OnePeople

UN, Iraq in Inspection Talks

UNMOVIC head Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials are meeting with Iraqi representatives in Vienna to discuss the protocols for the impending inspections, currently scheduled to begin October 15th. The director of the IAEA, Mohammed El-Baradei, spoke of "progress." The talks are being held under the old inspection rules, which include inspections of "presidential" locations by appointment only. The talks will end tomorrow, when the IAEA and UNMOVIC must wait for UN Security Council approval of the mission.

The BBC reports these talks being held in a "polite vaccuum," since any action by Britain or the US could derail the scheduled inspections. The Beeb also included a handy list of items for discussion at the Vienna talks:

• Access to sites


• Visas for inspectors


• Baghdad HQ renovation


• New bases in north and south


• Communications


• Transport


• Overflight permission

The AP covered this a little more muscularly, saying that Blix has staked out a "tough position," refusing to discuss political matters and focus exclusively on . The AP also has IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming laying down the law: "We're looking for Iraqi cooperation here, but these are not political talks... We are not going to be negotiating here. We're going to be laying on the table the requirements we're going to have as inspectors."

Nando Times is running another AP story, but with an absolutely priceless photo of Blix. This AP piece seems to frame the talks as an integral part of the activity at the UN, where other pieces treated it largely as a sideshow to be made irrelevant by the impending UN resolution drafted by the US and Britain.

US Aims At Iraqi Officers

The Washington Post put an older, but still interesting item on its front page: the US is targeting a propaganda campaign at Iraqi officers who have been given discretion to launch attacks using weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Rumsfeld testified to the House Armed Services Committee that the US will threaten to unleash its full wrath on any officer using the weapons: "Wise Iraqis will not obey orders to use WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. . . . The United States will make clear at the outset that those who are not guilty of atrocities can play a role in the new Iraq. But if WMD is used, all bets are off." WaPo points out that during the Gulf War, the coalition threatened to topple Hussein if he used chemical weapons. Now that "regime change" is the stated goal, the US must find another deterrent.

So far, no other outlets have picked up this story.

No-Fly Definace Bothers 'Dickens' Out Of Rumsfeld

Just about everyone covered Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's remarks on the "defiance" of Iraq in the no-fly zones, which seems to be the Iraqi-evil-of-the-day at the White House. The no-fly zones were established by the US, Britain and France to protect minority ethnic groups in Iraq after the Gulf War. "It bothers the dickens out of me that US and British pilots are getting fired at day after day after day, with impunity," says Rumsfeld. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer announced that attacks on US and British patrols have increased in frequency since the September 16th consent from Iraq to unconditional weapons inspections.

BBC loved that "dickens" quote so much, it's they're pull-out. The BBC conspicously fails to mention that the increase in Iraqi attacks on US and British patrols might have something to do with the US and British attacks on Iraqi command-and-control assets.

CNN was also sadly lacking critique of the White House story, going so far as to quote a mysterious and redundant senior Administration official: " "This is not a dictator who is merely intent to oppress his own people. He has regional ambitions outside his own borders ... one more indication of the hostile nature of this regime."

Two Republicans Hold Bush Down

The Washington Post has Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) asking the President to work harder on building coalitions and support, both at home and abroad.

"I don't understand why the president would not want all the congressional and international support he can get if, in fact, the last option is taking a nation to war," Hagel said in an interview yesterday, a few hours after questioning Bush's broader policy of preemption in a major foreign policy speech. "The allies want to have a say, and should have a say, in how we initiate this effort."

The Administration rejected an alternative resolution put forward by the two Senators. WaPo says that a compromise resolution will be ready as early as today. The major sticking point seems to be the role of the UN: the Bush Administration does not want Congressional approval contingent on UN approval, moderates from both parties would rather see the President craft a coalition before military action. Bush, though, would like to have Congressional backing in his negotiations with China, France and Russia -- any one of which could veto a UN resolution.

Two Democrats Call Bush Out

The New York Times covered accusations of crass politicking by two Congressman against the Bush administration. What makes this especially newsworthy is that both Congressmen are currently on a week-long tour of Iraq. Representative Jim McDermott (D-Washington) said "You don't start out by putting the gun to their head and saying we're going to shoot you if you blink," and that President Bush was willing to "mislead the American people" about the need for war, saying that the alternating "Al Qaeda Connection" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" rationale coming from the White House was suspicious. Representative David Bonior (D-Michigan) was not quoted on anything as radical as that, but was standing next to McDermott.

