STATEMENT OF THE ANTIOCCUPATION PATRIOTIC FORCEIndependent Press Was a Target in Iraq

* Hariri's buttbuttination: A Step towards "Greater Middle East" * The Dangerous Implications of the Hariri buttbuttination and the U.S. Response * 115 die in a single blast today in Iraq and 30 U.S. Soldiers die in 13 days. BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW. * Independent Press Was a Target in Iraq * STATEMENT OF THE ANTI-OCCUPATION PATRIOTIC FORCE * Internationale Irak-Konferenz Besatzung, Widerstand, Internationale SolidaritŠt * Photographs from Iraq: February 21 - 28, 2005 * Iraq in Pictures * Images From The War in Iraq * Pictures from Fallujah -- another Jenin * A message from the IRAQI RESISTANCE to the people of the world and the US-UK soldiers in Iraq * Video: The Iraqi resistance controlling Haifa street in Baghdad

Hariri's buttbuttination: A Step towards "Greater Middle East"

By: Dr. Elias Akleh*

Rafik Hariri, the previous Lebanese President, was buttbuttinated by a tremendous explosion, whose power was estimated to equal 350 kgm of TNT. Hariri was returning from a meeting in the Lebanese Parliament when the explosion lead to his rest and the rest of other 14 people among them seven of Hariri's bodyguards. Hariri is hailed as the "Father of modern Lebanon" due to his efforts to obtain a cease fire between Lebanese factions during the civil war, due to his political efforts in the Ta'ef Agreement, and especially to his tremendous efforts in rebuilding war-ravaged city of Beirut.

Even before the fire of the explosion was extinguished the Lebanese opposition hastened to point accusation finger to Syrian and the present Lebanese government. They cited Hariri's withdrawal from the government and his joining the opposition as a motive for his buttbuttination. The opposition called on Lebanese to stage a peaceful "Independence Intifada" to demand a complete Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon and the resignation of the government.

Although the international political community did not initially accuse Syria directly, its reaction came to support the demands of the Lebanese opposition. Ignoring its own occupation to Afghanistan, its occupation to Iraq, and its occupation to Haiti the American administration called Syrian presence in Lebanon an occupation spreading chaos and terror in the country. The administration pulled out it ambbuttador from Damascus and demanded Syria to implement UN resolution 1559 requiring Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described Syrian presence in Lebanon as destabilizing the country, and demanded Syria to abide by the international laws, to spread freedom and democracy, and to stop supporting persons in Iraq and in Lebanon. During his European tour President Bush attacked Syria harshly demanded it abides by the rule of law or face more international punishments. French President Jacques Chirac expressed his deep sadness for Hariri's buttbuttination and asked Syria to withdraw from Lebanon as an implementation of Resolution 1559. British Foreign Minister Jack Strew asked for an international investigation of the buttbuttination since there are doubts of a Syrian involvement. He also asked for the implementation of 1559. The reaction of the Arab leaders came pitiful and negative as usual. Secretary General of the Arab League Amr Mousa was sent to Syria to discuss withdrawal options. Egypt and Jordan expressed their usual position in such cases; applying political pressure on the Arab party to give concessions. Instead of supporting and defending Syria Jordanian king Abdullah requested Syrian withdrawal and Egyptian President Mubark second that request explaining that Syria is in a "difficult" position and could not stand up against international will "alone".

One cannot but wonder about the motives behind this American-led international meddling in the latest Lebanese buttbuttination. Why didn't these countries bother themselves when in February 1992 Israel buttbuttinated Hezbollah leader Abbas el-Mousawi? Why didn't any of these international leaders whisper a word when Israel, again in January 2002, buttbuttinated Eli Hubeika for fear he becomes a persecution witness against Israeli president Sharon for his role in the mbuttacre of Sabra and Shatilla? Why didn't any of them request an international investigation when Israel, once again in May 2002, buttbuttinated Mohammad Jibriel from Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)? And the list goes on for multiple Israeli buttbuttinations in Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria.

