Monthly Archives: June 2003

Worst regime in history? Looks like it!

White House cuts global warming from report

Environmental study censored, say critics

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles

Friday June 20, 2003

The Guardian

The White House has removed damaging references to global warming from a major US government report on the environment due to be published next week.

References to health threats posed by exhaust emissions that were part of the draft report by the environmental protection agency (EPA) have been removed, according to leaked versions of the report.

White House officials have cut details about the sudden increase in global warming over the past decade compared with the past 1,000 years and inserted information from a report that questions this conclusion and which was partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, according to the New York Times, to whom the draft documents were leaked.

The removal of controversial passages has caused concern within the EPA. At the end of April a memo circulated among staff members and also leaked to the paper said the report “no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change”.

Another memo warned of the danger to the agency’s credibility posed by agreeing to the deletions, because the “EPA will take responsibility and severe criticism from the science and environmental communities for poorly representing the science”.

The report was commissioned in 2001 by the agency’s head, Christie Whitman, who has just announced her resignation for unrelated reasons. Its aim was to provide a comprehensive overview of the major environmental issues facing the government and the scientific community.

One of the most striking changes comes in the report’s “global issues” section.

In the draft version the introduction reads: “Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.”

This has been replaced with: “The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future.”

Environmental groups have criticised the changes. Aaron Rappaport of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington said yesterday: “It’s ridiculous to leave global warming out of a report on change in the environment.”

The references had apparently been “censored out”, he said.

“It shows a serious lack of transparency,” Mr Rappaport added. “I regret to say we’re not surprised.

“The administration’s prejudice against the scientific consensus around global warming is well known.”

Ms Whitman, who will leave office at the end of next week, has said she is content with the deletions made by the White House.

“The first draft, as with many first drafts, contained everything,” she said.

“As it went through the review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change.

“So, rather than go out with something half-baked or not put out the whole report, we felt it was important for us to get this out because there is a lot of really good information that people can use to measure our successes.”

The EPA did not return a call yesterday requesting a comment by time of going to press.

Mr Bush angered environmentalists early in his administration by declining to endorse the Kyoto international agreement on global warming, and subsequently expressing doubts about whether global warming even existed.

His administration has often clashed with environmental groups. Environmentalists have accused the government of being too ready to listen to oil and logging interests.

The major environmental clash has centred around the Arctic national wildlife refuge where the White House seeks to allow drilling for oil. The issue remains stalled in the legislature.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) officially opens this week in the Hague, Netherlands, without the participation of the United States. Based on ideas such as international law, human rights, and justice, most nations of the world have agreed that such a court should exist in order to hear cases of human rights violations, war crimes, etc. The Bush Administration insists that the court would be used for political purposes, for prosecuting American officials and servicemen who would be accused of commiting crimes during different conflicts around the world, and therefore they refuse to recognize it. An ironic arguement, by not participating on such grounds, it becomes very suspicious that perhaps the US government has alot of skeletons in the closet and dirty secrets. If they wanted to prove otherwise they could recognize the court, and using their excellent international law atourneys, defend themselves, and prove their innocence and rightuousness. But until now, no such strategy, instead the Bush administration spits on the international community, and in response, the world moves forward without their American sisters and brothers.

Today Donald Rumsfeld (yes.. again he’s the subject of this communique) threatened Belgium, Brussels, the EU and NATO. Angered by a Belgian law that says ANYONE in the WORLD can bring a case before the Belgian courts for having their human rights violated by war crimes and things related, Rumsfeld – in his usual senile “I don’t have time to think before I speak” style, said something to the effect of “If Belgium keeps this law on the books and American officials are charged with war crimes, then the United States will push for a removal of NATO from Brussels”. Only in his statement it was much more blunt. A few things to point out here… first and foremost.. what’s NATO do again? Weren’t they a cold war invention to counter the Soviets? Isn’t the cold war over? Why does this organization exist? Terrorism? Is that a good enough excuse?

Nevermind that.. it exists, and seemingly, will exist for quite some time. So the next item – why does Rumsfeld speak for the United States? Did he consult congress? Did he consult the American pulic, before blurting out such offensive and arrogant words? And why, if NATO has so many other members, why does the United States get to unilaterally decide to just move NATO because they get upset? Could it be that once again the Bush administration shows it’s true colors – Arrogrant, Ignorant Bullies, who really don’t care how much they damage the reputation of the US for future generations, since they’ll be retired or dead anyway.

