News n Notes from the Web

Long live Superman!
By: Jerry Burke - www.zwire.com - October 14, 2004

      When Christopher Reeve suffered a near-fatal spinal injury after falling from a horse in 1995, things looked bleak. He wasn't expected to live, and even if he did, doctors agreed that the life he would have would be taxing for him as well as the people who loved him.
      The man whose vitality had brought one of America's endearing mythological figures to life for a new generation was paralyzed from the neck down, confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. How -- heck, why? -- would anyone want to continue living like that? It just goes to show how much I have left to learn. Reeve pressed on for another nine years. In that time, he became the model of the human spirit's determination. He became more of a hero than he ever could have been on screen. He raised awareness of people with his condition among the public, prompting our leaders to do more to fund the science needed to improve the quality of life for him and so many others with similar disabilities.

      Then, in 1998, his crusade began anew. That year, a research team at the University of Wisconsin became the first group to grow human embryonic stem cells, the building blocks of cell development, in a culture. The potential of this scientific breakthrough was astounding. Over the next two years, it became increasing evident that with intense research, these cells could be manipulated into just about any cell in the body. From spinal-cord injuries to Parkinson's to Alzheimer's to diabetes, the illnesses that had plagued mankind may have finally met their match.
      But a funny thing happened on the way to the lab. President Bush came into office at a crucial point in the determination of the future of stem cells. He made a compromise: He would support (very) limited funding, but only the 78 stem cell lines in existence as of August 2001 could be worked with. Claiming that he was the first president to fund this research (despite being the first president to be put in the position to fund it), he gleefully accepted the mantle of a visionary.
      Well, not so fast. Less than a third of those initial lines are available to researchers because of problems with the lines' growth or their ownership. The rest are contaminated by their growth source, mouse DNA, and therefore useless in actual medical applications. The compromise forbids the destruction of any further embryos to create new lines of stem cells, which eventually will bring the science to a complete standstill. As John Kerry pointed out in last week's debate, thousands of frozen embryos owned legally by the government and labs, which face eventual destruction anyway, sit unused.
      Is stem cell research tantamount to abortion? Has the Pandora's Box of cloning already been opened? These questions will continue to be debated and, from the standpoint of ethics, that debate should never abate.

      But here are the facts: people, real people already confirmed to be alive, are suffering. The embryos exist. Research into the more pliable embryonic stem cells could eventually lead to a more judicious use of the non-controversial adult stem cells. Other counties have already taken the lead in the research. The cures will come. The only question is whether the usually morally responsible United States will lead the way or lag dreadfully behind less scrupulous sources.
      Thank you, Mr. Reeve, for making a believer out of this citizen.
***

Reeve's spirit made him a hero
by Susan Ager - Detroit Free Press - October 12, 2004

The candidates for president are picking apart each others' claims to heroism. This weekend, for example, I spotted a Bush-Cheney billboard near Grand Rapids that read "Boots or flip-flops?" I respect a man's ability to stay in an ugly war and take shrapnel -- physical, verbal or political.

But I have greater respect for a man who retains optimism while living every day, every moment in intimate contact with his enemy. Christopher Reeve didn't get out much. He fought his war in his own home. His enemy lived within him, a paralysis that in 1995, after a horse threw him to the ground, commandeered his body from the neck down.

He learned to accept his new body. After the first few weeks, he did not long to kill it. In time, he regained the use of one index finger. But for 9 years, he required help with everything. Ev-er-y thing. He could not eat without help, or dress without help, or rid himself of his bodily wastes without help. Electrodes implanted in his diaphragm kept him breathing when he went without a ventilator now and again. His brain, though, needed no help. It sizzled. He spoke out many times for embryonic stem-cell research that could help him and many of his wheelchair comrades with spinal injuries, as well as others with chronic troubles like Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, even diabetes.

Brazenly, he vowed to walk again. "I don't mean to be reckless," he explained, "but setting a goal that seems a bit daunting actually is very helpful toward recovery." Instead, he's dead, at just 52 years old. His pressure sores, which arise on the bodies of people who can't move, got infected. The infection seized command of his body. His physical heart gave out Sunday night, although his emotional heart had decades of energy left.

Wow. I can't help but imagine that President George W. Bush's campaign advisers groaned upon hearing the news of Reeve's death Monday. By about 80 percent, Americans support ending the ban on embryonic stem-cell research and so does Sen. John Kerry who, at the last debate, mentioned Reeve in his response to a question on the topic. "Chris Reeve is a friend of mine. Chris Reeve exercises every single day to keep those muscles alive for the day when he believes he can walk again, and I want him to walk again." I've heard some Americans say, however, that the political furor over stem-cell research is overwrought, that it's really no big deal.

