Powell Rebuts criticism

[2003 October 15]

Partly in response to the CBS News report I dissect in "The Man Who Knew", Secretary Colin Powell gives the following interview to a BBC News reporter. The transcript is replicated on the State Department web site, hence it is fair game to copy it here.

The rebuttal begins about halfway down, namely:

That's nonsense. I don't think I used the word "imminent" in my presentation on the 5th of February. I presented, on the 5th of February, not something I pulled out of the air. I presented the considered judgment of the intelligence community -- the coordinated judgment of the intelligence community of the United States of America. And the information I presented -- some of which has already been validated by David Kay.

And the investigation continues. We have found clear indications that Saddam Hussein maintained the infrastructure for chemicals -- weapons of mass destruction. We found some evidence of them. We haven't found stockpiles yet. The work continues. The investigation continues. There is an individual, I guess, who is going on a television show to say I misled the American people. I don't mislead the American people and I never would. I presented the best information that our intelligence community had to offer.

... I have many experts in my Department, and there are many differences of opinion among any group of experts. And it's quite easy for a television program to get this individual, and then they complain. But to try to turn it around and say that, "Secretary Powell made this all up and presented it, knowing it was false," is simply inaccurate.

... And so this is one of those cases where one individual strongly disagrees -- not just with me, he's disagreeing with the judgment of the intelligence community -- and this program is using it as a way of saying I tried to mislead the American people; quite the contrary. I presented the best judgment of our intelligence community and I supported that judgment. I sat there for five days and had them make the case to me, and I am confident in what I presented.

[http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/25206.htm]

Interview with Mr. Matt Frei of BBC Television

Secretary Colin L. Powell

Washington, DC

October 15, 2003

2003/1040

MR. FREI: Thank you very much for talking to us, Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY POWELL: You're quite welcome.

MR. FREI: Let me start with a question about Gaza. For the first time ever, today American diplomats have been ambushed and killed in the Palestinian occupied territories. Does that mean that you're now drawn into that conflict?

SECRETARY POWELL: No, I don't think it does. I just think it shows that there are terrorists -- there are murderers -- in that part of the world that want to destroy the dreams of the Palestinian people for their own state.

You know what our people were doing when they were murdered in this manner? A convoy of American diplomats was in the Gaza Strip to interview individuals who had expressed an interest in the Fulbright Scholarship. We were going to bring them to the United States to study here as part of the Fulbright program. And that's the group that these people attacked -- and murdered three of their security guards.

We will not be deterred from trying to get Palestinians into our Fulbright program, or pursuing the roadmap or trying to bring peace to the region. We will not be deterred. And this kind of --

MR. FREI: And where does this leave the roadmap for peace?

SECRETARY POWELL: The roadmap is still there. It depends upon the Palestinian Authority coming together quickly; forming a government under, if it's going to be Mr. Abu Ala’a, forming that government quickly; giving that government political authority; and giving that government control of all the security forces in the Palestinian Authority so they can go after terrorists.

Three Americans lost their lives in the service of peace and in the service of the Palestinian people today. And the Palestinian leaders and the Palestinian people have got to come to the realization that terror does not serve their interests. There is nothing to cheer about. It is destroying the lives of innocent people and the dreams of the Palestinian people.

MR. FREI: But if you've been drawn into the conflict, as I said -- your people are being targeted -- can you be a mutual broker between Israel and the Palestinian Authority?

SECRETARY POWELL: We will serve our role. We will not let terrorists deter us from our role.

Now this is not the first time Americans have been attacked by terrorists in different parts of the world, as you well know. This is the first time it's ever happened in Gaza. But as much as we regret the incident and mourn the loss of these three brave men and express our sympathy to the families, we will not be knocked off our point, so to speak. We will not abandon the Palestinian people or the Israeli people who wish to find a way forward to peace.

MR. FREI: Let me ask you about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Earlier this year, in February, you gave a presentation at the United Nations in which you talked about the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Eight months later, we still haven't found anything of substance. And now, one of your former senior intelligence officials in your own department is claiming that you basically misled this nation and the world in that presentation.

SECRETARY POWELL: That's nonsense. I don't think I used the word "imminent" in my presentation on the 5th of February. I presented, on the 5th of February, not something I pulled out of the air. I presented the considered judgment of the intelligence community -- the coordinated judgment of the intelligence community of the United States of America. And the information I presented -- some of which has already been validated by David Kay.

And the investigation continues. We have found clear indications that Saddam Hussein maintained the infrastructure for chemicals -- weapons of mass destruction. We found some evidence of them. We haven't found stockpiles yet. The work continues. The investigation continues. There is an individual, I guess, who is going on a television show to say I misled the American people. I don't mislead the American people and I never would. I presented the best information that our intelligence community had to offer.

MR. FREI: But that individual was the leading expert for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in your own department.

SECRETARY POWELL: I have many experts in my Department, and there are many differences of opinion among any group of experts. And it's quite easy for a television program to get this individual, and then they complain. But to try to turn it around and say that, "Secretary Powell made this all up and presented it, knowing it was false," is simply inaccurate.

It's a disservice to the wonderful young men and women, and not so young men and women, who have spent a lifetime gathering intelligence. And so that may be his view, but the view I presented that day with the Director of Central Intelligence sitting behind me, was the considered judgment of the professional men and women of American intelligence agencies.

MR. FREI: Is it possible, then, that you were misled by the intelligence community?

SECRETARY POWELL: No. I sat and I very carefully went over the material that I presented on the 5th of February. It was scrubbed. I am confident in the judgments that were given to me, and Dr. Kay is still out gathering information. He has miles of documents to exploit. He's got many more people to interview. And we will see what we will see as he finishes his work.

And so this is one of those cases where one individual strongly disagrees -- not just with me, he's disagreeing with the judgment of the intelligence community -- and this program is using it as a way of saying I tried to mislead the American people; quite the contrary. I presented the best judgment of our intelligence community and I supported that judgment. I sat there for five days and had them make the case to me, and I am confident in what I presented.

