Oopse...there goes another one
March 18, 2004
Poland 'Misled' on Iraq, President Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 3:03 p.m. ET

WARSAW, Poland (AP) -- President Aleksander Kwasniewski, a key Washington ally, said Thursday he may withdraw troops early from Iraq and that Poland was ``misled'' about the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

His remarks to a small group of European reporters were his first hint of criticism about war in Iraq, where Poland currently has 2,400 troops and with the United States and Britain commands one of three sectors of the U.S.-led occupation.

``Naturally, one may protest the reasons for the war action in Iraq. I personally think that today, Iraq without Saddam Hussein is a truly better Iraq than with Saddam Hussein,'' Kwasniewski told the European reporters.

``But naturally I also feel uncomfortable due to the fact that we were misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction,'' he said, according to a transcript released by the presidential press office.

President Bush, in the chow line with troops at Fort Campbell, Ky., after delivering a speech, was asked about Kwasniewski's remarks but shook his head and said, ``I'm here to eat.''

Earlier in the day, Kwasniewski said Poland may start withdrawing its troops from Iraq early next year, months earlier than the previously stated date of mid-2005. He cited progress toward stabilizing Iraq.

``Everything suggests that pullout from Iraq may be possible after the stabilization mission is crowned with success and, in my assessment soon, it may be the start of 2005,'' Kwasniewski told RMF-FM radio.

His comments came days after Spain's new government, taking power in the wake of Madrid bombings apparently linked to al-Qaida, said it would pull its troops from Iraq by June 30 unless the United Nations takes over.

The 9,500-strong multinational force that Poland commands in south-central Iraq includes the 1,300 Spaniards.

Kwasniewski noted that Iraq now has an interim constitution and said should soon have an interim government that will allow current forces to be replaced by peacekeepers.

He insisted that Poland's possible early withdrawal would not be prompted by fears of terror attacks or reprisals against his country for its role in Iraq.

``We are facing the same threat as Spain,'' Kwasniewski said, but ``terrorism must be combatted, also with force.''

Kwasniewski is a key Bush ally in Europe, although support for the military presence in Iraq has been far from overwhelming among Poles.

A poll last week found 42 percent of adults in favor and 53 percent opposed. The CBOS survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Hmm...there's that word "mislead" again
THE NATION
Medicare Ads Set Off Debate
Democrats say White House 'video news releases' mislead. The GAO will investigate.

By Vicki Kemper, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- It was with great fanfare that the Bush administration unveiled 30- second television commercials and a two-page flier that would be mailed to 41 million seniors and disabled people, touting the newly enacted Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Missing from the publicity was any mention of "video news releases," which feature "interviews" with government officials and voice-overs by production company employees posing as Washington reporters, for use in local TV news shows.

On Monday, less than a week after it concluded that the administration's Medicare commercials and fliers were technically legal but contained "notable omissions and errors," the General Accounting Office said it would conduct another investigation to determine whether the video news releases constituted illegal "covert propaganda."

Full Story: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-medicare16mar16,1,5873255.story

Gosh, I never saw this coming.
It's almost April. This is usually the time when the world goes crazy. Think we may have bitten off more than we can chew?
(See my ramblings from last October, below, on the Syrian Accountablitiy Act.)

March 17, 2004
As Many as 6 Kurds Die in 4th Day of Unrest in Syria
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

AMASCUS, Syria, March 16 -- Kurdish protesters and Syrian security forces clashed violently again in several northern cities on Tuesday, with up to six people killed, Kurdish and human rights activists said.

The deadly confrontations erupted on a day when thousands of Kurds held public vigils to mark the anniversary of the Iraqi use of chemical weapons against residents of Halabja in northern Iraq in 1988.

The commemoration is usually peaceful, but this year it followed several days of tension across the Kurdish areas of northern Syria. Some 15 people were shot dead after clashes erupted at a soccer match on Friday.

The unrest comes at a particularly anxious moment for the Syrian government, under pressure at home for greater openness and from Washington to abandon its development of chemical weapons and crack down on organizations the United States accuses of terrorism.

