Attack Iraq? Voices...

ethos · October 9, 2002

I received this in my email and thought I would share it with those of you who might be interested in some public opinion concerning the Iraq War.

Sun, 6 Oct 2002 09:21:26 -0700

marylia@earthlink.net (marylia)

Dear colleagues: You have seen many of these items, but perhaps there are

one or two new information "nuggets" in here for you. Most important is

that we lift our own voices now for peace. --Marylia

Attack Iraq? Listen to Some of the Many Voices That Say "No"

compiled from press reports, email and the web

for Tri-Valley CAREs' October 2002 newsletter, Citizen's Watch

SCOTT RITTER, formerly the chief United Nation weapons inspector in Iraq:

"It is clear that the U.S. government doesn't want a peaceful resolution to

this. It is bent on war. The move for a new Security Council resolution is

a deliberate provocation to scuttle inspectors. The Iraqis acceded to the

international community's demands on the weapons inspectors. They should be held accountable; they will be held accountable. The inspectors should do

their job, Iraq should comply and the UN should ensure that the inspectors

are not misused as they have been in the past. Why is the U.S. government

rushing for another resolution now? Because it is not interested in

compliance and disarmament -- it wants war."

--Institute for Public Accuracy, Sept. 24.

CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS: "...Whereas, a war with Iraq would require the re-direction of vital resources and funds to a destructive, senseless, and illegal goal while further strengthening an administration that has restricted the civil liberties of its citizens,... Therefore, be it resolved that the California Federation of Teachers goes on record as

strenuously opposing the Bush administration's march toward war with Iraq, And be it further resolved that the California Federation of Teachers urge its members and affiliates to get involved with organizations working

toward stopping the Bush administration's march toward war with Iraq.

--Passed by the CFT State Council, Sept. 21.

DEMOCRACY NOW, daily news show broadcast over 130 public radio and television stations: "Republican and Democratic Senate offices report

'overwhelming' opposition from their constituents to war with Iraq. This

comes as Congress prepares to pass a war resolution granting President Bush sweeping powers to invade Iraq... Of the 26 offices which responded to our inquires, 22 reported an overwhelming majority -- in some cases up to 99 percent -- of constituents opposed war in Iraq; three said the response was split and just one office [supported war]... "

--Press release, Sept. 27.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD, D-W.Va.: "This administration, all of a sudden, wants to go to war with Iraq. The polls are dropping, the domestic situation has problems.... So all of a sudden we have this war talk, war fervor, the

bugles of war, drums of war, clouds of war... Nothing would please this

president more than having... a blank check handed to him."

--Charleston Gazette, Sept. 21.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-Ohio, leader of the congressional progressive caucus: "Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal ...The administration has failed to

make the case that Iraq poses an imminent or immediate threat to the United

States."

--Washington Times, Sept. 20.

REP. JIM McDERMOTT, D-Washington: "We have a president who wants to go to war. There is no question about it... That's the point - a regime change. It's not inspectors. They don't care down at the White House about whether we have disarmament or not, they want to go to war."

--Washington Times, Sept. 20.

REP. BARBARA LEE, D-Calif., principle architect of H. Con. Res. 473, an alternative Congressional Resolution on Iraq introduced with 26

co-sponsors: "We do not have to go to war, we have alternatives."

--Washington Times, Sept. 20.

REP. RON PAUL, R-Texas: "Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won't be asked - and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

-- Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections

we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time

imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of

inspections?

-- Is it not true that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency

was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year

with Iraqi cooperation?

-- Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable

to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the

attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the

19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq? ..."

--from 35 questions posted to the web, Sept. 11.

JAMES ABOUREZK, former U.S. Senator, SD: "...The reality is that the people of Iraq have still not recovered from the 1991 war. Few people in the West realize that one in every ten Iraqi children dies before his or her first

birthday, the lingering result of infrastructure degradation, unclean water, and communicable disease spread in the wake of the 1991 war. One

child in three suffers from chronic malnutrition..."