MR. FREI: In the year 2001, February of that year, you spoke to Face the Nation on CBS, and you said, "Saddam, today, is weaker, much weaker than he was before."

SECRETARY POWELL: He was.

MR. FREI: What happened in those two years between 2001 and --

SECRETARY POWELL: No, you're trying to put different pieces together.

In February 2001, I said he was much weaker than he was at the beginning of the Gulf War, some ten years earlier; and he was. We had destroyed his conventional forces by a factor of, I'd say, 50 to 60 percent. So he didn't have the capacity to invade his neighbors any longer because his conventional force was so small.

I also indicated that we -- I never said at that time he didn't have weapons of mass destruction -- I said that the sanctions had served the purpose of containing them, but not getting rid of them. And so the danger he presented in 2001 was a danger that continued into 2002, and I think was exacerbated and accelerated by what happened on 9/11 when suddenly we saw the potential danger of marrying up these kinds of weapons of mass destruction programs or actual weapons with terrorists was a risk the world should not be faced with. And for that reason, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain and other leaders came together, presented the case at the United Nations, and earlier this year took military action in response to UN Resolution 1441, even though many other nations disagreed with our action. And we don't have to worry about this any longer.

This isn't a question that has to be debated any longer because the man responsible for all of this, Saddam Hussein, is no longer in power. He's in hiding. Remnants of his regime are trying to thwart our efforts to build a better Iraq that will be a democratic nation that will have elected leaders, and will no longer be investing its treasure into weapons of mass destruction programs or in the capacity to threaten its neighbors.

MR. FREI: Very briefly, the UN resolution that's currently on the table, are you confident it'll pass? And what difference will it make on the ground?

SECRETARY POWELL: I'm increasingly confident that it will pass. I think it will make a difference because it will show the international community coming together again. I don't know how many votes there will be for the resolution; we're working on that right now. But it will show us coming together and I hope it will give momentum to the Donors Conference that will be held in Madrid next week, and I hope it will give encouragement to those nations that are considering making additional contributions, whether they are military contributions or financial contributions or political support.

We have 32 nations, or thereabouts, standing alongside us in the Gulf, in Iraq. We're not alone. It is a coalition that has come together: Estonia, Latvia, Spain, Italy. So many nations are contributing this. Of course, the United Kingdom is making a massive contribution. Turkey has expressed its willingness to make a contribution, and we are working through some of the challenges associated with that.

But this is not the United States alone. This is the United States and a large group of responsible nations who did not want to face the continued risk of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and a regime that brutalizes people and filled graves with innocent people for a period of 30 years. That's over. That's done. We have nothing to apologize for and we are proud of what we've done.

MR. FREI: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.

SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you, sir.

[End]

Released on October 15, 2003

U.S. Will Ask U.N. for Move to Widen the Force in Iraq

U.S. Will Ask U.N. for Move to Widen the Force in Iraq (August 21, 2003; New York Times)

The Bush administration, seizing on the bomb attack on the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, is preparing a new Security Council resolution that would urge other nations to send troops and aid to secure Iraq, administration officials said today. The new resolution would allow the American military to maintain control over any international forces in Iraq — something the Pentagon has insisted on.

A few days ago a number of attacks were made, an embassy bombed, the U.N. headquarters bombed, some oil and water pipelines bombed, etc. Add to this the nearly daily deaths of American and British soldiers and, well, deservedly the patience is being worn thin. Or something like that.

The "case" for War

[July 16, 2004]

The news media finally got off their collective butt's and decided to fact-check Powell's speech to the United Nations in Feb 2003 which led to the Iraq Invasion. As you can see below, in August 2003 it was already clear he'd told the world a pack of lies.

This article digs into the recently released U.S. Senate report on the Iraq War (invasion). It cites a series of articles and meetings where the CIA was actively persuading the Administration that the case for war was anything but sound. Well, duh. It's nice to know that the CIA was doing their job and trying to warn the administration.

The meetings worked in a sense, in that a large number of claims were either rejected outright, or modified. Still the CIA did warn that many of the remaining claims were weak.

[August 21, 2003]

The current situation is that the U.S. is fighting two overt wars, one in Afghanistan, the other in Iraq, and no doubt there's much covert stuff going on as well. The prompting for this is supposedly the attack of September 11, 2001 (on the World Trade Center). On the other hand, as was discussed in the other articles in this series, the "neo-conservatives" currently in charge of the U.S. government have been planning an assault on the world amazingly alike what is being pursued on the world stage.

Tonights purpose is to go over the "case" that was laid before the U.S. people, the U.N., and others around the world. As I discussed elsewhere, a number of claims were made about Iraq, and none of them have been found to be true. To my eye this is a "high crime", namely lying and deceiving the whole world in order to launch a war that has killed tens of thousands of people. And what's worse is that it apparently was launched to prop up a failing energy policy based on fossil fuel abuse.

In the February 17, 2003 issue of Newsweek is an article, "Judging the CASE" detailing the presentation made by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations. It's important to note that two weeks before the Dept of Homeland Defense moved the "terror threat level" to "Orange", that troops were beginning the steps to deployment in Kuwait (and thence to Iraq), and that people were generally jittery. This article is available at Newsweek's web site, simply go to the "SEARCH THE ARCHIVES" box and type "Judging the Case". I cannot make a direct link to the article as it is available only for a fee.

[Feb 5, 2003; Time Magazine; time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,419939,00.html] What Powell Achieved He may not have swayed doubters, but the Secretary of State shortened the odds on a UN resolution authorizing force against Iraq

[Feb 5, 2003; CNN; cnn.com/2003/US/02/06/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html] Bush to U.N.: We will not wait U.S. sending more troops, ships to region

[Feb 5, 2003; CNN; cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.key.points.txt/index.html] Powell's key points on Iraq UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Although he said in advance that there would be no "smoking gun," U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell raised numerous points Wednesday in making his case against Iraq to the U.N. Security Council. Here are some of the highlights ... This is CNN's summary of Powell's presentation to the United Nations

Clearly, if the claims made by the U.S. and British leaders were to have been true, Iraq would have been a very dangerous country indeed. Maybe dangerous enough, combined with its evasive and wiley dictatorial government, to have been worth of engaging in war. However, the truth has not met up with the claims, hence this article.