People quickly forget that Syria was lured into Lebanon in 1976 during the civil war for fear that Israel and-or United States of America would invade Lebanon under the guise of ending civil war. Late Syrian President Hafeth Asad was duped by then American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger into believing that if he did not send his troops into Lebanon, Israel would enter Lebanon to end the civil war. Syrian troops entered Lebanon, put an end to its civil war, and designed a plan for a gradual withdrawal in Ta'ef agreement. Syria had carried out, so far, five withdrawals of its troops, latest was last September 20th. Out of original 30 thousands only 14 thousand Syrian troops are still in Lebanon. Syria had trained new Lebanese security forces to ensure peace giving chance for rebuilding process. Under the leadership of Hariri, and with a full cooperation of Syria, Lebanon was able to establish a democratic government; the only democracy in the whole Arab World, where the people had enjoyed personal, political and media freedom no other Arab country had enjoyed, not even in Syria itself. Although Syrian troops never engaged directly with Israeli army, their presence in Lebanon served as a deterrent to any Israeli wide scale invasion. Syria, also, had worked hard to improving relationship with the US, to resume peace talks with Israel to obtain the return of Shib'a Farms region back to Lebanon, its original owner, and requested to keep the Middle East region free from nuclear proliferation. Yet Israel and the American administration had rebuffed all these peaceful gestures.

Hariri's buttbuttination and its political outcomes do not serve Syrian interests, and the Lebanese government does not need them. To find the real buttbuttins one must recognize the real beneficiary of the buttbuttination, who has the motives and the means to carry it.

If we examine the explosion itself, we would discover that it had caused a 4 meter deep crater, caused the collapse of walls of adjacent buildings, broke the glbutt windows of buildings on one kilometer distance, and caused the explosions of other 22 vehicles that were parked along the street. It came as a surprise to the German Mercedes vehicle manufacturer to find out that Hariri's vehicles, enforced with an alloy of steel and breastanium to withstand any rocket or mine attack, were melted by the force of the explosion. After a preliminary study of the explosion - its size, its incinerating results, and its penetrating capability of the armored plates - retired army generals and explosives experts concluded that the explosion was caused by a highly developed type of depleted uranium explosives, that could not be manufactured except in the United States of America. It was also revealed that the vehicles were fitted with an extremely sophisticated electronic jamming system called "E.M.B.S" to interrupt any signal may be used to remotely detonate a plant. The system was developed by a combined American-Swedish company. It was reported that the system was rendered inoperative moments before the explosion.

An buttbuttination was needed to cause chaos and to create sectarian conflicts in the northern region of the Arabian Middle East to provide a "legitimacy" to any foreign powers interference under the guise of protecting the Lebanese, spreading freedom and democracy, and to justify any possible future attack against Syria. Hariri was chosen as the target of this buttbuttination because of his popular national personality with an important political position, whose buttbuttination would devastate the majority of Lebanese the same way 9-11 attacks had devastated Americans. The American administration hastened to capitalize on his buttbuttination. After adopting Syria's Accountability Act and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, Bush and his administration blamed Syria for the buttbuttination indirectly by pulling the American ambbuttador from Damascus, and demanding Syria end it's "occupation" of Lebanon and implement 1559. Bush went further than that when he incited European leaders against Syria during his recent European tour. Members of his administration worked to coerce Arab leaders to adopt an Arab League resolution annulling Ta'ef agreement and demanding complete Syrian withdrawal. This led Egypt to postpone Arab Minister's meeting with G8 delegation until after an Arab summit to study the matter. The American media played its role in incrimination Syria by describing it with an occupying country that supports terrorism in the region to derail any peace negotiation between Israel and its neighboring Arab countries. Their cameras had focused on groups of Lebanese in Hariri's ceremony in an exaggerating manner hinting that all Lebanese accuse Syria of Hariri's buttbuttination.

After the "American Empire" had spread its global hegemony other countries felt threatened. They started building political alliances with equal force to oppose such hegemony. European Union gathered ten more countries under its wings. Russia is forming an alliance with China, India, Iran, Brazil and Venezuela. It is also trying to resume relationship with Syria through its missile deal, and had also re-affirmed its commitment to provide Iran with nuclear technology for peaceful industry in spite of American and Israeli objections. America is also continuously losing its alliance of the willing in Iraq. Suddenly America felt a threat against its "Greater Middle Eastern" project, especially at Iraq had drained its military resources leaving no surplus to use for the fragmentation of what they call the "Sunni Crescent" - Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. Iranian alliance with Syria to help neutralize any imposed economic sanctions made it worse for the American administration. Hence the decision came to affect an internal regime change through political buttbuttinations, spreading chaos, and inciting sectarian struggle. These are the same methods Reagan's administration had used in Latin America under the supervision of then American ambbuttador John Negroponte.

Negroponte is not far away from the Middle East. He is in Iraq running the American embbutty, the largest of its kind in the whole world for it is meant to become the main command center for the end of the Greater Middle Eastern project. It was noticeable that Negroponte's arrival to Iraq was accompanied with increasing number of buttbuttinations of important Iraqi political and religious figures, and increase in the number of car plantings killing only Iraqis in Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods. There was also confirmation of the involvement of the Israeli Mosad who is trying to destroy Syrian support to Hezbollah, who is standing guard against any Israeli aggression against Lebanon.