Both are clearly not happy with the way the President is conducting the war, and they drew the Republican ire: "both sound somewhat like spokespersons for the Iraqi government," says Senator Don Nickels (R-Oklahoma). It is customary to not criticise the President on his conduct of international affairs ("politics stops at the water's edge," the saying goes) so this affair underscores how deep the inter-party divisions run on this issue.

Shame on the Times for not publishing the White House response. The AP has White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe asserting that Bush has made "very clear case" on Iraq, and "the American people know he hasn't misled anyone and the American people know he won't mislead anyone."

CNN seems to be working off a different script altogether. It has Rep. Bonoir worried that the President is creating a "self-fulfilling prophecy" regarding inspections. Rep. McDermott responds to his critics in this article, saying that "dissent is an American right. Without it, it's not a democracy." Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison likes dissent as well, but she is "very concerned when a member of Congress goes to Baghdad and talks against a United States president's administration and policies. I think that does cross the line."

A seperate CNN has Ari Fleischer in support of dissent, after a fashion: "It's his right to say anything he wants, no matter how foolish, and he exercised that right."

Iraq Rejects Changes to Inspection Regime

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said yesterday that Iraq would not accept any changes to the existing terms of weapons inspections in his country, referring to the unpublished draft UN Security Council resolution leaked Friday.

An AP piece quotes the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz claiming that the US would suffer losses "that have not been sustained for decades" if it attacks Iraq. So they've made their position pretty clear. The article doesn't address the fact that Iraq already agreed to the terms of inspections on September 16th, although they obviously did not agree on authorizing military action or access to "presidential" sites.

Kudos to the Washington Post, which does mention the September 16th announcement and subsequent backpedaling. WaPo also quotes Ari Fleischer being pretty clear about the US position:

"This is not a matter open to negotiations with Iraq. This is a matter for discussions with the United Nations. It's clear for all the world to see that Iraq's intentions are to delay, to argue, to confuse and finally to defy, so they can continue to build up their arms. It makes it even more important for the United States to take strong action."

The LA Times portrays this as an argument over the "presidential" sites, which are made up of about 1000 buildings adjacent to Saddam Hussein's palaces. LAT also mentions the two men arrested in Turkey on Saturday trying to sell weapons-grade uranium in a lead-lined taxi seat to undercover police officers.

UN Resolution Solidifies

The AP reported on Friday that details have emerged on the pending UN Security Council resolution. The US and Britain are proposing that the UN weapons inspectors be given unfettered access to all of Iraq, including "presidential" sites. The resolution would be backed by "all necessary means."

The AP says that this wording is meant to bring France, China and Russia on board. France, for their part, would like to see two seperate resolutions: one to reinstate weapons inspections, and another authorizing force -- in effect, giving Iraq a "second chance." The LA Times has Russian and China in the same camp.

AP quotes Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) coming out strongly after the Democratic-Republican ruckus earlier in the week, saying that the war "could worsen, not lessen, the threat of terrorism" by igniting anti-US hatred in the Middle East. Senator Leahy (D-Vt) wants the US to work with the international community, "not through precipitous, unilateral military action." In response, Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss) said that Democrats "need to be careful what they call for. They're liable to get it." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld guaranteed "a substantial coalition of countries" would be involved in any action. Finally, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer reacted to questions about the White House policy against the ever-more-cohesive Democratic opposition by asserting that Bush has said "a million times" that the military may not be the first method used against Iraq.

The AP piece is headlined "U.S., Britain want 7-day deadline in U.N.'s Iraq resolution" but mentions no such deadline in the body of the piece as this entry is being written. This quote is also curious: "President Bush backed the U.N. effort, saying, 'I'm willing to give peace a chance.'" The story states, though, that the UN is taking no action at all, but rather UN and US diplomats have simply revealed the details of the plan. Saying that Bush "backed the U.N. effort" is highly misleading -- the effort was his in the first place.

