:: Has the whole world gone mad or is it just me. ::

:: Saturday, July 12, 2003 ::

Joe Conason's Journal
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's response to CIA leaks over the Niger deception still doesn't answer the public's question: Did Bush knowingly mislead us or not?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

July 11, 2003 |

On and off the record, the level of bureaucratic warfare between the CIA and the White House over the Niger deception is becoming intense, as public pressure grows for an independent investigation of the Bush administration's justifications for war in Iraq. As I suggested yesterday, the president's advisors are trying simultaneously to pillory the CIA while keeping director George Tenet safely inside the Bush tent.

National security advisor Condoleezza Rice delivered the latest salvo against the agency early Friday morning in a meeting with reporters on Air Force One, as the presidential entourage headed toward Uganda. Her message wasn't exactly subtle: "The CIA cleared the speech. The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety," she said, after suggesting minor changes to the sentence about the alleged Iraqi uranium deal. "With the changes in that sentence, the speech was cleared. The agency did not say they wanted that sentence out."

Of course, she added, "I'm not blaming anyone here." (Why would anyone think she is?) And the president "absolutely" retains confidence in the agency, she emphasized. They're just hanging the director out to dry until the media heat dissipates.


:: Beauxbeaux's Daddy 5:55 AM [+] ::
...

Bush lays error at feet of CIA

BY TOM RAUM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2003

ENTEBBE, Uganda — President Bush on Friday put responsibility squarely on the CIA for his erroneous claim that Iraq tried to acquire nuclear material from Africa, prompting the director of intelligence to publicly accept full blame for the miscue. "I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services," Bush told reporters in Uganda.

Hours later, CIA Director George Tenet issued a statement, saying the 16 words in Bush’s State of the Union address concerning a purported uranium deal should never have been uttered. "This was a mistake," Tenet said. "This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed."

Tenet noted that even before the White House proposed including it in Bush’s January speech, the agency had kept it out of other public speeches by government officials and congressional testimony because "we had questions about some of the reporting."

Tenet did not mention speeches from which it was removed, but other administration sources said Friday one was Bush’s Oct. 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati in which Bush outlined the threat Saddam Hus- sein posed to the United States and world peace.

The furor over Bush’s claim in his State of the Union address in January had undermined the administration’s efforts to quiet rising doubts about Bush’s justifications for going to war. The United States said military action was justified, in part, because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but no such weapons have been found.

Friday’s episode clearly weakened the credibility that Tenet — the only holdover from the Clinton administration and a former staff director for the Senate Intelligence Committee — has with Congress as key lawmakers called for accountability. "It was incumbent on the director of intelligence to correct the record and bring it to the immediate attention of the president," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Roberts said he was disturbed by what appeared to be "extremely sloppy handling of the issue" by the agency.

On Friday, Sen. John Kerry, DMass., who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said the controversy only strengthens the case for a full, honest accounting of any intelligence failures. "The continued finger-pointing, charge-countercharge, and bureaucratic warfare within the administration do nothing to make this country safer and will simply further erode the confidence of the American public and our allies around the world," he said.

After Tenet’s mea culpa, CIA officials said they did not expect the director to resign. White House officials declined to speculate. "I think the statement speaks for itself," National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Anxious to dispense with the flap, which has dogged the president on his Africa trip and stole attention from his message about AIDS, trade and terrorism, the White House took unusual steps Friday to let Bush and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, speak out on the issue. Both put responsibility for the error squarely on the CIA. Rice spent nearly an hour going over allegations with reporters on Air Force One. And Bush responded to a reporter’s shouted question at a picturetaking session even after his Ugandan host said no questions would be allowed. "I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services," Bush said. "And it was a speech that detailed to the American people the dangers posed by the Saddam Hussein regime. And my government took the appropriate response to those dangers. And as a result, the world is going to be more secure and more peaceful."

RICE BLAMES CIA Rice was more direct, saying, "The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety."

If the CIA director had concerns about the information, "these doubts were not communicated to the president," she said.

Rice said Tenet "absolutely" had the president’s confidence.