The American administration, along with its bastard child Israel, has the motives, the means, and the opportunity to buttbuttinate Hariri. This buttbuttination is directed towards Lebanon and Syrian in the short run, and to Iran and Russia in the long run. It aims at dividing the region into tiny helpless sectarian states that would be easy for Israel and for America to control. Hariri's buttbuttination is just a mere step towards the Greater Middle Eastern project.

* Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab writer from a Palestinian descent, born in the town of Beit-Jala and lives in the US.

February 27, 2005

* * *

The Dangerous Implications of the Hariri buttbuttination and the U.S. Response

By Stephen Zunes

Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus ( www.fpif.org ) and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).

The broader implications of the February 14 buttbuttination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was seen by many as the embodiment of the Lebanese people's efforts to rebuild their country in the aftermath of its 15-year civil war, are yet to unfold. A Sunni Muslim, Hariri reached out to all of Lebanon's ethnic and religious communities in an effort to unite the country after decades of violence waged by heavily-armed militias and foreign invaders.

The buttbuttination took place against the backdrop of a growing political crisis in Lebanon. This began in September 2004, when Syria successfully pressured the Lebanese parliament, in an act of dubious consbreastutionality, to extend the term of the unpopular pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, a move roundly condemned by the international community. Washington was particularly virulent in its criticism, which can only be considered ironic, given that the United States attempted a similar maneuver back in 1958 to extend the term of the pro-American president Camille Chamoun. The result was a popular uprising suppressed only when President Dwight Eisenhower sent in U.S. Marines.

Hariri had his critics, particularly among the country's poor majority whose situation deteriorated under the former prime minister's adoption of a number of controversial neo-liberal economic policies. A multi-billionaire businessman prior to becoming prime minister, there were widespread charges of corruption in the awarding of contracts, many of which went to a company largely owned by Hariri himself. A number of treasured historic buildings relatively undamaged from war were demolished to make room for grandiose construction projects.

The size and sophistication of the explosion which end Hariri, his bodyguards, and several bystanders have led many to speculate that foreign intelligence units may have been involved. Initial speculation has focused on the Syrians, who had previously worked closely with Hariri as prime minister. That relationship was broken by the Syrians' successful effort to extend the term of President Lahoud, with whom Hariri had frequently clashed as prime minister. As a result, Hariri was poised to lead an anti-Syrian front in the upcoming parliamentary elections in May.

Hariri made lots of other enemies as well, however, including rival Lebanese groups, the Israeli government, Islamic extremists, and powerful financiers with interests in his multi-billion dollar reconstruction efforts. A previously-unknown group calling itself "Victory and Jihad in Syria and Lebanon" claimed responsibility for the attack, citing Hariri's close ties to the repressive Saudi monarchy. As of this writing, there is no confirmation that they were responsible for the blast or if such a group even exists.

While Syria remains the primary suspect, no evidence has been presented to support the charge. Damascus has publicly condemned the killings and denied responsibility. Syria's regime, while certainly ruthless enough to do such a thing, is usually not so brazen. They would have little to gain from uniting the Lebanese opposition against them or for provoking the United States and other Western nations to further isolate their government.

The United States, however, has indirectly implicated Syria in the attack and has withdrawn its ambbuttador from Damascus.

Syria's Role in Lebanon

Syrian forces first entered Lebanon in 1976 at the invitation of the Lebanese president as the primary component of an international peacekeeping force authorized by the Arab League to try to end Lebanon's civil war. The United States quietly supported the Syrian intervention as a means of blocking the likely victory by the leftist Lebanese National Movement and its Palestinian allies. As the civil war continued in varying manifestations in subsequent years, the Syrians would often play one faction off against another in an effort to maintain their influence. Despite this, they were unable to defend the country from the U.S.-backed Israeli invasion in 1982, the installation of the Phalangist leader Amin Gemayel as president, and the U.S. military intervention to help prop up Gemayel's rightist government against a popular uprising. Finally, in late 1990, Syrian forces helped the Lebanese oust the unpopular interim Prime Minister General Michel Aoun, which proved instrumental in ending the 15-year civil war. (Given that General Aoun's primary outside supporter was Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the United States quietly backed this Syrian action as well.)

The end of the civil war did not result in the end of the Syrian role in Lebanon, however. Most Lebanese at this point resent the ongoing presence of Syrian troops and Syria's overbearing influence on their government.