The following is a table detailing the claims, and current truth (as of August 21, 2003). If you count this up, the vast majority of the claims have not been shown to be true, and in some cases were shown to be outright lies, and that the administration knew very well that they were lying. Only one of the claims, Ansar al-Islam's presence in Iraq and supposed connection with al Queda, has been shown to have any truth, and that link is tenuous at best.

Source	Claim	Current truth
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE"	"Denial, deception and doubts", in which the claim is made that "U.S. spy satellites have caught apparent 'housecleaning' efforts" just before visits by U.N. inspectors. The inspectors were trying to find Iraq's posession of banned weapons. Those weapons were banned by a U.N. Security Council resolution (1441), and it was for the purpose of enforcing that ban which the inspection process was undertaken.	No trace of any of the banned weapons have been found. Even after the 4 months that the U.S. has been in control of Iraq. None.
CNN [Feb 5, 2003] "Powell's key points on Iraq"	"Recorded conversations" is that, as part of the denial and deception Iraq sowed to hinder the U.N. inspectors, the U.S. had recorded conversations between various Iraqi military officials passing along orders to cover up banned weapons.	In the Newsweek article it is said "The intercepts clearly refer to stray items, not big caches" and that Iraqi's disputed the translation accuracy. Again, no trace of the banned weapons have been found even after four months of U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE"	"Death on wheels" is the claim that the "germ warfare factories" had been installed in trucks so they can be mobile and evade the U.N. inspectors. As Newsweek says, "it seems like the perfect dodge, 'Just imagine trying to find 18 trucks among the thousands and thousands that trvel the roads of Iraq every day'".	In the early days of the war two trucks were found containing chemical production equipment. Initial thought was "these are those trucks", but they have since been found to be used to produce hydrogen for weather balloons.
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE"	"Lethal Ingredients" is about chemical weapons. "No country has had more battlefield experience with chemical weapons since World War I than Saddam Hussein's Iraq", and yes indeed that is true. So it seemed feasible that Iraq could have still been producing and/or hiding chemical weapons.	No chemical weapons were used, and none were found at any munitions depot in Iraq. Many old chemical weapons suits were found, of course, since Iraq had done so much with those type of weapons in the past.
CNN [Feb 5, 2003] "Bush to U.N.: We will not wait"	"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons, the very weapons the dictator tells the world he does not have," Bush said.	No chemical weapons were used, and none were found at any munitions depot in Iraq. Many old chemical weapons suits were found, of course, since Iraq had done so much with those weapons in the past.
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE"	"Centrifugal Force" is the claim that Iraq has been trying to import "sophisticated parts" for Uranium enrichment, as well as uranium itself. Much was made of some aluminum tubes which were made to a "high tolerance" beyond that required for rocketry.	Recent news since the middle of June has (see Is this "war" Impeachable?) made it clear that every claim made about the Uranium was false, and known by the administration to be false, but they made it anway.
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE"	"Delivery units" is the claim of both missiles and drone aircraft that could deliver weapons. Presumably the target would be Israel, but the implication is these delivery vehicles are a threat to the United States. The U.N. resolutions banned Iraq from possessing any delivery vehicle having a range greater than approximately 150 kilometers (93 miles).	The rocket issue is an unknown (to me) at this moment. The drone aircraft were found to be exceedingly harmless. In one of the "rebuttals" staged by Iraq shortly before the invasion, they rolled out the drone aircraft for reporters to view. The Christian Science Monitor says "held together with tin foil and duct tape, and two wooden propellers bolted to engines far smaller than those of a lawn mower - looked more like a high-school science project than the "smoking gun" that could spark a war", and goes on to detail a whole lot of confusion around this issue.
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE"	"The bin Laden connection" is the claim that Iraq was harboring some small number of al-Queda people, and helped one al-Queda leader (Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi) to get medical treatment.	Newsweek itself pointed out that Zarqawi "is the head of Al Tawhid, a terror group sometimes (but not always) allied with Al Queda", so even that claim is a tenuous link. That's ignoring the well known fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have widely differing goals, and openly despise one another, and therefore have little if any reason to cooperate with one another. There has been occasional claims made in the press of Al Queda operatives active in Iraq. Certainly a geurilla war is being fought against the U.S., British and U.N. interests in Iraq. A CNN news article [August 20, 2003] claims "possible al Queda link in Baghdad blast". Given the past accuracy of the administration, how can we trust the accuracy of this claim of a "possible link"? In any case the article says they are possibly linking "Ansar al-Islam", the same group referred to here, is not al Queda and only sometimes linked with al Queda. Human Rights Watch report on Ansar al-Islam. Their report confirms the group has a tendency to violence, hardline Islam, and a link of unknown quality with al Queda. U.S. Executive Order 13224 named this group an official "Terrorist Group" on February 20, 2003.

On the other hand (maybe rush to impeach is too quick)

On the other hand,

• Hussein and his cronies were pretty nasty
• It's clear they were researching a buncha stuff anyway
• They did nasty things to their people

So maybe it's a good thing that we knocked them out of power. It's going to help the Iraqi people in the long run.

Maybe. Who knows for sure. In the meantime we have serious lies by the whole of the U.S. Administration to create the war.

Hunt for arms 'is being hampered by lack of experienced inspectors' http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=427597

Weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq because the "wrong experts" are there, former United Nations weapons inspectors say.

The inspectors said yesterday that inadequate pay, and possibly a disinclination by the US to allow experts associated with the UN to take credit for any weapons finds, were at the root of the problem.

The former UN experts who worked for Unscom teams in the 1990s in Iraq are considered the leading experts in chemical, biological, nuclear weapons and missile technology.

But only now have such experienced hands begun to be sent to Iraq as part of the US-led Iraq Survey Group.
Richard Spertzel, a top American expert on germ warfare who led the Unscom biological weapons team, suggests politics are to blame. He said he was "all set to go in April. But at the 13th hour, someone decided I wasn't going".