The LA Times chose to spin this as a deal between the US and Britain, rather than the united front that the AP portrays. They add an important quote from Secretary of State Colin Powell, who admits that the US is "a long way" from getting a resolution supporting military action in Iraq. That stands in stark contrast to Secretary Rumsfeld's promise in the AP article. LAT also notes that Bush's rhetoric has calmed considerably in discussing the pending Congressional resolution, in light of the recent flap with Congressional Democrats. LAT also adds important details about the resolution, including a two-week implementation deadline and a six month disarmament deadline. Not to be outdone by the AP, LAT also has not just France, but China and Russia all opposed to a single resolution that authorizes force -- which is a problem, since they all have veto power of any resolution that passes through the UN Security Council. The Bush administration doesn't seem interested:

"We're now feeling that we've made a psychological leap, that we don't need further justification. Clearly we'll ask for it, but if we don't get it, we won't need to go back for it," said an administration official who asked to remain anonymous.

More than one outlet has voiced concern that this attitude places the UN in the irrelevant position that Bush warned about in his speech to the body on September 12. Irony abound.

The BBC has a decidedly more pessisimistic attitude, perhaps warranted, since "France Resists US Pressure on Iraq." BBC supports the LAT story that France, China, and Russia are extremely skeptical of the US accusations, and would much rather see inspectors back on the ground and worry about the military options later. The Beeb also included light converage of a largely uneventful Congressional delegation of doves to Baghdad.

A seperate BBC story summarizes the resolution thusly:

• Acceptance of resolution within seven days


• Declaration of arms programmes within 30 days


• Access for inspectors to all sites


• Armed guards to accompany inspectors


• Use of military force for any non-compliance

CNN plays up the fact that French officials were very tight-lipped after meeting with American diplomats. The French are skeptical, and the "two-step" approach is mentioned. The most substantive item from the French President Jacques Chirac's Press Secretary, Catherine Colonna:

"The objective is the rapid and unconditional return of U.N. inspectors to Iraq. A simple, firm resolution which shows the unity and determination of the international community could help on this front."

Washington Post is quoting one UN diplomat as saying that the US-British resolution is "designed to be rejected." WaPo also is also saying that Iraq would have seven days to accept the resolution and 23 days to comply.

Anti-War Protests in London and Rome

In London, between 150,000 (the official estimate) and 400,000 (the organizer's estimate) people marched through London to protest military action in Iraq. The march was organized by the Stop the War Coalition and the Muslim Association of Britain, and included London Mayor Ken Livingstone, a number of Anglican Bishops, and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. It was also meant to protest Israel's policy against Palestinians in the West Bank. There were three arrests.

In Rome, 100,000 people attended a demonstration organized by the Communist Refoundation party.

AP emphasized the broad demographics of the marchers.

"These people are saying clearly two things -- no to war against Iraq, yes to a Palestinian state," said Michel Massih, chairman of a group called Palestinian Community.

CNN Europe had the 150,000 estimate from the police, and said that the organizers claimed "double that."

Israel in Iraq

There is not much coverage on this right now, but there are reports in the Jerusalem Post that the IDF has commandos inside western Iraq scouting for Scud missle sites that could be used to attack Israel.

Bush Meets With Congress

Bush met with Democratic leaders Wednestday, in an attempt to soften the damage from the very public accusations flying in the last few days. Immediately after the meeting, House Minority Leader [redacted] Gephardt used his press conference to highlight the Democratic domestic agenda, and Bush reiterated his agenda for Iraq. Bush said that the debate between parties is "deliberate, civil and thorough," and also says that he's close to an agreement on the draft resolution against Iraq.

Bush, Democrats Get Angry

The debate between Democrats and Republicans has exploded, triggered by Bush's comment that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people." Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), who is famously even-tempered, exploded at the "outrageous" comment and in a red-faced blast on the Senate floor, accusing Bush of politicizing the debate. He demanded an apology from the President, which he did not get. "It sheds great doubt on what their intentions are," Daschle said. Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) capped off Wednesday by accusing Daschle of undermining the war effort: "Who's the enemy here: the President of the United States or Saddam Hussein?"

Most coverage has focused on the Democratic necessity of a quick resolution to prevent Iraq from dominating the November elections, and the Republican interest in keep Iraq on the table for as long as possible to avoid embarrassing domestic issues.

