Veterans for Common Sense

December 26, 2002

NEW YORK–Eleven days after September 11, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to release proof that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were guilty of planning and executing the attacks on New York and Washington. “We will put before the world, the American people, a persuasive case that there will be no doubt when that case is presented that it is Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, who has been responsible,” Powell told ABC News.

National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, speaking a few channels over, on CNN, echoed Powell’s pledge. “Clearly we do have evidence, historical and otherwise, about the relationship to the Al Qaeda network to what happened on September 11,” Rice said on Sept. 22nd. “We will begin to lay out that evidence and we will do it with friends, allies and the American people and others.”

Afghanistan, along with Pakistan, had hosted Al Qaeda training camps. Al Qaeda, Bush said, had attacked us. So we bombed Afghanistan. The Bush Administration spent the next three months overseeing the dropping of explosives, killing an estimated 10,000 Taliban soldiers and at least 3,500 Afghan civilians. During the year since we installed a puppet ruler, Hamid Karzai, as interim Afghan president, at least 36 American soldiers have lost their lives defending Karzai’s fragile regime.

So where’s Rice’s “evidence, historical and otherwise,” confirming that Al Qaeda carried out 9/11? Where is Powell’s “persuasive case”? The Bushies, as usual, are keeping mum. We, the American people, have yet to see the slightest shred of evidence tying Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, Michael Jackson or the Easter Bunny to the attacks.

Fifteen months and still no proof! There are only three logical explanations for Bush’s failure to produce the goods:

Al Qaeda and the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11. Possible, but unlikely. Who else would have done it?

What with the war and all, the Bushies simply forgot to write up a report. Impossible. If proof existed, the Administration would have released it to make people like me shut up.

The evidence is circumstantial at best. Now we’re talking. More likely than not, American intelligence strongly suspects bin Laden et al. but can’t prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Police detectives are repeatedly frustrated by this dilemma. What do you do when you know in your gut that a suspect is guilty, but you don’t have enough evidence to press charges? The answer is painfully obvious: you let the bastard walk. In a society based on law, evidence must be sufficiently compelling in order to charge a defendant, much less convict him. To settle for less is to sacrifice the essential principle of our nation which holds that everyone–even radical Islamists–is presumed innocent.

George W. Bush, an unscrupulous man whose arrogant contempt for the law elevated him to the White House, despises basic American values. He acted as Afghanistan’s judge, jury and executioner–without even possessing sufficient proof to charge bin Laden in an American court.

Now, however, Bush is paying a price for the decision not to lay his cards on the table regarding Afghanistan. While 90 percent of voters say they don’t doubt that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction, 72 percent told a Los Angeles Times poll on Dec. 15 that Bush has not yet provided enough evidence to justify starting a war against Iraq. This figure clearly includes many Republicans who otherwise support Bush’s policies.

Most Americans have a gut feeling that Iraq has WMDs. But they don’t think a gut feeling is sufficient cause to go to war.

Here we go again. Does the U.S. really possess proof, as it claims, that Saddam is up to no good? Or does it merely suspect–in other words, have a gut feeling–that Iraqi scientists are cooking up smallpox bombs hundreds of feet beneath the desert? The American people aren’t being allowed to see the evidence excusing the bloody war about to be waged in their name. Nor are the prospective allies whose help–and young men–we are requesting. “To say that we know but we won’t tell you is not very persuasive,” Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Ambassador to the United Nations, said. “It’s not a poker game where you call your cards and call the other’s bluff.”

Incredibly, Bush even resisted turning over intelligence data on Iraqi weapons to the U.N., information might help inspectors prove that Saddam was violating the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

Approval ratings for an American war on Iraq are slipping. Unless he coughs up definitive proof of Iraqi wrongdoing or calls off the whole thing, this latest oil-driven military misadventure may become Bush’s political Waterloo.

(Ted Rall is editor of “Attitude: The New Subversive Political Cartoonists,” an anthology of cartoons, ephemera and interviews with 21 of America’s best editorial cartoonists. Ordering and review-copy information are available at nbmpub.com.)

December 23, 2002

South of the Kuwait-Iraq Border (AP) – When Eric Olson was 19, he drove a tank in the U.S.-led blitz to drive Saddam Hussein’s occupying army out of Kuwait.

For 50 hours, Olson fought sleep and fear at the controls and kept moving in a high-tech, violent battle that turned much of the Iraqi army into a blasted trail of pulverized vehicles and bodies as they tried retreating to Baghdad.

Today, Olson is 31 and sergeant of 2nd Platoon, Alpha Company. He is one of the Gulf War veterans passing down experiences from 11 years ago to help train a new generation to take on Saddam again if war breaks out.

