Original Headline: US: Hussein probably not in convoy attacked last week
The BBC reports that the Pentagon has admitted that the attack on a convoy that was believed to have been carrying Iraqi leaders may have taken place inside neighboring Syria. At least five Syrian border guards were injured in the attack, which was carried out by US special forces backed by aircraft, US officials said.
On Sunday, UK's the Guardian first reported that the attack, which took place last week, targeted a convoy believed to be carrying former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and his oldest son, Uday. On Sunday, The New York Times quoted US senators as saying they were "optimistic" that Mr. Hussein had finally been killed. But Tuesday the Guardian quotes a US official who says that intelligence was wrong.
While it is unknown how many Iraqis were killed in the attack, at least 20 Iraqis were arrested. All have since been released, suggesting that there were no wanted officials in the convoy. Spacewar.com reports that the same Pentagon official mentioned above also said that despite media reports to the contrary, no DNA had been gathered at the site of the convoy attack.
How Syria reacts to this incident may have a great deal of importance. The BBC reports that Amnesty International says the attack on a convoy thought to be carrying Saddam Hussein and/or his sons last week would have been legal (in international law) only if there was substantial evidence indicating their presence. But if there was no solid evidence, which now appears to be the case, and there was the risk of killing innocent civilians instead, then it would not be justified, said Amnesty International's Legal Director Claudio Cordone.
But the Washington Post reports that Syria seems inclined to give the US a "little latitude" on the attack, which also apparently killed two Iraqi villagers when a US missile struck their house dsuring the attack. In fact, the Post reports, Syria would have preferred that the incident had not become public at all. While there has been no official Syrian statement on the incident, one Syrian official said it was just a case of the two groups running into each other in the desert and a fight ensued.
It does seem that the US administration is having a hard time catching a break on news from Iraq these days. The Daily Telegraph reports that over the weekend President Bush "retreated" from predictions that banned Iraqi weapons would be found, promising only to discover the "true extent" of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. Mr. Bush probably didn't appreciate the comments of Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix on Sunday that the longer it takes the US and Britain to find WMD, the more likely it is that the Iraqis really did destroy them after the first Gulf War.
Columnist George F. Will writes that it is essential for the US to find WMD, or else the administration's policy of preemptive strikes is in danger.
Some say the war was justified even if WMD are not found nor their destruction explained, because the world is "better off" without Saddam. Of course it is better off. But unless one is prepared to postulate a US right, perhaps even a duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny – on to Burma? – it is unacceptable to argue that Saddam's mass graves and torture chambers suffice as retrospective justifications for pre-emptive war. Americans seem sanguine about the failure – so far – to validate the war's premise about the threat posed by Saddam's WMD, but a long-term failure would unravel much of this president's policy and rhetoric. The Guardian also noted that Bush has been forced to comment for the first time about the rising number of US casualties that have occurred since he declared the end of "major combat" on May 1. FoxNews reports that US and British soldiers were both attacked on Tuesday, with six British soldiers being killed in one attack. The Gulf Daily News reports that a bipartisan group of US senators, which is visiting Iraq, says that the US may be involved there for at least five years. The Christian Science Monitor reports on how tense the situation between US troops and many Iraqi citizens has already become.
Meanwhile, more questions arose about when the US administration started planning to invade Iraq after a TV interview with a former US general. Last September, CBSNews had reported that plans for an invasion had begun just hours after the attacks on Washington and New York on 9/11 – a story which went rrelatively unnoticed. Then last week retired General Wesley Clark (and possible Democratic presidential candidate) told Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press that there was a concerted effort by the administration after Sept. 11 to pin the blame for the terrorism on Saddam Hussein.
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein." RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?" CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But – I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence." FAIR, the media watchdog, wonders why Clark's comments haven't gotten bigger play in the US media, which normally pounce on any major pronouncement from the Sunday morning talk shows. Finally, Reuters reports on a case of life imitating art. Shortly before US troops began their raids of Iraqi homes over the weekend to look for hidden weapons, the troops "psyched up" by listening to Richard Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" – the same music used by American troops just before attacking a Vietnamese village in the movie "Apocalypse Now."
source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0624/dailyUpdate.html 24jun03
|
If
you have come to this page from an outside location click
here to get back to mindfully.org |