Geronimo : What if Osama Bin Laden was killed prior to 9/11?

[Iwanh]

Part XVIII

Who’s Next

Sudan

Sudan, the largest country in Africa was at war. It had been at war for close to two decades, it was a war that was itself a continuation of another 17 years-long war. Adding up to 50 years of sustained conflict, complete with a shifting web of regional alliances. The conflict's current state was a civil war between the northern, Khartoum based government and the southern breakaway provinces. The front lines had been more or less stabilized since the late 90s. Numerous peace initiatives from across the Arab, African and Western worlds had been attempted but none resulted in a successful ceasefire.

The basis of the conflict lay in the differing ideologies and ethnicities of the more Islamic-Arab north and the Christian-East African south. North Sudan's dictator Omar al-Bashir had conducted an Islamist state and as result fostered extreme jihadist sentiment and much western distaste. The United States labelled the country a sponsor of terrorism that once harboured the current leaders of Al-Jihad and Al-Qaida Zawahiri and Atef two of America's most notorious enemies. Relations were briefly calmed during the Clinton administration until an airstrike falsely connected to Al-Qaida struck Sudan killing 85 of the Al Shifa medical plants staff, an attack that severely impacted the country's medical infrastructure and bolstered anti-American sentiment in the country. In turn anti-U.S leadership in the nation rose to a new prominence including Bashir’s second in command Hassan Al-Turabi, he was secretary of the party and speaker of the national assembly and had continued to hold significant sway over Bashir’s dictates.

Sudan President Omar Al-Bashir and key advisor Hassan Al-Turabi​

Turabi, vehemently opposed any rapprochement with the west arguing that Sudan should pursue alliances with traditional Arab, Islamic leadership including other so-called terror states. This policy came with heavy repercussions, sanctions were placed on the country and renewed conflict with the south broke out in 2001, to aid themselves in the conflict Sudan made overtures to Al-Jihad, its leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was all too happy to accept, gaining another ally in the Arab world as well as a renewed propaganda and training campaign in the country, and the golden opportunity for war profits.

The country suffered under the regime, reliant on oil exports under heavy sanctions and in an active war, the economy dragged and Sudan continued to stagnate, opposition to the Bashir regime steadily grew. One such area of resistance was the non-Arab minority in the western Darfur region. For a decade the Khartoum government had operated a policy akin to apartheid segregating Arabs from non-Arabs. Arabs were favoured in land disputes, water access and non-Arabs accused the government of oppressing their traditional semi-nomadic lifestyle. In 2002 a low level of conflict simmered in Darfur where rebels consistently attacked police stations and military convoys, though reports were withheld from Khartoum and Bashir. This lasted until a military base was attacked in February 2003 by the Darfur Liberation Group. Bashir outraged, ordered the military to suppress the uprising, but 20 years of war had sapped the army of any reserves and the brass knew that removing troops from the south could destabilise the situation and potentially collapse the front. The rebel groups were also aided by Sudan's neighbours including Chad and Libya. What few regiments could be spared proved unable to even find the rebels, and they occasionally were captured and ransomed back to the government. So instead of the military, Bashir turned to Turabi and the militants.

Turabi utilised his Arab world links to raise and recruit more insurgents to fight the rebels in Darfur, mostly from pan-Arab and Sunni nationalist groups. This recruitment of paramilitary groups grew into the thousands and was integrated into (and took over) the popular defence forces (The PDF) the countries dedicated Islamic militia. The PDF supplanted the national army everywhere, outside of the southern conflict. This new military formation coincided with reports of state-backed terror inside the country committed in both the Darfur and southern region signs of a possible effort to ethnically cleanse the region of non-Arabs.[1]

Popular defence forces (PDF), Islamist militias sent to put down the Darfur uprising

A map of Sudan, including the breakaway southern region outlined in green and the rebellious Darfur region outlined in blue


​

North Korea

As the Bush administration outlined global threats, the eyes of the world were turned toward the so-called ‘hermit kingdom’, North Korea and its dear leader Kim Jong-Il. Il had succeeded his father Kim Il-Sung in 1994, needless to say, his reign had gone poorly to date. Throughout the 90s North Korea's economy struggled due to severe mismanagement, thanks to Kim's incompetence in such matters and severe flooding. The country, lacking in arable lands was unable to get sufficient imports into the country resulting in a severe famine that devastated the DPRK. Instead of seeking a solution to the problem Kim, sought to sure up his power base, concentrating on building the nation's military while the country remained dependent on foreign aid for food imports. The military policy made the army the central organizer of all North Korean society.

Former dictator of North Korea Kim il-Sung and his son and current dictator Kim Jong-Il​

But Kim Jong Il did strike a different chord than his father internationally, soon rumours of reform made their way to Washington and the Clinton administration began to make serious efforts to normalise relations between the ideologically and geographically disparate nations. The two powers knew that the main issue of conflict between them was North Korea’s 40-year long quest for nuclear weaponry. Both the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China had rejected aiding the North Korean initiative but Kim Il Sung as part of his ‘all-fortressization’ policy doggedly pursued the initiative. But the nuclear process had been a very long one, and though the country claimed to be making strides toward the construction of an atomic bomb, analysts disputed the claim. This did not stop the U.S. from ensuring that the DPRK did not get hold of such a device, a key aim of its Korean policy going forward. A framework agreement was created in 1994 the 'Agreed Framework between the USA and DPRK', it focused on replacing North Korea's potentially weaponizable power plants into civilian plants, with the larger focus of normalised policy between the countries. The agreement was troubled from the start, it was both non-binding and voluntary, it was without congressional recognition as a treaty due to opposition detraction. Republicans were especially critical viewing such an agreement as appeasement, Senator McCain called the deal ‘traitorous'. Moves toward reconciliation between North and South Korea were made in 1998 when South Korean president Kim Dae-Jung adopted the sunshine policy a more liberal and cooperative stance (a policy for which he would win the Nobel peace prize in 2000). Slowly but steadily ground was being gained to bridge the long divide. The Presidency of George Bush threatened to upend this, the state department had created a draft of evidence that accused North Korea of secretly undermining the framework and attempting to construct a nuclear device, the evidence claimed that the DPRK had failed to properly report the amounts of plutonium and that it was testing intercontinental missiles and disguising them as satellite tests. It was clear that the Bush administration wanted a firmer line with the North Koreans, but a lot stood in the administrations' way. The South Korean Government remained committed to the Sunshine policy, convinced that continued dialogue and open negotiations were the best way to reach a détente. Contrary to Bush’s more aggressive tone, he went against his neoconservative advisors on this issue and deferred to the South Koreans after a meeting with Dae-Jung. At home, the Bush administration was tarred as carrying on Clinton's failed policy. Bush publicly responded, the administration used the state of the union address to outline the danger of nuclear proliferation but did not name North Korea. However, the state department accused North Korea of not meeting the Agreed Framework and began to push for a renewed diplomatic effort to ensure North Korea remain permanently denuclearized.

President George Bush visits the demilitarized zone (DMZ) between the Koreas​

The renewed diplomatic effort was made in 2003 when North Korea agreed to talks between the United States and North Korea, these talks were supported by South Korea and Japan and resulted in both sides recommitting to the agreed framework, with more funding for converting North Koreas reactors and a further round of nuclear inspection. Allowing both sides to walk away with perceived victories, while eying further talks in the future, aimed at a firmer path toward a lasting relationship. The policy was a rounding of the bases, harsher language and threats that were toned down in favour of staying the course with the option for continued dialogue. [2]

Libya

Another nation pursuing weapons that the Bush administration outlined as a danger to the United States was Libya helmed by its de facto leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi had a particularly hostile relationship with the United States, he had throughout his rule financed revolutionary and terror groups across the globe from the IRA to the Japanese Red Army to the Colombian FARCS. The terror had resulted in his nation being bombed by Reagan in 1986 and sanctioned in connection to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988. Libya was becoming increasingly isolated politically, for decades Libya had played the tug of war between the Soviet Union and the United States attracting both bloc's support but the decade since the soviet collapse had not been kind to Libya. Gaddafi had secured the lifting of some sanctions by surrendering two terror connected Libyans but his failure to accept responsibility and apologize left the country with continued economic hardship.

Libyan defacto ruler Colonel Gaddafi​

The flamboyant leader aware of Libya’s isolation strained to find support in the west and the United States especially, due to its continued development of chemical and nuclear weaponry. Just like North Korea the colonel also held a decades-long ambition to acquire such powerful weaponry for the official purpose of countering Israel’s nuclear program. The programme had been aided by the Soviet Union and the black market in its development but unfortunately for Gaddafi, his goals were hampered by the economic sanctions and the fall of the Soviet Union long delaying the project's progress. The Libyans, aware of their isolation even approached President Clinton with a blunt offer to end its nuclear weapons program in return for lifting sanctions but such efforts stalled over Gaddafi’s continued refusal to apologise for terror connections. To many including scientists, analysts and spies Libya’s nuclear programme was a pipe dream, but the country did still hold a sizable illicit chemical weapons programme still a potential threat. The regime faced a conundrum, could it make a deal with the west, turn back decades of policy in return for reintegration with the international community, it was a possibility but for the moment the west had little to offer. Neither Bush nor Blair would drop the demands for apologies and compensation and gave no firm commitments to drop sanctions even if such efforts were made, let alone encourage investment in the country. Besides, Gaddafi had new estimates on the countries programme including one made by his son Saif that the programme was only a mere 5 years away from completion, what was to be lost? Surely achieving such a monumental goal would force the west to meet Libya at the negotiating table, seriously this time. The decision was made, and over the months of 2002 and 2003 cargo ships snuck into the country, using ties to the Pakistani nuclear programme and the “nuclear black market”, containers packed with centrifuge parts were taken ashore in Tobruk, finally after a 30-year long teething period, the Gaddafi regime got serious on its nuclear programme. [3]

Gadaffi attending a military parade in his honour​

Iran

Perhaps the reason the Bush administration proved unable to spot the uptick in Libya’s march toward WMDs was the administration's fixture on other nations. Of course, Iraq made the biggest headlines, and Saddam was publicly identified as the greatest threat to the United States and special attention was being paid to Iraq’s possible weapon programme following his state of the union speech, this was followed by North Korea who’s bombastic threats never failed to grab the world’s attention but quietly the administration shifted away from another Clinton era foreign policy, regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. For decades the United States and Iran had fared off in a virtual proxy conflict but starting in 1997 with the election of a moderate Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, the Clinton administration began engaging in a dialogue and a slow easing of sanctions with the nation. Attempts at a full dialogue failed between the two, over Israeli policy, which the Ayatollah was unwilling to compromise over, however, progress was made, Secretary Albright acknowledged the US role in the 1953 Iranian coup listing the Shah as a repressive ruler, and the USA lifted sanctions on non-oil related products. Bush, in contrast, held a tougher stance, he refused to roll back sanctions and ramped up the tough talk. They blamed Iran for spoiling the Arab Israeli peace talks by funding Palestinian and Lebanese anti-Israeli groups and expressed the utmost concern at the Iranian government’s possible nuclear capabilities.

President of Iran Mohammad Khatami and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei​

Iranian policy was again split between the Cheney/Rumsfeld neo-conservative idealists and the Powell led pragmatists. Bush aired on the side of the hardliners this time, who perceived the Iranian regime as teetering, and believed it to be just as vulnerable to a potential collapse as Saddam’s Iraq. Thus any attempt at normalizing the Islamic theocratic leadership would be to the detriment of the ‘democratic’ forces inside Iran. The hardliners were successful in separating Iran from the US’s foreign policy dialogue, this included Afghanistan where, despite the Shia majority Iran (who could have proved an important ally as an opponent to the Sunni dominated Taliban), Washington sought to cut out Iran and Iranian influence from the Northern Alliance against the wishes of Massoud. The Bush administration's policy came round to maintaining the status quo of harsh relations and ignoring the country otherwise.

Iran, in turn, replicated the foreign policy, postponing dialogue, so too did they postpone a shift in their nuclear policy, where President Khatami who had been prepared to negotiate instead continued to conceal the country’s nuclear facilities, he gave away no hints as to the countries plans. Iran despite being a signee to the non-proliferation treaty continued to improve its potentially weaponizable capabilities, by 2003 the technological extent of its programme surpassed what any western intelligence predicted, especially as the United States had done everything to slow down any kind of nuclear tech inside Iran. However, such secrecy could not be kept forever, and through 2003 Iranian opposition groups began to leak information about the programme. These leaks, however, went unheeded, the United States doubted such claims since the data was usually brought forward by Iraqi backed anti-Iranian groups and was viewed as an attempt to shift eyes away from Bagdad and toward Tehran. Khatami’s reformist rule struggled in the face of the Bush administration but it struggled forward regardless, unlike Libya there was no rush to build a bomb and the ultimate goal remained to force the US to negotiate with them, it just so happened that this specific road would be much longer than the one Khatami hoped for. [4]

Irans reform focused President Mohammad Khatami "The man with the chocolate robes"​

---

[1] Sudan and Bashir maintain an anti-American stance extending the conflict in South Sudan and leading to a bloodier conflict in Darfur. As well as a still growing Islamist faction.
[2] I believe that the Bush doctrine convinced North Korea that the United States might invade and that China wouldn’t support them if they did so. ITTL neither of those are true so there is no real rush toward acquiring a nuclear weapon.
[3] Gaddafi was clearly a political opportunist who was willing to give Blair and Bush a significant political win when they needed it most in return for Libya’s normalisation. ITTL no such deal is on the horizon no one even believes Libya’s programme to be legitimate. So, Gaddafi follows his son's terrible advice and doubles down.
[4] ITTL there is no Axis of Evil speech, the event that triggered all the alarm bells in Tehran and convinced a lot of Iranians that the United States was aiming for regime change there too. Here US Iranian relations are hostile but not disastrous.

 

[Iwanh]

Part XIX

Whole New Ball Game

Following the Democratic victory in the 2002 midterms, the White House knew that the Bush Presidency was about to get a lot tougher for them. In his first two years, the President already had a hard time working with his Democratic colleagues and on occasion, even Republicans had been quite critical of the administration. A lot of the opposition's angst stemmed from his disputed election and the pervading belief that his ascendency was at best flawed and at worst completely crooked. Now Democrats were armed with the legislature, packing the power of the purse and held the ability to investigate the President. Representative Pelosi, the second most powerful Democrat in the House had made it clear that they would investigate any allegations that Enron executives held sway in Bush energy or tax policy and what influence they held in picking said officials. “The American people deserve to know what the facts are, we have to wait to see the facts.” She said when referring to allegations of Enron’s influence efforts “But there is no question and no pun intended that Enron put energy into these efforts.”.

Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (left) and Speaker Richard 'Dick'Gephardt (right)​

However, other Democrats were willing (at least for now) to extend an olive branch, speaker Dick Gephardt appealed to the White House to come clean, while also bashing the administration “Going forward, I hope the President will stand with us to clean up the political system and get big money out of politics.”. Gephardt’s words were referencing the stalled campaign reform act that the White House and former speaker Dennis Hastert and Republican leadership Tom Delay and Mitch McConnell successfully shot down the previous year.

The President still had some big-ticket legislative items he hoped to get passed and remained confident even with the new Democratic majorities that he could get bills passed. Top of that list would be a second round, of tax cuts. Unfortunately, the Democratic majority made it clear that any such efforts would be dead on arrival. In fact, a lot of the Democratic leadership were in favour of reversing the 2001 tax cuts including speaker Gephardt. Gephardt argued that the tax cut was a giveaway to the wealthy while pointlessly driving up the nation’s debt. “The President’s plan has not worked, we ought to change policy and do something else, that is what the American people want”. It was clear there was no deal to be worked out and a divided Washington met its first blockage.

The Democrats moved forward on their own promises to work with Republicans to pass a campaign finance reform bill. The move was a clear attack on the former Republican-controlled Congress that failed to pass such a bill the previous year. Now, armed with the majority, they would force a battle with the President, who had so far managed to escape blame for the bipartisan bill’s failure by remaining publicly silent on the measure, all while Republican leadership pushed hard against it. If the bill were to pass both houses of Congress, President Bush would be forced to sign or veto the legislation. The bill (largely a retread of the McCain-Feingold bill) was designed to limit the amount of so-called "soft money" in political campaigns and also force candidates to ‘stand by’ political adverts by clearly identifying the candidates and showing their approval of such adverting. Speaker Gephardt had been a long-time advocate for campaign finance reform having witnessed Congress's failure to pass such measures for 10 years now. And the bill was swiftly proposed and sailed through the House thanks to several dozen Republicans defectors.

The Senate however was a different story, the Democrats held a 4-seat majority but would require 60 votes to defeat a filibuster. The Republican congressional leadership was united against the passage, claiming that the bill overstepped the constitution by infringing Americans’ 1st amendment rights by restricting ‘political speech’. President Bush tried to remain mute on the topic, but as the bill passage came more and more likely, the White House signalled its opposition. Bush said that the bill had “flaws” and that he had “serious constitutional concerns”, though reform proponents were enthused that the President didn’t raise the spectre of the veto. The bill had Republican supporters notably the 4 moderates, McCain of course (one of the bill's original authors), Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee and Maine’s 2 female senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Their support gave the bill 56 votes, due to 2 Democratic defections. The numbers seemed tight, but there was still a dozen Republicans that could go either way on the bill, the White House issued its strongest criticism yet. The President described the bill as “ignoring the principles I need to see, for any legislation that lands on my desk”. However, the Senate ignored the Presidents’ principles and voted 61-49 in favour of its passage, the President would have to put his stance on paper.

Original authors of the Bi-partisan campaign reform bill, Senators John McCain (R, Left) and Russ Feingold (D, Right). Speak following the bill's passage​

The President should have been clearer, pushed harder, doubtless that is what the strategists in the White House had thought. If the President had made his position known from the beginning, for or against, congress would likely have fallen in line, few Republicans would sign their name on a piece of legislation only for a Republican President to veto it, and coming out in favour of the bill would at least strengthen the Presidents image, but W was too concerned with repeating his father's errors. George H W Bush faced a similar campaign reform effort following corporate scandals, he had threatened a veto from the offset, congress defied him, Bush vetoed and congress failed to override. W couldn’t replicate it, looking weak domestically had hurt his father, plus accusations of strongarming Republican congressmen had caused friction between the executive and the legislative branch, and the President wasn’t in the best position to debate the finer points of campaign finance reform, best to keep quiet and let Rove, Delay and McConnell take care of it, some good that turned out to be. It had worked for a time, but Bush conceded and made a short statement.

“The current campaign finance system is seriously flawed. For years, as Governor of Texas and a Presidential candidate, I have called for legislation to battle the influence of special interests, to restore the trust of political parties, and to strengthen the role of individual citizens in the political process. This bill would not accomplish any of these missions. In addition to continuing the corrupt influence of special interests, and soft money groups, it would seriously limit political speech protected by the First Amendment and restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election, … This bill does not represent the full ideals of my administration and therefore I am vetoing H.R.2356”

President Bush Veto's the bi-partisan campaign reform bill​

Of course, the major legislative push that the Bush administration wanted the nations to focus on, was health care. During his presidential campaign, Bush made some large promises when it came to health care, the staple one being a pledge to make Medicare cover the cost of prescription drugs. Medicare was the country's largest government-funded healthcare initiative, and as such any expansion would equal the largest expansion of government since the programme’s inception costing hundreds of billions of dollars, it was a very surprising turn for a conservative White House and was supposed to encapsulate the compassionate portion of 'compassionate conservatism. Bush was confident that a compromise between the two parties could be reached “We came to Washington to solve problems. … That's why we’ve got to pass these Medicare reforms, to give patients prescription drugs and give seniors choices. To deliver results to the American people” Bush believed he had the opportunity to deliver even with the divided government. Pharmaceutical prescription prices were close to double what they were only 5 years previous. And the White House spied a real opportunity for a big win on the issue, both Gore and Bush made prescription coverage part of their agendas, and the greatest issue was over the amount of coverage offered. The issue also moved an important voting demographic, the elderly and the widening gap in access to healthcare proved a strong vote mover.

President Bush campaigns for Medicare reforms in Connecticut​

The Republicans made their proposal, over 300 billion dollars to subsidize 10 years of prescription drugs. The proposal was a massive departure, as Republicans had previously proposed only a 5th of the money while in opposition to Bill Clinton. For conservatives bent on starving government of funds, it was a tough sell and Bush would need every last Republican vote for a chance of it passing, to ensure the bill remained conservative with a hard C, congressional republicans largely took over the reins of drafting the contents of the bill. The plan was to push Medicare recipients away from the current system (where 90% were enrolled) and onto privately run, approved health plans.

It was a large price tag, but the Democrats (and analysts) scoffed, wielding projections they declared that such a project would demand at least double the funding for it to work adequately, and uniformly declared the bill mediocre. Paid for by a mix of tax breaks and subsidies, the Republican plan also included inroads for private insurance into regular Medicare, these planks were meant to assuage fiscal conservatives who feared the expensive government initiative. None of this recognised the fact that the Republicans no longer wrote the rules, and the Democrats instead drafted their own plan. 600 Billion dollars, twice the Republican plan helmed by Senate majority leader Tom Daschle and Senatorial giant Ted Kennedy, the Democratic plan ran contrary to the Republican demands, it sought to expand coverage, not just reduce the cost of those already paying in, and rejected the idea of pushing people into private programmes and also allowed the government to negotiate the price of drugs directly, Daschle called the Republican bill “Lousy” and Kennedy called it a “raw deal for the nation's seniors” whereas their bill will “reaffirm seniors confidence in Medicare … it will fight and expand Medicare”.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (left) and Senator Ted Kennedy (right), talk about the Democratic Medicare reform bill​

The stark difference between the two bills meant that if a compromise were to be made it had a lot of room to cross, but despite warm words shared by both sides chances of a deal grew narrower and narrower. Neither party's proposal attracted much support from the other, Joe Lieberman the conservative Democratic senator (and Vice Presidential candidate 3 years prior) called Bush’s plan insufficient and several conservative Republicans failed to even support Bush’s plan. Such Republicans included Arizona’s Jeff Flake who said “I didn't come here to expand government, this bill is an entitlement that will run away from us”, and Indiana’s Mike Pence who said, “The most ominous consequence of a universal drug benefit could be, that it will usher in the beginning of socialized medicine in America”. And of course, the Democratic proposal received some criticism from the Democrats centre, John Breaux of Louisiana said “We can’t make this a partisan issue Medicare as we know it is going to end by itself if we don’t make some changes” he said referencing the benefits of some privatisation, and a few others who stressed the need to find a compromise to pass any bill. Senator Dianne Feinstein said that “It is important that a bill gets past and we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. Such a compromise would take months of work and talks, to create a bill that would attract sufficient bi-partisan support on top of this neither side was willing to drop their stance on privatization. Further complicating things, all this would take place while Democrats were gearing up for a run at the White House.

Republican and Democratic critics, (left to right) Mike Pence, Jeff Flake, Diane Feinstein and John Breaux​

The Democratic-sponsored Medicare act passed down party lines in the House of representatives. The Senate would again be tight, only a few republicans openly supported it (again the usual suspects), The White House was not going to repeat the campaign finance veto scenario, they put the screws on Republicans who might flip, making it clear that the Presidents signature would not be on the bill. It worked and a filibuster was upheld until a ‘compromise’ could be reached. Though there was initial optimism, as the weeks turned to months, no progress was made and despite their explosive opening the White House quietly backed away from the fight and Medicare reform faded from the agenda.

Democrats pounced on the President's supposed failure, Senator Hillary Clinton, who had led a battle for health care reform during her husband’s Presidency shamed the White House “The President had failed to follow through on his promise to our seniors”. Senator John Kerry struck a similar chord “Once again this administration seeks to hide from the American people and when peoples drug prices continue to rise, they’ll know that President Bush is to blame”

A domestic achievement failed to appear for Bush in his 3rd year and hopes for one in his 4th year were nigh impossible since as the campaign season would take over compromising would be an impossibility. Bush would need to look elsewhere for a victory.

The President speaks at a press conference in 2003​

…

Columbia returns home from major research mission

By William Harwood, CBS News Space Consultant

February 28, 2003

Shuttle Columbia touches down at the Kennedy Space Center following its highly successful 16-day research mission. Photo: NASA TV/Spaceflight Now

The space shuttle Columbia glided to a smooth touchdown today on runway 33 at the Kennedy Space Center to close out a successful research mission, conducting more than 80 separate experiments, including crystal growth, bone density and cancer cell growth.

With commander Rick Husband and pilot William McCool at the controls, NASA's oldest space shuttle dropped out of a clear blue sky and into Florida spaceport after an hourlong plunge back to Earth. Main gear touchdown occurred at 9.02.32 AM EST.

"Houston, Columbia, wonderful touchdown at KSC," Husband, a former F-15 Airforce Pilot, radioed after the spaceplane rolled to a halt.

"Columbia, Houston, we copy wheels stopped," replied astronaut Mark Polansky from mission control. "Welcome back and we'd like to congratulate you all on a very successful mission conducting those experiments. We have no post-landing deltas."

Today's landing capped a 6.6-million-mile voyage spanning nearly 16 days and 255 complete orbits since blastoff February 12th from nearby pad 39A. And was the 62nd landing at the Florida spaceport. Mission duration from launch to main gear touchdown was 15 days 22 hours 23 minutes and 32 seconds. It was Columbia's 28th flight.

"Columbia had an excellent entry," said Linda Ham, a senior manager in the Shuttle Program "Once again Columbia’s performance was on show”

But an issue that will require post-landing repairs that could affect its next launch planned for November. Some damage that was sustained during the launch came close to damaging the ship's thermal protection system and was the cause of some fear regarding Columbia's re-entry. The cause of said damage will need to be investigated to hold up to the November Launch date, but Nasa is confident it won't have to postpone as much as previous.

Husband, McCool, flight engineer Indian-American Chawla Kalpana and mission specialists David Brown, Michael Anderson, Laurel Clark and Israeli Astronaut Ilan Ramon plan to spend the day at the Kennedy Space Center before flying back to Houston on Saturday.

"Houston, all of us on Columbia just want to thank you all for the tremendous job you’ve made this a whole lot easier, all the way through the mission," Altman radioed mission control before leaving the shuttle. "You guys did a super job, brought us a cool and clear day and it's great to be back here at Kennedy Space Center after this beautiful experience at Hubble. So just thank you all again so much".

During the experiments, Husband and company studied Earth, Space Science and Micro Gravity, including the Mediterranean-Israel Dust Experiment camera designed to measure the impact of aerosols on cloud formations and rainfall; an examination of the phenomenon of red and blue flashes of light - known as sprites - that appear during lightning storms; an experiment on the effects of weightlessness on bacteria; and an eighth-grade Israeli student chemistry project.

The experiments were performed on experimental hardware and were performed highly successfully, with 100 percent operational success achieved in virtually all of the experiments. The knowledge gained from this will be applied to improving foundations for buildings and increasing understanding of how earthquakes and other forces disturb grains of soil and sand.

“This was a mission of pure science, five years in the making but all good things come to those who wait” Launch Director Mike Leinbach said. "This mission was packed full of tough, challenging work and many people on this mission privately didn't think that we would be able to accomplish everything we set out in our plan," he said.

"This mission required an incredible amount of dedication and hard work by a huge team of people at the Johnson Space Center, the Kennedy Space Center, the Goddard Space Flight Center, private industry and academia. And I especially wanted to thank all of them, and I especially want to thank our seven crew members on the Columbia who were just absolutely remarkable in how they pulled this off."

Next up for Nasa: Launch of the shuttle Discovery in July on a mission to the international space station …

 

[Iwanh]

Part XX

Known Unknowns

April 26th 2003.

A decade long military mission continued its daily manoeuvres, Operation Southern Watch, the military operation conducted by American and British air forces to control the airspace in southern Iraq. It was being carried out, officially to deter Iraq from carrying out another large military engagement either against a neighbouring nation for instance a second effort to annex Kuwait or to prevent an internal action against the Shia, similar to the repression of the Kurds. The mission comprised of conducting hundreds of sorties (military operations) over the region and attacking major military installations and Iraqi jets, by April 2003 more than 300,000 sorties had been conducted over Iraq, and following the Clinton era missile strikes of 1998 (Desert Fox), the Iraqi government declared its intention to oppose the mission militarily. From 1998 to 2003 Iraqi anti-air fired at American and British jets. The success of the mission was hard to determine, the Iraqi Air Force had largely avoided casualties losing only 3 MIGs, they deliberately manoeuvred to avoid confrontation with the coalition craft. On the ground, surface to air missiles and anti-aircraft weaponry routinely took shots at the coalition aircraft all to no avail, the coalition had sustained 0 casualties in the campaign, and its only losses were 4 unmanned predator drones. The allied craft in turn targeted the weaponry, but success was hard to determine. The foreign press portrayed the attacks as largely punitive, succeeding in taking out their targets less than half of the time and the Iraqi military quickly replenished its losses each time. The low casualty rate was brought about by coalition planes flying very high from the ground, forcing the Iraqi forces to effectively shoot blindly at the enemy, only a lucky ‘golden BB’ was thought possible to actually bring down an allied jet as Iraqi forces disabled any kind of targeting system as these would attract an instant allied response.

A U.S. Jet over the Iraqi no-fly zone taking part in Operation Southern Watch​

President George W Bush decided in 2003, to up the number of sorties made over Iraq, he claimed renewed security threats from the country, flights doubled and Saddam’s desire to punish the U.S. doubled as well, he raised a longstanding bounty on downing coalition aircraft from 14,000 to 20,000 dollars (40,000 should a pilot be taken alive). The conflict had become so mundane that it had been dubbed a ‘forgotten war’ by the U.S. press but Bush’s fresh commitments changed this, his pledge did not just mean more flights, it meant more aggressive flights nearly tripling the number of combat sorties. Some analysts paired this with the bellicose rhetoric from the White House as a potential precursor to a U.S. invasion, the New York Times released classified documents in December 2002 that showed the DoD (Department of Defence) had drafted renewed invasion plans, these plans included the pre-destruction of Iraq’s air defences as the key part of any plan and some feared that the administration was in the stages of this, regardless the administration remained mum on such issues arguing that the renewed effort was necessary solely due to renewed threat that Saddam posed.

The forgotten war came to a conclusion on April 26th, 2003, when a U.S. F-15 Eagle, lost contact with central command while conducting a sortie inside Iraq. The plane was lost near the city of Al-Kut one of the northernmost targets in the southern NFZ, it had been flying in a pair when Iraqi anti-air fire broke out the assault caused the two to break off and they never found each other, radio silence. Initial reports of the disappearance were leaked through Arab sources but the Department of Defence refused to confirm or deny the reports. Until this point, the only other acknowledged instance of a plane being temporarily lost over Iraq was in 1997 when a mechanical malfunction in the northern region caused a jet to lose power and had to glide its way back to Turkey. This time, things were different the F-15 was too far into Iraqi territory, if a plane suffered a similar malfunction the pilot would have no chance of making it back to a U.S. base in Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Their best hope would be to intrude on Iranian airspace (possibly incurring a military response) or a landing in Iraq itself, and all that was if a malfunction occurred and not the ' golden BB'.

Approximate location of the missing F-15​

Hours passed and hope for a miraculous return slowly faded. DoD now had to contend with the worst possible scenario, that a U.S. jet had been lost, potentially destroyed over Iraq. U.S. command authorized a full sweep and search for the craft and the first official reports of the Jet's disappearance were made, still with no reason tied to the jets loss. The first reconnaissance revealed no sign of the missing F-15 but given the hundreds of square miles of desert that would need to be raked this came as no surprise. The first actual detailed report of the disappearance came from Iraq itself, the Iraqi News Agency (the singular Iraqi news channel) quoted a defence spokesman who said that “Iraq’s eagles and courageous men manning anti-aircraft weaponry brought down a U.S. fighter jet plane which flew in from Kuwaiti airspace to violate our airspace and kill Iraqi people,''. The Department of Defence and Secretary Rumsfeld responded quickly to cast doubt on the Iraqi claims “While we know that we have lost contact with a plane, we have no reason to believe it has been shot down”. Privately, officials were a lot more concerned, and each steeled themselves for the worst possible news, with the DoD now recognising the situation, it was passed up the chain of command, to decide what possible action needed to be taken.

The President had been sitting in on a meeting regarding federal aid in response to harsh winter storms when the first information regarding the missing plane got to him, there was little to be done at first but to wait for more data, but only an hour later the President was told that an emergency security briefing was prepared to discuss his ‘options’ and the storms meeting was cut short. For years, the Defence Department had prepared such 'options'. Bush was told that if Iraq had successfully downed a Jet then the United States had to act fast to prevent a possible capture of the pilot and weapons officer aboard, by far the worst possible scenario.

President Bush meets with his national security advisors​

The protocols in place for such an operation had been in there since the Clinton administration, but Rumsfeld early on with the President's approval had beefed up the military consequences of such an operation, dubbed Desert Badger, the Clinton plan had called for immediate strikes (performed either by U.S. Aircraft and/or cruise missiles) to hit targets across Iraq to disrupt Iraqi military command to prevent the capture of the downed pilot. Rumsfeld’s expansion was the second option that targeted more than the Iraqi military it went after the regime at large, it was designed to cripple not just the military, but also the infrastructure and industry of Iraq including possible WMD facilities. Finally, Rumsfeld's Desert Badger provided for a rescue mission of the downed or potentially already captured pilots. Some of Rumsfeld’s additions went even further, the third option provided for not just the destruction of Iraqi bases from the air but put U.S. boots on the ground, capturing key areas of Iraq, it would serve as a soft implementation of the Wolfowitz strategy to sever Bagdad from the southern and northern no-fly zones totally and with the hope of an Iraq uprising.

The President chose the second option, rejecting the Wolfowitz plan and agreeing with the military brass that the United States was not in a position to trigger an immediate invasion of Iraq. The President’s focus was on the downed jet, the image of U.S. airmen dragged through the streets beaten and placed on a show trial, was an impossible thought to ignore, the President knew strong action was necessary. Desert Badger would constitute the greatest military action taken by the United States since the Gulf War. As Rumsfeld put it later “These strikes were intended to take place on a scale that would indicate to the Iraqis to (Saddam Hussein) that the United States would not tolerate the regime's actions… to instil a sense of shock and awe”

Within hours of the President’s decision and just as the Iraqi news agency and global news released their reports regarding the missing jet, the targets were plotted, pilots were scrambled to action stations, and the first cruise missiles were unleashed by the U.S. fleet.

Operation Desert Badger

(Left) a U.S. Jet takes of from Kuwait to take part in Desert Badger, (Right) Cruise Missiles launched from the U.S. 5th Fleet​

The first bombs fell on Iraq on the evening of the 26th a little fewer than 7 hours after the disappearance. The world was left spinning, still without a full explanation of the day’s events. Unsure of the scale of the U.S. attacks live television showed Bagdad aglow with anti-aircraft fire, and the following destruction amongst the city itself. The haste of the operation caused chaos with reporters on the ground, unsure of how far the U.S. campaign was going to be. The foreign correspondents in Bagdad had minutes to react after news agencies were informed of the President’s decision prior to a Presidential broadcast. The hurried reporters scrambled to assemble a live feed to capture the extraordinary light show underway.

Unlike Desert Fox in 1998, Bush’s action was instigated with no confirmed foreign support and little build-up militarily or politically, Clinton spent months pressuring Iraq prior to the military action Bush had minutes, but even without this build up the U.S thought it was prepared for immediate action. They had remained in a constant state of readiness since 1998 with hundreds of planes based in the region, Just as the first American bombs pierced the Iraqi air defences and struck Baghdad proper, President Bush's speech commenced just as the bombing campaign commenced CNN memorably took the Presidents words to a split-screen and Americans witnessed the Presidents words and his actions simultaneously.

Iraqi anti-aircraft fire over Baghdad​

My fellow citizens, at this hour, American forces are in the early stage of a military operation, to disarm Iraq of its offensive capabilities to defend free people inside Iraq and protect the world from an aggressive oppressive regime.

Today, American and British forces while pursuing the no no-fly zone strategy, and undergoing routine operations to deter Iraqi aggression, were attacked and in the process, an American jet was hit and crashed Inside Iraq. I am incredibly concerned about this loss and the fate of American pilots and continue to follow the situation closely. This cannot and will not stand, these no-fly zones used to protect Iraqi minorities must be upheld. On my orders, U.S. forces have begun striking selected targets of military and strategic importance and will destroy Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war on his own people and his neighbours. These strikes must mark the beginning of a new policy that will not tolerate the threat of Saddam Hussein, and we ask for the world's support in this mission. I have just spoken to British Prime Minister Tony Blair who has pledged to support our ongoing efforts to bring peace to this troubled region. From both Naval and air bases, our troops will undertake this effort and bear the duty of serving just and humanitarian ends.

Bush continued his speech by outlining the reasons the current operation needed to take place oddly not bringing up the missing U.S. jet. And the ongoing operation to retrieve the pilot.

Saddam Hussein has committed atrocities against his own people and the people of countries around him. For 10 years after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein has subverted international sanctions to purchase weapons and missile technologies, his people suffered while he built palaces and bought arms and blamed his failures on the world.

The Iraqi regime has failed to live up to its promises and international law, it failed to renounce its involvement in international terrorism, it has applauded attacks on Iraqi dissidents, foreign heads of state and innocent civilians across the world. The Iraqi regime has lied about its biological weaponry and sought to deceive the world regarding its nuclear weapons programme. And now Iraq continues to shun weapons inspectors, it has now been 5 years since the last weapons inspectors set foot in Iraq, sound U.S. intelligence leaves little doubt that he has continued to pursue these weapons.

Bush also listed a range of demands for Iraq

The dictator of Iraq must finally stand by international demands that Iraq disarm and commit firmly to readmitting and cooperating fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and comply with all security council resolutions. He must cease threats against his neighbours cease attacking allied aircraft and cease attacking his own citizens. … Until such a time as these commitments are made and kept, we must pursue this course with reluctance. The people of the United States, our friends and allies cannot tolerate a regime that continues to threaten peace, and so we meet that threat, we choose decisive force now to prevent worse conflict later. We will not shy away from our duty and we will accept no outcome but victory … May God bless our country and all its brave men and women who defend her.

(Left) George Bush's speech regarding the beginning of Operation Desert Badger, (Right) footage of missile strikes in Baghdad​

The suddenness of events took the whole world by surprise and reporters and citizens were overwhelmed by the contents of the speech combined with the footage from the ground. The wave of confusion led to some vagueness in news reports. Had Iraq attacked the United States? Had the United States declared war on Iraq? Were ground troops on their way to unseat the dictator? The President's words left a lot to be desired, explanations on the size of America's current role in the conflict, some kind of time frame or clear set of goals for the attack to end, Luckily the reporters were more satisfied when the Secretary of Defence, Don Rumsfeld stepped out to take a press briefing shadowed by the Chair of the joint chiefs General Myers. Almost wild, reporters were little more settled after Rumsfeld said it plainly “This is not an invasion of Iraq. As some have been saying if you listened to the President's words, he made it clear, this is in response to an attack by Iraq on the American and British air forces earlier today. ... The President made it clear that these attacks could not go unpunished and that is what this is … the President wanted action, options were presented and this was his decision”.

As was usual for a Rumsfeld press conference, he ran it personally and toyed with the journalists at times while also providing more insight than most conferences. When questioned when the military operation would stop and if it would last longer than the Clinton 4 day campaign? “That is up to Saddam, when he chooses to end his attacks on allied aircraft, and give up on weapons of mass destruction and open up to inspectors, then we may see progress” Rumsfeld was almost chuckling through that, and some reporters knew why; the idea of Saddam wholly giving in to U.S. demands was pretty laughable. When questioned on the planning behind the operation he was quick to shoot down the idea that this was an ill-planned, off the cuff operation“We’ve been prepared here (the Pentagon) for such an operation to be put into action for some time, at least since the Gulf War, and it is clear that we had to do this now! We know that.”

Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers brief reporters and the public​

As Rumsfeld and Myers briefed the public on the specifics of the military operation, it was already in full swing as they talked, the outlined targets weren’t just confined to Baghdad where the world witnessed the missile barrage, but up and down country naval launched cruise missiles, and the first aerial attacks commenced, already hundreds of missiles crisscrossed the country hitting dozens of targets such as military basis, Ba’athist party headquarters, supposed terrorist training camps and alleged WMD production facilities. Damage was also being dealt to Iraq’s infrastructure, including bridges and the already depleted electric grids. All of this was part of the public operation to deal a blow to the regime but the White House and DoD were using it for the rescue effort to slow troop movements.

The fate of the missing F-15, its pilot and weapons officer were still unconfirmed but by now there were three possibilities. 1: the Americans had been tragically killed either in the attack that brought it down, the subsequent crash or maybe a firefight with Iraqi forces, 2: They survived, potentially by landing the jet or bailing out and were now stranded hundreds of miles inside a hostile desert surrounded by enemy forces or 3: They were already captured., neither the President nor Rumsfeld in their speeches and conference commented besides acknowledging the prior military engagement and that its location was unknown. Rumsfeld expounded a little, saying they were aware of Iraqi intelligence and media reports but noted that those reports were a "little less accurate as of the American media". But both were aware of the worst possible scenarios at play. Recon missions over the area were already underway using the opening attacks against Iraq as cover to get much closer than usual, A probable crash site north of Al-Kut was identified but no radio communication nor signs of parachute deployment could be found or confirmed with command, images of the wreckage showed worrying signs that it had already been picked over by locals and possibly military. All of this was to be expected but it all made a possible rescue operation more and more fraught. Time was of the essence, surviving the terrain would be just as daunting as being captured for the airmen, and any rescue operation would need to be prepared to fight Iraqi forces. The President had already authorized preparations for such an operation and subsequently, marines and a dozen transport helicopters, attack helicopters, jets and spy planes were readied for the mission, but this could only be actioned by the President once a possible location was known.

