We stopped listing the newsclips --they are in every
paper, everyday - especially check the British papers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
http://www.sundayherald.com/30600
Iraq: The Case Against Preemptive War*
The administration’s claim of a right to overthrow regimes it considers hostile is extraordinary – and one the world will soon find intolerable.
Most Americans seem little concerned at the prospect of an American war on Iraq. This is surprising considering that, of America’s friends and allies, only Israel openly supports it, while other states in the Middle East, including longtime rivals and enemies of Iraq, warn against it, and the Europeans view it with alarm and growing frustration. Those challenges to the planned war now being raised, moreover, tend to center on prudential questions – whether the proposed attack will work and what short-term risks and collateral damage might be involved – rather than on whether the war itself is a good idea.
10/24/02
America's great misleader-
Bush's arguments strain the limits of plausibility to justify war on Iraq, and this, says Simon Tisdall, means regime change is imperative - in Washington
...
Rediscovering
an old fallacy
Bertrand Russell was one of the 20th century's leading philosophers. In the course of his long life he often became involved in public affairs, most famously when he was imprisoned by the English government during World War I for espousing pacifist views, and again nearly 50 years later when his telegrams criticizing the American government for its conduct during the Cuban missile crisis may actually have affected the outcome of that confrontation.
10/9/02
The missing debate
A war resolution will be approved this week, but President Bush and Congress still haven't given the nation a full airing of issues related to our Iraq policy.
10/9/02
Lawmakers back action; public less so
By Larry Lipman, Palm Beach Post Washington Bureau
Phone calls to Sen. Bill Nelson's office run as high as 15-1 against using force on Iraq.
10/9/02
Iraq's little secret
BAGHDAD, Iraq — The White House is right that Iraq is by far the most repressive country in the entire Middle East — but that's true only if you're a man. To see how many Arab countries are in some ways even more repressive to women, consider how an invasion might play out.
10/01/02
War may cost $9B a month
NEW: Report: Fighting a full-scale war with Iraq would cost up to $9 billion a month.
10/01/02
Czechs find no proof Atta met with Iraqi officer--
BERLIN -- Czech intelligence officials have informed their European counterparts that there is no credible evidence of a widely reported -- and just as widely questioned -- meeting between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer then posted to the Czech Republic.--
For nearly a year, senior Bush administration officials eager to open a second front against Saddam Hussein in the nation's war on terrorism have cited the Czech government's previous reports of such an encounter as a possible link between the Iraqi dictator and
al-Qaeda, which has claimed responsibility for the Sept. 11 hijackings.
Earlier this month,Vice President Dick Cheney termed the Czech reports "credible."
9/28/02
The Bush doctrine
In 1837, British forces attacked and destroyed a ship suspected of being involved in an insurrection against the colonial government of Canada. Because the ship had been moored in U.S. waters, the American government naturally objected. The "Caroline incident," as it became known, is the basis for a time- honored principle of international law that rejects the notion of preemptive strikes.
9/26/02
Guest commentary: A just war?
Preparing for war requires marshalling resources, a process that is surely underway. The American military is rounding up troops and preparing battle plans targeting Iraq. Diplomats are working our allies and the United Nations to stir up international support. Politicians are busy with television talk shows and hearings to move public opinion.
9/25/02
Bush redefines what it means to be a conservative
-- WASHINGTON -- The restatement of the United States' fundamental defense doctrine issued by the Bush administration last week -- substituting pre-emption of potential threats for containment of aggression -- is probably the most dramatic and far-reaching change in national-security policy in a half-century.--
But it is also part of a pattern of radical revisionism in basic governmental philosophy and structure engineered by George W. Bush, who is quietly rewriting the classic definition of conservatism.
9/25/02
Molly
Ivins: We do not need to dominate the world
AUSTIN, Texas — No. This is not acceptable. This is not the country we want to be. This is not the world we want to make. The United States of America is still run by its citizens. The government works for us. Rank imperialism and warmongering are not American traditions or values. We do not need to dominate the world. We want and need to work with other nations. We want to find solutions other than killing people. Not in our name, not with our money, not with our children's blood.
9/24/02
Marlette
cartoon: Peace is Hell
9/24/02
By any means? Congress'
irresponsible silence over Iraq war
George W. Bush's demand that Congress grant him war powers against Iraq and Saddam Hussein by using "all means that he determines to be appropriate" recalls Malcolm X's equally bellicose use of the phrase four decades ago, with this one difference: Malcolm was justified in his demand for freedom and equality for blacks. Bush is not justified in his design for a pre-emptive war on Iraq, a war hardly to be fought for freedom or equality. 9/24/02
President
doggedly waving the flag
By Tom Blackburn, Palm Beach Post Editorial Writer
Americans talk of war while savings shrink. 9/23/02
Biz fraud goes behind the curtain
The threat from Iraq may or may not be real. The effort to make people forget about Dennis Kozlowski and his brethren is very real.
