What a strange world we live in...

Nobel Prize For Promises
By Howard Zinn for t r u t h o u t.

"I was dismayed when I heard Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize. A shock, really, to think that a president carrying on wars in two countries and launching military action in a third country (Pakistan), would be given a peace prize. But then I recalled that Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger had all received Nobel Peace Prizes. The Nobel Committee is famous for its superficial estimates and for its susceptibility to rhetoric and empty gestures, while ignoring blatant violations of world peace."

Today at 1pm there will be a big peace concert in the park.

(Complete music schedule below.)

I'll be singing a really short song around 12:30 pm with my friend Audrey Howard.

(We're doing harmonies on a cover of Green Day's Life During Wartime.)

It would be great to have a big turn out for this thing.

I will be video taping portions of it, and audio recording the whole thing.

DJ Praxis will be holding it together all day - MP3 of "dem bonez" -- and most likely spinning while the sun sets after the main show is over.

Michael Franti (Spearhead) goes on at 2:30 pm.

Free Peoples is headlining, and they go on around 4:30 pm.

Here's more about them:

Free Peoples is a Bay Area-based band playing a style fusing bluegrass, folk and jazz. The members come from various projects local to Los Angeles and San Francisco, most notably, Trichromes, Buzz, Spirit Level and Top Four Flights. Tim Sawyer is on lead vocals and Guitar. Johnny Downer plays lead guitar and vocals. Michael DiPirro is on bass and vocals.

Special Guest on Free Peoples new self titled cd includes; Tony Trischka on banjo, Tom Rozum on Mandolin, David Phillips on Dobro and Chad Clouse on fiddle.

Mike D can also be seen with his other project, The Trichromes, featuring Billy Kreutzmann of the Grateful Dead.

(Complete music schedule below.)

Directions
Public Transit: 5 Fulton to 30th Avenue. It is a very short downhill block to J.F.K.
Drive and you're there!

If you are driving the park is open for traffic west of 19th Avenue and it
is easiest to find the meadow if you enter from Fulton St. and 30th Avenue.

Complete Music Schedule

12:30 pm Lisa Rein and Audrey Howard (like if you blink, you'll miss us :-)

12:45 pm Ara Avakian (singer/songwriter) &
Eric Hellweg (singer/songwriter)

1:00 pm DJ Praxis

1:20 pm Irina and MNO - World Music Meets Electronica Laptops + live

1:40 pm Pushing Destinations hip-hop

2:00 pm Andrea Pritchett

2:30 pm Michael Franti

3:00 pm Red Guard

3:35 pm Raz K’dee

3:50 pm Deep (Hip Hop)

4:05 pm Shailja Patel (South Asian Spoken word)

4:20 pm Samantha Hynes (Student from Oakland High School)

4:35 pm Free Peoples bluegrass/folk/jazz mix

I'll have photos and hi-res and audio up soon, but I didn't want to sit on this any longer so here's
My Video Directory for April 5, 2003 in Oakland, CA.

Right now I have a complete ("all") version of Barbara Lee's speech.

An "edited" version of Barbara Lee's speech that includes all of the major quotes without waiting for the crowd to finish clapping and all of the thank you's.

The edited version broken down into two parts for easier download.

and...

Then I have Harry's Belafonte's entire speech in two parts.

The file names should be pretty self-explanatory, but I'll be putting up a better interface up in the morning.

Peace!

Update: 3/27/03, 12:43pm -- Damn, I thought this story had just happened when I posted it this morning -- which is why I was so shocked. Luckily, a reader tipped me off that the story was from a while ago. So, although I think it's relevant to what's going on now, the story itself is not going on now, so I thought I'd better clarify that. (I don't want anybody to make the same mistake I did -- and I want to be able to do this news thing right when I attempt to do it.)

The above is just a longwinded way of saying that this story is from November 13, 2001.

Now I have to take this story out of "Peace Watch" and create some other category for these kinds of stories. There's nothing peaceful about this story or some of the other stories I've been posting in Peace Watch and I guess I'm going to have to create another friggin' category for all of this violent and humanitarian/casualties of war type stuff. That really sucks, but it's the way it's got to be. Peace Watch is supposed to be about diplomacy-related happenings. There simply aren't any right now. So I shouldn't clutter my hopeful category with violent stories as if somehow the violence is going to lead to peace.

Al-Jazeera Kabul offices hit in US raid

This office has been known by everybody, the American airplanes know the location of the office, they know we are broadcasting from there

Al-Jazeera Managing Director Mohammed Jasim al-Ali
The Qatar-based satellite channel, which gained global fame for its exclusive access to Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban, announced that none of its staff had been wounded.

But al-Jazeera's managing director Mohammed Jasim al-Ali, told BBC News Online that the channel's 12 employees in Kabul were out of contact.

Mr Jasim would not speculate as to whether the offices were deliberately targeted, but said the location of the bureau was widely known by everyone, including the Americans...

Al-Jazeera has a reputation for outspoken, independent reporting - in stark contrast to the Taleban's views of the media as a propaganda and religious tool.

But the channel has been viewed with suspicion by politicians in the West and envy by media organisations ever since the start of the US-led military action in Afghanistan...

The banner of al-Jazeera
The channel says its guiding principles are "diversity of viewpoints and real-time news coverage"

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1653887.stm

Tuesday, 13 November, 2001, 13:48 GMT
Al-Jazeera Kabul offices hit in US raid
Afghan boy in the ruins of the al-Jazeera office
The channel says everybody knew where the office was, including the Americans
The Kabul offices of the Arab satellite al-Jazeera channel have been destroyed by a US missile.

This office has been known by everybody, the American airplanes know the location of the office, they know we are broadcasting from there

Al-Jazeera Managing Director Mohammed Jasim al-Ali
The Qatar-based satellite channel, which gained global fame for its exclusive access to Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban, announced that none of its staff had been wounded.