--Institute for Public Accuracy, Sept. 20.

GREEN PARTY OF THE U.S.: "...The Bush administration claims the invasion of Iraq would improve the security of citizens of the U.S., but it would do just the opposite... An attack on Iraq would be illegal. The U.S. must hold to the highest standards and abide by international law if it expects other nations to do so..."

--Endorsed on Sept. 19.

DAVID KRIEGER, director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation: "A war

initiated by the U.S. to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq under the

present circumstances, and without U.N. Security Council authorization,

would be tantamount to a 'war of aggression,' an international crime for

which high-ranking leaders of the Axis countries during World War II were

held to account at the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and

Tokyo."

--World Editorial & International Law, Sept. 29.

BOB WING, editor, War Times: "This afternoon, at least 350,000 people from all over the United Kingdom descended upon the corridors of power for a massive and peaceful...rally. As I file this report at 4 p.m., less than

half the march, which commenced at 12:30 p.m., has arrived at the Hyde Park Rally. The action was the largest of its kind in the UK in 30 years."

--by email, Sept. 28.

Voices Carry...

from Tri-Valley CAREs' October 2002 newsletter, Citizen's Watch

FOR PEACE: On Sept. 19, Rep. Barbara Lee and 26 co-sponsors introduced H. Con. Res. 473. It states: "...be it resolved by the House of

Representatives (the Senate concurring), [t]hat the United States should

work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring

Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means." Our Rep., Ellen Tauscher, is not among the co-sponsors. See: http://thomas.loc.gov.

LIFT YOUR VOICE: As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. pointed out, silence is

complicity. Now is the time to speak up for peace. Here are some ideas: (1)

Call your elected officials and tell them how you feel. The congressional

switchboard is (202) 224-3121. The White House is (202) 456-1111. (2)

Attend a rally or demonstration. There will be a national march in

Washington, DC on Oct. 26, and there are many local ways and places to plug in. Call our office at (925) 443-7148 for info. (3) Order your "No War With Iraq" bumper sticker at www.commondreams.org. (4) Write a letter to the editor of your favorite newspaper. (5) Add your creative idea here!

Marylia Kelley

Tri-Valley CAREs

(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)

2582 Old First Street

Livermore, CA USA 94551

<http://www.trivalleycares.org> - is our new web site address. Please visit

us there!

(925) 443-7148 - is our phone

(925) 443-0177 - is our fax

Working for peace, justice and a healthy environment since 1983, Tri-Valley

CAREs has been a member of the nation-wide Alliance for Nuclear

Accountability in the U.S. since 1989, and is a co-founding member of the

Abolition 2000 global network for the elimination of nuclear weapons, the

U.S. Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and the Back From the Brink

campaign to get nuclear weapons taken off hair-trigger alert.

Streetstraw · October 11, 2002

There's more than one way to skin a fatcat. Like when Buck Private Lou Costello wanted to become an Army General. First Lou sang his "Too many this, Too many that" military bhajan, Shemp Howard (4th 3 Stooge) alongside.

Hearing this, Lou's sergeant offered: "Y become only General? We can make u Admiral!"

To which Lou replied inquisitively, "Oh, u have admirals in the Army?"

"Of course we do! We will put u in charge of all the vessels."

After which Lou was quickly escorted over to command the sink, scrubbrush, pots & pans.

Similarly, Bushwinkle wants to fight, so let him fight! 2 out of 3, winner takes all (except 5 villages).

First fight between George & Saddam will be held at Madison Square Garden, New York City.

Tickets go on sale Monday morning worldwide. Global Capitalism at its Zenith. Kenya beat it?

Second fight will be held in Baghdad. If u thought WE were expert at scalping...

