E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

Pentagon notes from Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
excepted from Wash Times - Inside the Ring
Early warning
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, warned months ago that Iraq’s hidden weapons of mass destruction may be intermingled with its huge stocks of conventional arms. Mr. Shaw wrote an Oct. 28 letter to Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, asking for the command’s help in tracking down companies and individuals who violated U.S. law and the international arms embargo by shipping arms to Saddam Hussein’s regime. Mr. Shaw stated in the letter that he had information showing "there is a high probability of [weapons of mass destruction] munitions being intermingled everywhere in Iraq with conventional weapons." That scenario played this month when two chemical munitions -- one containing the blister agent mustard and one containing the nerve agent sarin -- were found by U.S. forces in Iraq. The improvised bomb found Saturday was a 155 mm artillery shell that insurgents apparently did not know was filled with two chemicals that make sarin when the round is fired. The shell partially exploded and a small quantity of sarin was released, slightly injuring two U.S. soldiers.

Funding shortfall
Defense and military officials are scrambling throughout the Pentagon to find money to help pay for the war in Iraq. The funding shortfall for this year is in the hundreds of millions. The military estimates that it will be $4 billion short in next year’s operating accounts. Defense officials tell us that aides to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld are looking at all areas of the defense budget and plan to raid arms programs and operations and maintenance accounts to pay for the war. The main fear of many weapons builders is that the budget reprogramming will seriously damage ongoing weapons development and production and shut down entire production lines if the money meant for the programs is taken away.

Donnelly’s victory
It was certainly a significant legal victory for Elaine Donnelly and her Center for Military Readiness. And it could also be one of the First Amendment’s and the press’s more important court wins, even for reporters who sided with Mrs. Donnelly’s legal opponent. This week, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Carey Dunai Lohrenz, who sued Mrs. Donnelly for libel. Mrs. Donnelly, based on internal training documents and a Navy instructor pilot (now-retired Lt. Patrick J. Burns), put out a report accusing the Navy of granting Mrs. Lohrenz favors in 1995 to graduate her as one of the military’s first female combat fighter pilots. Mrs. Lohrenz and the Navy denied the report.

The lawsuit went on for eight years, costing Mrs. Donnelly $630,000 in legal fees. A U.S. District Court judge dismissed Mrs. Lohrenz’s suit. He ruled that she, as a pioneering pilot, was a public figure and failed, as required, to prove actual malice on the part of Mrs. Donnelly. A federal appeals court agreed on Dec. 12. Its opinion went one step further, saying Mrs. Donnelly had good reason to believe her report was true. Said the appeals court, "By the time she published The Donnelly Report, Donnelly also had portions of Lt. Lohrenz’s training records that supported Lt. Burns’ assertion that the Navy made special accommodations for Lt. Lohrenz." Then, the Supreme Court this week delivered a final victory. There are no more avenues for appeal. Mrs. Donnelly told us yesterday, "It’s a great relief. It’s a victory for the First Amendment and naval aviation for high standards in training. That’s what this was always about. And I wish there were a better way for someone who knows the standards. I wish there was a better way for them to be heard, instead of coming to a civilian like me, who ends up spending $630,000 to defend my First Amendment rights to publish the truth about what happened."
Posted by: Super Hose 2004-05-23
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=33731