9/22/02
Washington Today: Bush administration's Iraq campaign includes behind-scenes bartering
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration's drive to persuade Congress and the United Nations to authorize military action against Iraq is just the public face of its campaign. Behind the scenes, it's more like "let's make a deal." Russia wants assurances the $8 billion Iraq owes it would be assumed by a post- Saddam Hussein regime and that there will be less criticism about its Chechyna policy. China would appreciate support in its crackdown on Islamic militants in its Central Asia border areas. France would like future access to Iraqi oil fields.
9/22/02
Protesters urge Goss to
pull support of war with Iraq -
The woman in the white minivan making the turn from U.S. 41 East onto Airport-Pulling Road on Friday read the sign, wrinkled her brow then leaned on her horn. The two dozen anti-war protesters who lined the northeast corner of the intersection smiled and hoisted their signs higher.
9/21/02
Molly
Ivins: Discussions on invading Iraq
Don't you just hate it when the bad guys agree to do what we want them to? If that's not a good reason to go in and take out Saddam, name one. But our Fearless Leader, not one to be deterred from war merely by getting what he wants, promptly moved the goalposts and issued a new list of demands Iraq must meet, including paying reparations to Kuwait. If you step back and look at this debate, it just gets stranger and stranger. For one thing, all the evidence is that the administration has already made up its mind and we're going into Iraq this winter.
9/20/02
How a young group of White House up-and-comers are selling the war in Iraq
Sept. 18 — “We’re getting the band together,” White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett told the group on their first conference call last week. The “Band” is made up of the people who brought you the war in Afghanistan —or at least the accompanying public-relations campaign. Their greatest hit: exposing the Taliban’s treatment of women. Now, they’re back for a reunion tour on Iraq....
Lemon Fizzes on the Banks of the Euphrates
-WASHINGTON-- The trap is sprung. The name of the game is containment.
Contain the wild man, the leader with the messianic and relentless glint who is scaring the world.
Surround him, throw Lilliputian nets on him, tie him up with a lot of U.N. inspection demands, humor him long enough to stop him from using his weapons and blowing up the Middle East.
But this time, the object of the containment strategy is not Saddam Hussein, but George W. Bush, the president with real bombs, not the predator with plans to make them.
9/18/02
Bush to Warn U.N.: Act on Iraq or U.S. Will--
President Bush ( news - web sites) plans to challenge the United Nations ( news - web sites) today to enforce resolutions it has passed since 1991 requiring Iraq to "unconditionally accept" the destruction of its chemical and biological weapons and nuclear research facilities, according to administration officials. He will warn that if the United Nations fails to act, the United States will step in to force Iraqi compliance.9/12/02
Molly
Ivins: Watch out for any paternity claims by George W.
AUSTIN, Texas — Nothing like a lot of distracting saber- rattling to get you to take your eyes off the shell with the pea under it. Kind of like the prospect of being hanged in the morning, impending war does tend to concentrate the mind wonderfully. But the remaining balance, if any, in your 401(k) is an attention-grabber as well, so while the administration tries to make up its mind whether it agrees with itself on the best way to handle Saddam Hussein, I recommend a swift glance back at the corporate reform agenda....
9/5/02
Mandela warns Bush over Iraq
- Nelson Mandela has warned President Bush that his administration risks
destroying the United Nations if it attacks Iraq without international
support.
BBC News has learned that Mr Mandela spoke directly to the US president to urge him to show restraint, saying a military strike would undermine the trust between America and a spectrum of international opinion.
9/1/02
Top
Wednesday a Democrat and a Republican introduced a bill to call for a repeal of Bushs Blank Check for War. All the news media was invited. So, far, only a small paper in California has covered it. Not even CSPAN covered it. Once again, the media is trying to ignore the opposition to war. How can we get the media to cover this so Americans will know that our leaders are beginning to hear our message?? How can we get the word out to the public and find ways to support this action? =======
DeFAZIO, PAUL INTRODUCE BILL TO REPEAL BUSH’S BLANK CHECK FOR WAR
http://www.house.gov/defazio/020503DERelease.shtml
WASHINGTON, DC— Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Ron Paul (R-TX) today introduced legislation to repeal the Iraq Use of Force Resolution passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last fall. Following is DeFazio’s statement: “I heard no new evidence today from Secretary Powell’s address to the United Nations, that would convince me that military action in Iraq is necessary to improve security of Americans.
“Americans want the President to lay a clear case for immediate military action in Iraq, but the Administration’s message keeps changing- six months ago, their case hinged on regime change, three months ago it was Saddam thwarting inspections, three weeks ago it was possible possession of chemical weapons, today its tenuous terrorist links. If the case was clear, it would have been clear from day one.