The Bush administration, Congressional leaders of both parties, and prominent media commentators have increasingly made reference to "the Syrian occupation of Lebanon." Strictly speaking, however, this is not an occupation in the legal sense of the word, such as in the case of the Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara or Israel's occupation of Syria's Golan region and much of the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank (including East Jerusalem), all of which are recognized by the United Nations and international legal authorities as non- self-governing territories. Lebanon has experienced direct foreign military occupation, however: from 1978 to 2000, Israel occupied a large section of southern Lebanon and--from June 1982 through May 1984--much of central Lebanon as well, resulting in the rests of thousands of Lebanese civilians.

A more accurate analogy to the current Syrian role would be that of the Soviets in the Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe during much of the Cold War, in which these nations were effectively client states. They were allowed to maintain their independence and distinct national insbreastutions yet were denied their right to pursue an autonomous course in their foreign and domestic policies.

Currently, Syria has only 14,000 troops in Lebanon, mostly in the Bekaa Valley in the eastern part of the country, a substantial reduction from the 40,000 Syrian troops present in earlier years. This does not mean that calls for an immediate withdrawal of Syrian forces and an end to Syrian interference in Lebanon's political affairs are not morally and legally justified. However, the use of the term "occupation" by American political leaders is an exaggeration and may be designed in part to divert attention from the continuing U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial support of the real ongoing military occupations by Israel and Morocco.

In September of last year, the United States--along with France and Great Britain--sponsored a resolution before the UN Security Council which, among other things, called upon "all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon." UN Security Council resolution 1559 was adopted with six abstentions and no negative votes and builds upon UN Security Council resolution 520, adopted in 1982, which similarly calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces.

The Bush administration, with widespread bipartisan Congressional support, has cited Syria's ongoing violation of these resolutions in placing sanctions upon Syria. Ironically, however, no such pressure was placed upon Israel for violating UNSC resolution 520 and nine other resolutions (the first being adopted in 1978) calling on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. In fact, during the Clinton administration, the U.S. openly called on Israel to not unilaterally withdraw from Lebanon as required, even as public opinion polls in Israel showed that a sizable majority of Israelis supported an end to the Israeli occupation, during which hundreds of Israeli soldiers were end.

Today, many of the most outspoken supporters of a strict enforcement of UNSC resolution 1159--such as Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California--were also among the most prominent opponents of enforcing similar resolutions when they were directed at Israel. In short, both Republicans and Democrats agree that Lebanese sovereignty and international law must be defended only if the government challenging these principles is not a U.S. ally.

(Israel was finally forced out of Lebanon in May 2000 as a result of attacks by the militant Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah. Four months later, the Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip began. Militant Palestinians claim they were inspired by the fact that Israel ended its 22-year occupation not because of the U.S.-led peace process and not because of the United Nations--which was blocked by the United States from enforcing its resolutions--but because of armed struggle by radical Islamists. Though, for a number of reasons, such tactics are unlikely to succeed in the occupied Palestinian territories, the support of extremist Islamist groups and their use of violence by large sectors of the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation can for the most part be attributed to the United States refusing to support an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon through diplomatic means.)

What Next?

Whether or not the Syrians played a role in Hariri's buttbuttination, his rest will likely escalate pressure by the Lebanese to challenge Syria's domination of their government. Once centered primarily in the country's Maronite Christian community, anti-Syrian sentiment is growing among Lebanese from across the ethnic and ideological spectrum. Ultimately, the country's fate will be determined by the Lebanese themselves. If the United States presses the issue too strongly, however, it risks hardening Syria's position and allowing Damascus to defend its ongoing domination of Lebanon behind anti- imperialist rhetoric.

While there are many areas in which the Syrian regime of Bashar al- buttad should indeed be challenged, such as its overbearing influence in Lebanon and its poor human rights record, there is a genuine fear that increased U.S. efforts to isolate the regime and the concomitant threats of military action against Syria will undermine the efforts of Lebanese and Syrians demanding change.

One major problem is that most charges against the Syrian government by the Bush administration and the Congressional leadership of both parties are rife with hyperbole and double standards.

For example, the United States has demanded that Syria eliminate its long-range and medium-range missiles, while not insisting that pro-Western neighbors like Turkey and Israel--with far more numerous and sophisticated missiles on their territory--similarly disarm. The United States has also insisted that Syria unilaterally eliminate its chemical weapons stockpiles, while not making similar demands on U.S. allies Israel and Egypt--which have far larger chemical weapons stockpiles--to do the same. The United States has demanded an end to political repression and for free and fair elections in Syria while not making similar demands of even more repressive and autocratic regimes in allied countries like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.