Hmm, this is troubling. The most critical of the claims to create this war, and there's scant support for proving these claims?

White House urged to reveal Saudi links with al-Qa'ida http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=427598

he White House came under fresh pressure last night to launch an aggressive investigation into claims that Saudi Arabia thwarted American efforts to investigate al-Qa'ida before the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001. Democrats also called for a inquiry into allegations that the kingdom might have, wittingly or unwittingly, channelled money to the hijackers.

The Democrats want President George Bush to declassify 28 pages of a congressional report on the failures of US intelligence in the run-up to the attacks. The censored pages reportedly detail possible Saudi culpability.

Officials who have knowledge of the full report say the missing pages, withheld at the insistence of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for "national security reasons", specifically examine whether one of America's allies was implicated in the attacks. One declassified section reveals that the investigation found "information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the 11 September hijackers while they were in the United States". The officials were quoted as confirming that one source was Saudi Arabia.

This has been one of the troubling issues. The U.S. and Britain both have a special relationship with Saudi Arabia dating back to its formation as a country (in which U.S. and British interests had a large hand). Special relationships, though, extend up to the present day such as George W. Bush having been in business partnership with one of Osama bin Laden's brothers, and George H.W. Bush being a partner with the bin Laden family in the Carlysle Group. Special relationships indeed.

It's been particularly interesting that most of the hijackers of the September 11 attack were Saudi nationals, and none were Iraqi. Why did the U.S. attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Hmm..

In any case ..

Furious Saudis reject US 9/11 claims http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,11599,1006076,00.html

The Saudi Arabian government has furiously denied involvement in the September 11 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington, after a US report speculated on Saudi connections to two of the 19 hijackers.

"The idea that the Saudi government funded, organised or even knew about September 11 is malicious and blatantly false," the Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, said in a sharply-worded statement released yesterday.

...

Mr Bayoumi knew hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi when they lived in San Diego a year before the September 11 attacks. He helped pay their rent, US authorities say.

...

"According to a US government official, it was clear from about 1996 that the Saudi government would not cooperate with the United States on matters related to Osama bin Laden," the report says.

...

Prince Bandar angrily defended his country's record on fighting terrorism, and called for the publication of the classified information.

"First we were criticised by 'unnamed sources'. Now we are being criticised with blank pieces of paper. In a 900-page report, 28 blanked-out pages are being used by some to malign our country and our people," he said. "Saudi Arabia has nothing to hide. We can deal with questions in public, but we cannot respond to blank pages."

Fair enough, the 28 pages in question is the same information the White House is being urged to release above.

Is the Gulf War II Impeachable?

As I write this (July 14, 2003), the CIA and its director George Tenet, is being set up as the fall guy.

You see, it's now two months since active fighting ended in the Iraq "War" (a.k.a. Gulf War II). The justifications for this war included claims of active danger by Iraq's supposed continued development of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and its imminent development of nuclear weapons. However in the two months since the ending of active fighting, no evidence, zero evidence, of either activity have been found. There is a growing questioning of "why".

Clearly with the writings concerning this "war" I've made prior to this, that I disagreed mightily with launching this war. It should not be a surprise that I'm now asking "is this impeachable"? That is, given that it appears the administration may have repeatedly lied, having the purpose of launching this war, doesn't that fit the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

Before we get to the question of impeachability, let's review what's happened since the end of active fighting.

[BBC; July 14, 2003; news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3063361.stm] Core of weapons case crumbling Of the nine main conclusions in the British government document "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction", not one has been shown to be conclusively true.

[The Independant (London); July 13, 2003; news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=424008] 20 Lies About the War 1 Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks ... 2 Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together ... 3 Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons programme ... 4 Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons ... 5 Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War ... 6 Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or biological warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus ... 7 Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox ... 8 US and British claims were supported by the inspectors ... 9 Previous weapons inspections had failed ... 10 Iraq was obstructing the inspectors ... 11 Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes ...

And, of course, the article goes on. The BBC article above goes through a similar list of assertions

1. "Iraq has a useable chemical and biological weapons capability which has included recent production of chemical and biological agents."
2. "Saddam continues to attach great importance to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles... He is determined to retain these capabilities."
3. "Iraq can deliver chemical and biological agents using an extensive range of shells, bombs, sprayers and missiles."
4. "Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons... Uranium has been sought from Africa."
5. "Iraq possesses extended-range versions of the Scud ballistic missile."
6. "Iraq's current military planning specifically envisages the use of chemical and biological weapons."
7. "The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons (chemical and biological) within 45 minutes of a decision to do so."
8. "Iraq... is already taking steps to conceal and disperse sensitive equipment."
9. "Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programme are well funded."

These are the kinds of questions that are being asked more and more repeatedly in the news in the U.S. currently. People who were for the "war" are now expressing doubt.

The doubts being talked of in U.S. news media currently focuses on one assertion in President Bush's State of the Union speech. Namely: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The statement has since been shown to be false, and the paperwork that supposedly provided the proof has been shown to be a forgery. A statement has been made to the public by a former U.S. Ambassador who was sent by the CIA, during 2002, to Niger to investigate the claim, and showed it to have been a forgery. Also it's known that the CIA, George Tenet specifically, had objected to the same line being said in a speech in October 2002, and had succeeded to prevent the statement from being said, but apparently didn't object in the preparations by the next January in the preparations for the State of the Union speech.

[BBC Online; July 11, 2003; news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3058809.stm] CIA 'cleared' Iraq uranium claim Mr Bush said the CIA had cleared the State of the Union address he made on 28 January containing the allegation - since discredited - that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium from Niger. In a statement later on Friday, CIA director George Tenet acknowledged his organisation had wrongly allowed Mr Bush to tell the American people that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear material from Africa.

