Iraq: Ten Years, a Million Lives and Trillions of Dollars Later

Global Research
Dennis Kucinich

Ten years ago today the debate over the Iraq War came to Congress in the form of a resolution promoted by the Bush Administration. The war in Iraq will cost the United States as much as $5 trillion. It played a role in spurring the global financial crisis. Four thousand, four hundred, eighty eight Americans were killed. More than 33,000 were injured.

As many as 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi civilians were killed. The monetary cost of the war to Iraq is incalculable. A sectarian civil war has ravaged Iraq for nearly a decade. Iraq has become home to Al Qaeda.

The war in Iraq was sold to Congress and the American people with easily disproved lies. We must learn from this dark period in American history to ensure that we do not repeat the same mistakes. And we must hold accountable those who misled the American public.

On October 2, 2002, the day the legislation to authorize war in Iraq was introduced, I sent and personally distributed a memo to my colleagues in Congress refuting point-by-point every reason given by the Bush Administration to go to war.

On October 3, 2002, I held a press conference with 25 Members of Congress and then presented an hour long explanation to Congress on the House Floor, refuting the lies upon which the cause of war was predicated.

It was clear from information publicly available at the time that Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), that Iraq had no connection to 9/11, and that Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Anyone who wanted to look could have seen the same information that I did.

Yet some of America’s top political leaders bought into the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld drumbeat of war. Two leading Democrats were among those taken in by the White House hype and the WMD argument:

“I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people … [I]ntelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists including Al Qaeda members.” Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), October 10, 2002.

“September 11 was the ultimate wake-up call. We must now do everything in our power to prevent further terrorist attacks and ensure that an attack with a weapon of mass destruction cannot happen. … the first candidate we must worry about is Iraq… [Saddam Hussein] continues to develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear devices.” Leader of the Democratic Caucus in the House, Richard Gephardt (D-MO), October 10, 2002.

Even the most trusted newspapers around the country blindly repeated as fact grossly incorrect assertions by leaders of both parties.

“No further debate is needed to establish that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator whose continued effort to build unconventional weapons in defiance of clear United Nations prohibitions threatens the Middle East and beyond.” The New York Times, Editorial Board, October 3, 2002.

Notwithstanding the blizzard of disinformation, one hundred thirty three Members of Congress voted against the resolution that authorized the use of military force in Iraq, including nearly two-thirds of the Democratic Caucus in the House. Seven Republicans, including Ron Paul (R-TX), also voted against the resolution. In the Senate, the vote was 77 to 23 in favor of a war of choice.

Ten years ago Congress voted to wage war on a nation that did not attack us. That decision undermined our fiscal and national security. To this day we are suffering from the blowback. While most of the troops are home, the United States maintains a significant presence in Iraq through the State Department and its thousands of private security contractors.

The war against Iraq was based on lies. Thousands of Americans and perhaps a million Iraqis were sacrificed for those lies. The war in Afghanistan continues. New wars have been propagated in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia pursuant to the never-ending “War on Terror”. This mindset puts us at the edge of war against Iran. Ten years and trillions of dollars later, the American people by and large still do not know the truth. It is time to usher in a new period of truth and reconciliation.

Dennis Kucinich is US Congressman from Ohio

Kucinich: "NATO Talks a Sham: War in Afghanistan is Not Ending"

OpEdNews

Washington D.C. (May 21, 2012) -- Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement as world leaders meet in Chicago for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit. 

"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not a benevolent organization. NATO is not about the North Atlantic and it's not about our collective defense.

"NATO is a cost-sharing organization that finances aggressive military action. By hiding behind the claim that the organization provides for "common defense,' NATO allows us to wage wars of choice under the guise of international peacekeeping. The most recent example was the unconstitutional war in Libya where NATO, operating under a United Nations mandate to protect civilians, instead backed one side in a civil war and pursued a policy of regime change.

"Today, NATO leaders are meeting in Chicago to discuss the future of Afghanistan. The talks are being billed as discussions of plans to end the war. The war in Afghanistan is not ending. These talks are simply about financing the next phase of the war.