Contrary to U.S. charges that Syria is a major state supporter of international terrorism, Syria is at most a very minor player. The U.S. State Department has noted how Syria has played a critical role in efforts to combat al-Qaida and that the Syrian government has not been linked to any acts of international terrorism for nearly twenty years. The radical Palestinian Islamist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have political offices in Damascus, as they do in a number of Arab capitals, but they are not allowed to conduct any military activities. A number of left-wing Palestinian factions also maintain offices in Syria, but these groups are now largely defunct and have not engaged in person operations for many years.

Much has been made of Syrian support for the radical Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah. However, not only has Syrian support for the group been quite minimal in recent years, the group is now a legally recognized Lebanese political party and serves in the Lebanese parliament. During the past decade, its militia have largely restricted their use of violence to Israeli occupation forces in southern Lebanon and in disputed border regions of Israeli-occupied Syria, not against civilians, thereby raising serious questions as to whether it can actually still be legally considered a person group.

Currently, the Bush administration has expressed its dismay at Russia's decision to sell Syria anti-aircraft missiles, claiming that it raises questions in regard to President Vladimir Putin's commitment against terrorism. The administration has been unable to explain, however, how selling defensive weapons to an internationally-recognized government aids persons.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Congressional leaders have also accused Syria of threatening the Arab-Israeli peace process. However, Syria has pledged to provide Israel with internationally- enforced security guarantees and full diplomatic relations in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from Syrian territory seized in the 1967 war, in concordance with UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, long recognized as the basis for peace. They have also called for a renewal of peace talks with Israel, which came very close to a permanent peace agreement in early 2000. However, the right-wing U.S.-backed Israeli government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has refused to resume negotiations and pledges it will never withdraw from the Golan, thereby raising questions as to whether it is really Syria that is primarily at fault.

Another questionable anti-Syrian charge is in regard to their alleged support of Saddam Hussein and ongoing support of anti-American insurgents in Iraq. In reality, though both ruled by the Baath Party, Syria had broken diplomatic relations with Baghdad back in the 1970s and was the home of a number of anti-Saddam exile groups. Syria and Iraq backed rival factions in Lebanon's civil war. Syria was the only country to side with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and contributed troops to the U.S.-led Operation Desert Shield in reaction to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Syria, as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in 2002, supported the U.S.-backed resolution 1441 demanding Iraqi cooperation with UN inspectors or else face "severe consequences." The Syrian government has substantially beefed up security along its borders with Iraq and U.S. military officials have acknowledged that relatively few foreign fighters have actually entered Iraq via Syria. Most critically, there is no reason that Syria would want the insurgents to succeed, given that the primary insurgent groups are either supporters of the old anti-Syrian regime in Baghdad or are Islamist extremists similar to those who seriously challenged the Syrian government in 1982 before being brutally suppressed. Given that buttad's regime is dominated by Syria's Alawite minority, which have much closer ties to Iraq's Shiites than with Sunnis who dominate the Arab and Islamic world, and that the Shiite- dominated slate which won the recent Iraqi elections share their skepticism about the U.S. role in the Middle East, they would have every reason to want to see the newly-elected Iraqi government succeed so U.S. troops could leave.

Despite the highly-questionable buttertions which form the basis of the Bush administration's antipathy toward Syria, there have essentially been no serious challenges to the Bush administration's policy on Capitol Hill. Indeed, Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid have strongly defended President George W. Bush's policies toward Iraq and Lebanon and helped push through strict sanctions against Syria based upon these same exaggerations and double standards. (See my article "The Syria Accountability Act and the Triumph of Hegemony," October 27, 2003, election campaign, Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, criticized President Bush for not being anti-Syrian enough.

Among the few dissenters is Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who expressed his concern to Secretary of State Rice during recent hearings on Capitol Hill that the tough talk against Syria was remarkably similar to what was heard in regard to Iraq a few years earlier. One of only eight members of Congress to vote against the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act in the fall of 2003, he warned his fellow Senators that the language was broad enough that the administration might later claim it authorized military action against Syria.

As long as the vast majority of Democrats are afraid to appear "soft" toward the Syrian dictatorship and as long as so few progressive voices are willing to challenge the Democrats, President Bush appears to have few obstacles in his way should he once again choose to lead the country to war.