“Out here, the only law is who’s a better shot, who’s a quicker trigger,” said Olson, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “I don’t know if my past will give them an edge, but it will possibly give them insightfulness on what they might have to expect in the very near future.”

Gulf War old hands are hardly rare in the military, but since the ground war was fought primarily by tanks and armored infantry, the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division — one of its two armored divisions — has a high proportion of veterans.

They were prominent in weekend live-fire maneuvers in the Kuwaiti desert involving the division’s 2nd Brigade, putting thousands of soldiers and hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles through the largest exercises in the border area since the Gulf War.

The Gulf War-era tank drivers are now senior sergeants, the company commanders now lead battalions. Their graying hair stands out among young soldiers mostly in their early 20s, facing war for the first time.

One is 1st Lt. Ryan Kuo, 25, of Reno, Nev., a West Pointer who leads Olson’s 2nd Platoon and says his experience of the Gulf War was “sitting on the couch and watching it on CNN.”

Though they are separated by only a few years, the life experiences between the sergeant and lieutenant are much wider. Their partnership is vital to their unit’s success. Both are highly confident about the focus of their troops and in the superiority of their equipment.

The knowledge passed down by the veterans brings a dose of reality to what until now has been a military career marked by training exercises.

“Some of the stories you hear about the remains of bodies that you cross after they’ve been destroyed, the attacks they’ve done — obviously, that’s going to create hesitancy, as any war would,” Kuo said.

But Kuo added, “these guys help us out a lot in terms of confidence and the experiences they’ve had while they were here in 1991 in allowing us to train realistically.”

The training conditions are harsh. The Kuwaiti desert is flat and devoid of vegetation. There is no shelter from sand-filled winds howling up to 60 mph. The nighttime winter temperatures drop to near freezing.

Those fighting conditions are ideal, however, compared to the scorching heat of the Kuwaiti summer, which is harder on equipment and men and means the force will lose much of its effectiveness.

The men see the end of March as the deadline for a fight and expect to be the first tanks crossing the border if efforts to peacefully divest Saddam of weapons of mass destruction fail.

Commanders are ordering their troops to get in the habit of conserving water, fuel and food. They are likely to live on what they carry until the attack is over.

Lt. Col. Eric Schwartz commands the battalion task force including Alpha Company, which he led during the Gulf War. The Army is more high-tech these days, but a chief focus of training is to give his soldiers confidence and focus.

“It’s the human aspect,” Schwartz said. “How do you motivate young soldiers to go into an environment that’s absolutely terrifying?”

Not all the new troops are youngsters. At 33, Pfc. Andrew K. Burt, of Raleigh, N.C., is older than his company commander and platoon sergeant and lieutenant.

Burt signed up nine months ago, motivated by Sept. 11 and a poor job market. The experience of Olson, his veteran sergeant, brings a feeling of security that “we’ll make it through OK,” he said.

“He tells us a lot about what to expect, what we have to be prepared for physically and emotionally,” Burt said. “He said it would be something that would weigh heavily on us for some time to come afterward, but that we’d get through it.”

Unlike in 1991, the area is no longer strange to American troops. The United States has maintained a brigade-sized force in Kuwait since the end of the Gulf War as a deterrent against attack. The brigades rotate every six months and are experienced in ways of the desert.

Some things haven’t changed. Olson said that his memories of the buildup to the Gulf War include camaraderie, “the guys lying on top of the tank. That’s coming back again.”

December 22, 2002

Kuwait City, Kuwait

Attacks on American forces in Kuwait are being covered up and played down because of concerns that further disclosures will destabilise military preparations for war against Iraq.

Incidents have either gone unreported or have been passed off as harmless recreational shooting by hunters, a senior Kuwaiti government official told The Telegraph.

“The Americans have told us to downplay these incidents for fear of creating the sort of climate in which further attacks can happen,” the official said.

One United States marine has been killed and five seriously injured in terrorist attacks over the past two months. Although no further injuries have been reported, there have been a number of “close shaves” as America’s military presence continues to provoke hostility among some Kuwaitis.

The country’s leadership and most of its population remain resolutely pro-American and grateful for the US role in liberating them from Iraqi occupation in 1991. Islamic militancy has taken root, however, and there is growing anti-American sentiment and support for groups such as al-Qa’eda among some young men.

The American request to play down the terrorist threat comes at a sensitive time in its preparations for war. US troop numbers have recently risen from 10,000 to 15,000 and several new camps have been built in readiness for the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein.

A US military official said: “These attacks and the threat of further attacks are making a difficult environment to operate in. But we are working with the Kuwaitis to keep everything under control.”

