Deep Blade Journal

President still peddling Saddam disarmament

While reading through the President’s speech from Friday March 10, cited in the last post, I note that he is still promoting the obviously false notion that Saddam Hussein failed to “disarm” in late 2002 and early 2003.

PRESIDENT BUSH (Mar. 10, 2006): First choice of any president ought to be to deal with issues diplomatically. And we dealt with the issue of Iraq diplomatically: Security Council resolution after Security Council resolution after Security Council resolution, until 1441, when the world spoke with a united voice that said to Iraq, “Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.”

Saddam Hussein chose otherwise. He was removed from power. And there’s no doubt in my mind that the United States is more secure and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

But Saddam Hussein clearly told the truth in Iraq’s December 2002 declaration on weapons of mass destruction–Iraq had none. All subsequent pre-war hype on the subject from the president, Colin Powell, and other officials was hyperbolic pure crap. The president’s second hand-picked inspector threw in the towel in December 2004.

More recently, it has been reported that President Bush knew as early as January 2003 that Iraq was void of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, in a January 31, 2003 White House meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush proposed flying US spy planes painted with UN colors over Iraq in order to provoke war. Bush reportedly told Blair that the “diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning”. The case for war over WMD was non-existent and other rationale were sought.

In the end, the British Parliament authorized military action in Iraq on a bizarre legal theory concerning the post-Gulf-War resolution from 1991, in the absence of genuine authority from the UN Security Council. Contrary to the word of President Bush, UNSCR 1441 did not confer automatic authority for war without further Security Council action. All members’ comments at the time on UNSCR 1441, save for some ludicrous unilateralism from then US Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte, “welcomed the lack of `automaticity’ in the final resolution.”

Of course, there is a good reason President Bush promulgates this mythology–it may one day become his post-office defense in a war crimes trial, against the charge of the supreme crime of Aggression.

PRESIDENT BUSH (3/10/2006): “We’re at war. I wish I could report to you we weren’t at war. We are. There’s an enemy that still lurks, that would like to do serious harm to the United States.”

There he goes again, laying out familiar ground in the post-911 mode. But the Dubai Ports deal brought out for all to see a fundamental contradiction in Bush doctrine–that the international investor class operates without restriction while this “new kind” of post-911 Terror War rages against lurkers seeking harm to the US.

Bush politics have since 911 focused around smashing over the head of its political opponents unbridled national-security fearmongering while creating a state of panic over the “murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals”, blowing up the threat (which is real) into mythic ogre on par with the Cold-War USSR.

In a comment about a Nation piece on this by William Greider, Kevin Drum put it succinctly a couple of weeks ago:

George Bush has used war and terror as a partisan cudgel for the past five years, and the culture of fear he’s nurtured so cynically has been the cornerstone of his political success.

The flip side of the coin of unchallengeble right to wage war at will under a doctrine of anticipatory self-defense is unbrideled freedom of capital investment. In the doctrinal Friday speech to newspaper editors cited above, Bush relayed his new-found “concern” about the “message” derailment of the ports deal sends to the world capital class

I’m concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East.

In order to win the war on terror, we have got to strengthen our relationships and friendships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East.

UAE is a committed ally in the war on terror. They are a key partner for our military in a critical region. And outside of our own country, Dubai services more of our military ships than any country in the world.

They’re sharing intelligence so we can hunt down the terrorists. They’ve helped us shut down a worldwide nuclear proliferation network run by A.Q. Khan.

UAE is a valued and strategic partner. I’m committed to strengthening our relationship with UAE and explaining why it’s important to Congress and the American people.

And here is how Paula Stern, Former Chair of the International Trade Commission posed these questions on the PBS Newshour last Friday.

PAULA STERN: Well, I think it’s going to make them hesitate. I think it’s going to make them look at what they had thought they wanted to buy here in the United States and think again, go and see what their portfolio of future investments are and say is this going to be too sensitive? Is there going to be some political fallout that will embarrass me as it has embarrassed those who invested in the — from Dubai in the ports here in the U.S.?…

STERN: We get the goods, but we still owe them. We’ve got to pay back for that and we have amassed enormous debt. And we are acting, frankly, in this Dubai signal that the president said was such a bad signal to the world, we’re acting as if we don’t need the rest of the world’s money, nor do we need the rest of the world to trade or invest with us. And right now we need it more than ever.