The bombing campaign was vast, covering the whole country, it was the largest bombing campaign conducted by the U.S. since the Gulf War, but regardless of the scale and pervading mystery, the public was largely supportive of the military action. 3 quarters of Americans approved the President's response, Desert Badger held higher approval than the Clinton directed 1998 Desert Fox campaign, Fox had spawned accusations of the President diverting attention away from his current impeachment proceedings, and though the Badger strikes were met with the same dovish/isolationist protests and a few liberals claiming that the President was attempting to repeat his father’s war to juice his poll numbers, there was by and large bipartisan support for the Presidents actions. The reaction to Operation Badger could be summarized as, stunned support especially when paired with the news of a downed U.S. plane, it historically mirrored the impact of other military tragedies such as Pearl Harbour or more accurately the Gulf of Tonkin incident or the USS Maine as events that sparked public outrage and raised support for military action. Both top Republicans and Democrats rallied and approved of the President's response, Speaker Gephardt said that “The American people and Congress despite political differences both stand firmly behind our armed men and women” and even though Senate Majority Leader Daschle pressed for congressional authorization before things went further he said he supported the decision and hoped that “These efforts will force Saddam to the table, to let diplomacy return”, chair of the foreign relations committee Joe Biden was it a bit more blasé “If Saddam keeps at it, it's clear this is only gonna end one of two ways, either he disarms or we’ll disarm him”. Republicans were uniformly supportive, even his rival John McCain (himself once a pilot captured in the Vietnam war) cheered on the President and pushed for further military action “The situation has changed, Americans have been attacked, congress signed the ILA (Iraqi Liberation Act) and a threat has to be removed and the Iraqi people liberated!” There were a few outspoken opponents of the action in the House of Representatives, and a few grumbled that congress should have been properly informed and included in the decision and some warned against further action without the chamber's consent, but most kept quiet until the proverbial and literal dust had settled.

Left to Right, a lone protester of the strikes in Iraq, Speaker Gephardt and Senators Lieberman (D) and Mccain (R) all supporters of the President's decision​

The worlds’ reaction was less unanimous. There was some support, as the President mentioned British Prime Minister Tony Blair had given his support to Bush’s actions once the details were explained to him in a phone call, and he subsequently pledged to support the ongoing American manoeuvres. Blair said of Desert Badger “Since the Gulf War, the entire international community has worked to stop Saddam Hussein from keeping and developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and from continuing to threaten his neighbours and prevent the oppression of Iraqi citizens. Saddam Hussein has responded by breaking agreements, developing these weapons and escalating attacks on our aircraft … I agree with President Bush’s decision today, military action was the clear and necessary option”.

The unilateral decision, taken by the White House to commence a large bombing campaign with little warning over a ‘no-fly zone’ that was not backed by any international law, unsurprisingly garnered anger, and outrage internationally. These included members of the security council expectedly Russia and China but also France. France which had pulled out of the no-fly zone coalition in 1996 over the lack of humanitarian applications held a negative opinion. Socialist President Jospin assailed the U.S. decision “It is a shame that the United States has given in to unilateralism … dealing with Iraq requires a balanced international approach and this attack, without consulting anyone, hurts diplomacy and diplomatic efforts, as well as the Iraqi people … I severely regret the U. S’s decision today”. Secretary-General of the U.N. Kofi Annan made similar criticisms though they were less pointed “It is my hope to ensure full and peaceful compliance with Security Council resolutions to avert the use of force, today’s actions cannot be reversed but we need to see tomorrow and the days after, in Iraq and the whole region, a healing diplomacy”.

Left to Right, Prime Minister Blair speaks to Parliament, French President Jospin and U.N. General Secretary Annan​

Of course, the biggest critics of the U.S.’s actions were the Iraqi government who, just as the long day came to its end, and the initial barrage of strikes slowed. The Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein made a typically fiery speech of his own, essentially a call to arms. “Our great Iraqi people and our brave Iraqi forces are called upon to fight and destroy our enemies. The enemies of God, of all Arab people and all humanity. … They are criminals, Zionists an evil aggressor who think that bombing the land, and destroying our buildings will destroy the enormous will of our people. The cowards will not face us, as they know they are no match for our fierce bravery, instead, the junior Bush only threatens us. Our people, our great Iraqi people! As is God's will, we shall be victorious!”

(Left), Saddam Hussein gives a speech on the ongoing strikes. (Right), map of main strikes against Iraq​

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXI

Unknown Unknowns

Desert Badger Continued- Day 2

Within the span of 24 hours, the United States had undertaken a major military operation against Iraq with very little warning as to its actions. An initial barrage of missiles and jet strikes targeted a long list of Iraq's military, political, industrial and logistical sites all to “reduce the Iraqi ability to wage war”. All this was in retaliation for the disappearance of an American Jet which the Iraqi state media and some sources inside the Department of Defence attributed to an Iraqi attack. To put the situation lightly it was a stunning set of events and few people felt confident guessing where things would end.

Throughout the night, American forces (with British aid) ran sorties over the region where the plane had been lost, to hopefully find the missing aviators (a pilot and weapons officer) and trigger a corresponding rescue mission. Time was of the essence, two Americans could not hope to survive in Ba’athist Iraq for long, but since the disappearance and assumed crash, U.S. command had only radio silence. Still, Desert Badger continued, while strikes on Iraq’s major cities and population centres slowed after the initial wave, all across Iraq bombs attempted to disrupt (and possibly destroy) Iraqi command and control to squeeze more time out of the situation to find the men and damage the Saddam regime in general.

A U.S. aircraft carrier in the 5th fleet launches jets into Iraq​

The world awoke to observe the aftermath of the first day's attack, what they saw was a much more destructive operation than the 2001 or 1998 bombings as the Americans struck far many more targets than expected, the country's airfields, main communications structures, supply bases and fuel depots had been attacked to scramble any Iraqi response. The U.S. attacks were launched with extremely minimal preparation time for the Iraqi military and citizens alike, hundreds of casualties in Baghdad alone by some estimates numbered more than the entire 4-day Desert Fox campaign.

The American public was broadly supportive of the exercise and Bush’s administration's explanations satisfied many, but questions still swirled especially regarding potential escalation, should the President take further action and escalate to more than just an air campaign? There was no real stated policy goal, other than for Saddam to demilitarize and comply with all U.N. resolutions, and to end attacks on allied aircraft. These demands were shared by all domestic politicians, but critics of the administration were aware of the tough talk and defence department leaks regarding Saddam and Iraq and feared that the current conflict was being set up as a pretext for a wider war to remove Saddam Hussein by force. It wasn’t too much of a stretch, considering stated U.S. policy for regime change and depending on how long the bombing campaign was to last it could result in the U.S. on a path toward war. However, the House of representatives showed its support for the ongoing military action by supporting a resolution to support the ‘men and women in our armed forces carrying out their missions’ only 11 representatives opposed the vote including Democrats Barbara Lee and Cynthia McKinney amongst others, Independent Bernie Sanders and the sole Republican detractor Ron Paul.

(Left to Right) Representatives Lee, Sanders and Paul, all critics of the strikes​

On the second day, as questions continued to be raised, the Bush administration made some clearer pronouncements as to its aims in Iraq. Rumsfeld was out touting the success of the operation with a map of anti-air bases, terrorist training camps and supposed WMD production facilities that had been hit. From the way Rumsfeld was phrasing it the operation could wrap up any day, satisfied at the “tremendous progress of our air and naval forces in disarming Saddam of his offensive weapons, sustaining zero casualties”, when again questioned on the possibility of further American involvement the Secretary of Defence said, “We are prepared for all options but remain clear that American action will depend on how the Iraqi government goes forward, but I will reiterate that we remain prepared indefinitely”. His words were a sign that the administration was at best remaining vague about the next steps of the operation. The President made a short statement indicating he was pleased with the way the operation was unfolding, describing the attack as “the only way to go after Saddam” equating the strikes as more a punishment for the dictators’ actions than a specific doctrine.

Journalists were a little more combative, a Washington Post report detailed how the strikes in Bagdad on the first day were clearly aimed at more than military sites, and the administration was aiming at destabilizing the regime as a whole. The Iraqi government remained as hostile as ever, accusing the United States of an unprovoked attack, foreign journalists were taken to tour craters in Bagdad and told that the United States had deliberately targeted civilian areas. Iraq also accused the U.S. of targeting Hussein and his family personally in failed strikes, though Rumsfeld disputed any Iraqi claims as to the U.S.’s aims. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, when asked if the U.S. had any intention of taking further military action gave a curious response, first reiterating the many options that the United States had available to them when dealing with Iraq, but he also made it clear that the White House policy was “Regime change, that has been and continues to be our policy” Asked how regime change would be brought about he said “ Well, I say to the Iraqi people that we encourage them to take that action upon themselves,” Which could only be interpreted as the Presidents spokesman encouraging a revolution in Iraq.

White House Press Secretary Fleischer​

The tough talk was not unilateral in Washington, as some sought to walk back some of the brinksmanship at play. Secretary of State Powell seemingly absent from the decisions to activate Desert Badger, made a briefing to outline his department's goals in Iraq. He stated that he supported the President’s decision but was less clear about U.S policy towards regime change “With respect to Iraq, that (regime change) has nothing to do with it, speaking with the President he has made it very clear this is everything to do with Iraq’s attacks on coalition aircraft, and we have to compel Iraq to end these attacks … there is no suggestion of regime change, quite the contrary”.

The search for the missing pilots was the unspoken factor in the military operation in Iraq, but it was no secret to the U.S. navy and air force who carried out a massive search hoping to catch radio communique, troop movements and any hints as to a current whereabouts living or dead. By now, U.S. thinking was that it was likely the pilots were in some kind of Iraqi custody either civilian, police or military. The movement near the probable crash site leaned toward that outcome given the less likely alternatives of the pair evading capture in such a hostile region. The rescue operation was dedicated to monitoring the Iraqi forces to spot any attempt to transport the pilots further north, this clashed with the goals of other military strikes as it forced U.S. forces to not attack Iraqi forces around the crash site. U.S. intelligence was quickly roped into the operation to aid in the search translating intelligence and dissecting photographs as well as using whatever sources there were inside Iraq to press them for any information they could get.

Day 3

As the third day of the operation began strikes, flights and surveillance continued across Iraq. And while the various secretaries and executive staff members praised the men and women in the field and touted a list of destroyed targets. There was a fight in the halls of power, various cabinet offices held grievances about being side-lined by an operation that they had as little warning about as the American public at large. The whole operation stank to high heaven of a DoD Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz stage-managed affair no doubt presented to the President as the only possible action available. That was the perspective Secretary Powell certainly held, who as the country's chief diplomat believed he should have been included in the decision to bomb major cities (Powell’s, exclusion from the decision was subsequently denied by members of the Bush administration, but was supported by confidential sources). Others were annoyed by the decision Rumsfeld’s expansion of Desert Badger had been conducted without input from either national security advisor Condoleezza Rice or CIA director George Tenet. Once the full extent of the operation was revealed to them suspicion fell upon Rumsfeld for the action taken, aware of his and his deputy's long-held desires to bring down the dictator.

Inside the White House, there was little time for solemn contemplation about the ongoing operation, as much as Rumsfeld, the Joint Chiefs, and the President put on their brave faces, infighting over what exactly the next steps were going to be, was consuming the executive branch. Few had been included in the decision to go for Desert Badger, perhaps it was excusable, after all, immediate action was required to prevent the capture of U.S. Airmen but someone should have at least told the Secretary of State and the CIA were only informed of the decision once it had been made, only then to ask for available targets to strike. But as soon as the bombs started dropping everyone clambered to be in the know, to influence the President’s decision making, or at least not to embarrass themselves by contradicting each other.

President Bush meeting his national security team​

It was clear that the President was not exactly sure what to do next, he was certain he had made the right moves so far, he had been called upon to act and was damn certain of his decision. He flat out rejected any notion from the media that he had been at all manipulated by Rumsfeld, he was the President, and he made the decisions. But as certain as he was in ordering the strikes, his mind was focused mainly on the rescue operation and not wider Iraqi policy. Bush brought together his national security teams to discuss just that, to determine their objectives and how to achieve them. At the meeting Rumsfeld jumped right into it, listing the many victories of the U.S. forces and listed the former structures inside Iraq, Rumsfeld presented the Saddam regime as crumbling, its army in disarray and leadership on the run he pointed out that they hadn’t seen Saddam since the 1st day hinting that he was likely in hiding. Before he got to his conclusion the National Security Advisor Rice cut him off wanting updates on pilots, and the President agreed. Rumsfeld delivered disappointing news, no change. “We all pray for their safe return,” the President said.

The President asked about next steps, it was an open question that prompted a few exchanged glances “How do we deal with this guy?” a few months ago the President shifted U.S. policy to take an aggressive stance against Iraq, authorizing covert action to aid Iraqi opposition, and harsher enforcement of current policy and now Saddam has defied the U.S. once again “He’s trying to test us, to see what we’re prepared to do, but I’m not backing down”. The President, not the most precise speaker when on the spot, made the room similarly uncertain when he asked. Rumsfeld nodded, screwed up his face to look as pensive as possible and directly said it.
“We should kill him”. It perked up everyone’s ears “We ought to go to Bagdad and either capture or kill him, right now Americans are fighting to defend Americans and to liberate a people, Congress has approved it and the public supports it. We’ve drafted the plans; I say let’s go”. It was the kind of straight talk only the Secretary of Defence could muster, to propose a military operation with the kind of magnitude unseen since the Vietnam war with an almost sarcastic tone of voice. “We use the strikes to destroy Iraq’s defences, hit the regime every which way, while we move the necessary ground forces into Kuwait and drive straight to Baghdad”. Powell looked in pain, the two secretaries' rivalry was legendary and to hear Rumsfeld handwave over the blood and sweat of such an operation as ‘driving straight to Bagdad’ cut Powell deep. Out of everyone he felt personally insulted by Rumsfeld’s actions convinced that he had deliberately cut Powell out of the operations decision to undermine him, but now he was prepared to counter Rumsfeld’s broad assumptions.

Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld ​

“Don you are making a lot of broad assumptions” Powell who had intimately studied the numerous war plans picked them apart “We are going to need more time, more equipment and more allies for something that big”, (estimates were at least half a year for the sufficient ground troops to be in place) the battle between Rumsfeld and Powell wasn’t just ideological but of military doctrine Powel favoured overwhelming force, to guarantee victory before any operation, Rumsfeld was the opposite, he saw risk aversion as a problem and had sought to rip it out of his Pentagon, he fought to raise the risk level had cut costs and troop numbers (Rumsfeld’s war plan slashed the estimated troop numbers for an invasion of Iraq in half, estimating such an operation could begin in 2 to 3 months). Powell’s vision was supported by General Tommy Franks Head of Central Command, who pointed out that the enemy would try to adapt, and may not buckle as Rumsfeld predicted especially against a smaller invasion force. Powell had always referred to Saddam as a kidney stone, uncomfortable, even painful at times but will eventually pass, thus Powell stuck to the containment policy to sufficiently counter Iraq. He would not contradict the President on Desert Badger once the decision had been made, but he strongly pushed to tread lightly and avoid rash decisions, he raised that an invasion would inflame oil markets, heighten tensions in Israel, give strength to anti-U.S. regimes and groups potentially destabilizing U.S. allies “If an American General is running an Arab country, a Macarthur in Baghdad, how long would that last? How do we define the terms of victory? If we take down Saddam until a new government is in place, you will be the government, a country of 25 million will be looking to you for however long it takes to stabilize the country” Powell referred to this as the pottery barn rule, ‘you break it you buy it'. Powell saved the strongest criticism for the unilateralism involved in Rumsfeld’s plan “It would be nice to do things that way, except we can’t, Jordan, Turkey the Saudis and Kuwait need to be on board, we need the access, we need allies and a whole lot else”. Powell described a worst-case scenario where Saddam uses chemical or radiological weapons on U.S. forces, and all this would be taking place during next year’s presidential election. Powell’s cautionary tale hit home with the President, he had ordered military action to defend Americans immediately in danger, but his long term strategy would need to be different. Still, he wasn’t satisfied with giving in and allowing Saddam to walk away and continue persecuting his people and plotting against the United States

The Vice-President sat in a manner that translated his eternal displeasure, he knew that bringing other nations aboard would slow everything down, he presented Saddam not as some obstacle to U.S. hegemony or the moralistic reasons but as a direct threat to Americans, Cheney had taken it upon himself to ‘study’ Iraq and believed that agents of/funded by Iraq were plotting to attack the United States “There is no doubt that Iraq has amassed weapons of mass destruction and is going to use them against us or our allies, Mr President inaction is a far greater risk”. The President nodded along with his deputy

Vice President Dick Cheney​

“George what do you have on that?” the President was referring to CIA chief George Tenet, the CIA had stepped up its anti-Saddam activities and had been specifically tasked by the President to find evidence of Saddam’s WMD production as well as any weaknesses to the regime. Such work was slow going, there were few assets inside Iraq, fewer still who could provide reliable intel, and remaining sources were aware of the punishment should they be found conspiring with the United States both for themselves and their families. They would only provide the information with certain guarantees in place, what they had was data, raw unfiltered data, the locations of potential production or storage facilities (a list that the 5th fleet was making its way down as they spoke), rumoured liaisons between Iraq and the weapons black market or terrorist organisations, none of it confirmed, but Tenet knew that the Vice-President was keyed into all of it, his office somehow got it hands-on CIA reports, Cheney had been fixated on this for a while and was convinced that the United States was the target of an Iraqi led plot. Tenet downplayed it.
“Since our last assessment in 2000, we haven’t been able to draw any new conclusions yet but we are confident that Iraq continues to build and expand its infrastructure to produce WMD, we believe that Saddam still has plans for his atomic weapons programme”, it was a dramatic step down from the certainty of Cheney but open enough to leave room for considerable doubt. Cheney growled again.

CIA Director George Tenet​

“There is always going to be uncertainty even if there is a one per cent chance we’ll need to respond”, the vice-president showed concern perhaps he took the pieces of data that portrayed Saddam on a wicked death march poised to strike everywhere at once all seriously or perhaps he just disliked pushback in such a setting. Bush absorbed the magnitude of the argument and came to his decision
“I want to know what it is gonna take to get inspectors back, he has to prove the world, and if he can’t – then there’s consequences, that’s our demand if not we keep bombing and we build our coalition, we get everyone on board and I want to see the plans on my desk”.

The White House finally had defined its aims for the ongoing operation in Iraq, both short and long term to end the disarmament crisis, either by forcing Saddam Hussein to readmit and abide by weapons inspections or face a potential invasion by the United States and its allies. All sides agreed that Saddam Hussein was a threat and the best way to keep him in check was the threat of invasion, Powell always insisted that war needed to be on the table and the worst option was to back down. It was a strong decision that left most satisfied, Condoleezza Rice and Andy Card (The WH chief of staff) applauded Powell for his role in putting diplomacy firmly on the table, while the hawks were confident that Saddam was far too deceitful for the diplomatic option to bear any fruit. The President first publicly announced his decision that night, to reporters saying that “The best way to end this, is for Iraq to engage and cooperate fully with the U.N. resolutions, if not then we may have to take a more dangerous path”. The President spoke with Prime Minister Blair regarding the ongoing operation and the two spoke about the path forward, Blair supported the demand for U.N. compliance aware that Saddam’s refusal to do so might lead to war. For his part, Saddam played into the hawk's expectations again reiterating his vow to never ‘compromise or kneel’ in the face of the airstrikes, he hoped to ride out the strikes just as he had many times before.

(Left) President Bush announces his demand for a return to weapons inspections, (Right) President Bush and UK PM Blair​

As the administration got its own affairs in order the American public and the wider world continued to reconcile their own. Despite strong support in the immediate afterglow, several days of mixed messages on the U.S.’s goals with the campaign allowed for some descent to build, from anti-interventionists where a few protests built up. When polled, though an overwhelming majority approved of the military action, two-thirds favoured a diplomatic solution. The 11 congressmen and women who slammed the House’s approval questioned the White House’s reasoning, Independent representative Bernie Sanders from Vermont as he had in 1991 and 1998 said he was “Very concerned on the military action taken by the President, despite the fact that the constitution makes it very clear this body (congress) declares war”. Republican Ron Paul called the action “Illegal and unconstitutional, and likely done to distract Americans from the economy, and might lead us into a war and get more servicemen killed”. But further up the ranks, Representative Pelosi said, “While I am eternally grateful for the sacrifices of our men and women in the armed forces, I implore the administration to seek out every diplomatic option before putting more in harm's way”. Senate Leader Daschle (D) who enjoyed at best a frosty relationship with the White House after prefacing his comments with praise for the military said that “I severely hope that the President has not made a rush to war here” his critic drew an attack from former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R) (who had himself been embroiled in a racism scandal after praising former senator Strom Thurmond at his 100th birthday) said that Daschle’s comments showed he had “no interest in protecting Americans” sparking a war of words between Republicans and Democrats. The administration also saw some decent from the news media who doubted the claims of success touted by the Defence Department to dispute the narrative that only military targets were being struck, citing that such targets included breweries and commercial warehouses.

Globally, opposition and protests were much more widespread, in Syria, Jordan, Egypt Palestine and indeed the wider Arab World, protests broke out parred with occasionally violent incidents as well, for instance, Damascus where the U.S. embassy was evacuated for a time, as protesters threatened to storm the building an action that President Assad refused to condemn. President Mubarak of Egypt called for an end to the military action, but most Arab leaders remained quiet on the strikes prompting some protests not just against the U.S. but also their own governments in, Jordan and Saudi Arabia (where descent is heavily restricted) some street action was seen focused against the U.S, in Lebanon anger was projected on the silence of Arab leaders. In the UK significant protests erupted from the Muslim community including a march around parliament.

(left to right) the aftermath of protests in London, anti-US/UK protests in Lebanon, burned cars outside the US Embassy in Damascus​

Far away from the beltways, the search for the two aviators continued with minimal results, no trace of attempted communique should the pilots be on the run and no large military manoeuvres that might hint towards moving the captured servicemen from the area they were downed in. The greatest deficiency in the U.S. military was the language barrier, it is easier to train someone to fly an F-14 than to speak Arabic, so trawling through Iraqi cables and radio took time, but then they finally found something pertaining to the pilots, intercepts in the Iraqi military. It revealed the high level of confusion in Iraqi military command after strikes began, as commanders struggled to give out orders as communications were dropped, bases were struck and forces scrambled to adapt. It also provided information regarding the missing soldiers, according to the intercept they were brought to the city of Al-Kut but there was no information on the current condition of the men. The first hint in three days was of some comfort but Kut was still a city of a quarter-million. Nonetheless, the U.S. marines remained prepared at a moment’s notice to raid the city for the men.

Also standing on the sidelines was the Iraqi opposition. The fractured opposition witnessed the bombing campaign with anticipation and expressed much desire to play a role in the conflict with Iraq. They had been provided renewed funding and organization under the direction of the CIA, the leadership had played a considerable role in lobbying legislators and department officials to support the complete toppling of Iraq. They cheered on the select quotes of Ari Fleischer that the United States was prepared to support Iraqi opposition but for now, they wanted to keep up the momentum of the campaign, convince the administration not to let up as it did in the past allowing Saddam to keep control “Give Iraqis the means to take action” said Sharif al-Hussein a member of the Iraqi National Congress (and a claimant to the defunct Iraqi throne). Opposition groups had played a considerable role in lobbying senior Defence department heads and were keenly aware of options available to the President to truly threaten the regime IFR (Iraqi Freedom Activities) including the providing of arms to Iraqi opposition by deploying American trained Iraqi expatriates and the U.S. expelling Iraqi forces entirely from the southern no-fly zone. However, the CIA had crippling doubts as to the ability of the Iraqi opposition, it numbered less than 500 and was generally undisciplined, but the Pentagon ignored these complaints and went ahead with the programme. More than anything the Iraqi opposition needed an endgame, finally with the President's declaration it seemed one may be on the horizon. With the President's demand for a return to inspections made and Saddam’s knee jerk refusal, it looked as if Iraq was on a path for a showdown.

(Left) Meeting of the Iraqi opposition in London, (Right) CNN headlines ongoing events the 'showdown in Iraq'
​

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXII ​

Dutch Interlude ​

For the past 8 years, the Netherlands had enjoyed an economic boom, prosperity rose and unemployment shrank. Throughout it, the government a coalition government of left and liberal parties enjoyed strong approval ratings led by Labour Party (PvdA) leader and Prime Minister Wim Kok. Kok was lauded and credited as a founder of the third wave system that President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair similarly used. However, in 2001 in the run-up to the 2002 elections, Kok announced that he would be retiring and would not serve as leader of the PvdA going forward. His retirement made way for his chosen successor Ad Melkert, going into the election it was widely assumed that either Melkert or the centre-right liberals (VVD) led by leader Hans Dijkstal (who had served as deputy PM in the coalition government) would become Prime Minister with either of the two governing parties taking the largest number of seats. The largest challenger to the governing parties was the Christian Democrats (CDA) who had been the strongest party in the country until a string of controversies and infighting resigned it to the opposition, the chances for a resurgence looked slim considering it had only just appointed its leader Jan Balkenende who had only entered parliament 4 years ago widely assumed to be little more than a caretaker leader of the party.

Left to right, PM Wim Kok and lead candidates Ad Melkert, Hand Dijkstal and Jan Balkenende​

Indeed with three unassuming bureaucrats vying for the top spot, it seemed that the country was not primed for political upheaval, all that was until the introduction of one Pim Fortuyn. Fortuyn had crossed the political spectrum throughout his life as a political strategist and commentator originally a Marxist communist In his youth he shifted rightward becoming a social democrat in the ’70s, then in the ’80s became a neo-liberal endorsing the free market and privatisation, this transitioned into radical liberalism promoted a vast slashing of government which over the 90’s he refined into a populist message (though Pim rejected the term) of a general detest for the elite. The ’90s for the Netherlands had also brought about social change, women’s, gay and euthanasia rights had been generally accepted without much contest. Fortuyn said that the changes vast and swift changes had created an ‘orphaned society’ and decried a loss of traditional norms and values though he himself did not advocate a return to conservative norms and retained a liberal stance on many social issues (himself being an open homosexual). With the end of the cold war, Fortuyn identified the new fundamental threat to western society as Islam. To Fortuyn, Islam and Muslim culture were inherently opposed to Dutch values. He enunciated his views in blunt language calling for " a cold war with Islam. I see Islam as an extraordinary threat, as a hostile religion.”. Pim was still little known outside political circles when in August 2001 he threw his hat into the upcoming May elections a move that many saw as a theatrical protest, but Pim made good on his pledge and reiterated his announcement that he would run for parliament. His decision combined with his outspoken, flamboyant, confrontational and highly articulate demeanour made him unlike anything in current Dutch politics, he was the clear opposite to the coalition establishment he tore into every moment he got painting them as one singular party with no real differences between them, and sure enough considering the dull state of the race a whirlwind media blitz plastered him across every paper and television in the country, with every appearance attracting plenty of criticism as well as plenty of praise all without actually announcing which party he would be running for.

Far-right populist Pim Fortuyn​

He was invited by Jan Nagel the chairman of the Liveable Netherlands (LN) Party a party that pitched itself as a radical democratic group helmed by those with mostly media backgrounds, Pim took them up on the offer, and began leading the Rotterdam branch of the party (Liveable Netherlands local branches were acted separately from the national party, given its radical democratic ideology). Though he was not the leader of the party his personality and media appearances quickly made him the figurehead and was far better known than the actual lead candidate Fred Teeven. With his political prospects quickly rising in February 2002 Fortuyn issued an ultimatum to the party bosses, he demanded a new leadership election for himself to become the lead candidate and if not he would walk and take his support (roughly 6% in the polls from a party that previously had .5% support) his demand was supported up by the newly expanded membership who had only joined the party due to Pim, but the party chairmen were a lot warier of such a move especially given Pims tendency toward going off script, after a tense meeting of the party leadership the party conceded and Pim was unanimously voted in as the new party leader. Despite his oft controversial attitude toward immigration and Islam he received generally favourable coverage through February, the news often focused on the grassroots and enthusiasm of his campaign. LN received a lot of coverage compared to the rather bland opposition and Pim climbed the polls to 12 per cent the party was now higher than the decade-old green party. As LN rose it took votes away from the governing labour and liberal parties who struggled to adapt to the new state of the race, labour flipped between touting its successes in the past or promoting reform in the future and there was no discussion of immigration, both leading parties were drawn into spitting matches, that Pim a veteran debater with a speaking style the traditional politicians were untrained to counter. As Pims candidacy became more of a reality, national (and international) coverage turned more negative, he was compared to other far-right European leaders such as Jorg Haider of Austria or Le Pen in France whose ultranationalist and neo-Nazi ties were more blatant. He was no longer referred to as a “clown” by the candidates but instead an explicit threat to Dutch liberal democracy. Some decided to take street action and Pim became the victim of mockery, cream pies and in one case was physically assaulted by a bucket of fake blood along with the bucket by an animal rights activist, but he continued to give interviews deflecting the criticism and laughed off the assaults.[1]

Pim Fortuyn speaks after being hit with a cake​

Pim celebrated a considerable victory in March during the Rotterdam council elections, Liveable Rotterdam surged to second place slightly behind Labour. A city with a high percentage of immigrants and a growing perception that they were failing to adapt to Dutch society, contributed to rising dissatisfaction levels in highly urbanised areas. Dutch political psychologists called this the ‘bitterness between the tulips’ this combined with Pim's ability to quickly establish a message, and to create and adopt the grassroots campaigns boosted the party even further. During the final run-up to the election as Le Pen was defeated in France, some predicted a similar defeat for Pim and the threat of him seemed to dissipate as the Netherlands seemed to settle into what everyone assumed would be the two-party race between Labour and the liberals, indeed Pim’s one-man crusade against the ‘purple order’ (the collation between red and blue) shifted public opinion on the government and provided an opportunity for other parties to critic the coalition for failing to address public issues. The Christian Democrats notably refused to join the criticism of Fortuyn leading some to suspect they hoped to benefit from Fortuyn and potential enter a coalition with him.

The election day results were a shock to the system, while the Labour party remained the largest by a single seat margin followed by coalition partner the VVD, both parties suffered significant losses to the gain of the Christian Democrats and Liveable Netherlands who topped the polls to reach 13 per cent in the countries election earing 20 seats. The depreciated seats of the government meant that to form a government the Labour party now required the support of the smaller Democrats 66 party the progressive liberal party. Pim heralded the vote as the beginning of a new era in Dutch politics for those who “want to do away with the culture of compromise and coalitions, and a political elite that does nothing for their interests while leaving the door open wide for certain groups to come here, because we all know that we are full up here”

[2]
The makeup of the new Netherlands parliament and cabinet following the 2002 election​

It wasn’t the runaway victory that Fortuyn promised but to go from political commentator to the leader of the 4th largest party in less than a year was far more than Haider, Le Pen or any other of Europe’s Far-Right was a monumental feat and the unsteady state of the Dutch government meant that Pims promise that “I will be the Prime Minister of this country” was no longer as far fetched as before and it was clear that despite being out of government his onslaught of attacks against the consensus politics of the Netherlands had greatly disrupted the country and potentially Europe.

LN leader Pim Fortuyn and Prime Minister Ad Melkert following a famously heated debate​

---

[1] Without 9/11 Pims rise is altered he is less obviously anti-Islam nat making the famous ‘backward religion’ line that got him removed from Liveable Netherlands and forced him to create his own party. But most importantly he doesn’t get assassinated as he did in OTL
[2] Following 9/11 and Pims death Dutch politics was greatly affected with the defeated Christian democrats sweeping into power with the political climate less heated Pim exceeds TTL expectations but underperforms OTL.

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXIII ​

Showdown – Iraq​

To say tensions were high would be a definite understatement. The United States alongside its ally the United Kingdom had been involved in an extensive bombing campaign throughout all of Iraq going on 4 days now. The stated objective was forcing Iraq into compliance with previous U.N. security council resolutions and specifically readmitting U.N. weapons inspectors. The implicit threat is, that should it not do, the U.S. will raise a coalition to forcibly disarm Iraq and probably overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime. President Bush previewed his demand to the national news the previous day, but no official statements, cables or demands had been made either publicly or privately to the Iraqi government. As gears of state chugged along, war plans were specified and officials were briefed on the new policy, the United States needed to prepare for two possibilities; 1, that Saddam would entertain the U.S. demand and admit inspectors, the second that he would once again refuse and the campaign to remove him would officially begin. The White House was aware that if war should come, preparations needed to begin immediately so that a potential invasion could start by the end of the year or early 04, as no one wanted to launch the war later than that, in the middle of Bush’s re-election campaign, as well as weather restrictions. This meant that war preparations would commence at the same time as diplomatic overtures attempted to resolve the crisis peacefully.

U.S. Harrier land on board USS Belleau-Wood​

It gave everyone a very short span of time to move things into place. Saddam needed to be issued a new ultimatum preferably through the United Nations, reiterating the U.S. demands, should the demands be rejected the administration then needed to build the necessary global and domestic support for an invasion, which entailed building the case that the regime was in violation of U.N. resolutions, placing the sufficient American troops in place, attaining congressional authorization, and building a coalition hopefully with U.N. security council backing. It was a big challenge, but the administration was confident it could garner sufficient support to succeed. The White House moved to contact its closest allies of the plans currently being drafted, these included the ambassadors and diplomats of allies in the middle east, including Iraq’s neighbours and calls were made across the globe to inform, yes, but also reassure that there was nothing firm on his desk, and that war was not a certainty. The reactions varied from strong support from Britain or Australia, but most of the Arab regional allies were shaky at best, with both the Jordan and Saudi government torn between balancing their desire for regional stability and their security alliance with the United States, all nations agreed that continued diplomacy, as well as the threat of strong military intervention, was necessary to bring Saddam back to the table. The U.S. with the U.K. immediately got to work lobbying the U.N. for a new security council resolution.

While calls were made, missiles continued dropping across Iraq, to many it looked like a war had already begun. The conflict in Iraq had been simmering since the end of the first gulf war in 91 and had recently reignited over a downed U.S. fighter jet patrolling a no-fly zone. The entire bombing campaign had been originally designed to help facilitate a rescue operation to free the potentially captured airmen but after over 3 days the only information central command had on their location was that they were likely being held in the city of Al-Kut. U.S. Marines were on standby for the rescue mission, and jets continued to fly recon, everyone was fully prepared for the fourth day of searching but a spanner got thrown into the works, by a report released by Iraqi state media.

A report was issued, backed by Iraq’s foreign office that detailed its version of the downed jet incident. The report disputed the American line that the Jet had not been struck by Iraqi anti-air fire, claiming that it had actually crashed in Iraq by itself, the report's 'evidence’ included pictures of the crash that supposedly showed no hints towards it being shot down. The report didn’t just contradict the U.S. government's claim but also backtracked Iraq’s own report made several days ago that had celebrated the Iraqi military achievement in bringing down the jet. All this was secondary to the report's key claim, that both the American pilot and weapons officer had been killed in the crash. It was the first official Iraqi statement that acknowledged the missing U.S. servicemen at all. Of course, U.S. central command and the Pentagon were extremely wary of any Iraqi claims and the dispute between the Jet crashing vs being shot down took away plenty of credibility in the eyes of Americans. It also disputed some intelligence they had been monitoring, the U.S. was not in the position to take Iraq's word for it, however, American officials knew that the Iraqi government's support for the report would not be made lightly. The American media covered the death claim and subsequently questioned the administration who declined to lend legitimacy to the report as well as taking the opportunity to take a jab at news sources that ran the report as fact (even though none had). DoD didn’t have to work long to get the confirmation they were dreading in the form of footage and images taken immediately after the crash, sent to the U.S. by the Iraqi military, as well as exchanged phone calls between both governments. After sweeping the evidence U.S. intelligence came to the conclusion that the footage was genuine and it all but confirmed (the government insisted on personal or third-party confirmation later achieved through Vietnam), that the 2 U.S. servicemen who had been missing for 4 days had been killed most likely in the jets crash or shortly after (which the U.S. insisted had been shot down)

Lt. Col. William R. "Salty" Watkins III and Capt. Eric B. "Boot" Das[1]​

It was a shocking moment, and it struck the President especially hard. At first, he was in disbelief, assuming that it was a Saddam regime deception but he then gave in to the depressing truth. They were the first combat deaths of his Presidency and gave him the first real understanding of the mission he was preparing to undertake; preparing to totally rid Iraq of Saddam. There were a lot of tough talkers and a lot of egos in Washington but in the end, he made the decisions, it was his singular responsibility, and he knew that. But instead of shrivelling away from his vision or being spooked as he believed Clinton had been when confronted with these tough decisions, it hardened his faith in the justness of his goal. His team were working on lobbying the whole world to his cause, the stakes were higher but the weight on his shoulders was somehow lighter, he had a drive unlike anything since his inauguration. His team was preparing to codify that mission by demanding Saddam’s compliance and threatening the ultimate consequences should he fail. His entire staff were scrambling to arrange for the President to give a speech at the U.N. in mere days where he would request the relevant security council resolution to be voted on and his speechwriters were hard at work preparing, while the state department and relevant diplomats were mobilized to lobby each country to vote accordingly.

But while the executive prepared for war, it should be forgotten that an air war was still underway over Iraq as targets were still being ticked off Rumsfeld’s long list. The President gave no order for gulf forces to stand down even with the deaths confirmed, From DoD’s perspective, the mission was still to go ahead as planned, standing orders remained in place the Iraqi government had not agreed to turn over the bodies and there was every chance that the air force and navy would still be ordered on a recovery mission, after all ‘no man left behind' was still the ethos of the hundreds of marines who had been mobilized, who after 4 days of preparation being told to stand down wouldn’t sit well with, so the bombing runs and missile strikes continued, all streamed right across the world and arousing the passions of many.

A week passed after the revelation of Das and Watkins's deaths had been made public. The President expressed his condolences to the families over the phone and compared to that an address to a special session of the United Nations would be a walk in the park. Just getting the meeting was a hassle, Kofi Annan had to wrestle half the members into agreeing and for a time the White House was considering scrapping the idea and holding a press conference in Crawford instead but after some smooth talking, everyone eventually got on board. As the esteemed delegates arrived in New York, with all the typical fanfare and traffic chaos as usual, where they were greeted by a few hundred peace protestors who managed to surround the U.N. delaying some procedures, though events remained peaceful. Once inside the building, the President delivered his speech laying out the framework for how the world needed to tackle Iraq, in fairly blunt language, he called military action ‘unavoidable’ if Iraq continued to defy international sanctions “The just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable," though remained ambiguous if this meant war or a continuation of limited intervention. He reiterated his argument that Hussein had defied 12 years’ worth of resolutions including those regarding weapons of mass destruction, aiding terror organisations and crimes committed against prisoners in the gulf war, genocide and repression. He said that his administration will press the United Nations to create a plan of action that the Security Council will take up. He stressed the urgency of action, seeking to squash some members' claims that an invasion more immediacy to act. “Inspections need to commence in a matter of weeks not months or years”. The speech was designed to show that the United States sought cooperation, not the unilateralism the delegates feared going in “we have to make sure that the United Nations does not turn into the League of nations that failed to confront Hitler … It is this council’s responsibility to act”

(Left) President Bush addresses the UN, (Right) protest signs outside the UN stating no blood for Oil​

The President’s speech was well-received by his supporters and even his critics, for once he seemed to be properly leading the administration and reigning in his secretaries in pursuit of his own vision all in sober and frank language as opposed to the vague utterances of the past. As result, a number of nations began openly supporting the United States' position toward an immediate return to inspections. Prime Minister Blair gave the speech a full endorsement calling it the only logical option. “As we supported President Clinton in disrupting Saddam Hussein’s weapons production, we ought to do the same today, there is little doubt to the urgency of this threat”, and both Russia and China said they supported Bush in principle while pushing for continued diplomacy as outlined by Bush. President Putin of Russia selectively quoted the President’s speech saying, “We agree with the President that diplomacy has not been exhausted yet”. And China's foreign office said that the “UN is the best medium to solve the political problem of Iraq and China is willing to play a role in that process”. Other countries were encouraged by the tone of the speech, German Chancellor Stoiber was especially supportive, “Germany's policy is the return of inspectors, and we support the steps taken, these are the wise actions.”. However, some nations chose to remind the world of the aggressive actions already underway, including the fifth permanent security council member France “It is great that President Bush wants to negotiate but it will be difficult to do so while the bombing continues, the U.N. inspectors will likely not return until that stops”. And Arab leaders such as secretary of the Arab League Amr Moussa said Bush’s overture to the United States is “a good move, but a disingenuous one if the U.S. does not also ease its aggressive actions” and for its part, Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister called the speech a “mass of lies and fabrications”.