“Our nation’s immediate threat is still Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorist network. We have full knowledge of North Korea’s equally rapidly developing nuclear weapons program under the control of an equally diabolical leader. There’s well-published accounts of several Mid-east governments aiding and funding known terrorists. Of America’s imminent threats, Saddam Hussein is much lower on the list.
“Saddam Hussein is a brutal untrustworthy tyrant, but he is being contained, and we should allow weapons inspectors to continue their work.
“The President seeks war, this is clear. The Constitution grants the Congress sole authority to declare war, and I believe the President should come before Congress to seek that authority. Our resolution allows him that option.”
The legislation introduced today would repeal Public Law 107-243. The bill text reads in total:
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Repeal of Public Law 107-243.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498) is hereby repealed."
The legislation repeals the broad delegation of authority Congress gave to the President in October, to launch military action against Iraq. Under this legally-binding resolution, the President would have to return to Congress to seek authority to launch a preventive attack on Iraq.
Top
Rita Weinstein
Anybody
out there remember the classic sci-fi film by that name?
In it, an alien landed a spacecraft on the
Mall in
Washington
,
D.C.
and asked to be allowed to speak to the UN to deliver a warning: disarm
or you will be destroyed. The
alien, Klatu, didn’t specify by whom the destruction would take place.
He did make it plain that we would certainly do it to ourselves, even if
no one “out there” did. Klatu
never made it to the UN, but he was able to demonstrate to the world
that those who sent him meant business. He caused a shutdown of all
power throughout the globe at a specified time on a specified date.
From cars to trains to wristwatches, everything came to a halt.
On January 18, there will be very large antiwar
demonstrations in
Washington
,
D.C.
,
San Francisco
, and in cities across
America
. According to George Monbiot of The Guardian (
Jan. 7, 2003
), “On January 18, demonstrators will seek to blockade the armed
forces' joint headquarters at Northwood, in north
London
. Three days later, there'll be a mass lobby of parliament; at 6 pm on
the day the war is announced, protesters will gather in almost every
town centre in Britain. On February 15, there'll be a massive rally in
London
.” There will also be demonstrations in cities throughout
Europe
on February 15.
The idea is this: a global work stoppage, an
international sick day if you will, to take place on Friday, February 14
to protest the war on the world currently being waged by the Bush
administration. Monbiot
goes on to add, “The [Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament] and the Stop
the War Coalition have suggested an hour's stoppage on the day after the
war begins. Many activists [in the
U.K.
] are now talking about building on this, and seeking to provoke wider
strike action - even a general strike.”
It is
we, the folks who show up for work every day, who are providing the tax
dollars to pay for this war on the economy, the environment, worker
safety, civil rights, and on the poor.
We are the ones who keep the machine up and running.
We are the ones whose children are being shortchanged on
education, health care, and clean air and water.
We are the ones who will reap the whirlwind (or will be sucking
wind) when the bill for the administration’s misguided and dangerous
policies comes due.
A
general strike early in the last century brought down the Tsar of all
the
Russias
and changed nearly a century of history.
The Communist party came
crashing down in
Poland
thanks to the solidarity of its workers.
If we choose peaceful noncooperation in maintaining a system
badly in need of course correction, we may surprise ourselves at how
quickly change can be effected. No organization is necessary, in fact it
would probably be counter-productive.
Just start forwarding this email.
Let’s all get truly sick and tired of it all on
February 14, 2003
and make it the day the
Earth stands still.
... Rita
Weinstein, 1/9/03
Rita
Weinstein is a Seattle-based freelance writer and playwright (...and
Florida
native)
Top
Dear MoveOn member, Over the last month, things have gotten more complicated for those of us who are concerned about a war on Iraq. There have been elections, changes in rhetoric at the White House, a new resolution at the UN, and most recently the entry of weapons inspectors into Iraq. There is good news and bad news; we have some triumphs to celebrate and serious hurdles to confront.
Below, we share our understanding of where things stand on the war with Iraq.
THE ELECTION AND CONGRESS
There's no getting around the great disappointment of Election 2002, and it's certain that President Bush will attempt to portray the election as an endorsement of the Iraq war plan. But the fact remains that not a single candidate lost because he or she voted against the war. And in several cases, when candidates came out against the war they made significant gains in the polls. So, while the talk about Iraq certainly distracted from a discussion of the economy and other critical issues, the repercussions of the vote may be to strengthen Democrats' spines rather than embolden Republicans.
The election of Nancy Pelosi to the position of House Minority Leader is a terrific sign that Democrats are paying attention. Pelosi's opposition to Bush's war resolution comes from her long tenure on the House Intelligence committee -- she knows as much as anyone in Congress about the actual dangers we face.
It's very unlikely that Congress will vote on the war again, but there is still great value in working with Congress on this issue. Of the 133 Representatives who voted against the Iraq resolution, most are still concerned about the war and willing to work on it. Stay tuned for upcoming ways of engaging Congress in fighting this war.