As part of a widespread government clampdown on extremists, there have been more than 70 arrests in recent weeks, in addition to several “sedition” trials in which Kuwaitis have been accused of advocating attacks against American interests.

The American embassy recently advised its citizens not to visit shopping precincts for fear of creating a “target” for extremists.

“The majority of Kuwaitis fully back what the Americans are doing. All this trouble is being caused by a very small, extremist fringe,” said a Western diplomat.

Most Kuwaitis have been shocked by the violence in the country. However, according to an official at Kuwait’s ministry of the interior, further incidents were “just waiting to happen.” He added: “The real problem is that we have a lot of wealthy, disaffected young men who are looking for some excitement and are easily influenced.”

Kuwait already has a record of providing al-Qa’eda with high-ranking members. Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a Kuwaiti national who used to teach children religious affairs, went on to become its spokesman in Afghanistan.

Last month Kuwaiti authorities also announced the arrest of Mohsen al-Fadhli, 22, a “senior” al-Qa’eda commander, who confessed to trying to raise funds for a terrorist atrocity in Yemen.

WASHINGTON – Low levels of sarin nerve gas affected behavior and organ functions in laboratory animals at least a month after exposure, suggests new research that may provide clues to the mysterious illnesses of Persian Gulf War veterans.

In separate Army-sponsored studies, scientists observed behavioral problems, brain changes and immune system suppression in the animals many days after exposure to doses that caused no immediate effects, such as convulsions or pupil constriction.

Both studies involved rodents, and “that’s a big leap to human beings,” said Melinda Roberson, a behavioral neuroscientist involved in a study still under way.

Even so, the studies provide new information in an area where a lack of research has made it impossible to conclude whether Gulf veterans’ illnesses are linked to low-level sarin gas exposure.

“They are pushing back the frontiers of biological effects of low levels of sarin. The evidence is building,” said Dr. Francis O’Donnell, a medical consultant for the Defense Department who helps track Gulf War illness research.

Veterans of the 1991 war have suffered from various illnesses they believe linked to their service in the Gulf. Symptoms include chronic fatigue, diarrhea, migraines, dizziness, memory problems, loss of muscle control and loss of balance.

Most scientists have blamed stress. Some veterans attribute the health problems to toxic substances they encountered in the Gulf, including sarin, a toxic chemical weapon that is lethal at high levels. Others suggest it may be a combination of the factors.

The Pentagon confirms more than 140,000 troops were exposed to low levels of sarin in 1991 when U.S. forces destroyed a weapons depot at Khamisiyah in southern Iraq. Some veterans believe other sarin exposures occurred.

On its Web site, the Pentagon tells veterans that “current medical evidence indicates that long term health problems are not likely.”

Dr. Robert Haley, an epidemiologist at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, has published almost two dozen studies suggesting that some Gulf War veterans’ illnesses are linked to brain damage resulting from exposure to toxins such as sarin.

[For more information on Dr. Haley’s work, please go to this link:
http://www.swmed.edu/home_pages/epidemi/gws/ ]

The Pentagon criticized those studies, in part because veterans Haley studied were not downwind of Khamisiyah when the depot was destroyed. Haley said the new research gives “biological plausibility” to his suggestion of a link to sarin gas exposure.

The study on guinea pigs is under way at the Army Medical Research Institute for Chemical Defense at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. Its preliminary findings were presented in November at the Society for Neuroscience’s annual meeting in Washington.

In that study, guinea pigs were injected with nerve gas five days a week for two weeks. Some were injected with 20 percent of the dose required to kill half the animals and others with 40 percent of that dose.

Researcher Jim McDonough, a physiological psychologist, said that would be much higher than the level that the Pentagon says veterans were exposed to from the Khamisiyah depot destruction. Some veterans’ groups question the accuracy of the Pentagon’s exposure estimates, insisting they were much higher. Other researchers say there is no way to calculate the exposure levels for sure.

Although veterans were not injected with sarin, McDonough said the biochemical effects on the brain are the same for either exposure method. He likened the exposures to nicotine’s effects on the brain whether the nicotine is smoked, chewed or delivered through a skin patch.

The exposed animals were examined after two hours, then at three days, 10 days, a month and 100 days. There were no changes in some physical signs the scientists monitored, such as weight gain and temperature.

But researchers said they found significant increases in certain behaviors.

For example, 100 days after exposure, animals in the 40 percent dose group spent significantly more time in the center of their activity chambers and traveled greater distances in the chambers, McDonough said. Guinea pigs in both dosage level groups also reared up on their hind legs significantly more often at 100 days.

Roberson said researchers saw a reduction in activity by the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, a key to controlling electrical impulses in the brain. She said that could affect behavior. Researchers are exposing another group of animals to verify the results.