And the other factor. Why can’t American leaders be charged with crimes? Are they incapable of crimes? Are they gods? Gods whom won’t be held accountable… to anyone.. in their own nation or globally. People who’s human rights.. the right to live.. have been violated by a war the United States or any nation carried out, those people should have a place to present their case, where those accused can defend themselves, and where the truth can finally be made clear. But alas, Donald Rumsfeld and his associates prove time and time again, they have no regard for such silly concepts as diplomacy, human rights, democracy, or accountability.

Ladies and Gentlement, what you’re about to see is real, presented in an entertaining and perhaps depressingly frank way, I present to you, courtesy of Slate Magazine (www.slate.com) and the department of defense (official transcripts) – THE POETRY OF DONALD H. RUMSFELD, WAR CRIMINAL:

The Unknown

As we know,

There are known knowns.

There are things we know we know.

We also know

There are known unknowns.

That is to say

We know there are some things

We do not know.

But there are also unknown unknowns,

The ones we don’t know

We don’t know.

?Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Glass Box

You know, it’s the old glass box at the?

At the gas station,

Where you’re using those little things

Trying to pick up the prize,

And you can’t find it.

It’s?

And it’s all these arms are going down in there,

And so you keep dropping it

And picking it up again and moving it,

But?

Some of you are probably too young to remember those?

Those glass boxes,

But?

But they used to have them

At all the gas stations

When I was a kid.

?Dec. 6, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing

A Confession

Once in a while,

I’m standing here, doing something.

And I think,

“What in the world am I doing here?”

It’s a big surprise.

?May 16, 2001, interview with the New York Times

Happenings

You’re going to be told lots of things.

You get told things every day that don’t happen.

It doesn’t seem to bother people, they don’t?

It’s printed in the press.

The world thinks all these things happen.

They never happened.

Everyone’s so eager to get the story

Before in fact the story’s there

That the world is constantly being fed

Things that haven’t happened.

All I can tell you is,

It hasn’t happened.

It’s going to happen.

?Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

The Digital Revolution

Oh my goodness gracious,

What you can buy off the Internet

In terms of overhead photography!

A trained ape can know an awful lot

Of what is going on in this world,

Just by punching on his mouse

For a relatively modest cost!

?June 9, 2001, following European trip

The Situation

Things will not be necessarily continuous.

The fact that they are something other than perfectly continuous

Ought not to be characterized as a pause.

There will be some things that people will see.

There will be some things that people won’t see.

And life goes on.

?Oct. 12, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing

Clarity

I think what you’ll find,

I think what you’ll find is,

Whatever it is we do substantively,

There will be near-perfect clarity

As to what it is.

And it will be known,

And it will be known to the Congress,

And it will be known to you,

Probably before we decide it,

But it will be known.

?Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

One of the most interesting court cases to be following, in this day and age, is that of Zakorias Moussaoui (pardon the spelling) standing trial accused of plotting the September 11th terrorist attacks. He is the only person facing a charge related to 9/11 and furthermore, he is actually involved in a civil court, contrary to other detainees in guantanamo who supposedly will be tried by military tribunals. (that is, if they are ever charged for the crimes which still haven’t been determined)

What are the interesting aspects of this case:

– Moussaoui has opted to act as his own defense, and with that has extensively familiarized himself with his rights and the law. What does this translate to? They haven’t been able to railroad him, they actually have to make a case. (maybe)

– Moussaoui was in custody months before september 11th, prosecution says he was supposed to be the pilot of another plane headed to the whitehouse. What could this mean? Well, the prosecution is definately reaching on this one… how deep in the plans could he be if he was in jail.

– Moussaoui wishes to use guantanamo prisoners as witnesses that can clear his name. According to US law, he can do that. However American law can be suspended if the judge decides it is a matter of national security.

– Moussaoui faces the death penalty, yet in order to get the death penalty the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. How can there be no doubt in a case involving so much guessing, speculation, and missing evidence that has been declared top-secret?

All in all.. it’s fun to watch. One man who the government expected to burn at the stake, suddenly using that stake to defend himself. And of course it could all end in a sinch, if the Whitehouse decides the law doesn’t matter anymore… which it decides so often.