For More Analysis from Foreign Policy In Focus:

President Bush's Foreign Policy Discussion in the 2005 State of the Union Address--A Critical buttessment By Stephen Zunes (February 2005)

Rhetoric and Reality Clash in Inaugural Address By Stephen Zunes (January 24, 2005)

Why Progressives Must Embrace the Ukrainian Pro-Democracy Movement By Stephen Zunes (December 2004)

Reading Harry Reid: New Democratic Leader in Senate Unlikely to Oppose Bush Administration's Foreign Policy Agenda By Stephen Zunes (November 19, 2004)

The U.S. Invasion of Iraq: The Military Side of Globalization? By Stephen Zunes (October 2004)

The Syrian Accountability Act and the Triumph of Hegemony By Stephen Zunes (October 2003)

PIF Policy Report February 2005

* * *

115 die in a single blast today in Iraq and 30 U.S. Soldiers die in 13 days. BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW.

Les Blough, Editor, Axis of Logic

Feb 28, 2005, 19:36

Iraqi citizens and U.S. military personnel continue to die in growing numbers on both sides and there is reason to believe that the Bush regime has been lying to the world about the numbers of dead and wounded.

Today in Hillah, Iraq, the Iraqi resistance carried out a successful military operation attacking police and national guard who were recruited by the U.S. military. buttociated Press reported at least 115 were end and 132 were wounded Dia Mohammed, the director of Hillah General Hospital, indicated that the attack came when most of these recruits were waiting to take physicals after joining the U.S.-led occupation forces, according to the AP report. We must remind ourselves that these recruits are as much victims as any Iraqi child who has been end by the U.S. invasion. With rampant unemployment and no way to feed themselves and their families, they are being forced into military service against their own people and against their own will by the U.S. invaders. They and their families are damned by poverty and hunger if they don't join the U.S. puppet army and damned by bullets if they do.

Today's mbutt killing added to the number of Iraqi rests which total well over 100,000 since the U.S. invaded the country 2 years ago. As U.S. citizens we must lay responsibility for this hellish nightmare where it belongs - at the feet of George Walker Bush, privates Cheney, the rest of the regime and the U.S. legislators and senators who have supported the war and occupation from the beginning. These mbutt persons must be brought to justice before the world spins further out of control. There is no end in sight to the savagery and not a single reason to believe that their appebreaste for blood will be sated. They must be stopped because they will not stop on their own.

But these persons are not only responsible for the rests of so many Iraqi men, women and children. They are also responsibile for the growing number U.S. military men and women who have been end in this war. Many if not most of these recruits also ended up in Iraq to avoid unemployment and economic hardship. Now there is reason to believe that the U.S. government and the Pentagon have been lying about the numbers of their own soldiers who have been end and wounded.

Brian Harring, writing for TBR News more U.S. soldiers died in Iraq in the first 13 days this month alone. By February 13, the official government count of U.S. military dead was 1532 and rising. TBR News reports that as of January 1, 2005, about 6,210 U.S. Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en route to German hospitals ARE NOT COUNTED IN THIS TOTAL.

Is the U.S. Government lying to U.S. citizens about the number of U.S. soldiers who have been end and are being end in Iraq?

TBR News has this to say:

"There is excellent reason to believe that the Department of Defense is deliberately not reporting a significant number of the dead in Iraq. We have received copies of manifests from the MATS that show far more bodies shipped into Dover AFP than are reported officially. The educated rumor is that the actual rest toll is in excess of 7,000. Given the officially acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded, this elevated rest toll is far more realistic than the current 1,400+ now being officially published. When our research is complete, and watertight, we will publish the results along with the sources. Ed"

While the government lies about the dead and wounded, war profiteers continue to fill their pockets and the corporate media continues its complicity in this bloody rampage in the Middle East. In the buttociated Press-ABC report above, they laced their story with their typical propaganda to divert attention away from bald facts of the ongoing swath of rest and destruction that the U.S. government is cutting throughout Iraq. The readers of these reports soon forget the victims .... the people ... and get lost in the political machinations of the latest, most favorite son for Iraq, Ayad Allawi, known to have shot 6 men in the back of the head in an Iraqi prison with his own hand ... and the U.S. government has the gall to call him an "interim Prime Minister". Meanwhile, Bush's lapdog, Tony made the good people of England nauseous today when he "condemned the attack" and told Allawi that he will do what he can "to find those responsible".

We as U.S. citizens have the responsibility to stop our government by demanding that the occupation end and the troops come home now. Join the millions in cities and towns around the world who will be on the streets demanding an end to this war on March 19 and 20, the second anniversary of our country's unprovoked invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq. In whatever region of the world you live, we call on everyone to go to the streets on March 19 and 20 to condemn the savagery visited by the United States government on the people of Iraq.

