"Iraq will not find peace or
stability until the U.S. occupation ends. ... There was no basis
for a war in Iraq. It was wrong to go in, and it's wrong to stay
in. ... It is time to get the U.N. in and the U.S. out of Iraq."
--Dennis
Kuchinich
Basra, Iraq. March 22, 2003 Man carries body of small girl
killed during the siege of Basra. Photo:
Amr Nabil, AP
"We need to humanize the reality of this terrible conflict.
When they say today that there's a massive bombardment, what
they mean is that in a country in which 50% of the people
are 15 or younger, what we are really doing is murdering children.
We can't give up the plea for sanity." --Frieda
Engel, 84, Seniors for Peace
¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤
"Report From Baghdad" CD-ROM
Pacifica Radio KPFK Los Angeles Reporter Lee Siu Hin's July
2003 trip to U.S. occupied Iraq. An interactive CD-ROM with
articles, photos, audio and video interviews includes: people
of
Iraq, U.S. military, human rights workers, religious leaders and
more!
Each CD costs: $15.00 plus $3.50 S/H (work both PC and Mac)
The CD sells will be benefit the Baghdad Independent Media
Center, ActionLA, and PeaceNoWar.net
*Additional donations are welcome, and it will be tax deductible.
GRASSROOTS INTERVIEW WITH REPRESENTATIVE HENRY
WAXMAN
U.S. Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat-California) has long supported
crucial health and environmental protection initiatives, including
universal health insurance and the 1990 Clean Air Act. Since 2001,
he has opposed efforts by the Bush administration to block congressional
oversight and roll back health and environmental laws. Active
in investigations of White House ties to Enron, Waxman fought
for disclosure of the energy industry lobbyists who shaped the
Bush-Cheney energy plan.
Rep. Waxman is in an interesting position: he voted for the Iraq
war resolution in an effort to force a consensus in the United
Nations, and has since become sharply critical of the intelligence
the Bush administration relied upon in making its case for war.
His letter to President Bush on this matter is included in this
week's bulletin.
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. One Link
3. Niger Forgeries
4. Misrepresentation
5. Powell and Blix Have Their Doubts
6. Intelligence Sources
7. Impeachment
8. British and U.S. Inquiries
9. Ends Justify the Means
10. Misleader
11. Credits
12. About the Bulletin
------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
Arguing for the necessity of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, U.S.
President George W. Bush and other administration officials cited
intelligence that Saddam Hussein's government possessed weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) in violation of United Nations Security
Council resolutions.
Not only had Iraq manufactured chemical and biological weapons,
the administration contended, they had attempted to obtain materials
for nuclear weaponry. In one address, Bush said: "Intelligence
gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the
Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised."
Yet more than two months after Bush declared the end of major
combat operations in Iraq, no WMDs have been found. While he still
insists such weapons will be discovered, evidence mounts that
his administration's drive for war was based on forged, inaccurate,
and deliberately misconstrued intelligence.
------------------------------
ONE LINK
No time for more? Read the New York Times' Paul Krugman on the
Bush administration's "denial and deception" to justify
war in Iraq and why Congress won't confront these distortions. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0624-04.htm
------------------------------
NIGER FORGERIES
During the build-up to war, British and U.S. officials cited letters
indicating Iraq had attempted to obtain nuclear material from
the central African country of Niger. On March 7, shortly before
the war began, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, declared the documents had
proven to be forgeries. http://www.moveon.org/r?457
The C.I.A. had debunked the Niger documents long before Bush
began using them as evidence. The agency urged the State Department
not to cite the forged letters when challenging Iraq's weapons
declaration in December. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-06-12-niger-usat_x.htm
In a March 17 letter to President Bush, U.S. Representative Henry
Waxman called upon the President to explain the situation. As
he said, "The two most obvious explanations -- knowing deception
or unfathomable incompetence -- both have immediate and serious
implications." http://www.house.gov/waxman/text/admin_iraq_march_17_let.htm
MISREPRESENTATION
The Observer reports that the two vehicles Bush and Blair claim
are mobile biological weapons labs are probably used to produce
hydrogen for artillery balloons. http://www.moveon.org/r?458
A memo from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity to
President Bush: "What is at play here is a policy and intelligence
fiasco of monumental proportions." http://truthout.org/docs_03/050503D.shtml
------------------------------
POWELL AND BLIX HAVE THEIR DOUBTS
"[U.S. Secretary of State Colin] Powell's team removed dozens
of pages of alleged evidence about Iraq's banned weapons and ties
to terrorists from a draft of his speech, U.S. News and World
Report says today. At one point, he became so angry at the lack
of adequate sourcing to intelligence claims that he declared:
'I'm not reading this. This is bullshit,' according to the magazine." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,968581,00.html
UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, who retired on Monday:
"It is sort of fascinating that you can have 100 percent
certainty about weapons of mass destruction and zero certainty
of about where they are." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0623-10.htm
------------------------------
INTELLIGENCE SOURCES
From the Washington Post:
"A still-classified national intelligence report circulating
within the Bush administration...portrayed a far less clear picture
about the link between Iraq and al Qaeda than the one presented
by the president...." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19822-2003Jun21
"In this report we present the publicly available data that
U.S. and UK leaders chose to ignore in the pre-war debate....