[Washington Post; July 13, 2003; washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48847-2003Jul12.html?nav=hptop_tb] CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in Oct. CIA Director George J. Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have a reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger removed from a presidential speech last October, three months before a less specific reference to the same intelligence appeared in the State of the Union address, according to senior administration officials. Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used because it came from only a single source, according to one senior official. Another senior official with knowledge of the intelligence said the CIA had doubts about the accuracy of the documents underlying the allegation, which months later turned out to be forged. The new disclosure suggests how eager the White House was in January to make Iraq's nuclear program a part of its case against Saddam Hussein even in the face of earlier objections by its own CIA director. It also appears to raise questions about the administration's explanation of how the faulty allegations were included in the State of the Union speech.

To be fair, the question of controlling nuclear proliferation is very serious. The international Atomic Energy Commission was created for a very valuable purpose; that nuclear war would be a Really Bad Thing to have happen, and that an international body is needed to keep nuclear capable countries in check. For any country to not agree to the nuclear regimine every other country is adhering to would undermine that global decision to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If there were a valid nuclear issue in Iraq, I would not be writing this article.

At the same time as the lead-up this Iraq "war", a similar nuclear threat in Korea was also much in the news. Note that Iraq, Korea and Iran were all labeled as the Axis of Evil, and all three have had nuclear proliferation charges leveled against them. The charges against Iran having been laid after the end of active fighting. There is a valid nuclear issue in Korea, which the administration either has under control or is shuffling under the carpet in order to avoid getting everybody distracted. There have been some rumblings in the press about nuclear issues in Iran, but they are unclear at the moment, and they may be getting pushed forward was justification for the planned invasion of Iran after Iraq was finished off.

If there were any proof uncovered in Iraq of the claims used to justify this "war", I wouldn't be writing this article. Instead I'd be begrudgingly saying, "well, okay, these guys were dangerous, etc". This isn't a post-"war" conversion either, as the above two paragraphs were what I was saying at the time. It's the lack of proof since then that has me riled up.

Consider the urgency with which the administration pushed for this "war", the imminent threat that Iraq was made out to be, and the total lack of proof that has since been found. Consider the cost, not just in money, but in peoples lives, and in American credibility, all squandered for whatever is the hidden agenda of the U.S. administration.

As is being said by the U.S. troops on the scene:

news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=424008 But Lieutenant General James Conway, the leading US marine general in Iraq, conceded afterwards that intelligence reports that chemical weapons had been deployed around Baghdad before the war were wrong. "It was a surprise to me ... that we have not uncovered weapons ... in some of the forward dispersal sites," he said. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there. We were simply wrong. Whether or not we're wrong at the national level, I think still very much remains to be seen."

The U.S. troops have been in near complete control of the country (but for the geurilla activities that are continuing to kill U.S. soldiers every day) for two months now, and nothing has been found. Nothing. The closest is a couple trailers full of chemical equipment, that's later been shown to be hydrogen production facilities for weather balloons.

The quagmire faced by the U.S. government leaders over the false claim on the Uranium issue is also being shared in Britain and Australia:

[smh.com.au Sun-Herald; July 13, 2003; smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/12/1057979649821.html] Gung-ho Howard lets spooks take the rap Despite the claims from the Government that no one cares, the public wants to know who knew what about Iraq and its arms, Michelle Grattan writes. Either our public servants dealing with intelligence matters need some serious lessons in how to read a report, or they've taken to heart the message of "children overboard". That was, you'll remember, that politicians won't thank you for telling them what they don't want to hear. We have an extraordinary situation. Three top agencies responsible for intelligence, foreign policy and defence assessment - the Office of National Assessments (ONA), the Foreign Affairs Department and the Defence Intelligence Organisation - have admitted they were aware the US State Department doubted claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa for a nuclear program. Yet all say they didn't tell their political bosses.

[The Guardian (London); July 13, 2003; observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,997243,00.html] Blair ignored CIA weapons warning Britain and America suffered a complete breakdown in relations over vital evidence against Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, refusing to share information and keeping each other in the dark over key elements of the case against the Iraqi dictator. In a remarkable letter released last night, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, reveals a catalogue of disputes between the two countries, lending more ammunition to critics of the war and exerting fresh pressure on the Prime Minister.

[The Independant (London); July 13, 2003; news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=424034] Straw defends UK intelligence in row over Saddam's uranium He also confirmed reports that the CIA had asked Britain to drop the claim from its "Iraq dossier" published in September 2002. Britain refused to do so. In a letter published yesterday the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, defended the inclusion of the Niger claim, admitting that the CIA had expressed its concerns but saying that it had not made it clear what they were. In his letter to the Commons foreign affairs committee, Mr Straw said the Government had based its claim in part "on reliable intelligence which we had not shared with the US". Mr Straw did not say why Britain declined to share the information with its ally, but wrote that he had explained the reasons privately to the committee. A Downing Street spokesman said the information had come from foreign intelligence services and was "not ours to share".

For the record here's a very detailed history of events around this Uranium claim:

[smh.com.au Sun-Herald; July 13, 2003; smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/11/1057783358954.html] Dodgy intelligence: who knew what and when This starts with Nov 2001: Italian intelligence agency tells United States counterparts of information suggesting Iraq is seeking uranium from Niger, based on four forged letters. Italian intelligence passing along the now-known-to-be-a-forgery claim, and by February 2002 it had been proven to be false. But it's the story that would not die. Before the State of the Union address, I count five attempts by the CIA to squash this story.

One of the justifications that could have been a solid reason for war is the supposed link between Iraq and al-Queda, as well as other terrorist organizations. Over and over the claim was made, Iraq is developing WMD's and they can supply them to terrorist organizations that can in turn launch attacks against the United States. Well, consider that it's well known that Saddam Hussein and al-Queda had very different agendas, and totally opposite desires. Why would they work together?

[Washington Post; July 12, 2003; washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47665-2003Jul12] Ex-Officials Dispute Iraq Tie to al-Qaida Before the war, Bush and members of his cabinet said Saddam was harboring top al-Qaida operatives and suggested Iraq could slip the terrorist network chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons. Now, two former Bush administration intelligence officials say the evidence linking Saddam to the group responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was never more than sketchy at best. "There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist operation," former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann said this week. ntelligence agencies agreed on the "lack of a meaningful connection to al-Qaida" and said so to the White House and Congress, said Thielmann, ...