But al-Jazeera's managing director Mohammed Jasim al-Ali, told BBC News Online that the channel's 12 employees in Kabul were out of contact.

Mr Jasim would not speculate as to whether the offices were deliberately targeted, but said the location of the bureau was widely known by everyone, including the Americans.

He also expressed concern at reports that Northern Alliance fighters were singling out Arabs in the city since they took over early on Tuesday.

Critical situation

The station said in an earlier report the bureau had been hit by shells when the Afghan opposition forces entered the capital.

Al-Jazeera confirmed later that it was a US missile that destroyed the building and damaged the homes of some employees.

Al-Jazeera presenter
The station has been viewed with suspicion in the West for its access to the Taleban
"The situation is very critical," Mr Jasim told the BBC from the channel's offices in Doha.

"This office has been known by everybody, the American airplanes know the location of the office, they know we are broadcasting from there," he said.

He said there had been no contact with Kabul correspondent Taysir Alluni because all their equipment had been destroyed.

The Northern Alliance has reportedly ordered most reporters in Kabul to gather at the Inter-Continental Hotel.

"Now that the Northern Alliance has taken over, it is too dangerous," Mr Jasim said, adding that he had heard that some Arabs had been killed.

Taleban withdrawal

Earlier, al-Jazeera correspondent Yusuf al-Shuli quoted Taleban officials in their southern stronghold of Kandahar as saying they had withdrawn from the cities to spare the civilians air bombardment and acts of vengeance by the Northern Alliance.

Al-Jazeera footage of three boys reported to be Bin Laden's sons
Al-Jazeera said these three boys are Bin Laden's sons
"They told us that reoccupying these cities will not take long once the air cover that supports the Northern Alliance is over," he said.

He said there was a "mixture of anger, despair, and disappointment among most people" in Kandahar at the fall of Kabul, but the situation there was calm.

Al-Jazeera has a reputation for outspoken, independent reporting - in stark contrast to the Taleban's views of the media as a propaganda and religious tool.

But the channel has been viewed with suspicion by politicians in the West and envy by media organisations ever since the start of the US-led military action in Afghanistan.

Exclusive access

For a time it was the only media outlet with any access to Taleban-held territory and the Islamic militia itself.

It broadcast the only video pictures of Afghan demonstrators attacking and setting fire to the US embassy in Kabul on 26 September.

The banner of al-Jazeera
The channel says its guiding principles are "diversity of viewpoints and real-time news coverage"
Most controversially, it was the first channel to air video tapes of Osama Bin Laden urging Muslims to rise up against the West in a holy war.

Last week it showed footage of three young boys reported to be Bin Laden's sons.

Western governments at one stage warned that the channel was being used by the al-Qaeda network to pass on coded messages to supporters around the world.

This is probably a long shot guys, but we're only talking about sending an email.

Estimated time commitment: 10 seconds.

Subject: URGENT: Potential stop-the-war vote in Congress

Friends and Concerned Americans,

Against all odds, there were enough signatures, e-mails telegrams and
phone calls within the last 24 hours to Congressman Dennis J.Kucinich
of Ohio to persuade him to introduce before the House of
Representatives
in Washington, D.C. a little known resolution that deprives the
President of his authority to wage war.

However, we must now persuade Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
that there is a growing consensus if not a plurality to mandate the
resolution for a House ballot.

Therefore, please take a moment to e-mail Speaker Hastert by simply
saying, "I am in favor of introducing HJ Resolution 20 for a vote."

Speaker Hastert's e-mail:
Speaker@mail.house.gov

Please do this NOW.
And please forward to every other concerned citizen you know

Ha! Another media disinformation campaign. A friend was telling me how he was hearing that "everyone was booing" when Moore took advantage of this rare opportunity to sneak some truth out to the nation.

You can listen and decide for yourself, but I hear as much clapping as booing as our fearless leader, right on schedule, says what needed to be said.

I don't even know if this is a complete clip yet, but I wanted to make it available for you asap: Michael Moore At The Oscars

There's a video stream of Q and A with Michael afterwards here too.

(Thanks to The Rattler and Kevin Burton for help finding this stuff.)

Mary Ann Wright's Letter of Resignation to Colin Powell

I firmly believe the probability of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction is low, as he knows that using those weapons will trigger an immediate, strong and justified international response. There will be no question of action against Saddam in that case. I strongly disagree with the use of a “preemptive attack” against Iraq and believe that this preemptive attack policy will be used against us and provide justification for individuals and groups to “preemptively attack” America and American citizens...

I disagree with the Administration’s policies on Unnecessary Curtailment of Rights in America

Further, I cannot support the Administration’s unnecessary curtailment of civil rights following September 11. The investigation of those suspected of ties with terrorist organizations is critical but the legal system of America for 200 years has been based on standards that provide protections for persons during the investigation period. Solitary confinement without access to legal counsel cuts the heart out of the legal foundation on which our country stands. Additionally, I believe the Administration’s secrecy in the judicial process has created an atmosphere of fear to speak out against the gutting of the protections on which America was built and the protections we encourage other countries to provide to their citizens...

I have served my country for almost thirty years in the some of the most isolated and dangerous parts of the world. I want to continue to serve America. However, I do not believe in the policies of this Administration and cannot defend or implement them. It is with heavy heart that I must end my service to America and therefore resign due to the Administration’s policies.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0303/032103wright.htm

March 21, 2003

The following is a copy of Mary (Ann) Wright’s letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wright was most recently the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. She helped open the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, in January 2002.