The reason those now searching for weapons are finding only traces,
remnants, and precursors is that previous policies of sanctions
and UN weapons inspection and destruction actually worked." http://www.fourthfreedom.org/php/t-d-index.php?hinc=Unproven.hinc
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh on Rumsfeld's new Office
of Special Plans. Populated with associates of the Project for
the New American Century, "the operation rivalled both the
C.I.A. and the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency...as
President Bush's main source of intelligence regarding Iraq's
possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection
with Al Qaeda." http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact
From The New Republic:
A former staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee admitted,
"People [kept] telling you first that things weren't right,
weird things going on, different people saying, 'There's so much
pressure, you know, they keep telling us, go back and find the
right answer,' things like that." http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030630&s=ackermanjudis063003
------------------------------
IMPEACHMENT
John Dean, President Nixon's White House counsel, says the case
for impeachment would be easy legally, but impossible politically:
"To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation
into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation
or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if
proven, could be 'a high crime' under the Constitution's impeachment
clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law,
including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders
it a felony 'to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof
in any manner or for any purpose.'" http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html
A superb interview with Dean from BuzzFlash:
"Impeachment is a political proceeding, of quasi-legal nature.
Republicans are not going to impeach their president. To the contrary,
it is very clear they would defend him." http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/06/17_dean.html
------------------------------
BRITISH AND U.S. INQUIRIES
In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Tony Blair is under fire
for his dossier alleging Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
An inquiry underway in the Parliament has heard devastating testimony
from former foreign secretary Robin Cook and former international
development secretary Clare Short, both of whom resigned over
Blair's claim that Iraq was a "clear and serious threat." http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,987816,00.html
ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS
From the Village Voice:
"New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman shrugged off
WMD hype as a necessary selling technique for Bush, arguing that
we hit Hussein 'because we could' and that what matters is whether
we succeed at building a 'progressive Arab regime.' In other words,
the ends justify the means." http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0325/cotts.php
------------------------------
MISLEADER
As regular Bulletin readers may know, the Bulletin topics aren't
necessarily part of current MoveOn campaigns. The issue of Iraq
war intelligence, however, is the focus of MoveOn's "Misleader"
advertising campaign. Sign the petition to demand that Congress
establish an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate
and hold the President and his officials accountable if they manipulated
or fabricated intelligence to justify taking the country to war. http://www.moveon.org/distortion/
------------------------------
CREDITS
Research team:
Leah Appet, Russ Juskalian, Kate Kressmann-Kehoe, Janelle Miau,
Sarah Parady, Kim Plofker, and Jesse Rhodes.
Editing team:
David Taub Bancroft, Nancy Evans, Judy Green, and Rita Weinstein.
------------------------------
ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free email bulletin providing information,
resources, news, and action ideas on important political issues.
The full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at http://www.moveon.org/
moveonbulletin/; you can subscribe to it at that address. The
MoveOn Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org.
MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect their
lives. MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the
Internet to democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising
public awareness of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots
advocacy campaigns to encourage sound public policies. You can
help decide the direction of MoveOn.org by participating in the
discussion forum at: http:/
/www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223
SPECIAL FEATURE: GRASSROOTS INTERVIEW WITH
U.S. SENATOR BYRD
Two weeks ago, we introduced a new feature: the Grassroots Interview.