Separately, researchers at Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque, N.M., known for its tobacco studies, exposed mice to low-level doses of sarin in a three-part Army-funded study. The study, begun in 1998, was finished last year.

The mice inhaled sarin doses an hour a day for five days and an hour a day for 10 days. The levels were one-tenth and one-twentieth the concentrations required to kill a human. The mice were examined a day and a month after exposure.

Researchers found that the exposures, particularly when combined with heat stress, caused both decreases and increases in the numbers of receptor sites in areas of the brain critical for cognition and memory, “things that might be associated with Gulf War syndrome,” said Rogene Henderson, Lovelace senior scientist.

Receptor sites are essentially docking stations for brain signals. In some cases the changes did not appear until a month after exposure, Henderson said.

Researchers found that the exposure also suppressed the immune system, the body’s defense mechanism against infection and disease. Researcher Mohan Sopori, an immunologist, said that indicates something happened to the autonomic nervous system, which is responsible for the body’s automatic functions such as sleeping and bowel movements.

American officials and private weapons specialists say the list identifies 31 major foreign suppliers — including two based in the United States, both now defunct — as well as the exact chemicals and tonnages that were shipped to Baghdad.

The list, obtained by lawyers for ailing gulf war veterans, could be important as the veterans pursue lawsuits accusing some of the companies of responsibility for their health problems. The companies include several large eurochems chemical manufacturers, as well as the two American companies, Alcolac International of Maryland and the Al Haddad trading company of Tennessee.

The United Nations has insisted that it will not make the list public, fearing that disclosure would discourage the companies from cooperating with inspectors trying to understand Iraq’s capacity for making weapons of mass destruction.

The United Nations refused to release earlier versions of the Iraqi weapons declarations, which the government of Saddam Hussein was required to submit under terms of the cease-fire that ended the gulf war.

But The New York Times was able to confirm the identity of most of the companies on the latest Iraqi list after obtaining a copy of Iraq’s last chemical weapons declaration. That list was turned over by Iraq to the United Nations in 1996, and officials confirmed that Iraq’s new declaration included the same companies.

The list was obtained by Gary B. Pitts, a Houston lawyer who is representing thousands of veterans in a lawsuit against several of the chemical companies, alleging that the companies may be responsible for the veterans’ health problems. “This list gives us the goods on these defendants,” he said.

Of the 31 companies named in 1996, most are European, including 14 from Germany, 3 each from the Netherlands and Switzerland and 2 each from France and Austria.

Among the large European companies are two German conglomerates of the 1980’s: Preussag, which is now called TUI, and Hoechst, which has since been split up.

Spokesmen for both TUI and one of the successor companies of Hoechst said their major chemical units were sold off years ago; the spokesmen said they were convinced that Preussag and Hoechst had done nothing wrong in their dealings with Iraq.

The Iraqi declaration said that in 1982, Preussag provided Iraq with 30 tons of phosphorous oxychloride, a chemical used to make the deadly nerve gas sarin, and equipment for its chemical weapons laboratories. Hoechst is identified as the seller of 10 tons of phosphorous oxychloride.

Another German company, Karl Kolb of the city of Dreieich, and an associated company, Pilot Plant, were identified as major suppliers to the chemical weapons program. A spokesman for Karl Kolb said in a telephone interview that three employees who were prosecuted in the 1990’s for violations of German export laws involving Iraq were found not guilty of all charges.

“After a very elaborate court case, we were acquitted of these charges,” he said, adding that expert witnesses had found that equipment sold was “not suitable for chemical warfare production.” He noted that Pilot Plant had since gone out of business.

Alcolac, the Baltimore company, pleaded guilty in 1989 to federal export violations involving shipments of chemicals that could be used by Iraq to make mustard gas.

According to the Iraqi declaration, officials said, Alcolac provided thiodiglycol, the mustard gas precursor, while Al Haddad, the other American company, was the source of 60 tons of a chemical that could be used to make sarin.

There is no telephone listing for Al Haddad in Nashville, where it was based. News reports in the 1980’s identified the company’s owner as Sahib al-Haddad, an Iraqi by birth, who denied that he had shipped any chemicals to Iraq for use in weapons.

By sheer bulk, a Singapore-based company may have been the largest supplier of the chemicals used in the 1980’s to make chemical weapons, including 3,300 tons of a chemical that can be used to make nerve gas and 950 tons of an separate chemical used to make mustard gas and sarin.

Under the 1991 cease-fire agreement, the Iraq government promised to provide lists of the suppliers of its programs to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Weapons experts and veterans’ groups have long advocated public disclosure of the lists, if only to make clear the need to tighten export laws.