Tell that to Chris Reeve's children, who are 25, 21 and 12. Tell that to his parents. Tell that to former Detroit Lion Mike Utley, a quadriplegic for 12 years since he broke his neck on the field. Tell it to the parents of the millions of Americans with diabetes, or the children of the millions of Americans with Alzheimer's, some of whom can foresee for themselves the same future. In testimony before Congress, the former Superman called stem cells "the body's self-repair kit" and wondered why harvesting them from the rejected embryos of women in fertility clinics is so controversial.

"Is it more ethical," Reeve asked, "for a woman to donate unused embryos that will never become human beings, or to let them be tossed away as so much garbage when they could help save thousands of lives?" I'm grateful that Christopher Reeve's brain escaped injury, and his spirit survived, too. I'm grateful that in just 9 years after his accident, he taught the world how a man in a personal war can retain grace, courage, optimism, humor and stamina without any real hope of going home again.
***

Sudan accepts Blair's five-point peace plan

After two hours of talks and a warning on sanctions, Khartoum agrees to give African Union troops freedom of movement in Darfur
Patrick Wintour in Khartoum - Thursday October 7, 2004 - The Guardian

Sudan bowed to a five-point plan tabled by Tony Blair during talks in Khartoum yesterday, which included accepting the free movement of 3,500 African Union troops as ceasefire monitors in Darfur province.

Mr Blair also urged Sudan to return its troops to barracks and accept a deadline of December 31 for an agreement on devolution for the south of the country. He hopes this will serve as a model for peace in Darfur. Mr Blair held two hours of talks with Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, during which he warned that the EU and US were willing to go to the UN to impose sanctions.

Privately, the prime minister believes the west will know by the end of the year whe- ther Sudan is serious about honouring its commitments. Attacks by militia linked to the Sudanese government have led to the displacement of 1.4 million people from Darfur and as many as 50,000 deaths. Khartoum says it has no control over the militias but Mr Blair's plan implicitly questions this. He said yesterday: "All of us have watched with concern and alarm at the death, disease and destruction that has come to Darfur. It is imperative that the people of Darfur realise the international community is determined to assist them in any way that it can."

Mr Blair won Mr Bashir's agreement to the expansion of the African Union's force in Darfur to monitor the ceasefire negotiated in April between rebels and the government. The force will, in Mr Blair's words, ensure "that we get the correct information on what is happening, including ensuring the Sudanese government's full cooperation". Sudan has also agreed to identify the location of its troops and those of any militia under its control. Mr Bashir also accepted that Sudanese troops would return to their barracks. This would allow them to be replaced by police as refugees returned to their homes. Mr Blair urged the Sudanese government to resolve the separate long-running dispute in the south by the end of the year. He said such an agreement would have a knock-on effect on the dispute in Darfur and set the terms for a settlement in the western province. "It will meet justifiable demands for greater devolution whilst making it clear the territorial integrity the country is preserved," he said.

The Sudanese also agreed, as before, that humanitarian aid would be allowed to move through Darfur freely. Mr Blair ruled out the deployment of British troops but said that Britain was willing to provide logistical support to help expand the African Union's military contingent. He said: "We don't need these forces in several months time, we need them now. We will help them get there as quickly as possible." He characterised Khartoum's commitments as "the beginnings". "They have to follow it through in practice. We cannot have a situation in which thousands of people are dying," he said.

Sudan's foreign minister, Mustafa Osman Ismail, said his government had been put under no pressure from Mr Blair. "Rather he expressed his concern and Britain's concern and the concern of the international community about the situation in Darfur," Mr Ismail said. "And we share this same concern. The conditions in Darfur are not normal." Mr Blair urged the rebels in Darfur to stick to their commitments. Khartoum has pointed to statements from UN officials claiming that the rebels have attacked Sudanese positions. Mr Blair has been struck by the vehemence of the American administration's anger at the Sudanese government, partly based on the belief that it is black Africans who are being attacked by an Arab-led government.