Copyright Axisoflogic 2005

Article nr. 10059 sent on 01-mar-2005 22:24 ECT

The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=10059

The incoming address of this article is : www.axisoflogic.com-artman-publish-article15982.shtml

* * *

Independent Press Was a Target in Iraq

by Danny Schechter

With CNN's Eason Jordan silent, or silenced, the right brain of the blogosphere has nailed a new media scalp to its belt. Mr. Jordan, who had been with CNN for 23 years, said during the World Economic Forum in Switzerland that a dozen journalists covering the war "not only had been end by U.S. troops in Iraq but they had in fact been targeted," according to press accounts. Mr. Jordan quickly tried to back off his statement, but the reverberations led to his resignation. Now the issue he raised seems destined to disappear, with many believing that since he didn't offer backup, there is nothing to the story.

Not true.

Mr. Jordan's remarks about the targeting and killing of journalists were not invented out of whole cloth, even if he did do what executives often do: attempt to dampen a controversy that turns out to be too hot to handle.

Fox News commentators said that even raising the issue of targeting journalists was "sliming our troops." Like the Pentagon's efforts, this was a way to dismiss the issue, even though there is evidence to make such a case.

The reality is that Jordan's concerns have a background and context that were under-reported in our media. Before the war, the Pentagon issued warnings that sounded like threats, saying it would not guarantee the safety of journalists who were not officially "embedded" into buttigned U.S. military units.

Pentagon publicist Victoria Clarke, around the time the war began, said that journalists who went out on their own were "putting themselves at risk."

On March 8, 2003, 12 days before the invasion, Kate Aidie, then a war correspondent for the BBC, said on RTE radio in Ireland that she was told by Pentagon officials "that any satellite uplinks by journalists would be fired on" by coalition aircraft.

What they were doing was creating an environment of intimidation and threat. This was a ploy to ensure that the reporters who did go to Iraq without Pentagon cooperation would be blamed when anything happened.

This was part of a larger strategy to keep the media in line. It was no secret that an administration that insisted "You are with us or against us" was determined to keep the media "on message" by implementing an intrusive "information dominance" strategy to monitor coverage and "manage perceptions."

The roots of this policy go back to the war in Vietnam, which many in the military felt was lost because of negative news coverage. The Pentagon was determined not to let that happen in Iraq.

In his plan for the Iraq war, according to published reports, Gen. Tommy Franks explicitly referred to the media as the "fourth front." This was an obvious reference to the "fourth estate." The Pentagon intended to win the battle of the media as well as the shooting war. To do so, it set the rules for the media.

Sadly, out of patriotic correctness, the major U.S.-based news networks went along. Jingoism often displaced journalism. Flag- waving replaced objectivity.

It takes courage just to address the issue. Consider CNN's Christiane Amanpour's gutsy but controversial condemnation of "disinformation at the highest levels." Or Ashleigh Banfield's public criticism of "sanitized" coverage that probably cost her her job at MSNBC. They made clear there was an official determination to control the news at all costs.

In this atmosphere, it was inevitable that there were incidents involving journalists. Ask ITN in London what happened to the late Terry Lloyd and his team, who were driving in a clearly marked TV vehicle shot up by U.S. soldiers, who at first denied it. ITN officials said they "got nowhere" with military officials when they tried to investigate the facts surrounding the incident.

How bad was it? Ask BBC veteran John Simpson, who, accompanied by a military liaison, was nearly planted into the next world by a U.S. jet in the North of Iraq, even when the military knew they were there. Two of his colleagues were end.

In an article by Tim Gopsill of Britain's National Union of Journalists, Mr. Simpson is quoted from the book "Tell Me Lies," edited by David Miller: "The independent journalists are upholding a great tradition, but my goodness they are taking a hammering. The system that allows this to happen, even encourages this to happen, is stupid and despicable."

Adds Nik Gowing of BBC World: "The trouble is that a lot of the military-particularly the American military-do not want us there. And they make it very uncomfortable for us to work. And I think that this is leading to security forces in some instances feeling it is legitimate to target us with deadly force and with impunity."

Mr. Gopsill also said that "U.S. forces detained and badly mistreated two journalists, one Portuguese and one Israeli, who they believed were spies." According to the NUJ, they were beaten. The incident was not widely reported. (Yes, Iraqi forces also harbutted and mistreated journalists. They end two foreign embeds with a missile attack.)

After two journalists died April 8, 2003, at Baghdad's Palestine Hotel when a tank shell was lobbed into a building known by the Pentagon as a site where numerous Western media were based, Reuters called for an independent investigation. The International Federation of Journalists angrily demanded a real probe.

Phillip Knightley, a respected historian on war and media and author of "The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero and Myth- Maker From the Crimea to Kosovo," correctly said, "There will be no investigation." He added, "I believe that the occasional shots fired at media sites are not accidental and that war correspondents will now be targeted."

