"All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is
intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid
excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction..The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its
task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right,
always and unflinchingly. " -Hitler, quoted from Mein Kampf-

Back

return to page 1

Latest News on Iraq and oil

FEMA's new role in homeland defense

All quotations from the congressional quarterly researcher (online edition)

Congressional Quarterly Researcher
New Defense Priorities
September 13,
2002

Abstract
By Mary H. Cooper

US Defense Modernization: Poliitcal Dillema or National priority?

" According to Harvard’s Galbraith, First, they don’t have a clear idea of what the future threat is," he says, "so there’s a danger that much of what they do may be inappropriate. Secondly, it’s much easier to kill programs. . . than to build a legacy of replacement programs, which takes more time than a single administration has to complete. So the danger is that the Bush administration will be all too effective at eliminating key programs and not effective at all at building a foundation for modernization that is sustained by its successors."

Galbraith is less supportive of the administration’s $7.8 billion
request for the national missile-defense program, which Congress is expected to approve in full. [26] In his view, a far better use of those funds would be to develop technologies to detect nuclear weapons and inspect everything that enters the country.

Testimony from Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense
From Testimony Before The Senate Armed Services Committee, April 9,
2002

"The six goals identified in the QDR [september 2001} are:

• To defend the U.S. homeland and other bases of operations,
  and defeat nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and their
  means of delivery;
• 
  To deny enemies sanctuary —depriving them of the ability to run or hide — anytime, anywhere;
  
• To project and sustain forces in distant theaters in the face of
  access-denial threats;
• 
  To conduct effective operations in space;
  
• To conduct effective information
  operations; and,
• 
  To leverage information technology to give our joint forces a common operational picture. . . .

Taken together, these six goals will guide the U.S. military’s transformation efforts and improvements in our joint forces. "

testimony from
Andrew F. Krepinevich Executive Director, Center For
Strategic And Budgetary Assessments From Testimony Before The Senate
Armed Services Committee, April 9, 2002

"Unfortunately, the Defense Department’s modernization strategy today
Remains much the same as it was during the Cold War era, with its emphasis on large-scale, serial production of relatively few types of
military systems and capabilities." ..Unfortunately, it [Bush administration] has not yet developed either a transformation strategy or a process to ensure that
Transformation will come about. This is most clearly demonstrated in the absence of plausible service and joint war-fighting concepts for
addressing the new, emerging critical operational goals, and finds its ultimate expression in the administration’s program and budget priorities,.."

bibliographical sources

according to Richard Butler former head of UNSCOM: , Fatal Choice: Nuclear Weapons and the Illusion of
Missile Defense, Westview, 2002.
The former head of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraqi weapons
programs argues that the Bush administration’s plan to build a missile-defense system will only prompt China and other countries to build more nuclear weapons.

Carr, David, "The Futility of ‘Homeland Defense,’ " The Atlantic
Monthly, January 2002, pp. 53-55.
Carr argues the U.S. cannot defend itself completely against attacks involving nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, which

could be smuggled in shipping containers, without destroying [or altering] its free-trade policy.

Perry, William J., "Preparing for the Next Attack," Foreign Affairs,
November/December2001, pp. 31-45.
Former President Clinton’s Defense secretary says the most immediate
threat to the U.S. is a small nuclear or biological weapon unleashed in a major city, and that the best defense is vigorous efforts to halt weapons proliferation.

Weinberg, Steven, "Can Missile Defense Work?" The New York Review of Books, Feb.14, 2002, pp. 41-47.
A Nobel laureate in physics argues that the national missile-defense
system being pursued by the Bush administration will not work against the most dangerous threat o

an accidental launch of one of Russia’s 3,900 nuclear warheads — and may prompt other countries to develop or expand their own nuclear arsenals.

Pentagon domestic surveillance

Becker, Elizabeth, "Bush Is to Propose Broad New Powers In Domestic
Security," The New York Times, July 16, 2002, p. A1.
The Bush administration’s domestic-security proposal calls for
possible changes to the law that could allow the military to operate more freely within the United States.