“It is our policy not to reveal the names of suppliers,” said Ewen Buchanan, a spokesman for Hans Blix, the United Nations’ weapons inspector. “There are many reasons why.”

Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-based research group on weapons proliferation, said much of the chemical production equipment sold to Iraq in the 1980’s may still be available.

If the United States carries out its threatened invasion of Iraq, he said, “we’re likely to send soldiers in to find and destroy this equipment if it’s still there, early on.”

Mr. Milhollin said the foreign companies on the Iraqi list deserved to have their identities known. “If you look at the scale and frequency of the exports of some of these companies, it’s clear that they were deeply involved in Iraq’s chemical weapons program,” he said. “They must have known what was going on.”

Like a runaway train racing down a slippery track destined for a crashing living hell; America, under the leadership of George W. Bush, rushes headlong into what many believe will be the most apocalyptic war that the world has ever known.

Just what is driving this president to under take such an unprecedented, irrational and ill-advised operation? Bush’s hatred of Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi regime verges on the pathologic. While his approach is mistaken, irrational, and even illegal by international standards; Bush and his war cabinet is listening to no one. War it appears is inevitable; a “fait accompli.”

The president has surrounded himself with men who are probably some of the most dangerous counselors that have ever advised a US president. I speak of men out of the public eye like Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby who work for Rumsfeld and Cheney respectfully.

Both of these men, along with vice-president Cheney and national security adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice have attempted to rewrite the way that America views the world.

Gone is the American paradigm of being the peaceful world power that respects the sovereignty of nations and who only attacks when attacked. Gone are the doctrines of deterrence, containment, diplomacy, multilateralism and perestroika.

Since 9/11 it now appears that US foreign policy is driven by the desire to dominate the global community. Never in the history of this union has America ever been the instigator of war; at least not so blatantly.

The Bush White House goals it appears are to establish a permanent dominance over all of Eurasia and the Middle East. A world is then assumed that would include US military presence as a “constant fixture” much like the days when the imperial Roman army ruled the world. It is interesting, yet seldom reported, that even prior to Bush becoming president as well as before the terrible downing of the World Trade Center; that there was a plan created by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby and the president’s younger brother, Jeb; to attack Iraq to secure regime change.

These people knew that in order to control the Middle East gulf region and the precious oil fields and oil routes of the world; that they had to control the government in Iraq. That would be impossible as long as Saddem remains in power. The plan was created as a project with the neo-conservative think-tank, Project for the New American Century. With Syria weakened, Iran unstable, Afghanistan defeated; only Iraq remains an obstacle to the creation of a ‘global Pax Americana.’

Of course the moderate Arabs states of the Arabian Peninsula as well as the moderate Arab and pro western nations of Turkey, Jordan and Egypt are already pawns in the claws of the great American bald eagle. While Russia looks the other way, because she is so caught in her own internal woes and with the indifference of China, America is free to create the new world order that George Bush, the first, spoke of so defiantly during his administration.

While Saddam might be ruthless and probably does harbor weapons of mass destruction; so do the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Iranians, Libyans, Syrians, Israelis and so do we, just to name a few. The Bush blueprint for US global domination hinted that the US may consider using biological weapons. It talked about new methods of attack with combat taking place in new dimensions; with advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target specific genotypes which may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” And besides after all we have the “bomb.”

There is no reason for us to justly invade Iraq. At this point we must allow the United Nations, as General Powell has suggested, to handle the disarming and dismantling of any weapons of mass destruction that Iraq might have. The current beating of the war drums by the Bush administration is puzzling; especially given the fact that Saddem has done nothing to us or any of our allies at this point. A so called preventive strike against Iraq is doomed to backfire and plunge the world into an abyss of darkness worst than anything that the world has ever seen.

It will cause wars of mass destruction that the preemptive strike is suppose to deter. We will see an unprecedented wave of terrorism unlike anything that we could have ever imagined. With the rule of international law and the laws of sovereignty completed destroyed other states will launch similar strikes in their own best interests.

There will be a complete break down in world alliances and order as the Arab world will come to the aid of Arabs against westerners, Christians and Jews. Rogue states such as Libya and North Korea will have an excuse and license to attack who ever they please. Israel and Taiwan will lay open to be raped, plundered and ravaged; as America would be so occupied with trying to contain the evils that she unleashed by a preemptive strike, that she would no longer be the guardian of freedom around the global community.

Pakistan will surely drop the bomb on India while no one is watching, because of the occupation of war between the Arabs and the West. And why not; if America can invade Iraq, why can’t the Pakistani invade the Indians, or vice versa? The damage that will be done to the environment will be devastating with the use of biological weapons.