Still, she expressed dismay that information on alleged attempts by Saddam to buy uranium "yellowcake" from Niger — intelligence that turned out to be based on forged documents — had found its way into a major presidential speech after being vetted by the CIA. Yellowcake is a lightly processed form of uranium that requires further enrichment before it can be used in nuclear weapons. "If the director of central intelligence had said, ‘Take this out of the speech,’ it would have been gone — without question," Rice said.

Bush, in his State of the Union address, had cited a British intelligence report as the basis for the information. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who plans to meet with Bush at the White House on Thursday, also has faced intense questioning for his claims that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

American intelligence officials told British officials their doubts about the purported Africa-Iraq uranium connection cited by Bush in his speech, some U.S. officials said. But Rice said the CIA itself, as part of its regular classified National Intelligence Estimate to Bush, asserted that Iraq was "seeking yellowcake in Africa." When the text of the speech was sent to the CIA for vetting, Rice said the agency raised only one objection to the sentence involving the Africa-Iraq-uranium allegation. "Some specifics about amount and place were taken out," Rice said, adding that "with the changes in that sentence, the speech was cleared."
:: Beauxbeaux's Daddy 5:49 AM [+] ::
...

washingtonpost.com

Support for Bush Declines As Casualties Mount in Iraq

By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 12, 2003; Page A01

Public support for President Bush has dropped sharply amid growing concerns about U.S. military casualties and doubts whether the war with Iraq was worth fighting, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Bush's overall job approval rating dropped to 59 percent, down nine points in the past 18 days. That decline exactly mirrored the slide in public support for Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq, which now stands at 58 percent.

And for the first time, slightly more than half the country -- 52 percent -- believes there has been an "unacceptable" level of U.S. casualties in Iraq, up eight points in less than three weeks.

Still, only 26 percent said there had been more casualties than they had expected. Three in four say they expect "significantly more" American dead and wounded.

The poll found that seven in 10 Americans believe the United States should continue to keep troops in Iraq, even if it means additional casualties. That view was shared by majorities of Republicans, Democrats and political independents.

A majority of the country -- 57 percent -- still consider the war with Iraq to have been worth the sacrifice. That's down 7 percentage points from a Post-ABC News poll in late June, and 13 points since the war ended 10 weeks ago.

Taken together, the latest survey findings suggest that the mix of euphoria and relief that followed the quick U.S. victory in Iraq continues to dissipate, creating an uncertain and volatile political environment. The risks are perhaps most obvious for Bush, whose continued high standing with the American people has been fueled largely by his handling of the war on terrorism and, more recently, the war in Iraq.

On the domestic front, meanwhile, fewer than half the nation approves of Bush's handling of the economy.

The poll found that the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has sharply divided the country. Fifty percent said Bush intentionally exaggerated evidence suggesting Iraq had such weapons, while nearly as many -- 46 percent -- disagreed.

"If we have the capability of finding out that Joe Blow No-Name has dodged his taxes for the past 10 years, why don't we have the capability of . . . finding a foolproof method of finding out whether the intelligence we gather is accurate and making it rock-solid before we jump into another situation?" said James Pike, 41, an auto mechanic from Ogdensburg, N.Y.

Earlier this week, Bush administration officials acknowledged that the president should not have claimed in the State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from African countries in a bid to build nuclear weapons.

The survey also found that Americans are divided over whether the United States should send troops to Liberia to help enforce a cease-fire in that West African nation's civil war, a move the Bush administration is considering. Fifty-one percent opposed sending troops to Liberia as part of a broader peacekeeping operation, while 41 percent favored the idea.

"I don't really know that we have any business there," said Penny Tarbert, 50, who is disabled and lives in Bucyrus, Ohio. "They've been fighting this [civil war] for a long time. I think we've got ourselves in enough right now that we don't need to be spreading ourselves any thinner."

An overwhelming majority of Americans -- 80 percent -- said they fear the United States will become bogged down in a long and costly peacekeeping mission in Iraq, up eight points in less than three weeks.

"I'm worried about how long we're going to be there," said Betty Stillwell, 71, a writer from central California. "We were supposed to be in there and out. By now I thought they would have set up a government, and they haven't done that yet. . . . I think the whole thing was poorly planned, no thought to the aftermath."

Despite broad doubts and growing concerns, few Americans say it's time for the troops to come home. Three in four support the current U.S. presence in Iraq -- a view shared by large majorities of Republicans (89 percent), Democrats (60 percent) and political independents (75 percent).