A Dutch Communication Scholar recently said, referring to the invasion of Iraq, “I’m quite sure it will take 6 or 7 years before we finally know what really happenned in Iraq.” This statement is in reference to the Bush and Blair governments’ program of overt deception and fabrication in order to justify their attacking of Iraq. While less than 3 months have passed since that invasion, the truth is slowly leaking out: about Jessica Lynch and how that “heroic” rescue was a lie, about the Iraqi military and their chemical weapons which they never used, and perhaps the worst — the British government admitting to fabricating reports about weapons of mass destruction. One can only imagine, if all this has come out since April, the amount of lies that will be exposed in the coming years. Furthermore it’s interesting that the exposing of these lies is not being carried out by American newspapers or TV channels, no — they must somehow still be embedded in or rather “in bedded” with the government. It is actually the British who are leading this charge against the wall of lies built by the British-American axis. (BBC, Guardian, Independent)

Revealed: How Blair used discredited WMD ‘evidence’

UK intelligence chiefs warned claim that Iraq could activate banned weapons in 45 minutes came from unreliable defector

By Raymond Whitaker, Paul Lashmar and Andy McSmith

01 June 2003

Tony Blair’s sensational pre-war claim that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction “could be activated within 45 minutes” was based on information from a single Iraqi defector of dubious reliability, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

British intelligence sources said the defector, recruited by Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress, told his story to American officials. It was passed on to London as part of regular information-sharing with Washington, but British intelligence chiefs considered the “45 minutes” claim to be unreliable and uncorroborated by any other evidence. How it came to be included as the most dramatic element in the Government’s “intelligence dossier” last September, making the case for war, is now the subject of a furious row in Whitehall and abroad.

The armed forces minister, Adam Ingram, admitted last week that the information had come from a single source. But Downing Street denied a report that the claim made its way into the dossier only after politicians rejected a more cautious draft prepared by the intelligence services and demanded that it be “sexed up”.

Coming in the same week that the United States Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said Iraq might have destroyed its banned weapons before the war, the row has called into question the entire Anglo-American case on WMD. The failure to find such weapons has led to demands in the US and Britain for inquiries into whether the public was misled.

On Wednesday, the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee will meet behind closed doors to examine the Government’s WMD claims, but it is not expected to have full access to the intelligence seen by ministers.

Irritated by the latest row about Iraq’s missing weapons, which has overshadowed his six-day foreign tour, the Prime Minister has promised to bring out another dossier. Mr Blair said that he had seen some of the information obtained from Iraqi scientists now under interrogation, which proved that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of dangerous weapons.

In an interview in St Petersburg with Sky News, being broadcast today, he said: “What we are going to do is assemble that evidence and present it properly to people. We are not going to give a running commentary on it. There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of potential WMD sites that are still being investigated. We have only just begun.”

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman vehemently denied yesterday that there was or had been any conflict between the Government and the intelligence services over Iraq, and claimed that leaks were probably coming from minor officials who did not have great inside knowledge.

President George Bush went further on Polish television, saying two trailers found laden with equipment in northern Iraq were proof of the existence of WMD. US intelligence agencies claim they were biological weapons production facilities. Mr Bush said: “Those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons – they’re wrong. We found them.”

The Prime Minister insisted that the information in the British dossier “is intelligence that comes through our Joint Intelligence Committee”. He said: “It’s not invented by politicians and it’s not invented by our security service. Everything was cleared by the Joint Intelligence Committee, and was their judgement – not my judgement, or another politician’s judgement.”

But one intelligence source said: “The ’45-minute’ remark was part of the American intelligence input into the dossier. It was being treated cautiously by the British, but it was alighted on by the politicos and blown out of proportion.” Intelligence circles remain confident that evidence of WMD will soon be found.

Controversy reigns over the work of a special unit within the Pentagon, created by Mr Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, which enthusiastically promoted the Iraqi National Congress’s WMD claims over the scepticism of others, notably in the CIA. Yesterday The Guardian said the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, met his American counterpart, Colin Powell, in February to discuss their concerns about the quality of information on Iraq’s banned weapons, and the claims being made by their respective political masters. The Government said the meeting never took place.