The Washington Post points out that both parties have already politicized the debate. The piece mentions a memo circulated by House leaders just before Daschle's speech on the Senate floor, warning members that "Iraq is going to dominate the message environment for several weeks." The memo encouraged Democrats to keep up talk of "economic security." Curiously, it does not highlight Daschle's mention of Karl Rove's leaked presentation to Republican campaign strategists, encouraging them to "focus on war." WaPo is also carrying the full text of Daschle's flame.

Another WaPo piece picks up White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer's embarrassingly ham-fisted response to Daschle late Wednesday: "a misstatement of what the President said." The AP's Ron Fournier read back the text of the speech, and Fleischer ducked. CNN follows that Daschle then returned to the Senate floor and "said there was 'no context' in which the president could fairly question whether the Senate was interested in national security. He rejected the White House explaination... 'They're not worth the paper they're printed on,' he declared."

The New York Post commentary asserts that the Democratic explosion is a result of angst over splits in the Democratic policy, and Daschle's own Presidential ambitions.

Slate's excellent meta-coverage points out that Daschle misquoted the President, because he was relying on the Washington Post coverage. The seperate story, quotes a "senior White House official" saying that Daschle is responding to "pressure he's under from liberals." The Slate piece refers to MSNBC, who points out that Bush's speech was given two weeks ago in South Bend, Indiana and that Daschle is only just now addressing Bush's campaign rhetoric. Slate concludes that Daschle has decided that supporting the President isn't paying off politically, and they're probably right.

Iraq Trained Al Qaeda

After some inspecific hints from Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice has announced on PBS's "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" that there is specific and documented evidence that Iraq helped train al Qaeda. "This is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more. ... When the picture is clear, we'll make full disclosure about it," Rice said. She was also careful to not draw any connection between Hussein and September 11th: "we don't want to push this too far." This information apparently came from Al Qaeda detainees, and was released about two months ago. It's getting another hearing this week, for obvious reasons.

CNN cites President Bush saying that al Qaeda could become "an extension of Saddam's madness." The piece also has Rumsfeld admitting that the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection was on the agenda in the NATO meetings this week.

Training the Iraqi Opposition

The LA Times has a story on efforts by the Bush Administration to get congressional approval for the training of 10,000 members of the Iraqi opposition to help with the looming war. The quoted officials emphasized that this is not a Bay of Pigs-style militia, but rather "support staff" that will assist with the change in regime. The 1998 Iraq Liberation Act provided $97 million for efforts like this, and only $800,000 has been spent. Once Bush formally announces plans for this money, Congress has 15 days to oppose it. Iraqi opposition leaders are predictably delighted about Bush's plans.

Gore, Carter on Iraq

Al Gore made a speech on Monday attacking the Bush Administration's policy on Iraq. Gore suggests that unilateral action on Iraq is damaging the war against Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Most useful Gore soundbite:

"Great nations persevere and then prevail, they do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We should remain focused on the war against terrorism."

Less play for Former President Jimmy Carter, who also came out against the resolution: "It is a radical departure from traditions that have shaped our nation's policy by Democratic and Republican presidents for more than 50 years."

The New York Times points out that Al Gore is saying what the Democrats cannot, as he is less restrained by the upcoming elections in November than the current members of Congress. The piece also considers that Gore has made life difficult for himself, undermining 10 years of hawkishness and placing himself in opposition to his former ticket-mate Senator Liberman. Some Democrats are not pleased, and think he is playing into Republican hands by appearing anti-war. Some Democrats are happy that he's taking the lead, and the NYT quotes a senior Democratic strategist: "Is this going to enable the peace caucus in the House and the Senate?"

CNN highlights Gore's criticism of Bush's draft resolution in Congress, which is too broad for Gore's taste. CNN also takes the opportunity to highlight other Democrat's opposition to the pending congressional resolution, quoting Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic Whip: "As the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, I have seen nothing that says Saddam Hussein has nuclear capability -- to either develop a weapon or to launch it, and certainly not to launch it to the United States." The piece also mentions that a vote on the resolution should come up in early October.

The AP highlights another Gore jab about delterious effects of unilateral action on international law: "That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the president of the United States," he said.