The number of U.S. casualties, while troubling to many, has not outstripped most people's expectations. One in four said there had been more casualties than they had anticipated, while 36 percent said there had been fewer and 37 percent said it was about what they had expected.

"I don't think any [casualties] are acceptable, but they're necessary," said Chris Eldridge, 29, an electronics technician from Louisville. "They're a lot lower than I expected. I expected there would be more during the initial fighting. I expected a lot more killed. Fortunately there hasn't been."

Danny Buckner, 53, a Navy retiree who lives in Brownwood, Tex., had a somewhat different view. "Considering we are having a cease-fire we sure are losing a lot of lives," he said. "They're killing us right and left. I don't know what the deal is."

The poll suggests growing public belief that the United States must kill or capture Saddam Hussein for the war to be successful. A 61 percent majority now believe Hussein must be found, up 11 points since April. That view was shared by roughly similar majorities of Republicans, Democrats and political independents.

"It would be nice if we could find Saddam Hussein and get it over with," said Susan Leidich, 39, a homemaker from Birch Run, Mich. "It seems like if the military leaves, it could be like Desert Storm [the 1991 Persian Gulf War], and then Saddam Hussein would take right back over."

The survey suggests that most Americans believe the recent war produced mixed results. Six in 10 said it damaged the image of the United States abroad, and half said the conflict caused permanent damage to U.S. relations with France, Germany and other allies who opposed the war. The public was equally divided whether the war contributed to long-term peace and stability in the Middle East.

But seven in 10 said the war helped improve the lives of the Iraqi people. And six in 10 said it contributed to the long-term security of the United States.

A total of 1,006 randomly selected adults were interviewed July 9 and 10. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company
:: Beauxbeaux's Daddy 5:38 AM [+] ::
...

A Bottomless Void  

James Carroll is a best-selling author, most recently of An American Requiem which won a National Book Award. His work has appeared in The New Yorker and many other publications, and he writes a weekly column for The Boston Globe .


In the gothic splendor of the National Cathedral, that liturgy of trauma, George W. Bush made the most stirring -- and ominous -- declaration of his presidency. It was September 14, 2001. "Just three days removed from these events," he said, "Americans do not yet have 'the distance of history.' But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil."

The statement fell on the ears of most Americans, perhaps, as mere rhetoric of the high pulpit, but as the distance of history lengthens, events show that in those few words the president redefined his raison d'etre , and that of the nation -- nothing less than to "rid the world of evil." The unprecedented initiatives taken from Washington in the last two years are incomprehensible except in the context of this purpose.

President Bush, one sees now, meant exactly what he said. Something entirely new, for Americans at least, is animating their government. The greatest power the earth has ever seen is now expressly mobilized against the world's most ancient mystery. What human beings have proven incapable of ever doing before, George W. Bush has taken on as his personal mission, aiming to accomplish it in one election cycle, two at most.

What the president may not know is that the worst manifestations of evil have been the blowback of efforts to be rid of it. If one can refer to the personification of evil, Satan's great trick consists in turning the fierce energy of such purification back upon itself. Across the distance of history, the most noble ambition has invariably led to the most ignoble deeds. This is because the certitude of nobility overrides the moral qualm that adheres to less transcendent enterprises. The record of this deadly paradox is written in the full range of literature, from Sophocles to Fyodor Dostoyevski to Ursula K. Le Guin, each of whom raises the perennial question: What is permitted to be done in the name of "ridding the world of evil"?

Is lying allowed? Torture? The killing of children? Or, less drastic, the militarization of civil society? The launching of dubious wars? But wars are never dubious at their launchings. The recognition of complexity -- moral as well as martial -- comes only with "the distance of history," and it is that perspective that has begun to press itself upon the American conscience now.

Having forthrightly set out to rid the world of evil, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, has the United States, willy-nilly, become an instrument of evil? Lying (weapons of mass deception). Torture (if only by U.S. surrogates). The killing of children ("collaterally," but inevitably). The vulgarization of patriotism (July Fourth's orgy of bunting). The imposition of chaos (and calling it freedom). The destruction of alliances ("First Iraq, then France"). The invitation to other nations to behave in like fashion (goodbye, Chechnya). The inexorable escalation ("Bring 'em on!"). The made-in-Washington pantheon of mythologized enemies (first Osama, now Saddam). The transmutation of ordinary young Americans (into dead heroes). How does all of this, or any of it, "rid the world of evil"?