While the diplomats fought in New York for the support of the world, the battle for the support of the nation began in Washington. If the United States needed to lead a coalition against Iraq the administration decided it would need congressional authorisation, there were differing opinions in the White House on this strategy, the Powell faction thought that it could jeopardize diplomatic efforts by placing the nation on a war footing before the U.N. offered its resolution and threatened a possible veto, and the lawyers argued that since the 1991 congressional authorisation for the gulf war hadn’t been rescinded the President still held the authority to direct force against Iraq, and even without that it wasn’t as if Presidents hadn’t used their war powers extra-legally before and some could argue he was already in breach of the law, but the President agreed with his political advisors that running rings around congress would not aid his coalition-building efforts and could hurt domestic support if a partisan battle erupted inside the United States and a potential war wasn’t over quickly. It could be a hard fight ahead, the Republicans lacked control of either house of congress or should Bush Jr face as much opposition to a resolution as his father did in 1991 it could come down to the wire. The legislative push was made primarily by Chief of Staff Andy Card and Vice-President Dick Cheney (given his legislative background and position as leader of the Senate). As opposed to the streamlined presentation to the U.N. the congressional approach was scattered, a use of force resolution was simultaneously presented to congressmen and women as giving a backbone to U.N. resolutions aiding the peace, while also necessary because of the threat Iraq already posed aiding war preparations. Instead of focusing on the goal of returning weapons inspectors, Cheney reiterated his belief that Saddam Hussein already had W.M.D. insinuating that further resolutions were meaningless, Cheney even went public with his belief potential undercutting the President when he answered an interview question that the United States would have to act “fairly soon” regardless of the U.N. to prevent Saddam from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The lobbying put Iraqi exiles, front and centre just as they were in the battle for the 1991 resolution to tell horror stories about the oppression and genocide under Saddam Hussein and were happy to reiterate Cheney’s claims of Iraq’s weapons capabilities and terror connections.

Vice-President Cheney being interviewed on Meet the Press​

The speed of events and the heavy-handed lobbying was not lost on several congressman who had been warning the White House not to rush to war, Senate Majority Leader Daschle told the White House that the security council resolution should come before the congressional resolution as had been done in the Persian Gulf War and many Democrats were especially hesitant to vote until they had been presented the evidence to Cheney’s claims, some took their reservations public including Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois who called such a resolution “poorly timed” , and there were some foibles in the Republican camp also, Senator Lincoln Chafee, a recurring thorn in the Presidents side agreed that he needed to see the evidence before he voted and was joined by Senators Richard Lugar on the foreign relations committee pushed back against some of the White House messaging by saying that any congressional resolution should be tied to a U.N. resolution and was joined by a few other moderates who expressed reservations about pre-empting the United Nations. The opposition meant that a vote might meet a filibuster threat even as they were able to find some Democratic support in arch hawk Sen, Joe Lieberman and a few other conservative Democrats. Bush hoped to find stronger support in the House, where Speaker Gephardt had been previously open about his support for getting rid of Saddam Hussein and as Speaker was eager for Congress to have a strong say in the events in Iraq, but when pursued to help wright a joint resolution with the White House he pushed back against a swift passage of the resolution “The President is right to state our goals and approach the international community” he said in a press conference “but there are a lot of questions still open, we need to keep our goals clear and our allies on side to ensure this isn’t a one country operation … we need to keep a healthy scepticism about the actions of Saddam Hussein, we know that he is not to be trusted, if necessary I would support a resolution but while the diplomatic options are still on the table we may be able to avoid another war”.

(left to right) Senate Leader Daschle and Speaker Gephardt opposed to the push for an immediate authorisation of force​

The pushback from the Democratic leadership did not sink a resolution and the Bush team was confident that they could peel off sufficient Democratic support in the House and that Democrats would be spooked from filibustering a war resolution, however right now the Senate would be a dangerous gambit and could quickly devolve into partisan gridlock. Unwilling to risk it, the President opted to wait until they had reached a deal at the security council before pursuing the domestic end.[2]

As the Bush team celebrated the President’s speech, they planned their next moves in lobbying the security council for the new resolution. But another surprise came only four days after Bush’s speech. When Kofi Annan received a letter from the Iraqi foreign minister that invited the U.N. weapons inspector chief, Hans Blix back to Iraq. While Annan could not take the offer up immediately as it laid out a rigid timetable that broke with previous resolutions, Annan did announce he would engage in negotiations with Iraq and said it was a positive step forward. Bush’s U.N. speech and Iraq’s following letter seemed to be significant de-escalations, but Washington was quick to cast doubt on the Iraqi proposal bringing up Iraq’s history of meddling with inspectors and Bush's press secretary made it clear that "inspections are not the same as disarmament". One by one, through the month of May, the United States worked to get the security council onside, it took a lot of negotiations and a lot of rewrites including the specification that Iraq’s failure to comply did not justify invasion nor did it outline any other specific consequences, a significantly lighter proposal than the Gulf War resolution 12 years ago. But the ongoing military strikes angered the key members of the security council Russia, China and France all three threatened to veto if the United States did not commit fully to the diplomatic option and ease the strikes. It was a tough sticking point; the President had publically committed to keeping up the pressure on Iraq and Rumsfeld still said they had targets to hit but with the resolution close to complete and no longer any urgent objectives, Bush privately conceded to the council members and strikes again restricted to the no-fly zones, after over a month Baghdad was no longer a city under siege. Sure enough, a few days later on the 3rd of July 2003, the Security Council voted and passed with 11 votes 3 abstentions (Russia, France and Pakistan), and 1 vote against (Syria)[3], Resolution 1486 declaring Iraq in violation of previous resolutions and offered Iraq an opportunity to comply, soon after Iraq announced it would comply. After 5 years weapons inspectors would be returning to Iraq.

(left) UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq, (right) Iraqi building destroyed by US strikes​

---

[1] The two pilots here flew combat missions in the Iraq war
[2] IOTL the war resolution vote occurred prior to congressional elections, so Democrats hoped by speeding up the process they could focus on domestic politics, here there is no such advantage.
[3] The security council has a rotating 10 non-permanent members which Pakistan and Syria would be serving on at the time

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXIV ​

Resolutions

[1]
An American soldier's coffin returns to the United States​

The coffins containing two deceased Americans were returned to the United States in July of 2003, the sombre scene was a macabre and curious moment in history. From the outside, it looked as if the world had taken a step away from the cliff's edge. President George Bush’s call for diplomacy and negotiations, Saddam Hussein’s letter accepting talks with the U.N. and the end of American bombings in central Iraq, all culminated in the readmittance of U.N. weapons inspectors. It was as if a diplomatic coup had taken place, that perhaps all the posturing and the brinksmanship had succeeded, and the United States had put Iraq back in its box to borrow Colin Powell’s turn of phrase. But celebrations were muted in the White House, and everyone could still hear the steady beat of war drums.

As the executive branch continued to lobby congressmen, international delegates and the wider public on the possibility (and potential necessity) of renewed conflict; Secretary Rumsfeld said, "Since the Persian Gulf War, Iraq has agreed to a series of U.N. commitments and failed to fulfil each one., I fail to see what the difference will be now". Or as Press Secretary Ari Fleischer put it “Their words change after a month of attacks, and their army has been decimated, but their actions have not.". Even before inspectors officially returned to Iraq there were bumps in the road, the destruction caused in the American operation ‘Desert Badger’ included the bombing of possible production or storage sites of weapons of mass destruction, making it possible that if such facilities had existed they were already buried under hundreds of tons of rubble. Another issue was that the leadership both in Baghdad and Washington hoped for inspections to be brief, at most a couple of months, Washington held public and private concerns that a long delay would significantly push back the military timeline, as well as give Saddam Hussein the chance to deceive or meddle with inspections or better prepare for a conflict with the U.S., while Iraq feared that long-winded inspections would be used to spy on the regime or otherwise meddle in its affairs. Unfortunately for both, chief inspector Hans Blix expressed his own belief that full inspections it could take up to a year “We have hundreds of sites to visit, and many interviews to conduct, this is a process and will not be completed in a short space of time”.

(left) Hans Blix, Cheif weapons inspector (right) UN weapons inspectors​

Along with claims and reports on the Iraqi government's treacherous misdeeds, Rumsfeld announced that thousands of Marines would be sent to Kuwait for supposed
routine training exercises, however, the number he was sending (nearly 7,000) would triple the number of marines who were present for the exercises the previous year, this sparked news coverage that the United States may be ramping up for war. As President Bush won his first U.N. resolution and inspectors returned to Iraq, his scope shifted back again to wooing Congress to pass its resolution giving the President the authority to take military action should he need to. Though Congress was eased by the U.N. resolution, it was still contentious amongst most Democrats, who were sceptical of White House claims that a resolution was for purely diplomatic aims and not military ones, as well as claims of Iraq’s WMD capability. Many insisted on seeing the evidence for themselves before they made their decision on whether to grant the President the authority. The U.S’s, intelligence agencies were reluctant to provide such information due to an internal conflict over the strength of said intelligence, when Director of the CIA George Tenet was asked by the Senate intelligence committee for a CIA assessment he refused to provide one, Sen Bob Graham chair of the committee was stunned “This was going to be one of the most important votes in a long time, we don’t want to be flying blind here, we said straight up we can’t vote if we don’t know what we’re getting into.”

The President needed to whip votes, he knew that if he couldn’t get congress on his side it would severely disrupt any coalition and hurt any potential war effort, though he was certain that as President he could act alone he was determined to see that he wouldn’t have to, and he began personally lobbying Senators and the public to go his way on the issue. “The authorization to use force.” he said “If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.” While the President's tone was still one of chief diplomat arguing that a force resolution would give the United States a freer hand in negotiations, other members of the administration were blunter in their persuasion, Vice President Cheney at a speech to a conservative think tank said he was sceptical of any U.N. proposals “This is an emerging threat, The question is how best to do it. And we'd like to have the support of the international community and congress as we move forward here. Any suggestion that we should just get inspectors back into Iraq, and then our worries will be over is wrong … A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with U.N. resolutions … we can’t put Saddam back in his box”.

President Bush and Vice-President Cheney​

The administration’s effort whipped the vast majority of Republicans into line, even those with doubts would be willing to put their faith in the White House and back a broad resolution against Iraq, but the Democrats were by and large still against it, unless presented the proof in hand. Three weeks into negotiations the White House finally conceded and Tenet agreed to produce a national intelligence assessment (NIE) on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction to the intel committee. It was the assignment that George Tenet had dreaded, he was a passionate CIA chief who had been eager to bridge the divide between the President and the intelligence community ( at times an adversarial relationship). He saw his role as the helpful bureaucrat, to aid the President from a neutral perspective. He had been good at it, able to keep his position from the Clinton administration to Bush’s, a miracle in this Washington. It won him scorn and praise, what some saw as a yes-man for the President, he saw as the ‘chain of command’. But Tenet was steadily becoming aware of the new role the White House was carving out, and just what the Vice President’s office and Department of Defence wanted from him, they wanted to promote specific, possibly faulty intelligence to support their policy on Iraq. Tenets then deputy John Brennan later explained his own frustration “Responding to the requests from the Hill for that National Intelligence Estimate in a very short period and compressed schedule to do something as major and as significant as that, there was concern that intelligence was being pushed forward as the justification for war. ...”. The White House had put the CIA into a position where it could end up embarrassing the administration, the agency or both because the truth was the CIA had very little solid information on Iraq from 1998 onwards. What the CIA did have was a mix of unreliable, unconfirmable or unintelligible. This would be clear to anyone who could read such a report. Nor would it satisfy the White House or Congress. He had tough choices to make, but he ultimately decided to cut out as much shaky intelligence as possible for the good of the agency.[2]

The national intelligence estimate left a lot out, there was no mention of how a U.S. invasion would be expected to go or the possible aftermath of an invasion, Tenet said that this was far outside the intelligence agencies' field. There was also no mention of bioweaponry, as the CIA had been unable to corroborate the claims of Iraq’s continuation of the program[3]. When it came to chemical weapons the strongest evidence was unaccounted for stocks of mustard, VX and sarin gas plus thousands of shells of chemical agents known to have been used in the Iraq-Iran war and the Kurdish genocide, and the CIA had some intelligence from multiple sources that Saddam sought to continue chemical programs and maintained ties to Iraqi scientists with chemical weapons backgrounds.[4] Regarding nuclear weaponry there were a few lines of inquiry that suggested that Iraq had attempted to purchase thousands of aluminium tubes that could be used for nuclear centrifuges but the report showed it was more likely they would be used for missiles[5], they placed no timeframe on its current nuclear programme but estimated that if unobstructed Iraq could attain a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade. The NEI concluded that the Saddam regime was maintaining a rudimentary WMD program and had not accounted for all its WMD contrary to U.N. resolutions, that Iraq was likely in possession of chemical weapons, and maintained weapons scientists, such weapons may be used on the battlefield though probably not in a first-strike capacity. The NEI was especially critical of Cheney’s theories about Iraq’s relationship with international terrorism showing that they had unable to pin either financing or training of terrorists to the Iraqi regime, a move that the Vice President took as a personal attack, Cheney was later reported commenting on the NEI and Tenet, calling him “unserious and dishonourable … isn’t he seeing what we’re seeing?”.

CIA Director George Tenet​

The report was released to members of Congress. To read the report congressmen had to read it in a small room, alone for security reasons, but some criticised the measure as a tactic to dissuade congressmen from reading the whole document[6]. And though it made for spooky reading to the uninitiated, it contained nothing new or urgent, Senator Graham who asked for the report, later said he understood why the CIA had been reluctant to hand it over “I think [Tenet] knew what this was, this was window dressing, there was nothing fundamentally different here than before”. Still, the report was able to convince some, Senator John McCain said that there was now “No room for doubt” that Saddam had WMD, and Democratic Senator John Edwards (a key vote for the President) said that “Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction are a clear threat to America’s allies”. But Robert Byrd the moderate Democratic Senator from West Virginia saw the opposite “There is no necessity in here, this tells me it would be a war of choice.”

The Bush administration was confident they had a majority to support the desired resolutions in both chambers but there was still a worry regarding the Senate filibuster, Senate Leader Tom Daschle was among the Democrats unimpressed by the intelligence saying that “this report shows that more study is needed” but Daschle was privately very worried that filibustering a war resolution would backfire on them, as the White House would make political hay for stalling a bill on national security, in such an instance several Democrats could join the President in support to avoid the association. Instead, Daschle opted for a third option between support and obstruction, a bi-partisan solution. Developed by Senators, Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware and Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana they proposed a two-part resolution. The two-part resolution would give the President authorization to use force to secure the dismantling of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction not Iraq as a whole, and this was reliant on U.N. security council approval. If the President were unable to secure U.N. approval it would be kicked back to Congress who would vote for the second part of the resolution to approve the President to act unilaterally. It was a catch-all bill, giving cover to those focused on national security, the desire for international support and not giving the President a ‘blank check’, and consequently won support from the Democratic leadership. The plan had detractors on the left, from peace purists who insisted on voting against the war at all costs. But Biden pitched the plan to those Democrats this way, “If we don’t have an alternative, they’ll get the votes for their resolution”. The Biden-Lugar bill began attracting support from some reluctant Democrats and Republicans and represented a real threat to the White House’s strategy, Bush desperate to kill the bill whipped Republican leadership in line telling them it made “no sense why Congress would send a weaker resolution” and that it may “tie his hands”. Biden bit back at the criticism saying that “This bill is focused on our primary concern; weapons of mass destruction, anyone that’s arguing, saying that this is nit-picking or some kind of symbolic gesture, I mean that is just malarky”. President Bush in a meeting with Powell and Rice was lobbied by the two, they raised that the Biden-Lugar Bill would still achieve what he wanted, Powell emphasized that the U.S. strategy against Iraq remained in building global support and Rice had met personally with Biden and Lugar to work on the language of the bill to better fit with the White House’s needs. Serious tensions flared in the executive branch over the proposal, to the hawks it would be a massive step back that would severely limit the administration's use of force (in a manner some deemed unconstitutional) even no resolution would be better than that.

(left to right) Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Senators Joe Biden and Richard Lugar​

The President was pushed by his chief of staff to personally meet with Senators to get across his concerns to Congress, that any resolution needed to expand to the whole of Iraq, “I understand there’s disagreements, but Iraq is a threat and doing nothing is not an option, [Saddam Hussein] represents the biggest threat to the United States, he wants a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel ” Daschle replied, “I think we’re concerned about support, we need these concerns to be addressed”, Gephardt agreed “we agree with your assessment of Saddam Hussein but if this isn’t about WMD we just can’t see it” Some senator’s raised concerns about ability the United States military, Carl Levin chair of the armed services committee said he had received “deep concerns” from officers, such concerns included Saddam utilizing chemical weapons, or hunkering down in ‘fortress Baghdad’ or a potential post-Saddam Baathist insurgency. The President snapped back “Well it would be nice if they shared their concerns with me instead of someone from the Senate”. When asked by congressional Republicans to focus more on Iraq’s human rights abuses, the President got emotional “I’m well aware, you know the guy tried to kill my dad!”

Some attempts to win over Congress went poorly, Secretary Rumsfeld reportedly made an antagonistic, borderline nonsensical hour-long briefing about the threat of Saddam, caricaturing himself going on about how ‘we know there are things we know, we know there are things we do not know’, the pitch worked against him and only convinced some Democrats that the White House was being cagey, Senator Feinstein of the intelligence committee was reported to conclude from the briefing that “there is no new evidence of Saddam’s nuclear capacity” and that she wouldn’t be willing to go to war, and was joined in this criticism by several Republicans "We want to be with you," Oklahoma Senator Don Nickles, finally told Rumsfeld. "But you're not giving us enough.”. and other attempts to convince came across as too heavy-handed such as the vivid testimony on the danger of a biological attack on the United States given to congress by Anthrax expert Dr, Bruce Ivins, which was criticised for fearmongering, and failed to convince or panic Americans.

Congress remained embattled over the writing of the resolution into August. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice worked hard to alter the Democrat's resolution, Powell hit the nail on the head when he said that the threat of unilateral action had to be there “we need to challenge [Saddam], hopefully with a strong congressional resolution, with a strong U.N. resolution, to force him to change his ways, to change the behaviour of that regime, or the regime will have to be changed”. Republicans succeeded in altering the Biden-Lugar Bill to support a general authorization of force against Iraq pending United Nations support which if unsuccessful would trigger a second vote for Congress to authorize unilateral action. As the President's timeline ticked down, Congress voted a week later the final day before the summer recess and passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2003 or the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Action passed with big majorities, 82 votes in the Senate and 319 votes in the House. Now once again the ball was in the United Nations court.

Throughout the Iraqi disarmament crisis, polls on popular opinion greatly wavered, from the beginning of operation Desert Badger, President Bush’s approval rating rose by 10 points to the mid-’50s, and a large majority, 3/4ths of Americans approved of the bombing campaign. But approval for a larger scale invasion was trickier to parse. Americans had been split on an invasion to remove Saddam since 1992, with most polls wavering around 48 to 52% support for a war. Americans’ opinions shifted once important caveats were added, if it were a long war or high casualties were evoking Vietnam flashbacks support dropped dramatically and a third of Americans believed a draft would be reinstated in such a case. Most Americans supported the U.N. weapons inspections but remained unsure of their actual value, 70% thought the U.S. should wait for inspections to end. Half of Americans believed that Saddam had WMD, but most, over 60% thought the administration hadn’t proven it. As the fight over security council and congressional resolutions dragged on support for war steadily declined to between 42% and 47% (these numbers dropped by a further 7% without U.N. support and another 8% without congressional approval). The period also saw Bush’s approval rating settle at around 50%.

The polarized opinion of the country began to be reflected in the public. Where once there had been a single protester outside the White House on the day the strikes began, to the hundreds outside the U.N. headquarters in New York, over 4 months between July and September a largely grassroots anti-war movement took off, slowly but surely, with a few thousand in Washington here, to a few thousand in Chicago there, a vocal opposition grew. The movement wasn’t just a domestic one, the U.K. was quick to build such a movement aided by the governing Labour party’s backbench opposition, against assisting the U.S. in a war. These protests and marches grew in scope, sometimes to the hundreds of thousands, as the images of fighting Americans in the gulf and President Bush’s speeches began to fade from the TV screens, they were replaced by protests (which some complained lent undue weight to the protesting minority). Soon enough Americans were becoming divided too between doves and hawks.[7]

Large protests in Washington, Chicago and London​

Criticism of a potential war was given more prominence by the ‘professional’ opposition, most prominently former weapons inspectors, generals, diplomats and politicians. These high-profile talking heads raised the idea that the administration was distorting the facts or said that an Iraq war would be a lot more difficult than they expected. Scott Ritter the former head of weapons inspections before 1998 said that Iraq’s weapons had been 95% destroyed after the Gulf War, and what was left would now be totally unusable. Officer Brent Scowcroft (the elder Bush’s national security advisor) said that an American invasion could ignite the middle east into one big Israeli Palestinian conflict, and former head of Central Command Anthony Zinni said Iraq was nowhere near a priority to America's defence. Former FBI Special Agent John P O’Neill said that an invasion of Iraq would significantly aid anti-American terrorist groups. There was also Al Gore by now a Presidential candidate who openly attacked Bush’s policy for overreaching “But look at the differences between the resolution that was voted on in 1991 and the one this administration is proposing that the Congress vote on in 2002. The circumstances are really completely different”. Such opposition was also inside the administration, dozens of leaks portrayed a White House scrambling to act, detailing disapproval amongst the military as to the planning of such an operation, and the lack of preparation being taken, there was some pretty explicit criticism of Rumsfeld that he was massively under preparing U.S. forces and portrayed moral as low in the ranks of American forces.

The media varied in its response, print media was far more openly critical compared to television, especially cable news, but coverage especially as the anti-war movement took off split the major cable networks, MSNBC the most left-leaning network featured prominent anti-war critics such as Phil Donahue, CNN was the most neutral and FOX was in clear support for the war and was especially critical of the peace protesters. Print media's criticism of the White House and its intelligence sources could be damning specifically picking apart the exiled Iraqi National Congress for providing misleading or unfounded information to the Bush administration and Congress in their testimony and the scandal swept up several Iraq hawks that championed the INC’s leader Ahmed Chalabi such as Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, including exposing state department records that declared him a ‘convicted fraudster’. Famed Washington Post Reporter Bob Woodward wrote a very critical piece picking apart the White House narrative on WMD simply titled ‘Where is the smoking gun?’. America’s intellectuals and columnists strongly debated between pro-war and anti-war positions, debating the morality of interventionism. The liberal Arianna Huffington chided the pro-war position asking, “I wonder how people would answer the question of how many American body bags they are willing to accept for the removal of Saddam Hussein.?” spared against Christopher Hitchens “Under that condition, there are no circumstances in which a military intervention in Iraq could be justified. Someone could get killed. Then again, a man so deeply committed to Habitat for Humanity might ask what kind of habitat this is, where civilians are used as human shields”[8]

Opposition to the Iraq war, (left to right) former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, General Anthony Zinni, former Vice-president Al Gore, Journalist Bob Woodward and columnist Arianna Huffington​

No one was certain just what could now be achieved diplomatically while inspections were ongoing, but to fulfil Congress's requirement for the second resolution, they needed to try. So, the administration built its case. An oval office meeting was held for the CIA to present its evidence to the President. Bush, Rice, Card, and Cheney were there and a slide show of every suspected Iraqi violation of UNSC resolutions including Saddam’s drone programme, remaining missiles, unaccounted for chemical weapons and reports that Saddam still held meetings with nuclear scientists. By the time the presentation was done, it was clear that the President was underwhelmed by it, “nice try, but I don’t think this is something that joe-public is going to understand” he looked to Tenet and asked, “I’ve been told all this evidence about WMD and this is the best we've got?” Tenet who assisted the CIA’s presentation was cordial in his response “This is what we have, it’s a tossup”[9]. The President thought for a moment “it needs a lot more work” he then added, “but don’t stretch it, I don’t want this to be stretched, just the facts”.[10]

If selling the case to the White House was tough, then the U.N.S.C. would be on a different level Powell worked day and night negotiating with the other council members for their vote. Some already saw it as a lost cause, Cheney derided the council as the “Inspections business” and heavily resented being railroaded by Congress. But Powell was heavily committed to building United Nations support seeing it as essential to legitimising any military action and aiding any potential post-Saddam Iraq.

The United Kingdom was most supportive of a second U.N. resolution, Prime Minister Blair a long-time supporter of removing Saddam from power was facing considerable descent from within his own party and hoped for a U.N. mandate to shore up support. This was also true for America's second strongest ally to date, Australia, PM Kim Beazley told Bush he wouldn’t be able to participate in a conflict without a United Nations support confiding that his own party could remove him. And the Italian PM Berlusconi also hedged his support on a U.N. vote following considerable parliamentary and public pushback. The administration worked to canvas support for a military resolution, Powell believed that they could still find the necessary 9 votes, that Mexico, Spain, Germany, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Guinea and Angola combined with permanent members the U.S. and U.K. would make the majority, but the question circulated over if the other permanent members France, Russia or China would veto the decision. All three countries were firmly behind continued inspections, China urged to ‘Use all possible means to avert war', Russia pointed toward Blix’s statements saying that inspections were working, "There is movement in the right direction," and the French kept up a firm line to give inspections their due, foreign minister Hubert Vedrine (a known critic of U.S. hegemony popularizing the term hyperpower) said “it is everyone’s interest that Iraq is permitted to see the light at the end of the tunnel” giving Iraq the chance to comply. Though none made it explicit[11], it became clear that an immediate push for a resolution would likely fail.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, Australia Prime Minister Kim Beazley and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi​

A month into U.N. negotiations the President grew frustrated “He is deceiving inspectors, he is deceiving the U.N. and he is deceiving the world, I have said it before and I’ll say it again if Saddam Hussein is not brought to justice by the international community, then the U.S. must be prepared to act unilaterally.” He was angry at reports of inspectors, from his eyes, being led around by their noses by grinning Iraqi guards, ‘of course they weren’t finding anything Saddam was hiding it!’ Hans Blix delivered his first report on the 27th of August detailing the search for weapons in Iraq, the theme was that Iraq, had been unenthusiastically compliant with the inspections, allowing them full access to all sites, though there were reports of intimidation and some Iraqis were not submitting themselves to interviews, but the conclusion was a relatively positive one, Blix also reported that no WMD had been found. Saddam also made an appearance publicly, saying that he was allowing inspectors into the country to squash the US’s claims. Some in the White House took Saddam’s growing confidence as an insult and blamed Blix and the U.N. publicly. Press Secretary Fleischer shot down the report as unimportant and derided the weapons team, "The problem with guns that are hidden is you can't see their smoke.”.

The administration could not break through diplomatically with any of the permanent members neither France, Russia nor China would concede while inspections were ongoing, and several other non-permanent members began to waiver, Cameroon fell in line behind France, and Mexican President Vincente Fox hinted that his country might abstain and German Chancellor Stoiber (who needed to maintain an alliance with centrist liberals) began to urge restraint. The White House grew concerned about the timeline for possible military operations to begin in November, and pushed Powell to wrap up at the United Nations so they could go back to Congress and say that the U.N. was refusing to act. But Powell was struggling to let go of the diplomatic track, he recognised that the there was no clear smoking gun, though he shared much of the enthusiasm for ‘getting rid of the bastard Saddam’ he could see things were not going well, Rumsfeld was sending far too few troops and greatly underestimating the level of resistance they were likely to face, the public was not united behind them and there were too few allies on board. Powell kept fielding doubts from within the military and diplomatic spheres and was getting tired of constantly having to reassure them. Now the Vice-president’s office and Defence department were asking him to push clearly flawed intelligence, a draft of speech from Cheney’s office included already disproven information. He had developed great political clout as the Secretary of State, and it was his soldier's code not to betray the President, it would be an enormous unimaginable act of disloyalty to do so. But he picked up the phone and called the President anyway to ask him “Is this the right way?”, with the most deference possible he asked the President just what he wanted Powell to achieve at the U.N. going over possible options, while never critical he asked if diplomacy was still on the table, and if the President saw a disarmed Iraq still under Saddam was a possibility, he said he would need more time to gather intelligence to convince the United Nations. He reiterated that he would support the President whatever his decision but left the President with his clear view that “if you’re going to send young men and women in harm’s way, you ought to have a clear political objective”.[12]

German Chancellor Edmund Stoiber, Mexican President Vincente Fox and Secretary of State Powell at the UN​

The President was in limbo now, central command had pushed back the earliest start date for military action from November to December, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia denied use of their territory for a ground invasion, and they were still muddling through the United Nations. The President also knew that he was in choppy waters at home, Democrats now had the votes to filibuster a war resolution (the current count was 47 votes for no in the Senate[13]). There were a variety of factors, the growing anti-war movement, the lack of solid allies, ongoing weapons inspections which some said shouldn’t be disrupted (a process that could take months as Blix predicted), the lack of a firm Security Council decision, as well as the 2004 Presidential election steadily gathering steam giving many a good reason to oppose the administration. But the decision was made for him when Senate Leader Daschle said, “Just because the President has failed miserably at diplomacy does not mean the United States should go to war, rushing to war without an adequate concern for the ramifications of doing so unilaterally, with a very small coalition, without enough support, would be premature … this war is not inevitable”. The President could try to force the Senates hand by putting a vote on the table to make Democrats sign their name to the refusal but one by one when a few high-profile Democrats shared their criticisms it was clear that the battle lines were drawn and barring a change of circumstances a congressional resolution wasn’t on the table, the war drums seemed to be fading.

“If we allow President Bush to start a war without Congressional approval, it will haunt us for years to come, we cannot go to war just because the President sets an unrealistic deadline” – Ted Kennedy

"Are we supposed to go to war simply because one man -- the president -- makes a series of unilateral decisions that put us in a box, a box that makes war, to a greater degree, inevitable?" – John Kerry

“There is no question that with regard to Iraq, we have a real and growing problem. But I also believe we have time to deal with that problem in a way that isolates Saddam and does not isolate the United States of America, that makes the use of force the final option, not the first one, The President has failed to do this.” – Joe Biden

“If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. We have already criticised India for its pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. What if China should perceive a threat from Taiwan? So, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, should be ruled out” – Hillary Clinton

“Disarming Iraq under Saddam Hussein is necessary and vital to the safety and security of America, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East--let there be no doubt about this. But I continue to have serious concerns that there are those in the administration who would seek to use an authorization for a unilateral, pre-emptive attack against Iraq. I believe this would be a terrible mistake.” – Diane Feinstein

"I've seen the toll that war can take on our troops and on limbs on that battlefield. The best way to support the troops is never to send them into war in the first place. In the second place, if they go to war, make sure it’s worthwhile. That’s the second-best way to support the troops, so then they won’t have to worry about the reception they will get upon their return.” – Max Cleland

Democratic Senators, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein and Max Cleland, all opposed the President's authorization ​

---

[1] Photographs of American military coffins were censored at the time
[2] After 9/11 there was a lot of criticism of the CIA and Tenet saw it as his job to protect the agency. This included getting closer than usual with the President and would not surprise me if it affected his handling of Iraqi intelligence
[3] All intel on bio weaponry were second-hand rumours
[4] The unaccounted-for stockpiles were probably the best evidence of Saddam still having them if you can call the absence of evidence, evidence
[5] The aluminium tubes and the yellow cake (which is ignored totally ITTL) were the only evidence of Saddam trying to build nuclear weapons aside from some sites that the Defence Department pointed out could be used for centrifuges
[6] Unsurprisingly many didn't
[7] A big difference is that the pro-war movement and the jingoism are significantly reduced ITTL
[8] The New York Times and the Washington Post coverage was so bad they famously posted apologies in 2004, The war on terror and 9/11 seriously affected reporters' objectivity
[9] Tenet famously called the evidence a ‘slam dunk’. Since 9/11 was a failure not to take the information seriously the Iraq war was a failure of amplifying intelligence.
[10] Bush-like most believed there was WMD but it wasn’t his primary motivation for going after Saddam. WMD just seemed like the most obvious one.
[11] Without Chirac putting down a firm veto the U.N. process is not firmly ruled out. And also there is no Francophobia in the U.S. or freedom fries
[12] Powell constantly reiterated how his speech to the UN was a blot on his record, he remains more cautious ITTL and the White House needs to keep up appearances.
[13] I have a rudimentary vote count if anyone is interested in knowing how certain Senators would have voted​

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXV
Justice

---

Explosions and Gunfire Rock U.S. Military Compound in Saudi Capital

---

By The Associated Press
Sep 23, 2003

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – On Saudi Arabia’s national day, attackers shot their way into an American and allied forces coalition compound and detonated several truck and car bombs, Eskan Village the compound just outside Riyadh, the capital of the Saudi Kingdom, was housing American and other coalition military personal. The bombs and gunfire killed at least 18 and left over 200 people injured, a hospital official said.

Over a hundred Americans were reported to have serious injuries and the Defense Department expects the death toll to rise as the search through the rubble continues. Attackers were able to gain entry to the compound in the explosive primed vehicles before storming several apartment blocks with the vehicles and gunfire before detonating explosives inside, 2 trucks and one car leaving several large craters destroying 2 buildings and damaging many others.

All of the dead and injured were Americans, Pentagon officials said, but the Saudi Government said some of the injured were of other nationalities including British.

"We don't know how many are injured, but we received over 200 and the number is growing," an official at the National Guard Hospital in Riyadh told The Associated Press by telephone, without identifying himself. "We're full now, there is no room for more casualties."

Smoke rose into the night sky from the heavily gated and guarded village, located directly beside a U.S.-operated airbase, helicopters circled overhead, scanning the ground with a searchlight for other potential attackers. Hundreds of, U.S. servicemen, Saudi police and members of the Saudi National Guardsmen were cordoning the area and sealing it off as ambulances rushed in.

The compound serves to house over 2,000 U.S. troops and has recently headquartered United States Central Command for commanding Operation Desert Badger the military mission conducted by American and British forces to strike targets in neighbouring Iraq.

U.S. officials said they are concerned about the possibility of more attacks, and the State Department ordered the departure of all nonessential U.S. personnel and their family members from Saudi Arabia. "We're very concerned about additional attacks," said a U.S. official. He declined to be more specific.

President Bush said the attack "was very well planned." and he vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice. "The United States will find the killers and they will learn the meaning of American justice,” he said while speaking to an audience in Indiana.

The blast appeared to be the worst terrorist attack on Americans in the Middle East since the bombing of American military personnel at the apartment complex the Khobar Towers also in Saudi Arabia in 1996 killing 19. And came at a time of immense tension in the middle east concerning both ongoing weapons inspections in Iraq and ongoing negotiations between Israel and Palestine

Defense Department officials in Washington said they could not know for certain the group responsible for the attack but Saudi Officials appeared to pin the blame on the terrorist network al Qaeda, the terrorist organization formally headed by the Saudi exile Osama bin Laden who was killed by a United States airstrike 5 years ago, the group took responsibility for the attack on American embassies in 1998 and FBI Director Robert Mueller said that "What is to be learned from last night is that al Qaeda and other terrorist networks are still there and still want to strike us,". al Qaeda opposes the Saudi government and the presence of the U.S. military in the country.

---

President George W Bush addresses an audience following the Eskan Village attack​

The terror attack in Saudi Arabia came at a time of immense tensions in the middle east, as the United States was sizing up against Saudi Arabia’s neighbour Iraq and its dictator Saddam Hussein. In the immediate aftermath, some were prepared to believe the worst of Saddam and suspected him of carrying out the attack on America’s troops. This was a belief some White House officials were primed to agree with, those who had been searching for an Iraqi-terror connection. However, Saudi and U.S. law enforcement was quick to throw cold water on those suspicions and cast the blame on the Al-Qaeda terror network. The Saudis claimed to have already broken up numerous Al-Qaeda cells inside of Saudi Arabia and it was public knowledge that over the past 3 years a low-level insurgency had been simmering in the country, consisting of bombing attacks and the occasional murder of western tourists, officials and businessmen. But the Eskan Village attack stood out as the deadliest to date. It was well known to U.S. authorities that several anti-American terrorist networks held connections to the Kingdom including some wealthy and powerful patrons and sympathisers. The foundation of Al-Qaeda was the anger toward the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, the country that contains Islam’s two holiest sites. Osama bin Laden, the group’s founder had made chasing American forces out of the Arabian Peninsula his primary goal. A thesis that was embraced by Al-Qaeda’s and other splinter groups' subsequent leadership. The Saudi Kingdom had tolerated anti-American sentiments and a growing number of American foreign policy analysts were critical of the worrying connection between Saudi wealth and terror attacks and noted the number of young Saudis who participated in global militant activities, such as those arrested in New Jersey in 2002. The kingdom had been trying to deny the existence of any such terrorist threat or connection to terror groups hoping to avoid the stigma associated with confessing to having an anti-western insurgency and wanted to avoid enforcing a potentially destabilizing crackdown on those groups.

The FBI was dispatched to corroborate the Saudi government's claims. Previous attacks in the region had been historically difficult to determine the exact responsibility, with a web of interweaving networks occasionally working in conflict with each other. Both Iran, Iraq and Syria among other countries had been suspected of aiding Saudi extremists as a means of destabilizing the Kingdom, but no smoking gun had been found. The FBI investigation into the attack made several revelations, that the attack had been intimately planned and that the attackers were able to breach the defences of the compound because they were dressed as Saudi National Guardsmen, sparking fears that militants had penetrated the upper ranks of the Saudi military. The investigation also revealed that over a dozen men took part in the attack and DNA evidence did link some perpetrators to Al-Qaeda or similar militant groups, any efforts to link them to Iraqi or other state groups went nowhere. The level of complexity and organisation involved in the plot was trademark Al-Qaeda. There was further criticism of the Saudi government’s handling of the attack seen as the state shielding its own country's possible involvement, even though they round up a dozen involved they declined to look into any connections to extremism in the Saudi forces nor would the government extradite any of them to the United States to stand trial (the subsequent results of the Saudi led trials were not made public). Regardless of either the Saudi or FBI findings, Al-Qaeda’s connection looked to be definitively confirmed when 2 weeks later the group released videotaped eulogies of several dead militants and took personal credit for the attack in a video featuring Saad bin Laden one of the many sons of Al-Qaeda’s former leader who echoed his father’s own sentiments calling the kingdom a “slave to Jews and Americans” and the attack “all they deserve”.

Leader of Al-Qaeda Mohammed Atef beside Saad Bin Laden​

The attack in Saudi Arabia and the President’s public commitment to bring the killers to justice meant that the administration needed to visibly respond. The FBI, Saudi and numerous other intelligence agencies across the globe had placed the blame flatly on Al-Qaida's doorstep, despite a continued effort by certain White House officials to keep the admins focus solely on Iraq (these groups included differing factions of the Saudi leadership who were for a U.S. invasion of Iraq) but the confession tape largely silenced them, even Cheney and Rumsfeld deferred to the agencies view that action needed to be taken against Al-Qaeda, if nothing else because the tape had taunted/threatened the administration. The President had hoped for a departure of what he saw as the Clinton policy, doing very little interrupted by occasional airstrikes, he called it ‘swatting flies’. He saw hitting Al-Qaida operatives alone as an ineffective policy, the U.S. couldn’t just go after individual terrorists they needed to hit the organization and punish the countries and groups responsible for aiding them, to put the terrorists firmly on the back foot instead of just reacting to every attack, Bush wanted to include hitting the Taliban as part of any American response, the Islamic fundamentalists that controlled most of Afghanistan and played host to the many jihadist groups in the country including Al-Qaeda. This Presidents strategy was controversial, there had been no formal investigation that had pinned Al-Qaeda’s actions to have been directed by the Taliban and publicly confronting them could provoke a backlash, the Taliban had support across the Muslim world including some of America's allies in the Gulf, including Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. The Taliban’s most important backer was its nuclear neighbour Pakistan, where thousands of volunteers including intelligence officials came from and were actively aiding the Taliban regime, the previous Afghan strikes by Clinton in 1998 had killed Pakistani officials, now directing attacks against the Taliban specifically, could kill dozens of Pakistanis. The CIA worried that it might spur unrest against Americans in Pakistan and could drive more to join militant groups. Another snag was that for strikes to be effective in Afghanistan they would need to pass through Pakistani air space, and it would require them to receive prior notice to prevent them from trying to shoot down the U.S. missiles/planes and this would allow Pakistani intelligence to inform the Taliban of impending strikes greatly diluting their value in killing any high-value targets.

But President Bush still demanded a stronger response and told the State department to approach Pakistan’s President Musharraf with an offer for Pakistan to cut off support for the Taliban and in exchange the President would support better relations between the countries. It was a big ask; Musharraf had so far proven resistant to curbing support for the Taliban instead he had been continuing the policy of supporting the Taliban to prevent a more Indian-aligned Afghanistan from forming. But Musharraf couldn’t deny the enormous opportunity in front of him.

Following the 2002 Kashmir war, General Musharraf experienced a level of political popularity unseen in Pakistan since its formation and he already used the political capital to break bread with the United States, aiding a crackdown on anti-American terror groups in Pakistan and chasing high target terrorists out of the country (though many hawkish Americans saw these moves as half-hearted). The subsequent general election in Pakistan was a triumph for Musharraf’s newly formed political party, where he easily bested the opposition parties of his exiled rivels Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Butto[1], winning 46% of the vote and giving parties that favoured him a large majority. To further legitimize his rule, he transferred some executive power to the Prime Minister to present himself as the legitimate civilian leader of the country. With his high domestic approval and support from within the Pakistani military, Musharaff was best placed for a change of course regarding the country's stance on the Taliban, Musharraf was aware of his country’s fragile political system, the need to balance regional security concerns, and domestic support for the Taliban, but he also had his own aims to liberalise and grow Pakistan’s economy, primarily by spurring investment. A reproach with the west could bring just that about. So, Musharraf struck a deal with the United States to permit the use of its airspace for military strikes against Al-Qaeda and certain affiliates in the Taliban but refused to support efforts that would assist regime change.