His hopes for a comprehensive agreement by the end of the year may prove optimistic, because the insurrection in the south has lasted more than 20 years and the Sudanese have ruled out offering self-rule in Darfur. Sanctions, still an option for the UN, would cripple the Sudanese government, which depends on oil production to keep the economy afloat.
***

You Call That a Major Policy Address?
In a week of devastating revelations about his Iraq policies, Bush has nothing new to say.
By Fred Kaplan - Slate - Posted Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2004, at 1:57 PM PT

Did CNN and MSNBC get hoodwinked this morning? Yesterday, the White House announced that President Bush would be delivering a "major policy address" on terrorism today. The cable news networks broadcast it live and in full. Yet the "address" turned out to be a standard campaign stump speech before a Pennsylvania crowd that seemed pumped on peyote, cheering, screaming, or whooping at every sentence.

The president announced no new policy, uttered not one new word about terrorism, foreign policy, or anything else. He did all the things he wanted to do in last Thursday's debate—accuse his opponent of weakness, bad judgment, vacillation, and other forms of flip-floppery—though this time without a moderator to hush the audience, much less an opponent to bite back. And Bush loved it, smiling, smirking, raising his eyebrows, as if to say, "How 'bout that zinger?"

In short, the cable networks were lured into airing an hourlong free campaign ad for George W. Bush. (CNN's spokeswoman did not return my calls inquiring if the producers felt used. The secretary to MSNBC President Rick Kaplan—no relation—connected me to a "viewer relations" line, where I could leave a message if I wished. I called again to clarify that I had a press question, not a consumer complaint. She connected me to the same line again. When I tried a third, fourth, and fifth time, she didn't even pick up the phone; no doubt seeing my number pop up on the Caller ID screen, she routed my call to the prerecorded announcement.)

It's hard to blame either network for taking the White House's bait. Most presidents would want to deliver, right about now, a major address on the war against terror and the war in Iraq. In the last few days, one blow after another has struck the very foundations of Bush's policies. The fact that, under the circumstances, Bush didn't deliver a major policy address after all, despite his advance word, should embarrass not only CNN and MSNBC but, still more, President Bush.

The week's most stunning development may have been the revelation in L. Paul Bremer's remarks, before a group of insurance agents at DePauw University, that we never had enough troops in Iraq, either to secure the country's borders or to provide the stability needed for reconstruction. "The single most important change, the one thing that would have improved the situation," Bremer said, "would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout."

Bremer, of course, was the Bush-appointed head of the U.S.-led occupation authority, so his words on such matters carry weight. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (and Rummy's neocon secretariat) have all insisted—before, during, and after the battlefield phase of the war—that they sent enough troops to accomplish the mission. It is worth recalling that when Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, told Congress that successful occupation would require a few hundred thousand troops, he was pushed into early retirement. Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz called his estimate "wildly off the mark."
Now we learn that Bremer agreed with Shinseki—and that he said as much to the White House and Pentagon chiefs at the time (a claim corroborated, to the Washington Post, by administration officials).

But Bremer's disclosure slams himself no less than Team Bush. Bremer, after all, was the man who ordered the disbanding of the old Iraqi army. This decision is commonly seen in retrospect as the administration's first—and perhaps most—disastrous move after the fall of Baghdad. If Bremer thought there weren't enough U.S. troops on the ground, why did he call for the demobilization of Iraqi troops (many of whom had not been loyal to Saddam—they didn't, after all, fight for him)? This is one of the war's great remaining mysteries. (Another is why we went to war in the first place, but that's another story.) Bremer almost certainly didn't make this decision himself; it had to come from higher up. But from where? My guess is that, ultimately, Ahmad Chalabi was a big influence. He was still counting on taking the reins of power in the new Iraq (he had the support of the White House and the Pentagon at the time), and he hoped to install his own militia, the Free Iraqi Forces, as the new Iraqi army. The old, Baathist-dominated army would have been in the way; it had to go. Whatever the actual story, if Bremer truly thought at the time that there weren't enough troops, he should have resigned rather than carry out the order.

The second blow to the war's legitimacy came Monday, when Rumsfeld—increasingly a loose cannon—appeared before the Council on Foreign Relations and, during the question-and-answer period, acknowledged that he had seen no evidence showing a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. The Pentagon later released a statement, claiming that Rumsfeld had been "misunderstood." He did not mean to deny the existence of "ties" between the two. However, as has been discussed in this space before, "ties" is a term that is so broad as to be (deliberately) meaningless.
Then came news reports of a CIA analysis—ordered by Cheney—showing that Rumsfeld hadn't been misunderstood at all. The analysis concluded that there probably was no working relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida lieutenant Abu Musab Zarqawi. This is significant in two ways. First, in the lead up to the war last year, the only physical evidence of a Saddam-al-Qaida tie was the presence of Zarqawi's training camp in northern Iraq. The camp was in Kurdish-controlled territory—an awkward caveat, but Bush officials at the time issued other, though looser, material suggesting a possible connection to Saddam himself.