Which brings us back to that Gothic cathedral of a question: What is evil anyway? Is it the impulse only of tyrants? Of enemies alone? Or is it tied to the personal entitlement onto which America, too, hangs its bunting? Is evil the thing, perhaps, that forever inclines human beings to believe that they are themselves untouched by it? Moral maturity, mellowed across the distance of history, begins in the acknowledgement that evil, whatever its primal source, resides, like a virus in its niche, in the human self. There is no ridding the world of evil for the simple fact that, shy of history's end, there is no ridding the self of it.

But there's the problem with President Bush. It is not the moral immaturity of the texts he reads. Like his callow statement in the National Cathedral, they are written by someone else. When the president speaks, unscripted, from his own moral center, what shows itself is a bottomless void.

To address concerns about the savage violence engulfing "postwar" Iraq with a cocksure "Bring 'em on!" as he did last week, is to display an absence of imagination shocking in a man of such authority. It showed a lack of capacity to identify either with enraged Iraqis, who must rise to such a taunt, or with young G.I.s, who must now answer for it. Even in relationship to his own soldiers, there is nothing at the core of this man but visceral meanness.

No human being with even minimal self-knowledge could speak of evil as he does, but there is no self-knowledge without a self. Even this short "distance of history" shows George W. Bush to be, in that sense, the selfless president. Which is not a compliment, it's a warning.



:: Beauxbeaux's Daddy 3:42 PM [+] ::
...

From Capitol Hill Blue

News
Dubya's poll numbers take a dive
By REUTERS
Jul 8, 2003, 23:07


Americans have become more critical of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq as well as his efforts regarding the economy and health care, according to an opinion poll released on Tuesday.

Bush's overall job performance rating of 60 percent is down 14 points from its post-Iraq war peak of 74 percent, according to a nationwide Pew Research Center poll conducted from June 19 to July 2.

Sixty-seven percent of respondents continued to support the decision to go to war in Iraq, down slightly from 74 percent in mid-April. But less than a quarter -- 23 percent -- thought the U.S.-led war in Iraq was "going well," compared with 61 percent in April.

Twenty-nine U.S. soldiers have been killed by hostile fire in Iraq since Bush declared major combat over on May 1, and guerrillas in the past week have resorted to using heavier weapons such as mortars.

Two separate blasts in central Iraq wounded three U.S. soldiers on Tuesday.

Asked about Bush's efforts to improve the economy, 62 percent said they thought the president "could be doing more," up from 53 percent who thought that in May.

The U.S. jobless rate surged to a nine-year high of 6.4 percent in June, according to government figures last week.

Seventy-two percent of those polled, including a majority of Republicans, said the president could be doing more to deal with U.S. health care problems.

There was little evidence the Democrats could turn that discontent to their advantage in the upcoming presidential campaign.

"The field of Democratic candidates generates much less interest than did the field of candidates four years ago," the survey said.

Of the nine declared Democratic candidates, none received even 25 percent support. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the party's 2000 vice presidential nominee, led the field, each attracting 23 percent of respondents who said there was a good chance they would vote for them.

Former Vice President Al Gore, who narrowly lost the 2000 presidential election, and former first lady and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who are not candidates, attracted the most interest -- with 42 percent and 37 percent, respectively, of voters saying there was a good chance they would vote for them.

The telephone survey of 1,201 adults was conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates. The margin of error was from plus or minus 3 to 4.5 percentage points.

© Copyright 2003 Capitol Hill Blue


:: Beauxbeaux's Daddy 9:10 AM [+] ::
...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-iraq9jul09,1,7249450.story?coll=la-news-comment-letters

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

 

Troops Face Dangers While Bush Blusters

July 9, 2003

"Iraqi Assaults Claim Lives of 3 GIs" (July 7) is not just another headline to read and forget in our daily ritual in the secure atmosphere of our homes. In a distant, foreign, arid, sun-parched locale, Americans are dying. Perhaps not young men or women we know. Maybe they don't live in our neighborhoods. But they are Americans like us, who have similar hopes and dreams.