Musharraf Supporters on the street​

The President was pleased with the deal and quickly approved a mission to carry out a large series of military strikes against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan as well as limited strikes against Taliban military bases and training facilities though notably not Taliban leadership. The mission dubbed, Infinite Justice was carried out on November 12th, 2003, in dramatic fashion. The strikes began in the dead of night and were noticeably larger than the strikes in 1998, designed to show that this President was more concerned than his predecessor. Supersonic jets took off from American aircraft carriers in the sea. B-2 bombers flew from as far away as California and cruise missiles were fired from American submarines. All on a mission to wipe out terrorist training camps and select Taliban military encampments.

The President made the announcement from the cabinet room “On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against terrorist training camps as well as certain military installations in Afghanistan being used to aid these terrorist groups. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations … By destroying camps and compounds, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans … The recent attack on American soldiers was planned and ordered by these groups and they will pay the price”.

Over an 18-hour period 30 targets, including training camps, air bases and garrisons were struck across Afghanistan in a grand display of the world’s greatest military power's raw might. Images of fuzzy explosions were beamed out of the mountains of Afghanistan by television networks. When asked if the administration achieved its objective Defence Secretary Rumsfeld praised the mission “it has been very successful, all the targets were hit and all our aircraft came back safe”. The powerful barrage was assessed as much more successful at destroying the camps and bases than the previous cruise missile strikes due to the increased firepower and accuracy, but as for bagging high profile targets and terror leaders like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Muhammed Atef and Saaf Bin Laden all evaded death. Perhaps the terror organisations had either expected strikes and had gone to ground or maybe they had been informed, either way, the groups escaped the fate of its first emir incurring minimal casualties. The strikes against the Taliban air bases and military garrisons were much more successful in destroying or disabling air bases in the north and around the capital of Kabul as well as destroying half of the Taliban air force in the process and led to an estimated 300 casualties among militants.

(Left to right) B-2 Bomber in flight, aircraft taking off from a carrier and cruise missiles launching

Map of the Strikes in Afghanistan
​

The global reaction to the strikes was again a mixed bag. Domestically the strikes were met with uniform support from both party leadership even as Democrats doubted the administration’s stance on Iraq they commended the President's commitment to justice in Afghanistan, sometimes using loaded language “This was a justified, well planned and responsible action by the President, and I applaud him for that” said Bob Graham a senior Democrat and one of the chief critics of the Iraq policy. A joint statement by Democratic leadership went “[America] had to respond, we support this operation”. Even Senate Leader Daschle who was filibustering the President's war resolution on Iraq gave deference to the President while cautious not to provide the President with a free hand “There is clear bi partisan support for this mission and clear reasoning for it … we ought to be doing everything we can to protect American servicemen”. Globally the response was the predictable response between America's traditional allies in favour while Muslim nations and Islamic groups and the other major powers Russia and China were against what they called a pre-emptive response, and another day of anti-American protests flared up across the Islamic world.

...

The Eskan Village attack and the subsequent operation, Infinite Justice further complicated the internal politics of the White House, where all the key figures were looking at the prospects of military action in a second country and weighing up the options for dealing with the Iraqi disarmament crisis. Hans Blix’s team continued to search Iraq for U.N. banned weaponry. In a second report, Blix detailed his efforts, noting that Iraq was becoming increasingly belligerent slowing down the rate inspections were being carried out. The White House labelled this 'the latest part of their games of deception' and saw dragging out inspections as an attempt to lull the international community into losing interest. Blix did detail that Iraq had been more open with interviews and after some back and forth over the Iraqi missiles, that was over the U.N. allowed range Iraq agreed in principle to destroy the missiles but said it did not know how to go about it, a perfect example of what Blix called ‘unenthusiastic compliance’ (Iraq shortly after proceeded to destroy the missiles).

Wax sculptures of George Bush, Colin Powell and Saddam Hussein​

But to the White House, questions over Saddam’s compliance were only a footnote, the question was no longer whether to act, it was how and when. Unfortunately, several obstacles stood in the administration's path. Ongoing inspections under Blix would have to be ended if the U.S. brought the hammer down on Iraq, inspections that were gaining traction and public support despite Blix's and the U.S. grumblings. The United States would only have a small coalition for large-scale military action only the Brits would be able to join for an immediate invasion with possible support from some other European country's special forces. If military action were to begin, the time frame was becoming a difficult task to manage, troops were being trickled into Kuwait at a slow rate so as to not arouse suspicions but there was considerable disagreement between Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld and the General Staff over how many troops would be needed for a sufficiently swift military operation, Rumsfeld’s new timeline was that they would be ready to go by mid-November for a lightning strike to Baghdad (a timeline that was further stalled by the Eskan attack) but Generals wanted more troops and a dedicated air campaign phase akin to the 1991 Gulf war to destroy Iraqi forces prior to ground operations, which would push an invasion at least into the new year. Finally, lay the question of victory, everyone was certain the United States would crush the Iraqi army, but the level of resistance they would face was highly debated, from the rosy picture championed by the hawks that U.S. forces would be greeted by flowers in the street to the apocalyptic preparations being made in the military, of the United States forces facing chemical weapons barrages and sieging down city after city. The level of resistance at home was also in flux, Congress had declined to give the President the green light yet, and the public was generally opposed to an invasion roughly 30% to 40% were in favour under the current circumstances but the Bush team were confident that that dial would shift if action began. But to do nothing and allow Saddam to run out the clock was an unthinkable outcome.

It was well within the President’s authority to order a military operation without Congress's authority, Clinton, his father, and Reagan had all done so. But in those instances, those presidents had stronger global support and military assurance, the invasion of Grenada, Panama and Haiti were swift operations in the Caribbean, America’s backyard, even in the Gulf War where President H W Bush threatened to go to war without congressional support, he had the U.N. authority to back the legality of his actions. Bush Jr had some legal loopholes available to him, the Iraq Liberation act or the original 1991 resolution or even the recent endorsement of American action in Desert Badger could be applied to a larger operation, Cheney pointed out that the President had used armed force over 200 times and congress had only approved of war 5 times, but Bush knew that the political consequences could be severe, especially if some of the worst estimates of American casualties unfolded during an election year, some Democrats put it in harsh terms “If the President acts against Congress’s and the American people will, he will be impeached by Congress” Said Daniel Inouye (The senator who lost an arm in WWII, and a firm opponent of a war with Iraq), congressional opposition was honing in on probes into faulty intelligence used by Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz’s team and possible intel leaks or spying to build support for a war and there were even accusations on the internets that the Bush administration had shot down the U.S. pilots deliberately as a false flag attack. Military action would definitely be on a scale unseen since the Vietnam war and regardless of the outcome at the end of the day, the United States would be left occupying a country the size of France and Powell’s paraphrased pottery barn rule of ‘you break it you buy it’ still hung in the air. And the situation would be especially awkward since it had been his father who set the standard for getting congressional authorization. The President had a decision to make, either abide by Congress’s non-decision or make the unilateral manoeuvre to take the nation to war.

Saddam disarmed or not, was a threat, a sworn enemy of America, he threatened his neighbours, paid Palestinian terrorists and shot at our aircraft. He defied sanctions and the U.N. brazenly and ruled his people with a brutal blood-soaked iron fist, whether or not he had them now, he had used weapons of mass destruction in the past. One way or another we needed to confront the threat from Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld pressed urgency saying that waiting would allow Saddam to better prepare and could wear down morale in the American forces, but there was significant detraction inside the administration, multiple cabinet Secretaries including State: Powell, and Treasury: Paul O’Neil and the general staff was split on the decision as well as the mounting congressional hostility and public opposition. The President had even been pushed by his family who, of course, all supported him but each had expressed fears regarding a war (Bush recalled an awkward moment when watching 13 days with his family a film recalling the Kennedys administration's effort to avert war with the Soviet Union), even his father who rarely gave advice without being asked, so to not condescend to him had told him to be careful with his course of action. Everyone could tell that the President was in a tricky situation and being forced to reconsider his path going forward, on multiple occasions he asked General Tommy Franks what the latest possible date for military action to begin would be, to which Franks responded, “Mr President we can go at any time but we would prefer to go before February”. The President’s schedule was tighter than it had ever been, between campaigning, legislating, and meetings on Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan there was scarce time to think. The President travelled to the United Kingdom for a state visit following Operation Infinite Justice, a trip that became clouded over, due to the thousands of peaceful protesters that came out in opposition. In a frank conversation with Blair each discussed their political troubles, in the UK the opposition Conservative Party was beginning to question the PM on his policy toward Iraq and though the PM reassured Bush that he was 100% behind it was clear that there was a growing effort to put the brakes on the war machine.

Bush and Blair Press conference during Bush's state visit to the UK​

Returning to the White House on November 22nd, he was certain of his authority to act and was more certain that the world would thank him for doing so. But the President was still stuck, launching military action now, disrupting the U.N. process would burn too many bridges and though Bush tried to ignore the political ramifications he didn’t like the picture of a war in an election year. But the President would act, he had too many meetings with people concerning the threat of Saddam to ignore him and recalled that a holocaust survivor told him that he as the President had the moral obligation to act. And to all those protesting and the lawmakers who pledged that their opposition to the war was out of concern for human rights, using force to remove a man who gassed Kurds and massacred Shia with helicopter gunships was no issue to the President. Removing such a man would surely advance the cause of human rights and as President, he would pursue regime change in Iraq. But he was not convinced that an invasion was the only method to do so. Dissatisfaction from Powell, Rice, Card and Rove as well as senior military officials on the political and military implications of launching an invasion under these circumstances, these concerns were real and couldn’t be set aside easily. Rummy and Dick would be frustrated but Bush recognised that the ball had been severely dropped, that the intelligence and the WMD argument that they had insisted on using as the linchpin for war just wasn’t a strong enough a case to alone, justify a war to the American public, the argument wasn’t a winning one and W just couldn’t listen to much more of it. The President confronted his deputies and told them that though he hadn’t taken war off the table, a large military invasion of Iraq was not on the immediate agenda. The hawks were dismayed, to them American legitimacy was on the line, they were blinking in the face of Saddam’s deception and could pay dearly for it, the President reassured them the United States had pledged to enforce the UN resolution and he wouldn’t break his word, neither would he let Saddam off the hook pledging commitment to still supporting regime change in Iraq.[2]

The sabre-rattling would continue, but war plans would for the moment were shelved, a large contingent of troops would remain in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (close to 40,000) and the intelligence agencies and CIA teams would double down on their Iraqi operations, the President called it a maximum pressure campaign to wrestle Saddam and force him into compliance, not just to keep him in the box but hopefully to squeeze him out of the box with the beginning of a new covert programme Operation Wolverine. The administration straddled two public lines of thought, that they had succeeded in confronting Saddam Hussein by backing up the U.N. with arms even though he still represented a material threat to the United States and needed to be removed from office. One thing was for certain, Saddam saw it as his victory "Iraq has triumphed over the enemies of the (Arab) nation and over its enemies who have failed to destroy our people with their lies," he said.

Saddam Hussein tile mural​

...

For the past 3 years, the United States had assisted in sending support to those in opposition to the Taliban under the covert CIA program Operation Mercury. The United States had been supplying guns, trucks, helicopters food, medical equipment and military advisors to the anti-Taliban forces of the Northern Alliance led by Ahmad Shah Massoud. These efforts were successful and gathered steam. Masoud’s forces were growing thanks to the aid and the influx of migrants from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as well as the money provided which aided in winning over the support of local Afghan warlords. Despite the Bush administration's agreement with Pakistan that his goal was not regime change the results of the aid and bombardment spoke for themselves. The destruction of the Taliban air facilities and military garrisons in the north allowed Massoud to go on the offensive where his troops held strong advantages on the battlefield and now with covert military advisors Masoud’s forces prepared to launch an attack to seize back territory and capture Taliban strongholds in the North of Afghanistan. America increased the aid being sent to the Northern Alliance under Operation Mercury and alongside advisors, the CIA sent paramilitary to assist the Northern Alliance and potentially locate, kill or capture terrorist leadership that had evaded death in the strikes. The President had secretly authorized boots on the ground in Afghanistan.

The first evidence of Masoud’s superior army came when his forces launched an attack after the beginning of Ramadan on Kunduz, a major city home to 300,000 that allowed the Taliban to control international aid coming through Tajikistan and became one of the Taliban’s greatest strongholds with an estimated 15,000 fighters present including a large minority of foreign fighters, Northern Alliance forces taking advantage of its now undisputed air superiority (its airport and garrisons being one of the ones destroyed by Americans) lay siege to the city, Northern Alliance leaders offered to negotiate a surrender but the Taliban turned the request down with its leader Mullah Omar issuing the order to not surrender calling on his followers to “choose death over submission to the fascists." the battle for Afghanistan continued, bloodier than ever.

Northern Alliance forces (left) Taliban forces (right)​

---

[1] The Islamist party doesn’t form
[2] 9/11 changed Bush and fully converted him from a ‘compassionate conservative’ into a neocon idealist. Some have reported it to be a religious transformation. ITTL he hates Saddam but doesn’t have the zeal to invade to remove him

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXVI
Only in California

37th Governor of California Gray Davis​

In 2002 following a long and bitter election campaign Gray Davis was re-elected as Governor of California defeating Republican businessman Bill Simon. The Davis campaign overcame widespread voter apathy in the state and low favourabilities at the polls. It wasn’t much of a surprise, that the incumbent governor was victorious in the favourable Democratic 2002 electoral climate in the liberal-leaning state, but the disappointment at the polls between picking Davis who was mired in a ‘pay for play’ scandal and Simon the inexperienced, entrepreneur under investigation for fraud greatly depressed voter turnout. In the aftermath of his pyrrhic victory, the Golden state experienced a political roller coaster like no other.

Davis’s second term was clouded from the start by a pile of problems weighing on him. By far the greatest drag on Davis’s popularity was the California energy crisis, from 2000 to 2001. California, despite being a large energy exporter began to suffer from huge price hikes and rolling blackouts. The Governor declared the situation a state of emergency and to resolve the crisis, began buying electricity at the inflated prices contributing to California’s simultaneous debt crisis created by the dot com crash that had been fuelling the state’s 90’s economic boom, as well as Davis’s government programmes and tax cuts. The cause of the energy crisis was pinned on a single company, the big E, Enron. Prior to its historic crash, one of Enron’s many schemes involved manipulating the California energy market, where Enron alongside other energy companies worked to deliberately restrict the state’s energy output creating the blackouts and price hikes. The market manipulation along with pre-Davis era deregulation and privatisation (championed by Enron) combined with the Governor's delay in addressing the crisis all greatly multiplied the damage and the political fallout for Davis.

The second decision that turned Davis from a polarizing incumbent to a truly unpopular one was his solution to the aforementioned debt crisis, raising taxes. Desperate to raise state revenues the governor took unilateral action to raise the fees on vehicle registration, the average fee tripled from $70 to $210. Davis said the tax was necessary to maintain roads “Without the increase, we would face a severe public safety emergency,”, but his explanation was not enough for some “The state is not entitled to that money,” said State Senator. Tom McClintock spoke to reporters in the lobby of the attorney general’s office, where he filed proposed ballot initiatives to roll back the tax rate to $1 or abolish it altogether. “They are breaking the law by taking it.”. The twin crisis and the tax increase plummeted Davis’s popularity to a dismal low of 26% only 6 months after his re-election.

Alongside that popular discontent came California’s recall law, the ability for voters to remove an elected representative following a petition of the voters. There had been over a hundred attempts to do so but to date, there had never been a successful recall of a state-wide official, Davis even faced a petition in 1999 but the anger always fizzled before the requisite number of signatures were signed. But now Davis had frustrated the majority of conservative groups in the state, blocking efforts to enact stronger immigration laws as well as implementing gun control laws. An effort to recall the Governor became backed by Republican office holders including Representative Darrell Issa who donated millions of his own dollars to the movement and the signatures flowed in “Gray Davis is as popular as SARS right now in California,” an Issa staffer said. “There’s not going to be any trouble getting the signatures we need”. Davis also suffered criticism on his left, perceiving him as a moderate who was corrupt and subservient to business interests which explained his slow action to solve the energy crisis, to them he was a “middle-of-the-roader whose grand political vision begins and ends with the desire to offend no one -- especially anyone with a chequebook” said prominent liberal columnist Arianna Huffington. Opponents of a recall tried to lay the fault of the crisis away from Davis, he didn’t create the dot com bubble or deregulate the energy market, that was the fault of the former Republican Governor and Enron executives, accusing the whole recall push of being an attempt by sore Republicans to undemocratically remove Davis, California Senator Feinstein gave her support to the Governor “A recall is not going to produce anything positive for the state of California,”. Governor Davis meanwhile did his best to stay away from the entire affair, believing that his dignifying the petition would simply fan the flames of discontent. The well-organized campaign took off and sure enough passed the required threshold, it was a certainty, and there was a recall election underway in California.

Pro ant anti-recall campaigners​

What followed was described across headlines as a ‘laughingstock’ ‘carnival’ or ‘circus’, the barrier for a recall candidate’s entry was much lower than a normal election all it took was a few thousand dollars to be made a candidate. The primary system would be skipped entirely meaning that come election day voters would vote simultaneously on whether to recall Davis or not and who should replace him. The field quickly filled with hundreds of potential Davis replacements some credible most ridiculous.

The first candidate to come forward was Representative Darrell Issa who funded the campaign and subsequently faced heavy accusations that he had financed the entire campaign just to manoeuvre his way into the office “Do we replace one bad guy with another? That’s the only real question.” As one Californian put it. Other Republicans were quick to join the race, State Senator Tom McClintock a staunch conservative who routinely challenged the governor, and Republican Businessman and Baseball Commissioner Peter Ueberroth ran an outsider campaign pledging to save California the way he saved the 1984 LA Olympics. Additionally, Davis’s former rival Bill Simon jumped into the race too. Still, the candidate that created the greatest splash in the race was the former Mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan who lost the primary campaign in 2002 thanks to Davis’s attack ads designed to favour more conservative candidates for the general election Riordan was a moderate Republican with implicit support from Republican officials including White House connections hoping that a centrist Republican, supportive of abortion and gay rights was going to be the best bet to beat Davis. Still, he was a damaged candidate, the previous year’s primary campaign left him labelled a RINO (Republican in name only) who had a close relationship with Democrats including former President Clinton and Senator Feinstein and had been similarly tarred by a suspicious relationship with Enron. Riordan received an early endorsement from a friend and neighbour, the famed action star Republican Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger who had been courted to run for the governorship but cited prior movie commitments (a sequel to 1994’s True Lies). On the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, he said "I know the people of California want better leadership, they want great leadership," he said. "It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican if you're young or old., we want change and Riordan can give us that change ... we need to say hasta la vista to Gray Davis”

Republicans who entered the race, (left to right) Peter Ueberroth, Darell Issa, Richard Riordan, Tom McClintock, Bill Simons​

The Democrat's response was shaky, Davis’s efforts to avoid the recall by ignoring it had failed and even went against some of the advice of Democratic leaders, who were aware of his low favourability. Conscious that if the recall effort were successful, they would be stuck with a Republican Governor they were split over the right strategy to respond. Some wanted to lean into the recall and draft Senator Feinstein (the state's most popular politician) to run as a replacement, but she rebuffed those efforts and encouraged Democrats to put up a united front against the recall. " After thinking a great deal about this recall, its implications for the future and its misguided nature, I have decided that I will not place my name on the ballot, … We are united against the recall of Gov. Davis and urge all potential Democratic candidates to stay off the recall ballot," With Feinstein out, wary Democrats searched for a potential replacement candidate. Perhaps Lt Governor Cruz Bustamante who had a frosty relationship with the governor however had since ruled out a run declaring he was ‘100% behind the governor’, (Bustamante later said he considered entering but put it off when polls swung in Davis’s favour). There were options to consider other than Feinstein or Bustamante, Representative Loretta Sanchez had national party support and publicly made the callout “The recall is wrong. But as Democrats, our obligation is to look out for the welfare of our state, which is even greater than our duty to defend our governor.” Implying that a Democrat should jump in, offering herself if none would. Sanchez’s words were harder to act on, despite Gray’s unpopularity the recall question was still up in the air without a firm replacement and polls generally placed Gray over the top by 3% to 5%. Davis’s bounce back scared away some Democrats from jumping into the race including Senator Barbara Boxer who called the recall an ‘unfunny joke’. Ultimately only elected Democrat announced he would run, the state insurance commissioner John Garamendi who had run for Governor twice beforehand, yet he never filed the papers and publicly rescinded his candidacy only 2 days later (likely after some stern conversations). Democrats had rounded the bases in their response but managed to keep together a united party against the Republicans, opening the door to less conventional candidates. [1]

Prominent Democrats that did not enter the race (left to right). John Garamendi, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Cruz Bustamante, Loretta Sanchez​

Two candidates arose to represent the liberal opposition on the ballot, the Green party was represented by Peter Camejo an avowed democratic socialist (he described himself as a watermelon, green on the outside, red on the inside) he had run as the gubernatorial candidate in 2002 and gained 5% (the largest third-party turnout since the Prohibition party) And who came second place in front of Republicans in several California metropolitan areas. Camejo and the Greens supported the recall from the start and tried to present themselves as the reasonable left opposition to Gray Davis and adorned a more moderate tone. Camejo believed that without a Democratic candidate in the race it offered the perfect opportunity for a third party to jump in. Then there was the other ‘left’ candidate in the race, writer, columnist and socialite Arianna Huffington. She had crossed the political aisle from anti-Clinton conservative (and ex-wife of former Republican congressmen) to now an anti-Bush liberal who had endorsed the Democrats the previous year. Her campaign was a curious one, she presented herself as doing what the mainstream Democrats had refused to do, place an opposition to the Republicans on the ballot and launched an attack against the Republicans "Nothing is more laughable than hearing the Republicans running, blame everything about the state on Gray Davis' fiscal irresponsibility, while ignoring the orgy of fiscal irresponsibility going on in Washington presided over by George W. Bush and the Congress …My Democratic friends are right -- this recall is led by an embittered cult of right-wing zealots who have overdosed on tax-cuts Kool-Aid.". Then there were the other candidates including porn baron Larry Flynt pitched himself as a "smut peddler who cares" and Porn actress Mary Carey pledged that “I can promise you all Californians will be smiling and satisfied with my job performance.”. And the prop comic Gallagher ran a campaign of substance his slogan "Finally, a governor you can get drunk with."

(Top Left, Clockwise) Peter Camejo, Arianna Huffington, Leo Gallagher, Larry Flynt, Marey Carey​

The spectacle drew national attention, a 90-day race (much shorter than any normal American election cycle), the mad scramble for candidates to enter the race, and the sheer number of candidates, meant the election generated its own economy, the Game Show network even launched a show called ‘Who wants to be the governor of California’ featuring some of the more ridiculous candidates. And the constantly shifting polling data on the candidates. A key area in the race became fundraising, Davis’s potential replacements were limited in how much money they could attain via donations, (21,000 maximum per donor) as opposed to Davis who was unlimited, this favoured candidates with private wealth such as Darell Issa, Bill Simons, Peter Ueberroth or Arianna Huffington (or even Flynt who briefly polled at 3%).

The crowd needed to be thinned down, among the Republicans polling placed Riordan with a wide 14-point lead over his competition, his moderate stances and term as mayor of LA were appealing, and the Republican party began urging all candidates to get out of his way but many proved too stubborn to budge, after a week in the campaign Bill Simons who defeated Riordan in the 2002 Republican primary bruised from fraud allegations and the view that he had already blown his shot “There are too many Republicans in this race, and the people of our state simply cannot risk a continuation of the Gray Davis legacy. For these reasons, I think it's wise to step aside.” However, he failed to endorse Riordan giving Riordan’s more conservative opposition, room to move in.

Congressman Issa, who made his millions in the car-alarm business made a splashy entrance spending millions attacking Davis to present himself as the clear Republican candidate for backing the recall petition long before Riordan and putting his agenda to the public. But he also presented the perfect opposition to Democrats who painted him a millionaire simply using the recall to catapult himself into office, neither was he a particularly gifted speaker leading him to go off-topic including an awkward moment he raised the Israeli Palestine question with reporters and had a conservative voting record on guns and abortion rights; in a straight match he was most likely to lose against Davis but this wasn’t a straight match. McClintock the fiscally conservative candidate with a lot less baggage than Riordan or Issa in third only a couple per cent behind Issa who attracted those who disliked Issa on principle and gained the most from Simon's withdrawal “We have momentum our message is building and spreading all across California” while Ueberroth similarly stuck it out “I am the candidate who will keep jobs in California, there is no better candidate than me”. Perhaps what played into the Republican mindset of refusing to drop out was the lack of a solid Democratic candidate, there was little reason to leave the race if it was impossible to be a spoiler.

The most prominent candidates of the left Huffington and Camejo were greatly benefiting from the lack of an official Democratic candidate sitting at 9 and 4 per cent individually at the start of the race. Both candidates skewered both Davis and the Republicans in the race as dually responsible for the state’s current financial-economic woes. Camejo - “the difference between Davis and the Republicans is that Davis calls himself a Democrat” Huffington – “the last thing California can afford is a Republican Governor who will cut spending programs, and basically perpetuate the disastrous policies of Pete Wilson which, frankly, were largely followed through by Gray Davis” Both candidates cooperated in their campaigns and evidence showed that their points were breaking through to the public as Huffington launched an ad campaign and website to bring in donations pushing her ahead of the lesser Republican candidates and received access to national and local television and radio, to get her anti-corruption agenda across.

The candidates came together for the 1st of 5 debates, 6 major candidates joined, notably not including Riordan who in the lead intended to stay above the fray and not delve into what the media was calling less a circus, and now just a freak show. Davis took place in a separate town hall where he vowed to do a better job and to keep “in better touch with [the voters]”. The candidates distinguished themselves across the political spectrum on immigration and gun laws. Riordan for his part was trying to define himself as the governor waiting in the wings and build a nonpartisan image, just as the Davis campaign levelled the same ads it used against him a year ago to paint the entire Republican roster as Bush conservatives preparing to roll back the states liberal policies. Huffington and Camejo levelled their anti-corruption campaign at Davis, Riordan and Issa pointing to the millions donated to the Davis campaign in the past by tribal groups "It is nothing but legalized bribery, once you accept money from them, there is a compromise.". Davis responded by taking a shot at the Conservatives and Huffington by joking about their values and her accent “We need a governor who represents this state's values and who can pronounce it” The comment backfired, Huffington a Greek immigrant took the comment seriously “What Davis said was an insult to the 9 million Californians who were not born in this country.” And Davis was met with criticism from all sides including Democratic state senators who joined with Republicans to ask for an apology which he provided.

The election's ups and downs narrowed the race, Davis’s NO campaign seemed to widen its lead as Riordan’s hopes fell due to an unenthusiastic campaign that struggled to keep up with the quick-paced election. Issa and Riordan tried to push the other into retiring from the race claiming that Republican infighting was hurting the recalls chances, McClintock the favourite of bedrock conservatives flatly “I’m not tilting at windmills, it takes persistence to achieve anything”, Issa considered retiring himself from the race before changing his mind after he received a boost in media attention from his debate performances sparring with Huffington as well as becoming the target of a smear campaign by militant pro-Israeli groups for both his middle eastern heritage and his views on the Israel Palestine topic (his office and home were evacuated due to a bomb threat), and he surged a few points behind Riordan.

As Davis’s chances narrowed as the election drew closer (his 7-point lead had reduced to 4), the Republican field narrowed, and the NO campaign struggled to find a resonating message. Democrats grew concerned that their strategy of standing united may just result in a very conservative Governor, so many began to grant implicit support to the Huffington campaign as a sort of fallback and as a means to energize voters likely to vote NO, to go to the polling stations. Barbara Boxer said, “We don’t want Riordan or Issa Governor and Democrats after voting against the recall, should consider another candidate in the election” or as a staffer put it “We needed turn out to be high if we wanted a strong mandate to govern”. Huffington’s campaign which had dwarfed Green Party’s Camejo built momentum as the progressive outsider and was aided by celebrity endorsements, grassroots student support and national donations. Huffington was now seen as the only viable Liberal alternative and began a late surge, polling third in the race behind Riordan and Issa and for their part, the conservatives attacked Huffington for her former conservative views including immigration but this also highlighted that Riordan had no defined immigration policy and that both Issa and McClintock looked too conservative for the state.

Candidates Huffington, Riordan and Issa on the campaign trail​

In the election's final days, a mad rush ensued, hundreds of thousands of Californians registered to vote including many for the first time, and the candidates rushed to pip each other at the post. Camejo following the agreement of an informal alliance dropped out and endorsed Huffington calling her “the best opportunity to make a change” (Though Camejo was already printed on the ballot) Ueberroth also dropped out polling at just 3 per cent (briefly below Camejo) as the only other moderate in the race Ridoran hoped to gain some steam but the businessman declined to endorse any candidate prior to election day. Riordan tried to frame himself as a fiscally sound moderate highlighting his 8 years as mayor and pivoting to bring enough centrist Democrats and Republicans on board to defeat the other candidates, but his support from the Republican base had dropped dramatically and Issa began trending even with him, a dramatic turnaround.

Huffington’s rise as a prominent candidate in the recall led some Republicans to attack her for hypocrisy, as she ran a campaign that targeted “corporate fat cats get away with not paying their fair share of taxes.” While her own taxes showed she had only paid $771 in income taxes. Huffington claimed this was down to her fluctuating income due to book sales, and corporate losses as well as pointing to the money she paid in property taxes and pointed the blame squarely back on Riordan who she called ‘Mr Special Interest’ and tried to tie his candidacy directly to Enron through donations he received as well as a private meeting between Republicans including Riordan and the former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay to further deregulate California’s energy market, Riordan denied any impropriety.

Going into election day, the uncertainty on who the potential replacement would be seemed to push more into Davis’s camp as support for the recall fell to around 45% and his approval ratings rose out of their dismal lows in the summer possibly due to a particular deadly wildfire season that set in. Polling of the candidates placed Riordan and Issa dancing around 30% with Huffington at 24% However Davis, California and the world were shocked by the turn of events.

With dramatically high turnout across the state, the race was tight but ultimately the voters decided to axe Gray Davis. For the first time in the state’s history, the second successful recall of a U.S. Governor was decided, by a margin of 1.23%, around 97,000 votes. Californians tired of high energy bills, blackouts, deficits and tax increases voted for a change of leadership. Davis who pitched himself as having “experience money can’t buy” was forced to accept that all that experience was not enough for the public “The voters have been good to me, electing me twice as governor, allowing me to serve 35 million people," Davis said on CNN. "I'm very grateful to them, very grateful for the opportunity to try and move the state forward, and whatever their judgment is tonight, I will accept it.”

But the question of who would be replacing Davis was somehow a more momentous moment with the Republican vote spread across three candidates, Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington, the Greek-born writer, socialite and media personality was elected the first female Governor of California, the nation’s most populous state beating the polls by a 5 point margin to best her Republican rivals. Huffington who ran a dark horse campaign of progressive reform captured 29.9 per cent of the vote, she announced her outsider campaign on the Larry King show utilizing a grassroots movement, national and local media attention and a strategic alliance of left leaning groups to triumph. “I know that I will not be a conventional Governor,” She said in a speech following her victory “But these are not conventional times … Thank you so much to everyone in California for sending a message. That money cannot buy power” The October 7th election was the climax of one of the strangest episodes in U.S. political history. The irony of the recall was not lost on many, dubbed the ‘recall of unintended consequences’ by the Washington Post, that an effort by hard-line conservative Republicans resulted in the removal of a moderate Democrat and the election of a progressive one. A lot of factors had to come together to elect a Governor with less than a third of the vote, Davis’s historical unpopularity, the inability of the Democratic party to present an official challenger, the disarray amongst the Republicans to find a strong candidate, the record turnout aided by local and national events (this occurred at the height of the anti-war movement). The fallout would be vast and ended the political careers of both Davis and Riordan titans of California politics and propelled the newbie Huffington, her rise was tagged the “Greatest ascent of a Greek since Icarus”

Spoiler

Gray Davis concedes in the wake of the recall

2003 California Recall WikiBox

38th Governor of California Arianna Huffington

​

---

[1] Schwarzenneger changed the outlook of the race, his jumping in made him the obvious Republican candidate and most Democrats were certain that Davis was toast

​

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXVII
Enough!

Georgia

President of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze​

Eduard Shevardnadze, former Secretary of the Georgian Communist Party, and former Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. He was once the champion of Bolshevik liberal reformers outranked only by Gorbachev in his times, but when the Soviet Union collapsed, Eduard returned to his home in the newly independent Republic of Georgia where after some bloody jostling, he solidified his power in the young country. Facing both pro-Russian cessation movements in the north, and an Islamic insurgency in neighbouring Chechnya Eduard steered Georgia into an alliance with the west.

His rule was contested, allies of his political enemies attempted to assassinate him on three occasions, the economy suffered greatly in the wake of the Soviet dissolution and crime and corruption ran rampant, perpetuated by Eduard's political cronies. Shevardnadze enriched himself and his family to such a degree that Georgia was listed as one of the most corrupt nations in the world. Within 10 years, Shevardnadze turned a genuine hope into a seething contempt, the people who held faith that Eduard would bring the nation out of its decaying Soviet past and into a prosperous future, we’re now being talked down to, and lectured on how they could best tighten their belts, while the government robbed the public coffers dry.

His combined 30 years of rule were weighing him down in 2003, he had already been accused of vote-rigging before securing his re-election 3 years earlier, and public opinion had only swung further against him, his government suffered defections over allegations of his corruption and authoritarian manoeuvres. The former Minister of Justice Mikheil Saakashvili began challenging the government from the opposition and the rest of Shevardnadze’s political party seemingly collapsed, and the president's hold on power withered with it. The Georgian government was increasingly influenced by lobbying groups that operated in the country with few restrictions, many of which were pushing the President to step aside voluntarily which Eduard resisted, resulting in the NGOs growing more concerned that he would never step aside and supported some non-violent action to bring about the Serbian scenario, massive protests to force Shevardnadze resignation. This opposition was reflected in the free media which grew highly critical and openly supportive of opposition groups. The government attempted to crack down on the media’s independence, including one traumatic incident when a journalist investigating government corruption was murdered, this was followed by a raid of media headquarters for alleged tax avoidance which triggered widespread protest and forced the President to fire his cabinet, an event which critically fractured his pillars of support.

Shevardnadze's government was not just growing isolated at home, but also abroad, emissaries of the Bush administration began calling for an orderly transition to democracy and foreign loans and aid began to shrink and some even began to grant monetary support to pro-democratic groups in Georgia.

When the elections of 2003 came around, when it was expected that Shevardnadze would lose power, the Bush administration sent observers to encourage the government to exchange power fairly and freely. But soon after polls opened, reports of violence, voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, and voter roll purges so excessive that even opposition leaders and sometimes whole neighbourhoods found themselves unable to vote "The government did everything to make this election chaotic. I think there were also (those in) government who did not want this election to be orderly because they knew they would lose it," said one election analyst. Even with their finger on the scales, the government still lost half its vote share and the election observers concurred with the allegations of rigging"These elections have, regrettably, been insufficient to enhance the credibility of either the electoral or the democratic process," And the opposition noted the disparity between exit polls and the final results which doubled the governments support.

Civil disobedience commenced immediately demanding a rerun of the elections and Shevardnadze’s immediate resignation, these actions quickly built in the streets, hundreds, then thousands then tens of thousands all demonstrating against the flawed election. Shevardnadze spoke with a warning, that protesters were risking civil war, and threatened to deploy soldiers to the streets of Tbilisi, a threat which he followed up on. However when protesters confronted the soldiers the demonstrators began handing out roses to them, who in turn refused to crack down on those on the street "People were kissing the police and military, it was really spectacular," said Giorgi Kandelaki, a 21-year-old student. “And the roses of course which people had with them, which Misha carried with him into the parliament hall, that was the moment when people said that it was a rose revolution." Opposition leader Misha (Mikhail Saakashvili,) led a contingent of protesters to the parliament building to demonstrate its opening. Where the throngs of supporters forced their way into the building, forcing the President to evacuate for fear of his safety. Once inside the protesters again echoed their calls for the President's resignation.

As the President was shuttled out of the back door on live television and the demonstrators controlled the chamber, it seemed the ‘Rose Revolution’ was complete, and power had changed hands. Within a few days in exchange for his safety Shevardnadze resigned and in a curious moment in history wished his successor, good luck "You need to do more than deliver speeches, but I wish him luck and success”. New elections were scheduled, and it was no surprise that the man that led the march on parliament, Mikhail Saakashvili ran virtually unopposed and won an ultra-majority of the vote, 96% with a high turnout

Not one person was injured, and not a drop of blood was spilt, as Georgians shrugged off their former communist reformer turned kleptocratic leader in exchange for a liberal explicitly pro-western one, but huge problems still lay ahead, the economic situation, relations with Russia and the unresolved question of separatism in the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, accusations of aiding Chechen militants, unruly regional leaders, and holdovers of the previous governments. The future of Georgia remained uncertain.

(Top) President of Georgia, Misha Saakashvili
Flag of Georgia (1990–2004), Flag of Georgia post-2004​

Sudan

President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir​

A nation suffering from a nasty sectarian conflict between its north and south, that had over 30 years left over 2 million lives destroyed by bullets, bombs, disease, and famines. Most of the country had faced untold suffering from living in an economically isolated and deprived nation. Amid the north/south ethnic war, a second one had broken out in the western Darfur region. Stretched thin the Sudanese government opted to arm Arab militias to mount a bloody anti-insurgency campaign and in the process, thousands of innocents would be driven from their homes, beaten, tortured, and killed. The now two-fronted wars began to dismantle Sudan’s already fragile society, Sudan had failed to keep up its loan payments or implement previously pledged economic reforms largely locking it out of the greater financial system, and its embrace of anti-American jihadists left it with even fewer allies. The currency continued to lose value and inflation rose to a high of 150% as the President and his advisors continued to prioritize the nation's escalating security threats as its economic constraints led the country deep into insolvency. [1]

Military dictator al-Bashir was facing an impasse and was desperately trying to wrap up either of the conflicts. Re-entering peace negotiations with the southern rebels and authorizing the brutal reprisals in Darfur, including notoriously granting air support to crush the insurgents. Neither seemed to provide an immediate solution to his woes as the southern negotiators didn’t feel they were being given adequate territorial or security guarantees, Bashir himself felt that he had the Sudanese military was yet to be defeated and should not withdraw from any territory it held. The Darfur insurgency also continued to escalate, unabated by the bloody tactics of the militia and only sought to grow Bashir's global infamy.

Darfuri Rebel ​

Despite Bashir’s efforts to portray the Darfur conflict as merely a skirmish and depict global reaction as persecuting Sudan’s Islamic faith, the international sphere took notice and swiftly condemned Bashir for his country’s actions, the United Nations issued a report detailing the killing, rape and the systematic burning and looting of entire villages. Declaring the situation, a humanitarian disaster, estimating 1.5 million civilians were currently affected by the situation and remained beyond the reach of relief. They described the mission as a ‘scorched earth campaign’ of explicit ethnic cleansing and one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. Sudan’s neighbours were becoming increasingly hostile to the regime and began supporting peacekeeping operations, to contain any potential spread of the conflict and petitions began to come to the United Nations demanding a ceasefire and requesting to cut off aid to paramilitary groups, and a public debate over whether the actions classified a genocide began to whirl. This included in the United States, the Bush administration was reluctant to brand the action a genocide as that terminology implied that military action was necessary, this broke with Conservative Republicans concerned with the Christian minority of Sudan who united with Democrats to brand the actions a genocide, Democratic Senator and Presidential candidate John Kerry called for international action, “The world did not act in Rwanda, to our eternal shame. Now we are at another crisis point this time in Sudan. The Sudan’s western Darfur region demands the world’s immediate attention and action.”. The Bush administration called the actions deplorable and reiterated its demand that Bashir re-enter negotiations and halt militants' support, implying that they may seek a U.N. mandate to resolve the crisis "Our administration will seek out all solutions to end this persecution and atrocity in Sudan".

The growing international pressure, military campaigns and declining economy placed President Bashir into an increasingly isolated situation, as the international community debated ways to compel Bashir into compliance, Sudanese actors took the opportunity to move first. On March 29th 2004, hundreds of soldiers entered Khartoum, Sudan’s capital atop tanks, trucks and on horseback, a mix of military regulars and paramilitary perpetrated a coup against President Bashir, seizing government buildings and arresting several members of the government including the President himself, this was followed by a message broadcast on state TV and radio delivered by the General Secretary of the ruling National Islamic Party and key advisor to the now-deposed President, Doctor Hassan Al-Turabi. Turabi explained that President Bashir needed to be overthrown for the sake of “national salvation”. Justifying their actions by levelling a series of allegations that Bashir was deliberately ruining peace negotiations, perpetrating ethnic cleansing and genocide, before pledging that the country would commit to being a constitutional Islamic democracy under rightful civilian rule. Though the plotters garbed themselves in these moral justifications, the outside world was not hopeful of a turnaround. Turabi was a long-time ally of President Bashir and was suspected of being a mastermind of some of the regime's most heinous policies, tales of disagreement between the two had stretched back years and rumours the President would attempt to purge hardline Islamists had floated for 5 years, it was more likely that Turabi had taken advantage of the global outrage and the dissatisfaction within Bashir’s ministerial and military faction to orchestrate a palace coup, rather than a pro-democratic revolution.