Full Story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/international/middleeast/17SYRI.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Here we go again!
Oh, this isn't good. See, we get all wrapped up all over the place with the war on terror and next thing you know...
( see "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism" http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.htm )

March 18, 2004
Kosovo Torn by Widest Violence Since U.N. Took Control in '99
By NICHOLAS WOOD

RISTINA, Kosovo, March 17 -- At least eight people were killed and more than 200 wounded in clashes between Albanians and Serbs across Kosovo on Wednesday, in what United Nations officials described as the worst violence in the province since they took over its administration almost five years ago.
The fighting erupted in midmorning in the divided city of Mitrovica after a protest over the drownings of at least two Albanian children. The protesters blamed Serbs for the deaths.
The province, in southern Serbia, is inhabited mostly by Albanians.
By nightfall the United Nations had lost control of several city centers, and mobs of Albanian men were attacking Serbian areas at will. In the provincial capital, Pristina, machine gunfire and explosions could be heard late into the night.
A United Nations police spokesman said the exact number of casualties was difficult to calculate because the police and peacekeeping troops had not re-established control.
"This is the severest case of unrest since the end of the war," said Derek Chappell, the chief United Nations police spokesman in Kosovo.
Although the province has experienced waves of violence since NATO peacekeepers arrived in June 1999, he said none had been as widespread as the clashes on Wednesday. "This is happening all over Kosovo," he said.

Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/18/international/europe/18KOSO.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

Is this guy on drugs?
Rumsfeld with Nick Childs of the BBC: 3/16/04

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040316-secdef0545.html

Q: Does this, though, present any practical problems for you? The election in Spain has resulted in a government that is now talking about the possibility of withdrawing its contribution to the coalition in Iraq possibly in June. Isn't that a crack in the coalition?

Rumsfeld: Well, obviously, one would prefer that more countries would come in, rather than a country leave.

Q: Isn't that - will it make it more difficult to do that?

Rumsfeld: (inaudible) involved in the global war on terror. There's some 34 nations. Now they're probably 33, with forces in Iraq. The task will get done. It'll get done and it'll get done well and progress is being made. And my guess is you'll find other countries reacting just the opposite.

You'll find countries stepping forward and saying, well, if that's what that country is going to do, we'll do just the opposite.

(What? Who would be crazy enough after this?)

Hitler's Coalition of the Willing
All this arm-twisting, threatening, and spying by Bush and his bullyboys against Chile, Mexico, and all the "coalition" member countries during the build up to war against Iraq got me thinking about this famous exchange between Hitler and Roosevelt.

By the time Roosevelt had sent his telegram, Hitler had already signed the orders for the invasion of Poland. You can be sure all the nations mentioned in the telegram knew which way the wind was blowing and eventhough everybody knew damn well they were lying, they were sure to say they didn't fear Germany.

You might notice some familiar names on the list.
Some things never change.

President Roosevelt to the Chancellor of Germany (Hitler) [40], [Telegram], 14 April 1939
THE WHITE HOUSE, April 14, 1939.

You realize I am sure that throughout the world hundreds of millions of human beings are living today in constant fear of a new war or even a series of wars...

I am convinced that the cause of world peace would be greatly advanced if the nations of the world were to obtain a frank statement relating to the present and future policy of governments...Because the United States, as one of the nations of the Western Hemisphere, is not involved in the immediate controversies which have arisen in Europe, I trust that you may be willing to make such a statement of policy to me as the head of a nation far removed from Europe in order that I, acting only with the responsibility and obligation of a friendly intermediary, may communicate such declaration to other nations now apprehensive as to the course which the policy of your Government may take.

Are you willing to give assurance that your armed forces will not attack or invade the territory or possessions of the following independent nations: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain and Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, the Arabias, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Iran.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/fdr3.htm

Hitler's answer:
April 28, 1939 before the Reichstag

Members of the German Reichstag:

The President of the United States of America has addressed a telegram to me, with the curious contents of which you are already familiar. Before I, the addressee, actually received this document, the rest of the world had already been informed of it by radio and newspaper reports, and numerous commentaries in the organs of the democratic world press had already profusely enlightened us as to the fact that this telegram was a very skillful tactical document, designed to impose upon the states, in which the people govern, the responsibility for the warlike measures adopted by the plutocratic countries.