William Safire highlights a significant passage in the speech which no other source seemed to find interesting: "Existing resolutions, passed 11 years ago, are completely sufficient from a legal standpoint, so long as it is clear that Saddam Hussein is in breach of the agreements." Safire also points out that the "pre-emptive self-defense" doctrine has already been exercised by the Clinton administration, in the 1998 bombings in Iraq. No other source we've found has brought this up, and it seems significant.

Blair Dossier

Tony Blair released a 50-page dossier that describes Iraq's capacity for weapons of mass destruction. Blair described the Iraqi programs as "active, detailed and growing." Highlights of the report include:

• an accusation that Iraq has been actively trying to acquire weapons-grade uranium from an unnamed African country


• an estimate that Iraq will have nuclear capacity in 5 years, or 1-2 years if it receives foreign help


• information on an ability to launch nerve gas or anthrax-equipped missles within 45 minutes of an order from Saddam Hussein, or his son

Each of these accusations place Iraq in violation of the existing UN resolutions.

Washington Post uniquely highlights the report's mention of dual-use factories which could be converted to produce mustard gas in weeks, and nerve gas in months. These factories have replaced the formal chemical weapons factories that were destroyed during the 1998 bombings. WaPo also mentions the report's intelligence from "reliable sources" who believe that Hussein thinks WMD is the basis for his power, he will use them against his own people, and does not think they are "weapons of last resort."

WaPo also uniquely has Blair saying that the goal of Britain is getting rid of the WMD capacity, not regime change. Blair did not give a definitive answer, though, when asked if he supported regime change without UN authorization.

Iraq, for its part, believes that the report is nothing but "scaremongering, exaggeration and lies", reiterates promise to provide "unfettered access" to UN inspectors. The BBC has Hamid Hammadi, Iraqi Culture Minister, saying "The British Prime Minister is serving the campaign of lies led by Zionists against Iraq."

CNN, and almost every other source, has the entire planet saying that the report provides no new significant information, and that the information does not immediately require an attack on Iraq. Most everyone would like to see the report used as evidence for a new UN Security Council resolution on Iraq, a resolution which Iraq has already refused to accept.

Arab League: Verify

Amr "An attack on Iraq will open the gates of Hell" Moussa, head of the Arab League, through the Jersusalem Post, insists that the UN place inspectors in Iraq to verify the American claims about Iraqi weapons programs. He stops short of endorsing military action, though. He claims that ongoing problems, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are already destabilizing the region.

Constituents Like Multilateralism

The Washington Post has a piece describing the overwhelming support for a multilateral approach to the war in Iraq, even in traditionally hawkish districts.

It includes a priceless exchange between two retired engineers, both World War II veterans, and their Representative Michael N. Castle (R-Delaware):

"You're doing a good job but don't vote for war," DiMarra told Castle without any prodding from the congressman.

"No, vote for war. We've got to eliminate him [Hussein], no question about it," said Roberts.

"You can't go in by yourself. You need the U.N.," said DiMarra.

"As far as I'm gingered, to hell with the U.N.," responded Roberts.

It is OnePeople's considered opinion that "as far as I'm gingered" is a sorely underused turn of phrase.

WaPo: Arab Nations Capitulate(?)

On the front page of the Washington Post this morning, somewhat surprising news that Arab leaders, grudgingly, are either supporting US action or willing to not stand in the way. This was foreshadowed by the testimony of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's testimony to the Armed Services Committee late last week.

The piece quotes Mohammed Saeed Tayyeb, a Saudi intellectual with what seems to be a representative opinion:

"There is a feeling among Saudis of having no choice," Tayyeb said.

"We feel that this American friend, whose political projects we did not hesitate to finance has dragged us into a war, made us build bases we barely use and sold us planes and weapons we don't know how to operate. We bought all of that, but it did not do us any good," he added.

"This American friend is telling us: You had money once, these days you have no money. You once had political influence in the Muslim world, now you have no influence, so get in the train and stop arguing," Tayyeb said."

Congress Wants Cost of War

The Washington Post is reporting that lawmakers are asking the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office for an estimate of the cost of war in Iraq. The Bush administration had floated numbers between $40 billion and $200 billion, but in his testimony to the Armed Services Committee last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld refused to commit to any specific numbers. Lawmakers are getting frustrated with the lack of specific estimates, and WaPo cites unnamed Congressional staff and military experts as being skeptical of any estimates when there are so few specifics to work with. Reconstruction of Iraq, on the other hand, has been estimated at $16 billion a year, and could be completely funded with the sale of seized Iraqi oil.

