Author: latanawi

The President’s father knew enough to demand proof.  Commenting on Iraq’s claims to be complying with U.N. resolutions demanding destruction of military equipment, Pres. George H. W. Bush said,
 

“I’m from Missouri; we’ve got to see exactly what’s going on.”
   7/10/91 White House press conference;  BUSHISMS (Workman Pub. NY) comp. eds. “The New Republic.”

It makes sense.  A surgeon wants to see MRI’s before operating.  A banker wants to see proof of good credit risk before making loans.  A lawyer wants to see the underlying documentation (the will, the contract, the deed) before proceeding with litigation.  

And any half-competent President & Vice President will ask for the proof behind a report that another nation is purchasing uranium for nefarious purposes.  If there are documents upon which the report was made, I expect the President to have the documents examined before he cites the report as fact in whipping up support for war.  

Seymour Hersh, in his 10-27-03 “New Yorker” article, “Stovepipe: how conflicts between the Bush administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq’s weapons,”  recounted plenty more:

 An Italian journalist, Elisabetha Burba, was offered 22 pages about a uranium sale from Niger to Iraq, for $10,000.  She left a copy of the papers at the American embassy, checked out the story in Niger and found nothing to support it, so it died.  

    There is no consensus on who faked the Niger papers, Hersh continued.  One explanation, from a former CIA officer, was that the papers were put together by a group of CIA retired operations officers.

 “The thinking, he said, was that the documents would be endorsed by the Iraq hawks at the top of the Bush administration, who would be unable to resist flaunting them at a press conference or an interagency government meeting.  They would then look foolish when intelligence officials pointed out they were obvious fakes.  But the tactic backfired when the papers won widespread acceptance within the Administration.”

   Shocked when the President mentioned it in the State of the Union speech, Hersh was told, former CIA officers “leaked” the papers to the I.A.E.A. to be exposed. The I.A.E.A. confirmed they were fakes and contacted American and British officials. They received no response.  So I.A.E.A. director-general ElBaradei described the fraud to the U.N. Security Council.  That was March 7, 2003.

March 19, 2003, Pres. Bush announced the beginning of major combat operations in Iraq.  Forgeries, shmorgeries.

I went a-Googling to see the forgeries for myself, and found the following at www.cryptome.org/niger-docs.htm, and at www.iraqfact.com/Niger_docs.html, the latter providing English translations. There are other pages;  these were the easiest to review:

A letter on stationery with a hand-drawn or traced partial seal of the Republic of Niger, stamped “CONFIDENTIEL” and “URGENT,” is dated Niamey 27/07/2000, with a purported signature of Niger’s president.  The typing is all in caps.

  “MONSIEUR LE PRESIDENT,
 J’AI L’HONNEUR DE ME REFERER A L’ACCORD No. 381-NI 2000, CONCERNANT LA FOURNITURE D’URANIUM, SIGNE A NIAMEY LE 06 JUILLET 2000 ENTRE LE GOUVERNEMENT DE LA REPUBLIQUE DU NIGER ET LE GOUVERNEMENT DE L’IRAQ PAR LEURS RESPECTIFS REPRESENTANTS DELEGUES OFFICIELS.
  DITE FOURNITURE EQUIVALENTE A 500 TONNES D’URANIUM PUR PAR AN, SERA DELIVRE EN 2 PHASES.
  AYANT VU ET EXAMINE LEDIT ACCORD, JE L’APPROUVE EN TOUTES ET CHACUNE DE SES PARTIES EN VERTUE DES POUVOIRS QUI ME SONT CONFERES PAR LA CONSTITUTION DU 12 MAI 1966.
  EN CONSEQUENCE, JE VOUS PRIX DE BIEN VOULOIR CONSIDERER LA PRESENTE LETTRE COMME ETANT L’INSTRUMENT FORMEL D’PPRO-RATION DE CET ACCORD PAR LE GOUVERNEMENT DE LA REPUBLIQUE DE NIGER QUI SE TROUVE AINSI VALABLEMENT ENGAGE.
   VEUILLE AGREER, MONSIEUR LE PRESIDENT, L’ASSURANCE DE MA HAUTE CONSIDERATION.”