Don't we owe them our attention to good and just government and government decisions? Look at the Bush administration and look at Congress. Determine if their exercise of leadership in Iraq is what we want. In response to one of the latest guerrilla attacks, President Bush's pronouncement was, "Bring them on." Is this cowboy rhetoric what we want, what the families of our troops want and what those serving in Iraq need to sustain them? Does our silence encourage this barroom-like banter from Bush?

Jim Hoover

Huntington Beach



*

During the last six months, I assisted in transporting our military troops from Europe to Kuwait. I was given the chance to speak and interact with the bravest men and women I have ever known. These fine individuals brought with them to Kuwait, and eventually to our war with Iraq, their best dreams, hopes and aspirations that their young lives could give them.

Recently, I attended a homecoming for my future son-in-law at Camp Pendleton. I was elated to see him and his fellow comrades back home safely. I saw a lot of sighs of relief from the families, and I continued to see that same look of hope and determination in their young spirits. God bless each and every one of them. Finally, it is my hope that the Bush administration will allow the United Nations to install peacekeeping troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let's bring our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq back to their loved ones now.

Joe Martinez

El Segundo



*

Re "U.S. Offers $25 Million for Hussein," July 4: Whatever one may think about the regime of Bush versus that of Saddam Hussein, or about religious versus military fundamentalists, there is something refreshing about the failure abroad of our all-too-true-at-home clichés that "money talks," "money buys elections," "everyone has his or her price" and "money corrupts."

In his two wars since 9/11, Bush has tried to buy or bribe: the followers of Osama bin Laden ($25 million), the votes of United Nations Security Council members, the withholding of Security Council vetoes by Russia and France (on threat of canceling Iraqi oil and other contracts), the use of military invasion routes and staging areas in Turkey, the support of "coalition" occupying troops and, now, the betrayal of Hussein ($55 million for the family package).

Although I bear Hussein no goodwill, I do take comfort in the fact that the Iraqi people, like those of Afghanistan, Russia, France, Mexico, Pakistan, Angola, Chile and Turkey, are not yet for sale. It will be useful for Bush to learn that he can't yet buy everyone and everything.

Don Parris

Los Angeles



*

One Iraqi stated that he would never turn over Hussein to the Americans because Hussein is an Iraqi, he is Muslim and he is Arab. I believe that even though many Iraqis hate Hussein, this fundamental position, along with the dislike of Americans, will undermine the capture request no matter what the size of the reward. I can tell you one reward request that would work: The U.S. will pull out of Iraq upon the capture of Hussein and his entourage.

Jill Ause

Northridge



*

The unemployment rate is at a nine-year high (July 4), and Bring-'em-on Bush, the terror of West Texas, is spending billions of dollars and the lives of American fighting forces over that ragtag outfit called Iraq. We must be crazy.

John Forsmark

Santa Maria



*

A suggested title for future historians about the U.S. invasion of Iraq: "Br'er George and the Tar Baby."

Henry Ostermiller

Costa Mesa



*

The former head of the Iraq rebuilding effort, retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, is quoted as saying he believes Hussein killed up to a million people during his reign (July 3).

Even if the number Hussein killed was only half a million, and if he only used poison gas and automatic weapons, I think we can say that he indeed had weapons of mass destruction.

Larry Briggs

Twentynine Palms



If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives .
Click here for article licensing and reprint options


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
:: Beauxbeaux's Daddy 9:04 AM [+] ::
...

July 9, 2003

Abbas in Clash Over His Stance in Peace Talks
By JAMES BENNET


ERUSALEM, July 8 — Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian prime minister, battled rival Palestinian leaders today to retain control of negotiations with Israel over a new American-backed peace plan, threatening to quit to face down a storm of criticism that he had gained little for renouncing violence.

Mr. Abbas abruptly canceled a meeting planned for Wednesday with Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, and some Palestinian officials said he might now harden his negotiating stance toward Israel.

Mr. Abbas's allies said he was unlikely to follow through on his threat of resignation, which he has made in previous internal political fights. But he did step down today from the top governing body of Fatah, the faction he helped found with Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader.

In Washington today, the Bush administration prepared to provide funds to the Palestinian Authority for the first time, in an effort to help Mr. Abbas.