Over one hundred MoveOn members posted their questions for our
first interviewee, Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat from West Virginia),
and many more ranked those questions. This week, Senator Byrd
responds to the top-ranked questions. Here's an excerpt:
"There is a power which can serve as a check against abuses
by a government or by government officials and that power is the
power of the informed citizen -- one who has read enough, who
understands enough, who has developed a base of knowledge against
which to judge truth or falsehood. Participation in the great
debates of our time must not be relegated to the power elites
in Washington. An informed citizenry has to participate, ask questions,
and demand answers and accountability to make a country like ours
work."
The rest of Senator Byrd's responses follow this week's bulletin.
CONTENTS
1. Introduction: Tear it Down, Build it Up
2. Two Links
3. Life in Iraq
4. Occupation
5. Interim Government and Nation-Building
6. Sanctions and Oil
7. Company Contracts
8. Credits
9. Grassroots Interview: Senator Robert Byrd
10. About the Bulletin
------------------------------
INTRODUCTION: TEAR IT DOWN, BUILD IT UP
The war is over, but the most crucial phase of intervention in
Iraq is only beginning. The justness and competency of the American
and British military occupation will determine the health and
safety of Iraqi civilians. Disease, looting, and starvation could
take as many lives as the bombings and worsen the misery caused
by 13 years of UN economic sanctions.
On the political front, will Saddam Hussein's authoritarian rule
be replaced by true self-determination or a hegemonic occupation?
The choices about decision-making power are now being made and
it matters who's making them. There are struggles going on within
the Bush administration, within the international community, and
within Iraqi society for power. Is power being shared by all citizens
of Iraq or are certain elements, either foreign or domestic, dominating
the debate? Can an open societal debate over forms of governance
occur when poverty and sexism persist?
Lastly, the military-industrial complex that made the weapons
to decimate Iraqi infrastructure is being awarded contracts to
rebuild it. Not only are the contracts being awarded to companies
with ties to the Bush administration, they're being awarded to
non-indigenous companies, preventing business development within
Iraq and denying good jobs to Iraqis.
------------------------------
TWO LINKS
If you read nothing else in this week's bulletin, read these two
articles. The first, from Asia Times, is a clear exposition of
why the occupation of Iraq is already headed in the direction
of Vietnam-like quagmire. Includes a discussion of secularism,
UN involvement, and the hubris of conquest. http://
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED24Ak03.html
In the second article, Salon.com reports on the fight between
Pentagon neo-conservatives, State Department realists, and the
UN to select and train the interim government. Includes a thorough
discussion of Project for the New American Century participants
Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, and Ahmad Chalabi. Well worth the
Salon registration. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/14/reconstruction/
------------------------------
LIFE IN IRAQ
Concerns about looting and lack of public services abound. Here
are several reports to give a sense of the conditions in Iraq
since the end of the war. An Australian report from Umm Qasr,
the first city conquered by coalition troops, describes how rejoicing
has turned to misery and resentment. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/04/1051987604147.html
Meanwhile, the Department of Defense is set to close its only
institution devoted to training peacekeepers. This article contends
restoring the Peacekeeping Institute should be a priority for
progressives. http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,944259,00.html
------------------------------
INTERIM GOVERNMENT AND NATION-BUILDING
Earlier this month, L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer III replaced
General Jay Garner as top administrator of Iraq. Bremer, who retired
from the State Department in 1989, urged confrontation with Syria,
Iran, and Sudan during the Clinton administration. Bremer has
strong ties to neo-conservatives and helped run Henry Kissinger's
consulting firm in the 1990s. He will report directly to Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld. http:/
/www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14966
Last week, Bremer postponed the formation of an Iraqi-led interim
government indefinitely. http://www.moveon.org/r?441
Foreign Policy in Focus characterizes the possibilities for governing
postwar Iraq, including the neo-conservative model, the Afghan
model, and the Iraqi exile model. http://www.fpif.org
/papers/iraqgov2003.html
SANCTIONS AND OIL
Over the initial objections of France and Russia, the United States
and Britain are poised for the passage of a UN resolution to lift
the sanctions on Iraq, shifting control of Iraqi oil revenues
from the UN Oil-for-Food program to American and British leaders.