"The Strategic Partnership Agreement between the U.S. and Afghanistan commits us to the country for at least another decade, despite public support for the war being at an all time low. The United States will pay for half of the estimated $4.1 billion per year cost of supporting 352,000 Afghan army and police officers. Afghanistan's contribution will be $500,000. The rest will be financed by our "NATO partners.' It is not surprising that support for the war among NATO members is waning, with France threatening to pull out its troops by the end of this year.

"Our participation in NATO comes at a great financial cost to the U.S. We contribute the majority of funds for NATO's common budget, including 25% of the military budget.  Between fiscal years 2010 and 2012 alone, we contributed more than $1.3 billion to NATO's military budget.  We also incur significant costs through the deployment of our forces in support of NATO missions.  According to The Atlantic, the war in Libya cost the United States $1.1 billion.

"NATO was originally founded to provide a strategic counterbalance to the Soviet Union. Its founding purpose no longer exists, but NATO continues to circumvent the authority of the United Nations and to provoke other nations. NATO is an anachronism. Instead of trying to bolster the organization, we should begin serious discussions to dismantle it."

Obama escalates drone strikes in Yemen

PressTV

The Obama administration has ordered a dramatic increase in the number of drone strikes against targets within southern Yemen, with several launched per week.

Unlike the CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, the attacks in Yemen are being carried out by the military's Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), and each requires explicit approval from President Obama himself.

Of course the CIA is also keen to start launching a massive number of drone strikes of their own in Yemen, with the organization working hard to expand secret airfields in the region from which to launch the strikes.

In comments at Harvard Law School, Obama aide John Brennan defended the legality of the strikes, insisting that attacks were never going to be restricted to “hot battlefields like Afghanistan” and adding “we reserve the right to take unilateral action if or when other governments are unwilling or unable.” Antiwar

FACTS & FIGURES

The CIA now operates Predator and Reaper unmanned aircraft, armed with Hellfire missiles, over at least five countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya. CNAS.org

The Yemen program is modeled on the agency's covert program in Pakistan where it is seen as a violation of sovereignty that costs civilian lives. WSJ

Since December 2009, U.S. strikes in Yemen have been carried out by the U.S. military with intelligence support from CIA. WSJ

The CIA program also affords the U.S. greater operational secrecy, and because CIA drones use smaller warheads than most manned military aircraft, U.S. officials hope they will minimize any anti-American backlash in Yemen. WSJ

U.S Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich has strongly criticized the drone strikes by the United States in Pakistan and elsewhere, terming these as "summary executions" and "extra-judicial killings." APP

Financial Meltdown: The Case Against the Ratings Agencies

Global Research
Prof. Michael Hudson

In today’s looming confrontation the ratings agencies are playing the political role of “enforcer” as the gatekeepers to credit, to put pressure on Iceland, Greece and even the United States to pursue creditor-oriented policies that lead inevitably to financial crises. These crises in turn force debtor governments to sell off their assets under distress conditions. In pursuing this guard-dog service to the world’s bankers, the ratings agencies are escalating a political strategy they have long been refined over a generation in the corrupt arena of local U.S. politics.

Why ratings agencies public selloffs rather than sound tax policy: The Kucinich Case Study

In 1936, as part of the New Deal’s reform of America’s financial markets, regulators forbid banks and institutional money managers to buy securities deemed “speculative” by “recognized rating manuals.” Insurance companies, pension funds and mutual funds subject to public regulation are required to “take into account” the views of the credit ratings agencies, provided them with a government-sanctioned monopoly. These agencies make their money by offering their “opinions” (for which they have never been legally liable) as to the payment prospects of various grades of security, from AAA (as secure government debt, the top rating because governments always can print the money to pay) down to various depths of junk.

Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s and Fitch focus mainly on stocks and on corporate, state and local bond issues. They make money twice off the same transaction when cities and states balance their budgets by spinning off public enterprises into new corporate entities issuing new bonds and stocks. This business incentive gives the ratings agencies an antipathy to governments that finance themselves on a pay-as-you-go basis (as Adam Smith endorsed) by raising taxes on real estate and other property, income or sales taxes instead of borrowing to cover their spending. The effect of this inherent bias is not to give an opinion about what is economically best for a locality, but rather what makes the most profit for themselves.

Localities are pressured when their rising debt levels lead to a financial stringency. Banks pull back their credit lines, and urge cities and states to pay down their debts by selling off their most viable public enterprises. Offering opinions on this practice has become a big business for the ratings agencies. So it is understandable why their business model opposes policies – and political candidates – that support the idea of basing public financing on taxation rather than by borrowing. This self-interest colors their “opinions.”

If this seems too cynical an explanation for today’s ratings agencies self-serving views, there are sufficient examples going back over thirty years to illustrate their unethical behavior. The first and most notorious case occurred in Cleveland, Ohio, after Dennis Kucinich was elected mayor in 1977. The ratings agencies had been giving the city good marks despite the fact that it had been using bond funds improperly for general operating purposes to covered its budget shortfalls by borrowing, leaving Cleveland with $14.5 million owed to the banks on open short-term credit lines.

Cleveland had a potential cash cow in Municipal Light, which its Progressive Era mayor Tom Johnson had created in 1907 as one of America’s first publicly owned power utilities. It provided the electricity to light Cleveland’s streets and other public uses, as well as providing power to private users. Meanwhile, banks and their leading local clients were heavily invested in Muni Light’s privately owned competitor, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. Members of the Cleveland Trust sat on CEI’s board and wielded a strong influence on the city council to try and take it over. In a series of moves that city officials, the U.S. Senate and regulatory agencies found to be improper (popular usage would say criminal),1  CEI caused a series of disruptions in service and worked with the banks and ratings agencies to try and force the city to sell it the utility. Banks for their part had their eye on financing a public buyout – and hoped to pressure the city into selling, threatening to pull the plug on its credit lines if it did not surrender Muni Light.

It was to block this privatization that Mr. Kucinich ran for mayor. To free the city from being liable to financial pressure from its vested interests – above all from the banks and private utilities – he sought to put the city’s finances on a sound footing by raising taxes. This threatened to slow borrowing from the banks (thereby shrinking the business of ratings agencies as well), while freeing Cleveland from the pressures that have risen across the United States for cities to start selling off their public enterprises, especially since the 1980s as tax-cutting politicians have left them deeper in debt.

The banks and ratings agencies told Mayor Kucinich that they would back his political career and even hinted financing a run for the governorship if he played ball with them and agreed to sell the electric utility. When he balked, the banks said that they could not renew credit lines to a city that was so reluctant to balance its books by privatizing its most profitable enterprises. This threat was like a credit-card company suddenly demanding payment of the full balance from a customer, saying that if it were not paid, the sheriff would come in and seize property to sell off (usually on credit extended to customers of the bankers).

The ratings agencies chimed in and threatened to downgrade Cleveland’s credit rating if the city did not privatize its utility. The financial tactic was to offer the carrot of corrupting the mayor politically, while using the threat of forcing the city into financial crisis and raising its interest rates. If the economy did not pay higher utility charges as a result of privatization, it would have to pay higher interest.

But standing on principle, the mayor refused to sell the utility, and voters elected to keep Muni light public by a 2-to-1 margin in a referendum. They proceeded to pay down the city’s debt by raising its income-tax rate in order to avoid paying higher rates for privatized electricity. Their choice was thoroughly in line with Book V of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations provides a perspective on how borrowing ends up with a proliferation of taxes to pay the interest. This makes the private sector pay higher prices for its basic needs that Cleveland Mayor Tom Johnson and other Progressive Era leaders a century ago sought to socialize in order to lower the cost of living and doing business in the United States.

The bankers’ alliance with the Cleveland’s wealthy would-be power monopoly led it to be the first U.S. city to default since the Great Depression as the state of Ohio forced it into fiscal receivership in 1979. The banks used the crisis to make an easy gain in buying up bond anticipation notes that were sold under distress conditions exacerbated by the ratings agencies. The banks helped fund Mayor Kucinich’s opponent in the 1979 mayoral race.