Turabi announced that he would head a new transitionary council (that included several of Bashir’s allies) prior to a congressional vote and an emergency election (which his party and he won with ease). The coup represented a completion for Turabi of his 40-year-long quest to rule Sudan and complete the Islamic revolution there, no longer subservient to a dictator, there would be no need for moderation, having played a key role in numerous coups over the years and dipping in and out of the halls of power for decades, long portrayed the puppet master of Sudanian politics who engineered its Islamisation he was now the leader of what would become the Islamic Republic of Sudan as for Bashir himself he was spared a bloody fate and once deposed was granted exile in Saudi Arabia.

(top) President of Sudan Hassan al-Turabi
Flag of the Republic of Sudan 1970-2004, The Flag of the Islamic Republic of Sudan post-2004

​

Chechnya

President of Russia, Vladimir Putin​

Following the bloody year of 2002 in the Chechen insurgency, there was hope inside the Kremlin that the conflict would begin winding down, especially in the aftermath of the years two massive terror attacks, the Moscow theatre siege that struck the heart of Russia and drew the eyes of the world due to its scale and brought the war home to many Russians, then the several large truck bombings in the Chechen capital Grozny that destroyed the Russian backed collaboration government and killed then acting-President and key Russian ally Akhmad Kadyrov. His death left a power vacuum that the Kremlin needed to quickly fill to follow through on its plans to pacify the territory. However, Chechnya was a dangerous mix of crisscrossed loyalties, between Russian-born bureaucratic administrators, the deceased Kadyrov’s allies comprising former Chechen separatists turned Kremlin accomplices and the anti-Kadyrov branch of long-time Russian loyalists. Each side was best represented by the Russian-born finance minister Sergey Abramov who became the new acting President of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov the son of the deceased President and the de-facto leader of the large paramilitary group the Kadyrovsky, and the Kazakh-born Soviet veteran Alu Alkhanov who had supported the Russians in Chechnya since 1996 and was now head of Chechen police. A chaotic trifecta. Abramov saw his job as to secure Chechnya’s security and to rebuild its infrastructure. But this would be a hard task dealing with the power struggle, an unrelenting insurgency and Moscow’s increasingly harsh dictates/demands.

(left to right) Sergey Abramov, Alu Alkhanov, Ramzan Kadyrov​

The world's eyes were kept on the conflict, when at the beginning of the year beginning January 3rd, 2003, when 10 Islamic militants (mostly Algerians and Moroccans) entered the country of France with false passports and attacked the Russian embassy in Paris. They were armed with pistols, gas grenades and 2 supposed suicide vests they engaged in a short firefight with French police and Russian Security, before gaining entry. The embassy was well defended, gated, and bulletproof, which made it all the worse when the assailants successfully took the control of the building as well as 15 hostages by flooding the building with tear gas. The leader of the cell, Menad Benchellali issued his demands that Russia withdraw from Chechnya and threatened to detonate a self-constructed chemical weapon if police entered the building.[2]

The initial shootout and the ‘explosive’ threat sprang the French government into action. President Jospin's government was caught off foot by the attack, given that police were largely focused on emerging far-right extremists seriously angered by Jospin's electoral victory and his Trotskyist past, he walked a fine line as a socialist President of France as he attempted to moderate the Socialist party of some of its more leftist tendencies (similar to Blair in the U. K.) that including adopting a tough on crime approach and reorienting French foreign policy to be more conciliatory to the west. The extraordinary threat from the embassy siege pushed the French to try to negotiate with the assailants but was stuck considering they were in no position to change Russia’s military policy. Talks spanned days and the militants were offered numerous options to release hostages in exchange for an escape to a third country or even ransom payments. Still, the assailants were determined ideologues and deemed probably suicidal. After 13 days of failed negotiations, the government ok’d the armed police (Gendarmerie) raiding the embassy. In a dramatic televised firefight, police pummelled the embassy with a storm of bullets while commandos repelled from helicopters rescuing all hostages, killing three assailants and capturing the rest. The suicide vests were revealed to be inoperable and the alleged ricin bomb a total fabrication. President Jospin congratulated the police on the effort in a statement "The president expresses his deep gratitude to the French armed forces and all the state services which enabled a rapid and peaceful solution to this hostage-taking,"

(left) French Gendarmerie helicopter, (right) Russian Embassy in Paris​

The Kremlin sought to fully and formally annex Chechnya back into the Russian Federation but those plans were thrown into the air by the battle for political control in Grozny, as well as continued terror attacks occasionally leaving the military and political battles indistinguishable. An attack on acting president Abramov’s motorcade left suspicion on both the Kadyrovsky and the nationalist Insurgents and a number of assassinations killed Russian commanders raising suspicions about the pro-Russian militia. Russian forces were unleashed in order to police the country and were highly wary and quick to shoot first when it came to Chechens regardless of their allegiance, leading to exchanges of gunfire between Russian forces and Chechen collaborators, continued suicide bombings on troop convoys and military hospitals rose casualty levels for Russian forces. However, to hear Russian officials put it, the war was over and the terror level was totally normal. Western observers gave a more dismal presentation, depicting a barely restrained insurgency, brutal occupation forces, and a leadership, more at war with itself, when the Russian government tried to arrange a Presidential election as a way to end the factionalism things only got worse, when Abramov narrowly survived a second assassination attempt when a grenade attacked his entourage, that led him to recede entirely from public view and lead Chechnya from outside of it, permanently delaying the elections.

In response to the difficulties the Kremlin lashed out, again blaming the west for sympathising with its enemies, during the Embassy Siege, Russia demanded the French government cut off negotiations and afterwards extradite the combatants to Russia, which France refused to do. President Putin was unrepentant, defining his enemy as ‘genocidal criminals’ in league with international terrorists to achieve their aims of harming Russia and gave an open-ended commitment to pacify Chechnya “We will certainly finish this task. People in Chechnya will eventually live a normal, civilised life,”. Russia turned the region into a media blackout zone, to deter journalists from reporting on alleged Russian war crimes. President Bush even offered to mediate the situation in Chechnya “Our position in Chechnya is to see a peaceful solution .. and part of that includes Vladimir Putin backing away from the current approach. Terrorists and killers should be held to account but bombing refugees (referencing a reported attack) is wrong”. The brutality and the secrecy began to drive a wedge between Russia and other western countries a former Russian minister summed it up “the blood and muck of the Chechen war have left their mark on his entire presidency and to a certain extent the new Russian Federation,”.

No side showed signs of kneeling to the other, Shamil Basayev the unrepentant Chechen rebel leader took credit for suicide bombings inside Russia including one dramatic one inside the Moscow city duma, directly across the street from the Kremlin, an incident that turned the whole of Moscow into an occupied city as police and military scoured every nook of the metropolis for other bombers. Basayev reiterated his plans to unleash further, more gruesome attacks "The fight against us continues without any rules, so we are not bound by any obligations with anyone and we shall fight the way we find comfortable and necessary, until they learn …"

(top) leader of the Chechen insurgency Shamil Basayev
(left Flag of the Russian-backed Chechen Republic, (right) Flag of the exiled Chechen Republic of Ichkeria​

---

[1] ITTL Sudan has become more isolated due to its continued association with Jihadist groups, prolonging the war in the south and harming its economy further
[2] The French police really did find a cell that was preparing a similar attack

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXVIII ​

Where is the Love? - Culture 2003​

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Well, MTV's 20th anniversary Music Awards were held last night. And just like every year, the big winner was -- well, really, who cares. As CNN's Jeanne Moos reports, this year the big winner was every guy or girl who's ever thought to themselves, "What if..?"​

​

JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The kiss that started on Madonna's and Britney Spear's lips has ended up on everyone's minds, here are just some of the many reactions. ​

​

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was nasty.​

​

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was sexy.​

​

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it was sick.​

​

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think they look very good together.​

​

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Off the hook. I loved it.​

​

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Madonna … back to her bisexual ways.​

​

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't you find it ironic women are making out on the stage almost the same day that they're pulling the Ten Commandments out of the court, down south?​

​

Back in the Studio​

​

MOOS: Unless it involves three female superstars, that is a kiss that won't soon be gone with the wind.​

​

COOPER: Well sometimes a kiss is just a kiss​

​

In 2003, millions of people watching the MTV Video Music Awards got more of a show, than they were expecting. During a performance of her new song, Madonna planted a kiss on one of the celebrities she was singing on stage with, Pop star Britney Spears. The moment was shocking to many viewers, and it made headlines around the world. The highly-publicized tabloid moment was aided by the two being at the height of their fame, recognised as the highest and second highest-paid female musicians of the year and both had briefly crossed into cinematic roles in James Bond and its spoof Austin Powers respectively. Both artists also released major albums Outrageous and Hollywood and neatly continued their, cultural domination. [1]

Madonna kisses Britney Spears at the MTV Awards​

Top 10 Selling Albums of the Year US

1. Get Rich or Die Tryin' – 50 Cent
2. Justified – Justin Timberlake
3. Stripped – Christina Aguilera
4. Number Ones – Michael Jackson
5. Meteora – Linkin Park
6. Dangerously in Love – Beyoncé
7. Fallen – Evanescence
8. Outrageous – Britney Spears
9. Hollywood – Madonna
10. Speakerboxxx/The Love Below - Outkast[2]

Transitioning to film. Peter Jacksons Lord of the Rings trilogy came to its triumphant conclusion and subsequently won critical and audience acclaim. A truly tremendous undertaking in converting Tolkien’s mythic tome to film was an astonishing achievement for the production studio, visual effects teams and the country of New Zealand that had played backdrop to the fantasy realm of middle earth for three years now. Its grand reception swept the box office and the awards ceremonies. Becoming the highest-grossing film of the year (replicating its predecessor in 2002) and becoming the second highest-grossing film ever made. More sequels thoroughly swept the box office in 2003 with a series of blockbusters including X-Men 2, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, Charlies Angels 2 Full throttle, two separate Matrix sequels (The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions and Gump & Co the sequel to the 1994 award-winning Forrest Gump starring Tom Hanks again as the titular Gump.

(Left to Right) 2003 Releases, Lord of the Rings Return of the King, X Men 2, and Gump & Co​

Gump & Co follows Forrest and his son ‘Little Forrest’ Gump Jr (played by Haley Joel Osmond) and details the Gump’s hectic lives in America through the 1980s and 1990s, such antics include losing control over the Bubba Gump Shrimp Company, meeting the Reagans, Clintons and the Bush’s, inventing New Coke, exposing the Iran Contra affair, inspiring Ross Perot to run for President and reporting on the Gulf War. While the film did well at the box office, and critics praised the acting duo of Hanks and Osmond for the adorable father-son relationship on screen, critics noted that the film had less heart than the original and was more focused on making its cultural references (like meeting John Hinkley Junior or cleaning the Exxon Valdez Oil spill) than it did telling its own story and did not perform as well as its original with the critics, the public or award shows.[3]

It is, perhaps, unfair that this new production should be so smothered under the reputation of its predecessor nearly 10 years ago. By so closely adhering to the exact structure of his original, and the loose plot of its text. But the liberal use of reference and the lines already made famous Zemeckis makes it hard not to make those comparisons, making it abundantly clear throughout that what is on offer here is nothing as original as the 1994 film, but simply an awkwardly long epilogue aided by Hanks and Osmond’s endearing performance. It simply doesn't work, lacking the strength of narrative, the heart, and is dragged down by the sheer weight of what came before. ​

– Barry McIlheney, Empire​

It was also another good year for historical (and naval-based), films such as the epic Napoleonic Master and Commander starring Russell Crow, The Disney adventure Pirates of the Caribbean with Johnny Depp and the Civil War epic Cold Mountain. Bill Murray and Dianne Keating won best actor and best actress for their roles in Lost in Translation and Somethings Gotta Give.

Quentin Tarantino’s 4th Film, The Bride was due to be released in 2003, and in typical Tarantino, fashion was going to be a stylized and bloody mix of spaghetti western, Japanese drama and Chinese martial arts films starring actress Uma Thurman as the Bride. But disaster permanently halted the production when the lead actress was greatly injured in a car accident when the car she was driving turned over while filming a scene, requiring her to undergo emergency surgery and putting Director Tarantino, and Miramax Films under a criminal and civil investigation for lack of safety on the set. Though the film was nearly complete the litigation delayed the release of the film [4]

Unreleased The Bride promotional material​

Some predicted that 2003 would see the slow death of the reality show. This prophecy failed to surface thanks to the antics of the Osbournes, Paris Hilton and Joe Millionaire, the show that followed a group of single women, competing for the affection of a bachelor who was falsely billed as being a millionaire. 2003 also saw the end of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Dawson's Creek, and the beginning of an acclaimed comedy Arrested Development a sudsy beach soap called The O.C. and much more. When it came to awards the usuals were rewarded like The Sopranos, The Shield, and The West Wing ( this season followed the Bartlet administration during his tumultuous re-election campaign where he meets numerous vice-presidential candidates, eventually backing ambitious young southerner Richard “Dick” Owens (Christian Slater) and narrowly winsre-election after a recount in Michigan, the President confronts other issues like a coup in El Salvador or a militia standoff in Colorado)[5]. The usual dramas were heaped with praise and nominations including James Gandolfini and Edie Falco, the Sopranos leads who were nominated and won the Best Actor and Best Actress category at the Emmys.

The 2003 World Sportsman and Sportswoman of the Year Awards went to Americans Lance Armstrong who won his fifth consecutive Tour de France and tennis player Serena Williams who won her fourth straight Grand Slam singles title at the Australian Open, completing her self-dubbed "Serena Slam," while in the men’s game Roger Federer won the grand slam title in Wimbledon. The Rugby World Cup co-hosted in Australia and New Zealand culminated in a thrilling final between New Zealand and England. With the scores tied up 17-17, a penalty shootout resulted in a victory for the New Zealand All Blacks[6]. And for controversy, the NBA superstar Kobe Bryant was arrested in connection with an investigation for a sexual assault accusation filed by a 19-year-old hotel employee; Bryant admitted to a sexual encounter with his accuser but insisted the sex was consensual. The case quickly became a media circus with parallels to the O.J. Simpson case and adopted a racial parallel, it continued for a year leading many brands to disassociate with Kobe including McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, if convicted on the single felony count, Mr Bryant faces four years to life in prison or probation and supervision in a sex-offender treatment program that could last 20 years to life.

(Left) Leon MacDonald with the world cup winning kick, (Right) Kobe Bryant attends court​

The White House waded into the sensitive issue of abortion, specifically the contentious ‘partial-birth abortion’ a form of late termination of a pregnancy. The term ‘partial birth’ was coined by anti-abortion/pro-life groups to describe a procedure of removing the fetus from the womb via the birth canal. The issue had been vocalised by Republicans who had passed laws banning the procedure in the 1990s that were subsequently vetoed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, who called the procedure a tragic necessity “a potentially life-saving, certainly health-saving, but still tragic decision to have the kind of abortion procedure that would be banned by HR 1833.”. But the issue remained a controversial one and both then candidates Bush and Gore supported some kind of ban but disagreed over the specific exceptions “I pledge to fight for a ban on partial-birth abortions.” Bush claimed on the trail. And once he became President the pro-life movement sought to claim on its promises. Pro-choice groups however claimed that the conservative attack was merely one of the many attacks on abortion in general.

Once in the White House, Bush supported the ban legislation and despite the loss of the house and senate majority, conservative Democrats were willing to back the bill. The battle was narrow but Republicans secured enough votes to defeat a filibuster and passed the measure 60-40 and the President signed the bill surrounded by cheering foes of abortion. Totally outlawing the procedure, Bush said that the country “'owes its children a different and better welcome”. But the legislation quickly entered grey legal territory as courts challenged its constitutionality based on it breaking the right to abortion previously found in the supreme court decision Roe V Wade and some politicians gave a brutal assessment of the act, Howard Dean former governor of Vermont said he was ''outraged that President Bush has decided that he is qualified to practice medicine.''. And some pundits predicted political troubles for the President. “The closer the pro-lifers get to attacking the core of Roe v. Wade, the bigger the political fallout will be.” Said one pollster.

President George Bush signs the partial-birth abortion ban bill​

The second major cultural battle that flared was the Gay right to marriage. The issue greatly heated up when Conservatives began to rally behind a movement to federally ban Gay Marriage or even a constitutional amendment to define marriage, and President Bush expressed support for "codifying marriage in the United States as being between one man and one woman." But the gay rights movement scored its greatest victory when in the same year, the Court of Massachusetts ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that same-sex couples did have the right to be married, allowing same-sex marriage in the United States for the first time (as opposed the civil union laws in D.C., California and Vermont), Massachusetts Governor Shannon O’Brien (D) said she would not oppose the court’s decision “The court has made its decision and I see no reason to oppose it, I won't waste time to prosecute love” Forgoing any legal challenge and becoming the first state in the nation to effectivly legalize gay marriage.

Gay rights advocates celebrate in Boston​

In other events the Human Genome Project was completed, when (two years ahead of schedule) the international research project had successfully mapped and sequenced all the genes of the human genome. Yugoslavia officially dissolved into a loose union of Serbia and Montenegro and the notorious Warlord and President of Liberia, Charles Taylor refuses to resign only to be subsequently dislodged from power by surrounding rebel leaders, west African forces and a United States marines’ intervention in operation Shining Express a standoff that ended in the Liberian army’s defection and Charles Taylors arrest[7].

(Left to Right) Magazine cover on the Human Genome project, Charles Taylor under arrest, Yugoslavia dissolves.

A Youtube Video covering the end of Taylor's Presidency
​

---

[1] The clearest reaction to 9/11 and the war on terror was a lot of music and artists shifting abruptly in tone to be more sombre or serious, Madonna did an anti-war shift and Spears fully broke away from teen pop. This is more gradual.
[2] upbeat music is more popular
[3] Gump & Co the book was written by the author half out of greed and half out of spite, and would likely diverge a lot in adaptation onto the screen, but I kept the bare bones.
[4] Is it a coincidence that Tarantino’s three movies after 2001 were entirely revenge-focused? The accident is based on a real incident.
[5] The West Wing went on to focus more on foreign policy and terrorism ITTL focuses on ’90s issues and Bartlett's re-election is harder
[6] The Rugby World Cup IOTL was held solely in Australia due to some political disputes that get butterflied.
[7] IOTL Taylor resigned and fled into exile for several years, but he tries to call the international communities bluff.

 

[Guy712]

Made this to pass time (Also a Mandela effect thing where I thought this film was talked about in a threadmark)

Foodfight! is a 2003 American computer-animated adventure comedy film directed by Lawrence Kasanoff. The film features the voices of Charlie Sheen, Wayne Brady, Hilary Duff, Eva Longoria, Jerry Stiller, Larry Miller, Christopher Lloyd, and Ed Asner. Foodfight! takes place in the "Marketroplis" supermarket, which, after closing time, transforms into a city where all the citizens are "Ikes", personified and anthropomorphic well-known marketing icons. The story follows a cereal brand mascot, Dex Dogtective, who, along with his best friend, Daredevil Dan, bands together a group of "Ikes" in Marketropolis to fight against the forces of the evil Brand X, who threaten to take over the supermarket.

The film was released on December 15, 2003 by Lionsgate Films where it received overwhelmingly negative reviews by both critics and audiences, with most of its criticism directed towards the animation, humor, story and excessive product placement. Foodfight! barely grossed over $2 million in theaters against an estimated budget of $48 million, becoming a box-office bomb, and losing an estimated $56 million. The film was nominated for two awards at the 24th Golden Razzie Awards - Worst Director and Worst Supporting Actor. The movie is frequently ranked as one of the worst animated films ever made.

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXIX ​

Second Thoughts​

Gore launches presidential campaign​

​

Says he’s prepared for a rematch in 2004​

​

Thursday, March 13, 2003, Posted: 6:26 PM EST (2326 GMT)​

​

CARTHAGE, Tennessee (All Politics, March 13) -- Former Vice President and former Democratic Presidential nominee Al Gore officially launched a campaign for the Presidency. In his home state, the same place where he launched his candidacy 4 years ago Gore promised to make Americans' faith in government the centrepiece of his effort to reclaim the Democratic party’s nomination and win the Presidency.​

​

The issue of Gore's candidacy had been an outstanding question since the end of the 2000 election which Gore conceded to President Bush, narrowly losing despite a razor-thin margin in the tipping point state of Florida that require a recall, that issue was settled in Bush’s favour by the Supreme court by a 5-4 majority. Gore had consistently polled higher than any other Democratic candidate. And maintains nationwide support including a strong base of those who are quick to point out he already won the popular vote and are suspect of the Supreme Court’s decision authored by Republican-appointed justices. Speculation about Gore's potential candidacy has fluttered ever since, rising every time he made an appearance, especially as an opponent of George Bush’s economic, foreign and environmental policies.​

​

“This country needs real moral leadership, genuine experience and an uncorrupted authority to lead, this campaign will be tough, tougher than the last, but I am prepared to serve, today I announce to you that, I am indeed a candidate for the president of the United States”​

​

“This is not a debate about the past, I am here to focus on the future, this is a campaign about vision and about the President's lack of vision”​

​

Gore’s announcement was met with support from high-profile Democrats including former President Bill Clinton “Al Gore is the best vice president America has ever had and he is still the best candidate to speak for America's working families and bringing a positive difference to our country” and his wife Senator Hillary Clinton, D- New York “Al Gores energy and ideas are just what the country needs to make a valuable contribution to our country”. Also supportive was Gore's 2000 vice presidential pick Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman who had pledged not to enter the race if Gore did, he said of the man “He has extraordinary leadership, I have known him for 20 years now and was proud to serve on a ticket with him” He declined to comment if he would be willing to serve on the ticket again.​

​

Gore’s announcement followed weeks of public statements and public appearances in which he often criticized the Bush administration and talked about the direction he believes the country should take. However, though he is the all-around favourite for the nomination, unlike in 2000 when Gore faced only token opposition from a few party mavericks, his loss left many Democrats disappointed and many have been looking for another candidate who might have a better chance at winning the sufficient support to defeat Bush.​

​

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is one potential candidate who has formed a Presidential exploratory committee, he has consistently polled as Democrats' second choice and has been making some campaign-style appearances and has courted support and money for a campaign.​

​

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean has already announced his candidacy in an effort to build momentum for his long-shot run. And other big hitter Democrats are exploring launching their own campaigns, including Speaker of the House Dick Gephardt, Senate Leader Tom Daschle, and South Carolina Senator John Edwards.​

---

Al Gore's announcement confirmed many Democrats' expectations, hopes and fears at once. His candidacy had been long suspected, he had been the obvious candidate since the Supreme Courts contentious decision that prematurely stopped the recount in Florida, a recount that most Democrats believe would have handed the state and thus the election to Gore, a majority of Americans continue to feel that President Bush was not legitimately elected president, and it is well known that Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes. Though too many Democrats are quick to point out obvious flaws in Gore's campaign that they feel, flushed a 5 point victory into a virtual tie. Perhaps if Gore hadn’t side-lined the still popular President Clinton, perhaps if he hadn’t selected the moderate Joe Lieberman as his running mate, or had a better, less stilted performance in debates, campaigned stronger, or attacked harder. Any of those small unforced errors kept Gore out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Could those Democrats really trust Gore to perform better this time, against a sitting President; were enough voters desperate enough to return to the 20th century and drop Bush, some were unconvinced of Gore’s ability to deliver better a second time.

The chief rival that surfaced was Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who was already running for the Presidency prior to Gores and his own official campaign announcements in the summer. Kerry emerged as one of Bush’s vocal opponents in the Senate and had a depth of experience in government stretching back to his anti-Vietnam war activism as well as good access to campaign funds. Kerry had focused his campaign on attacking Bush for his poor economic and foreign policy due to continued unemployment levels and for hurting the US’s reputation on the world stage. “Every day of this campaign, I will challenge George Bush for fundamentally taking our country in the wrong direction.” Kerry appealed best to the centre of the Democratic Party that wanted most of all to defeat Bush, and ditch Gore.

The third major candidate to jump into the race was Senate leader, South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle who announced just after Gore from his hometown Aberdeen, South Dakota “Though my passion lies currently in the Senate, I am prepared to take that passion to the Presidency”. Perhaps above all others, Daschle had taken the President to task most over the years, becoming the face of Democratic opposition by holding up filibusters against Republican legislation including the vicious battle over the congressional Iraqi resolution, he had become persona non grata by the White House as a result of his staunch opposition, naming him the ‘chief obstructionist’ and some especially vicious attacks accused him of aiding Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. A Democrat from the heartland he held moderate policies on some social issues, he supported the partial-birth ban and opposed some gun control measures, he was placed to perform very well in Iowa the first state to vote given the state's geography and his party connections.

Candidates: Senator Kerry, Former Vice President Gore and Senate Majority Leader Daschle
​

Underneath the top three, there were the outsider candidates, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and South Carolina Senator John Edwards. Dean had been the first, to jump into the race and he placed himself as a fierce populist and a fiscally conservative progressive, who was incredibly critical of Bush’s policies. He supported a universal health care system as well as a balanced budget. Though commentators were certain that his campaign would be destined to fail, given his low poll numbers he was able to generate a popular ardent following among young and online voters and developed an unprecedented campaign utilizing the internet to attract a large number of donations, he also adopted the firmest line against the Bush administration throughout the Iraqi disarmament crisis accusing the President of misinforming Congress in order to procure the congressional authority “Where is the immediate threat! The President can’t tell us one and neither can our intelligence communities” His flashy aggressive campaign spawned media attention and generous crowds but the campaign began to run into money troubles, months before the Democratic primaries were to actually begin.

Senator John Edwards was the last of the major players to jump into the race, like Dean, Edward's campaign had a populist tone to it, as the freshman North Carolina Senator he attacked Bush’s policies as only benefiting the wealthy and leaving the working class behind. ''We deserve a president who is close to our people, not the lobbyists,' A president who hears them when they cannot speak, because they've lost their jobs or because they're caring for a child or just because the simple struggle to make ends meet leaves them no time for anything else.''. Unlike Dean, he did not bring up foreign policy (he had been one of the Democrats who supported the President in Iraq) and remained focused on the economy giving his declaration to run in front of a closed North Carolina factory. Also, unlike Dean, Edwards had some party support the type that wanted to replicate Clinton's victory by promoting a fresh-faced charismatic politician with the southern cadence and a salt-of-the-earth feel as opposed to any of the party's old faces.

Candidates: Former Governor Dean and Senator Edwards​

The other candidates were African American civil rights activist Al Sharpton, former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley Braun (the first black woman elected to the U.S. Senate) and Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich. Sharpton largely led an issue-focused campaign, as he said, to prevent the Democratic party drifting away from progressive ideas including threatening to run on a third party ticket if the Democrats didn’t adopt more liberal attitudes toward affirmative action, health care, criminal justice and electoral reform. He had generated a significant following over his decades in activism and prominent arrests for protesting. He said that the Democratic party cannot win the White House next year "unless it expands its base, unless it goes and gets those who have been disaffected.". Moseley Brauns Campaign started with a simple pitch "It is time to take the Men Only sign off the White House door," she placed single-payer health care as her signature issue but struggled to gain much attention at all, raising little in the way of funds and some suspected the campaign was merely an effort to redeem her image or to split the black vote from the Sharpton campaign. Kucinich, the final of the candidates ran on the left of the Democratic party and had the support of the Green Party and former Presidential candidate Ralph Nader he also endorsed single-payer health care, anti-free trade and eliminating tuition fees, his campaign was unabashedly left-wing, openly supporting gay marriage and abortion rights, his quixotic campaign failed to attract much support.

Candidates: Representative Kucinich, Civil Rights activist Al Sharpton and former Senator Carol Moseley Braun​

The major Democrat who had been expected to run but ultimately didn’t was Speaker of the House Dick Gephardt, who announced that he would not seek the nomination for President and would ultimately try to help the Democratic party from the House, oppose President Bush and ultimately keep control of the House of representatives. “My job will be to stay in the House and see through a Democratic victory there, and help whoever the eventual nominee is”. His campaign was seen as assured due to his high profile, previous attempt, and his support in Iowa from organized labour and previous campaign. He was said to be deep in the planning stages for his candidacy. But perhaps the entrance of Gore, Kerry and Daschle dissuaded him.

Others who declined to run included Senator Hillary Clinton, the first, first lady to serve in elected office, who was committed to serving her full term in the Senate. " I am intent upon being the best senator that I can be. That is what I want to do," Clinton said. Others who declined included, Florida Senator Bob Graham a moderate who had been regularly considered for the vice presidency and Delaware Senator Joe Biden who considered entering the race but thought that the pack was already too full.

With the candidates in the race, the long march began, Al Gore’s running placed him ahead of his opponents' thanks to his name recognition and experience, followed by Kerry, Daschle, Edwards then Dean with the rest scrambling at the bottom rung. Candidates competed to attack President Bush in order to stand out amongst the pack, taking apart the President’s economic agenda and throughout the summer as candidates began their formal campaigns the heat began to turn up. The Iraqi disarmament crisis interrupted the campaign cycle and pushed foreign policy front and centre, Gore placed himself fully opposed to the idea of war with Iraq without U.N. approval or an imminent threat, and said that the whole process called into question the President's diplomacy “We should advance an agenda of peace first and foremost, I worked with the nations of the world with President Clinton to create the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland, we used vigorous diplomacy and our military to end ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo and we worked to ease tensions and further US ties with our former enemies, instead what I see from the White House is an effort to manipulate facts and distort the truth in pursuit of a political agenda”. Dean too was openly opposed to intervention and also took the opportunity to hit the establishment as the only candidate fully outside of the beltway he took broad anti-Bush criticism being the only candidate who would fully repeal all of Bush’s tax decreases. Dean's attacks on the Washington insiders gave him an advantage in early candidate debates and his blistering attacks pulled him out of the no-hopers category, and he briefly peaked at 3rd place but his efforts to turn a base of fervent so-called ‘Deaniacs’ into a full-fledged movement stalled as the Iraq crisis slowly faded from the public, and his campaign donations began to stumble then he settled into a low 5th place in the polls.

Gore’s campaign also met some trouble, as the campaign continued Gore’s lead began to be whittled down, despite the universal name recognition he had two stains on his record, his 2000 loss and his political makeup. No Democrat wanted to repeat the 2000 election and renominating Gore seemed a sure-fire way to do that “Gore lost that election” said one unnamed Democratic party staffer “he lost those debates, he lost that campaign to Bush” when Democrats were asked what factor mattered most to them in a candidate the main response was beating Bush. Then it was Gore’s character, the calm centrist southerner did not make him the most excitable candidate on the trail, most journalists often complained about being on the campaign trail with Gore, this campaign needed to be different Gore told his staff “last time I focused too much on polls and tactics this time I am pouring my heart and my vision into it, let the chips fall where they may”. He adopted a more aggressive, occasionally even mocking tone, critiquing Bush’s lack of principles and poor leadership skills, the attacks allowed him to maintain his lead through 2003 and he received a boost when Dean citing a lack of funding dropped out and endorsed Gore “If Al Gore were President the country would not be in the situation it is today, with his judgement and common sense our country will once again have a strong and steady leadership”.

Howard Dean endorses Al Gore​

The chips seemed to be falling in place for Gore to replay his 2000 primary victory, with his other three opponents Kerry, Daschle and Edwards competing for second place. The Kerry campaign despite initial polls that showed him putting up a strong fight against Gore and having a higher approval rating and likability than Gore, the campaign struggled to distinguish itself and gain donations leading to Kerry financing his campaign with his family funds and shaking up his campaign staff regularly, he began to pour everything into a come from behind victory in Iowa and New Hampshire and pitched himself as the candidate best able to defeat Bush nicknaming himself ‘The Real Deal’.

Daschle was in the same boat as Kerry who very much needed the Iowa caucus to go his way, to build the momentum necessary to carry him forward, he presented himself as the best legislator among the candidates, best able to cross political lines to get things done and turned the tables by presenting Bush as the obstructionist who had prevented economic stimulus, campaign finance reform or Medicare expansion. But Daschle suffered from consistent right-wing criticism stronger than any other candidates due to his high-profile attacks on Bush’s foreign policy, with Gore’s more liberal side on show Daschle hoped that he would be the candidate best positioned to appeal to moderates and defeat Bush, pushing his fiscal responsibility and reform. But Daschle struggled on the trail, battling hard over the airwaves it became clear that Daschle’s message wasn’t taking hold, still struggling in the pack in Iowa, Daschle doubled down and put everything on the state.

John Edwards's campaign fared better, seen as a rising star in the Democratic party a made-for-television politician, and something of a media darling, many had expected him to run for the Presidency at a later date 2008 or 2012, but Edwards shunned the political class with an early run in 2004. His campaign was initially small and was lumped at the back of the pack, but his message was different from every other candidate instead of trying to out bash Bush, Edwards focused on the economy, the price of prescription drugs, and job creation. Edwards caught up in the polls as Dean past his peak and Daschle receded nationally and Edwards entered 3rd place. Most of the criticism for Edwards was his inexperience, being a first term Senator compared to the veterans Gore and Kerry, Edwards had built a strong chest of funding he spent on advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire focused solely on the economy and stayed away from attack ads, even while Gore, Kerry and Daschle tore into Bush’s Iraq policy Edwards struck a tone that largely agreed with the President “The United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as possible to address this threat.”. Edwards still had trouble defeating either of the Democratic front runners and failed to poll ahead of them anywhere, but still Edwards decided to bet big and announced he would not run for re-election in North Carolina, his campaign focused on his positive message and some suspected that he was no longer running for the Presidency and was more vying for the vice presidency or a role in a future Democratic administration by raising his profile with his populist message, critics noted that Edwards did not vote dramatically out of step from either Kerry or Daschle but Edwards doubled down on his economic message “There is one candidate guaranteed to wake up every morning thinking about you” speaking to factory workers “one who supports not just free trade but fair trade,'' .

During the last weeks of the campaign prior to voting it became clear that a three-horse race had emerged, as Daschle’s support dwindled into the single digits, the Gore campaign also lost its lead due to Kerry and Edwards's cash and energy infusion into the state of Iowa, the Edwards campaign was significantly aided by a few major endorsements including Iowa Senator Tom Harkin (a prominent Gore backer in 2000) and the Des Moines Register the state’s largest newspaper, calling him the “best candidate not just to defeat Bush but to bring positive change and new energy to America”. There were numerous debates between the Democratic candidates and some of the most notable moments included debates over free trade agreements, national security and Bush’s tax cuts issues that largely placed Senator Edwards across from Kerry and Gore but the context of which was broadly positive.

(Left to Right) Al Gore, John Edwards, John Kerry and Tom Daschle campaigning in Iowa​

Tens of thousands gathered for the first key test of the presidential election season: the Iowa caucuses. The field of Democratic hopefuls shifted with the result, what seemed to be a runaway victory for the Gore camp only a few weeks prior steadily crept into a tight contest between Gore, Kerry, Daschle and Edwards with polls favouring Edwards then Gore then Kerry then Daschle, the key reason for Gore’s slippage was voters reconsidering his electability ''I thought he was going to be the only chance we had to get Bush out of there'' one caucus goer said. But now, she said, ''I'm just not sure anymore that he's the best one to go up against him'' And candidates bussed in hundreds of activists and organizers to drum up support for the caucuses

2004 Democratic Iowa Caucus

Senator John Edwards of North Carolina won the Iowa Caucus on Monday catapulting him to the top tier of presidential contenders who only a few weeks ago was expected to place 4th in the contest. His victory has significantly dented Gore’s front-runner status pushing him into third place. “Tonight we started a movement to change this country that will sweep across America,” Edwards said, practically giddy, celebrating his victory in Des Moines “Only 2 weeks ago I never would have believed it”, “Other candidates outspent us, they had pre-built organisations while we were the little engine that could”.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts came in second, a race he labelled a ‘key part of his campaign’ and will likely keep him going in the contest. His strong showing threatened to humiliate Mr Gore who has led all national polls for over a year and until recently expected a first or second-place finish in the state.

Edwards jubilance compared to the more taciturn Gore supporters “I am not disappointed, because this is only the beginning, we took a hit but I can guarantee you I am not out”. Gore Supporters pointed to his strong national support and his strength in the southern states later in the contest.

Senator Daschle of South Dakota finished 4th a devastating showing that led the Senator to end his bid for the presidency, “My campaign for the nomination may be over but I will not stop fighting for every American” offering congratulations to his rivals and lending his support to the eventual nominee.

The Iowa campaign quickly shifted the election into a three-man race heading into the New Hampshire primary, electrifying the Edwards campaign, keeping the Kerry campaign chugging and dealing a blow to the Gore campaign who was facing high expectations given his frontrunner status. Time would tell if Edwards could capitalize on the momentum that Iowa afforded him.

Iowa Caucus Results

2004 Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus

(Clockwise) John Edwards celebrates, Al and Tipper Gore, John and Teresa Kerry​

​

---

With the focus on the Democrats the White House got to work building its own Bush Cheney re-election team, ready to go toe to toe with whichever of the Democrats came out on top, most expected Gore to be the victor and the Republican leadership was practically salivating at the idea of a rematch, only seeing the upside of going up against the already defeated Gore, with the incumbency advantage on their side, though the President was not hugely popular across the country (His approvals at the mid '40s), his staff were hoping that months of Democratic infighting would leave Bush looking like the clear strong candidate. This is what made the Bush team even more furious when Republican Rhode Island Senator, Lincoln Chafee, one of the moderates Republicans who had consistently challenged the President in occasional feisty language laid down the gauntlet and said he intended to mount a primary challenge to the President. During the Iraqi disarmament crisis, Chafee said that he was concerned about the leadership and direction of the Republican party and could not support the President going forward, determined to send a message he made himself a candidate for the Republican 2004 nomination starting with the New Hampshire primary. His announcement was made in a press conference from New Hampshire, Chafee laid out why he opposed the President “The Republican Party is supposed to be a big tent party, but this President is dividing the party” He cited the Presidents tax policy, ballooning the nation's deficit, ignoring environmental concerns, extreme conservative social views and a dangerous foreign policy, all views that Chafee thought broke pledges then-candidate Bush had made in his campaign for President. His declaration certainly had less flash than most, the usually quiet Senator made a splash with his public proclamation to challenge the President and his open attacks on the legislative failures. “Since day one, this President has ignored a lot of the country while expecting loyalty, I came to the conclusion that I could no longer support this President and that I owed it to the President to state that publicly and not hide away ... Today I am formally entering the race for the Republican nomination for President because we need to show that there is more to be done to solve our issues, the President called himself a uniter, not a divider, he promised his foreign policy would be humble, not arrogant and he would regulate polluters, these promises have all been broken, this simply isn’t an administration that can be trusted”.

The run could constitute a serious threat to the Bush administration, though they held immense confidence that Chafee would not occupy the White House in this, or any universe, all the analysts were aware of the impact a primary challenge had on a sitting President. Truman, Johnson, Ford, and Carter all faced one resulting in them either withdrawing from the race or losing the general election, no one was more cognizant of the threat than the President himself who recalled reassuring his father that Pat Buchanan’s primary challenge in 92 wouldn’t be a threat to him, only to learn of the consequences later. Chafee’s announcement forced the Bush-Cheney campaign into overdrive and the President’s schedule became packed with more campaign stops determined to smother the Chafee campaign in its infancy drumming up enthusiasm for the administration, singing the praises of the recovering economy, applauding the impact of his tax cuts (the ones that Chafee opposed) “Some people may say that that money isn’t enough for people, well maybe for those rolling in cash, but to some people that’s a lot and it makes a difference” he said in a hasetely arranged stop in Concord, New Hampshire; and the Bush war chest was quickly fired up, bombarding the state with advertisements, 4 years ago the Bush team neglected New Hampshire a potentially killer error that allowed John McCain to become a serious threat, today there would be no such error, supporters were mobilized and a campaign called Chafee the ‘Number one RINO’ (Republican in name only) or the ‘biggest ass in the Republican party’ and the polls seemed to show the Bush teams efforts were working as Bush gained a 63% - 18% lead over Chafee with the rest undecided.

(Left) George Bush campaigns in New Hampshire, (Right) Lincoln Chafee announces his primary campaign​

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXX
Back and Forth

The fallout from the Iowa caucus was clear to see, there were now just three potential Democratic nominees, former Vice President Al Gore, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, and North Carolina Senator John Edwards (Ohio representative Dennis Kucinich and Reverend Al Sharpton remained in the race but never polled outside the margin of error). All the candidates had something to prove in the upcoming New Hampshire primary, Gore who had led the polling nationally and in the state of New Hampshire for the past year and a half needed to show that he was still the Democrat's presumptive nominee and that Iowa was an outlier for his campaign. Kerry needed to prove that he was still in the running, his second-place finish in Iowa proved his campaign viable but that needed to be bolstered by a stronger showing in New Hampshire, a victory would give him the energy to move forward. And Edwards needed to use the momentum from his Iowa triumph to prove himself a strong candidate nationwide, and a win in New Hampshire would turn him into the front runner.