U.S. Embassy
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
March 19, 2003

Secretary of State Colin Powell
US Department of State
Washington, DC 20521

Dear Secretary Powell:

When I last saw you in Kabul in January, 2002 you arrived to officially open the US Embassy that I had helped reestablish in December, 2001 as the first political officer. At that time I could not have imagined that I would be writing a year later to resign from the Foreign Service because of US policies. All my adult life I have been in service to the United States. I have been a diplomat for fifteen years and the Deputy Chief of Mission in our Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan (briefly) and Mongolia. I have also had assignments in Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Grenada and Nicaragua. I received the State Department’s Award for Heroism as Charge d’Affaires during the evacuation of Sierra Leone in 1997. I was 26 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and participated in civil reconstruction projects after military operations in Grenada, Panama and Somalia. I attained the rank of Colonel during my military service.

This is the only time in my many years serving America that I have felt I cannot represent the policies of an Administration of the United States. I disagree with the Administration’s policies on Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea and curtailment of civil liberties in the U.S. itself. I believe the Administration’s policies are making the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place. I feel obligated morally and professionally to set out my very deep and firm concerns on these policies and to resign from government service as I cannot defend or implement them.

I hope you will bear with my explanation of why I must resign. After thirty years of service to my country, my decision to resign is a huge step and I want to be clear in my reasons why I must do so.

I disagree with the Administration’s policies on Iraq

I wrote this letter five weeks ago and held it hoping that the Administration would not go to war against Iraq at this time without United Nations Security Council agreement. I strongly believe that going to war now will make the world more dangerous, not safer.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator and has done incredible damage to the Iraqi people and others of the region. I totally support the international community’s demand that Saddam’s regime destroy weapons of mass destruction.

However, I believe we should not use US military force without UNSC agreement to ensure compliance. In our press for military action now, we have created deep chasms in the international community and in important international organizations. Our policies have alienated many of our allies and created ill will in much of the world.

Countries of the world supported America’s action in Afghanistan as a response to the September 11 Al Qaida attacks on America. Since then, America has lost the incredible sympathy of most of the world because of our policy toward Iraq. Much of the world considers our statements about Iraq as arrogant, untruthful and masking a hidden agenda. Leaders of moderate Moslem/Arab countries warn us about predicable outrage and anger of the youth of their countries if America enters an Arab country with the purpose of attacking Moslems/Arabs, not defending them. Attacking the Saddam regime in Iraq now is very different than expelling the same regime from Kuwait, as we did ten years ago.

I strongly believe the probable response of many Arabs of the region and Moslems of the world if the US enters Iraq without UNSC agreement will result in actions extraordinarily dangerous to America and Americans. Military action now without UNSC agreement is much more dangerous for America and the world than allowing the UN weapons inspections to proceed and subsequently taking UNSC authorized action if warranted.

I firmly believe the probability of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction is low, as he knows that using those weapons will trigger an immediate, strong and justified international response. There will be no question of action against Saddam in that case. I strongly disagree with the use of a “preemptive attack” against Iraq and believe that this preemptive attack policy will be used against us and provide justification for individuals and groups to “preemptively attack” America and American citizens.

The international military build-up is providing pressure on the regime that is resulting in a slow, but steady disclosure of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). We should give the weapons inspectors time to do their job. We should not give extremist Moslems/ Arabs a further cause to hate America, or give moderate Moslems a reason to join the extremists. Additionally, we must reevaluate keeping our military forces in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia. Their presence on the Islamic “holy soil” of Saudi Arabia will be an anti-American rally cry for Moslems as long as the US military remains and a strong reason, in their opinion, for actions against the US government and American citizens.

Although I strongly believe the time in not yet right for military action in Iraq, as a soldier who has been in several military operations, I hope General Franks, US and coalition forces can accomplish the missions they will be ordered do without loss of civilian or military life and without destruction of the Iraqi peoples’ homes and livelihood.

I strongly urge the Department of State to attempt again to stop the policy that is leading us to military action in Iraq without UNSC agreement. Timing is everything and this is not yet the time for military action.

I disagree with the Administration’s lack of effort in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Likewise, I cannot support the lack of effort by the Administration to use its influence to resurrect the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As Palestinian suicide bombers kill Israelis and Israeli military operations kill Palestinians and destroy Palestinian towns and cities, the Administration has done little to end the violence. We must exert our considerable financial influence on the Israelis to stop destroying cities and on the Palestinians to curb its youth suicide bombers. I hope the Administration’s long-needed “Roadmap for Peace” will have the human resources and political capital needed to finally make some progress toward peace.

I disagree with the Administration’s lack of policy on North Korea

Additionally, I cannot support the Administration’s position on North Korea. With weapons, bombs and missiles, the risks that North Korea poses are too great to ignore. I strongly believe the Administration’s lack of substantive discussion, dialogue and engagement over the last two years has jeopardized security on the peninsula and the region. The situation with North Korea is dangerous for us to continue to neglect.

I disagree with the Administration’s policies on Unnecessary Curtailment of Rights in America

Further, I cannot support the Administration’s unnecessary curtailment of civil rights following September 11. The investigation of those suspected of ties with terrorist organizations is critical but the legal system of America for 200 years has been based on standards that provide protections for persons during the investigation period. Solitary confinement without access to legal counsel cuts the heart out of the legal foundation on which our country stands. Additionally, I believe the Administration’s secrecy in the judicial process has created an atmosphere of fear to speak out against the gutting of the protections on which America was built and the protections we encourage other countries to provide to their citizens.

Resignation

I have served my country for almost thirty years in the some of the most isolated and dangerous parts of the world. I want to continue to serve America. However, I do not believe in the policies of this Administration and cannot defend or implement them. It is with heavy heart that I must end my service to America and therefore resign due to the Administration’s policies.

Mr. Secretary, to end on a personal note, under your leadership, we have made great progress in improving the organization and administration of the Foreign Service and the Department of State. I want to thank you for your extraordinary efforts to that end. I hate to leave the Foreign Service, and I wish you and our colleagues well.