Had the CIA's recent conclusion been reached two years ago, either within the administration or by Congress, the case for going to war would have been greatly weakened. In fact, as NBC News reported last March (and as almost nobody has picked up since), the Bush administration had several opportunities to bomb Zarqawi's camp well before the war. On at least two occasions the U.S. military drew up plans for an attack. But the White House rejected the proposals—mainly because shutting down Zarqawi's operation would have removed a key rationale for invading Iraq. This was a jaw-dropping bit of cynicism: Bush sold, and continues to sell, the war in Iraq as a major campaign in the global war on terrorism, yet he repeatedly passed up the chance to neutralize or kill one of the most dangerous terrorists (Zarqawi has spent much of his time lately chopping off the heads of foreign contractors) for fear of weakening the case for war.

Today comes the long-awaited 900-plus-page report by Charles Duelfer, the CIA's chief weapons inspector, which concludes pretty much what his predecessor, David Kay, figured out—that on the eve of the war Saddam Hussein had neither weapons of mass destruction nor a viable program for producing such weapons; that his capabilities were deteriorating; that his military might was diminishing, not gathering; that, in short, he posed no real threat. Duelfer did find that Saddam intended to reconstitute his programs once sanctions were dropped. Another way of stating this point: The sanctions were working; they were keeping Saddam Hussein in his box.
Finally, on the matter of the Bush administration's efforts to revive Iraq's economy, a report this week by the Center for Strategic and International Studies—a conservative Washington-based think tank—finds that for every dollar spent on aid to Iraq, only 27 cents filters down to projects benefiting Iraqis. The rest pays for administrative and management costs. (This is what happens when 85 percent of contracts are awarded to big U.S. or British firms, while just 2 percent go to Iraqi companies.) Add to this the fact that Bush has spent only a small fraction of the $18.5 billion that Congress appropriated for reconstruction, and the verdict can only be that we're doing just slightly more than squat. The evidence is seen in the continued electrical blackouts and the grave shortfall of basic services. The result is that Iraqis who might otherwise have been compliant citizens join the insurgency—or at least let the insurgents pass without turning them in. (For an excellent analysis on the insurgency's composition, click here.)

So, President Bush may well need to deliver a major policy address on all this sometime soon. Today, though, he just told the cheering throngs that he's strong and resolute while his opponent's a flip-flopper.
Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate.
***

Saddam 'Destroyed' Wmd after 1991 Gulf War
The Scotsman - Wed 6 Oct 2004 - 9:56pm (UK)
By Jamie Lyons, Gavin Cordon and Jon Smith, PA News

Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, it was finally confirmed tonight. The group hunting for Saddam’s arsenal said it found no evidence the dictator had chemical, biological of nuclear weapons when US-led forces invaded Iraq last year.

After 16 months of searching, the Iraq Survey Group concluded Saddam had “essentially destroyed” his banned weapons after the 1991 Gulf War. In its final report the ISG said although it could not rule out the possibility Iraq had retained some weapons, it had nothing of a “military significant capability”. However, it concluded Saddam was determined to keep alive the prospect of reviving his weapons programme once UN sanctions had finally been lifted – including his nuclear programme.

Giving evidence to a US Senate committee, the ISG chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer said there was now less than a 5% chance that militarily significant stockpiles would be found. But in a statement that will give some support to President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, he said the world was better off with Saddam no longer in power. “In my opinion there was a risk of Saddam Hussein in charge of a country with that amount of resources and that amount of potential for both good and evil,” he said. “Analytically the world is better off (without him).”

The findings are potentially hugely damaging for Mr Blair. Saddam’s supposed WMD was the reason Mr Blair gave for taking Britain to war. But in truth he has spent months preparing the country for today’s findings and few will be surprised by the conclusion. Despite his initial conviction that Saddam had WMD, last year the premier accepted the ISG “may never find” them. And just last week he admitted the original intelligence was wrong. But the findings have sparked renewed questions over the legality of the war. The timing could scarcely be worse for President Bush, coming just weeks before the presidential election. But the case for war in the US always rested less on WMD than it did in Britain.