Congressional Debate Begins on War Resolution

CNN characterized the Democratic response to the President's draft resolution a little more forcefully today: "immediate criticism from Senate Democratic leaders even as they continued to back Bush's contention that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States." CNN also mentions Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Michigan) as saying that both Democrats and Republicans want changes to the language. Levin is specifically worried about unilateralism, saying "I want him to look down the barrel of a gun with the world behind it, so that it's not just the United States versus Saddam, it's the world versus Saddam." Levin is also concerned with the vague language of the resolution, "There needs to be some changes ... it's not even limited to Iraq." Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, likewise cited the use of the word "region" in the resolution, which he considered too broad a mandate. Based on the Republican responses, this language will likely change.

CNN wasn't able to cite any Republicans as explicitly requiring a UN resoultion before action, quoting most as being worried about restricting the President's freedom of movement. Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) goes so far as the say that Saddam Hussein represents a "clear and present danger" to the United States.

The AP, for its part, described the varied Republican responses to the Democrat's objections: Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois) called the Democratic objects "specious", and Senator John Kyl (R-Arizona) predicted the bill would pass. The AP picked up an important sentiment that CNN missed: that the resolution would pass, but that the President needs to work harder to sell his plan to the Hill: "we haven't told [the American people] all of the story yet."

Scott Ritter Credible?

Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM weapons inspector and one of the most visible opponents of war in Iraq, may be in the employ of Saddam Hussein, claims Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard. It seems that Ritter was paid US$400,000 by a pro-Iraqi businessman to produce "In Shifting Sands," a documentary on the "Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq".

Accuracy in Media backs up this claim, and adds more evidence of Ritter's waffling, citing Ritter's perjured testimony under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

US Stalls Bio-Weapons Convention

In a strangely timed announcement, amidst the accusations of biological weapons programs in Iraq, the Bush Administration told its allies that it would delay work on a Biological Weapons Convention until 2006, reports the Washington Post.

The Convention is meant to create ways to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. The US abruptly pulled out of negotiations in Geneva almost a year ago, promising that it would return with a new initiative. That initiative, apparently, will arrive in 2006.

The Administration claims that the current BWC plans will be ineffective, and that the positions of the negotiators are so divergent that it is better to delay negotiations altogether.

Plastic notes that this comes six months after the US backed the removal of a "highly-regarded head of the chemical weapons disarmament body on very similar grounds."

Iraq Hates 'New, Bad' Resolutions

CNN is reporting Iraq wants no more resolutions, and says that it will not cooperate with anything not already on the books. They have already said they would allow unconditional inspections under existing postwar resolutions.

The LA Times adds what seems to be a more important point, that they explicitly rejected any resolution that would allow the inspection of Iraqi Presidential palaces. The article also cite Judith Yaphe, and Iraqi expert with the National Defense University in Washington as saying "now he's lost the advantage he gained." LAT also highlights the fact that France will not allow a Security Council resolution until Iraq is proved to be in violation, a process could take months.

German Justice Minister: Bush = Hitler

The AP has an excellent overview of the latest mess in the German elections: the German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin has been cited comparing Bush to Hitler, for attacking Iraq to distract from domestic problems. "That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that," quotes Schwaebisches Tagblatt, a German newspaper.

Denouncements and denials abound. Daeubler-Gmelin for her part claims the whole episode is a fabrication, and the editor of Schwaebisches Tagblatt claims that she confirmed the quote before they went to press. The German opposition party is calling for the resignation of the "unbearable woman."

This comes very poorly timed, as the German elections for Prime Minister are in the final hours. Daeubler-Gmelin's boss and the incumbent Social Democrat Prime Minister Gerhardt Schroder has strongly opposed Bush's saber-rattling against Iraq.

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer described the comments as "outrageous and inexplicable," after some platitudes about the value of American-German relations. The German Prime Minister has formally apologized, without admitting any wrongdoing.

William Safire, in the New York Times, reminds everyone of former German Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping's assertion last month that the Iraq issue was Bush appeasing "a powerful -- perhaps overly powerful -- Jewish lobby."