Economically the world, because we are all now one village, will be plunged into the greatest depression that is imaginable. Deficit spending in America is already at an all time high. Oil prices will cause such a catastrophe that America might not recover for decades as oil fields in the gulf regions will burn for decades. Then there are the causalities….millions of innocent civilians will die in urban centers all over the world, America included.

This war is about insanity, power, empire, oil and white male machismo. This war is totally immoral, unwarranted and unnecessary.

Dr. Sanders can be reached at rgws@aol.com

U.S. SEN. PATTY MURRAY — SENATOR ASKS STUDENTS TO PONDER

December 19, 2002

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray was in Vancouver on Wednesday challenging high school students to answer these questions:

What is behind terrorist Osama bin Laden’s popularity in some parts of the world, and should the United States adopt his nation-building tactics?

Speaking at Columbia River High School, Murray, D-Wash., responded to questions from students, most about the war on terrorism or government spending for education.

Later Wednesday, Murray visited C-Tran headquarters and checked out a new bus.

Murray met at Columbia River with world history students and student government leaders. Across town, Hudson’s Bay High School students participated via teleconference.

Murray concluded the session by challenging the tudents to consider alternatives to war.

“We’ve got to ask, why is this man (Osama bin Laden) so popular around the world?,” said Murray, who faces re-election in 2004. “Why are people so supportive of him in many countries … that are riddled with poverty?

“He’s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven’t done that.

“How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?”

Murray said she doesn’t know where she comes down on that guns-or-butter question, and building infrastructure in Third World countries would “cost a lot of money, and we have schools here and health care facilities here that are really hurting.”

Be ‘better neighbors’?

“War is expensive too,” she said. “Your generation ought to be thinking about whether we should be better neighbors out in other countries so that they have a different vision of us.

“It is a debate I think we ought to have.”

Murray was in the minority when the Senate voted 77-23 in October to give President Bush authority to use military force in confronting Saddam Hussein. The state’s other senator, Democrat Maria Cantwell, voted for the resolution.

Murray opened Wednesday’s event telling the students, “You’ll be graduating into a world that is very difficult. … The economy is struggling. War in Iraq is a very real possibility in the short term” and could cost $200 billion even if it were to last only a few weeks.

The cost of waging war could result in cuts to domestic programs such as Pell grants for college students, she said.

Responding to a question about federal spending for schools, Murray said the Bush administration is backing off its pledge of support for the No Child Left Behind program.

“There are crises in every one of our schools in this country,” Murray said, and cutting spending on education has long-term deleterious effects.

Visit to the bus barn

Later in the day, Murray spent 45 minutes at the C-Tran administrative and operations facility at 2425 N.E. 65th Ave. for a holiday potluck. Randy Frasier’s Mountain View High School jazz and concert choirs serenaded her with holiday carols.

Afterward, Murray examined a new $312,000 Gillig coach, the first of several dozen that will replace 20-year-old GM buses that have racked up an average of 650,000 miles each.

Murray is on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on transportation, which funnels matching money to states and local agencies for buses and other transit programs. Eighty percent of the cost of new buses will come from federal grants, and the remainder from local C-Tran money.

Thomas Ryll contributed to this story. Gregg Herrington covers state and local issues and may be reached at 360-759-8025, or via e-mail at gregg.herrington columbian.com

December 20, 2002

People who don’t know the Middle East sometimes wonder why Arabs mistrust the United States. Perhaps an old story – from another time when people were worried about war and oil prices – will explain some of what motivates the Arabs now.

In January 1974, President Richard Nixon’s back was to the wall. Watergate was only the most prominent of his troubles. The continuation of the OPEC oil embargo, and the economic consequences of that situation, were a major frustration and embarrassment. Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were looking impotent before the world and before the American people.

In late December 1973, there had been a meeting of Arab oil ministers in Kuwait at which they had reached a decision that lifting of the oil embargo should be accomplished in stages directly linked to commensurate steps toward “full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242,” which called for Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian lands in exchange for full Arab acceptance of Israel.

Kissinger was furious, seeing this as another instance of intolerable Arab “blackmail.” A month of nasty bickering ensued, with Kissinger growing increasingly intemperate.

Despite efforts by all the Arab leaders to find a compromise solution that would placate Kissinger, the Saudis, Egyptians and Kuwaitis remained in agreement on one crucial point of principle: No linkage to Resolution 242 meant no lifting of the embargo. The U.S. president had repeatedly promised full implementation of the resolution, and his secretary of state should be expected to honor that commitment.

On Jan. 25, Nixon sent another in a series of personal letters to King Faisal, in which he made this crucial statement: “In earlier messages to Your Majesty I have said that events have proven the wisdom of your counsel over the years. My Government is now embarked upon and committed to a course of action that can, I am convinced, bring a just and durable peace to the Middle East. The first fruits of that commitment are reflected in the agreement on the disengagement of forces signed last Friday, under which Israel forces will withdraw into Sinai as a first step toward a final settlement in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 338 and 242.”