May 12, 1966 is the date of the constitution in this document.  However, in 2000 — the date of the document — the constitution’s date should have been stated as July 1999.  According to the U.S. State Department’s background notes on Niger (www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5474.htm) the constitution of 1992 was revised by national referendum May 12, 1996, and again July 18, 1999.  
   This letter states that the agreement between Iraq and Niger representatives for the delivery of 500 tons of uranium per year in 2 phases was signed in Niamey July 5, 2000.

A cover letter on different letterhead of the Republique du Niger, Conseil Militaire Supreme, Ministere Des Affaires Etrangeres Et De La Cooperation, is dated Niamey “10 Oct. 2000.” It was addressed to Monsieur l’Ambassadeur du Niger, Rome.

“OBJET: Protocole d’accord entre le Gouvernement du Niger et le Gouvernement d’Iraq relative a la fourniture d’uranium signe les 5 et 6 Juillet 2000 a Niamey.
   J’ai l’honneur vous faire tenir ci-joint, pour information, copie du Protocole d’Accord signe a Niamey entre la Republique du Niger et le Gouvernement d’Iraq concernant la fourniture d’uranium que l’Etat nigerien a emis au sujet du Protocole cite en objet.
   P. J. 1 [1 paper attached].
      [signed] Allele Elhadj Habibou”  

   Mr. Habibou was Niger’s foreign minister 1988 – 1989.  (see www.institutions.africadatabase.org.) The purported letter was dated 2000 — 11 years later.

A letter on a third sort of letterhead of the Republique du Niger, Conseil de Reconciliation Nationale, Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres et de L’Intregration Africaine, date-stamped Niamey “30 Jul 1999” and stamped “URGENT” is not addressed to anyone.  Typed all in caps.

  “HONNEUR VOUS DEMANDER BIEN VOULOIR CONTACTER S. E. [S. E. = “his Excellency”] L’AMBASSADEUR D’IRAQ M. WISAN AL ZAHAWIE POUR CONNAITRE REPONSE DE SON PAYS CONCERNANT FOURNITURE D’URANIUM SELON DERNIERS ACCORDS ETABLIS A NIAMEY LE 28 JUIN 2000.
   PRIERE SUIVRE CE DOSSIER TRES CONFIDENTIEL AVEC TOUTE DISCRETION ET DILIGENCE.
   [signed over a typed name] NASSIROU SABO”    

This letter was sent to the Niger embassy in Rome, according to the translation in www.iraqfacts.com.  It is dated July 30, 1999, yet refers to a uranium sale agreement as made June 28, 2000.  In other letters the supposed agreement date was July 5 & 6, 2000.  

When Mr. ElBaradei of the I.A.E.A. exposed these documents as lacking in authenticity, a prudent  President would have investigated them.  Even Bush, not the genius of the century, could have figured out real fast that these documents are highly suspect and so, unreliable, along with intelligence based on them.  

Maybe he already knew.  Otherwise, he might have said Iraq had actually bought or acquired uranium.  He was carefully vague, though, referring to Iraq’s “seeking” uranium of “significant quantities.”  He went no further than the British conclusion in the September 2002 White Paper of Iraq’s “attempts” to buy uranium.  

The legacy of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice is a chasm of loss.  An American president has lost the ability to cite intelligence conclusions as worthy of action.  Bush has lost all credibility as a prudent steward of the country.  The man has cried Wolf! too often.  He cried “uranium!” and milked it to a bust to nudge us into attacking Iraq.  Who will be so foolhardy as to believe him when he cries “uranium!” about someplace else?  

Burn me once, shame on you, Mr. President.  We won’t get burned twice.  We’re from Missouri. Show us.      