Through 2003, Gore held a large lead over his opponents in New Hampshire, 20% over Kerry his closest competitor, but following the blow in Iowa it was clear that Democrats were reconsidering their options for who their nominee should be, Gore lost ground quickly dropping to an 11-point lead ( he was at 36% followed by Kerry at 25%), Edwards gained considerable ground from his Iowa victory doubling his polling average until he was just behind Kerry at 24%. Kerry and Edward's gains were attributed to the energy both candidates were putting into travelling and spending funds in the state as well as the new momentum coming out of Iowa "People are now saying, 'Oh, maybe Gore doesn't have it locked up,'" A pollster said. "What they're looking for is a winner. And there's nothing better to prove you're a winner than winning.”.

The 3 major Democratic candidates Al Gore, John Edwards and John Kerry​

The Gore camp was clearly concerned about the polling data, the team had expected a tough challenge in the granite state from the start and the loss in Iowa sunk expectations. What could have been the moment the campaign sew up the entire nomination process, confirming Gore as the true frontrunner and nominee, was now his greatest challenge yet. New Hampshire Senator Shaheen warned the Gore camp “You can’t really run up here on name recognition” and told Gore to put extra leg work in the state, Gore had learned that 4 years ago when he successfully kneecapped the Bill Bradley campaign beating him by a narrow 4% that ended Bradley's chances, now Gore worked overtime to shift his image from boring technocrat to passionate fighter and the contest started to get bloody. Kerry and Edwards went after Gore for the first time, attacking the former vice-president where it hurt the most, his electability “All respect to the former Vice-President but our party needs a candidate who can defeat President Bush” said Kerry, and Edwards kept repeating the line “We can’t make the same mistakes we made 4 years ago”. Al Gore fired back accusing both men of breaking commitments to stay away from negative campaigning and proudly declared “As far as I am aware, I am the only candidate in this race, who’s won the popular vote in three national campaigns”.

The candidates competed for endorsements, and it seemed that Kerry began to gain some notches on his belt heading into the primary. The only northerner and New Englander with a chance, Kerry won the endorsement of the Boston Globe calling him the ''The best bet to beat George Bush is with John Kerry's leadership and experience.'' This was followed by an endorsement by the league of conservation an especially painful endorsement to the Gore campaign. Gore received the endorsement of New Hampshire’s prominent Democrats, praising his commitment to New Hampshire values “There is no greater friend to this state than Al Gore” said Senator Shaheen but failed to pick up the support of other environmental groups he had won in 2000 who were split between choosing Kerry and Gore. Despite his post-Iowa bounce, in New Hampshire, Edward's campaign lagged in the state and he leaned heavily into his outsider image and his fresh face touting his low disapprovals compared to either Kerry or Gore.

All three candidates were vying for the valued endorsement of Senator Ted Kennedy the liberal stalwart. In 2000, Kennedy flirted with endorsing Gore's rival and the Gore team worked desperately to win Kennedy over a second time. But Kennedy had options, he was obviously close with his fellow Massachusetts Senator, John Kerry and was being actively courted by him and Senator Edwards (who Kennedy had mentored during his early Senate days). Kennedy had long put off explicitly endorsing a candidate saying that he would back “The strongest candidate when the time came” That was widely expected to be a passive endorsement of Gore at the time but given the shifting political sands the question of Kennedy's endorsement remained in the air.

The candidates went head-to-head in a debate prior to the New Hampshire primary where the three leading men took some serious swipes at each other and President Bush. Gore was placed on the hot spot in the debate and forced to answer for his third-place showing in Iowa, when asked how he could inspire confidence in Democratic voters that he can beat President Bush in a rematch, Gore answered “This election is about people’s lives, looking at the consequences of Bush’s presidency and deciding if he is providing the right leadership, the right morality and the right vision and looking around right now I think it is pretty clear that he’s not doing that … I can provide the experience necessary to tackle this crisis of confidence”. But some other candidates were there to doubt Gore’s ability, including the still present Kucinich and Sharpton who took the biggest shots at Gore. Sharpton – “The real problem with making Gore the candidate is he already lost to Bush, and there is no way that he can bring enough people back into the Democratic party” Or Kucinich who sought to undermine Gore’s experience “The Clinton-Gore administration severely undermined American jobs and American manufacturing thanks to NAFTA and the World trade organisation, you knew that was going to hurt workers- and the Senators here voted for it” Leading Gore to debate the merits of free trade with Kucinich “Unlike Dennis or the President I am committed to building our alliances and expanding our economic diplomacy”. These attacks were joined by John Kerry, “We can hear the cheers of the Bush team already when they see they can run the 2000 playbook again, we need to make sure they can’t use that playbook again, we need to do better” A comment that was taken as a swipe at Gore. And Edwards the man of the night, off the heels of his Iowa win, made an effort to charm New Hampshire, seemingly recommitting to his no attack pledge when he answered a question on his experience, “If the voters want someone who has been in politics for 20 or 30 years, and who has played the Washington game, they’ve got options, but I don’t think the Democratic party can afford to be that party”.

The candidates staked out their policy in the debate when it came to hot-button issues like taxes, the President's handling of the Iraq crisis, health care and gay marriage. The candidates were uniform in the criticism that Bush’s tax cuts went too far and needed to be reversed for the wealthy “Brit (the debate moderator) 4 years ago, I was mocked for calling the President's tax cut what it is, a giveaway for the wealthiest 1% of Americans” When Kerry was asked how he would avoid the Bush campaign labelling him a tax and spend Democrat, Kerry confidently declared that it was a “fight that I look forward too and a fight we will win, if George W. Bush wants to stand there beside me and defend raising taxes for people who earn more than $200,000 a year, that is on him” And John Edwards reiterated “We need to be focusing on the middle class, ensuring that their tax cuts remain in place to help middle-class families, help them buy a house and invest, not multi-millionaires who have lower tax rates than teachers or police officers”

Things got testier when the candidates were questioned on their opposition to Bush's request for congressional approval for military action in Iraq, Edwards the only Democrat on stage who supported Bush’s request “I’ve always said from the very beginning that from the evidence I have seen that Saddam Hussein was a threat, I had issues with the wording of the resolution, I did not want to provide the President with a blank check, but it is clear that President Bush’s diplomacy had failed, he couldn’t convince the United Nations, he couldn’t convince NATO and that is a failure of leadership”

The New Hampshire Democratic debate ​

Gore, a vocal opponent carefully explained his opposition and how he would have done the job, “The President and Vice President broke every rule in the book, by trying to rush through a congressional resolution, I supported the resolution in 1991 when George H W Bush patiently and skilfully built a broad international coalition and I went further, pushing against the hasty departure that allowed Saddam Hussein to renew his oppressive regime, President George W Bush, in contrast, politicized the process trying to brand Democrats as soft on Iraq, … what we should have done was present our case to the UN under the generally accepted understandings of article 51 of the UN Charter which reserves for member states the right to act in self-defence …”

John Kerry gave the most forceful opposition to the Bush administration on the foreign policy issue attacking Bush’s policy as “inept and arrogant, like every American I have grave concerns over real and grave fears about Saddam Hussein’s weapons and his intentions, but all the way this administration has stretched the truth, they’ve exaggerated and even deceived, I believe and know from experience that war should be a last resort, we need to confront the dictator of Iraq, but this President chose the wrong way to go about it”.

The other issue was gay rights, which had been significantly heated up by Massachusett's effective legalisation of gay marriage, and Republicans' growing support for a constitutional ban on the practice. All the candidates were opposed to a constitutional ban on gay marriage and all three endorsed repealing the Don’t ask don’t Tell law that prohibited openly gay servicemen and women. In general, the candidates agreed that marriage should be left to the states to decide. Edwards endorsed stronger rights for gay partnerships but said that the country wasn’t ready for gay marriage In a mark of contrast he said that unlike Gore he did not support the Defence of Marriage Act (a 1996 law that meant the federal government could not recognise gay marriage). Kerry called Republicans' constitutional ban efforts 'mean-spirited' and 'unconstitutional' and defended his home state from the President's attacks of judicial overreach “Unlike the President, I don’t find it troubling that lawmakers ruled the way they did, I have always fought gay bashing by Republicans, as what it is, a thinly veiled attempt to score points by scapegoating gay and lesbian Americans”. But Kerry struggled to respond when questioned on his previous strong opposition to the Defence of Marriage Act, backtracking on a remark he made calling the law unconstitutional but that he still would not vote for the bill even though he still opposed legalising gay marriage. Gore who as the candidate 4 years prior successfully courted the vast majority of gay voters spoke the most out of step of the three major candidates on the issue, declining to emphasise his support for civil unions above gay marriage. Speaking about the Massachusetts decision he said that there are “many kinds of love” and that it needed to be “honoured and respected, the legal grounds are there and I don’t think this should be used as an issue to divide Americans" and that "and there will be a time when the country will evolve” Gore’s answer surprised some pundits as it came off more of an explicit endorsement of gay marriage rather than the view that most Democrats (and Gore himself) had previously espoused that he supported strengthening civil unions but not marriage itself, following the debate the Gore campaign issued a statement that the candidates stance had not changed but considering that Gore’s previous view included support for the Defence of Marriage Act it blatantly contradicted his words from the debate.

Besides the minor sparring between candidates the clear news of the night was Gore’s words on gay marriage, gay marriage advocates and opponents alike pounced on Gore’s pronouncements “We applaud Vice President Gore for firmly stating his support for marriage equality. It is a position which some would still call courageous, but which a new generation of Americans would call common sense,” said a representative of the Stonewall Democrats who later endorsed Gore and from the Republicans “Al Gore’s pandering to the far left, and shows he is out of step with the vast majority of Americans”. Gore's position on gay marriage became the primary topic of conversation following the debate and heading into the primaries only 3 days later.

The debate did not ruin Gore’s lead in the New Hampshire primary but his lead thinned considerably as more undecided voters made up their minds, Kerry gained considerably in the race rising 5 points, only a couple percentage points behind Gore, and within the margin of error. As New Hampshire voters lined up to cast ballots for the ‘first in the nation's primary, the three major candidates worked hard to knock on every door and kiss every baby in the bitter New Hampshire winter. Making their closing arguments across the frigid landscape, voters had two main things on their minds, electability and the economy. Many were still undecided on their march to the polling stations, with a decent chunk of still undecided voters ''Everyone is cycling around because they all want to vote for someone who can win, but no one knows who that will be”. Said one person at an Edwards rally ''Do you want the guy who looks good on TV? Then you want Edwards. The one that sounds good, Kerry. Experience? Then you go for Gore. They all have pluses, and they all have warts, so it's hard to know who's going to play strongest against Bush.''.

The 3 candidates on the campaign trail​

The New Hampshire Democratic Primary
“Thank you, New Hampshire, for making me the comeback Kerry” Those were the words on Senator John Kerry’s lips through a beaming grin in front of a crowd of supporters. When with 97% of precincts reporting, the Massachusetts Senator was declared the victor of the hotly contested New Hampshire primary edging out a victory over former Vice President Al Gore and North Carolina Senator John Edwards. "I have spent my whole life fighting for what I think is right and against powerful special interests, and I have only just begun to fight." Kerry told his supporters.

His first-place victory came from behind and defeated the former Vice President by 5% a powerful turnaround from only a few weeks ago when Gore held a double-digit lead. Kerry’s victory coupled with Edward's victory in Iowa upturned the Democratic race and left the competition without a firm front runner just as the contest prepared to widen next week.

Gore’s second place ensured that the former Vice President averted disaster by repeating a third-place showing, but this was clearly far from his preferred outcome and it continued to question Gore’s long-held frontrunner status, the campaign had anticipated a harder fight in the state early in the race but had been able to maintain a steady polling lead in the contest for most of the race only again to be beaten at the finish line. Gore found himself battling for second place with Senator Edwards through the count but came out ahead of the Senator by the end of the night. “I want to thank all of those who stood and fought with us here in this state. But let me tell you I will keep fighting for working families, and I will keep defending Medicare and Medicaid and the underprivileged … Thank you all, God bless you. Let's keep fighting all the way to the White House.”

Edwards was upbeat in his sign-off, indicating he fully intended to continue his race for President "We're going so to see great victories on February 3," Edwards said, referring to the upcoming contests. "Yes, we are.". Following Edward's victory in Iowa, he had risen significantly in the polling in some cases on par, or even above Gore for the first time in the race, in certain states.

The results of the primary dealt another upset to Gore, despite heading into the race with favourable data, exit polling revealed that many Democrats flipped to supporting Kerry very late in the day, with only a few days before the election, as well as a large number of independent and some Republicans casting their ballots in the open primary (possibly brought out by the Republican primary occurring on the same day), who either cited Gore’s electability or his unfavorability as the reason.

With Iowa and New Hampshire in the rearview mirror, the race would now turn national, cars and buses replaced by aeroplanes as the three main candidates would be running in South Carolina, Missouri, Delaware, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona and North Dakota, bludgeoned by Iowa and New Hampshire, Gore needed to redeem himself quickly while Kerry and Edwards needed to prove that they could win votes across the country, and the polls were tightening fast.

New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results

2004 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Wiki box

John Kerry, Al Gore and John Edwards celebrate their 1st 2nd and 3rd place in the New Hampshire primary​

---

The Republicans held their own primary in New Hampshire on the same night, the race received more coverage than an incumbent President's primary normally should thank's to the primary challenge mounted by liberal Republican, Senator Lincoln Chafee. Chafee’s challenge was a long shot, though Bush’s popularity lagged nationwide, the Republican party was, by and large, supportive of him. Bush had irked the edges of his party on both sides, the neoconservatives and the moderates, but his brand of compassionate conservatism built a steady base of support in the Republican party, he had cut taxes, but also funded schools. He rejected electoral finance reform and Medicaid expansion and adopted a hawkish but not over expansive foreign policy. Though decried by Chafee as sideling or ignoring the moderates of the Republican party, Bush sought to use his challenge to show that the party had been unified behind him.

Though the President stopped short of openly campaigning against Chafee, the White House wagons quickly circled New Hampshire. The campaign quickly worked to court the endorsement of moderate Republicans, like New York Republicans former mayor Giuliani and Governor Pataki rallied to support the President. For those two weeks in New Hampshire, it looked like the Presidential election was already underway as truckloads of Republican volunteers came up to bury the Chafee candidacy. The militant organisation of the Bush Cheney 04 team was on full show, pouring in all the blood sweat and money that could be offered.

Vice President Cheney was the bruiser stumping in the President's stead, with the grim straight talk only he could provide “Liberal Republicans like Chafee, frankly, do more harm than good to us” he said to the cheers of Republican supporters in New Hampshire. The Chafee campaign looked a lot like the mom-and-pop shop going up against the big chain store. His campaign was composed mainly of him, footing it through New Hampshire, distasteful of fundraising he relied on tapping into his own and his New England brahmin friends and family fortunes, though his campaign received a decent sum of initial donations from libertarian or anti-Bush conservatives it wouldn’t last. His messaging was not always on point, though the theme of his campaign was a 'return to common sense conservatism', he frequently lectured audiences on all the policy minutia, he opposed the President and the Democrats, going over his political acumen. Though somewhat aimless, those following his campaign credited his diligent campaigning in the granite state, with promptness and politeness, he wasn’t going to be President but he definitely wasn’t going to be late.

When all was said and done, Bush won the election with a landslide 29-point majority, crushing the Chafee campaign and ending any momentum it might have garnered “It’s a solid victory, and I am grateful,” said the President. Chafee round up only 16% of the vote and any ideas of dragging on his campaign were quickly dropped “While I was excited to carry out a campaign based on common sense Conservatism, unfortunately, my campaign for President ends today." The President would proceed to win the Republican nomination without any opposition.

New Hampshire Republican Primary Results

Senator Lincoln Chafee concedes

Excerpt from the 2004 Republican Primary Wikipedia page

President George W. Bush​

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXXI
Mini-Tuesday

The President came before the public for his third State of the Union address. Unlike his previous this was a clearly designed pitch foreshadowing his own re-election campaign, it blended reminders of his achievements as President, piloting the nation's economy into recovery, as well as guiding the country to new strengths abroad, seeking to undercut opposition attacks against his leadership. The next few weeks would be key to the nation’s political future until the address, neither the Democratic nor the Republican primaries had started, but also the United Nations was going to issue its final report detailing the end of weapons inspections in Iraq, and summarize the missions’ conclusions. Blix had already previewed what the report’s conclusion was going to be, that no WMD had been found. The preview alone was a blow to the administration, some of whom were still holding out that they could yet prove the U.N., and the Democrats in Congress wrong, and firmly restore the administration's credibility on the issue and prove the commander in chief right. But steadily the administration had been preparing to retreat from the issue, and talk of the WMD had been pulled from White House addresses. So too was Bush’s Press Secretary Ari Fleischer who resigned over Christmas, a prominent advocate of the administration's Iraq policy he had been accused of being less than truthful with reporters over the issue.

When it came to Iraq, in the state of the union, Bush already pivoted his administration's goals in Iraq describing his approach as so far successful. “Because of America’s leadership the world and the United Nations have begun to confront these issues, but we all know there is more to be done, Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted to permanently demilitarize by himself, and it remains this administrations policy to see a truly free Iraq”.

Bush spent most of his time on domestic policy, which polls generally showed he was weaker on than any of the prominent Democratic candidates. He played the Republican balancing act pledging compassion on economic issues to reach moderate and swing voters and stuck to conservatism on social issues to rally the Republican base. He pledged to protect the American family, schools and religious institutions as the “pillars of civilization, that must remain strong in America,” He promised to define marriage as between a man and a woman and swore to fund abstinence education and drug testing in schools, both tools he claimed that would “save children’s lives”. These were commitments designed by political advisor Karl Rove to target social conservative groups. There wasn’t much in terms of any new policy in the speech, instead largely promoting his agenda and chastising the Democrats for sabotaging him elsewhere and committing to veto their efforts to socialize Medicare, he ended with words that reminisced his fathers “And so, we move on together, a rising nation. Thank you. God bless you, and God bless the United States”.

President Bush delivering the 2004 State of the Union
​

98%. The final Report by Hans Blix detailed that 98% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction had been accounted for and had been destroyed or were otherwise unusable. The report was written in a typically diplomatic language and occasionally praised the U.S. administration for sending the American forces that forced Iraq into compliance with international inspections. The report said that inspectors had not been blocked, though it detailed plenty of attempted Iraqi intimidation. Sufficient members of the Iraqi government had submitted themselves for interviews and illegal missiles had been demolished. But after the extensive search, investigators had found no evidence of existing weapons of mass destruction, and that almost all of Iraq’s former chemical weaponry had been accounted for. As for the missing 2%, the inspectors were certain it would be by now, chemically inert and of no serious danger. The committee found no evidence of mobile test facilities, or missile stockpiles, underground laboratories, illicit drone programmes, biological cultures or uranium refining facilities. But Blix still left some doubt in the report, he noted that there was no detailed evidence of the destruction of the WMD prior to the inspector's arrival, Iraq had failed to turn over records or fully comply with investigators as to absolutely prove the destruction of such weapons. Against everyone’s hopes, there were no clear answers to be had, to those against intervention, the UN had carried out its duty and concluded that Iraq was not proven to be in breach of its weapons obligations, but it had declined to absolutely prove itself innocent, no one felt comfortable labelling Saddam’s Iraq as truthful but Blix’s cold detailed account of the disarmament process had come to its end. The spin doctors were quick to move, with the pro-intervention articles highlighting Iraq’s failure to fully comply and the failure to prove the destruction of WMD.

The conclusion of the inspections meant that the issue was to go back to the United Nations Security Council to decide on intervention, but it was already a moot point, the election of new council members meant that two swing votes, Mexico and Cameroon had been replaced by solid no’s, Brazil and Algeria also permanent members France, Russia and China were each satisfied with Blix’s report, President Jospin said that he was “satisfied and relieved by the report” and thankful that “no military action is needed to be taken” all but guaranteeing a veto. President Putin stated he was glad a “political solution had been found” and Chinese foreign minister Li Zhaoxing said, “we are glad that war has been averted”. By February 2004, the idea of armed intervention by the United States was fading from the public mindset, as the public was more focused on domestic politics and even hawks seemed to have dropped the idea of a unilateral American invasion.

UN weapons inspector Hans Blix​

But the release of the U.N. Iraq weapons report reopened the political debate in the halls of the United States Congress and was greatly enflamed when the Chairman of the Senate intelligence committee Bob Graham (a frequent critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy) announced that the committee would be opening its own review of Iraqi WMD, as well as the quality of the U.S. intelligence process. The announcement was of special concern to the White House, CIA, Defence and State department who had all assured each other that their assessments of Iraqi WMD were correct, only to be undercut by the steady drip of leaks, rumours and off-the-record conversations doubting the administration's line, Graham himself said that the committee would “investigate serious allegations that the administration engaged in manipulation or misleading of the American people”. Republican officials were quick to chastise the investigation as a partisan attack “Senator Graham sounds more like a conspiracy theorist than a sitting Senator” said a party spokeswoman. But there were serious accusations that were spread across the administration, the CIA was accused of whitewashing a report handed to congress ahead of crucial votes on Iraq, many cabinet officials were accused of spreading misleading info on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, and the Defence department faced severe allegations of repeating totally false ‘intelligence’ brought to them by Iraqi exile groups in exchange for funding. In the face of the investigation the administration put on a brave face pledging to “continue working with congress to fully determine the threat of Iraqi WMD”, but most Republicans did not seem keen to comply with the investigation and held up the remaining questions in the U.N. report as some vindication for their support for Saddam’s removal and reiterated their support for the President. For instance, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said, “It’s clear now, from the U.N. that the President is right, Iraq constitutes a clear threat” and even more moderate Republicans were keen to move on, Senator Trent Lott said that “We need to stop grousing about these Washington issues, that don’t matter outside the beltway”.

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Bob Graham (D)​

But it was clear where the nation’s political focus was, the ongoing race for the Democratic nomination. On February 3rd, the 3 Democratic frontrunners were going up against each other in the first multi-state primary race, it was the sink or swim moment for the candidates. Former Vice-President Al Gore, twice snubbed now, placing third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire to his Senatorial adversaries John Edwards and John Kerry. The states up to the plate were Delaware, South Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico, and Arizona. Pollsters and analysts, who had for weeks predicted a sweep for Gore were increasingly pushing states into the toss-up category. Senator Edwards crept into first place in South Carolina (his birth state and neighbour to the state where he served North Carolina) and after his Iowa win, he polled evenly with Gore in neighbouring Missouri. Kerry, off the back of his from-behind victory in New Hampshire, also received a bump in national polling within spitting distance from Gore in Delaware, North Dakota, and Arizona. The primary was clearly going to be eventful, and each candidate hit the trail furiously.

The Edwards campaign rallied in South Carolina, where a month ago the campaign struggled to fill its own campaign offices, it now filled out churches and venues with supporters. “The crowds are building and building, it's clear people are thinking a lot differently about this race after Iowa”. Edwards said, amazed by his growing crowd sizes, where he delivered his stump speech focused on pledging more money for health care and education, and a tax credit for working and middle-class families, denouncing the Bush administration for ignoring the working poor and its cosiness with Washington lobbyists. He vowed to defeat the President by appealing across the country "I can beat him in the North, in the West, in the Midwest and even in the South!". His campaign was clearly excited heading into the mini-Tuesday election “We were expected to finish fourth in Iowa and drop out after New Hampshire, but the momentum is with us … we’ve got lighting in a bottle”.

The Kerry campaign, recently on the verge of dropping out, was juiced by his victory in New Hampshire, with analysts owing his victory to the many undecided voters, and those who flipped from Gore last minute, he appealed to much of Gore’s voters without holding any of Gore’s unfortunate baggage. Campaigning in Fargo North Dakota, a state Kerry had surged in, he ran against the unfair economic politics of the Bush administration as well as attacking trade agreements that don’t consider the American worker “The Democrats of North Dakota want a new President they just don’t know who it is yet” said one undecided voter, Kerry swung through the country hitting Missouri and Oklahoma both hotly contested states. In Tulsa, Kerry began to hammer on his military experience (a rarity for him) and his experience in the field compared to any other candidate including President Bush “They have never been to war, and the President of the United States never even completed a tour of duty stateside. We need the real deal and that's, in my opinion, John Kerry” said Senator Max Cleland, endorsing Kerry.

Al Gore campaigned in the neighbouring Missouri, where he blasted the networks with last-minute advertising, desperate to fight off his advancing adversaries in the delegate-rich state, he leaned into his characteristics as a family man first, always beside his wife Tipper "My husband has made healthcare the centrepiece of his campaign, as well as education," she said. "We think that if you can give every family, every child, a healthy start with health care and the very best educational system possible, then we are doing our best to strengthen families and communities and therefore keep our nation strong”. The Gore campaign redoubled its efforts to pump up his base, touting his experience, and legislative bona-fides, but it was becoming clear that Gore was no longer the inevitable candidate he once was. But he still had the gilded front runner status, polling ahead of his opponents in most states. The Gore campaign took its own swipes at the Edwards and Kerry campaign by co-opting their message, Gore began to run ads focusing on his own Vietnam background and promoted his anti-poverty agenda “While this President has cut taxes for the top 1% of Americans the poverty level has risen, we need an innovative president to create high-quality jobs”

Main Democratic Candidates running for President Gore, Kerry and Edwards​

The campaign became frantic as all the candidates rushed around the country, scrambling to bump up their polls, every percentage mattered, in some states, it was the difference between winning and losing, but staying competitive still meant delegates 'Win or lose, as long as we get as many delegates as we can.' A Gore staffer said in New Mexico. Gone were the hopes of a Gore super sweep, akin to the one he had achieved in 2000, they were now fighting for every delegate, campaigning in Arizona, the former Vice-President slammed the Bush administration for failing to confront drug manufacturers, and the invigorated Gore said: “The President says it's not the government's role to dictate drug prices, but when you're on the other end of unfair price gouging or are getting ripped off by drug makers I think the government should step in”. Gore was on fighting form confident that once he notched victories under his belt, his campaign would regain momentum, compounded by his establishment support and durable campaign coffers.

“How about those Panthers?'” John Edwards asked a crowd in Missouri celebrating his home team's Superbowl victory only days earlier “That really says something, all those Carolinians winning in Texas, I look forward to repeating their successes”. Without a hair out of place and a crisp suit, Senator Edwards campaigned in the mid and southwest, campaigning so strongly that his voice had become hoarse by the time he landed in New Mexico. The polls had been turning progressively in his favour after his victory, perhaps his class-based campaign was taking hold in the country.

Kerry whipped out his old-school Kennedyesque oratory skills ''Americans should not just be working for the economy; the economy should be working for Americans.'' He said at a union hall in Delaware before he spent 45 minutes signing every hat, flag and photograph placed in front of him. Kerry needed every vote, despite his New Hampshire victory he was still behind in every state, the afterglow may be fading and the press was reporting that Gore was regaining momentum, the attention he received after his win wasn’t all good, people called him sincere, authentic but not charismatic or energetic, and the Edwards campaign had taken a shot at him calling him just another Washington insider, Kerry’s team was confident they would garner a strong finish, win a couple of states and position him as the alternative to Gore, best placed to beat the President in November.

Democratic candidates in their youth: Gore, Kerry and Edwards
​

The results of the first multi-state contest in the Democratic race shook things considerably for all three major candidates, it was highly competitive, with all three major candidates qualifying for delegates in practically every contest. In the broadest assessment of the voters in both geography and popular terminology yet, the verdict was clear, big wins for Gore and Edwards. The immediate takeaway was that Gore was back in the race. After his campaign spent weeks on the backfoot, with falling poll numbers and failure to win either of the early state contests; the Gore campaign had a great reason to celebrate after spiralling doubts, Gore had prevailed in 4 states, winning the Arizona and Delaware primaries and the New Mexico and South Dakota caucuses. "My heart is full tonight," Gore said Tuesday night in Washington state (the site of an upcoming contest). "This is your victory, too," he told a crowd of supporters.

But what seemed like the moment the Gore campaign would finally shine, the national attention was quickly drawn away from him, when outsider candidate Senator Edwards kept his campaign alive with three primary victories in South Carolina, Missouri and Oklahoma. The first-term Senator's victories meant that, though was still behind Gore in terms of delegates, he was tied in the number of states won. Edward's heavy campaigning in the Southern states had paid off, “his is an amazing night for us, “first in South Carolina, first in Missouri, first in Oklahoma”. The close contest, led to narrow victories for both camps, in New Mexico and Missouri where both Gore and Edwards narrowly beat the other. "Everything exceeded my expectations, thank you so much," Edwards told the crowd. "Tonight, you said that the politics of lifting people up beats the politics of tearing people down,” he said.

For Kerry it was a clearly disappointing night, failing to win any of the states in the contest and coming up distant seconds in Oklahoma and Delaware where he had hoped for wins. Pundits wondered whether Kerry had the steam to keep his campaign going, but Kerry remained typically stoic in his appearance and gave no indication he was preparing to pull out of the race “It is important not take anything for granted, I am humbled by your support, looking back on what we have achieved, it is enormous, and I look forward to carrying this campaign forward.” Though there were concerns that the Kerry campaign did not have the funding necessary to effectively compete.

Analysis of the night showed where each candidate's successes and failures could be attributed, in a poll of Democratic voters most important issues, defeating Bush and the economy were the key issues. Senator Edward's successes came from his appeal to white, working class and more moderate voters, as well as higher-than-expected support from minority groups who were expected to be heavily for Gore as well as the undecided voters that had swung for Kerry in New Hampshire. Gore significantly improved from the previous contests with older and more liberal voters.

The votes recast the campaign, there was still no clear front runner, no runaway victories, no default candidate and all three candidates swiftly jumped back onto the campaign trail preparing for upcoming contests in Michigan and Washington states to be followed by primaries in Tennessee and Virginia next.

Feb 3rd "Mini-Tuesday " Results

Candidates Gore, Edwards and Kerry speak following the election results

February 3rd Mini-Tuesday results

February 3rd Mini-Tuesday results, county map

Democratic primary results as of February 4th ​

​

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXXII
Speedbumps

Since the end of formal peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine in the 90s, there had been a rise in violence between Palestinian militants and Israeli security forces, the conflict known as the Second Intifada. The international community had come together to create a new formula for peace, called the Roadmap for Peace, built by members of the Supernational Quartet consisting of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. Negotiations between Israel and Palestine remained halted for a long time, as sporadic violence interrupted both sides' ability (or desire) to come to the table. There also remained considerable disagreement between factions of both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority on how talks should proceed. The two main areas of conflict were Israel’s position on withdrawing from the disputed territories and the continued construction of Israeli settlements inside Palestinian territory, and the Palestinian groups were divided between the more moderate leadership associated with Fatah and the growing more militant and Islamist faction associated with Hamas. Despite the factionalism, the Palestinian groups took the major first step when they all uniformly declared a ceasefire against Israel in the summer of 2003 and pledged to keep the ceasefire alive as long as Israel met certain conditions to halt aggression, cease settlement construction and begin the military withdrawal from the Palestinian territory.
With the Palestinian declaration, an uneasy peace settled but eyes quickly turned on the Israeli government to see what (if any) concessions it would be willing to make, after some disagreements the Israeli government endorsed the ‘Roadmap’ and re-entered direct dialogue with the Palestinian government. At last, the ball finally began rolling again. But there were clearly still hurdles ahead, the Israeli government failed to commit to withdrawing to its pre-2000 boundaries or dismantling settlements. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon nicknamed ‘the father of settlements’ did however make a surprising turn, urged by U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Sharon appeared to firmly commit to the roadmap calling the current Israeli policy of pseudo-occupation unsustainable "You cannot like the word, but what is happening is an occupation -- to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation. I believe that is a terrible thing for Israel and for the Palestinians," And he began proposing a freeze of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. These decisions of both paramount Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon were met with cautious eyes by their respective publics as most Palestinians and Israelis were sceptical of the roadmap, and occasional low-level violence threatened to upend either side's cautious manoeuvres.

Palestinian leader Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Sharon​

There were clear issues, there was yet to be a firm decision from Israel to progress down the roadmap, and commit to pulling back settlements and withdrawing out of Palestinian territory, and it seemed to many that Israel was slowly withdrawing from the negotiations and was not keen to settle core issues with Palestine. Some saw it leaning more into a permanent separation policy rather than settled peace, the government claimed it was thoroughly following the plan but as some military outposts were removed, more were raised, and though raids into Palestine decreased, the number of roadblocks went up, and rather than the immediate release of 700 Palestinian prisoners held without charges, the Israelis drip fed them out. The Palestinians and the negotiators were growing frustrated with Israel’s tactics and President Bush penned a letter to Sharon expressing frustration that Israel wasn’t meeting its commitments to withdraw, many pondered if Sharon had any faith in the initiative, to begin with. The International Quartet held a press conference that put forward a simple demand “in accordance with the Roadmap, settlement activity must stop.”.

Criticism of Israel by the U.S. government and the Quartet's role in negotiations was abruptly halted by heightened tensions due to the Iraqi disarmament crisis, as the United States combed middle eastern states for support should an invasion of Iraq become necessary. but come the winter of 2003 as tensions between the United States and Iraq began to fade the question of Israeli intransigence re-emerged. The Sharon government finally released its plan, unilateral disengagement from Gaza including the relocation of settlements inside Gaza. The disengagement plan also made smaller commitments to pull some settlers from the west bank. It was an ominous step, and far from anyone’s preferred outcome, neither the Israeli hawks nor doves, the Palestinian leadership or hardliners were at all enthused by the move and even some Israeli government ministers such as finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu were publically disapproving and demanded the government hold a referendum to decide on the issue. The Palestinians viewed Sharon’s moves with suspicion, his refusal to progress the roadmap totally, and fully commit to the formation of a Palestinian state was notable as well as the lack of a withdrawal around Jerusalem. Foreign policy analysts noted that the removal of the settlements may have more to do with security policy rather than humanitarian ones or to cool western tempers (The disengagement plan was paired with the rerouting of the construction path of the west bank barrier, a sticking point for humanitarian groups) but the United States and the greater quartet welcomed the manoeuvre none the less "This initiative, which must lead to a full Israeli withdrawal and the complete end of occupation in Gaza, it can be a step towards achieving the two-state vision and could aid progress on the road map," Secretary-General Kofi Annan said. The Palestinian and Israeli decisions didn’t inspire much optimism, but they at least allowed for a more peaceful interim and constituted what is generally considered the end of the second Intifada.

Second Intifada Wiki Box​

---

The month of February was the tensest for the remaining Democratic contestants, 10 states and the District of Columbia would be hosting their contests, and both primaries and caucuses were spread across the calendar. Coming out of January, two candidates had emerged with a stronger hand. Former Vice President Al Gore and North Carolinian Senator John Edwards were the two favourites going head-to-head for the Democratic nomination, it was a classic matchup between the experienced establishment Gore, with 30 years of military, legislative and executive experience, including already winning the Democratic nomination only to be denied the Presidency by a heavily scrutinised supreme court decision 4 years ago. Compared to the young upstart Junior Senator John Edwards Who the Gore campaign in 2000 had seriously considered as a VP candidate. There was no clear political division between the two men, and both held traditional New Democratic values. But there were differences between the two when it came to some social, economic and defence issues. Gore’s stance had shifted from his time as a Tennessee Southern Democrat broadly conservative on the issues to broadly liberal, critics accused the vice president of flip-flopping on the issue, shifting his views to suit the voters while his defenders noted that the whole countries views had shifted ''There are lots of people who would now be regarded as pro-choice as they come, who voted very similarly to Al Gore in the mid-1980s,'' said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. Edwards touted his pro-choice bona fides, his 100% pro-choice voting record, compared to Gore’s 84% and noted that unlike Gore he had been a steadfast opponent of the conservatives’ attacks on abortion rights including late-term abortions. The other major social issue of gay rights was more complicated between the candidates, their official views were one and the same, that they personally supported civil unions and not gay marriage but supported a state’s rights to define marriage (an issue sparked by Massachusetts legalisation) However Gore had made several comments that went further than his official view and even indicated personal support for gay marriage. The notable disagreement on the defence issue stemmed from the Iraqi disarmament crisis, both Gore and Edwards though in opposition to the President's overall strategy and neither ruled out a unilateral strike against Iraq, had struck different tones on the issue. Gore had been front and centre in his opposition to an invasion of Iraq the previous year and vowed to continue the containment policy. He said that the system of sanctions, no-fly zones and military strikes was successful under the Clinton administration and would continue to work. Edwards took a more hawkish stance and emphasized his commitment to the Iraqi Liberation Act, which made removing the Saddam regime part of American foreign policy. Their economic policies were the biggest difference, Gore represented the continuation of New Democratic liberalism, prioritizing eliminating debt and strengthening the social safety net to help those in need and pull people out of poverty. Edwards however diverted from the New Democratic economic agenda, his campaign was more class centred, his stump speech was about the ’two Americas’ “the America of the privileged and the wealthy, and the America of those who lived from pay check to pay check” he emphasised more economic intervention than Gore including raising the minimum wage and emphasized the importance of unions (a key voting group that won him Missouri) and criticised, businesses and trade deals for outsourcing jobs, said trade deals being achievements of the Clinton-Gore administration.

Former Vice President Al Gore and North Carolina Senator John Edwards​

The three other candidates were Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, civil rights activist Al Sharpton and Ohio representative Dennis Kucinich. The only one with some lingering promise was the Kerry campaign. The runner-up in Iowa and winner in New Hampshire was a liberal war hero, well-educated and eloquent, many agreed he had the aura of a President but his peak in the polls had seemingly passed following his failure to win a state in mini-Tuesday elections though he still had a decent chunk of support including veterans and middle-class liberals who saw him as an attractive alternative to Bush or Gore. Both Kucinich and Sharpton were running principal campaigns not pitching themselves to win the nomination but to prove their agenda had support, Sharpton insisted that the Democratic party not concede ground on civil rights and Kucinich was the furthest left candidate, supporting same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, full military isolationism and impeaching George Bush. Both Kucinich’s campaigns were focused on campaigning in single states to earn delegates to influence the party rather than contesting the country as a whole.

The first contests were the Michigan and Washington caucuses, both in the immediate aftermath of the mini-Tuesday contest Gore and Edwards firmly led the pack, Edwards had surpassed Kerry in Washington following his victories (a state that Edwards had invested fairly little in), but it seemed Gore was also on the rebound, his first state wins aided his so far lagging campaign but he still struggled on the campaign trail, Democrats including many of the establishment were desperate not to repeat their loss to George W Bush but had so far been unable to pick the ideal successor, Edwards primary victories elevated him as the main anti-Gore candidate and won him considerably more media attention than Gore. Kerry, in need of a win to revive any hopes of his possible candidacy, campaigned hard in Washington, a state that looked favourably on underdogs and had a history of unpredictable outcomes. A win in Washington followed up by a win in Maine the day after, could revive him.
The results confirmed the general view that a two-horse race had developed when Gore and Edwards triumphed in Washington and Michigan respectively, with Kerry in distant third place (though enough to prevent either candidate from securing a runaway victory). It was a big step for both men in the race especially Edwards whose Michigan win showed he had success outside of the south “This is a clear sign that this race is far from over” The election meant that both men remained tied for the number of states they had each won and both men made demographic inroads Gore gained considerably among younger and more liberal voters than his 2000 race but had dipped among more traditional and working-class Democrats as well as Black Democrats. Gore gave a victory speech from the stump in Seattle “This is a good omen, and a clear decision, this is the beginning of the end of George Bush”. The disappointing third place for Kerry resurfaced the possibility of the end of his campaign, but the candidate again shrugged off the suggestion “This race isn’t over yet, and we very much look forward to tomorrow’s Maine Caucus”.

Going into Maine, the stakes were high for the Kerry campaign, he desperately needed a victory and the New England state was his best chance to win one, he had picked up a few prominent endorsements including leading Democratic figure former Senator George Mitchell, the state was sandwiched between large contests and the Kerry campaign put in considerable footwork, but the disappointing performance following New Hampshire had sunk expectations. Kerry attacked Bush hard on his leadership and opened up on circling rumours regarding President Bush’s military service “The question is, was he present and active in Alabama at the time he was supposed to be?", referring to Bush’s time in the national guard. The state also attracted the outsider Dennis Kucinich who spent most of his remaining budget on the state. However, after the 400 caucus’s met across the state. despite Kerry’s furious efforts he was denied the significant support he needed coming out of Maine and again placed a disappointing third, only a few points ahead of Kucinich. But this time it was Gore who bested Edwards in the competition winning the state and for the first time, he had the lead in state victories, over his rivals with 42% to Edwards 36%. It seemed that Gore was finally building up momentum against his rivals “People go with a winner” Said Senator Kerry seemingly admitting he had an insurmountable task ahead but still said he intended to compete in the upcoming contests “But this fight isn’t over yet.” The two rivals were already busy battling in the south in the upcoming contests in Virginia and Gore’s home state of Tennessee.

The two southerners rallied hard and placed considerable resources in the states. Despite the Gore campaign's expectations, that the contest was going to be a formality by this point Edwards surged considerably jumping the polling considerably, to the point where the Gore campaign was forced to start buying ads in Tennessee to prevent the embarrassment of the front runner coming up short in his home state. The Gore campaign hoped that defeating Edwards in the south, would end his campaign “Once Gore wins the South, it shows he still has wide national support. That he can win anywhere” But he had been dogged throughout his campaign as Democratic voters consistently labelled him less electable, less likeable and less favourable than his opponents. But with Kerry counted out by most pollsters the voters of Virginia and Tennessee were left to decide, stick with Gore or go with Edwards. Fears of the honeymoon season being over for Edwards and that voters were finally getting serious over who they wanted to pick for President were suggested, and Gore picked up points and regained his solid lead in Tennessee, but Virginia was still down to the wire. However, Edwards pulled off a major triumph for his campaign when he received the endorsement of Virginias Democratic Governor, Mark Warner, the popular Governor was a significant endorsement for the now underdog candidate “We need a straight talker in the White House, who will fight for every vote,” said Warner.