On Jan. 28, as the CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia, I received an urgent privacy-channel message from Kissinger explaining in confidence that Nixon was becoming desperate. Would it be possible, Kissinger asked with extravagant politesse, to obtain King Faisal’s permission for the president to announce to the American people in his State of the Union address two days later that the oil embargo would soon be lifted?

I met that night with two of King Faisal’s sons, Saud, now foreign minister, and Turki, newly appointed ambassador to Britain. After lengthy consultation with their father, they agreed that I could convey King Faisal’s approval on two conditions.

First, Nixon would be welcome to announce in his speech that he had received assurances from “friendly leaders” in the Middle East that an urgent meeting would be called to discuss lifting of the embargo.

Second, the president’s announcement should include unequivocal linkage to full implementation of a Middle East peace settlement based on Resolution 242. The explicit enjoinder conveyed by King Faisal was that Nixon should employ in his State of the Union speech precisely the same phraseology that he had used in his personal letter to Faisal just three days before: that the recent disengagement in Sinai was only the “first step” toward full implementation of resolutions 242 and 338.

I conveyed the Saudis’ insistence that the key words “first step” be included in the speech. This specific prearranged signal would confirm and validate the public commitment of the president of the United States to follow through on his repeated private promises to King Faisal to put the full energies of the U.S. government behind the achievement of a just and lasting peace for the Palestinians.

I clearly recall an observation made that evening by Prince Turki, a young man of 27 at the time. He remarked that by asking the U.S. president to employ the same words that he himself had just written in a personal letter to a fellow head of state, we could be confident that no one, not even Henry Kissinger, would dare to portray the request as an unreasonable “demand” on the part of the Saudi king.

Two days later, Nixon declared the following before a joint session of Congress: “Let me begin by reporting a new development which I know will be welcome news to every American. As you know, we have committed ourselves to an active role in helping to achieve a just and durable peace in the Middle East, on the basis of full implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. The first step in the process is the disengagement of Egyptian and Israeli forces which is now taking place.”

“Because of this hopeful development,” Nixon continued, “I can announce tonight that I have been assured, through my personal contacts with friendly leaders in the Middle Eastern area, that an urgent meeting will be called in the immediate future to discuss the lifting of the oil embargo. This is an encouraging sign. However, it should be clearly understood by our friends in the Middle East that the United States will not be coerced on this issue.”

It seemed that Nixon, with Kissinger at his elbow, could not bring himself to honor the true spirit of the agreement. That last sentence, containing a veiled but unmistakable threat, probably reflected the resentment that Kissinger felt at having been outmaneuvered. Certainly in Arab eyes, Nixon’s choice of those words seemed to deprive the statement of sincerity and credibility. After all, this tough talk was coming from a frightened and insecure man who had been begging King Faisal for help just 48 hours earlier.

The writer, a CIA officer for 26 years, was the agency’s chief of station in Saudi Arabia from 1970 to 1977. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

The sergeant was puzzled. His vision was dimming. His nose began to run and then there seemed weight on his chest and he struggled to breathe. His squad of riflemen deployed in the desert of southern Iraq watched in horror as their leader began vomiting before collapsing into a bundle of convulsions.

These are the telltale signs of nerve gas poisoning that could come from a tiny drop of Sarin on an exposed wrist. A listing of these effects are part of the lesson plan U.S. Marines were offering a group of journalists who may wind up on the battlefield if President George W. Bush launches Desert Storm II. The Pentagon offered to prepare reporters with a rough basic training program at Quantico, Va. starting last month.

Nerve gas – Sarin – has been in the arsenal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein at least since he ordered it used by his troops against ill-prepared Iranian forces after Iraq’s 1981 invasion. Hussein’s expertise in manufacturing and weaponizing Sarin makes it certain the nerve gas will be on the priority list of U.N. weapons inspectors now in Baghdad, according to US intelligence.

For President George Bush the Elder in 1991, his worst nightmare was the vision of American forces writhing from the effects of Sarin as they moved to oust Iraq from the tiny sheikdom of Kuwait.

Fear of media coverage of such nerve gas attacks may have led Bush to order a press blackout when allied troops began to roll on February 24,1991. “They didn’t want pictures in the living room of our troops being rocketed with Sarin,” said a senior general who helped plan Army Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf’s attack. “No pictures.”