In a setback to the peace plan, known as the road map, the militant group Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility today for a bombing that killed a 65-year-old Israeli woman in her home on Monday night. The bombing, the work of a terrorist whose body was found at the scene, was the first such attack since the main Palestinian factions, including Islamic Jihad, announced on June 29 that they were suspending violence.

The stated reasons for the renewed killing and Palestinian political turmoil were the same: Palestinian anger that Israel had not agreed to release more of the thousands of Palestinian prisoners in its custody.

But Mr. Abbas was facing a broader challenge to his leadership, directed in part by Mr. Arafat, who reluctantly appointed him this spring under American and Israeli pressure, according to Palestinian and Western officials.

In meetings late into Monday night in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Mr. Abbas came under sharp attack from senior members of Fatah who are allied with Mr. Arafat, and from members of other factions. They said he had failed so far to extract significant concessions from Israel, Palestinian officials said. A central issue was the matter of prisoners, but the criticism covered his entire negotiating approach, which officials said was too indulgent of Israeli and American demands.

In response to the criticism, Mr. Abbas resigned today from the Central Committee, the top governing body of Fatah, and threatened to quit as prime minister.

One diplomat who was following the fight closely described Mr. Abbas as being "in a very tough-minded mood" and "tired of being pushed around."

Seen in that light, his threat to resign, made to Mr. Arafat, may have been a bluff to protect his authority. If Mr. Abbas left, his departure might cost the rest of the Palestinian leadership the new legitimacy Mr. Abbas has gained internationally, and particularly in Washington, through his pursuit of a cease-fire and the peace plan.

A member of the Palestine Liberation Organization's top body, the executive committee, which also grilled Mr. Abbas on Monday night, said he now expected sharp disagreement with Israel. "Things are leading toward a crisis" with Israel, he said.

Israel is not obligated by the peace plan to release any prisoners, a move that is as noxious to Israelis as it is appealing to Palestinians. Yet in what Israel called an effort to support Mr. Abbas, it has begun releasing some prisoners, and on Sunday the government said it would free about 300 more, of more than 5,500 it is believed to hold.

But Israel said that it would give preference to people under 18 and over 60, and that it would release no one implicated in violence or connected to Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

Beyond the question of prisoners, some Palestinian officials accused Mr. Abbas of letting Israel dictate how the peace plan is put into action. They said he had allowed Israel to marginalize the three other members of the so-called quartet that drew up the plan with the Bush administration — the United Nations, the European Union and Russia.

Some officials also criticized Mr. Abbas for failing to push for a speedier Israeli withdrawal from areas of the West Bank that, according to the Oslo agreement, are supposed to be under Palestinian control.

In a sign of Israeli concern that Mr. Abbas's position was precarious, Mr. Sharon's government did not criticize his decision to cancel the Wednesday meeting. One Israeli official said the government viewed the cancellation as a move against other Palestinian leaders, not against Israel.

Mr. Abbas's abrupt cancellation of the meeting — in the wake of Palestinian, not Israeli, violence — came in marked contrast to his genial appearance in public last Tuesday with Mr. Sharon, before their last meeting. Some Palestinian officials said Mr. Abbas got too far out in front of his own people with that appearance, in which he declared that Palestinians would pursue their dispute with Israel by "diplomatic means."

The Israeli reaction to the bombing on Monday night was also muted. The attack occurred in an Israeli village, Kfar Yavetz, near the boundary of the northern West Bank, where Israeli forces have not ceded security control.

Gil Kleiman, a police spokesman, said that the police were treating the bombing as a "probable suicide attack," but that it was unusual because it took place inside a home. The explosion killed the bomber and Mazal Afari, 65, the mother of eight. It also injured three of Mrs. Afari's grandchildren.

While warning that a suicide bombing that killed more people would end the peace effort, Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister, told Israeli Army radio that this bombing was "not a huge attack" and said, "We have an opportunity now that we must not miss."

Islamic Jihad identified the bomber as a 22-year-old from the northern West Bank and claimed responsibility in a fax to The Associated Press. The fax warned, "Release the prisoners or the consequences will be grave."

Copyright 2003  The New York Times Company |Home |Privacy Policy |Search |Corrections |Help |Back to Top
:: Beauxbeaux's Daddy 6:24 AM [+] ::
...