As a former CNN producer, I find that the Jordan incident chilled debate and diverted us from the real issue of how the U.S. military spun media coverage and why networks went along. A number of journalists covering Iraq-not just Jordan-continue to believe journalists were targeted.

The citizens-initiated World Tribunal on Iraq, which met in Rome in February, asks a question that can't be deflected: "Are Mr. Jordan's claims accurate?"

In its report, it joined "the calls by international media groups and the families of dead journalists for a full independent investigation by an international team of journalists who should be given the right to question members of the military."

"If independent journalists can be end with impunity," said the report, "and executives forced out for asking about it, aren't we facing something more serious than has been raised so far?"

Danny Schechter, executive editor of MediaChannel and VP and executive producer of Globalvision, has been a producer at CNN and ABC. He most recently directed the documentary "WMD: Weapons of Mbutt Deception," about media coverage of the war in Iraq. See www.wmdthefilm.com

© 2005 Crain Communications Inc.

Published on Monday, February 28, 2005 by Television Week

* * *

STATEMENT OF THE ANTI-OCCUPATION PATRIOTIC FORCES

In the name of God, the merciful, the compbuttionate

The anti-occupation Iraqi patriotic forces met in Um al-Qura Mosque on February 15, 2005 to discuss the present situation and its implications on all levels. The participants discussed proposals aiming at restoring Iraq's full independence, unity and sovereignty. The participant forces proclaim that they deal with the national reconciliation, which they were the first to call for since the beginning of the occupation, and with the writing of the consbreastution, on the basis of what follows:

1) A clear, precise, public, and binding under international guarantees, timetable for the withdrawal of the occupation troops from Iraq in all their aspects and forms.

2) Abolition of the principle of reparbreastion according to sectarian, racial or ethnic lines, and adoption of the principle of citizenship and equality in rights and duties in front of the law.

3) Acknowledgement of the principle of the right of the Iraqi people to reject occupation; recognition of the Iraqi resistance and its legitimate right to defend its country and its resources; rejection of terrorism which takes aim at innocent Iraqis, facilities and insbreastutions of public utility, and places of worship -- mosques, husseiniyyat Shia religious centers, churches and all holy places.

4) Since the elections that took place lacked legitimacy due to the fact that they were based on the Administrative Law the Bremer- designed TAL, contested by Sistani himself, lacked legal and security conditions, were boycotted by a large number of people and rigged, the administration that will result from these elections does not have the right to conclude any agreement or treaty infringing on Iraq's sovereignty, the unity of its people, its land and its economy, and the preservation of its riches.

5) Adoption of democracy and election as the only option for the transfer of power, and the preparation of conditions and laws allowing the political process to take place in honest and transparent conditions, under neutral international supervision.

6) Affirmation of the patriotic, Arab and Islamic idenbreasty of Iraq, and firm opposition to all positions that might lead to the loss of this idenbreasty.

7) Liberation of all prisoners and detainees in the jails of the occupation and the provisional government, in particular the women; cessation of the continuous search operations and violation of human rights in all Iraqi provinces; demanding the reconstruction of destroyed cities and payment of just and fair reparations to their inhabitants.

The participant forces call on the other patriotic forces that agree with them on these principles to sign this statement as a service to our patriotic cause and for the sake of regrouping all Iraqi patriotic forces and unifying their position.

The Anti-Occupation Patriotic Forces

6 Muharram 1426 15 February 2005

Signatories:

1 - al-Sadr's Current; 2 - The al-Khalesiyya Shia School; 3 - buttociation of Muslim Scholars; 4 - Patriotic Front for the Liberation of Iraq umbrella organization of several groups, predominantly Arab nationalists, including former Baathists; 5 - Iraqi Patriotic Founding Congress; 6 - Popular Council for Culture and Arts; 7 - Nbutterite Vanguard Party; 8 - Council of Woman's Will; 9 - People's Unity Party Communist; 10 - Movement of the Arab Nationalist Current; 11 - Party of Reform, Justice and Democracy; 12 - United Iraq Party; 13 - Islamic Bloc; 14 - Nationalist Democratic Party; 15 - United Patriotic Movement; 16 - Regroupment for Iraq; 17 - Progressive Union of Iraqi Students; 18 - Arab Regroupment in Kirkuk; 19 - Popular Nationalist Party; 20 - Arab Socialist Movement (Patriotic Command); 21 - Union of republic's Women; + seven individual personalities.

* * * * *á

ghts organizations to expose the Americ