Bill Frist opened up the announcement of a Senate agreement on an immigration reform bill by saying “As the American people know” the immigration system is “broken.” (Really, now, how many Americans have ever spent a thought about the immmigration system?  Frist is an embarassment).
No details were revealed on the remaining amendments to be voted on which “will hurt some people.”
  Hurt what people?
           

The President attempts to assuage security fears in its “fact sheet” about U.S. – UAE relationship posted on the Whitehouse.gov/news website.  The UAE comes across as a treaured friend.  I learned  that the UAE donated $100 Million to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. This myopic President has no national security concerns about the DP World deal.

The UAE provides outstanding support for the U.S. Navy at the ports of Jebel Ali — which is managed by DP World –and Fujairah and for the U.S. Air Force at al Dhafra Air Base (tankers and surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft).

Shine a flashlight on CFIUS, though, and interesting nuggets appear.  The assessment process under CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) is what the Administration claims has been strictly followed.  The President assumes — and expects us to assume — that sufficiently protective law is already in place, and abiding by it eliminates risks.

If the regulations are weak, though, the protection disappears.  It’s all in the process.  

In his remarks, “Congressional Mandates Frustrated: The Treasury Department’s Administration of Exon-Florio and the CFIUS,” before the Washington International Trade Association, Nov. 9, 2005, Patrick A. Mulloy has contributed a critical assessment. Mr. Mulloy is on the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission charged with advising Congress on national security issues in trade with China. He also teaches law in Washington, D. C., and was General Counsel to the Senate Banking Committee.(see www.uscc.gov/testimonies_speeches/speeches/2005/05_11_08_pat_mulloy).

The pertinent background outlined by Mr. Mulloy includes:
 1.  CFIUS was created by President Ford in 1975, chaired by the Treasury Secretary. The issue then was the acquisition of technologies by OPEC countries acquiring American assets.  
  2. In 1988 the “Exon-Florio Provision” as amended was enacted as Title VII of the Defense Production Act.  This provision gave the President the authority to block takeovers by foreign purchasers if he finds

(1) credible evidence the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security, and (2) inadequate authority otherwise to protect the national security.

  3. The statute provides that the term “national security” be interpreted broadly.
  4. Shortly after it was passed President Reagan, in Executive Order 12661, ceded his new authority to block mergers for national security reasons to the CFIUS chair, Treasury Secretary James Baker.
   5.  It took the Treasury Department nearly 3 years to promulgate regulations.
       

Those regulations, not the Exon-Florio Provision, established the “voluntary system” of merger notification that has been criticized as inadequate by many.

  6. In 1992 the Senate Banking Committee’s Subcommittee on International Finance and Monetary Policy held a hearing.  Peter Mills, CAO of SEMATECH (a joint DOD/Industry consortium related to semiconductor products and national defense) testified that foreign acquisition continued of U.S. semiconductor equipment and materials suppliers.

…foreign interests have targeted key U.S. technologies and the present CFIUS law OR its implementation is ineffective in preventing these transactions.

   Mr. Mills urged that CFIUS chairmanship be switched to the Commerce Department.  In its 2004 Report to Congress, so did the United States – China Economic and Security Review Commission.

 It was not until 1993 that the law required an investigation where the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government, or “could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S.”
(see www.treas.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio)

   Mr. Mulloy criticized Treasury for failure to implement its mandates. For one thing, it has submitted only one report to Congress, in 1994, although these reports are required every four years.  Therefore, the question of a coordinated strategy on the part of foreign governments to acquire U.S. technologies has gone unreported to CFIUS and Congress.
   Furthermore, Treasury found more ways to avoid its work. Examples reported by the GAO in its report submitted to Congress in September 2005 include:
 — a strict limit on “credible evidence”

the statutorily required 45 day investigation of foreign government purchases of U.S firms has been stymied by the Treasury’s insistence that any such investigations can be conducted only if during the 30 day initial review there is “credible evidence” that the foreign controlling interest may take action to threaten our national security… effectively [reading] the 45 day mandated investigation of foreign government acquisitions of U.S. companies right out of the statute.