After years of seeking an end to the sanctions, Rahul Mahajan
has serious doubts about the resolution. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=
3594
The authors of this investigative report deal with the past history
of oil development, issues of state versus private control, Iraqi
competence and autonomy, the potential role of multinationals,
and some surprising conclusions about the possible impact full
development could have on the world. http://www.moveon.org/r?440
------------------------------
COMPANY CONTRACTS
CNN Money reports on Senate allegations that the selection of
Vice-President Cheney's former company, Halliburton, for a major
open-ended contract was not made competitively. http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/11/news/companies/halliburton_iraq/
Bechtel Corporation is another major recipient of reconstruction
contracts. This CorpWatch report describes the role of Donald
Rumsfeld in its past Iraq contracts and the recent appointment
of Bechtel's chairman to Bush's export council. http://
www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6532
------------------------------
CREDITS
Research team:
Leah Appet, Joanne Comito, Lita Epstein, Janelle Miau, Kim Plofker,
and Ora Szekely.
Editing team:
David Taub Bancroft, Judy Green, Nancy Evans, and Alfred Karl
Weber.
------------------------------
GRASSROOTS INTERVIEW: U.S. SENATOR BYRD
The following are the personal responses of Senator Robert Byrd
(D-WV) to the top-ranked questions MoveOn members posed last week:
First of all, before I begin, let me thank MoveOn and its thousands
of members for the support that you have given to me and to so
many others who are willing to stand up and make their opinions
known. Your willingness to be active participants in this Republic
makes a real difference, and I hope that you will continue to
let your voices be heard.
Question One: What are the ways we can impact the choices
being made today as powerfully as possible?
-- Michael McCann, West Lebanon, NH
Mr. McCann, you ask a very good question. Many of those who want
to speak out are cowed by the intimidation and ridicule that often
accompanies going against the perceived grain. That is as true
in Congress as it is outside the Capitol Beltway. At times of
national distress, it is natural to want to come together and
to look for leadership from a single, clear voice. But America's
song has never been expressed by a single note. It was never intended
to be. America's music is not a solo, but rather a symphony made
richer by the harmony of different views. Remember, our founders
rejected a Monarchy, and sought, instead, a Republic. They chose
a representative form of government that allowed the many voices
of America to be heard.
Write your Members of Congress. Write your newspaper. Talk with
your neighbors. Do not sit back and assume that everything will
work out for the best. If we are going to make a difference, if
we are going to break through the constant beat of rhetoric and
bombast that fills the airwaves each day, we cannot be complacent.
The freedom to dissent, to speak out, and to question is the birthright
of every American
There is a power which can serve as a check against abuses by
a government or by government officials and that power is the
power of the informed citizen -- one who has read enough, who
understands enough, who has developed a base of knowledge against
which to judge truth or falsehood. Participation in the great
debates of our time must not be relegated to the power elites
in Washington. An informed citizenry has to participate, ask questions,
and demand answers and accountability to make a country like ours
work.
Without some base of knowledge upon which to make judgements
about the critical issues that face us, the average citizen will
be buffeted this way and that by spin doctors from the White House,
statements by politicians seeking to please voters, and daily
news coverage and talk shows which often have an editorial agenda.
I say, for the sake of our country, arm yourself with information.
Especially with an Administration which has a demonstrated penchant
for secrecy, our people must be vigilant. We must resist excessive
invasion of personal privacy because of a well-intentioned zealousness
by government to hunt down terrorists, and we must question the
necessity of all measures which seem extreme.
Dictators and despots triumph when the people become complacent,
drop their guards, and leave government to "the powers that
be." Remember, sheep could never be peacefully led to slaughter
if they could ask where they were headed and get an honest answer.
It is up to each citizen to do what he or she can to provide
that all-important check on power, the wisdom of the people.
Question Two: How can we stop the right wing revolution of
George W. Bush?
-- Elizabeth C. Mark, Alexandria, VA
Ms. Mark, you are not alone in your frustrations. Many Americans
are concerned about what they see as a bias in the media.
There are voices in the media that seek to present an alternative
point of view. But too often, these men and women are sent packing
because their corporate bosses fear a commercial backlash.
I do not question the media's right to report on stories and
to have talk shows which express opinion. That right is clearly
laid out in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. "Congress
shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press." This Amendment, ratified in December, 1791, gives
broad power to the press. Our Constitutional Framers understood
that the Republic would not function properly if the press is
not allowed to operate freely and without intervention from government.
However, the media must also recognize the responsibility it has
to the public that relies so heavily on the information learned
in the daily reports.