The lies aren't just about Uranium. Look at the background material page to see my earlier research.

[Daily Times, of Pakistan; July 15, 2003; http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_13-7-2003_pg3_1] EDITORIAL: Washington’s web of deceit The cobweb of deception woven by the Bush administration to justify its war on Iraq is now threatening to ensnare the administration itself. The latest political firestorm relates to the administration’s admission earlier this week that a reference tucked away in President Bush’s State of the Union address January 29 to the effect that Iraq had tried to get uranium from Niger was based on forged intelligence. ... President Bush’s National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, has passed the buck on to the Central Intelligence Agency. ... But let’s put all this in perspective. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that Iraq’s WMD capability was a ruse for making war on that country. Much has already been written about it. Some weeks ago, US Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, said that the WMD excuse was a good sell, though it wasn’t the overriding factor. Just the other day, US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the US did not go to war because there was any new intelligence on Iraq’s WMD programme but because the threat was seen in new light post-9/11. This essentially means that Washington’s neo-cons tried to take out Iraq as part of a bigger agenda and not because Baghdad offered any heightened – or at least immediate – threat.

Sometimes the most apt observers of the U.S. are outside the country. Maybe that's because those observers are outside the corporate dominance of the American media, but that's a research report for another day. In any case, it's the last couple sentences that are important here. That even if many or all of the claims made during the justification period before launching the war were true, that it's all a lie anyway because of the hidden agenda. Or:

The principle that plain lying to a higher, noble end is acceptable is troublesome enough. In this case, it is even more troublesome to prove that the end was indeed noble enough for Washington and London to have resorted to lies. ... This is of a piece with another allegation – made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, no less, in his speech to the United Nations Security Council – that Saddam Hussein was involved with Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. Again, tucked away in Secretary Powell’s speech was a reference that an Al Qaeda operative acted through Iraq’s embassy in Islamabad. The Pakistan government immediately refuted his observation. It is now widely known that the whole thing was a stretch and Secretary Powell has come under fire for making that connection. No matter what the US does to convince the world of the genuineness of its motives, the fact is that the whole Iraq venture smells to the high heavens.

Ah, how refreshing is the honesty of the press in the "third world". That's something I found so interesting and amusing in my trip to India.

A week later [July 20, 2003] ...

[Austin American Statesman; July 19, 2003; statesman.com/asection/content/auto/epaper/editions/saturday/news_f381debac525d080002e.html] Prewar report included doubts: White House acknowledges Bush didn't read all of Iraq assessment President Bush and his national security adviser didn't entirely read the most authoritative prewar assessment of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, including a State Department statement that an allegation Bush would later use in his State of the Union address was "highly dubious," White House officials said Friday.

[NY Times; July 17, 2003; nytimes.com/2003/07/18/international/worldspecial/18INTE.html] New Details Emerge on Uranium Claim and Bush's Speech

[WorldNetDaily.com; July 17, 2003; wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33614] Dissent over uranium more than a 'footnote': Doubts about African deal got bigger play in report than White House hints An objection raised about a uranium charge in a secret high-level report on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was more than a "footnote," as described by the White House, officials say. In a National Intelligence Estimate published last October, the intelligence arm of the State Department called "highly dubious" allegations that Iraq was shopping for uranium in Africa. The dissenting view was presented in the main body of the report, not buried in a footnote, sources say.

What, they didn't read the document closely? They want us to believe they launched the country into a war with anything but a firm grasp of the facts? They're angling for "dereliction of duty" or "incompetence" rather than "high crimes"?

Impeachment?

If President George Bush were in a weaker position with, say, a house or two of Congress in Democratic control, we might be hearing active calls for impeachment right now. Certainly what's been given above lays quite a layer of doubt over everything in sight.

For another comentators view on this

[TomPaine.com; July 10, 2003; tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8270] Hawks Say The Darndest Things! Keeping track of the "real reason" for the invasion of Iraq can be quite a chore these days. The Bush administration doggedly maintains that its claims about weapons of mass destruction were legitimate. Yet a litany of apologists has scrambled for other explanations. As it became evident that Saddam's deadly arsenal was unlikely to ever materialize, these defenders have argued that the invasion of Iraq wasn't about the danger of Saddam's imminent attack after all. Okay, we're on the same page, because that's what I'm saying here. "WMD was never the basic reason for war. Nor was it the horrid repression in Iraq. Or the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors," writes Daniel Pipes, a conservative columnist for The New York Post. All this should come as a surprise to the American people, who were called upon to invest confidence in each of these ideas. But having ruled out such leading justifications, Pipes goes on to explain that "The campaign in Iraq is about keeping promises to the United States or paying the consequences."

Errr... wait a minute, the reason for the war wasn't the reasons that were stated over and over? Well, okay, readers of this sub-site already know that because on another page I went over the plans the neo-conservatives (Wolfowitz, Rumsfield and the rest) have been hatching for the last 15 years that were coincidentally the same as the steamroller that's now run Saddam out of town.

"Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine," Friedman writes. "But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right at the heart of that world." Of course, Friedman admits that this rationale contradicts the "stated reason" for the attack: "I argued before the war," he says, "that Saddam posed no [immediate] threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war 'on the wings of a lie.'" Wings of a lie? With friends like that, who needs political enemies to call for a Congressional investigation?

Yes, exactly. Preaching to the choir you are.

It's clear that lying to get a war going is a high crime. Certainly more so than lying about a little sex.

Speaking of sex, some of the resources online about impeachment were put together during the impeachment of Bill Clinton

[JURIST Law Professor's Network; jurist.law.pitt.edu/impeach.htm] Guide to Impeachment and Censure Materials Online

[Association of the Bar of NY City; abcny.org/presimpt.htm] THE LAW OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. ... The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. ... The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. ...

And so on: google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=impeachment

Conclusion

Clearly I feel impeachment is justified. What about you, the person reading this? What do you think?

Let me close with a thought from a recent movie, The Minority Report (Minority Report). I watched this movie the first time in the middle of the active fighting in Iraq and thought it to be wildly coincidental.