Governor Mark Warner (Right) Endorses Senator Edwards (Left)​

The polls had predicted a close night in Virginia and a blowout in Tennessee, however in Virginia, probably aided by Warner’s last-minute endorsement Edwards pulled off a decisive victory by 18 points, 49% to 31% his greatest victory yet, in Tennessee Gore’s home state, the vice president underperformed, peaking polls in the high 60’s he had lost support, enough to maintain a strong lead though and he won the state with a still strong 57% per cent of the vote.

Following the dual losses in the south, the Kerry team took the decision to suspend his campaign. Kerry told reports that it was the end of his Presidential run “This is the end of the campaign for the Presidency” Said Kerry after his two third-place finishes and he took the time to praise his Democratic rivals "They're good men, they're good Democrats and they're good patriots … and I look forward to helping either of them defeat President Bush”

Prior to further Democratic party contests, gay rights again became a prominent topic in the national dialogue. This change was prompted by events in San Francisco. Following a close election that nearly saw a second upset in the golden state, Democratic Mayor Gavin Newsom, long seen as a moderate for the traditionally liberal city bested his left-wing Green party opponent. The new mayor was an invited guest of the city’s U.S. representative and Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi to the 2004 State of the Union, the same event which saw President Bush speak out against “activist judges redefining marriage” his response to Massachusetts effectively legalizing gay marriage. Newsom and other San Francisco city officials prepared an ambitious plan, and on February 12th the city began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, claiming that the constitution of California and the United States gave him the authority to under equal protection laws. Within hours hundreds of couples lined outside the city hall to be issued marriage certificates.

(Left) Gay couple celebrate receiving marriage certificate, (Right) San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom​

The de-facto recognition of gay marriage by the city’s elected (democratic) mayor, was quickly under fire by conservative commentators and politicians as a moral outrage and a serious overreach by Newsom and a violation of California law which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Mathew D. Staver head of a group of lawyers determined to sue the city said the marriage certificates issued Thursday were ''not worth the paper they are written on.'' and added that Mr Newsom was ''giving the impression that mayors are above the law.''. Within the state, California’s governor Huffington largely aligned with Newsom, declining to open an investigation on the grounds that San Francisco and opposing groups had already launched legal actions and indicated her broad support for gay marriage (opening the possibility of legalization). The hotbed issue quickly found its way into the national sphere and the Democratic primary, Front runner Gore was again under the microscope regarding his stance on gay marriage, due in part to his campaigning in California the previous year where he endorsed Newsom, and again questions regarding discrepancies between statements on his views on gay marriage. And all the candidates were called to give their opinion on the issue, the President said that he was troubled by the decision and said that the “People need to be involved in this decision, not the courts” and shortly after formally declared his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The decision in San Francisco clearly rippled across the country including a dozen county officials repeating the same decision.

Following the decision in San Francisco further, Democratic contests were held in D.C and Nevada. Prior to the official contest, D.C had held an informal primary prior to its official caucus. Gore triumphed in the informal primary with 2/3rds of the vote with the rest split among the minor candidates (with his primary opposition not on the ballot). In the official caucus though still the overall winner, his share of the vote had fallen to 41%, with Edwards and Sharpton taking away considerable support. But in Nevada, the caucus came down to the wire between the two frontrunners. The hotly contested state was split due to the interjection of the state's Democratic party and its influential Senator Harry Reid who had for months been warning party delegates about the dangers of a Gore renomination and that a fresh face was desperately needed to beat Bush. Nevada a swing state, was considered a key bellwether, and some analysts were concerned that Gore had overlooked the state and was campaigning in the delegate-rich Wisconsin to prevent Edwards from winning a second northern state. The results meant that Edwards won another victory over Gore, and as the polls closed on Valentine’s day the Democratic party’s love triangle wasn’t over.

Al Gore and John Edwards campaign for the Democratic nomination​

With only a week before the pivotal Super Tuesday contests there were 4 states still up for grabs, Wisconsin on the 17th, then Hawaii, Idaho and Utah on the 24th. The Wisconsin primary was a true battle between the candidates, following Edward's victory in Michigan, Virginia and Nevada he now polled narrowly behind Gore as his insurgent campaign and his populist message caught wind in the state, where Gore hammered on his history of supporting labour groups. Both men campaigned hard for a victory. But the Gore campaign suffered another setback when the voters by a six-point margin went for Edwards. It was a massive victory for the Edwards team and evened out the number of states each candidate had won. Edward's victory was enabled by considerable moderate to conservative voters, as well as union support and some local newspapers, and the continuing theme of last-minute voters splitting his way. “They said they had us beat, well not so fast,” said Edwards. The talk of Edward's campaign not having legs were well and truly cast aside as many Democratic voters considered Edwards as a serious contender and somewhat more preferable candidate “This guy is like the new Clinton” Said one Edward voter “He’s got us rocking”.

In the days after Edward's Wisconsin victory, the political earth shifted considerably when Edwards won two significant endorsements, the first on February the 19th the AFL-CIO the U. S’s largest labour organisation representing 13 million workers announced its support for Edwards “He will be our champion in the White House” said the union president John Sweeney. Edward's anti-free trade message and victories in the so-called rustbelt states Wisconsin and Michigan had won the unions over compared to Gore (who had previously won the endorsement in 2000) and many preferred the fresh face and his charisma.

The second major endorsement was that of Senator Edward Kennedy. In a crowded convention hall in his native Massachusetts, the most famous living scion of the Democratic Party’s most famous family whipped up a crowd before heartily endorsing Senator Edwards “There are two things we need in a nominee, commitment and character, that’s what you’ve got!” Said the 71-year-old master endorsing the junior Senator Edwards. The pundits had seen hints for months that Kennedy had been distancing himself from the Gore campaign at first towards a natural ally, John Kerry his fellow Massachusetts Senator but had now deferred to Edwards whom he had worked closely with during his time in the Senate as a sort of mentor. The endorsement was a powerful one as it represented Edwards making inroads with the Democratic party’s liberal voting bloc.

Senator Ted Kennedy endorses Senator Edwards​

The final set of contests before Super Tuesday proved pivotal, Edwards was on a hot streak with crucial endorsements and strong momentum from his victories. The Gore campaign comparatively was stumbling, a large conservative campaign had kicked off portraying Gore as too extreme on LGBT issues, including releasing the text to a speech the Vice President gave to an LGBT rights group the previous year where he described Gay Marriage as a “love that needed to be honoured and respected”, a radical on environmentalism who would further damage the economy and hurt the countries energy industry, and weak on foreign policy for his critics of the administration on Iraq and his numerous TV appearances where he said that Saddam Hussein wasn’t an “imminent threat”. It could have been Gore’s last chance to seriously wound Edwards before the final stretch, but it was another disappointment for the former Vice President. Edwards had won Utah and Idaho by wide margins, while the Vice President won in Hawaii (likely aided by Kucinich's decision to campaign in the often-ignored state) prior to Super Tuesday it looked like the tables had once again turned and the upstart Edwards became the favourite for the nomination.

Results of the February Democratic Primary

Map of the Democratic Primary following the February contest
Gore Edwards Kerry

Senator Edwards and Vice President Gore celebrate primary victories

​

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXXIII Bullets & Ballots, Part 1​

Haiti

Alongside the race for the Democratic party nomination, a second major event brewed in America’s revolutionary stepbrother, the Caribbean nation of Haiti. In Haiti, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a slum-born priest and the country’s first democratically elected leader was experiencing a rocky period. For context, shortly after his electoral victory in 1991 he was deposed in a military coup, but once the administration of George H W Bush ended and Bill Clinton took over, the United States insisted on the return of Aristide and an end to the Haitian Junta, following negotiations the junta complied and U.S. troops were deployed in operation ‘uphold democracy’ and Aristide returned from exile. He formed a new political party and gathered strength in the run-up to the country's 2000 election. Aristide earned plenty of enemies who accused him of electoral manipulation and in the presidential election, they opted to boycott the procedure allowing Aristide to win the election with 90% of the votes (though many observers noted that turnout was still high enough that Aristide could have won anyway) but regardless, the criticism of Aristide and the election was used to argue for Aristides illegitimacy alongside allegations of fraud. Following his return to the Presidency Aristide governed Haiti in a manner concerning to some. He was a radical reformer and he demanded that France repatriate Haiti for the billions that Haiti paid for its independence, in a nation dependent on international donations and though his government was committed to aiding the poor, his methods became more and more erratic and authoritarian, to enforce his laws militia were organized, the police were reformed with broad powers to suppress protests as corruption continued to thrive in the country. Worst of all, despite Aristides' grand vision, Haiti’s economy failed to recover, and it remained the poorest nation in the Americas. The country was globally seen as an aid state dependent on international donations and the suspension of U.S. aid by the Bush administration greatly harmed the country. His erratic behaviour persisted, and his speeches became more brutal in tone, encouraging violent acts against political enemies and some of his supporters followed suit.

In January 2004 the country began to celebrate its 200th anniversary of independence. At the same time, the former army turned paramilitary groups began to conduct an organized insurgency, they called themselves the National Revolutionary Front for the Liberation and Reconstruction of Haiti. The insurgent’s leadership were comprised of former military, drug smugglers, junta death squads and dissidents all linked by their opposition to Aristide. At the same time the political opposition coalesced, a collection of business leaders, doctors, intellectuals, students, and farmers began pushing for Aristides' resignation and frequent clashes between them and his supporters ended in violence and occasional deaths. Within weeks, the insurgency had begun to take over the countryside, and began attacking police stations, violence escalated in the cities, in Port Au Prince thousands of students were shot at by armed militia and many criticised Aristide for preventing the police from investigating the crimes. Soon after, the opposition forces took hold of Gonaives, Haiti’s fourth largest city and looted it for weapons and vehicles. A large rebellion had clearly broken out and the government reacted by raising barricades in the capital, a state of emergency had begun, and many Haitians began to flee the country in anticipation of further violence.

(Left) President Jean Aristide, (Right) Haitain rebels
​

The situation was fast deteriorating and the world noticed, through February rebel forces advanced across the coast taking control with little formal opposition (Aristide had abolished the military) There was global division over the proper response, and the Bush administration presented differing options, first Secretary of State Powell warned against rebels ousting Aristide, until several days later reversing course, and partially blamed Aristide for the violence "Much of the violence that we see now is being created by the gangs that were once aligned with the Aristide government,". Said a state department spokesperson and suggested that Aristides' resignation could be an apt solution. Some urged the President to take action. "If we can send military forces to Liberia -- 3,000 miles away -- we certainly can act to protect our interests in our own back yard,". Said Senator Bob Graham, "Inaction can no longer be our policy," said Graham, "To do so will ensure that Haiti is ruled by thugs and criminals.”. Other Democrats took aim at the poor communication from the White House, describing its response as 'dithering' or 'uninterested', Presidential candidate and civil rights activist Al Sharpton said he would travel to Haiti personally, and Al Gore and John Edwards accused the President of ignoring Haiti or even empowering the rebels via statements suggesting Aristide resign.

As the rebels closed in on the capital and the threat of a bloodbath rose, international negotiators including the United States and various Caribbean states stepped in, hoping to broker talks between the two forces. The Bush administration put forward a proposal that Aristide accepted, to reduce the power of the President while allowing Aristide to serve out the remainder of his term of office. But leaders of the Haitian opposition rejected the overtures ''There will be no more delays; our answer remains the same,'' Maurice LaFortune, head of the Haitian Chamber of Commerce and a prominent opposition leader, told The Associated Press. ''Aristide must resign.''. And as the days ticked down, rebel gangs advanced on the city after city, seizing control of the north, the collapse of the peace plan seemed to many like the coup-de-gras to his rule. He had few forces to call on to fight for him, and cities were defecting without a fight, all the while Aristide stood defiant, giving a speech honouring police who had been killed in the uprising "I am ready to give my life if that is what it takes to defend my country,". That outcome was becoming closer to bearing out; if the United States wasn’t willing to protect him and the rebels carried out their increasingly graphic threats. But he still said that resignation was out of the question, and dismissed these propositions as ‘baseless rumours’. Thousands of armed supporters roamed the city, the president's only hope of holding off the rebels, and Haiti prepared for a battle. On the 29th of February, events came to their head. Guy Philip, the rebel leader gave the ultimatum "We're just going to take our positions and wait for the right time [to attack]," said Mr Philippe, a former officer in Haiti's disbanded army “If there is no resignation then we will attack”. Without an agreement with the rebels, the U.S. government assumed the only peaceful way things would end in Haiti is with Aristide out of the country and presented him an offer, his resignation for his and his family’s safe evacuation from the country, warning him that rebel forces would march on the city and thousands of lives including his own were at risk if he did not leave. Aristide was a mix of shocked and outraged, simultaneously asking for the American’s help while accusing them of siding with his enemies.[1] He attempted to field phone calls from his allies who warned him against fleeing the country as it would lead to the rebel's victory and subsequent mass reprisals and warned against taking the American’s offer calling it a “Washington organized coup” he absolutely rejected any request to resign or head into exile and called several news agencies and American politicians[2] to say he has rejected the offer.

On Monday, March the 1st, hundreds of rebels entered the capital of Port-au Prince, and armed clashes on the outskirts between the rebel forces and Aristides loyalists were widely reported. The streets were cleared, as the sound of gunfire making its way closer and closer to the centre of the city echoed out. The well-equipped and experienced rebels seemingly made quick work of the Aristide militia and the city’s police were of no help to the government, most had either defected to the opposition or stayed home, Philippe reiterated his demands that the President resign or face arrest, and by the days end it was clear that the rebels would soon be in full command of the city, already surrounding the Toussaint Louverture airport (a key means of escape for Aristide and secured by an emergency detachment of American marines). Confident, Guy Philippe called into international news agencies and declared himself the new chief of police for Port Au Prince and offered Aristide a final opportunity to resign, before his forces would take the Presidential palace by force. In return there was silence, Aristide made no public proclamations, he had fled the palace intending to make his way to the American embassy where the embattled President supposedly intended to present his resignation and appeal for American protection (This is according to the United States version of events).

But it would be several long hours before daylight revealed the ugly truth, that at some point during the night. Jean Bertrand Aristide, as well as a small contingent of bodyguards, had been killed, the President's car was found stopped in the middle of the road and the vehicle, and the President, his driver and a bodyguard all riddled with bullets.

(Left) The streets of Port Au Prince on the 1st, (Right) Aristides car being investigated​

The death of the President was an unexpected turn of events, but it didn’t take long for it to be paired with the news that rebel forces, had taken hold of the Presidential palace and the headquarters of the national police. The country was now without a President and overrun with rebel militia and could find itself spiralling into chaos. The President of the United States, announced that to prevent a further collapse, a coalition of American countries would immediately provide security to the country under a UN resolution (operation safer tomorrow provided roughly 1000 men from American, Canadian, Chilean and various other south American and Caribbean nations) As for the new Haitian government, the U.S. and the broader international community, as well as the rebels all, agreed that in accord with the Haitian constitution, Supreme Court Justice Boniface Alexander would assume the Presidency, who on the same day petitioned for the UN peacekeeping force.

Despite fears of accelerating violence, the intervention of the United States and the swift deployment of the troops prevented a further loss of order, but questions still whirled. Accusations were brought forward by Aristides supporters, that the U.S. had orchestrated a coup and may have been responsible for his death. Their version of events was that the United States had refused to extend protection to Aristide without him resigning and had even forced his U.S. contracted security to leave Haiti to induce him to leave the country too. They also said that the state department's failure to support the legitimate president emboldened the rebels to attack the city. Additionally, some went further and blamed the U.S. for the entire uprising, pointing to claims that the paramilitary forces and Guy Philippe were trained in the Dominican Republic allegedly by U.S. special forces, they also insisted that the United States had demanded that Aristide appears at the embassy rather than the airport, despite the additional distance and danger of such a journey. The state department countered these accusations with an explicit denial “any such suggestions are total falsehoods, Aristide offered to come to the embassy and resign voluntarily … no demands were ever made”.

Democrats demanded an investigation, “We are trying to get some answers, because it is a rather disastrous proposition for this country to be undermining an elected government elsewhere even if we don’t like that government, and empowering killers” Said Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D). And members of the Congressional Black Caucus who Aristide had called hours before his death made their anger well known “I am convinced that the recent deadly coup involved not only drug lords and the armed thugs, but also our own government” charged Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), and Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said that the US had failed to protect the Haitian government “Whatever happened on Monday, its clear that the United States could have averted his death, we could have prevented this overthrow” And he disputed the government line that Aristides stubbornness effectively got him killed “I think there is a real issue here of the Bush administration saying one thing and the reality being different,”. It was clear that the Bush administration had again fallen into hot water over its foreign policy.

Spain

---

Tuesday, 9 March, 2004, 10:08 GMT 11:08 UK
Fourth Blast in Madrid after ETA warning

The scene following a car bombing in Madrid

Police in Madrid have carried out a controlled detonation in a car park, left adjacent to the city’s international Barajas airport.

The detonation, which damaged several vehicles and caused a major interruption at the airport came only minutes after a caller claiming to be associated with the Basque separatist group ETA delivered a warning that an explosion was imminent.

No injuries have been reported, but the area and the city as a whole have been cordoned off, while major police actions have been taken, following a string of similar car bombings so far this month.

Including this device, 4 bombs have been detonated inside Spain’s capital city and the ETA has vowed that yet more attacks are imminent. The ETA, which is blamed for about 800 deaths in its 36-year campaign for an independent Basque state, has pledged to carry out attacks until its political demands are met.

The significant number of car bombs has led to at least 3 fatalities and dozens more injured when one such device detonated outside a Madrid restaurant. Another was found by police outside of a theatre and a third exploded on an evacuated train car.

A number of suspects have been arrested over the week. Though the continued attacks show that the group is still capable of carrying out these operations.

The blast occurred in a multi-storey car park at about 08:00 local time (06:00GMT).

The structure was not damaged, and no flights were cancelled, but travellers were forced to walk to the terminal with their luggage in their hands.

The increased number of attacks has interrupted Spanish life in the capital as police searches and checkpoints have been set up around the city in an attempt to find the perpetrators.

The country is also preparing for a general election next week to decide who will replace Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar who pledged to continue the investigation to find those responsible “We will bring the guilty to justice,” Aznar said. “No line of investigation is going to be ruled out.”

---

The month of March 2004 became an especially bloody one for Spain. As the country prepared to go to the polls to decide who would take over the reins of the 2-term prime minister José María Aznar of the conservative People’s Party. A string of terror attacks burned through the capital. Half a dozen bombs were found in a string of attacks in the two weeks leading up to the March 14th general election, killing 4 people and leading to dozens of injured. The explosions were paired with newly released videos by the Basque separatist group ETA giving prior warning of attacks and claiming responsibility while vowing to “Continue its mission against those who would deny us, through the force of arms”. The orchestrated nature of the attacks prompted a massive police response in Madrid to sweep the city of more potential bombs, and evacuating potential bombing targets, ending the recovery of a truck filled with half a ton of explosives and the arrest of several ETA members preparing for more bombings.

​

The string of attacks and the arrests culminated in the March 14th, 2004, Election. Where the incumbent People Party and its Azar’s designated successor Mariano Rajoy kept the reins of power with a greater share of the vote 47.1% of the vote, and 12 additional seats giving them a stronger majority. The People Parties, greater than expected share of the vote was attributed to the public approval of the government’s handling of the ‘March crisis’. Rajoy the new Prime Minister of Spain was expected to easily slip into the shoes Azar left behind, a staunch social conservative opposed to immigration and abortion, it was seen as a rightward shift of the government, Rajoy pledged further tax cuts, a crackdown on terrorist activity, and to combat illegal immigration.[3]

2004 Spanish general election Wiki Box​

Afghanistan

The north of Afghanistan was ablaze, the long raging civil war between the fundamentalist Taliban and the cadre of opposing warlords in the northern alliance had entered a new phase. Following the Bush administration's decision to give renewed military support to the northern alliance including covert special forces action, the northern alliance had been on the offensive, battling to take back territory in the north of Afghanistan, strengthen their hold on the regions and establish safe supply lines into its northern neighbours. Thanks to the American support and airstrikes, the forces of Massoud had been able to outgun and solidly outpace Taliban forces, leading to the growth of his army’s morale and the confidence of warlords, enough to conduct a major offensive in the siege of Kunduz.

Kunduz was a major Taliban stronghold in the north, and with it, they controlled the major supply route into neighbouring Tajikistan as well as some of the country's most vital agriculture. Its importance was not unknown to the Taliban who had placed an estimated 15,000 fighters in the city, determined to keep the population under control and the northern alliance firmly out.

Northern alliance forces under the command of General Abdul Rashid Dostum an Uzbek warlord who returned to Afghanistan in 2003 following the renewed military aid from the United States. Dostum rallied his forces to surround the city and demanded the Taliban forces surrender, but when Mullah Omar the Taliban’s mysterious leader ordered the forces to fight to the death, a bloody siege began, and the city became a ragged battlefield as the opposing forces fired, machine guns, rockets and artillery across the city in efforts to break the enemies’ forces. For months, the city was reduced to rubble, compounded with disease and freezing winter conditions civilians suffered heavily. American advisors and Massoud implored Dostum to withdraw acknowledging that they were also taking heavy casualties but Dostum known for his brutal kind of warfare refused. By the end of the winter, Dostum’s army secured a major victory when several thousand Taliban fighters surrendered to him. But the hundreds of foreign fighters remained, aware that any surrender could mean a death sentence.

The siege of Kunduz
​

Now on the edge of victory, the United States decided to send in special forces to aid Dostum’s final operation to flush the city of the holdouts joined by Northern Alliance General Daud Daud. After 2 weeks of intense fighting the remaining resistance in the city by March 23rd, 2004, the city had fallen under full Northern Alliance control.

In the aftermath, it was realized that Dostum had overstated the number of Taliban that had controlled the city practically 3-fold, but the siege had been the deadliest act of the war to date with tens of thousands of civilian casualties. The capture of Kunduz meant that the northern alliance clearly held the upper hand in the north of Afghanistan and quickly prepared to consolidate their gains in the north by taking on the Taliban’s last major northern stronghold Mazar-i-Sharif.

Unfortunately for the United States, parsing the dead and the captives revealed no members of America's most wanted list, but there was a surprise among the captured, a foreign fighter the 23-year-old American by the name of John Walker Lindh.

Lindh a D.C born catholic middle child had converted to Islam and travelled to Afghanistan to join the Taliban. The capture of an American citizen was a quandary for the administration, Lindh had technically committed no U.S. crime, he had associated with various terrorist groups during his stay in Afghanistan but there was no evidence he played any such role in planning or carrying out any terror attacks during his stay[4]. Nor was it illegal to volunteer to fight on behalf of any said group. With the possibility of Lindh having to be released if he were returned to America, Lindh instead remained a prisoner of the northern alliance.

(Left) Afghan Warlord Dostum (Right) John Walker Lindh the American Taliban​

Taiwan

After 55 years of continuous rule, the Kuomintang's long tenure over Taiwan was broken in the dramatic election of 2000, their downfall was brought about by a split in the party between the vice president Lien Chan and the popular governor of Taiwan (a defunct position) James Soong. Allowing the Democratic Progressive Party led by Chen Shui-bian , the left-wing nationalist party to unseat the KMT though he only won the election with a third of the vote.

His term in office was contentious, the DPP had few national political figures and he was forced to work with many KMT members to fill his cabinet including his first premier, he was forced to moderate his stance on Taiwanese independence and pledged that as long as the Peoples Republic of China had no intention to use military force against Taiwan he would not declare the independence of Taiwan, and to subsequently double down on his post-partisanship he resigned from his leadership of the DPP, further boosting his popularity he was also invited to the United States breaking an unwritten agreement between the PRC and the USA that no leader of Taiwan visits New York or Washington.

But Chen's government quickly ran aground. The Asian stock market crash pulled the country into an economic crisis, while the legislature (controlled by the KMT) blocked his policies and each blamed the other for the troubles. He was caught in a controversy regarding his attempt to cancel construction on a nuclear power facility favoured by the KMT, ending his working relationship with the opposition, the resignation of his premier, and Chen re-joining the DPP. During his time in office, the President’s popularity had faded from 70% approval to 25%.

Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian​

In preparation for his re-election campaign, Chen began to double down on his nationalist bona-fides. He pushed through a law that would provide an emergency defensive referendum if the country were under imminent threat of attack, only for a day after its approval for Chen to state his intention to invoke the referendum based on the PRC's missiles. Chen flew again to New York where he shook hands with Secretary of State Colin Powell boosting his approval to 35%, ahead of the KMT’s candidate Lien Chan. Many of his critics accused Chen of attempting to achieve Taiwanese independence through the emergency referendum.

Chen chose his Vice President Annette Lu to again serve on his ticket, she was a controversial pick due to some of her statements on independence, and it meant she had broken her pledge to retire the year earlier, the pick went against the wishes of many party members including those who had already been nominated for the position. Meanwhile, the KMT stitched together their fractured party by renominating Lien Chan for president and James Song for vice president given that each of the two candidates previously gathered 60% of the vote it was seen as assured that the KMT would return to power.

The parties battled fiercely, and policy issues faded behind personal attacks, as the KMT shifted considerably closer to the DPP on nationalist issues abandoning the idea of one country two systems. Allegations of corruption, tax evasion, draft dodging, illegal transactions and spousal abuse were raised and the country became divided. Events began to favour the DPP including a large rally celebrating victims of the Chiang-Kai-Shek era as well as controversy over KMT establishing campaign offices on mainland China including meeting with Taiwanese fugitives. This and other campaign blunders severely narrowed the election polls.

On March 19th the final day of the campaign, polls showed that the KMT still held a narrow lead. For the millions of anxious Taiwanese who just wanted this especially toxic campaign to end there was still a major surprise left. While the President and Vice President took place in a rally, travelling down a crowded street of supporters, stood atop an open-top jeep. Firecrackers were fired at the passing car as the executives waved, a common event in Taiwan politics, but something was clearly different this time, the President collapsed, and it was clear that blood was seeping into his clothing. Shots had been fired and both were escorted to a hospital. Police on the scene established that potentially multiple shooters had fired at the President's vehicle and the country's national security was activated.

The whole country was thrust into crisis, theories sprang up that perhaps the whole event was orchestrated to preclude a Chinese invasion or a military coup or a self-coup by the President to postpone the election or drum up sympathy votes[5]. As the President was rushed into surgery police scoured the area for evidence. The situation became tense across the island as hundreds of hardcore supporters prepared for potential violence from the opposite side. To dissuade worries, the Vice President appealed for calm and both parties said they would suspend any campaign events, and to ease fears the police said that there was no evidence of mainland Chinese involvement. Images were taken shortly after the shots showed both the severity of the Presidents injuries and seriously rocked the Taiwanese government and the public. More questions about if the election could proceed (Taiwanese law allowed for the suspension of an election on the death of a candidate) but this was dismissed by the government, though the severity of the President's condition prevented anyone from meeting with him.

A nervous nation took to the polls, unsure if one candidate would be physically able to take the Presidency. Police and military were out in force to quell potential unrest, and it was clear that the country was in shock from the attack on the President. It was midday when news began to break that the President was dead. He had sustained multiple close-range gunshot wounds to the chest and surgeons had been unable to contain the significant internal bleeding. The death of the President on election day constituted an electoral crisis. The constitution determined that “the Central Election Commission shall immediately announce the suspension of the election” on the death of a presidential candidate however that only applied if the death occurred “after the registration deadline and before the polling day”. According to the commission, the election would still stand.

The votes continued, and thousands of angered DPP supporters took out their frustrations, mostly at the ballot boxes but occasional protests outside KMT headquarters required the police to break them up. The country was addressed by its new potentially short-term President Annette Lu, who again appealed for calm, commemorating Chen and asking the country to continue to vote and that the election results would still stand. The KMT largely bit its tongue of criticism, and the candidates echoed Lu’s sentiments on the former President and the election

President Chen before the assassin's shots, now President Annette Lu​

It wasn’t until Sunday the 21st when the firecrackers really went off, by a razor-thin margin the deceased former President Chen Shui-bian was declared the winner of his re-election, meaning his vice-presidential candidate (and now president) Annette Lu would instantly ascend to the Presidency come inauguration day. Now, the KMT no longer stayed quiet and demanded the election be annulled and echoed dubious claims that Lu had delayed the announcement of the President's death until polling day to win the election.

''The slim gap has been achieved under layer upon a mountain of suspicion,'' Mr Lien told a frustrated crowd of supporters. ''It is a false election. Prepare to annul the election.'' Thousands of KMT supporters came out onto the street to protest the election result, claiming that hundreds of thousands of votes had been illegally invalidated, and the state of emergency imposed kept thousands of members of the military and police from voting, as well as the many reports of KMT voters being harassed. But the electoral commission and Lu remained firm that there was no truth to conspiracies and there would be no recount. More unrest followed as the KMT lobbied for numerous directives to lay to rest any contentious issues with sit-ins and rallies. The President agreed to a full recount, but the opposition wasn’t satisfied citing fraud claims and demanded a full investigation into Chens' death.

Protests persisted and escalated to the tens of thousands all camped outside the Presidential office for days, tensions began to flare as the President and the KMT failed to agree to the terms of the recount culminating in thousands of protesters following speeches by KMT officials calling foul on the election results, attempting to break into the president's office only to be suppressed by the police and military forces.

2004 Taiwanese presidential election Wiki Box​

---

[1] The exact version of events is disputed between Aristide and the United States, I have chosen a mix of both versions
[2] Aristide had close connections with the congressional black caucus
[3] The government's handling of the Madrid train bombing was a political disaster and is one of the only examples I can find of a nation rejecting its leadership after a major tragedy.
[4] Without a PATRIOT Act, being a member of a terrorist organisation alone isn’t a crime
[5] This is the major conspiracy in Taiwanese politics, but I think it is a bit ridiculous

Update on the US election in Part 2 ...

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXXIV Bullets & Ballots, Part 2​

March 2nd would be the largest primary day of the calendar, 10 states would be holding their primaries and caucuses, and in one night over a quarter of the available delegates would be decided and divvied out between the two remaining serious candidates, Former Vice President Al Gore and Senator John Edwards, if either candidate came out significantly ahead of the other it would more than likely signal the end of the contest and decide the winner of the Democratic nomination.

There were many big prizes to be won on the night, including California and New York the two most populous states in the union, the whole country was represented with the new England region well-represented including Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island in the mix. The mid-west was also there with Ohio and Minnesota and the South would not be left out with Georgia, and the mix of D.C. white suburbanites and Baltimore African Americans that made up Maryland. The contest guaranteed to give the nation the chance to decide their preference.

C-Span coverage of "Super Tuesday"​

There was no clear front-runner in the race, and polls teetered one way or the other in terms of the Democratic party's intentions. It was certain that both candidates were battling for every last vote, none comforted by their leads in each respective state. Looking at the map, Gore had an advantage in California and New York the ‘big enchiladas’ as the pundits put it, where the electorate and trends leaned in his favour. But Edwards's momentum was clearly felt as many Democrats stayed out of the endorsement game, clearly hedging their bets, but Gore still scored major endorsements from California Senator Dianne Feinstein and the Senatorial Spouse of his former boss Hilary Clinton, putting aside apparent animosity between the two, calling him “The greatest advisor, friend and indeed President you could ask for”. But Edwards continued to stun with the surprise endorsement of the editorial board of the nation's largest newspaper the New York Times, describing him as having “enormous discipline [making] a direct and genuinely emotional connection with people of all backgrounds. … who is easy to envision in the White House” The paper did praise Gore for his ability to communicate and that he was clearly very knowledgeable, suggesting he would make a perfect addition to any cabinet, but conceded that he was lacking in style and was hampered by the past and worries that a rematch between Gore and Bush would distract the country from today's issues, or to put a less kind columnists words to paper “Oh, boo hoo. This isn't about Al Gore's redemption. And it isn't a grudge match. The last thing we need now is a wallow in the past -- which a Gore nomination is almost certain to entail”.

In California with its mammoth 370 delegates, Gore had a lead where his newer liberal views found a more receptive audience. It was the first time that Californians would get a chance to have an important role in the nomination process since 1972. But both candidates campaigned in the state, and Edwards had built up a well-organized campaign, and pundits noted that despite California's leanings the state still had millions of moderate democrats and independents. “Even if Gore wins it, Edwards can't afford to give in, there are still many undecided,” said a Golden State pundit, California had recently become the centre of pollical controversy when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom had begun signing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage, and the stunt had even sparked the idea of the state legalizing the practice which according to polls a majority of Californians and Americans opposed.

Outside of the big prizes, Edwards held a stronger hand, in the mid-west area of Ohio and Minnesota, his message of economic populism, and reexamining trade deals played very well and he polled above Gore in both states. Ohio was a critical state and both candidates campaigned in the state but campaigning across the nation stretched Edward's campaign fairly thin.

New York debate between John Edwards and AL Gore​

The true toss-ups were Georgia, Maryland and the New England states. Gore had initially polled well with African American voters giving him a wide lead in the south, but Edwards's surge had made significant inroads with black voters and he remained attractive to southern more moderate white Democrats, despite Gore's background. Both candidates played to their southern roots ''I share the values that rural Southerners share; faith, family, and integrity. Those are the things I've believed in all my life” Said Edwards, while Gore took to the stages with as much energy he could muster and indulged a strong southern accent, outside of his usual statesman-like demeanour and talked about the importance of his faith while criticizing the Presidents ‘right-wing’ religion "If you elect me President, the voices of all faith-based organizations will be integral to the policies set forth in my administration.''. In New England, endorsements played a powerful role, Gore received the support of the popular former Vermont governor Howard Dean, while in Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy had endorsed John Edwards, boosting each in those respective states, but both candidates still stacked the airwaves with advertising to capture as many votes as possible Gores former running mate Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman endorsed him, and despite Rhode Islands, usual low profile, both the candidate's spouses Tipper Gore and Elizabeth Edwards came to rally in the small state.

Democrats across the country were making their final decisions. “Everyones evaluating who can beat Bush?" Said one pundit, and with so many battleground states, the candidates were stretched thin across the country, the candidates were becoming clearly exhausted; months before the actual campaign had actually begun and both men raced against the clock to pull off, late in the game polling bounces. At the same time, it also became clear that President Bush was also ramping up his re-election campaign, as he began delivering his first campaign speeches and the first political adverts were hauled out touting the Presidents achievements, including his support for the energy industry information countering attacks fom Democrats on his climate policy (and Enron). But another elephant wandered into the room in the shape of Ralph Nader the green party candidate of 4 years prior, many Democrats still blamed him for siphoning off crucial Gore-leaning voters in Florida, and Nader declared that “the two-party duoplacy needs to be opposed” and called Washington D.C ‘corporate occupied territory in his announcement he was running.

Democrats across the country cast their ballots, as the candidates wrapped up their tours of the nation. With Gore in Atlanta and Edwards in New York each candidate framed themselves as the best way to beat George Bush, and rejuvenate the American economy with the options being ‘common sense experience’ or ‘fresh-faced energy’

Super Tuesday Results

State results following Super Tuesday
​

The polls mostly bore out, despite the results being close, in terms of delegates, states and popular vote, Senator John Edwards had come out ahead of former Vice President Al Gore. His insurgent campaign pulled off a number of close victories once seen as an impossibility, in states across the country Massachusetts, Ohio, Georgia, and the greatest of the night California! where Gore had enjoyed a polling lead. An exultant Edwards stepped out “This was a dog fight, but we bite harder than their bark” The visibly tired senator’s voice began to grow hoarse toward the end of his speech "The truth is I may be losing my voice, but you haven't lost yours, thank you".

But Gore wasn’t out yet, he still held the delegate lead thanks to Superdelegates, and at his own rally he celebrated “Thank you for your votes to empower Americans healthcare, for building and training green collar jobs, and against tax cuts for the wealthy and votes for reclaiming American leadership, so it was and so it shall be again.” The final showdown between the candidates would begin in a number of southern states.

But despite Gore’s optimistic outlook the polls began to truly turn against him, Edwards awash in the warm glow of his victories gained a substantial polling bounce. His support inside the Democratic party widened expanding his winning coalition. Additional surveys came in the days after Super Tuesday that confirmed public perceptions of the two candidates, Edwards was seen as the more favourable candidate and for the first time, several polls showed him beating Bush in the general election by several points. Edward's victory in Georgia was also a key indicator of his growing support from black voters, combined with his support from moderate voters.

(Left) celebratory rally for John Edwards and (right) Al Gore on Super Tuesday​

The next round of states were all southern ones, where both Edwards and Gore tried to claim the home advantage. The North Carolinian and the Tennesean both attempted to woo the electorates, especially in the wide plains of texas Texas where Gore saw his best chance to prove the pollsters wrong and win back the momentum of the race At a rally in San Antonio, Mr. Gore went after the President seeking to counter claims that he was too liberal and planning to raise taxes “These are scare tactics, and I think it a shame that the president has already departed from the truth”. All candidates were also making eager efforts to expand their share of the growing Hispanic voting base, with the President meeting with the Mexican president Vicente Fox, while John Edwards made his pitch by highlighting his family values and support for growing the American Dream to immigrants, while Gore flexed his bilingual prowess ''I say to you tonight, 'Todavia no han visto nada,' '' Mr Gore said. ''You ain't seen nothing yet.'' And focused on his values of education and healthcare, Gore’s struggle to appeal to Hispanic voters compared to President Clinton had been a significant factor in his loss in 2000 loss (And losing California).

​

On what was dubbed 'Southern Tuesday' the democratic party voted again, what originally looked like a close night for the candidates turned into a southern sweep for Edwards who cleaned up, winning every state competition, only losing American Samoa which offered only 3 total delegates, in the big ticket items of Texas and Florida Edwards had trounced Gore by wide margins. It was an unforgettable moment for the Edwards campaign signifying that he had won his greatest victory “If I am smiling, its because this campaign has only just begun” With his wife and children by his side he thanked the glowing crowd and exited the stage the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination

"Southern Tuesday" results
​

There was now no room for error in the Gore campaign if he were to somehow turn back the tide but the evidence was pouring in that Democrats had made up their minds on who they thought could best beat Bush. A further round of polling doubled down on Edward's advantages, his favourably and his electability inflated while Gore’s numbers sagged. Gore’s campaigners began to irk about a lack of discipline, and a general lack of morale as Democratic insiders, one by one refused to give their support to the candidate and after a few more contests in March, Gore’s chances were becoming increasingly impossible to overcome, and his favours continued to drop following two painful losses in Kansas then the delegate-rich Illinois (a major Gore must win) only 3 days later.

The headlines were becoming harsher and harsher, each pronouncing Gore’s second run for the presidency dead in the water “Al Gore is as good as dead … there is no good news on the horizon as Democrats seem to have increasingly made up their mind on their preferred choice for the nominee and the democratic leadership is anxious to consolidate in preparation for a long and expensive campaign against the sitting President Bush” - Slate.com: The Gore Finale? The delegate math technically panned out, if Gore could pull off a series of crushing victories pending a swift implosion of the Edwards campaign, the candidate had encouraging words for his supporters “We are fighting for a sane government that can make smart decisions and right now that is what this campaign continues to be about” but more and more the wind was blowing the other direction.

It looked as if Democrats had settled on the candidate of choice. Gore still fought on, winning victories in smaller states, and territories, including Alaska and the Democrats abroad, but following several superdelegate shifts and another Edwards victory in Wyoming, It was clear that the writing was on the wall. Following a few days of political pondering, Gore officially withdrew from the Democratic race for President, and urged his supporters to back his former rival John Edwards in the November election “This is a bitter day, some have accused this campaign of being about the past, but we know that this was always about the future … I want to thank you as Democrats for the honor of being your nominee for president four years ago and I want to thank everyone for joining me again today and I want all of you to help John Edwards be the next president of the United States.”

Following Gore’s endorsement, Senator John Edwards gave a speech for the first time as the presumptive Democratic nominee “I want to thank Al Gore for his decades of service both for the Democratic party and our country, for many he represents the distinguished soul of the party and has inspired thousands to enter public service” But he also opened his first blistering attacks on the White House previewing the general election to come “We can't kid ourselves, with the Republican attack machine and their bag of dirty tricks we don’t know what they are willing to do, but I can promise you that together I have no doubt that we will defeat them, that with your help were on a one way ticket to the White House!”