Third fight, if need be, shall be held at an unmarked location soon to be announced. Stay tuned.

theist · October 11, 2002

Bush is well trained.Works out daily.Does his roadwork everyday also.Saddam is fat and sloppy.Not even a good journeyman.

He is devious however.Tends to headbutt,throw elbows and hits below the belt. When cornered,ties up and holds on.Basically a trash talkin' runner who won't stand and fight.Check his gloves for horse shoes inside and pepperspray outside.

Bush will cut off the ring,hook to the body and then KO the a__hole in the first round with a classic jab,cross, hook combination.

My odds,100 to 1. Bush remains undisputed,undefeated Champion and doesn't break a sweat doing it.

Say goodbye to the Butcher of Baghdad.He's as good as out for the count.

Streetstraw · October 12, 2002

Congress Must Resist the Rush to War

By Robert C. Byrd

New York Times | Op-Ed

WASHINGTON -- A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed the Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began in the Senate last week is centered not on the fundamental and monumental questions of whether and why the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution in order to give him virtually unchecked authority to commit the nation's military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will -- a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term "self-defense"? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due deliberation.

I have listened closely to the president. I have questioned the members of his war cabinet. I have searched for that single piece of evidence that would convince me that the president must have in his hands, before the month is out, open-ended Congressional authorization to deliver an unprovoked attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced. The president's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial at best. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but the threat is not so great that we must be stampeded to provide such authority to this president just weeks before an election.

Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels "is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes -- detailed in a recent publication, "National Security Strategy of the United States" -- against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.

We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.

Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.

Members of Congress should take time out and go home to listen to their constituents. We must not yield to this absurd pressure to act now, 27 days before an election that will determine the entire membership of the House of Representatives and that of a third of the Senate. Congress should take the time to hear from the American people, to answer their remaining questions and to put the frenzy of ballot-box politics behind us before we vote. We should hear them well, because while it is Congress that casts the vote, it is the American people who will pay for a war with the lives of their sons and daughters.

October 12, 2002

Posted Image U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report

By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein, senior administration officials said today.

The plan also calls for war-crime trials of Iraqi leaders and a transition to an elected civilian government that could take months or years.

In the initial phase, Iraq would be governed by an American military commander perhaps - Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of United States forces in the Persian Gulf, or one of his subordinates - who would assume the role that Gen. Douglas MacArthur served in Japan after its surrender in 1945.

One senior official said the administration was "coalescing around" the concept after discussions of options with President Bush and his top aides. But this official and others cautioned that there had not yet been any formal approval of the plan and that it was not clear whether allies had been consulted on it.

The detailed thinking about an American occupation emerges as the administration negotiates a compromise at the United Nations that officials say may fall short of an explicit authorization to use force but still allow the United States to claim it has all the authority it needs to force Iraq to disarm.

In contemplating an occupation, the administration is scaling back the initial role for Iraqi opposition forces in a post-Hussein government. Until now it had been assumed that Iraqi dissidents both inside and outside the country would form a government, but it was never clear when they would take full control.

Today marked the first time the administration has discussed what could be a lengthy occupation by coalition forces, led by the United States.

Officials say they want to avoid the chaos and in-fighting that have plagued Afghanistan since the defeat of the Taliban. Mr. Bush's aides say they also want full control over Iraq while American-led forces carry out their principal mission: finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction.

The description of the emerging American plan and the possibility of war-crime trials of Iraqi leaders could be part of an administration effort to warn Iraq's generals of an unpleasant future if they continue to support Mr. Hussein.

Asked what would happen if American pressure prompted a coup against Mr. Hussein, a senior official said, "That would be nice." But the official suggested that the American military might enter and secure the country anyway, not only to eliminate weapons of mass destruction but also to ensure against anarchy.

Under the compromise now under discussion with France, Russia and China, according to officials familiar with the talks, the United Nations Security Council would approve a resolution requiring the disarmament of Iraq and specifying "consequences" that Iraq would suffer for defiance.

