www.malaysiakini.com Jim Lobe 12:53pm Mon Mar 10th, 2003

A study by four top defence consultants within the so-called JASON group, obtained and released oún Sunday by the California-based Nautilus Institute, found that the "political effects of US first use of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) in Vietnam would be uniformly bad and could be catastrophic", given the concentration of US forces in Vietnam at the time and the ease with which Vietnamese guerrillas could deliver nuclear weapons obtained from the Soviet Union or China.

"The use of TNW in Southeast Asia is likely to result in greatly increased long-term risk of nuclear operations in other parts of the world," the scientists argued, citing possible attacks oún the Panama Canal, oil pipelines and storage facilities in Venezuela and even Israel's largest city, Tel Aviv.

"The main conclusion (of the report) is that the US offers to any likely adversary much better targets for nuclear weapons than these adversaries offer to the US," said Freeman Dyson, a Princeton University professor who was oúne of four authors of the 1966 report 'Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Southeast Asia'.

"This is even more true in the fight against terrorism than it was in Vietnam," he added in an interview with Nautilus director Peter Hayes.

The release of the report, for which Nautilus fought a 20-year battle with Freedom of Information Act officials at the Pentagon and the Energy Department, comes at a critical moment in US nuclear-weapons policy and the twin crises in Iraq and North Korea.

www.commondreams.org Published on Thursday, March 6, 2003 by the Associated Press by H Joseph Hebert   WASHINGTON - President Bush's decision after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to aggressively boost the federal emergency oil stockpile contributed to a huge decline in commercial oil stocks and caused energy prices to soar, says a study by Senate Democrats.

The report released yesterday said that the diversion last year of 40 million barrels of crude into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve required refiners to dip into their commercial inventories at a time when markets already were tight and production by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries was being reduced.

"We're confident this had a significant impact on the price of oil in 2002," Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee and its chairman last year.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham rejected the notion that the government's decision significantly affected energy prices. He said the amount was too small to have an impact.

"The principal issue here is national security and we believe and continue to believe that enlarging the amount of emergency reserves we have in the strategic reserve is very important to America's energy and national security," said Abraham.

A department spokesman, Joe Davis, added that the reason inventories dropped was OPEC's decision to cut production in early 2002, a decline in Iraqi oil exports and losses of oil from Venezuela last December. As for oil that went to the SPR, "we're talking about a drop in the bucket," said Davis.

Some critics also have said taxpayers have lost million of dollars because of oil acquisitions for the reserve during periods of high prices. While the government does not technically buy oil, it accepts oil in lieu of royalty payments on oil pumped from federal land.

At 100,000 barrels a day, filling the reserve when crude was selling at $30 a barrel rather than $20 a barrel cost taxpayers $1 million a day in lost royalties, the Levin report said.

During 2002, when oil was diverted steadily into the strategic reserve, oil prices climbed steadily from the low $20s early in the year to over $30 a barrel by September. After easing a bit, prices soared again toward the end of 2002, remaining largely above $30 a barrel as crude inventories tightened. War jitters have caused prices to continue their climb this year, recently passing $37 a barrel before retreating modestly.

The department reversed course on filling the reserve last December, with Venezuelan oil production halted and commercial inventories extremely low, and suspended delivery of oil to the SPR from December through March. On Tuesday, it said April deliveries also would be deferred.

Levin said such a decision should have been made a year ago, arguing that the reserve already has plenty of oil to meet emergency needs. Currently there are 600 million barrels of crude - equivalent to four months of oil imports from the Middle East - stored in salt caverns on the Gulf Coast.

Before December, oil company requests for deferrals of deliveries to SPR were routinely denied, the report said.

Internal DOE documents indicated that career officials involved in the SPR program cautioned that private oil inventories could suffer, leading to higher prices.

"Commercial petroleum inventories are low, retail product prices are high and economic growth is slow," said one memo from a senior SPR official in late May of 2002. "The government should avoid acquiring oil for the reserve under these circumstance." Such purchases "would be difficult to defend," he continued.