THE SHAPE OF THE OPPOSITION
One of the big pieces of good news is that the opposition to this war remains quite broad, even after the new UN resolution and the war vote. At the grassroots level, folks still have a tremendous amount of energy and passion to devote to stopping it. Leaders who have been involved in the peace or disarmament movements for the last thirty years say that there is more energy now than they've seen in decades.
We also have a whole host of organizational allies.
Religious and church groups are getting fired up -- the leaders of President Bush's own denomination issued a statement saying, "It is inconceivable that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and the Prince of Peace, would support this proposed attack." Catholic bishops have also been speaking up. Members of the religious community who work on foreign policy issues say this groundswell is unprecedented in its size, speed, and unanimity.
Just as importantly, unions and labor groups are beginning to mobilize against the war. Dozens of local and state-level unions representing hundreds of thousands of workers have passed anti-war resolutions. And AFL-CIO President John Sweeney sent a letter to Congress before the war vote asking them to consider some very serious questions about the coming conflict. In the struggle against the Vietnam war, it took years for organized labor to come on board, but already we have the strong support of some of that community.
The community of veterans is also getting fired up about the war on Iraq. A number of veterans of Gulf War I have started Veterans for Common Sense, a group which advocates the diplomatic resolution of the current conflict. Like many current military leaders, veterans are deeply concerned about the safety of the soldiers who will serve in this conflict -- especially after the poor treatment of the over 200,000 vets who applied for health help after the first Gulf War.
In a number of other constituencies, from Muslim groups to academia, more and more folks are turning out against the war. The opposition is diverse, broad, and deep.
THE UN RESOLUTION [This section aided by the analysis of the Friends Committee on National Legislation.]
On November 8, the United Nations passed resolution 1441, which called for full Iraqi compliance with the resumption of weapons inspections. While many people see the resolution as a concession by France and the other states that make up the Security Council, we believe it is not entirely negative.
First, it appears that the US engaged in good faith with the UN process -- in other words, that US diplomats didn't rely on twisting arms to get what they wanted, and that they made very significant compromises out of respect for the institution. Remember how back in July the President was very clear that he did not intend to go through the UN? The fact that the United States has engaged in such a deep way with the UN is a great step forward for those of us who care about global institutions and law.
Second, the resolution doesn't provide a blank check for war -- in fact, the understanding of most of the diplomats at the table is that the US will have to return to the UN to get explicit authority for a military strike, which will be difficult. US Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte said after the resolution passed that "there is no automaticity" -- that breaking the terms of the agreement does not automatically signal a war. That's a huge step forward from the resolution originally brought to the UN in October.
Finally, there's a real possibility that the in-depth inspections which were launched on Monday may offer an alternative to war. Given the serious political risk involved in invading and taking over Iraq, the Bush Administration may choose to respect the international inspections process rather than drawing the anger of allies at home and abroad and going it alone.
High-ranking members of the Bush Administration will continue to claim that the resolution gives them the authority for war if Iraq shirks its obligations. But a basic reading of the text itself makes clear that this is not the case. Over the next month, we will need to make sure that our elected representatives push President Bush to continue to work within the United Nations and the realm of international law.
THE MONTHS AHEAD
Tomorrow's MoveOn Peace Bulletin will focus on the future. You can subscribe at:
http://peace.moveon.org/bulletin.php3
Over the next month, various constituencies will continue to make their voices heard about the war on Iraq and the alternatives raised above. We will be there as events unfold, and we intend to continue to offer you the most strategic actions we can find for calling an end to this thoughtless and dangerous rush to war.
Top
If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi
And the bank takes back your Audi
And the TV shows are bawdy,
Bomb Iraq.
If the corporate scandals growin', bomb Iraq.
And your ties to them are showin', bomb Iraq.
If the smoking gun ain't smokin'
We don't care, and we're not jokin'.
That Saddam will soon be croakin',
Bomb Iraq.
Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.
From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections;
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq.
Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq.
If the ozone hole is growing,
Some things we prefer not knowing.
(Though our ignorance is showing),
Bomb Iraq.
So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,
From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying no would look like treason.
It's the Hussein hunting season.
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.
... vince l, 11/21/02
Top
NYTimes and National Public
Radio Respond to Emails and Letters Demanding Truthful Reporting of
October 26 Protests
Recently Democrats.com members joined with others in an
email and letter writing campaign demanding that the NYTimes and
National Public Radio responsibly and accurately report the magnitude of
the October 26th anti-W-ar protests. Both have acknowledged their
mistakes. "Emboldened by a weekend antiwar protest in Washington
that organizers called the biggest since the days of the Vietnam War,
groups opposed to military action in Iraq said they were preparing a
wave of new demonstrations across the country in the next few weeks. The
demonstration on Saturday in Washington drew 100,000 by police estimates
and 200,000 by organizers', forming a two-mile wall of marchers around
the White House. The turnout startled even organizers, who had taken out
permits for 20,000 marchers. They expected 30 buses, and were surprised
by about 650, coming from as far as Nebraska and Florida."