It would stop well short of the explicit authorization to enforce the resolution that Mr. Bush has sought. But the diplomatic strategy, now being discussed in Washington, Paris and Moscow, would allow Mr. Bush to claim that the resolution gives the United States all the authority he believes he needs to force Baghdad to disarm.

Other Security Council members could offer their own, less muscular interpretations, and they would be free to draft a second resolution, authorizing the use of force, if Iraq frustrated the inspection process. The United States would regard that second resolution as unnecessary, senior officials say.

"Everyone would read this resolution their own way," one senior official said.

The revelation of the occupation plan marks the first time the administration has described in detail how it would administer Iraq in the days and weeks after an invasion, and how it would keep the country unified while searching for weapons.

It would put an American officer in charge of Iraq for a year or more while the United States and its allies searched for weapons and maintained Iraq's oil fields.

For as long as the coalition partners administered Iraq, they would essentially control the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world, nearly 11 percent of the total. A senior administration official said the United Nations oil-for-food program would be expanded to help finance stabilization and reconstruction.

Administration officials said they were moving away from the model used in Afghanistan: establishing a provisional government right away that would be run by Iraqis. Some top Pentagon officials support this approach, but the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and, ultimately, the White House, were cool to it.

"We're just not sure what influence groups on the outside would have on the inside," an administration official said. "There would also be differences among Iraqis, and we don't want chaos and anarchy in the early process."

Instead, officials said, the administration is studying the military occupations of Japan and Germany. But they stressed a commitment to keeping Iraq unified, as Japan was, and avoiding the kind partition that Germany underwent when Soviet troops stayed in the eastern sector, which set the stage for the cold war. The military government in Germany stayed in power for four years; in Japan it lasted six and a half years.

In a speech on Saturday, Zalmay Khalilzad, the special assistant to the president for Near East, Southwest Asian and North African affairs, said, "The coalition will assume — and the preferred option — responsibility for the territorial defense and security of Iraq after liberation."

"Our intent is not conquest and occupation of Iraq," Mr. Khalilzad said. "But we do what needs to be done to achieve the disarmament mission and to get Iraq ready for a democratic transition and then through democracy over time."

Iraqis, perhaps through a consultative council, would assist an American-led military and, later, a civilian administration, a senior official said today. Only after this transition would the American-led government hand power to Iraqis.

He said that the Iraqi armed forces would be "downsized," and that senior Baath Party officials who control government ministries would be removed. "Much of the bureaucracy would carry on under new management," he added.

Some experts warned during Senate hearings last month that a prolonged American military occupation of Iraq could inflame tensions in the Mideast and the Muslim world.

"I am viscerally opposed to a prolonged occupation of a Muslim country at the heart of the Muslim world by Western nations who proclaim the right to re-educate that country," said the former secetary of state, Henry A. Kissinger, who as a young man served as a district administrator in the military government of occupied Germany.

While the White House considers its long-term plans for Iraq, Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, arrived in Moscow this evening for a day and a half of talks with President Vladimir V. Putin. Aides said talks were focused on resolving the dispute at the United Nations. Mr. Blair and Mr. Putin are to hold formal discussions on Friday, followed by a news conference.

Mr. Blair has been a steadfast supporter of the administration's tough line on a new resolution. But he has also indicated that Britain would consider France's proposal to have a two-tiered approach, with the Security Council first adopting a resolution to compel Iraq to cooperate with international weapons inspectors, and then, if Iraq failed to comply, adopting a second resolution on military force. Earlier this week, Russia indicated that it, too, was prepared to consider the French position.

But the administration is now saying that if there is a two-resolution approach, it will insist that the first resolution provide Mr. Bush all the authority he needs.