   — a strict, rather than broad, interpretation by the Treasury Department, of what constitutes “national security,” to wit,

“export controlled technologies or items, classified contracts, or specific derogatory intelligence on the foreign company.”

Assistant Secretary for Export Administration Peter Lichtenbaum, addressed the Washington Foreign Law Society Oct. 18, 2005, on “National Security and U.S. Trade and Investment Policy.” (see www.bis.doc.gov/News/2005/ForeignLawSociety.htm)

Currently the U.S. government does not identify or analyze all critical industries.  Rather, the government evaluates specific industries on request, often from the Armed Services.  …. Several years ago, Commerce studied several critical industries such as artificial intelligence, superconductivity, optoelectronic, advanced ceramics, and advanced composites.  However, this work was cut back due to concerns that the government should not engage in industrial policy.

 Mr. Lichtenbaum cited business privacy concerns for the reluctance of CFIUS to brief Congress extensively.  He said that Treasury, the chair, and
 other agencies which are members of CFIUS are willing to increase confidence in the CFIUS national security review by briefing congressional committees with jurisdiction over CFIUS, in closed session.  He insisted that Congress should not pass the currently proposed legislation which would involve it in further review to the point of blocking a transaction even if the President did not, after CFIUS review.

Mr. Mulloy further charged the Treasury Department with neglect of its responsibilities in the exchange rate area. Currency manipulation by China has enabled it to accumulate an immense amount of dollars. The deficit with China is now over $200 billion. More proposed acquisitions of American companies by Chinese companies are predicted.

We need a serious, functioning, CFIUS process that takes account of our national security interests to review such transactions before they are consummated.

It seems Treasury is guarding its turf against incursions by Commerce (and Congress) without regard for reality.  National security policy already encompasses “industrial policy.”  Don’t insult our intelligence, Mr. Snow.

I live in California, and don’t get much scoop from Pennsylvania.  Today I received the following today from my aunt.  Anything to add?

 “We have a hot race for Senator going in Pennsylvania. There is a good chance that that prince of jackasses Santorum will be beaten. Young Bob Casey is a candidate who can win… I would have preferred a much more liberal candidate, but Pennsylvania is a purple state. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are solid blue, but the whole  rural, middle as as red as it gets & Casey can hold their vote.
      “My own Congressional district, the 6th, is also contested in  spite of rigorous gerrymandering in 2000. The hand picked incumbent has won twice, but only by 6000 votes each time. Both he (Gerlach) and Santorum have suddenly and almost comically tried to distance themselves from Bush in recent weeks.
        “We have an interesting Governor’s race. The incumbent, Ed Rendell, the former mayor of Philadelphia, has done a fine job, although he has to contend with a Republican legislature. He is being opposed by Lynn Swann, a superb wide receiver for the Pittsburgh Steelers. … He has charm and good looks, but no political experience whatsoever. I expect Rendell to win. I certainly hope so, because if Arlen Specter can’t finish his term because of ill health, Rendell could fill the spot with a good Democrat like Joe Hoeffel, our excellent pre-gerrymander congressman.”

   The script is on the way for “Hunting Grumpy Old Men,” about two geezers aiming for quail, accompanied by a band of quiet Secret Service agents.  When the quail moved, one grump — the one who exuded familiarity with weapons in promoting warfare — shoots his 78-year old & slightly deaf buddy who was daydreaming about a golf cart (and the quail escaped, rope still attached to his neck).  

   The buddy will have no problem paying unexpected costs, say the scriptwriters: he’s not employed by the Army.

  On the same day, the attorney father of a West Point graduate was interviewed on television about his son, whose arm was shattered in Iraq last year.  He could not clear Fort Hood, TX, without first clearing a bill for his Kevlar vest and attached canteen pouch, removed by the medics.  The Army refused a check from his father, so he had to solicit loans from friends, paying cash rather than spending another couple of weeks at Fort Hood while paperwork was processed.  Only after the story made the news and senators inquired did the Army agree to reimburse him.