Dennis Kucinich "Social Security Will be Able To Pay 100% Of It's Benefits Through 2037!"

Revolutionary Politics

The US must end its illegal war in Libya now

Guardian
Dennis Kucinich

President Obama has ripped up the US constitution for Nato's ill-considered Libyan adventure. Congress must restore sense

This week, I am sponsoring legislation in the United States Congress that will end US military involvement in Libya for the following reasons:

First, the war is illegal under the United States constitution and our War Powers Act, because only the US Congress has the authority to declare war and the president has been unable to show that the US faced an imminent threat from Libya. The president even ignored his top legal advisers at the Pentagon and the department of justice who insisted he needed congressional approval before bombing Libya.

Second, the war has reached a stalemate and is unwinnable without the deployment of Nato ground troops, effectively an invasion of Libya. The whole operation was terribly ill-considered from the beginning. While Nato supports the Benghazi-based opposition (situated in the oil-rich north-east), there is little evidence that the opposition has support of the majority of Libyans. The leading opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (which had reportedly been backed by the CIA in the 1980s), should never have launched an armed civil war against the government if they had no chance absent a massive Nato air campaign and the introduction of Nato troops. Their reckless actions, encouraged by western political, military and intelligence interests, created the humanitarian crisis that was then used to justify the Nato war campaign.

Third, the United States cannot afford it. The US cost of the mission is projected to soon reach more than $1bn, and we are already engaged in massive cutbacks of civil services for our own people.
It is not surprising that a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents alike think the US should not be involved in Libya.

This war is misguided. An invasion would be a disaster. Nato already is out of control, using a UN mandate allowing for protection of civilians as the flimsy pretext for an unauthorised mission of regime change through massive violence. In a just world, the Nato commander would be held responsible for any violations of international law. As a means of continuing the civil war, Nato member France and coalition ally Qatar have both admitted shipping weapons to Libya, in open violation of the United Nations arms embargo.

Reps urge Clinton to protect U.S. citizens on Gaza flotilla

JTA

Six Democratic lawmakers urged U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to ensure the safety of the American citizens who join  the Gaza flotilla.

U.S. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), William Clay (D-Mo.), Sam Farr (D-Calif.), Bob Filner (D-Calif.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) signed a letter to Clinton last Friday expressing their concern for the safety of the passengers who will be aboard the U.S. ship The Audacity of Hope. Filner is Jewish.

"We request that you do everything in your power to work with the Israeli government to ensure the safety of the U.S. citizens on board," they wrote.
At least 36 Americans are set to travel with the flotilla.

Their concern, the letter said, stems from Israeli actions taken against the Gaza flotilla in May 2010, in which nine civilians, including one American, were killed and others injured during a confrontation.

"We wholeheartedly support Israel's right, and indeed its duty, to protect its citizens from security threats," the letter said. "The measures it uses to do so, as in the case with any other nation, must conform to international humanitarian and human rights law. We are encouraged that The Audacity of Hope organizers have stated that their cargo 'is open to international inspection' and that they 'are fully committed to nonviolence and the tenets of international law.' "

Separately, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) posted an appeal to the State Dept. to "ensure protection to the participants" in the flotilla on the website of J Street, a liberal pro-Israel group.

10 Congressmen Bring Obama to Federal Court

Help Us Transmit This Story

  Add to Your Blogger Account
  Put it On Facebook
  Tweet this post
  Print it from your printer
  Email and a collection of other outlets
  Try even more services

White House Defends Continuing U.S. Role in Libya Operation

New York Times
Charlie Savage

The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities. 

In a 38-page report sent to lawmakers describing and defending the NATO-led operation, the White House said the mission was prying loose Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power.

In contending that the limited American role did not oblige the administration to ask for authorization under the War Powers Resolution, the report asserted that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Still, the White House acknowledged, the operation has cost the Pentagon $716 million in its first two months and will have cost $1.1 billion by September at the current scale of operations.