Very Respectfully,

Mary A. Wright, FO-01

Deputy Chief of Mission
US Embassy
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

CONTEMPLATING WAR IN THE LAND OF PEACE

...This is a continuation of the same national system of denial that we
began to construct during Gulf War I. Ask a knowledgeable American
how many people died in that conflict and you will probably be told
that the death toll was somewhere around 150. (I seem to recall 138
American fatalities.)

You will probably not hear about the roughly 400,000 Iraqis we killed
during that bully outing. You will almost certainly not hear about
the retreating column of almost 50,000 Iraqi soldiers that were
incinerated on the highway from Kuwait on the orders of war
criminal-turned-Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey. While I think that Gulf
War I may have been justified and even necessary, the fact that we
were able to conduct it with so little empathic memory does not bode
well for Gulf War II. We should still be in mourning for all the
unwilling conscripts who died at the point of our surgically sharp
sword rather than wielding it again with so much less moral
justification.

But this is just one aspect of how we have blunted our national
conscience with media. Even more dangerous is our new willingness to
believe that America's agenda is more important than the preservation
of international law. The United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits
one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the
sanction of the UN Security Council. If our attack of Iraq is
self-defense, then I would be equally innocent if I returned to
Wyoming and killed everyone in Pinedale who is well-armed, doesn't
like me, and beats his wife. (This would require quite a killing
spree...)

Even if this war is so sophisticated that very few "collateral
damages" are inflicted, even if the Ba'ath regime folds immediately
and our troops enter Baghdad festooned in the garlands of a grateful
and liberated populace, even in the extremely unlikely event that we
find a cache of Iraqi nuclear weapons, all packed up for delivery to
Al -Qa'ida , it will still be illegal and immoral. Victory will not
change that.

It is also profoundly impractical, when one considers the larger consequences.

Even if victory is swift and painless , we will have wounded, perhaps
mortally, the peace-waging capacity of the United Nations.

We will have sewn deep discord within the European Union and badly
damaged relations with two of our most important allies, France and
Germany.

We will have destroyed remaining popular support for the governments
of Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, our three most important allies
in the Middle East.

We will have established - and not only for ourselves - the
legitimacy of preemptive attack.

We will have radicalized half a billion young Muslims, transforming a
monster into a martyr in their eyes.

We will have installed ourselves as the rulers of an energy colony
that will not be easy to govern, given the bitter - and, to us,
inscrutable - divisions that exist between its Shiites, its Sunni,
and its Kurds.

We will have brought ourselves to the brink of active hostilities
with Turkey, formerly a strong ally.

We will have bankrupted the teetering American economy.

We will have inserted long-term instability in world financial and
energy markets.

We will have devalued the currency of American moral authority to the
vanishing point. We will have turned America, long the hope of the
world, into the most feared and hated of nations. We will have traded
our national capacity to inspire for a mere capacity to intimidate.

And for what? To avenge 9/11 by punishing a regime that had no proven
role in it? Out of humane concern for the Iraqi people, whom we have
been, by our own policies, starving and impoverishing for the last
decade? In order to destroy possibly mythical "weapons of mass
destruction" in Iraq, even while we abide their proven existence in
such potentially irrational countries as Pakistan, Israel, India,
France, and, hardly least, the United States? The Administration
attacked before it ever provided a justification that would satisfy
any but the most TV-enchanted Christian soldier.

From: John Perry Barlow
Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:04:55 PM US/Pacific
To: barlowfriendz@eff.org, John Perry Barlow
Subject: [BarlowFriendz] 9.2: War and Paz, the View from Brazil
Reply-To: barlow@eff.org

CONTEMPLATING WAR IN THE LAND OF PEACE

I was deep in the heart of Brazil when I got the news.

I was in a serene little jewel of a former diamond-mining town called
Lençois. It's located in a remote part of Brazil's Bahia state called
the Chapada Diamantina, improbably beautiful country that would look
like Monument Valley if the buttes and spires of Southern Utah rose
from a blanket of rain forest.

I had been completely out of touch with the rest of the world for
three days at the International Rainbow Gathering, held even deeper
in the Chapada, eight hours of astonishingly bad road away from
Lençois.

But even if I'd been in downtown São Paulo, the events in Baghdad
would have seemed distant. Brazil is a floating world, a parallel
universe of such size and cultural density that little enters or
escapes its gravitational field. It is well accustomed to shrugging
at Northern madnesses and continuing to pursue its own profoundly
complex affairs.

Brazil is the world's largest Inside Joke. It is, to those who get
it, sufficiently involving to render even such external
considerations as the possible outbreak of Armageddon slightly
irrelevant.

Besides, it seems to have an instinct for peace that runs the length
of its history and is wisely aware that even opposing the bellicose
behavior of less enlightened cultures adds energy to the cyclone of
war. Brazil doesn't study war no more. The only organized conflict
Brazil is likely to enter involves no weapon more lethal than a
soccer ball.

The cobble-stoned streets of Lençois were filling with the nightly
promenade of beautiful, chocolate-skinned young people when my cell
phone rang. "The war has started," said Lotte, my former Swedeheart,
in a voice as bleak as a Strindberg play.

Immediately, I lunged for a fat information feed, but there was
little to be had. The pousada where I was staying didn't have a
phone, so I couldn't jack my computer into the Internet. I found a
television, which is never hard to do in Brazil, but of course I
couldn't find one with any English programming. Why waste a channel
on CNN? Absolutely no one here speaks English and they certainly
don't need any more hallucinatory propaganda from The North.

What news I could find in Portuguese seemed to regard the outbreak of
American aggression against Iraq as just another news story. It was
nothing worth preempting the evening's soap operas over. I went to
bed even more in the dark than usual.