The free press must be a fair press. Through the First Amendment,
our Framers guaranteed a free press. We, the people, demand a
fair press, one that meets its responsibilities and our expectations.
A free press cannot exist without the trust of the public it serves.
To win and maintain that trust, the press must be fair in its
work.
As I recently said on the floor of the Senate, the American people
unfortunately are used to political shading, spin, and the usual
chicanery they hear from public officials. They patiently tolerate
it up to a point. But there is a line. The calculated intimidation
which we see so often of late by the "powers that be"
will only keep the loyal opposition quiet for just so long. Because
eventually, like it always does, the truth will emerge. There
is no obstacle that cannot be overcome by the vigorous mind determined
to follow the truth.
Question Three: How can we regain freedom of the press and
airwaves, and restore free public speech and debate? Where are
the liberal intellectuals and think tanks and how could they have
been so easily marginalized?
-- Rev. Gerry Staatemeier, Tucson, AZ
First, let me thank you, Reverend Staatemeier, for your more
than kind remarks. I am humbled by them. The Reverend Mr. Staatemeier
asks a question very similar to that of Ms. Mark. The media. What
to do about the media. This should not come as a great shock but,
while I have a good understanding of the complexities of the Constitution
and the issues facing the nation, I have very little understanding
of the enigma of the modern media. I have often wondered how Daniel
Webster or Henry Clay or James Madison would have come across
on television. How would they do in 20-second sound bites? Yet
their ideas helped to build the foundation for this country. Would
their beliefs have been as strongly followed if all people heard
were short bits and pieces?
These questions have all shared common themes. How can we speak
out? How can we make our voices heard? How can we break through
the barriers that seem to hold back balanced opinion? It is frustrating,
I know. I have, for months, pushed, prodded, and pleaded with
my colleagues to speak out, to let their voices be heard, and
to not be intimidated by this Administration or others who would
criticize.
The best advice I have is to read, listen, and participate. Share
your opinions with your family and friends. Talk at your churches
and community organizations. Not everyone will agree with you.
When there are those who do not, stay civil. Rely on reason, logic,
and facts. And remember, at the end of the day, we are all Americans.
There is far more that unites us than divides us.
Question Four: What can citizens do?
-- Sid Kemp, San Antonio, TX
Mr. Kemp, you ask for specifics. I have already outlined many
of the steps that I think are important: ready; study; write;
talk with your neighbors; contact your lawmakers; ask real questions
and do not settle for half-answers. Stay involved in politics.
Support candidates who share your views. Vote. Get your neighbors
to vote. Each of us has a part in making this government good
by exercising the duty and privilege of the ballot box. We can
show our gratitude for all that our nation means to us by the
quality of our citizenship.
Question Five: Why is Congress giving up its Constitutional
duty?
-- Eli Pariser, New York, NY
Mr. Pariser, your question is one that has vexed me for several
months. The October 11 vote by the Senate to hand over to the
President the authority to solely determine when, where, how,
and why to declare war will go down in history as one of the lowest
points in the Senate's existence. Twenty-three Senators voted
against that resolution. Twenty-three Senators would not walk
away from their Constitutional duties. Reversing that vote will
not be easy, especially in this climate and with this President.
What also concerns me is this new doctrine of preemptive strikes.
I continue to believe that this policy of preemptive strikes is
a dangerous policy that carries unintended consequences. When
America acts unilaterally to enforce its will on other nations,
without an imminent, direct threat to our security and without
regard for the rest of the world or even our traditional allies,
we endanger the peace of the world. America is the world's remaining
superpower. But that unique status does not give America the right
to impose its will whenever and wherever it chooses. We have a
responsibility to lead, not to bully.
As post-war reconstruction moves forward, more than just the
Iraqi nation needs attention. The United States would be well
advised to reconstruct many of the diplomatic relationships that
have been seriously strained because of the doctrine of preemptive
strikes. In the months and years ahead, we will need the world's
support of our allies. We will need assistance in the effort to
stop global terrorism; we will need the goodwill of the world
to foster peaceful resolutions to dangerous situations. It is
especially important that America show the world that we have
the confidence and wisdom to step back from this policy of preemption
and return to the steadier course of diplomatic resolution.
Question Six: Can Democrats offer an alternative vision for
America?