Any dissection of the 2004 Democratic nomination, usually centres on the failure of the Gore campaign, Gore widely tipped for the nomination following his 2000 narrow defeat had seemingly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and sent Democrats into the arms of the upstart Edwards. His campaign suffered from a severe lack of enthusiasm from Democratic insiders and though he maintained a strong following among the party's more ideological activists, his major selling point, his experience had become a turnoff for many voters. He was polarizing to many and had a high unfavourability rating, and attracted strong media scrutiny. and perhaps the biggest blow was the stain of already losing a presidential election. Many Americans were prepared to move on from the election of 2000 and many Americans desperately hoped to avoid a rematch. This was compared to Edward's campaign, a longshot, grassroots campaign that focused on attracting the centre of the Democratic party into its ranks, once he emerged as the best non-Gore candidate, the party was quick to attach itself to his candidacy.[1]

2004 Democratic Party Presidential Primaries final results

(Left) 2000 Democratic Nominee former Vice President Al Gore
(Right) 2004 Democratic Nominee Senator John Edwards​

---

New York arrests, 'foil cyanide plot'​

Associated Press​

Tue 18 Mar 2004 11.16 BST​

​

The mayor of New York, Mark Green, today said that a potential terrorist attack on the New York City subway station had been averted, with the arrest of 6 men and the seizure of several chemicals that when combined form the deadly hydrogen cyanide gas.​

​

The suspects, who allegedly were linked with radical Islamic terror groups including Al-Qaeda, the Afghanistan-based terror organisation responsible for the bombing of an American military base last year and several attempted plane hijackings 2 years ago, had planned to build devices capable of spreading the gas across the New York City subway system, Mr Green said.​

​

"We have prevented a serious attack on the level of the World Trade Center bombing” police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said, referring to the 1993 truck bomb at the base of the north tower, in which 6 people died and 1000 were injured saying that such an attack could result in serious illness and even death.[2]​

​

Police claim they disrupted the plot when neighbours of one of the arrested an American José Padilla, they reported strange activity including strong chemical odours, loud phone conversations and once a fire. Padilla according to reports had travelled from the U.S. to the Afghanistan region multiple times where he is suspected of establishing contact with several terrorist organisations including undergoing training in building chemical and explosive weaponry.​

​

Other members of the plot included three British-born men of Pakistani descent, and two other Americans from New York State with Yemeni backgrounds all accused of holding connections to several Islamic terror groups including the east Asian group Jemaah Islamiyah, and the prominent so-called ‘freelance terrorist’ Khalid Shaikh Mohammed accused of plotting numerous attacks against the U.S. who is believed to be residing in Taliban controlled Afghanistan​

​

The head of the CIA who aided New York police in the investigation, George Tenet, said that the suspects had trained with numerous terrorist groups and that. "Most of them know how to prepare improvised explosive devices," he told reporters.​

​

The suspects were arrested in a series of raids in the city of New York. The suspects had been under surveillance for weeks, Tenet said. They were being held on multiple attempted murder and conspiracy charges.​

​

Mr Green said that the evidence against the four detainees was "strong and airtight", adding that follow-up operations were underway. "Let no one underestimate our determination to keep New York and New Yorkers safe," he said.​

​

Chemical weaponry has occasionally been used by terror groups before, most notoriously there was an attack on Japan's Tokyo subway system by a religious cult using the nerve agent sarin killing 12 people and injuring hundreds. Inside the United States only months ago a plot by white supremacists to attack government buildings in Texas included a home-built cyanide gas bomb, but the plot was disrupted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms[3]​

​

The arrests have brought some criticism from civil rights groups who claim that some of the tactics used by police, including heavy surveillance, represented a possible abuse of authority …​

(Left) Arrested 'cyanide plot' suspect José Padilla [4] (Right) the devices created to distribute the chemicals​

---

[1] Gore didn't run in 2000 because he thought George Bush was too popular at the time. Sadly for Gore I agree with his OTL decision political comebacks in US politics are rare and I generally refer to Patton's quote "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser". Perhaps Gore is special because he could legitimately claim he had actually won the 2000 election but my mind immediately goes to imagining if Hillary Clinton had tried to run in 2016 or Humprhey's run in 72
[2] There is little hard evidence for this plot and has only been referenced in several memoirs claiming that the plot was cancelled by Al-Qaeda leadership for several reasons. I have serious doubts as to the actual potential success of such a plot (chemical weapons are harder to construct and are less deadly than conventional explosives) but TTLs leader of AL Qaida was more focused on chemical and biological weaponry so they attempt to carry out the plot only for it to be dismantled in its preparatory stage
[3] A real plot that was overshadowed by the war on terror and the name was changed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after 9/11
[4] Jose Padilla is the 'terrorist' who famously attempted to build a nuclear bomb by following a parody guide that included "putting uranium in buckets and spinning them clockwise over your head" ITTL his plan is less audacious but just as unsuccessful

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXXV Wolverine

Saddam Hussein the long-time dictator of Iraq sat down for a rare in-depth interview with western media channels. The president was upbeat in his mood, and it wasn’t hard to see why, from his perspective, he had won a great victory over the United States. The United Nations had just completed an investigation, concluding that it had found no evidence that Iraq had violated international laws regarding its weapons programmes, and inspectors were preparing to leave the country.

It was a long interview where the dictator at times stared down the lens of the camera, or the interviewer Dan Rather, times where he pounded his balled-up fist on the table and through a translator he conveyed his absolute conviction that he would remain the President of Iraq and that the United States would never conquer the Iraqi people “Despite their lies, or their supposed superpower status, the Iraqi people will never submit to a godless American force, and now we have convinced the world of this!”

Saddam Hussein interview with 60 minutes​

It had been a year since the beginning of the Iraqi disarmament crisis, when an American jet had crashed/been shot down in the Iraqi desert, killing the pilot and its weapons officer, igniting tensions between the USA and Iraq, with the US accusing Saddam of violating UN accords and hoarding so-called ‘weapons of mass destruction' but after months of missile strikes upon Iraq, the great behemoth of the United States had been forced to back down, confronted by the US’s allies, and the Democratic-controlled congress who were against the Presidents intervention in Iraq.

Saddam had been making the same gloating remarks for months, mocking President Bush, calling him the ‘lesser Bush’ and declaring that he was far smarter than the ‘chimp president’. His interviews and taunts did not go unnoticed in the White House.

The American president, despite efforts by members of his administration to try to move on from Iraq and into his re-election bid, had been prevented by powerful advocates who continued to call for the downfall of the Baathist regime. American policy had begun to reflect this increasingly hardline policy. The 'no-fly' zones in the north and south of Iraq became policed heavier still, and the rules of engagement were opened, allowing coalition forces to strike at any attempt to organize Iraqi forces in the regions. The harsh enforcement policy was described as a ‘no drive zone’ designed to deny the Iraqi government any ability to coordinate its forces in Kurdish or Southern regions. It was a policy that had been championed by the hardliners in the Bush administration since the beginning. US and British jets targeted military bases (largely destroyed in the previous year's campaign), lines of communication and even military convoys and troop movements. This harsh enforcement was heavily criticised by humanitarian and anti-war groups as exacerbating the pain for Iraqi civilians, the harsh bombing campaigns, and harsh sanction enforcement had devastated Iraqi infrastructure and quality of life, leading to routine electricity, food and water poverty.

The ‘no-drive zone’ envisaged by Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was designed to break Baghdad’s hold on Southern Iraq just as it had done in the north, hoping to trigger some kind of uprising against Saddam as had occurred in 1991 or 1999 or even a military coup like in 1996. But unlike the neocon Wolfowitz, most officials were confident that Iraq would continue to defy the U.S., Saddam still controlled enough military, paramilitary and police forces to enforce his rule in southern Iraq and the Shia were not in a position to rise up, despite the CIA’s growing efforts to sow the seeds with bribes and propaganda, which flooded the Kurdish and Shia regions. All of these activities encompassed the IFRA (Iraqi Freedom Activities), a series of covert actions greenlit by the President designed to bring about the overthrow of the Iraqi dictatorship.

IFRA included large-scale espionage on the Iraqi regime, coercion of members of the regime and using weapons inspections as additional cover for said operations. Supplying opposition groups with money and equipment, the funding of Iraqi expatriate groups prominently the Iraqi National Congress (INC) led by controversial leader Ached Chalabi and the creation of exile militant groups like the ‘Free Iraqi Forces’ (FIF were forces prepared in Kuwait expected by Chalabi to one day succeed the Iraqi Army). U.S. propaganda was spread throughout the country via pamphlets, radio and television stations established in Kurdish and Kuwaiti territory to blast out the 'truth' of the Saddam regime and encourage revolt.

President Bush had already ordered covert military action in the Kurdish region to aid the Kurdish Peshmerga forces to drive out radical Islamist forces encamped in the border region between Kurdish territory and Iran. This was to allow any Kurdish forces to join a potential war or aid an uprising against Saddam’s Iraq, this activity ended in a Kurdish victory and the militants fleeing onto Iranian soil.

Kurdish Fighters on the left and the area of the Kurdish offensive on the left​

The covert activity didn’t go entirely unnoticed by the wider world, it became publicly known during the crisis that the US had a large-scale espionage operation inside Iraq, and the Iraqi government had taken every opportunity to publicly expose the ‘American meddling’ showing off supposed bugs and rounding up accused traitors to receive swift and brutal executions, including several Iraqi colonels accused of providing the Americans with military information who were consequently dragged to death through the desert. The cat-and-mouse game between the US and Iraqi intelligence was a brutal one, with significant sums of money used to bribe and extract assets before the Fedayeen militia could cull them. The extent of the bribery payments stretched so far that in some villages the American dollar replaced the Iraqi dinar as local currency.

There were worries in Washington that these operations were stretching the capability of US intelligence, or that the number of operations was tipping the CIA’s hand and aiding Iraqi anti-espionage efforts. Additionally, there was no clear goal to the operations outside destabilization and it wasn’t clear that these efforts were very successful. Despite the no-drive zones Baghdad’s influence in the south did not waver and attempts to sow seeds of protest were stamped out just as quickly by local police and militia. But the department of Defence wanted results regardless, frustrated by the CIA and the State departments disagreements, Vice President Cheney, and Defence Secretary Rumsfeld entirely sidestepped them, taking their directives straight to the President.

Operation Wolverine was an operation to finally pull off regime change in Iraq, authorized by the President in the previous year, but instead of a U.S. invasion, something the public and the President had now dismissed as too politically risky, Wolverine blueprinted a surgical strike to remove Saddam Hussein and decapitate the Iraqi government. The death of President Saddam Hussein would be used to trigger a revolt in Southern Iraq, aided by harsh enforcement of the no-drive zone and what remained of those loyal to the old regime, would be cast out of the south. After that the plans were vague, perhaps the U.S. would expand their aerial operations to the whole of Iraq enabling the end of the Baathist state entirely, and U.S. special forces in Kuwait could enter to aid the new autonomous southern Iraq. These vagaries were one of the many reasons that the full scale of the operation was never widely discussed or taken seriously by many career intelligence officers or diplomats, except between its architects and the President, with major cabinet departments only vaguely aware of the plot to instigate an internal coup, the hardliners feared that Secretary of State Colin Powell or maybe National security advisor Condoleezza Rice would try to dissuade an attempt to kill the dictator, warning the unknown consequences, the lack of a clear successor and allegations that the U.S. would be breaking international and domestic laws. Reluctantly CIA director George Tenet (over the heads of some subordinates) supported the operation agreeing that killing Saddam according to analysts would bring down the state, reportedly telling the President he was “the keystone, without him it all falls apart” (Tenet has objected to this version of events)[1].

Saddam Hussein had survived half a dozen plots to kill him. The U.S. had launched missile attacks in the ’90s that struck locations that Saddam was known to frequent, and several members of the Iraqi military had been briefly swayed only to be swiftly purged by the dictator. Numerous CIA and Mossad plots had been put into the planning stages, but all these operations were scrapped due to the Iraqi leader's increasingly evasive nature, he utilized body doubles, often arrived to meetings late or not at all and he had become far more reclusive reportedly in fear of an American assassination attempt, neglecting to communicate over the telephone and relying on an informal line of communication with his subordinates.

Saddam Hussein tile portrait in Iraq​

Despite the administration trying to shift away from Iraq following the UN report, a constant warm simmer of criticism remained, the administration used the House investigation to attack Iraq and Democrats as soft on Saddam, reminding the public of his misdeeds, massacring Kurds and Shia, invading Kuwait, the oil fires, the deaths of American servicemen, plots to assassinate Americans, and ties to terrorist groups that had plotted attacks inside the United States and killed Americans abroad. The administration rejected to provide Congress evidence going straight to the public, President Bush told the Press “Regardless of what some in Congress or the media say, we must stop this dangerous killer”

The final stage of Wolverine involved a covert military mission to be undertaken by specially trained Iraqi exiles nicknamed Scorpions, unlike the regular exile forces in the FIF the Scorpions were usually Kurds and had undergone some specialist training and some held connections to opposition groups inside Iraq. The Scorpions represented the CIA’s best-trained assets inside and outside of Iraq, who conducted the bulk of espionage and sabotage exercises, as well as plotting out targets for American strikes. In the event of an American invasion, the Scorpions were supposed to help create chaos but since its postponement, their mission had changed dramatically. The Scorpions were given the task of sparking the planned uprising, 80 men equipped with Soviet equipment and dressed as Iraqi soldiers would seize control of an Iraqi airbase near the Kuwaiti border outside the city of Basra and broadcast its message, giving the impression of an internal uprising already in progress.[2]

With the decapitation strike and the internal revolt, the DoD thought that it would provide ample opportunity for the Iraqi people to revolt and cast out the remnants of Saddam’s forces. It was a radical plan, but it was a big step down for the hardliners and went down well with the President. There were detractors, the legalists and diplomats who worried that the President would be in breach of international and domestic law, but after a year of internal division over Iraq policy, the administration settled on Wolverine as swift and decisive action with manageable consequences for them politically and globally. For Bush it was something that needed to be done, he wasn’t going to back down against Saddam.[3]

On May the 2nd 2004, U.S. intelligence reported that Saddam Hussein would be leading a meeting of his national security team from a compound located in the suburbs of Baghdad for the first time since the Desert Badger bombing campaign began nearly a year ago. It represented the first real opportunity to strike at Saddam and came a month after Hussain’s U.S. interview which had infuriated the President and compelled the national security team to action a strike. Following confirmation of Saddam’s arrival and upcoming address. President George W Bush ordered the strikes.

Publicly the strikes were yet another round of punishment, ordered to demolish terrorist infrastructure. But these strikes were clearly different, rather than the fifth fleet unveiling a round of missiles, the compound required greater force, the security and potential depth of the supposed compound meant that conventional missiles would leave the President unscathed, only demolishing its above-ground layer. To properly destroy the site, stealth fighters would need to drop bunker-buster bombs. The two jets would be required to enter Iraqi airspace unprotected, through the stormy Persian Gulf from Qatar, being mid-air refuelled on the Iraq border, then traverse the most heavily defended section of Iraqi airspace. Their only defence was some cover provided by strikes into the no-fly zone, and a few UAVs to lure the attention of the Iraqi forces. The jets weaved across the sky over the Tigris River just above the overcast sky, an hour and a half after the order was given, the bombs were released, and the planes curled off still very alone in enemy airspace dashing to escape and to refuel when the refuelling tanker got in radio contact with a jet pilot and asked how everything went. The pilot replied, “I’ll let you know when I find out what we hit.”

(Left) Stealth fighter over Iraq, (Right) compound strike position​

8000 pounds worth of explosives had struck the compound that supposedly contained members of the Iraqi leadership including Saddam Hussein. But there was no way of knowing if anyone had been killed in the strike. But in its aftermath, there was clearly panic amongst the Iraqi government as forces struggled to communicate with one another, and Baghdad readied for further attacks. With the bombing carried off, the remainder of Wolverine began. The American radio, television stations and propaganda leaflets reported on the strike describing that President Hussein had been ‘gravely injured’, President Bush gave a short announcement to the press reporting the U.S. bombing as part of a “routine American strategy to deplete Iraq’s warfighting capabilities and to destroy its ability to conduct terror” saying that the action was “necessary and just, killers cannot hide from justice”. The President's statement did not mention the target of the operation, and there was still no firm confirmation of Saddam’s death.

The President's statement resembled one made by his father following the Gulf War, calling directly upon the Iraqi people to take action. “Only the Iraqi people have the ability to take the action that would end this, that would bring our nations together, to remove the killers and dictators that rule them, to build a free Iraq” That message was subsequently broadcast on the U.S.-operated Iraqi media outlets. As his words carried through American and Iraqi ears, the Scorpion forces crossed the border aboard soviet era transport helicopters and converged on the Az-Zubayr airstrip, the airstrip was easily captured by the well-armed exiles and they quickly began to broadcast their own message calling for an uprising, a message that was also picked up by the U.S. propaganda and spread “Saddam and his Sons are criminals and the Iraqi military calls on the Iraqi people to overthrow them to take to the streets.”.

(Left) Iraqi military helicopter, (Right) Scorpion strike point ​

The global reaction was of shock, besides some verbal back-and-forth, there had been no serious escalation between the United States and Iraq since the end of UN inspections. The President had given away very little to America's allies, fearing that someone would forewarn the Iraqis. The world and the American public reacted as they always did, with dismay from those opposed to Bush’s unilateralism and applauding from those in favour, there had been little groundwork laid for the military strikes and most assumed that tensions were easing. But no one in the administration was listening to the protests of the UN.. or a few liberals in congress, they were all waiting with bated breath to learn the results of the military strikes and the response of the Iraqi people.

The President also waited for more info as he met with the Prime Minister of Australia Kim Beazley. The two had an awkward history, Beazley had been an overall supporter of the President's foreign policy and had joined an informal anti-terror alliance of the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia to collaborate in intelligence to counter Islamic terrorist groups in the middle east and south-east Asia, but Beazley had been forced to withdraw support from an invasion of Iraq due to domestic opposition. In the meeting ‘Bomber' Beazley took a strong interest in the U.S. strike, committing himself to a continued alliance with the U.S. and shared his hope privately with Bush “Saddam’s regime of ratbag thugs are overthrown with the support of the Iraqi people”.

Prime Minister Kim Beazley meets President George Bush​

The stage had been set for a year, the Iraqi military had been battered, unable to organize through most of the country with the ever-present American air force hanging over them, the President's military compound was in flames and the oppressed Iraqi people had been urged by a supportive American government and a hundred ‘Iraqi troops’ to revolt. The world watched waiting to see if the Iraqi people would seize the opportunity, but by the night of the 2nd, the world had yet to witness much. The CIA fed reports of defiant civilians breaking curfew, and other signs of protest, some Shia militia strode out in defiance of Baathist law to practise faith and spread illegal literature, but these stories were coupled with those of continued suppression.

Thousands of Iraqi soldiers, police and loyal Fedayeen travelling street by street, house by house to impose curfews, beat protesters and fire on anyone who demonstrated. When news of a government building supposedly being occupied in Nasiriyah, regime forces levelled it with mortars. And in Basra where the Scorpions broadcast could still be heard, regime forces switched off the power, tore up telephone lines and raised barricades to prepare for a potential invasion. There were some signs of confusion, Fedayeen squared off with the military in the port city, confused that a coup could be underway and destroyed their own government helicopters. The sound of gunshots either exchanges of fire or summary executions continued through the night.

Just before the morning light broke over the cradle of civilisation a familiar voice crept out across Iraq’s national airwaves “In the name of Allah, The Merciful, The Compassionate, remember his words with this message 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them.' … Long live Great Iraq and its valiant army of Mujahideen. Long live our glorious Arab nation. The wretched aggressors and infidel traitors shall be extinguished” said the voice of Saddam Hussein.

Operation Wolverine was already a failure. The objective was out of grasp, Saddam’s apparent survival and the broadcast of his voice were the nails in the coffin. Outside of Basra, there were no signs of a breakdown in Iraqi command or a military revolt to be seen. Iraqi protests never escalated to a significant degree to disturb the regime failing to reach that of the 99 or 91 uprisings and didn’t require significant bloodshed to put them down. The frustration was apparent in the west wing, as cabinet members and advisors who had been primed to believe that the Iraqi people were begging for an opportunity to overthrow Saddam, were noticeably dismayed by the results.

As for the elite ‘Scorpions’, it didn’t take long for their forces to be surrounded by bands of Iraqi troops, ordered to eliminate all descent by the President (and supposedly the prophet) himself. Isolated and without orders the Scorpions were doomed. The CIA always intended such an operation to be the spark of a greater revolt and would be willing to provide air support to destroy the Iraqi military. But with the failure of the operation, the Iraqis did not need to send organized divisions into the region instead relying on its loyal local militia to take back the airbase with small arms. There was no chance of safely extracting the soldiers without putting American soldiers at severe risk of being shot down. Unwilling to assist or extract the Scorpions they were left to their ultimate fate when Saddam’s loyal forces closed in, attacking the airbase destroying their helicopters and killing most of the exiles and capturing the rest.

(Left) Iraqi police celebrate, (Right) captured Iraqi 'Scorpions' ​

Operation Wolverine was a calamitous failure, post-operation analysis, as well as congressional investigation, showed that at every point the United States had systematically failed to grasp its lack of clarity in Iraq. The CIA and DoD had continued to rely on inaccurate assessments of the Iraqi population and Saddam's power structure. American informants were more often than not double agents supplying false information, deliberately lying as a means of escaping the country or were totally misinformed themselves. DoD came under fire for its continued reliance on patently inaccurate information supplied by exile groups, including the publically reported fraudster Achmed Chalabi who fed information on Iraq’s supposed readiness for revolution directly to the executive branch (congressional inquiry revealed that Iran was also paying Chalabi for the same information). Most of the criticism was initially levelled at the strike in Baghdad when the Department of Defence was eventually forced to admit that there was no confirmation of the existence of any bunker, or if Saddam Hussein had ever been present at the compound on the day in question (the informant who provided this crucial tip, a guard at the Presidents palace was subsequently killed for conspiring against the regime), additionally the compound strike was reported to be a complete failure, one stealth fighter had missed its target entirely and the other only destroyed the exterior wall of the compound. However, there was pushback citing the merits of cruise missile strikes in the south, against Iraqi military movements as being far more successful. The regime's immediate reaction to news of a potential uprising sent a few columns of Iraqi troops out, including a Republican Guard formation from a command base in Amrah. These formations were struck under the basis of the no-fly zone causing significant casualties and a few notable deaths including the Governor of Basra, Walid Tawfiq and the head of the Republican Guard Qusay Hussein (One of Saddam's sons), both deaths were confirmed in a subsequent broadcast by Saddam who hailed them as martyrs who were supposedly going south to defeat the potential uprising, President Bush, in contrast, hailed Qusay's death calling him a’ perpetrator of genocide and said the strikes were necessary to prevent Iraq killing more Shia.

[5]
(Left ) Qusay Hussain, Saddam's middle child and head of the Fedayeen, (Right) Walid Tawfiq Governor of Basra​

The role of the Scorpions took longer to be raised in the public eye, but a congressional inquiry, leaks and an Associated Press expose in 2005 detailed the extent of the US’s role in the mission even revealing the site in Nevada where the Scorpions were trained. It was also revealed that the operation was widely predicted to be a failure by many members of the CIA who derided the Scorpions as unprofessional and referred to the entire incident as the ‘Bay of Goats’ [4] a parody of the CIA Bay of Pigs operation, the failed attempt to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro using exiles in 1961.

The operation drew near uniform condemnation by the world and the administration's political opponents who slammed Bush for conducting military action seemingly without sufficient pretence or authorization while ignoring military or analytical consensus. The 2004 Democratic nominee John Edwards called the President's actions ‘preposterous’ “Congress has been clear to the President, if he has legitimate reasons to use military force, he must share those reasons with Congress, the President hasn’t asked or received our authorization”. The U.S. Senate which had already opened an investigation into possible attempts by the administration to mislead the public regarding Iraq opened up a new line of attack on the Department of Defence, that some officials specifically Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz, were continuing to promote unverified information and sourcing. Honing in on their relationship with Achmed Chalabi, the millions provided to his exile group, Chalabi’s criminal history and connections with the Iranian government. The ‘Bay of Goats’ became a fiasco for the administration, perceived as a blunder by most of the public with key members of the administration under the microscope, the President decided to act requesting the resignation of both Paul Wolfowitz and CIA director George Tenet accused by many of promoting Operation Wolverine over the heads of his subordinates. Wolfowitz was replaced by the Secretary of the Navy Gordon England and Tenet was replaced with career diplomat and counter-terrorism expert Paul ‘Jerry’ Bremer.

[6]
(Left to Right) Former Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and his successor Navy Gordon, President George W Bush, Former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet and his successor Paul Bremer
​

---

[1] George Tenet was divided over Iraq policy, giving into the invasion to keep his job, ITTL he gives into this plan instead
[2] this was one of many real plans to formulate a casus belli against Iraq, IOTL the scorpions became a military police force/ torture team
[3] it is clear from his own writings that George Bush was very personally involved in the decision to remove Sadda,
[4] this is how former CENTCOM commander Anthony Zinni described such an operation
[5] A♣, flap flap flap
[6] Ladies and gents, we got him

 

[Iwanh]

Part XXXVI Wilting​

Georgia & Adjara

The mountains of Georgia were uneasy. Despite the people's revolution that managed to remove the old authoritarian regime in a bloodless uprising the previous winter, displacing its post-communist authoritarian system for liberal democracy, the new system was already threatened. When Mikhail Saakashvili was sworn in as Georgia's President in January, the country was already fractured. Georgia needed to balance its foreign policy against its powerful neighbour and trading partner Russia and its revolutionary supporter in the United States, a balance that became all the more difficult as the two powers were increasingly at odds. Saakashvili hoped to settle serious problems with Russia over the three breakaway provinces in the country, Abkhazia and South Ossetia to the north and Adjara to the south. All three provinces had effectively broken away from Georgia in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's dissolution when different ethnicities and separatist groups ceded control from the central government in Tiblisi. A bloody war was fought over the northern provinces, ending when Russian forces sent by President Yeltsin created the severance while in the south governor Aslan Abashidze the leader of Adjara, quietly closed off the border to his province giving the region de facto independence.

(left) Map of Georgia with disputed regions in yellow (right) Adjaran leader Aslan Abashidze​

These pseudo-independent states looked destined for confrontation with the new Georgian democracy from day one, when Saakashvili took the oath to protect “Georgia’s territorial integrity … At the grave of King David we must all say: Georgia will be united, strong, will restore its wholeness and become a united, strong state,”. He pledged to do this through economic incentives and peaceful negotiations but also made it clear that Georgia needed to build and maintain a strong army to restore territorial integrity as a last resort. He outlined his hope that Georgia would be part of Europe and would need to fight corruption and economic decay in the country in order to join the EU. It was an ambitious and optimistic vision given at a time when public support for him was at unparalleled levels.

But hurdles quickly sprang up in Saakashvili's path, the leader of South Ossetia asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to recognise its independence and Putin responded by sending military support to the northern pseudo-states on the basis of defending the ‘citizens’ there and to halt the growing power struggles in the provinces, which the Russian government blamed on Georgia. Russia began to take a more hawkish stance toward Georgia, both the defence ministry and Putin began to publically scold the country and hinted at using military strikes “for the sake of Russian security”. In the aftermath of the Georgian revolution contact between Moscow and the breakaway regions increased and Putin insisted that Russian military forces based in the provinces be allowed to remain, and suggested that certain Georgians (holdovers from the autocratic government, with good relationships with the Kremlin) remain in place, Saakashvili responded by removing the ministers from their offices and continued asserting that any agreement must remove the Russian troops.

Saakashvili sought to quickly challenge the southern province Adjara and shake Abashidze’s fiefdom by repeating the actions that brought him to power in Tbilisi. He condemned Abashidze, calling him an extremist and encouraged protesters to display their displeasure. Soon after, clashes broke out between protesters and police and dozens were injured in the scuffles, following the unrest Abashidze raided opposition homes and offices. Saakashvili appealed to the world, demanding that free elections be allowed to take place in the province and invited European leaders to condemn the police brutality. Abashidze tentatively entered negotiations hoping to stave off further disruption, but it remained clear that significant differences existed between the two parties. Saakashvili ordered military exercises simulating an invasion of the port city of Batumi under some basic U.S. training [1], and the Adjaran armed forces were mobilized in response, supervised by Russian Generals.

Abashidze had domestic support, his rule had been far more economically successful than that of the central Georgian government and he had gone public with his intention to exit his office at the end of his term in 2005, but for Saaksvhili Adjara was a test of the new Georgian government's legitimacy. Could a province be allowed to defy the President openly? He demanded that Adjara fully disband its security forces, and Abashidze in response banned Georgian officials from entering the region and blocked the major crossing point the Choloki bridge, Saakashvili responded by imposing sanctions on the region.

(Left to Right) Adjaran troops loyal to Abashidze, the Adjara flag and pro-Saakshvili Adjaran protesters​

Efforts to mediate the crises by a third party fell through, both the United States and Russia tentatively backed opposing sides and were unable to satisfy the other at the negotiating table. Talks dragged on for weeks without an obvious political solution on the horizon, Abashidze agreed to reopen the region but refused to disarm his militias and the military forces based in Adjara proclaimed their loyalty to Abashidze over Saakashvili. The breakdown in negotiations prompted a further round of protests and crackdowns.

Allegedly to prevent an imminent invasion Abashidze ordered that the Choloki bridge be blown and the Adjaran border be mined, the immediate response was another round of large protests that broke out in Batumi demanding Abashidzes resignation. But again these were violently broken up by security forces. The especially violent scenes were set to spur yet larger protests as thousands of Adjarans travelled to Batumi to demonstrate. The large numbers of protesters were due to converge on the city just as Georgian forces allegedly prepared to intervene in the region, but these demonstrations were prevented by the Adjaran military who were joined by local Russian forces from the 12th military base who aided in blockading the roads into the city and prevented the protester's entry.

The news of the Russian forces now openly aiding Abashidze was a blow to the Tbilisi government, until today Russia had lent only tacit support to Adjara attempting to use the regional crises to acquire a wider agreement with the Georgian government over Russian military presence. But the word came directly from Putin when he said that in the interest of peace in the region at Abashizes request he had sent the Russian forces to support him. News of this caused a dramatic recalculation in the Georgian government as using military force no longer seemed a viable option and forces were pulled back.[2]

There was continued dissent in the region, sporadic protests, graffiti and poster campaigns against Abashidze but for the time being, his rule would remain in place, guaranteed by Moscow's intervention. There was similar dismay in the Georgian capital, as Saakashvili’s attempt to quickly reunite Georgia had stumbled, but he still held out hope that “All of Georgia will be free”

(Left to Right) Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russian troops in Batumi capital of disputed Adjara, Georgian President Mikael Saakashvili​

Canada

Paul Martin finally ascended to the position of Prime Minister in December 2003, his ascension followed a bitter power struggle between his former boss, Liberal party leader and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, it had been a tough campaign that had exposed a rift in the ruling Liberal party and threatened its 10-year hold on power. Martin's manoeuvres were criticised as too aggressive and hurting the party's popularity with the wider electorate, all in a bid to quickly see off his potential rivals for the premiership.

Martin swiftly tried to draw a line between Chrétien and himself, sawing off half the cabinet and grabbing control over the party apparatus to pick candidates that supported his agenda. His young tenure enjoyed a warm reception with the public but quickly ran headlong into scandal when it was revealed that over the past ten years, millions of dollars worth of government contracts designed to boost the Quebec economy had been plagued with corruption from top to bottom, as money fed into the hands of the few including Liberal party allies and supporters. The ‘Sponsorship Scandal’ span out of control and soon enough the stench of fraud was sticking to the Liberal party and its leadership. Martin was partially shielded from the fallout as the Chrétiens administration took the brunt of the blows, and Martin acted by ending the program, but investigators steadily uncovered dozens of Liberal allies implicated in the scandal and its significantly dented the government's popularity by double digits.

Jean Chrétien congratulates his successor Paul Martin​

Paul Martin seeking to make use of his honeymoon period and unite the party, decided to call an early federal election while the Liberals were still more popular than the opposition. Martin's hopes of a united front failed to appear, and the popularity of his government continued falling by as much as 15 per cent since January thanks to the scandal, combined with Chrétien's backbench sniping. To make matters worse for Martin, after years of disunity and factional infighting the opposition had finally coalesced around a new ‘Conservative Party’ led by the man who helped create it, leader of the opposition Stephen Harper, under him the Conservatives enjoyed a boom of support in western Canada and Ontario. The polls for the first time showed them leading the Liberal Party behind, and it looked like Martin's gamble was coming apart.

The two smaller parties similarly enjoyed a popularity revival, both the New Democratic Party and its new leader Jack Layton were revitalized and focused on social democratic policies and Layton predicted that they would be able to break their previous parliamentary record as they benefitted from splinteringLiberal support. The Bloc Quebec was well on its path to a major victory, the sponsorship scandal had boosted support for Quebec independence to nearly 50 per cent and the quick drop in the Liberal's popularity significantly boosted its chances, with polls indicating it would take half of Quebecers votes.

The Liberals desperate to make up lost ground, unleashed an ambitious agenda, reforming healthcare, child care, gun control, and drug decriminalization. And made an effort to point out the so-called ‘hidden agenda’ of the Conservative party, who the accused of planning to roll back Canadian social progress, reversing abortion rights and same-sex marriage, imposing tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of social programmes and supporting an aggressive foreign policy. Some of this framing was aided by dredging up some of Stephen Harper's quotes on homosexuality, abortion and bilingualism which he had decried as societal ills that were fraying the country's social fabric.

Harper countered by claiming the Liberals were “Stuck in the mud” and forced into a negative campaign strategy. This looked correct as the Liberals began to attack the NDP depicting the party as Conservatives in disguise “If you are thinking of voting NDP, you may well help Stephen Harper become prime minister.” And predicted that a Bloc victory could dissolve Canada.

With only weeks to go the Conservatives and Liberals were neck and neck jostling with each other but neither had a sure path for a parliamentary majority, During the debates, the two major parties leaders squared off in a series of testy exchanges, where Harper branded the Liberals as the party of corruption and Martin said that Harper's conservative vision of Canada was antithetical to the Canadian values.

The results of the election were not good for either major party, both had lost votes from the last election but it had been the Liberals who had lost the most. And the Conservatives had emerged as the largest party with 124 seats, the Liberals lost a significant number of seats and fell into opposition with 101. However, the Conservatives were unable to garner a majority. Resulting in a Conservative-led minority government, the first in 24 years, Harper would be Canada's 22nd Prime Minister but dependent on left-wing votes to pass his agenda, it wasn’t clear how long that could last.[2b]

(Clockwise) Outcome of the 2004 Canadian election, defeated Prime Minister Paul Martin, Victorious Prime Minister Stephen Harper​

---

​

Gunman kills Egyptian diplomat in Jordan

​

​

Egypt has confirmed the Senator and former Ambassador to Israel has been killed, after his visit to the Kingdom of Jordan​

​

An internet message purportedly from the Al-Jihad militant group was released on Thursday, claiming responsibility for the death of Egyptian diplomat Mohammed Bassiouni, who was killed yesterday.​

​

A video on a website showed members of the group confessing to supposedly assassinating Bassiouni a long-time Egyptian diplomat, who for years was the sole ambassador to Israel from the Arab region​

​

Cairo is an ally of the US and is one of the few Arab countries which recognises Israel​

​

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak offered his condolences to Mr Bassiouni’s family and criticised extremist elements inside and outside of the country. ​

​

Online confession​

​

Top Sunni cleric Mohamed Sayed Tantawi condemned the killing as a "crime against religion, morality and humanity and a crime that goes against honour and chivalry".​

​

But opposition leaders laid blame on the government, saying it had been too lenient towards Israel and the United States​

​

"His blood is on the hands of those who sent him to Israel to begin with," Dia el-Din Dawoud, leader of the Arab nationalist and leftist Nasserite Party told Reuters news agency.​

​

"Mubarak wanted to stand out by committing to American policies, but as long as our policies do not spring from our national and Arab interests, this will be the outcome."​

​

Muslim Brotherhood deputy leader Mohamed Habib said that while the killing was incompatible with Islam, the countries' Israeli and Pro-American agenda was the reason for it.​

​

Mr Bassiouni was shot in Amman on Saturday inside a hotel in the Jordanian capital and the gunman a Saudi Arabian national by the name Abdulaziz al-Omari [3] has confessed to killing him on behalf of the al-Jihad organisation and Jama’at another radical group.​

​

A statement also released on Wednesday in the name of Jama’at and its leader Abu Al-Zarqawi said Bassiouni was killed because he was an "apostate", who had betrayed his faith. He went on, to threaten others in the Cairo government for its support of the Israeli and U.S. administration.​

​

Jama’at claims to have perpetrated other attacks on the Egyptian government including the attack on the consulate in Pakistan. Zarqawi, a Jordanian fugitive is a wanted figure in connection to a spree of attacks in 2000​

​

‘Threatened further attacks’​

​

A written statement on the website on Thursday said "the verdict of God against the ambassador of the infidels, the ambassador of Egypt, has been carried out".​

​

The website also released a pre-recorded statement that includes Mr Bassiouni’s gunman confessing to his involvement.​

​

The statement said the group plans to kill more Egyptian officials.​

​

"This marks the beginning of our mission, to build a true Islamic front and restore the true Islamic opposition," it said.​

​

Several bombs in Egypt targeting some municipal government offices, and several Egyptian consulates in North Africa have been targets of arson attacks. Mubarak has claimed that these attacks are provoked by the Islamic governments in Afghanistan and Sudan and some radical groups inside of them.​

---

Chechnya

As Georgia threatened to be thrown into civil war, the neighbouring conflict in Chechnya continued to roll along, churning up Russian soldiers, Chechen militia and many civilians.

Moscow, in its effort to restrain the insurgency, put the province under martial law, with military forces in charge of every facet of daily life. But this had the drawback of leaving Russian forces constantly exposed to ambush. Efforts to curtail Chechen infighting had largely failed, whenever elections were arranged one side would find a way to provoke the other to violence delaying the elections and prolonging the crisis.

The triarchy officially in control of Chechnya had no semblance of unity. President Abramov the Russian-born financier, was clearly detested by the native Chechens and he spent as much time as possible outside Chechnya relying on a massive military escort to accompany him anywhere he went inside of it. Then there was Alkhanov the interior minister and the leader of the ‘Old Russians’ who had supported Russian efforts in Chechnya since the 90s. His police forces were supposedly in charge of the law and order in Grozny, but that was undercut by the continued missile, mortar, grenade and bomb attacks that turned the city into an open wound. With Abramov constantly out of the region, Alkhanov had taken over as the de-facto president and tried to run the country as a prison camp, but his harsh law enforcement was made mute by the Kadyrovsky the loyalists to the assassinated President Ahmad Kadyrov, now commanded by his son Ramzan Kadyrov, the large militia sidestepped Alkhanov and tried to run the country as their own fiefdom, stealing, kidnapping and murdering who and what they pleased regardless of their allegiance including government ministers and security forces.

(Left to Right), Militia commander Ramzan Kadyrov, Interior minister Alu Alkhanov, Chechen rebel leaders Ibn Al-Khattab and Shamil Basayev​

With the infighting so bad it was hard to remember who the enemy was, the Chechen exiles, and the Mujahadin. The divided government allowed the exiles to pick off a steady stream of Russian soldiers, at a pace of a dozen a week. However, the Russian force's efforts to lock off the entire state were finally beginning to pay off as rebels were killed entering or leaving the country. As result, the rebel's tactics became less centralized and more sporadic. The man depicted as the leader of the rebels Shamil Basayev began releasing continued video messages reporting on his forces' victories, assassinations and attacks inside Chechnya and Russia at large. As well he threatened further, more spectacular attacks on Russia. in July a battalion of rebel forces seized the Russian town Nazran, attacking government buildings, releasing prisoners, and seizing weapons before escaping. Basayev claimed that his forces were “on the offensive, the regime will shake and soon it shall fall”. And his close Islamist ally, Ibn Al-Khattab (accused by Russia of harbouring connections to terror groups) sent a similar message to the press the day before Putin’s inauguration “The Russians have declared war against Chechnya, they have sent mines and tanks and men, but by God, we will send them back, and not just these things but things you cannot yet imagine will be sent back … You will, God willing, see hundreds of people crippled"

But despite the escalating threats, tensions had gotten so high between Alkahov and Kadyrov that firefights were becoming all too common between the supposed allies. In one notable incident, Kadyrov supporters attacked the finance ministry leading to a street battle for the office, ending when Russian military forces ended the siege with tanks. It was clear that Kadyrov was unhappy in his current role and wanted to assume a greater position in the country and he felt threatened when news that Alkahov was attempting to convince Russian forces to formally back him in the power struggle and to convince the Kremlin that Kadyrov was the cause of too much chaos, and harming Russian efforts.

Kadyrov responded to these reports by sending his troops to storm the parliament building to force it to appoint him prime minister, the erratic response ended in disaster when Russian Spetsnaz forces were again brought in to break up the conflict. Ramzan’s discontent became wilder as the Kadyrovtsy kidnapped and killed dozens of his perceived enemies.

The Kadyrovite terror got even worse on July 11th when, after a supposed poll, Kadyrov declared that he was the President of Chechnya and would be taking hold of the Presidential office. Taking a contingent of his private army to seize the office. After a short gunfight, Kadyrov’s men captured the office of the President and began to release his supposed dictates.[4]

The actions of the younger Kadyrov continued to fuel the sense of chaos in the country as disunity between the Chechen factions continued to spill onto the streets. But in the caucuses, the land of the blood feud, there was no sign of light. Indeed things were about to far darker.

Grozny; July 2004​

---

[1] The Bush administration jumped at the chance to support Saakashvili in the post-Bush Doctrine world ITTL the US is slower to support him
[2] Putin tried to back Aslan but failed because he acted too slowly, ITTL he has a worse relationship with the US so backs him sooner
[2b] The Conservatives were tarred as Bush-like conservatives so the lack of an Iraq war helps them over the line
[3] A 9/11 hijacker killed the Egyptian ambassador
[4] Putin tolerated Kadyrov because he thought his brutality was effective, in ITTL it might not work out so well