5947211
Some more points from the latest round of press briefings that may be interesting. First, to draw attention to one passage from Tuesday’s briefing:
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I think if you take a look
around the world, at all the actions that over time
our American military and our nation has been called
on, human rights has always been at the forefront of
it. It’s true in the manner in which the United States
military conducts its operation and the manner in
which any type of harm to civilians has always tried
to be kept to the absolute, absolute minimum.
This rather blatant lie set me on guard (Note: I justify this accusation in a later post.); this is relevant for my reaction to the next passage I cite, from Wednesday’s briefing:
Q: Is the United States taking a softer line on Russia
over Chechnya in return for the cooperation Putin has
offered in this effort?MR. FLEISCHER: President Putin gave a very important
speech the other day. … [The President] wants
to note particularly President Putin’s remarks … in
which [he] called on Chechen insurgents to
disassociate themselves immediately from the
international terrorist networks.…
Q: And so, the administration believes, with President
Putin, that the resistance in Chechnya has been
infiltrated and is linked to the same terrorist
networks that committed the atrocities in New York?MR. FLEISCHER: [T]here is no question that there is an
international terrorist presence in Chechnya that has
links to Osama bin Ladin.…
Q: Haven’t we made many statements denouncing Russia
for its attacks at Chechnya? And is there some image
of some freedom fighters there? And all of a sudden,
you’re calling them terrorists?MR. FLEISCHER: As I just indicated, the concern for
human rights remains a vital part of American policy,
and the only solution to the problem in Chechnya is a
political one.Q: Yes. But why is it just today that you’re calling
them terrorists? What has changed? Is this what Putin
has asked for, in exchange for his help?MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated, that’s not the
case. That’s been the longstanding position.Q: I think this is the first time — is this not the
first time you’ve used this word at that podium?Q: It’s the first time we’ve heard it.
MR. FLEISCHER: I’m not sure that I have discussed the
situation in Chechnya with the White House Press Corps
prior to this. We haven’t had much reason to do so.…
Q: Sounds like a deal, though. It sounds like in
exchange for Putin’s support, we, rhetorically from
this podium, are lending him support in characterizing
the opposition as international terrorists.MR. FLEISCHER: No, no such conclusion should be
reached. This is consistent with actions taken by the
previous administration, because it’s an accurate
statement about developments in Chechnya.Q: Can you give us the date of [the] Senate testimony
[you mentioned regarding Chechnya]?MR. FLEISCHER: If I recall, it was November 1999.
“Yeah, right,” I thought to myself. “You have really outdone yourself this time, claiming that there is Senate testimony identifying the Chechen rebels as terrorists and linking them to bin Laden.” So I dug around, using November 1999 as the guide. I decided Fleischer had to be referring to S. Hrg. 106-294, entitled “Chechnya: Implications for Russia and the Caucasus,” from November 4, 1999 (Text|PDF), and I read this with interest. And I found that Fleischer was absolutely correct. I stress this now because I certainly would have made a big deal out of it if Fleischer had been lying. From the testimony of Stephen R. Sestanovich, U.S. State Department:
Chechen insurgents are
receiving help from radical groups in other countries,
including Usama [sic] Bin Laden’s network and others who have
attacked or threatened Americans and American interests … Russian government statements
linking Osama Bin Ladin’s organization to Chechen fighters Basayev and
Al-Khattab are plausible. We are aware of continuing cooperation
between Bin Ladin’s Al-Qaida organization and Chechen rebels, including
Ibn Al-Khattab. It is likely that some of the non-Chechen rebel
fighters coming from outside Russia have received training, funding,
and other logistical support from terrorist organizations.
Fascinating. If the media did not know of this it is their own dumb fault, as it is clearly a matter of public record. But before we leave the transcript of these testimonies, I would like to excerpt a few more passages:
In the name of rooting
out terrorists, Russia is using force against Chechnya in an
apparent effort to undo the military defeat it suffered … Islamic fundamentalism obviously
affects the stability of the region as a whole. Yet suppression
of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists may be a very convenient
pretext for Russia to pursue its designs in the Caucasus.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to draw a parallel between this and the current situation, substituting ‘U.S.’ for ‘Russia’ and ‘Afghanistan’ for ‘Chechnya’. The State Department seem to have had a good perspective on the issues less than two years ago when they dealt with a foreign government; let us hope they can apply it here.
Also fascinatingly, there is a senatorial question from this session on record as follows:
From the perspective of the Administration, how can we
tell when the United States should discourage Russian military excesses
combating Islamic forces in the Caucasus, and when–if ever–should the
United States consider collaborating with Russia in fighting Islamic
sources of terrorism?
The answer, in retrospect, seems quite clear: the U.S. decided to collaborate with Russia once U.S. soil was attacked. Just so we are clear on this: Russia, supposedly our allies, suffered attacks resulting in extensive loss of life from terrorists funded by extremist Islamic groups. Congress then talked about “when, if ever” we should join Russia “in fighting Islamic sources of terrorism.” They talked about it, and, to my knowledge, made no commitment until the attacks of 11 September. The new President, backed by Congress, then had the audacity to announce to the world, including Russia, that the U.S. will begin the international war against terrorism, and if the rest of the world, including Russia, did not support us 100%, then they should be considered the enemy. The hypocrisy here is stiflingly thick.
An article I read last week in Le Monde sported the headline «George W. Bush se pose en chef de guerre et leader du monde civilisé.» No kidding.
Email subscription