Here we have a war, a pre-emptive war, launched based on the notion that Saddam Hussein might launch a war against the United States. In The Minority Report we have presented to us a police force which has a supposedly infallible method of predicting murders, and they are pre-emptively enforcing sentences on those who are contemplating committing murder. A clear analogy of pre-emptively waging war, yes?

In the movie the police methods were found to be highly fallible, and had been subverted by the police commissioner himself in a power grab, and the whole system was destroyed because of it. So we find here, the intelligence methods are being found to be highly fallible, that the administration officials are willing to force the intelligence officials to say anything to justify whatever it is the administration officials want, and that it may be a naked power grab.

My concern is not just about this particular event, the needless spending of money, the killing of many people, etc. All that's reprehensible enough, even considering the result of freeing Iraq from a horrendous dictatorial government. If we, the American people, do not stand up to this abuse of power, then where is our freedom? Where is the freedom that's been fought for by generations of our people? What is it this country stands for if it isn't honesty and truth? Why can we fight for the freedom of people in other countries, and forfeit our own?

Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or is that Mass Distraction?

The Justification

In order to launch this war, the administration had to come up with justification. Why? The issue at the front of everybody's mind was Al Queda, Osama bin Laden, and the other demonized ones holed up in Afghanistan who did the attack on September 11, 2001 against the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a corn field in western Pennsylvania. There wasn't any obvious linkage between Al Queda and Iraq, yet the administration kept making threatening noises in their direction, so if they were itching for war (as was obvious) then why?

One reason was this issue of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". A nebulous term, that could obviously apply to most of the armament in the U.S. stockpile. Yet, we have a country that obviously has repeatedly attacked neighbors and its own citizens, has in the past worked on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, so what is to be done about them? And, now, we're not referring to the U.S. here, but Iraq. Let's be clear, Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) was a danger. At the same time, was Iraq sufficiently bottled up (there was strict sanctions in place)? Was Iraq a truly present danger?

Since the Weapons of Mass Destruction was portrayed as the major issue, we want to examine this one closely. Is this issue real, or was it merely a distraction from the real issue. In the Background material for the second Gulf "War" paper, it's clear that the people who are currently senior advisors to the GW Bush administration had, for many years (since their service in the GHW Bush administration), harbored a grudge against Iraq, and more importantly been stoking the flames of "American Might" and how it needs to be used to establish a World Order to U.S. advantage.

[July 22, 2003] UPDATE This issue is starting to be noticed in the press. They're asking about the weapons of mass destruction some, but more so is the claim that Iraq was ready to build nuclear weapons. The latter claim turns out to be false and baseless. There is more on the Is the Gulf War II Impeachable? page.

Searching for WMD

[April 15, 2003; CNN] Tests rule out suspect bio-labs (cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.no.labs/index.html) KARBALA, Iraq (CNN) -- The buried labs U.S. troops found last week were not the mobile chemical and biological weapons labs one U.S. Army general suspected, according to the head of an expert team brought in to examine them. The 11 cargo containers were filled with new laboratory equipment apparently intended to make conventional weapons, ... "Based on what we've seen, the containers are full of millions of dollars worth of high-tech equipment," he said. "It possibly has a dual use. But it does not appear to be weapons of mass destruction." ... The containers held equipment typically found in laboratories, including test tubes, water baths, sand baths, ph transmitters, explosive-proof lights, ethyl alcohol gauges, shakers, test tubes, test tube holders, and temperature and pressure gauges. ... "Initial reports indicate that this is clearly a case of denial and deception on the part of the Iraqi government," Freakley said. "These chemical labs are present, and now we just have to determine what in fact they were really being used for." ... On a visit February 23, U.N. weapons inspectors found nothing "untoward" at the Karbala Ammunition Filling Plant that is close to the site, a U.N. inspection team spokesman said Monday. This article refers to an earlier one: [April 15, 2003; CNN] U.S.: Mobile labs found in Iraq (cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/index.html) U.S. troops have found 11 mobile laboratories buried south of Baghdad that are capable of biological and chemical uses, a U.S. general said Monday. ... There were no chemical or biological weapons with the containerized labs, which measure 20 feet square. But soldiers recovered "about 1,000 pounds" of documents from inside the labs, and the United States will examine those papers further, said Brig. Gen. Benjamin Freakley of the Army's 101st Airborne Division. ... During the buildup to the war in Iraq, the United States repeatedly accused Iraq of using mobile laboratories to produce banned weapons.

While this isn't directly a smoking gun (no chemical or biological weapons directly found), it does back up the contention that Iraq was hiding research work, and were using mobile laboratories to help the subterfuge.

Pre-war justification

[February 5, 2003; CNN] Powell: Iraq hiding weapons, aiding terrorists (cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.un/index.html) U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell used electronic intercepts, satellite photographs and other intelligence sources Wednesday in an effort to convince skeptical members of the U.N. Security Council that Iraq is actively working to deceive U.N. weapons inspectors. ...

What is conservatism

What makes one a conservative? (in a political sense, as the term is used in modern American politics) After years of listening to this term bandied about, I have been completely unable to determine what this term means. Do you know?

The meaning which I derive for "Conservative", as practiced in modern American politics, is little more than a name for one "team". That is to view modern American politics like a football game, there's two teams, one named "Democrat" and the other "Republican" and it's the "Republicans" who are "Conservative", while the "Democrats" are "Liberal". What I'm searching for is the meaning of these labels.

An obvious thing is to turn to the dictionary

conservative: 1) Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. 2) Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit. 3) Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

But all that does is confuse the issue, as modern self-styled "conservatives" in the political arena seem to mean other things. And, as for "oppose change", why is there so much preaching for "regime change" around the world by the "conservatives" in charge of the U.S. government during the 2000-2004 time frame (at the time of the World Trade Center attack, and the following wars in Afghanistan and Iraq)?

The Cato Institute

Doing a Google search for "Conservative" turns up a lot of hits, and the first one of any seeming credibility is the Cato Institute, a Washington DC think-tank. In their "About Us" page is a section "How to Label Cato" which gives a piece to this puzzle:

Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution--individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law--call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy.

Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.

Well, so much for clarity, since they seem just as confused as anybody. "Conservatives" seem to profess a love for free markets and personal liberties, but this is really "liberalism"? In any case we have these attributes to think about

Individual liberty

Limited government

The free market

Rule of law

These attributes are ones which I clearly have heard the "conservatives" talk about.

Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

Reference: http://www.apa.org/journals/bul/503ab.html

Reference: http://why-war.com/resources/files/read.php?id=119

The title of this section is the title of a research paper that's causing conniptions among the "Conservatives". A group of psychologists have been tracking, for decades, different styles of political leanings. The paper in question studies the Conservative, as practiced in politics.

ABSTRACT: Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.

Psychological Bulletin 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375

Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

0033-2909/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339

No doubt there's a lotta good stuff in that article, but I don't have time to summarize it right now.

A tour of conservative web sites

While writing this article I took a break to go to a bookstore, hoping to find something in the political studies section to help understand this conundrum. Nothing to be found would offer a simple explanation of the meanings of these labels of "Liberal" or "Conservative" or any other political label. Instead all the books were busy espousing some political view or another.

Lacking any guidebook to consult, I've decided to go on a tour of "Conservative" web sites and summarize what's there. Largely what I've found is a disgusting level of intolerance for others ideas, and in some cases an appalling level of attack and slamming. In verfy few cases was the tenor of the material examination of issues in a clear manner, but instead the majority of the material was highly postured US versus THEM positioning.

There are many more of these sites than the few I've listed here. My stamina was not enough to tour them all.

Organization & its web site	Discussion
The Common Conservative http://commonconservative.com/ "Practical conservatism for the common man"	The site is an archive of articles written by Tom Adkins, Thomas Lindaman, Patrick J. Shanahan, Heidi Parent, Carter Fletcher, Ray Mc Clendon, Gary Aldrich, and Sean Carter. In addition there are links to conservative-oriented books, and the Conservative Book Club. The tenor of the articles are entirely blasting "liberals" in general and specifically Democrats. No discussion of issues, just attack after attack. A special target is the Clinton years.
The Heritage Foundation http://www.heritage.org/	This site is the online home for a Washington DC based conservative think tank and research organization.
The CATO Institute http://cato.org/ "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets and Peace"	"The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government." A think tank with lots of research articles and educational activities.
Townhall.com http://www.townhall.com/ "Conservative news and information"	"Townhall.com is the first truly interactive community on the Internet to bring Internet users, conservative public policy organizations, congressional staff, and political activists together under the broad umbrella of "conservative" thoughts, ideas and actions. Townhall.com is a one-stop mall of ideas in which people congregate to exchange, discuss and disseminate the latest news and information from the conservative movement. Townhall.com is committed to inform, educate and empower the public through this emerging electronic medium. "
Human Events Online http://www.humaneventsonline.com/ "The National Conservative weekly"	The web site contains news articles, as well as opinion columns. The named columnists are Ann Coulter, Terrence P. Jeffrey, Robert Novak, John Gizzi, Patrick J. Buchanan and others. The tenor of the articles is largely a very partisan, lopsided, look at the news. Running through it is a constant slam of "liberals".
60plus Association http://www.60plus.org/ "Kill the death tax & Save Social security"	A citizens lobbying group for retirees. They take "a free enterprise, less government, less taxes approach to seniors issues". Very focused on the two issues of ending taxes on estates of the deceased, and privatising Social Security.
Accuracy in Media http://www.aim.org/ "For fairness, balance and accuracy in news reporting"	Articles and reports about political events. Largely these events are related to various hot issues that had received news coverage. Many of the reports are about the Clinton years, and the smearing of Hillary Clinton in particular.
American Civil Rights Institute http://www.acri.org/ "Race has no place in American life or law"	A legal lobbying and activism organization apparently dedicated to eradicating racial preferences from the law. Ward Connerly is presented as the leading member of this organization, and much of the material has his name attached to it.
Americans for Tax Reform http://atr.org/	The web site contains a collection of reports, "talking points", and opinion pieces around various tax related issues. There's not an apparent outright slant. No repeated slams against the Clinton years. There are occasional slams against liberalism.
Capital Research Center http://CapitalResearch.org	"Capital Research Center (CRC) was established in 1984 to study non-profit organizations, with a special focus on reviving the American traditions of charity, philanthropy, and voluntarism." They go on to explain that the Great Society programs launched in the 1960's inspired a bunch of charitable organizations. Along the way these charitable organizations, they explain, are guilty of promoting more government welfare programs, especially in types of activities that had previously been taken care of by families, charities, neighborhood organizations, and volunteer organizations. "Capital Research Center is analyzing organizations that promote the growth of the welfare state - now almost universally recognized as a failure - and in identifying viable private alternatives to government welfare programs."
Center for Equal Opportunity http://ceousa.org/	"As the only think tank devoted exclusively to the promotion of colorblind equal opportunity and racial harmony, the Center for Equal Opportunity is uniquely positioned to counter the divisive impact of race conscious public policies. CEO focuses on three areas in particular: racial preferences, immigration and assimilation and multicultural education. " Position papers and legal filings around affirmative action. The logo contains an American Flag theme.
Center for Security Policy http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ "Promoting security through strength"	"The Center for Security Policy has, since its founding in 1988, operated as a non-profit, non-partisan organization committed to the time-tested philosophy of promoting international peace through American strength. It accomplishes this goal by stimulating and informing national and international policy debates, in particular, those involving regional, defense, economic, financial and technology developments that bear upon the security of the United States. " The web site contains an extensive set of pointers to articles and reports about various world situations. It's hard to tell whether there is a slant one way or another.
Free Conservatives http://freeconservatives.com/ "Where Freedom Rings"	"Is a website dedicated to the free expression of conservative ideals and principles in a world that too often seems to be gripped in the tentacles of political correctness, confusion, disinformation, and derision of anything "conservative". " The site largely collects pointers to conservative news sources, and runs a message board full of conservative chitchat. The artistic flavor leans heavily on the American Flag and Eagle motifs.