Mr. Roosevelt asks that assurances be given him that the German armed forces will not attack, and above all, not invade, the territory or possessions of the following independent nations. He then names as those to which he refers: Finland, Lithuania, Latvia,' Estonia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain , Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Russia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iraq, the Arabias, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Iran.

Answers I have first taken the trouble to ascertain from the states mentioned, firstly, whether they feel themselves threatened, and, what is most important, secondly, whether this inquiry by the American President was addressed to us at their suggestion or at least with their consent.

The reply was in all cases negative, in some instances strongly so. It is true that there were certain ones among the states and nations mentioned, whom I could not question because they themselves - as for example, Syria - are at present not in possession of their freedom, but are under occupation by the military agents of democratic states and consequently deprived of their rights.
Apart from this fact, however, all states bordering on Germany have received much more binding assurances and -particularly, more binding proposals than Mr. Roosevelt asked from me in his curious telegram.

But should there be any doubt as to the value of these general and specific statements which I have so often made, then any further statement of this kind, even if addressed to the American President, would be equally worthless. For in the final analysis it is not the value which Mr. Roosevelt attaches to such statements which is decisive, but the value attached to these statements by the countries in question.

But I must also draw Mr. Roosevelt's attention to one or two mistakes in history. He mentions Ireland, for instance, and asks for a statement to the effect that Germany will not attack Ireland. Now, I have just read a speech delivered by Mr. de Valera, the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister), in which strangely enough, and contrary to Mr. Roosevelt's opinion, he does not charge Germany with oppressing Ireland, but reproaches England with subjecting Ireland to continuous aggression.

With all due respect to Mr. Roosevelt's insight into the needs and cares of other countries, it may nevertheless be assumed that the Irish Taoiseach would be more familiar with the dangers which threaten his country than would the President of the United States.

Similarly the fact has obviously escaped Mr. Roosevelt's notice that Palestine is at present occupied not by German troops but by the English; and that the country is undergoing restriction of its liberty by the most brutal resort to force, is being robbed of its independence and is suffering the cruelest maltreatment for the benefit of Jewish interlopers.

The Arabs living in that country would therefore certainly not have complained to Mr. Roosevelt of German aggression, but they are voicing a constant appeal to the world, deploring the barbarous methods with which England is attempting to suppress a people which loves its freedom and is merely defending it.

This, too, is perhaps a problem which in the American President's view should be solved at the conference table, that is, before a just judge, and not by physical force or military methods, by mass executions, burning down villages, blowing up houses and so on.

For one fact is surely certain. In this case England is not defending herself against a threatened Arab attack, but as an uninvited interloper, is endeavoring to establish her power in a foreign territory which does not belong to her.

...Lastly I have the following statement to make:

The German Government is in spite of everything prepared to give each of the states named an assurance of the kind desired by Mr. Roosevelt, on condition of absolute reciprocity, provided that such state wishes it and itself addresses to Germany a request for such an assurance, together with correspondingly acceptable proposals. [and you can take that to the bank!]

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us ?
Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war? Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years ? Threat to the world is greater than terrorism.

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris
Sunday February 22, 2004

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

The warming warning
By Danny Rabinowitz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/398873.html

Damage from Warming Becoming 'Irreversible,' Says New Report
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=655&e=9&u=/oneworld/4536815561079359338

Dolphins go ape with newest acquisition
Yes, unfortunatly, I am a big-time Miami Dolphins fan. There might be a few detours along the way on the roadmap to defeat Bush.

Here's an article I picked up in the fictional Miami newspaper's sports section of my friend George's twisted imaginings:
( No! We're not desperate!)

In a move that has shocked the sports world, the Miami Dolphins have announced the signing of "Timmy," a 748 lb. silverback gorilla from the Bronx Zoo.

It is expected that Timmy will immediately upgrade an offensive line in sore need of impact players.