So there are real worries that interruption of capital flow back into the US could become a bad thing if Terror War concerns begin to impinge.

A News Hour regular, often-insufferable New York Time columnist David Brooks was just flummoxed on Friday that people may think that the ports deal could have some sort of relationship to the Terror War:

BROOKS: And a lot of people heard “Arab ports.” They’re nervous. They think we’re in a war. A lot of them think we’re in a war against Arabs, apparently. And they were — they were concerned…. So, I would say there’s anxiety about where we are in the war on terror. There’s a lot of things blowing up around the world. Iraq is unstable, the Danish cartoons. There’s just a sense that we’re at war, and that we’re at war with a part of the world that — where a lot of things are going wrong.

And I think people heard United Arab Emirates, ports, where they know we’re vulnerable. The two together didn’t seem like a good idea. I think, if you had enough political leaders who would say, listen, I agree with you, if this was the Taliban taking over the ports, but the UAE has done everything we have requested of them. They have risked their lives. They have incurred the wrath of al-Qaida. They’re serving 700 ships, where you have UAE citizens, our military ships. And they’re taking care of it themselves.

Frankly, I bristle at the suggestion that genuine concerns over this ports deal is based on some sort of unreasonable lack of faith in the UAE, or even racism. Bull. There is a stack of unanswered questions about 911, many of them centered squack in the UAE. The 911 Commission Monograph on Terrorist Financing reads like a Dubai travel log:

Upon their arrival in the United States, the hijackers received a total of approximately $130,000 from overseas facilitators via wire or bank-to-bank transfers. Most of the transfers originated from the Persian Gulf financial center of Dubai, UAE, and were sent by plot facilitator Ali. Ali is the nephew of KSM, the plot’s leader, and his sister is married to convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef. He lived in the UAE for several years before the September 11 attacks, working for a computer wholesaler in a free trade zone in Dubai. According to Ali, KSM gave him the assignment and provided him with some of the necessary funds at a meeting in Pakistan in early 2000. KSM provided the bulk of the money later in 2000 via a courier. Although Ali had two bank accounts in the UAE, he kept most of the funds for the hijackers in a laundry bag at home. Ali transferred a total of $119,500 to the hijackers in the United States in six transactions…

But, even though I do not concur with the “xenophobia” notion promoted, I suppose the level-headed piece in Newsweek by Christopher Dickey explains the real nature of Dubai quite well as

a place where people from all over the world can come to do business with maximum comfort and minimum hassles.

To be sure, Al-Maktoum had a useful tradition to build on. Dubai was, is, and ever has been a place for traders, entrepreneurs, moneymen, intriguers, smugglers and spies. In a region of notorious bureaucracy and protectionism, Dubai looked quite lawless because its rulers wanted, well, less law. Even before independence in the 1970s, when the British were supposed to be running the show in what were then called “The Trucial States,” Dubai’s big industry was shipping contraband gold to India so brides there could avoid the heavy taxes on their glittering dowries.

For President Bush and free traders, it seems the wild-west aspect of the Dubai is a terribly useful feature. Too bad, terrorists feel this way too.

If you can wade through the anti-liberal snark, Michelle Malkin actually has some useful research on the aspects of the UAE unbridled free-traders like Bush and Brooks would rather ignore, Terror War or not.

Iraq war profiteering is wrong? Unbelievable!

Last spring, Deep Blade Journal had a couple of posts referring to the extensive wrongdoing and theft by Iraq contractors being paid with Iraqi and US-taxpayer funds. See here and here for details.

Now a federal jury has found that Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) contractor Custer Battles LLC “committed fraud in 37 instances in connection with a $9 million contract to help distribute new currency in Iraq,” according to a story published in USA Today’s weekend edition.

The principles in Custer-Battles, Scott Custer and Michael Battles, deny having committed fraud. I am curious about what happens next as the case winds its way through appeals courts. The judgement is based on the Civil-War era False Claims Act in an action brought by former Custer-Battles employees. So far, there is no mention that Executive Order 13303 could be a basis for immunity from fraud on the part of a CPA contractor. And so far, the Bush administration is not a participant in prosecuting fraud against US taxpayers and Iraqis alike. According to USA Today, “The Justice Department declined to participate. Charles Miller, a department spokesman, declined to comment.”