Mr Blair said he had to accept the conclusion that Saddam did not have weapons stockpiles. But he said it showed sanctions were not working and Saddam was determined to develop weapons. “I welcome the report because what it will show is that this is a far more complicated situation than many people thought and just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren’t working.”

Speaking in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa where he will tomorrow chair a meeting of his Commission for Africa, Mr Blair said: “On the contrary, Saddam Hussein was doing his best to get round those sanctions and had every intention of redeveloping those programmes, that he was retaining the teams of scientists and the facilities to do so and there were multiple breaches of UN resolutions which were the ultimate legal justification for the conflict. “I have already accepted what I have to accept but I hope others will accept that it’s also clear that there was every intention on Saddam’s part to develop these weapons and he never had any intention of complying with the UN resolutions.”

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the report showed Saddam was an even greater threat than had previously been thought. “The report highlights the nature of the threat from Saddam in terms of his intentions and capabilities in even starker terms than we have seen before,” he said. “What needs to be remembered is that the international community as a whole, independently, separately concluded that there was indeed a threat to international peace and security posed by Saddam.” Speaking on a trip to Baghdad, the Foreign Secretary added: “I personally am in no doubt whatever that had we walked away from Iraq and left Iraq to Saddam, Saddam would have indeed built up his capabilities, built up his strength and posed an even greater threat to the people of Iraq and the people of the region than before.” But the Conservatives said the report again proved Mr Blair had lied about Saddam’s weapons. Tory leader Michael Howard said the premier “did not tell the truth about the intelligence he received”. He told ITV: “I hope that we don’t have to go to war ever again but it’s a very uncertain world. And the question that arises is if Tony Blair had to say to the people again ’the intelligence tells me that here’s something which makes me come to the decision that we have to go to war’ – would people trust him? “It’s a terrible position for a British Prime Minister to be in and it’s because he didn’t behave how a British Prime Minister should have behaved when he didn’t tell the truth about the intelligence.” The Liberal Democrats said the ISG report was further proof that the Government was wrong to take Britain to war. The Lib Dems opposed the war from the start. The party’s foreign affairs spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, said: “This report justifies the policy of containment and deterrence. “It most certainly does not provide any support for the Government’s view that the threat from Saddam Hussein was so acute that only immediate military action would do.

“Brick by brick, the Government’s case for going to war is being demolished.”
***

Rumsfeld's missing link
The Guardian - Leader Wednesday October 6, 2004

Donald Rumsfeld was at his laconic best at a New York thinktank on Monday when he said there was no "strong, hard evidence" linking al-Qaida to Iraq. But the statement still dropped like a bombshell. This was not one of the defence secretary's famous "unknown unknowns", but a clear known, albeit unconvincingly qualified yesterday by the claim that he had been "regrettably misunderstood". Mr Rumsfeld is thankfully on his way out of the Pentagon, retiring after next month's presidential elections, whether or not George Bush beats John Kerry. But if his own career is ending, others, including Mr Bush, are likely to - and certainly should - suffer significant collateral damage from his admission.

The purported link between the fundamentalist Osama bin Laden and the secular Saddam Hussein was central to the US administration's case for war, though most experts always believed it was unlikely. Much was made of reports of a single meeting between Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001, but exhaustive enquiries have produced no evidence for this. This is perhaps what Mr Rumsfeld meant when he spoke of the question having "migrated in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way".
Equally amazingly, the defence secretary quickly issued a sort of half-retraction, noting that he had in fact spoken of a Bin Laden-Baghdad connection since September 2002 on the basis of information provided by the CIA. That sounded as if he was blaming the CIA for being wrong, as he did over the intelligence it provided on Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction - the principal justification for the war. But whatever he meant, the backtracking Mr Rumsfeld did not sound remotely like a man defending the invasion of Iraq, even if, as he pointed out in his inimitably folksy way, Saddam Hussein's regime was not the "Little Sisters of the Poor".

It is quite true, as he recalled, that Iraq was on the US list of countries supporting terrorism, but so, for that matter were Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya. It is emphatically not true that there was evidence linking it to Bin Laden or 9/11. This is worth restating now that both Mr Bush and Mr Blair are talking about fighting terrorism in Iraq. It is also worth restating because the president continues to make the connection, as he did in last week's keynote foreign policy debate against the Democratic challenger. "The enemy," Mr Bush said, "attacked us." Mr Kerry retorted: "Saddam Hussein didn't." Mr Rumsfeld, belatedly, seems to agree.
***