Schwarzkopf as did most military planners doubted Hussein would use the nerve agent. He lacked an effective delivery system–122mm rockets–and an errant breeze could waft the vapor in the wrong direction. And, then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney promised a gas attack by Baghdad would produce an “overwhelming,” but unspecified U.S. response. The always uncool Vice President Dan Quayle piped up that Cheney was talking about using nuclear weapons on Hussein.

For whatever reason, Iraq never used one of its most potent “weapon of mass destruction,” resulting in a sigh of relief by both the political and military leadership of the Persian Gulf War.

But the terror weapon was unleashed–unwittingly–by U.S. Army engineers after most of the fighting was over. It produced the largest allied casualty list of the war. American taxpayers are financing more than $4 billion a year in compensation to Gulf War veterans and their families.

According the Central Intelligence Agency and the Army, 4.8 tons of Sarin nerve gas was released into the atmosphere in northern Iraq when engineers destroyed 1,610 Kaytusha rockets tipped with Sarin warheads. The first release– from 1,060 of the 122mm Soviet-made rockets– on March 4,1991 was limited because they were destroyed with explosives placed inside storage bunkers at a crossroads called Kamisiyah.

CIA and Army experts argued the bunkers kept most of the Sarin vapor out of the atmosphere. Worse however was a second engineer demolition of 550 Kaytushas on March 10. These rockets containing Sarin-filled warheads were destroyed in an open pit. More than 130,000 American troops were deployed within the 15 mile radius of the Sarin vapor cloud created by the March 10 blast.

Those units affected with troops in 1st Mechanized, 24th Mechanized, 82nd Airborne, 1st Armored, 3rd Armored and 1st Cavalry Divisions as well as smaller reserve and national guard units. The plume also covered sections of occupied Kuwait but no estimates of population were made by the CIA and Army.

Disclosure of the Sarin plume over U.S. troops came in 1996 when the administration of President Bill Clinton was still disputing both the cause and effects of the so-called Gulf War syndrome. Then, 8,000 veterans of Desert Storm had a collection of symptoms including fatigue, sore joints, sleeplessness, stomach problems and skin disorders.

Pentagon officials learned about the Sarin releases in 1994 but did not tell ailing veterans or the public about the plume of nerves until two years later. Just as smelly was Pentagon handling of Desert Storm records of detection of airborne poisons by U.S. units before the groundwar began. Defense officials blamed a malfunctioning hard drive for destroying two separate sets of chemical detections.

As the number of victims soared, the Pentagon insisted the Sarin releases were not a cause. Nerve gas dissipates within hours. But some critics, including Jim Tuite, a Senate investigator who helped stage the first Congressional hearings on the issue, had a different view.

Tuite has uncovered East german records of workers who handled stores of Sarin nerve gas. Low level exposures to the gas for years had given them the same sort of symptoms plaguing Gulf war veterans. And, Tuite argues other Iraqi chemical weapons were released into the air during a month of bombing Hussein’s storage areas and military factories.

Army doctors, the Department of Veterans Affairs and most of the U.S medical community continued for a decade to view the Gulf War syndrome as mysterious and unexplainable. So far, 167,000 men and women who served in the conflict have been granted various degrees of disability by the government along with different cash payments and pension rights. Today, they account for almost half of the disabled Gulf War vets who, along with their wives and children, get $370 million a month, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Paul Sullivan of the Gulf War Veterans association [National Gulf War Resource Center] says the cumulative total of men and women affected–veterans, active duty, national guard and reserve soldiers who served in the 1991 conflict–is closer to 200,000.

It wasn’t until this fall–11 years after the event–that the Veterans Affairs Department for the first time acknowledged toxic exposures as a cause of Gulf War illnesses. Two recent Pentagon studies finally reached the same conclusion: low does of Sarine exposure are linked to long-term neurological problems.

These concessions come after a pounding by Congress, the media and grassroots organizations such as Sullivan’s Gulf War group.

Still, there is no mention of Sarin it the latest Pentagon report on the Gulf war syndrome although another culprit has been pinpointed–dirty air.

“Many veterans of the Gulf War have expressed concern that their unexplained illnesses may result from their experiences in that war,” said Dr. William Wenkenwerder Jr., assistant defense secretary for health.

“Of primary concern,” for affected troops, Wenkenwerder said, “was poor air quality that was the result of several factors: blowing sand, emissions from petro-chemical complexes, civilian and military vehicle traffic and oil well fires in Kuwait.”

©2002 Patrick J. Sloyan
Contributing Editor
ppsloyan@starpower.net

Patrick J. Sloyan won the Pulitzer prize for his coverage of Desert Storm while Senior Correspondent for Newsday. He wrote this article while a Fellow at the Alicia Patterson Foundation. Sloyan currently in writing a book on the seeds of the Vietnam War.