A reduction in private oil inventories equal to amounts put into the SPR "could have a substantial price impact," said another memo, obtained by Levin's subcommittee.

John Shages, a director of policy for the SPR program, expressed his concern last June that filling the reserve could significancy impact private crude stocks and force up prices.

He characterized the SPR diversions as potentially "a powerful 30 million barrel reduction of private inventory over 10 months" if the oil is not replaced by OPEC or other producers. "Come December ... we will have higher prices, nervous traders, a more confident OPEC..."

Commercial crude inventories declined from 310 million barrels to 280 million barrels during 2002 and another 10 million barrels early this year. Energy economists have cited the low inventories as a key reason for the sharp price increases of crude as well as gasoline and heating oil.

In April 2002, a BP executive repeatedly sought to have a scheduled delivery to the SPR postponed, according to e-mails obtained by the Senate investigators.

"Oil prices keep rising," wrote James Dyer to Michael Waggoner at the SPR office. "As of this morning we calculate a year's deferral would be worth an extra 750,000 to you," Dyer wrote, referring to the premium in barrels that BP would agree to pay for later delivery.

But the department said no.

In October, Marathon Ashland Petroleum asked to defer its scheduled shipment to the SPR because a hurricane had kept oil from getting to its Louisiana refinery and it needed all the crude it could get. The refinery had "nearly depleted all its crude oil working inventory," wrote Marathon Ashland's Daniel Pears to Waggoner.

His request was also denied.

www.scoop.co.nz What of Bush himself? The Washington Post tells us that U.S. embassies around the globe are inundating Washington with cables saying that the world both hates and mistrusts this "dry drunk", megalomaniac who would be laughable except for the fact that he represents a power structure as demented as he is. As if to go Tony Blair ... who recently plagiarized a graduate research paper to compile his sensitive intelligence dossier on Iraq ... "one better", George W. recently cited figures to support his tax cut from a report that doesn't exist. He was caught in that lie by NewsDay's James Toedtman. And retired Air Force Chief of Staff Tony McPeak is publicly saying on a Portland, Oregon TV station that Bush should admit he's made a mistake and that, as far as Iraq is concerned, "I regard the nuclear threat as zero. I regard the connection between Saddam and al-Qaida as less than zero."

As The Sydney Herald tells us that 114 countries are urging the United States to back down from the invasion Capitol Hill Blue is reporting that senior Bush advisors are quietly trying to find a way out of war with Iraq now that they have realized that it is a no-win situation.

www.anacortesonline.com

A new column from Brent Stavig --  

Now that the “war” with Iraq is inevitable and appears to be only a scant few weeks away, I think it’s a safe assumption that most Americans have decided where they stand on the issue. The polls indicate that the majority of Americans are supportive of a “war” with Iraq. But the voices of those who are opposed are still loud and strong.

These two groups have very defined reasons behind their support or disapproval of the pending conflict. Those in support see Saddam Hussein as a grave danger to America and the rest of the “free” world. They believe Bush’s assertion that Saddam is hiding vast arsenals of biological and chemical weapons and stands poised to use them whenever he sees fit.

Those who oppose the war see little evidence that Saddam has much of anything that can threaten America or the countries that border Iraq. They also see the enormously powerful American military; guided by the hand of the Bush administration, ready to pummel an entire country of innocent people because America disapproves of a single individual.

Much like the seemingly never-ending debate about abortion, the pending “war” in Iraq has created a line in the sand for most Americans; you’re either for it, or against it, and no amount of sound bites and U.N. speeches will sway either side’s opinion. But I get the feeling that there is a large percentage of Americans, who aren’t represented in polls, who are simply sick and tired of hearing about the issue. How many days can we wake up, turn on the news, and hear more rhetoric from Washington about Saddam not “complying”? How many more newspaper articles about the threatening yet invisible “weapons of mass destruction” can we stomach before we start throwing away Section A and reaching in haste for the Sports Section? How many inane and pointless speeches by President Bush, again and again calling on Saddam (not Iraq) to disarm can we be subjected to before we decide to simply shut Bush out?