The report came one day after the House Speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, had sent a letter to Mr. Obama warning him that he appeared to be out of time under the Vietnam-era law that says presidents must terminate a mission 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress that troops have been deployed into hostilities, unless lawmakers authorize the operation to continue.

Mr. Boehner had demanded that Mr. Obama explain his legal justification for passing the deadline. On Wednesday, Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner, said he was still reviewing the documents, adding that “the creative arguments made by the White House raise a number of questions that must be further explored.”

The escalating confrontation with Congress reflects the radically altered political landscape in Washington: a Democratic president asserting sweeping executive powers to deploy American forces overseas, while Republicans call for stricter oversight and voice fears about executive-branch power getting the United States bogged down in a foreign war.

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold H. Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with the White House counsel, Robert Bauer.

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces had not been in “hostilities” at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to primarily a supporting role — providing refueling and surveillance to allied warplanes, although remotely piloted drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles, too.

They argued that United States forces are at little risk because there are no troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange fire with them meaningfully. And they said the military mission was constrained by a United Nations Security Council resolution, which authorized air power for the purpose of defending civilians.

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” said Mr. Koh, a former Yale Law School dean and outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s expansive theories of executive power. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

Jack L. Goldsmith, who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, said the Obama theory would set a precedent expanding future presidents’ unauthorized war-making powers, especially given the rise of remote-controlled combat technology.

“The administration’s theory implies that the president can wage war with drones and all manner of offshore missiles without having to bother with the War Powers Resolution’s time limits,” Mr. Goldsmith said.

It remains to be seen whether majorities in Congress will acquiesce to the administration’s argument, defusing the confrontation, or if the theory will fuel greater criticism. Either way, because the statute does not define hostilities and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, the debate is likely to be resolved politically, said Richard H. Pildes, a New York University law professor.

Also on Wednesday, 10 lawmakers — led by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, and Representative Walter B. Jones, Republican of North Carolina — filed a lawsuit asking a judge to order Mr. Obama to pull out of the Libya operation because Congress did not authorize it. That lawsuit faces steep challenges, however, because courts in the past have dismissed similar cases on technical grounds.

The administration had earlier argued that Mr. Obama could initiate the intervention on his own authority as commander in chief because its anticipated nature, scope and duration fell short of a “war” in the constitutional sense. Since then, the conflict has dragged on for longer than expected, and the goal of the NATO allies has all but openly shifted from merely defending civilians to forcing the Libyan leader, Colonel Qaddafi, from power. But Mr. Koh and Mr. Bauer said that while regime change in Libya might be a diplomatic goal, the military’s mission was separate and remained limited to protecting civilians.

While many presidents have challenged the constitutionality of other aspects of the War Powers Resolution — which Congress enacted over President Richard M. Nixon’s veto — no administration has declared that the section imposing the 60-day clock is unconstitutional, and in 1980, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that it was within Congress’s power to enact such a limit.

Mr. Bauer and Mr. Koh said that the 1980 memorandum remained in force, but that their legal argument was not invoking any constitutional challenge to bolster their interpretation of hostilities.

It was not clear whether the Justice Department had endorsed the White House’s interpretation of hostilities. Mr. Bauer declined to say whether it had signed off on the theory, saying he would not discuss interagency deliberations. In his letter on Tuesday, Mr. Boehner demanded to know whether there was internal dissent about the administration’s legal stance.

Mr. Koh noted that there had been disputes about whether the 60-day clock of the War Powers Resolution (a deadline that can be extended for 30 days under some circumstances) applied to deployments in which — unlike in Libya — there were troops on the ground and American casualties.

Still, such previous cases involved peacekeeping missions in which the United States had been invited in, and there were only infrequent outbreaks of violence — as in Lebanon, Somalia and Bosnia. The Libyan operation, by contrast, is an offensive mission involving sustained bombardments of a government’s forces.