July 8, 2003

9/11 Commission Says U.S. Agencies Slow Its Inquiry
By PHILIP SHENON


ASHINGTON, July 8 — The federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks said today that its work was being hampered by the failure of executive branch agencies, especially the Pentagon and the Justice Department, to respond quickly to requests for documents and testimony.

The panel also said the failure of the Bush administration to allow officials to be interviewed without the presence of government colleagues could impede its investigation, with the commission's chairman suggesting today that the situation amounted to "intimidation" of the witnesses.

In what they acknowledged was an effort to bring public pressure on the White House to meet the panel's demands for classified information, the commission's Republican chairman and Democratic vice chairman released a statement, declaring that they had received only a small part of the millions of sensitive government documents they have requested from the executive branch.

While praising President Bush and top aides for their personal commitment to the panel's work, the commission's leaders — the chairman, Tom Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, and Lee H. Hamilton, the former Democratic member of the House from Indiana — said that federal agencies under Mr. Bush's control were not cooperating quickly or fully.

"The administration underestimated the scale of the commission's work and the full breadth of support required," they said. "The coming weeks will determine whether we will be able to do our job within the time allotted. The task in front of us is monumental."

Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said today in response to the statement from the panel, known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: "The president is committed to ensuring that the commission has all the information it needs. The president has directed federal agencies to cooperate and to do so quickly."

Under the law creating the bipartisan, 10-member panel last year, the commission, which met for the first time in January, is required to complete its investigation by next May. "While thousands of documents are flowing in — some in boxes and some digitized — most of the documents we need are still to come," the statement said. "Time is slipping by."

The criticism today from Governor Kean and Mr. Hamilton clearly took senior administration officials by surprise and brought a fresh round of attacks on the White House from Congressional Democrats who have said that the administration is trying to stonewall a politically damaging inquiry.

Although the White House had initially opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate intelligence and law-enforcement failures before the 2001 terrorist strikes, the administration eventually came around to support the move, and it has repeatedly pledged full cooperation.

The White House chose Mr. Kean to lead the investigation after its first choice, Henry A. Kissinger, the former secretary of state, resigned from the post rather than release a list of clients of his consulting firm. Mr. Hamilton was named vice chairman by Congressional Democrats after their first choice, George J. Mitchell, the former Senate Democratic majority leader, resigned when questions were raised about similar conflicts of interest.

In their statement, Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton said that the "problems that have arisen so far with the Department of Defense are becoming particularly serious." They noted that the Pentagon had not responded to a series of requests for evidence from several Defense Department agencies, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which is responsible for guarding American airspace from terrorist attack.

"Delays are lengthening and agency points of contact have so far been unable to resolve them," the statement said. "In the last few days, we have been assured that the department's leaders will address these concerns. We look forward to seeing the results."

Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton suggested that the Justice Department was behind a directive barring intelligence officials from being interviewed by the panel without the presence of agency colleagues.

At a news conference, Mr. Kean described the presence of "minders" at the interviews as a form of intimidation. "I think the commission feels unanimously that it's some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work for or works for your agency," he said. "You might get less testimony than you would."

"We would rather interview these people without minders or without agency people there," he said.

In their written statement, the panel's leaders said that the Justice Department had been "unable to resolve important issues related" to the commission's access to evidence and testimony from the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person facing trial in an American court for conspiring in the Sept. 11 attacks.

A Defense Department spokeswoman said tonight that the department would have no immediate response to the criticism.

A Justice Department spokesman, Mark Corallo, said his department remained "committed to assisting the commission's important work on behalf of the United States." He added, however, that "assembling the enormous amount of information requested takes significant manpower and time to accomplish."

He defended the administration's requirement that witnesses be present when some executive branch officials are interviewed by the panel. "In any investigation in which federal employees are interviewed, it is standard practice to have another agency representative present for the benefit of the witnesses and to help facilitate the investigation."

Although their intent today was clearly to create discomfort at the White House, Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton said repeatedly that they were optimistic that the panel could complete its work on time and that it would offer the most complete account available of the events that led to the terrorist attacks.

Copyright 2003  The New York Times Company |Home |Privacy Policy |Search |Corrections |Help |Back to Top
:: Beauxbeaux's Daddy 8:33 PM [+] ::
...