The thing that bothers most people I know about Bush’s anti-Saddam rhetoric, is that it never quite makes a concrete or legitimate point. Surely President Bush must be getting frustrated that a large percentage of the American people simply aren’t buying his arguments for attacking Iraq? If there were a clear and obvious danger to America, wouldn’t it be painfully obvious to all of us? Would it really be necessary to try and convince us over and over? If America truly felt threatened by Saddam’s vast arsenal of chemical weapons wouldn’t we be cheering on the Commander-in-Chief with unbridled vigor and “patriotism”?

President Bush has tried to scare the American people into supporting the coming “war”. The Code Orange alerts, duct tape advice, lists of most-targeted cities, speeches from Osama Bin Laden that loosely purport a connection between Al Quaeda and Saddam, and malicious attempts at branding anyone who dares oppose the will of his administration as unpatriotic citizens, simply haven’t worked.

Now the Bush administration is changing tactics. Wednesday night he took to the airwaves in front of Old Glory, and with a gentle smile on his lips tried to convince the American people that we’re going into Iraq to “save” the citizens, not kill them. Well, obviously you don’t slaughter hundreds of thousands of people so they can be liberated. Or are we to understand that the pending Iraqi casualties were sacrificed to pave the way for Democracy?

Of course, one of the most dominating objectives of the invasion of Iraq is to seize the oil resources. On Wednesday night, President Bush addressed that issue too, stating that we want to “save” the oil resources so they’ll be intact for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Can you believe the sheer audacity of this man?

Many people have taken to the airwaves lately to make the case that oil is not the primary objective of the “war”. They argue that we don’t need Iraq’s oil since we get most of our oil from Venezuela and other sources. They argue that if we truly wanted Iraq’s oil we could simply purchase it from a very willing Saddam. They say that if we really wanted Iraq’s oil reserves we could simply walk in and take it without worrying about what the governments of the world think about it. Well, isn’t that what we’re about to do?

I don’t know what our real objective is. But I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with “weapons of mass-destruction”, or the civil rights of the citizens of Iraq. I’m not even convinced that oil is the de facto reason for invading Iraq. Though how can it not be an enormous consideration? It’s estimated that the oil reserves in Iraq would supply the United States with energy for the next century. Let alone make close friends of the “Bush” White House wealthier than Saddam Hussein. How can that not be an attractive objective?

Lately I’ve heard “experts” saying that the primary goal of the invasion of Iraq is to establish an American stronghold smack in the middle of the ever-volatile Middle East. Our threatening presence would serve as a constant reminder to the other Middle Eastern countries that they are on “double secret probation” and had better watch their step. We would become the babysitter of the Middle East, with a front row seat to keep an eye on any aspiring terrorists, and to better control OPEC.

Let’s face it; the estimates of when the American forces will pull out of Iraq are a farce. Once America is in Iraq we are there to stay. Forever. We will install the leader of our choice, possibly draw up a new constitution for Iraq like we did for Japan after World War II, provide well-connected American construction firms with decades of work rebuilding the infrastructure of the country, and establish enormous military bases where our troops will be constantly at the ready for any neighbor who dares to get out of line.

I feel as beaten down as anyone about the pending “war”. But mostly I’m tired of feeling insulted by President Bush, who doesn’t even try to tell us the truth or primary objective for the invasion. I feel embarrassed having a “leader” who shows no respect to our allies, and arrogantly drives a wedge between us. I feel frightened for the safety of our troops who are about to enter into an unknown arena of warfare, where their health is probably more in jeopardy from the inoculations they’ve received than by any weapons Saddam might use against them. And I feel terrible about the thousands of Iraqi civilians, most of whom are 18 years old or younger, who are about to lose their lives in horrendous fashion.