A companion demonstration in San Francisco attracted 42,000 protesters, city police there said, and smaller groups demonstrated in other cities, including about 800 in Austin, Tex., and 2,500 in Augusta, Me.
..." (and over 300 in Tallahassee)
Top
Global Military
Expenditures currently exceed $800 BILLION! What else could be
done with this money?
On the eve of possible U.S. military action, that may
cause us all to pause and
think.
The top military spenders are:
United States $343.2 Billion
Russia* $60
China* $42
Japan $40.4
United Kingdom $34
Saudi Arabia $27.2
France $25.3
Germany $21
Brazil $17.9
India $15.6
Italy $15.5
South Korea $11.8
Based on 2000 funding (most recent year available):
Global Priorities -
For approximately 30% of Annual World Military
Expenditures (~$810
billion), all of the following could be accomplished:
Eliminate Starvation and Malnutrition ($19 billion)
Provide Shelter ($21 billion)
Remove Landmines ($4 billion)
Build Democracy ($3 billion)
Eliminate Nuclear Weapons ($7 billion)
Refugee Relief ($5 billion)
Eliminate Illiteracy ($5 billion)
Provide Clean, Safe Water ($10 billion)
Provide Health Care and AIDS Control ($21 billion)
Stop Deforestation ($7 billion)
Prevent Global Warming ($8 billion)
Stabilize Population ($10.5 billion)
Prevent Acid Rain ($8 billion)
Provide Clean, Safe Energy: Energy Efficiency ($33
billion), Renewable
Energy ($17 billion)
Stop Ozone Depletion ($5 billion)
Prevent Soil Erosion ($24 billion)
Retire Developing Nations Debt ($30 billion)
Sources: Center for Defense Information, Council for a
Livable World, International Institute for Strategic Studies, US State
Department, US Central Intelligence Agency
... AnnetteA, 10/12/02
Top
Lawmakers back action; public less so
By Larry Lipman, Palm Beach Post Washington Bureau
Wednesday, October 9, 2002
WASHINGTON -- Despite their constituents' widespread opposition to
war with Iraq, local lawmakers are lining up to support congressional resolutions authorizing President Bush to use military force against the regime of Saddam Hussein.
In Sen. Bill Nelson's office, the telephone calls have been running nearly 15- 1 against U.S. military action against Iraq.
Nelson, a Democrat, hopes that military action will not be necessary and wants the United States to pursue further diplomatic measures -- and gain support from our allies -- before launching a military strike, his press secretary, Gretchen Hitchner, said. But he is prepared to authorize Bush to use force if necessary, she said.
In Sen. Bob Graham's office, the "vast majority," of calls and letters from constituents have been opposed to military action against Iraq, press secretary Jill Greenberg said.
In a Senate speech Friday, Democrat Graham said he worried that military action against Iraq would divert emphasis from the war on terrorism, which he said should be expanded to include Mideast terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Front, Palestine Islamic Jihad and the Abu Nidal organization.
"As the president begins to exercise his judgment, I want him to have the authority to wage war on two fronts -- on all terrorist organizations and their sponsors, as well as the regime that now controls Iraq," Graham said.
Graham offered an amendment Tuesday that would give the president expanded authority to fight terrorism. The outcome of that and other amendments will shape Graham's final vote, Greenberg said.
Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, said he plans to vote in favor of the resolution even though his constituents have expressed strong opposition to giving Bush such authority.
Wexler said his constituents overwhelmingly support ousting Hussein, "but they don't support giving this president the authority to wage war with Iraq. They believe he is a trigger-happy cowboy. They do not trust this president."
Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach, supports action against Hussein. Mail and telephone calls into Foley's office have been running roughly even on whether to authorize force, press secretary Chris Paulitz said.
Rep. Alcee Hastings' constituents have been "almost completely opposed" to a unilateral, preemptive strike against Iraq, according to chief of staff Fred Turner.
Hastings, D-Miramar, introduced a resolution last month that would authorize the use of force with the conditions that the threat from Iraq be shown to be imminent and that additional diplomatic measures be tried, including obtaining authorization from the United Nations.
Hastings was undecided about how he would vote on the resolution worked out by House leaders and the White House, Turner said.
Mail and phone calls into Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr.'s office have been running about 10-1 against war with Iraq, but Shaw -- who also voted in favor of the Gulf War -- remains committed to voting for the resolution, press secretary Wendy Rosen said.