Reached by phone, the burly simian was ecstatic upon hearing the news. "This is truly the opportunity of a lifetime. The Dolphins are giving me a chance to leave this sh*t-filled cage and I don't plan on letting them down."

Timmy is also eager to dispel any fears among his new teammates. "I'm sure there will be an adjustment period, but that's normal in human/ape relationships. Once I pick the lice out of a few of their scalps, I'm confident they'll accept me as part of the team." He warns, however, that opponents can't expect the same civility. "Hey, if I need to disembowel some guy and leave his intestines on the field, I'm going to do it. Whatever it takes, man. And you can tell those referees to forget about throwing the damn flag...not if they value their lives."

Team officials were reluctant to say if reports of a mysterious scout named "T-Man" were instrumental in the signing, but General Manager Rick Spielman was blunt in his assessment of the gorilla. "Look, it's not like this is the first time we've ventured into the animal kingdom for a player. We've had a turkey at quarterback for the past four years. I'm confident Timmy is the missing link in the championship puzzle."

Didn't "W" go AWOL?
An AWOL guardsman who refuses to return to Iraq duty plans to turn himself in and become the first soldier to publicly challenge the conflict


By Michael Martinez
Chicago Tribune

March 15, 2004, 1:55 PM EST

NEW YORK -- In Iraq last April, freshly promoted Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia led squads of Florida National Guard soldiers in the fight against insurgents in the deadly Sunni triangle.

But Mejia, a native of Miami, became increasingly pained by his war experiences, and when he went on leave in the autumn, he decided not to come back. The staff sergeant--one of about 600 soldiers counted as AWOL by the Army during home leaves from Iraq--eventually was labeled a deserter.

Now, after five months in hiding, Mejia plans to surrender Monday in Boston on the eve of the war's first anniversary, and he aims to become the first Iraq war veteran to publicly challenge the morality and conduct of the conflict. At a time when polls indicate that Americans' support for the war is slipping, Mejia intends to seek conscientious-objector status to avoid a court-martial.

Full story:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-312moralityofwar,0,6369096,print.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

There he goes again...
Rumsfeld on Face The Nation today:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_031404.pdf

SCHIEFFER: The--the president ordered this invasion, as the world knows, because he said
there were weapons of mass destruction, and he said they posed a threat to this country.
Knowing what we now know, Mr. Secretary, do you think it was still wise to take this
invasion? Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to this country?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Bob, the answer is I do believe it was the--it was the--the right thing to do.
And I'm--I'm glad it's done. The 25 million Iraqi people have been liberated. A regime, a
vicious regime, is gone after decades of repression and death squads and--and mass graves
and mass killings, a country that used chemical weapons on its neighbors and on its own
people, that fired ballistic missiles into several of its neighboring countries. It's a good thing
they're gone. And--and...

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass
destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat
to us, to this country?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard
use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of
folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say
nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.

Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you
speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to
seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--
suppose I've...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security
of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'
[http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/02091831.htm]

Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we
believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed
and we still do not know--we will know. David Kay said we're about 85 percent there. I
don't know if that's the right percentage. But the Iraqi Survey Group--we've got 1,200 people
out there looking. It's a country the size of California. He could have hidden his--enough
chemical or biol--enough biological weapons in the hole that--that we found Saddam Hussein
in to kill tens of thousands of people. So--so it's not as though we have certainty today.
But what--think what happened. There were 17 UN resolutions. There was unanimous
agreement that he had filed a fraudulent declaration. The final opportunity was given with
the last resolution, and he didn't take it. He chose war. He didn't do what Kazakhstan did.
He didn't do what South Africa did. He didn't do what Ukraine did. He--he didn't say,
`Come in and look and see what we have.' He was engaged in active deception. We'll
ultimately know a great deal about what took place.


...In other words, "where's the guy who asked about the subway running under the building?"

See also: Rumsfeld 'pocketed 9/11 souvenir'
From John Solomon in Washington
13Mar04
http://www.news.com.au/common/printpage/0,6093,8953686,00.html