I had another 8 hour drive to Salvador the next day. I scanned the
radio constantly for news and heard little. I did hear President Lula
de Silva making a statement in the matter, which I later leaned
contained this perfectly reasonable statement: "All of us want for
Iraq not to have atomic weapons or weapons of mass destruction," he
said, "but that does not give the United States the right to decide
by itself what is good and what is bad for the world."

Now I'm Rio. I know everything that CNN and the New York Times web
site permit me to know, which seems to include things that might not
be true.

I know that, according to the Gallup poll, 76% of the American people
support the attack on Iraq. (Since I can only think of 5 people in my
considerable multitude of diverse acquaintance who share this
opinion, I have to wonder about this figure.)

I know that we can turn Baghdad - a town with 2 and a half million
children - into telegenic Disney Hell with several thousand tons of
high explosives and injure only Bad Guys. (Indeed, watching CNN, one
might wonder if anyone gets injured at all in this marvelously
surgical new form of war.)

I know that we have a lot of really cool toys in our arsenal. I know
that A-10 Warthog can fire over a thousand rounds a minute. (Though
no one in the media has mentioned that each of these bullets consists
of depleted uranium that will be radiating birth defects into the
Iraqi gene pool for many generations.)

I know that the only truly powerful country on the planet is
continuing to manufacture the perilous, conscience-stunting myth that
technology can make war relatively safe. Indeed, we are so delusional
on this subject that we believe that bombing the shit out of the
Iraqis is a humanitarian act.

This is a continuation of the same national system of denial that we
began to construct during Gulf War I. Ask a knowledgeable American
how many people died in that conflict and you will probably be told
that the death toll was somewhere around 150. (I seem to recall 138
American fatalities.)

You will probably not hear about the roughly 400,000 Iraqis we killed
during that bully outing. You will almost certainly not hear about
the retreating column of almost 50,000 Iraqi soldiers that were
incinerated on the highway from Kuwait on the orders of war
criminal-turned-Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey. While I think that Gulf
War I may have been justified and even necessary, the fact that we
were able to conduct it with so little empathic memory does not bode
well for Gulf War II. We should still be in mourning for all the
unwilling conscripts who died at the point of our surgically sharp
sword rather than wielding it again with so much less moral
justification.

But this is just one aspect of how we have blunted our national
conscience with media. Even more dangerous is our new willingness to
believe that America's agenda is more important than the preservation
of international law. The United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits
one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the
sanction of the UN Security Council. If our attack of Iraq is
self-defense, then I would be equally innocent if I returned to
Wyoming and killed everyone in Pinedale who is well-armed, doesn't
like me, and beats his wife. (This would require quite a killing
spree...)

Even if this war is so sophisticated that very few "collateral
damages" are inflicted, even if the Ba'ath regime folds immediately
and our troops enter Baghdad festooned in the garlands of a grateful
and liberated populace, even in the extremely unlikely event that we
find a cache of Iraqi nuclear weapons, all packed up for delivery to
Al -Qa'ida , it will still be illegal and immoral. Victory will not
change that.

It is also profoundly impractical, when one considers the larger consequences.

Even if victory is swift and painless , we will have wounded, perhaps
mortally, the peace-waging capacity of the United Nations.

We will have sewn deep discord within the European Union and badly
damaged relations with two of our most important allies, France and
Germany.

We will have destroyed remaining popular support for the governments
of Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, our three most important allies
in the Middle East.

We will have established - and not only for ourselves - the
legitimacy of preemptive attack.

We will have radicalized half a billion young Muslims, transforming a
monster into a martyr in their eyes.

We will have installed ourselves as the rulers of an energy colony
that will not be easy to govern, given the bitter - and, to us,
inscrutable - divisions that exist between its Shiites, its Sunni,
and its Kurds.

We will have brought ourselves to the brink of active hostilities
with Turkey, formerly a strong ally.

We will have bankrupted the teetering American economy.

We will have inserted long-term instability in world financial and
energy markets.

We will have devalued the currency of American moral authority to the
vanishing point. We will have turned America, long the hope of the
world, into the most feared and hated of nations. We will have traded
our national capacity to inspire for a mere capacity to intimidate.

And for what? To avenge 9/11 by punishing a regime that had no proven
role in it? Out of humane concern for the Iraqi people, whom we have
been, by our own policies, starving and impoverishing for the last
decade? In order to destroy possibly mythical "weapons of mass
destruction" in Iraq, even while we abide their proven existence in
such potentially irrational countries as Pakistan, Israel, India,
France, and, hardly least, the United States? The Administration
attacked before it ever provided a justification that would satisfy
any but the most TV-enchanted Christian soldier.

As you BarlowFriendz know, I thought Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld were
bluffing. I still think they were. But they painted themselves into
a terrible corner by failing to recognize the irrationality and
intransigence of Saddam Hussein as well as the powerlessness of his
people. When all their terrorism failed to either frighten him into
exile or frighten the Iraqis into thinking it would be safer to
attempt his overthrow, they had no choice but to pursue bluster by
another means, to paraphrase Von Clauswitz. (In his press conference
today, Rumsfeld said, repeatedly, words that amounted to: "Ok, we're
getting really mad now. If you don't pack up and go, Saddam, we'll do
something truly shocking and awful." As if we hadn't already...

Now, of course, these events have acquired all the terrible machinery
of tragedy. They have become horrible juggernaut that will roll
across the world leaving horror and change, mostly for the worse, in
its tracks. I doubt that even Dick Cheney could stop it now.

Meanwhile, life goes gloriously on in Brazil. While the North erupted
on Saturday in war and angry protests against war, Brazil was mainly
concerned with the championship match between São Paulo and
Corinthes. Indeed, the only visible war protest I saw were some
banners in the audience at the soccer game. (Though Michael Moore got
a huge cheer from the Oscar party I attended tonight when he took
after George Bush...)