In recent visits to his district, Shaw, R-Fort Lauderdale, was told by many people that they support the House resolution, which relies on more consultation with the United Nations than a previous version sought by the White House, Rosen said.
Shaw believes many letters urging him to oppose the resolution have been generated by organized campaigns against the military action against Iraq, she said.
larryl@coxnews.com
top
Filed October 7, 2002
Sitting on a desk somewhere in the Pentagon is a computer printout listing projected American casualties for a range of Iraq invasion scenarios. Unfortunately, these vital figures are the only numbers that haven't been part of the war debate.
We've heard all kinds of estimates about how much the war is going to cost -- including Ari Fleischer's ultra-macho Bullet to Saddam's Head discount special -- how many troops will be deployed, how much the price of oil may go up, and the over-under on how long our forces will have to remain in Iraq. We've been given headcounts of Iraq's fractious Kurds and Shiites, reference numbers for security council resolutions defied, and been frequently reminded that Saddam has remained in power for 34 years, 11 of them since the last time we tried to send him and his mustache packing.
But no one in the Bush administration is talking about how many of our soldiers will be sent home in body bags. And not a single reporter has stood up at a press conference -- or at one of the president's countless fundraising appearances -- and asked, "Mr. President, how many young Americans are going to die?"
Will the deaths number in the hundreds, as was the case in Desert Storm and as would be again if Saddam collapsed like a cheap umbrella? Or will they be closer to the 10,000 to 50,000 some experts have predicted? And is Saddam the clear and present danger that would justify asking our sons and daughters to give up their lives for their country?
The question of casualties is all the more important given the weight attached to polls showing that over 70 percent of Americans support an invasion of Iraq. This purported groundswell of public opinion is being dropped like an old-fashioned "dumb" bomb to kill dissent on both sides of the political aisle.
Let's set aside for a moment the ludicrousness of basing our national security policy on the shoot-from-the-lip responses of a person who has been interrupted in the middle of dinner -- or a soapy shower or helping the kids with their homework -- and asked by a pollster, "Do you support the president's policy on Iraq?"
The fact is the number of Americans in favor of going to war with Iraq plummets -- down to only 39 percent in the latest Zogby poll -- when the prospect of "thousands of American casualties" is added to the question.
And such a bloody outcome is very likely given the kind of urban warfare it's going to take to oust Saddam. Forget about the caves of Tora Bora or the open desert cakewalk of the last Gulf War. Baghdad is a densely populated city of 4 million people -- roughly the same size as Los Angeles. Picture our troops having to battle their way down Hollywood Boulevard in search of a lone madman.
"We have to be prepared to fight block by block in Baghdad," says Gen. Joseph Hoar, the former commander in chief of the military's central command. "All our advantages of command and control, technology, mobility, all of those things are in part given up and you are working with corporals and sergeants and young men fighting street to street. It looks like the last 15 minutes of 'Saving Private Ryan'." Or every frame of "Black Hawk Down."
The high number of casualties that would result from gaining control of a heavily defended Baghdad is the main reason Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf, and the president's father pulled up short of the capital city the last time we took on Saddam. And remember that Saddam is a master of that ruthless strategy of defense known as "the human shield." Even the smartest of bombs will not be able to discern between Republican guardsmen and Iraqi children. That will be the dangerous business of Army rangers, Marine expeditionary units, and other special forces.
And unlike the Gulf War, which was primarily about the liberation of Kuwait, this war is about the elimination of Saddam. We've heard again and again that this ruthless despot will do anything, no matter how reckless or costly, to preserve his own regime. And we also know that he has been amassing stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, hideous high-body-count instruments disdained by the civilized world. You don't have to be George Tenet to connect these dots. Saddam will use whatever weapons he can in the impending fight to the finish. If he's going down, he's taking as many of us with him as he can.
"The likelihood is very good that he could use weapons of mass destruction," Gen. John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in September. "It could get very messy...The casualties, in my judgment, could be very high."
We are told by the proponents of invading Iraq that it's a bold step necessary to prevent future casualties. But in order to make an informed decision on the war, shouldn't the people also be told how many present casualties we will have to suffer in order to avoid these future ones?
... ARIANNA ONLINE
1158 26th Street, P.O. Box 428
Santa Monica, CA 90403
email: arianna@ariannaonline.com
Copyright © 1998-2002 Christabella, Inc.
By ROBERT C. BYRD
October 9 2002
As I have witnessed the tides that ebb and flow on the
world stage over these 50 years, all the more have I come to believe that
the Constitution is the principal mast to which we should rope ourselves
in order to put wax in our ears to the siren calls that will lead us
astray from what the Constitution says.
The Constitution very clearly says, in a nonambiguous
sentence, the Congress shall have power to declare war. I am very pained
to see a Congress, most of the leaders of which say we should pass this
resolution--pass it now, pass it here, get it behind us before the
election. Get it behind us.