-- Susan Faraone, Chicago, IL
Ms. Faraone, I certainly believe so. We have many brave men and
women in Congress, in state government, and in local government
who are working to improve the lives of their fellow citizens.
And one does not have to be in government to make that difference.
This nation faces daunting challenges in the coming years. The
baby boomer generation will begin to retire in the year 2008.
Because of the demands of that generation, both the Social Security
and Medicare trust funds are expected to be running in the red
by 2016. In 2015, more than 60 million Americans expect to rely
on Social Security as a backbone of their retirement and more
than 45 million Americans will rely on Medicare for their health
care. But what steps have we taken to prepare for this looming
crisis? Not one. Not a single dime is devoted to shoring up Social
Security. Not one penny is directed to pay back the IOUs that
Congress has been putting in the trust fund kitty for so many
years.
Education. We know that 75 percent of our nation's school buildings
are inadequate to meet the needs of our children. In fact, the
average cost of capital investment needed is $3,800 per student.
But are we providing the dollars to build and renovate schools?
No.
The American Society of Civil Engineers has graded the nation's
infrastructure. How did we do? Abysmally. Roads: D-plus. Aviation:
D-minus. Schools: D-minus. Transit: C-minus. Drinking water: D.
Overall, in 10 different areas, the nation's infrastructure received
an average grade of D-plus.
When touting his tax cut packages, the President is fond of saying
that we ought to give the people their money back. I think we
ought to give the people their money's worth. Instead of more
massive tax cuts, we ought to look toward tomorrow and repair
our outdated infrastructure. We ought to help provide for safe
highways and bridges; airports and transit systems that work;
clean air; safe drinking water; and schools that help children
to learn. We ought to plan ahead to insure that Social Security
and Medicare will be available in the long-term.
In his book, The Greatest Generation, Tom Brokaw discusses the
greatness of the generation of Americans of the 1930s and the
1940s. He points out that it was this generation of Americans
who "came of age in the Great Depression when economic despair
hovered over the land like a plague." This was "the
greatest generation any society has ever produced."
Like Mr. Brokaw, I too admire the generation of Americans who
survived the hardships of the Great Depression and won World War
II. They were truly outstanding Americans, a great generation.
I am proud to say that they are my generation.
But ever since reading Mr. Brokaw's book, I can't help but think
of the greatness of not only this generation of Americans, but
the greatness of generation after generation of Americans. It
seems that in every age of our history, Americans have risen to
meet the challenges and the difficulties of their times and to
move our country toward further greatness. We will not fall short
now.
After answering these questions, I am reminded of a poem that
I have recited since my youth. The words were penned by Josiah
Gilbert Holland in the 19th Century, but the message carries forth
into the 21st Century.
God give us men!
A time like this demands strong minds,
great hearts, true faith, and ready hands.
Men whom the lust of office does not kill;
Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;
Men who possess opinions and a will;
Men who have honor; men who will not lie.
Men who can stand before a demagogue
And brave his treacherous flatteries without winking.
Tall men, sun-crowned;
Who live above the fog,
In public duty and in private thinking.
For while the rabble with its thumbworn creeds,
It's large professions and its little deeds,
mingles in selfish strife,
Lo! Freedom weeps!
Wrong rules the land and waiting justice sleeps.
God give us men!
Men who serve not for selfish booty;
But real men, courageous, who flinch not at duty.
Men of dependable character;
Men of sterling worth;
Then wrongs will be redressed, and right will rule the earth.
God Give us Men!
------------------------------
ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free email bulletin providing information,
resources, news, and action ideas on important political issues.
The full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at http://www.moveon.org/
moveonbulletin/; you can subscribe to it at that address.
The MoveOn Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org.
MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect their
lives. MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the
Internet to democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising
public awareness of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots
advocacy campaigns to encourage sound public policies. You can
help decide the direction of MoveOn.org by participating in the
discussion forum at: http:/
/www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223
¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤
Vote to impeach
Humanitarian Crisis Brews
By Judith Coburn
March 23, 2003
While the Pentagon trumpets its victorious race toward Baghdad,
the death, starvation, disease and homelessness that war will
inflict on Iraqi civilians goes unmentioned. In the rush to war,
the Bush administration's plans for the impending humanitarian
crisis are too little, too late.