As you might expect, I have much more to report from down here, where
I've now spent an utterly transforming month. Until now, I've been
having too much fun having adventures to spend my energies on turning
them into information.

I have just taken what is almost certainly the best short course in
Brazilian culture that anyone ever received. Just experiencing
Carnival - in Salvador, Recife, Olinda, Rio, and São Paulo - in the
immediate and continuous company of Gilberto Gil would have been a
lot. In addition to being the Minister of Culture, Gil *is* Brazil in
a way. In his music, his open heart, his sweetly melancholy optimism,
his energy, he represents everything this place rightly loves about
itself.

If Gilberto Gil were a member of our cabinet - if we had the kind of
country that would make him a member of the cabinet - we would be
waging peace rather than war and the world would be a lot more like
Brazil. One can only hope that one day it will be.

Paz e Amor,

Barlow

--
John Perry Barlow, Cognitive Dissident
Co-Founder & Vice Chairman, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Berkman Fellow, Harvard Law School

Home(stead) Page: http://www.eff.org/~barlow

**************************************************************

O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth
to battle-be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth
from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O
Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with
our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms
of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with
the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste
their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the
hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to
turn them out roofless with their little children to wander
unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and
thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of
winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the
refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord,
blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter
pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears,
stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it,
in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is
ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek
His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

-- Mark Twain

Is this all about Saddam switching to the Euro?

Mmmmnnahh--could be?!

"Not Oil, But Dollars vs. Euros"

America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross
exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it trotted out its litany of
paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its two supporters,
Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and reversed its position
with a barefaced contempt for its audience. It has manipulated information,
deceived by commission and omission and frantically "bought" UN votes with
billion dollar bribes.

Faced with the failure of gaining UN Security Council support for invading
Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without authorisation. It would act
in breach of the UN's very constitution to allegedly enforced UN
resolutions.

It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from?

There are many things driving President Bush and his administration to
invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But the
biggest one is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency used
to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in
the foreseeable future -- the USA or the European Union.

Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a
monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but
Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and
profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and
its euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant
economic power in the world all but impregnable.

It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/20/1330253&mode=nested

The Info Exchange provides original content and links to important or interesting stories on the net. This main page includes featured stories and links to content in the Events, News, Reviews, and Analysis & Polemic sections, and a special section, "At the Brink," dealing with the events of Sept. 11th. Not every article posted to the InfoExchange appears on the front page, some will only show up in their section.

Also provided are links to other independent media on the net. Those boxes are automatically updated with content chosen by the people running those sites.

By becoming a registered user you can customize this page to include other media outlets currently supporting the RSS/RDF XML syndication standard. Click here to see all of the currently available news feeds. (And if you know of any other interesting sites that we should add email us at info@interactivist.net)

Registered users get to submit articles and post comments using their nickname, while others can only post as Anonymous Comrade. As well, registered users are able to moderate (rate or rank) comments posted to the site.

Anyone can submit stories or links, or post comments to stories. Comments to posted stories go up automatically. Submitted stories are posted by the editorial collective; in this way, we can keep the editorial focus of this site consistent, while allowing for a free exchange of ideas.

This site is a cooperative effort of: Autonomedia, ABC No Rio, The Interactivist Network, and Nomad Media Lab.

Geoffrey Heard, "Not Oil, But Dollars vs. Euros"
posted by jim on Thursday March 20, @03:29AM
Printer-friendly layout | email this story
from the "money-money-money-money" dept.
News Aonymous Comrade writes:

"Not Oil, But Dollars vs. Euros"
Geoffrey Heard

Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does his
administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes sense when you
consider the economic implications for the USA of not going to war with
Iraq. The war in Iraq is actually the US and Europe going head to head on
economic leadership of the world.

America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross
exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it trotted out its litany of
paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its two supporters,
Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and reversed its position
with a barefaced contempt for its audience. It has manipulated information,
deceived by commission and omission and frantically "bought" UN votes with
billion dollar bribes.

Faced with the failure of gaining UN Security Council support for invading
Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without authorisation. It would act
in breach of the UN's very constitution to allegedly enforced UN
resolutions.

It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from?

There are many things driving President Bush and his administration to
invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But the
biggest one is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency used
to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in
the foreseeable future -- the USA or the European Union.

Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a
monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but
Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and
profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and
its euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant
economic power in the world all but impregnable.

It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times.

America's allies in the invasion, Britain and Australia, are betting America
will win and that they will get some trickle-down benefits for jumping on to
the US bandwagon.

France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force -- Russia would
like to go European but possibly can still be bought off.

Presumably, China would like to see the Europeans build a share of
international trade currency ownership at this point while it continues to
grow its international trading presence to the point where it, too, can
share the leadership rewards.

DEBATE BUILDING ON THE INTERNET

Oddly, little or nothing is appearing in the general media about this issue,
although key people are becoming aware of it -- note the recent slide in the
value of the US dollar. Are traders afraid of war? They are more likely to
be afraid there will not be war.

But despite the silence in the general media, a major world discussion is
developing around this issue, particularly on the internet. Among the many
articles: Henry Liu, in the 'Asia Times' last June, it has been a hot topic
on the Feasta forum, an Irish-based group exploring sustainable economics,
and W. Clark's "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A
Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth" has been
published by the 'Sierra Times', 'Indymedia.org', and 'ratical.org'.

This debate is not about whether America would suffer from losing the US
dollar monopoly on oil trading -- that is a given -- rather it is about
exactly how hard the USA would be hit. The smart money seems to be saying
the impact would be in the range from severe to catastrophic. The USA could
collapse economically.