Where are we looking? We are looking at Iraq. Yet there
is nothing new in the evidence. I have asked the director of the CIA on
two different occasions: What is different? Do not tell me anything about
policy; we will make the policy. But tell me what there is by way of
intelligence where you are the expert. What is there that is new today,
that you know today that you did not know three months ago or six months
ago? What is it that is so new, so compelling that all of a sudden, after
we heard all this business to the effect there is no plan on the
president's desk?
I asked that question of the secretary of State: What is
it that is new? I have asked that question of the secretary of Defense.
What does he say? The thing that is new is Sept. 11. That is not so new;
that is over 365 days old. So what is there that is new that requires us
to make this fateful, far-reaching decision before the election?
There is nothing new. They have known it for three
months, six months. A lot of it they have known for years. This is a
fateful decision, and the decision ought to be made here, and this
Congress ought not turn this fateful determination, this decision, over to
any president, any one man, because, as James Madison said, the trust and
the temptation are too great for any one man.
Here we are today; we have rubber spines, rubber legs,
and we do not have backbones. This branch of government, under the
Constitution, is the branch consisting of the immediately elected
representatives of the people, and under the Constitution it is to declare
war.
The framers were very wise when they determined that
these two matters--the decision to go to war and the making of war--should
be in two different places. The decision, the determination to declare
war, should flow from this branch, the people's branch, and the matter of
making war should be in the hands of a unified commander, the commander in
chief.
What are we doing? In my view, if we accept this
resolution as it is written, we are saying both of these vital functions
would be placed in the hands of one man.
I respect the president of the United States. We should
work with him, and we should support him when we can. But remember what
Madison said: The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man.
We elected representatives of the people are not
supposed to follow any president, whether he is a Democrat or Republican,
meekly and without question. I do not believe there is a Republican in
this body who knows me well who would believe for a moment, if we had a
Democratic president today, I would not be saying exactly what I am saying
right now.
There is no king in the American scheme of things. There
is no place for kings in our constitutional system. But there is a place
for men. When I say "men," of course, I am speaking of men and
women.
We are voting on this new Bush doctrine of preventive
strikes--preemptive strikes. There is nothing in this Constitution about
preemptive strikes. Yet in this rag here, this resolution, we are about to
vote to put the imprimatur of the Congress on that doctrine. That is what
the Bush administration wants us to do. They want Congress to put its
stamp of approval on that Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes.
That is a mistake. Are we going to present the face of
America as the face of a bully that is ready to go out at high noon with
both guns blazing or are we going to maintain the face of America as a
country which believes in justice, the rule of law, freedom and liberty
and the rights of all people to work out their ultimate destiny?
What are the ramifications around the globe? What is the
image of the United States then going to be? A nation that is a rogue
nation, that is determined to wipe out other nations with a preemptive
strike? And what will happen if we deliver a preemptive strike? Will other
nations be encouraged to do the same?
I think the president is in a much better position,
ultimately, if we let the United Nations speak first and not go to the
United Nations and say: Now, we would love to hear what you have to say,
but regardless of what you have to say, we have made up our minds, and if
you don't do it, we are going to do it.
We are committing the blood and the treasure of the
American people to do what the United Nations won't do. I say, do what the
president has done thus far. Put it in the lap of the United Nations and
expect them to give us an answer. Then come back to the people's
representatives and let them make a determination as to whether or not at
that point we should strike.
[However], if we are going to make it a blank check,
let's make it a blank check right upfront, without all of these flowery
fig leaves of "whereas" clauses, and simply say that the
president has this power. Give it to him and we will put up a sign on the
top of this Capitol: "Out of business." "Gone home."
"Gone fishing."
We are giving to the president of the United States a
blank check, and Congress cannot do that. Congress should not do that.
Where is the termination? Where is the deadline? Where is the sunset
language that says after this happens this resolution shall no longer
exist? There is nothing. This goes on to the next president of the United
States.
Why shouldn't the leadership of this Congress say that
the concerns are so great, the potential is so weighty, that we, the
people's representatives, ought to go back and talk to the American people
about this? Let's hear from them before we make this final decision. Why
should we be forced to make this decision now?
About This
Article from the 10/9/02 LA Times -- These are
excerpts from the remarks Friday by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen.
John W. Warner (R-Va.), debating a measure that would give President Bush
broad authority to launch an attack on Iraq.
Top
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1607676
By WARREN P. STROBEL and JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight-Ridder Tribune News
WASHINGTON -- While President Bush marshals
congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing
number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in
his own government privately have deep misgivings about the
administration's double-time march toward war.
These officials charge that administration hawks have
exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses
-- including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network --
have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and
have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle
East.
They charge that the administration squelches dissenting
views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce
reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an
immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is
necessary.
"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence
community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the
intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of
anonymity.
A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews.
