are increasingly surfacing worldwide are bound to link to the Venezuelan drama ultimately. This will have the effect of a fracture on the global society.
The current system held by the new ego-liberalism has caused the speed up of capitalist system metamorphosis. The system in order to reorganize itself is creating two main poles. We got the profit takers and the believers of an economy that will function only if there is consumption and oppression. Moreover, on the other side you got the other party who happens to believe in a new form of organized method of existence. These two sides are pulling themselves further apart as the adventure continues.
On the Venezuelan side we got this never ending Paro Civico, carried out by the economical empire facing the poor side of the country who cant even afford the privilege of going on strike.
This great economical power of media and diplomatic minds are unable to defeat the underprivileged, the poor and the oppressed.
It is understood that the ruler of Iraq is a despot, but regarding his environment and the circumstances he has being driven to, you will understand that the old fool is a victim of his old friends, who nowadays have no more need of him?
Our friend Chavez might face the same predicament; the old friendly hand giving to him two years ago is the same hand that turns against him.
The logic and lesson of the event are that the main ingredient, the people who have always being name as the, consumer, the follower, and the believer is no longer fallowing the writing rules. This changes the situation completely and as a result, we have an increasing confusion worldwide.
Now we got Lula, and a stream of new presidents who are not on the same line of thought as the pre-Chavez era.
We expose a revolution brewing from Argentina to Mexico and we can include a few immigrants in the US.
We blend this with the drastic clime changes. A certainly you will agree, the world is getting foggier each minute it runs through.
However, it looks as if in the end the Porto allegro side will win.
In the middle of this, we find the new technologies, which are indirectly the saviors and possible, the providers of equilibrium. The new technologies offer the opportunity to moderately modernize the third world; they can advance their research and balance the inequalities that exist in the planet.
This of course will only be possible if the ego-liberalist that control the industry will mend, and develop into conscious individuals of their role in humanity at this time.
Alfred Bremont
These two clowns were going to change the tone in Washington, remember? and had to steal the elections by hook or crook. They ignored all warning signs that brought about 911's colosal masssacre of innocent Americans.
They have not been able to secure Democracy at home, but want to establish one in Iraq, as if the Iraqis were begining us for Democracy. Here at home they have turned Democracy into Theft-to-cracy, remeber Enron? Is that what we want to export to other countries?
Our military superiority in the world is nothing less than armed banditry. This unelected administration has no shame. They have dragged the name of this country to the mud.
America is now seen by the rest of the world as a nation suffering from Oil addiction, graft and corruption. We have become the greatest Democracy, Oil can ruin.
The Office of the President of The United States is bigger than any man. All any man can do is to rise, or not rise, to the challenges of the office. If President Bush fails perhaps it will result in the Clintons return
to The Office of The Presidency of The United States
and the words of " Hail To The Chief " will be changed to " Hail To The Thief ".