Schmitt, Eric, "Wider Military Role in U.S. Is Urged," The New York
Times, July 21, 2002, p. A16.
The general in charge of defending the U.S. against attack favors changes in existing law to give greater domestic powers to the military.

US war with Iraq?

Pollack, Kenneth M., "Next Stop Baghdad?" Foreign Affairs, March 1,
2002, p. 32. Moderates in the debate over invading Iraq argue that the goal of America’s Iraq policy should be to revive U.N. weapons inspections and re-energize containment.

Tyler, Patrick E., and Richard W. Stevenson, "Profound Effect on U.S. Economy Is Seen From a War Against Iraq," The New York Times, July 30, 2002, p. A1. An American attack on Iraq could profoundly affect the American economy, because the U.S. would have to pay most of the cost of the war effort.

Nuclear policy

Bush’s Go-It-Alone Nuclear Policy

The administration’s call to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein — suspected of developing nuclear weapons for possible use against the United States or its allies — represents a radical departure in U.S. arms-control policy. That policy, in essence, called for negotiation rather than unilateral action.

Those treaties included the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) and the SALT I and II treaties, negotiated in the 1970s and 1980s...When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, the SALT treaties became
obsolete,...United States and leaders of the new Russia negotiated new treaties, starting with the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I). It limited each side to 6,000 warheads and
1,600 long-range bombers and missiles...bilateral relations steadily improved, the United States and Russia
agreed to further nuclear-arms reductions. In January 1993, even before START I took effect (December 1994), they signed START II, which called

for nearly halving each country’s strategic nuclear warheads, to 3,500. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in January 1996,

the Russian legislature in 2000.

In March 1997, President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris
Yeltsin agreed to begin negotiations on START III, once START II entered into force.

The new treaty would have reduced each side’s nuclear arsenals to 2,000-2,500 warheads and set

limits on shorter-range, or tactical, nuclear weapons.
By 2001, when President Bush took office, START II had yet to enter
into force. As a critic of traditional arms-control policy, Bush strongly supported the accelerated construction of a national missile-defense system. But the ABM Treaty prohibited such a nationwide defensive system, on the theory that it would spark the building of more nuclear arms to overcome it.

The 1979 SALT II Treaty contained a second set of limits, but the Senate refused to ratify it after the Soviets
invaded Afghanistan in 1980.)...Dec. 13, 2001, Bush announced his intention to unilaterally
withdraw from the ABM Treaty..On May 24, 2002, Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a
new Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty. Known as the Treaty of Moscow, it calls for cuts in each
country’s deployed nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by
the end of 2012...US Senate prepares to consider the treaty, while Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden Jr., D-Del.,

and some other lawmakers are pressing for controls on short-range nuclear warheads as well. Russia’s stockpile of thousands of
tactical weapons is poorly guarded...terrorists could obtain some warheads and make easily concealed "suitcase bombs" that could be detonated in a U.S. city. [2]

the administration has stated it will not seek ratification
of the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). By prohibiting all nuclear tests, the treaty aims to halt the improvement of existing nuclear arsenals and the development of new
nuclear weapons. Signed by President Clinton and 164 other countries, it would enter into force after ratification by the 44 countries that already have nuclear weapons or nuclear reactors.

To date, 31 have done so, including Russia, the United Kingdom, and France.

Bush's unilateralisim

remarks by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder

"The problem is that [Cheney] has or seems to have committed himself so strongly that it is hard to imagine how he can climb down.

And that is the real problem, that not only I have but that all of us in Europe have."

The Arab League warned that an attack on Iraq would
"open the gates of Hell" in the Middle East. [5] Quoted in Nicholas Blanford, "Syria worries US won’t stop at
Iraq," The Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 9, 2002.

Bush has strained transatlantic relations by rejecting several international agreements that enjoy broad support in Europe — including the Kyoto treaty to slow
global warming, the U.S.-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the treaty creating the new International Criminal Court...military action to overthrow
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has injected a new source of tension between the United States and its military allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organizaton (NATO).