No one who was interviewed disagreed.
They cited recent suggestions by Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that Saddam
and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network are working together.
Rumsfeld said on Sept. 26 that the U.S. government has
"bulletproof" confirmation of links between Iraq and al-Qaida
members, including "solid evidence" that members of the
terrorist network maintain a presence in Iraq.
The facts are much less conclusive. Officials said
Rumsfeld's statement was based in part on intercepted telephone calls, in
which an al-Qaida member who apparently was passing through Baghdad was
overheard calling friends or relatives, intelligence officials said. The
intercepts provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working
with the Iraqi regime or that he was working on a terrorist operation
while he was in Iraq, they said.
Rumsfeld also suggested that the Iraqi regime has
offered safe haven to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar.
While technically true, that also is misleading.
Intelligence reports said the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, a longtime Iraqi
intelligence officer, made the offer during a visit to Afghanistan in late
1998, after the United States attacked al-Qaida training camps with cruise
missiles to retaliate for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania. But officials said the same intelligence reports said bin Laden
rejected the offer because he didn't want Saddam to control his group.
In fact, the officials said, there's no ironclad
evidence that the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working
together or that Saddam has ever contemplated giving chemical or
biological weapons to al-Qaida, with whom he has deep ideological
differences.
None of the dissenting officials, who work in a number
of different agencies, would agree to speak publicly, out of fear of
retribution. But many of them have long experience in the Middle East and
South Asia, and all spoke in similar terms about their unease with the way
U.S. political leaders are dealing with Iraq.
All agreed that Saddam is a threat who eventually must
be dealt with, and none flatly opposes military action. But, they say, the
U.S. government has no dramatic new knowledge about the Iraqi leader that
justifies Bush's urgent call to arms.
"I've seen nothing that's compelling," said
one military officer who has access to intelligence reports.
Some lawmakers have voiced similar concerns after
receiving CIA briefings.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1607676
10/9/02
Top
Corporate malfeasance and take-over aren't going to be
the topics of debate in this fall's election, in fact they probably
won't even been brought up.
The war in Iraq on the other hand will be a top
contender, and as usual the debate will be archaic and flat, with a dash
of gun rights and abortion snaps. The general public will go on their
daily lives and not notice that the war against Saddam is a war for the
US economy, and the price will be paid with the blood of soldiers and
innocents alike. This same blood could be compared to the sweat and
tears millions of people throughout the world have shed as a result of
our corporation's never-ending grasp for cash, and this war is no
different.
The mainstream debate about Globalization has so many
facets and layers that the critics (myself included) have a tough time
keeping up with them. This debate has been so greatly muted that the
connections between war and global governance have not be dissected
accurately.
We have to realize that the outcome of the proposed
" Iraq regime change" is not for humanitarian reasons, and not
about terrorism; but about placing a friendly government in Iraq that
will allow our corporations to start moving their oil tankers. In the
last years of Clinton's presidency Dick Cheney was lobbying on behalf of
Haliburton to get the administration to press the UN to drop sanctions
against Iraq. I find it hard to believe that only 3 or 4 years later,
Dick and company don't have any corporate interests in Iraq.
Has Karl Rove so brainwashed us that we are unable to
see past the "weapons of mass destruction?" Are our foreign
policies not weapons of mass destruction in their own right?
Global dominance fashions itself in many ways; from
trade agreement to loans, to war and government control. The war against
Iraq is just one more puzzle piece in a collage of corporate take over
that has plagued the earth for decades. We must oppose this war with as
much vigor and pride as we have opposed the IMF and WTO cabals. Lies and
deceit have flooded the public discourse, so those that know the truth
have a responsibility to speak up. For if we don't, we are as much to
blame as the Democrats and Republicans, who are worried more about their
re-elections, then the hundreds of thousands of lives that will be lost
as a result this conflict.
We cannot afford to sit silent any longer.
... Josh Frank, 10/08/02
Top
The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.
And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.
Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.
Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.
To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.
It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."
In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.
"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."
The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.
"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "
Familiar themes
Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.
It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.
It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.
It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.
That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.
Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.
'Constabulary duties'
Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."
To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world - - and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."
To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.
More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.
The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.
Effect on allies
The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.
The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.
One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.
Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.
"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.
"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."
Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.
For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.
"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."
Costly global commitment
Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.
Kagan is more blunt.
"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."
The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.
The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.
Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.
Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?
If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.
That's what this is about.
....By JAY BOOKMAN ,
Atlanta Constitution
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html
Top
Baghdad -- On the outer Karada, one of Baghdad's major
shopping streets, the merry sound of trumpets and drums builds to a
crescendo. In a rush of clashing cymbals, laughter and blaring car
horns, a wedding convoy pushes through the evening's heavy traffic. On
the sidewalks, couples and decked-out families stroll beside bright shop
windows spilling over with radios and TVs.