 “The Army’s callous attitude toward Rebrook and other soldiers like him reflect the hypocrisy behind President Bush’s war.  The White House spouts noble words about patriotism — then bills a wounded soldier for his ruined body armor.”
   Editorial, Charleston Gazette, Feb. 7, 2006;
www.wvgazette.com/section/Editorials/200602071.

 Publicity and assistance from senators has forced the Army to reexamine & clear some bills, and they are relatively small, for example, for reimbursement of enlistment bonus when medical discharge prevented completion of the term, or for overpayment due to reduction of pay rate when leaving the combat zone.
   “But why should a soldier who’s made such an extreme sacrifice be treated so shabbily in the first place?”
        Editorial, 1-21-05, www.Texasobserver.org

For most soldiers discharged into civilian life minus all pre-war mind and body, a rich future is still a dream.  They shouldn’t have to clear Fort Hood in a war with bureaucracy.

    Of course, money can never replace a lost limb or shattered mental ability.  That’s why the benefits paid are always insufficient.  Therefore, debts created for any reason and billed to any soldier who has suffered permanent damage should be immediately reviewed with extreme generosity, and not sent to Collection.  That’s a small tip o’ our hats.

   If I can think that up, why can’t our Vice President?  He knows more about the billions spent for Iraq.  He’d know how to set aside a few bucks for a  casualty slush fund.  If he can’t earn his keep, maybe he should retire to pasture or wherever the quail went.

   As we watched last night about the Wounded Warriors Project, my husband and I said that this is all Vietnam deja vu.  Were the 50,000 casualties in Vietnam for nothing?  Is this what we get from an administration whose individuals lack service experience?  

   The need remains for oversight by Congress of the private firms receiving huge gov’t contracts to guard sites and personnel in Iraq, among other places.  I have been looking into Triple Canopy since it hired a relative, currently in Iraq.  Other questions about this company were raised last month.  
   It treats its American employees much better than it does its Latin American security force, though the  food is good for all.  Some 200+ Peruvians are paid about $1000 a month (and no rotation) under year-long contracts.  Most guard the U.S. embassy under construction in the international (“geen”)zone in Baghdad. Work outside the zone has been offered for $5000 a month.
  Promises made at recruitment/signing of contract have not been kept:
 1) instead of 8-hour shifts, they work 12 hours a day, plus mandatory daily exercises;
 2) after 9 days of work they receive only 1 day off;
 3) the promised English classes do not exist;
 4) the promised computer access turns out to be 20 minutes on very slow machines;
 5) medical attention is practically non-existent.  
    Management blows off these & other problems brought to its attention.  About 60 Chileans quit & returned home.  Two Peruvians have died (one reportedly from leukemia, the other reportedly hanging).  That any remain under these conditions, including what is for them extreme cold, is testament to the terrible economy south of the border.
  Congressional oversight is warranted because of the effect on foreign affairs of the company’s labyrynthine recruitment and training practices, causing a ruckus in parts of Latin America (it helps to read Spanish).  Anyone putting his life on the line to guard our embassy deserves decent medical care, not arrogance.
  This is my first ever blogging.  Helpful hints welcome.      
Those who went to Iraq were recruited by an ad placed by a Peruvian company for 3D Global Solutions; the ultimate employer was Triple Canopy, now headquartered in Herndon, VA.

A contingent of 200+ Peruvians was recruited for similar work via a Peruvian company, Wackenhut-Peru [www.wackenhut.com.pe], for 3D Global Solutions; the ultimate employer was MVM, Inc., headquartered in Vienna, VA.
They left mid-November 2005 for Kabul, Afghanistan, and returned Dec. 28, 2005, their contracts suddenly terminated for no stated reason. One of their number was Martin Jara, the man strangled Dec. 2, 2005.

http://www.24horas.com.pe/noticia.php?id=20051227007
http://www.larepublica.com.pe/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=98529&Itemid=30&fecha_edicion=2005-12-28