Lawmakers largely silent on war powers authority in Libya

The Hill



U.S. operations in Libya hit the 60-day mark Friday, but Congress has grown largely silent on the administration’s unilateral intervention into the war-torn North African nation.

The 1973 War Powers Act (WPA) — the statute President Obama invoked when he launched forces in March — requires presidents to secure congressional approval for military operations within 60 days, or withdraw forces within the next 30.

Congress did not authorize the mission — which includes a no-fly zone, bombing raids, a sea blockade and civilian-protection operations — but the deadline has stirred little sense of urgency on Capitol Hill.

House lawmakers are in the midst of a weeklong recess. And the Senate, which stuck around, is also unlikely to address the issue this week, according to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

There has been some congressional action, however.
On Thursday, six Senate Republicans wrote to Obama asking him if he intends to comply with the WPA.

“Friday is the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution,” reads the letter, spearheaded by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “As recently as last week your administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely.”

Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) also endorsed the letter.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is another vocal critic of the Libya intervention. He has vowed to introduce legislation Monday invoking the War Powers Act in an effort to pull U.S. forces from the conflict.

“At home, people are being told to sacrifice their own quality of life because our government does not have sufficient resources for healthcare, education, retirement security and job creation,” Kucinich said. “Yet at the same time we are setting the stage for endless war which will bring ruin and poverty.”
Sen. Dick Lugar (Ind.), senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, warned earlier in the month, however, that such a resolution would likely be shot down in the Senate.

Others, including Levin, simply think that formal congressional authorization for the Libyan intervention is unnecessary. Still, he left open the possibility that the upper chamber could eventually act on a Libya resolution — if “a number of legal questions” are ironed out.

Breaching the 60-day deadline sets a bad precedent for administrations to come, according to critics on and off of Capitol Hill, who are calling on Congress to push back against the president’s war-waging powers.

Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale University, said the Libya war is “a classic case of what could go wrong with executive war-making.”

“My concern is not this relatively small war,” Ackerman said in a phone interview. “This is going to be a precedent for the next president.”

With longtime Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi threatening to attack those critical of his regime, international forces — led by the U.S. — launched air and missile strikes in March to establish a no-fly zone over the beleaguered North African nation. The U.S. ceded control of the operations to NATO a few days later.

At the time, several lawmakers expressed concern that the president had not consulted Congress before acting.

Obama on Thursday defended his decision, arguing that thousands of civilians would have been killed at the hands of Gadhafi.

“In Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre; we had a mandate for action and heard the Libyan people’s call for help,” the president said in a speech at the State Department. “Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed.”
Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 12 that the administration does want some form of congressional authorization. Steinberg described what the administration would seek as a “narrow set of authorities,” and promised to work with Congress on how those powers would be used.

Laena Fallon, spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, said Thursday that the Virginia Republican is more concerned with “the lack of a defined mission and purpose” in Libya than he is with the president’s authority to extend the operations beyond the 90-day window without congressional authority.

Still, Fallon added, the House could “possibly consider this issue on the floor during the defense authorization debate next week.”

Yet Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), provided the more typical response from congressional leaders regarding Friday’s deadline. Asked if Boehner thinks the White House needs congressional approval to continue U.S. operations in Libya, Steel responded with one sentence.
“The House,” he said, “is not in session this week.”

Revelations from Kent State audio tape prompt congressional inquiry

The Plain Dealer

CLEVELAND, Ohio — U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich is launching a congressional inquiry into an altercation and apparent pistol fire that occurred about 70 seconds before Ohio National Guardsmen shot students and antiwar protesters on May 4, 1970.

The violent clash and four shots from a .38-caliber revolver were captured by a student's tape recorder, placed in a dormitory window. The sounds of the altercation recently were discovered by Stuart Allen, a forensic audio expert who analyzed the 40-year-old tape at The Plain Dealer's request. The newspaper reported Allen's findings Friday.

Kucinich, who chairs a House sub-committee with oversight of the FBI and Justice Department, said the paper's account prompted his inquiry.

"Kent State had such a grave effect on this nation, we owe it to the American people to have a thorough inquiry," he said in an interview. "This story about new evidence makes it mandatory that we gather information and ask questions.