"The timing of all this is impossible to anticipate," one administration official involved in the talks said. "The president doesn't want to have to wait around for a second resolution if it is clear that the Iraqis are not cooperating."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/11/international/11PREX.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

Copyright The New York Times Company

Streetstraw · October 14, 2002

"Byrdsong" by William Rivers Pitt

t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Sunday, 13 October, 2002

Mark your calendar. On October 10, 2002, Congress of the United States of America set aside a large portion of its say regarding the declaration and prosecution of war. They ceded control of that most-important and Constitutionally-mandated responsibility to George W. Bush and his administration.

The House fell first, voting 296-133 for the Bush resolution for war on Iraq. This resolution, as drafted, gives authorization to Bush to "...use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force...to defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region." The breadth of this language, with its nebulous reference to "the region," offered Bush the legal ability to make war on any number of nations in the Middle East without further consulting Congress.

Focus on deliberations on this matter moved, after the House vote, to the chamber of the Senate. A host of Senators, including Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Joseph Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, stated in public comments their plans to vote in favor of the resolution, guaranteeing its passage.

Daschle, in a written statement released on the eve of the vote, justified his Yes vote with the explanation that Bush's original proposal had been modified: "Instead of giving the President broad and unfocused authorization to take action 'in the region,' as the Administration originally sought, this resolution focuses specifically on the threat posed by Iraq. It no longer authorizes -- nor should it be used to try to justify -- the use of force against other nations, organizations or individuals that the President may believe threaten peace and stability in the Persian Gulf region. It is a strong and focused response to a specific threat. It is not a template or model for any other situation."

Daschle's statement continued with a nod to the UN: "This resolution expresses the deep conviction of this Congress, and of the American people, that President Bush should continue to work through the United Nations Security Council in order to secure Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions." The sentiment here is commendable, except for the use of one word: "Should." There is no command here, no teeth, no requirement that Bush seek the approval and support of the international community before making war.

The vacillation of the language in that passage was left aside when Daschle stated, "This resolution makes it clear that, before the President can use force in Iraq, he must certify to the Congress that diplomacy has failed, and that further diplomatic efforts alone cannot protect America's national security interests, nor can they lead to enforcement of the UN Security Council resolutions." In this section of the statement, "Should" has become "must." An amendment to the resolution requiring an indication of immediate threat before an attack is undertaken, however, was defeated in Senate debate on Thursday night.

The fact that the dangerous language referring to "the region" was expurgated did not quiet the deep reservations of the senior Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd. Byrd has for days been the leader of a small but vocal minority of Senators who see the passage of this resolution as an absolutely contra-constitutional abdication of responsibility by the Congress.

Mr. Byrd, in an editorial in Thursday's New York Times, stated, "How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will - a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term 'self-defense'? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional powers."

The editorial continued, "Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels 'is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.' This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes - detailed in a recent publication, 'National Security Strategy of the United States' - against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.

On the floor of the Senate on Thursday night, in a chamber emptied of every member but those vocal few who had stood with him in his determined opposition, Byrd held forth a copy of the Constitution in one trembling, aged hand. Mr. Byrd is considered by every Senator to be the master parliamentarian in that body, and he keeps at all times that copy of the constitution in his breast pocket, next to his heart.

Senator Byrd concluded his comments in the New York Times by stating, "We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution. We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time. Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step."

The judgment of history is all that remains. The step has been taken, the die cast, and the structure of governmental power has been forever altered. War is now in the hands of one man, George W. Bush, and not in the deliberative body that is Congress. This is unprecedented, and profoundly disturbing.

On Thursday night, an old man of the Senate, shaken but unbowed, stood before the American people to register one last time his fear and anger that Congress could have taken such a strange and dangerous action. For all the world, he seemed to have stepped whole from the mind of Shakespeare - the ghost of Hamlet's father, pointing with spectral hand towards a bleak future, and towards a king with blood on his hands.

"But know, thou noble youth," said the ghost, "the serpent that did sting thy father's life now wears the crown."

-------

William Rivers Pitt teaches in Boston, MA. He is author of two books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in April 2003 from Pluto Press.