Jesse Helms, who is not up for re-election, went off the hook, suggesting that America move its military presence out of Germany "and stationing them on the territory of other NATO allies who do support the United States..."

Democratic Doves See Shadows of Vietnam

New York Times has an interesting piece about the dovish wing of the Democratic caucus -- two dozen strong. They all agree that Gephardt isn't strong-arming them, even encouraging them to "vote their conscience." They all seem to have Vietnam on their minds. Rep. Mary Kaptor (D-Ohio) declared "Naked aggression is not the American way," and encouraged America to "wake up."

Bush Receives War Plans

The Defense Department has handed Bush the most detailed plans for attacking Iraq yet. For obvious reasons, everyone is light on details, but the New York Times asserts that the plans involve an extensive air campaign to eliminate the Iraqi command and control centers, as well as their means of delivering weapons of mass destruction, followed by a troop invasion from Kuwait.

The Washinton Post follows up on this with massive coverage on Saturday, mostly agreeing with the NYT coverage. It adds many specifics: Rumsfeld's close-knit team of advisors is urging a Special Forces-type operation, instead of a full-blown land war, and WaPo cites specific troop deployments and bombing strategies. This is supposed to end the war quickly by removing Saddam Hussein and his government, scrupulously avoiding attacks on Iraq as a country in the form of infrastructure or civilian targets. This is similar to the tactic used against Slobodan Milosevic during the Kosovo crisis in 1999.

"All this might would be focused on toppling the regime as quickly as possible while minimizing the suffering inflicted on the Iraqi population, said several people familiar with the thinking of Air Force planners. 'You don't want to go after bridges and other infrastructure targets,' said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney. 'All you want is regime targets.'

"Even most Iraqi troops would be exempted from attack. 'The Iraqi military will be told, "if you come out of your staging areas, you'll be destroyed, but if you stay, you'll live," ' said one person familiar with Air Force thinking."

WaPo also emphasizes that the Administration has not decided specifically how to deal with a WMD response, the "agent defeat" issue. There are worries that any biological or weapons attack could drift downwind into Iran. It also mentions that "turning" portions of the Iraqi army against Hussein will be an essential component of the campaign, which would avoid the potentially messy prospect of urban warfare.

The WaPo piece concludes with a broad agreement among its sources that a protracted conflict would not withstand American public opinion and could possibly radicalize already nervous Islamic opinion in the region.

The AP analysis confirms the WaPo coverage, quoting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "They're saying the obvious. Obviously no one would want to harm the people of that country. We favor the people of that country. But what the president will decide to do is entirely in the future."

Bush Announces New First-Strike Doctrine

President Bush today announced the Congressionally mandated biannual publication of "The National Security Strategy for the United States of America." The 33-page document details a new policy for the United States, which allows for a pre-emptive attack against perceived threats. This is a drastic departure from past policy, which only allowed for retaliatory military action. This is also the first major policy shift in National Security since the Cold War ended ten years ago.

Read more for an overview of the media coverage.

William Saletan, the Chief Political Correspondent at Slate, takes issue with how vague the policies are -- allowing the Administration to make up the rules of engagement as it goes along. Nothing is specific enough to frame any meaningful policy, and what's worse: the manifesto is irony-free about its lip service to multilateralism and its ethical compromises.

The LA Times is concerned about the arrogance of the manifesto, and the likelihood it could be co-opted by unsavory types like Russia, India and Pakistan for their own nefarious purposes. In a seperate piece, they get the reaction from Congress, including the always-hilarious Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who accused the President of having a "political personality disorder":

"They've moved from enforceable treaties as an American strategy to military invasion as a nonproliferation strategy," he said.

LAT also took note of Rep. Christopher Cox's (R-Newport Beach) glee:

"The notion is, preserving the peace requires us to work carefully with the great powers."

Finally, a delicious quote from an unidentified Bush aide:

"The concerns about unilateralism, I just think, are unwarranted," the aide said. "Anticipatory self-defense is not a new concept."

The BBC focuses on the unilateralism, quoting Rob Watson, their man in Washington who describes this as "the most aggressive statement of US foreign policy since the Reagan era. "

The New York Times, so far, is just running the AP's excerpts.