In a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, Kucinich asked the bureau to produce documents that might shed light on its relationship with, and knowledge of, a Kent State student named Terry Norman.

Norman's actions on May 4, 1970, are the object of much speculation and dispute, and some people contend Norman may have triggered the Guard to fire.

Some details of the altercation on the tape match elements of a scuffle the pistol-waving Norman was involved in, although he insisted it took place after the Guard's gun volley, not before, as the recording indicates. Norman also told investigators he did not fire his weapon.

View full size

KSU News Service Terry Norman, wearing his gas masks, takes photos on the Kent State campus May 4, 1970.

Norman was on campus the day of the protests, wearing a gas mask and and a .38-caliber pistol for protection. He was photographing demonstrators and said he regularly sold the photos to the FBI and the Kent State police department.

Some witnesses claim they saw Norman fighting with several students and waving or pointing his gun, although no one reported seeing him shoot. Accounts differ on whether the confrontation happened before or after the Guard gunfire.

TV footage shortly after the shooting shows Norman running toward a cluster of Guardsmen and police, pursued by a man who yells that Norman has a gun and has shot someone. The TV film shows an emotional Norman hand his pistol to a Kent State patrolman and describe an assault by protesters.

The TV reporter and sound engineer say they saw a Kent State detective open the pistol's cylinder and heard him exclaim off-camera that it had been fired four times. Officers' written statements contended it was fully loaded and unfired.

An FBI ballistics test reportedly determined the gun had been fired since its last cleaning, but could not pinpoint when.

Kucinich, a Democrat whose district includes Cleveland, has asked the FBI to provide any employment and payment records involving Norman, the results of any ballistics tests of his pistol, and any evidence that might indicate the bureau helped him get a job.

Several months after the Kent State shootings, Norman began working for the Washington, D.C., police department as a narcotics agent. His precise whereabouts today are not known.

FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said late Friday the bureau would review Kucinich's request and "respond accordingly."

Kucinich said he will ask the sub-committee's attorneys to locate and interview Norman, and that he may be asked to testify if there are congressional hearings. "What we find [from the FBI] may determine whether we go forward with a hearing," Kucinich said.

The audio tape also contains what Allen and fellow forensic acoustics expert Tom Owen believe is a command ordering the Guardsmen to prepare to fire.

A Plain Dealer report on that discovery in May prompted wounded Kent State student Alan Canfora to request that the Justice Department re-investigate the shootings.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department's civil rights division said by email Friday that the division is "currently reviewing" that request.

Terry Gilbert, a Cleveland attorney who is advising Canfora, said their primary interest is the apparent order for the Guard to fire, but that the new revelations about the confrontation and pistol shots "add an interesting dimension because of the role the FBI might have played in the chain of events."

"Now, more than ever, we need to get to the bottom of it," said Gilbert, who hopes to meet with the head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, when Perez speaks at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law next Tuesday.

Laurel Krause, whose sister Allison was one of four students killed by the Guard gunfire on May 4, also supports a new review examining all aspects of the case.

"Let's put together all of the pieces of the puzzle," said Krause, who will take part in a live, webcast "Kent State Truth Tribunal" in New York this weekend. "I think all the right things are going to happen, for once. There have been a lot of wrongs. It's time."

Kucinich jeers: Congress is 'complicit' in violating Americans' constitutional rights

Rawstory

In the wake of congressional Democrats' reauthorization and extension of the USA Patriot Act, few elected Democrats have been as vocal about the post-9/11 security measures as they were during the Bush administration.

Leave it to stalwart House progressive Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to raise a rallying cry against what he called America's love of its fears.

“This legislation extends three problematic provisions of the PATRIOT Act and, at the same time, leaves some of the most egregious provisions in place, absent any meaningful reform and debate," he declared in a media advisory.

The specific provisions he cited are the Patriot Act's powers to conduct roving wiretaps, conduct surveillance of people not thought to have any association with terrorism and tap into your personal records, such as library accounts.

Full Article