The nervousness and apprehension we feel on this side of the pond is surely felt by our men and women in uniform who are stationed on the other side. I can see the uncertainty trickle uphill to the commanders who will decide to unleash a hellishly ferocious barrage on Baghdad in an attempt to thwart any possible retaliation, and in the course of gross overkill, reduce thousands of kind and beautiful people to a bloody smear on the sand.

Politicians have a mantra these days, “Nobody wants a war!” Well, avoiding a war is very simple, especially when your opponent can’t fight back.

www.planetark.org USA: March 4, 2003

WASHINGTON - Dwindling fuel supplies and soaring prices of crude oil and natural gas have President George W. Bush "greatly" concerned about U.S. energy costs, the White House said last week.

Jitters about a potential U.S. military strike against Iraq, a cold snap in Eastern states and a curb in oil imports from Venezuela have boosted energy costs.

Average U.S. retail gasoline prices may surpass a record $1.71 per gallon as the busy spring driving season approaches, according to federal energy forecasters.

"There has been a confluence of factors involving both the cold weather and a shortage of supply that have led to an increase in prices that concern the president greatly," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters.

Fleischer said the cost of energy remained "a very important issue" for both the president and the U.S. Congress, which is drafting a broad bill to encourage more energy production and conservation measures.

"There is a cyclical nature to some of this and we have seen the prices go up and down before," he added.

U.S. oil prices fell last week to $36.30 a barrel after a roller coaster ride that saw crude brush $40 a barrel the previous day, with the looming prospect of war in Iraq underpinning the market amid heated debate at the United Nations. A U.S. attack on Iraq, the world's eighth largest oil exporter, is opposed by Russia, China and France.

U.S. gasoline prices were up 54 cents a gallon this week from a year ago, according to federal data. Heating oil was up 59 cents and natural gas prices are four times higher than this time last year.

PRICE-GOUGING ALLEGATIONS

The price jump has prompted some Democrats to demand a probe into whether oil companies were taking advantage of fears of a war with Iraq to gouge consumers at the gasoline pump.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, last week said U.S. Energy Department data showed major oil refineries were producing less gasoline than normal for this time of year.

U.S. refineries are operating at 87.5 percent of capacity, far below the five-year average of 92.3 percent, according to the department.

"This is a matter of simple economics," Schumer said. "Keeping supplies low raises prices and costs to drivers."

Oil companies deny they are doing anything wrong, arguing that crude inventories have fallen to the lowest levels since the 1970s, making it difficult for refineries to keep production above historical levels.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut denounced the White House's refusal to release heating fuel from the government's stockpile. A large number of Northeastern consumers use heating oil to heat their homes.

He called Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham "insensitive" for his comments earlier this week that Northeast consumers were not suffering enough from high prices or a supply disruption to use the 2 million-barrel heating oil reserve.

CRUDE OIL STOCKPILE

Some lawmakers and consumer groups have also urged the Bush administration to release oil from the U.S. emergency crude oil stockpile to rein in prices.

However, the administration has repeatedly said it would tap the 599 million-barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve only for a severe disruption in crude supplies, not to control prices.

At a congressional hearing, lawmakers complained to Abraham that the more consumers had to spend on their heating bills or to fill up their car tanks, the less money they would have to buy the goods that keep the U.S. economy humming.

Businesses are also suffering because the cost of shipping products rises in tandem with trucking diesel fuel prices.

Chemical makers, manufacturers and other industrial plants have also been hit hard by natural gas prices, which climbed to record highs this week.

The spot market price for natural gas rose this week to $18.50 per million British thermal units, up five-fold from the average 2002 price. For every $1 rise in natural gas prices, the chemical industry faces about $1 billion in extra costs, according to the American Chemistry Council trade group.

A giant ethylene plant in Louisiana that makes plastics was recently closed and moved to Germany, where natural gas prices are cheaper and supplies are more predictable, the group said.

(Additional reporting by Patricia Wilson). Story by Tom Doggett