A recent confidential U.N. planning report for humanitarian relief
in a war-ravaged Iraq predicts that "the collapse of essential
services in Iraq ... could lead to a humanitarian emergency of
proportions well beyond the capacity of U.N. agencies and other
aid organizations." Some 30% of Iraqi children under age
5 -- 1.25 million -- could face death from malnutrition, the report
said.
International aid groups from Oxfam to Refugees International
to the International Rescue Committee echo the U.N. report's alarm.
"This won't be 1991 in the Gulf, not a war in the empty desert;
it'll be a war for the cities and will engulf a people already
vulnerable from 12 years of sanctions," said Erik Gustafson,
a Desert Storm veteran who is executive director of the Education
for Peace in Iraq Center. "Food would be the most urgent
need," said Kenneth H. Bacon, president of Refugees International.
"Iraqis could starve."
The United Nations predicts that military operations would jeopardize
the food sources of 10 million Iraqis, nearly half the country's
population, that only 39% of them would have water even on a rationed
basis, that shortages of fuel and power in cities would shut down
water and sewage systems, that up to 1.45 million refugees could
try to escape Iraq during the war and that some 900,000 could
flee their homes inside the country.
Yet, "All U.N. agencies have been facing severe funding
constraints that are preventing them from reaching even minimum
levels of preparedness," the report concludes.
And this scenario is only a "medium" -- not a "worst"
-- case.
To compare, in the eight months after the Gulf War, according
to a U.S. Census Bureau study, the deaths of 110,000 Iraqi civilians
were linked to the paralysis of the country's urban infrastructure
and lack of food, water and electricity. The study estimated that
more than 10,000 refugees died from disease and starvation.
The first Iraqi civilians to die in the latest conflict were
in Iraqi cities, especially Baghdad, victims of the "shock
and awe" of thousands of precision-guided bombs and missiles.Gen.
Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently
said: "As hard as we try to limit civilian casualties, they
will occur.... People get the idea that this could be antiseptic.
Well, it's not going to be."
About 5,000 Iraqi civilians died in the bombing raids that began
the 1991 war, according to the Census Bureau study. This time,
the Pentagon aims to limit civilian casualties by varying bomb
size, using different fuses and angles of attack to control
blast and taking into account the timing of the assaults. The
Pentagon has good reason to minimize civilian casualties. The
Bush administration's planned democratic rehabilitation of Iraq
cannot take place in a land of hostile civilians.
Still, some military critics remain skeptical about the Pentagon's
faith in high-tech weaponry to limit civilian casualties. Retired
Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, an Army artillery officer for 31 years and
now advisor to the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, said:
"The U.S. military is known for its indiscriminate use of
firepower.... I don't care how accurate the weapons; if you unleash
the kind of barrage they're talking about, a lot of people will
be killed.... We ripped up the infrastructure in Kosovo with 'smart'
bombs [but] remember the Chinese embassy [in Belgrade and] the
refugee column that was hit."
And Myers has admitted that just 60% to 70% of the bombs to be
used in Iraq are "smart" and that 10% of them can be
expected to go awry.
Last week, the Bush administration, after months of entreaties
by the international aid community and Congress, disclosed a few
details about its plans for humanitarian aid in Iraq. Three-million
daily military rations have been sent to Iraq, enough, the administration
claims, to feed Iraqi war refugees. Problem is, this is only enough
food to feed the U.N.-estimated 2 million refugees, which the
administration accepts, for a day and a half. Ramiro Lopes da
Silva, the U.N.'s top official in Iraq, said these supplies, in
addition to the World Food Program's stockpile of food for 250,000
for 10 weeks and extra rations distributed by the Iraqi government
-- aren't enough. After six weeks, he said, "We will have
to feed 10 million people. Eventually, we'll have to feed the
entire population."
The administration has committed about $25 million to a task
the U.N. estimates will cost $200 million for its operations alone.
Other countries have pledged a total of only $30 million. "The
perception that the U.S. government acted unilaterally against
Iraq has greatly chilled humanitarian donations," Sandra
Mitchell of the International Rescue Committee said at a recent
Senate hearing. Even some Republicans, among them Sen. Richard
G. Lugar, have blasted the administration for inadequate aid planning.
The administration said it would work through international aid
groups, but it, along with the U.N., has refused to lift sanctions
against Iraq to allow these groups to prepare for a humanitarian
crisis. The sanctions have forced the U.N. to reject Kurdish pleas
for gas masks. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has thrown up roadblocks
in the Kurdish areas of the north. As a result, unlike in Kosovo
and Afghanistan, only the ill-financed, understaffed U.N. has
been able to stockpile food, medicine and shelter. International
aid groups have been forced to set up operations in Jordan, Iran
and Kuwait.