OIL DOLLARS

The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil.

Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971
(after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US dollar the de
facto major international trading currency. If other nations have to hoard
dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other trading too.
This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the
dominant economy in the world.

As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the USA's
economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the dollar in
international markets. However, the EU is not yet united behind the euro --
there is a lot of jingoistic national politics involved, not least in
Britain -- and in any case, so long as nations throughout the world must
hoard dollars to buy oil, the euro can make only very limited inroads into
the dollar's dominance.

In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to
trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had
just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on,
alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had
given itself a huge economic free kick by switching.

Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest oil
producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar by
bartering oil with several nations including America's bete noir, Cuba.
Russia is seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe (trading in euros)
an obvious market.

The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world trade in
general, was under serious threat. If America did not stamp on this
immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly be fanned into a wildfire
capable of consuming the US's economy and its dominance of world trade.

HOW DOES THE US GET ITS DOLLAR ADVANTAGE?

Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for
millions of dollars you don't have -- another luxury car, a holiday home at
the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those
cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the
owners of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that they will
accept only your cheques as payment. This means everyone must hoard your
cheques so they can buy petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your
cheques, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a
TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys
some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread,
the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round -- but
never back to the bank.

You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never reaches the
bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV free.

This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years -- it has been getting
a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge
subsidy from everyone else in the world. As it debt has been growing, it has
printed more money (written more cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is
an economic powerhouse!

Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another person's
cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this
spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they will come
flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover
all the cheques, very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!

But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other guy
who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a 'legitimate' excuse,
you can beat the tripes out of the lone gas seller and scare him and his
mates into submission.

And that, in a nutshell, is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq.

AMERICA'S PRECARIOUS ECONOMIC POSITION

America is so eager to attack Iraq now because of the speed with which the
euro fire could spread. If Iran, Venezuela and Russia join Iraq and sell
large quantities of oil for euros, the euro would have the leverage it needs
to become a powerful force in general international trade. Other nations
would have to start swapping some of their dollars for euros.

The dollars the USA has printed, the 'cheques' it has written, would start
to fly home, stripping away the illusion of value behind them. The USA's
real economic condition is about as bad as it could be; it is the most
debt-ridden nation on earth, owing about US$12,000 for every single one of
it's 280 million men, women and children. It is worse than the position of
Indonesia when it imploded economically a few years ago, or more recently,
that of Argentina.

Even if OPEC did not switch to euros wholesale (and that would make a very
nice non-oil profit for the OPEC countries, including minimising the various
contrived debts America has forced on some of them), the US's difficulties
would build. Even if only a small part of the oil trade went euro, that
would do two things immediately:

* Increase the attractiveness to EU members of joining the 'eurozone', which
in turn would make the euro stronger and make it more attractive to oil
nations as a trading currency and to other nations as a general trading
currency.

* Start the US dollars flying home demanding value when there isn't enough
in the bank to cover them.

* The markets would over-react as usual and in no time, the US dollar's
value would be spiralling down.

THE US SOLUTION

America's response to the euro threat was predictable. It has come out
fighting.

It aims to achieve four primary things by going to war with Iraq:

* Safeguard the American economy by returning Iraq to trading oil in US
dollars, so the greenback is once again the exclusive oil currency.

* Send a very clear message to any other oil producers just what will happen
to them if they do not stay in the dollar circle. Iran has already received
one message -- remember how puzzled you were that in the midst of moderation
and secularization, Iran was named as a member of the axis of evil?

* Place the second largest reserves of oil in the world under direct
American control.

* Provide a secular, subject state where the US can maintain a huge force
(perhaps with nominal elements from allies such as Britain and Australia) to
dominate the Middle East and its vital oil. This would enable the US to
avoid using what it sees as the unreliable Turkey, the politically
impossible Israel and surely the next state in its sights, Saudi Arabia, the
birthplace of al Qaeda and a hotbed of anti-American sentiment.

* Severe setback the European Union and its euro, the only trading bloc and
currency strong enough to attack the USA's dominance of world trade through
the dollar.

* Provide cover for the US to run a covert operation to overturn the
democratically elected government of Venezuela and replace it with an
America-friendly military supported junta -- and put Venezuala's oil into
American hands.

Locking the world back into dollar oil trading would consolidate America's
current position and make it all but impregnable as the dominant world
power -- economically and militarily. A splintered Europe (the US is working
hard to split Europe; Britain was easy, but other Europeans have offered
support in terms of UN votes) and its euro would suffer a serious setback
and might take decades to recover.

It is the boldest grab for absolute power the world has seen in modern
times. America is hardly likely to allow the possible slaughter of a few
hundred thousand Iraqis stand between it and world domination.

President Bush did promise to protect the American way of life. This is what
he meant.

JUSTIFYING WAR

Obviously, the US could not simply invade Iraq, so it began casting around
for a 'legitimate' reason to attack. That search has been one of increasing
desperation as each rationalization has crumbled. First Iraq was a threat
because of alleged links to al Qaeda; then it was proposed Iraq might supply
al Qaeda with weapons; then Iraq's military threat to its neighbours was
raised; then the need to deliver Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's horrendously
inhumane rule; finally there is the question of compliance with UN weapons
inspection.

The USA's justifications for invading Iraq are looking less impressive by
the day. The US's statements that it would invade Iraq unilaterally without
UN support and in defiance of the UN make a total nonsense of any American
claim that it is concerned about the world body's strength and standing.

The UN weapons inspectors have come up with minimal infringements of the UN
weapons limitations -- the final one being low tech rockets which exceed the
range allowed by about 20 percent. But there is no sign of the so-called
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) the US has so confidently asserted are to
be found. Colin Powell named a certain north Iraqi village as a threat. It
was not. He later admitted it was the wrong village.