Despite pleas to the contrary, the White House has put a Pentagon-run
civilian agency in charge of relief efforts and the reconstruction
of Iraq. The Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance
wasn't even created until Jan. 20. Aid groups charge that U.S.
humanitarian aid is so interwoven with the Pentagon's war plans
that many planning documents have been classified, making coordination
with U.S. operations impossible. The EU has, so far, given nothing
because it too doesn't want to appear to support the U.S.-led
war. And the French are already challenging U.S. and British control
over postwar reconstruction, complicating U.N. participation.
The Pentagon's track record on restoring social order after a
war doesn't inspire confidence. "The biggest civilian casualties
of the 1991 Gulf War were after the war," said Gustafson.
"Thirty-five [thousand] to 50,000 Iraqis died."
Though some aid groups, like the International Rescue Committee,
disagree that Iraq's ethnic groups are waiting to carve up Iraq
after the war, most agree that a postwar lawless state would offer
a rich opportunity for score-settling. They doubt U.S. military
forces have the sophistication, skills and training to control
a breakdown in social order.
The unarmed people of Iraq will be the victims.
Judith Coburn, a journalist, has covered war and its effects
on civilians in Indochina, Central America and the Middle East.
Iraq's history of occupation has many Muslims
skeptical
Laura Hubber
Thursday, March 20, 2003
Pomona, Los Angeles County -- The Ahlul Bayt mosque, an unmarked
building between the freeway and a Pomona fast food restaurant,
has been a magnet for Southern California's 3,000 Iraqi Shiite
exiles in recent weeks as they commemorate the death of the sect's
leader, Imam Hussein, more than 1,300 years ago.
Imam Hussein, the grandson of the prophet Mohammed, was martyred
along with 70 followers in present-day Karbala, Iraq, for refusing
to submit to the authority of Caliph Yazid.
With war in their homeland having broken out and fresh blood
being spilled, the feelings of the mosque's members are brimming
over.
Uppermost in their minds is whether the United States will be
another occupier they will have to rebel against or whether it
will bring the self- rule that the Iraqi people have desired for
so long.
IN IRAQ
Shiites comprise more than 60 percent of Iraq's population, and
almost everyone in the community here still has family there.
Most decline to give their names for fear of jeopardizing their
relatives.
Sal, a businessman who has lived in Los Angeles for 40 years,
spoke to his brother in Baghdad over the weekend.
"Saddam (Hussein) told them yesterday that no one can leave
their houses," he said. "They have to stay there like
prisoners. So if (the regime) gets killed, everybody has to get
killed together. He's ruthless, this guy."
Sam, a doctor, just received an ominous letter from his family
in Baghdad, saying: "This is probably the last letter we
send to you. So if we do not write again, we will see you in heaven."
Most Shiites support Saddam Hussein's removal, having had first-hand
acquaintance with his regime's brutality -- but not at any cost.
"War will never create democracy," Sam said. "I
would go to the United Nations and put Saddam on trial."
TALE
Basam Ridha, an actor who had a role in the Gulf War movie "Three
Kings," is spokesman for the Iraqi American Council in California.
Like many Iraqi Shiites, his family was targeted as potential
collaborators after the Iranian revolution in 1979. When his two
older brothers were arrested in 1980, the security service told
the family they were just taking them in for questioning.
"Twenty-three years later, we're still waiting," Ridha
said.
He remembers what happened the last time the Shiites trusted
the United States and answered the first President Bush's call
to rise up against Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War in 1991.
After taking key cities, including Karbala, Saddam Hussein's
army attacked with helicopter gunships, executed thousands of
people (including top clerics),
drained the southern marshlands and killed hundreds who took
refuge in the shrine of Imam Hussein.
"We are still very upset at the first Bush administration,"
Ridha said. "They left us surrounded in the desert in the
middle of nowhere at the mercy of the regime. The Americans attacked
everything except Saddam Hussein, and he's still in power."
FACTOR
Many Shiites believe the United States did not come to their aid
because it believed them susceptible to the virulent anti-Americanism
of the Shiite clerical regime in next-door