'Newsweek' (24/2) has reported that while Bush officials have been
trumpeting the fact that key Iraqi defector, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, told
the US in 1995 that Iraq had manufactured tonnes of nerve gas and anthrax
(Colin Powell's 5 February presentation to the UN was just one example) they
neglected to mention that Kamel had also told the US that these weapons had
been destroyed.

Parts of the US and particularly the British secret 'evidence' have been
shown to come from a student's masters thesis.

America's expressed concern about the Iraqi people's human rights and the
country's lack of democracy are simply not supported by the USA's history of
intervention in other states nor by its current actions. Think Guatemala,
the Congo, Chile and Nicaragua as examples of a much larger pool of US
actions to tear down legitimate, democratically elected governments and
replace them with war, disruption, starvation, poverty, corruption,
dictatorships, torture, rape and murder for its own economic ends. The most
recent, Afghanistan, is not looking good; in fact that reinstalled a
murderous group of warlords which America had earlier installed, then
deposed, in favour of the now hated Taliban.

Saddam Hussein was just as repressive, corrupt and murderous 15 years ago
when he used chemical weapons, supplied by the US, against the Kurds. The
current US Secretary for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, so vehement against Iraq
now, was on hand personally to turn aside condemnation of Iraq and blame
Iran. At that time, of course, the US thought Saddam Hussein was their
man -- they were using him against the perceived threat of Iran's Islamic
fundamentalism.

Right now, as 'The Independent' writer, Robert Fisk, has noted, the US's
efforts to buy Algeria's UN vote includes promises of re-arming the military
which has a decade long history of repression, torture, rape and murder
Saddam Hussein himself would envy. It is estimated 200,000 people have died,
and countless others been left maimed by the activities of these monsters.
What price the US's humanitarian concerns for Iraqis? (Of course, the French
are also wooing Algeria, their former north African territory, for all they
are worth, but at least they are not pretending to be driven by humanitarian
concerns.)

Indonesia is another nation with a vote and influence as the largest Muslim
nation in the world. Its repressive, murderous military is regaining
strength on the back of the US's so-called anti-terror campaign and is
receiving promises of open and covert support -- including intelligence
sharing.

AND VENEZUELA

While the world's attention is focused on Iraq, America is both openly and
covertly supporting the "coup of the rich" in Venezuela, which grabbed power
briefly in April last year before being intimidated by massive public
displays of support by the poor for democratically-elected President Chavez
Frias. The coup leaders continue to use their control of the private media,
much of industry and the ear of the American Government and its oily
intimates to cause disruption and disturbance.

Venezuela's state-owned oil resources would make rich pickings for American
oil companies and provide the US with an important oil source in its own
backyard.

Many writers have noted the contradiction between America's alleged desire
to establish democracy in Iraq while at the same time, actively undermining
the democratically-elected government in Venezuela. Above the line, America
rushed to recognise the coup last April; more recently, President Bush has
called for "early elections", ignoring the fact that President Chavez Frias
has won three elections and two referendums and, in any case, early
elections would be unconstitutional.

One element of the USA's covert action against Venezuela is the behaviour of
American transnational businesses, which have locked out employees in
support of "national strike" action. Imagine them doing that in the USA!
There is no question that a covert operation is in process to overturn the
legitimate Venezuelan government. Uruguayan congressman, Jose Nayardi, made
it public when he revealed that the Bush administration had asked for
Uruguay's support for Venezuelan white collar executives and trade union
activists "to break down levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias
administration". The process, he noted, was a shocking reminder of the CIA's
1973 intervention in Chile which saw General Pinochet lead his military coup
to take over President Allende's democratically elected government in a
bloodbath.

President Chavez Frias is desperately clinging to government, but with the
might of the USA aligned with his opponents, how long can he last?

THE COST OF WAR

Some have claimed that an American invasion of Iraq would cost so many
billions of dollars that oil returns would never justify such an action.

But when the invasion is placed in the context of the protection of the
entire US economy for now and into the future, the balance of the argument
changes.

Further, there are three other vital factors:

First, America will be asking others to help pay for the war because it is
protecting their interests. Japan and Saudi Arabia made serious
contributions to the cost of the 1991 Gulf war.

Second -- in reality, war will cost the USA very little -- or at least, very
little over and above normal expenditure. This war is already paid for! All
the munitions and equipment have been bought and paid for. The USA would
have to spend hardly a cent on new hardware to prosecute this war -- the
expenditure will come later when munitions and equipment have to be replaced
after the war. But munitions, hardware andso on are being replaced all the
time -- contracts are out. Some contracts will simply be brought forward and
some others will be ramped up a bit, but spread over a few years, the cost
will not be great. And what is the real extra cost of an army at war
compared with maintaining the standing army around the world, running
exercises and so on? It is there, but it is a relatively small sum.

Third -- lots of the extra costs involved in the war are dollars spent
outside America, not least in the purchase of fuel. Guess how America will
pay for these? By printing dollars it is going to war to protect. The same
happens when production begins to replace hardware. components, minerals,
etc. are bought in with dollars that go overseas and exploit America's
trading advantage.

The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The cost of
not going to war would be horrendous for the USA -- unless there were
another way of protecting the greenback's world trade dominance.

AMERICA'S TWO ACTIVE ALLIES

Why are Australia and Britain supporting America in its transparent Iraqi
war ploy?

Australia, of course, has significant US dollar reserves and trades widely
in dollars and extensively with America. A fall in the US dollar would
reduce Australia's debt, perhaps, but would do nothing for the Australian
dollar's value against other currencies. John Howard, the Prime Minister,
has long cherished the dream of a free trade agreement with the USA in the
hope that Australia can jump on the back of the free ride America gets in
trade through the dollar's position as the major trading medium. That would
look much less attractive if the euro took over a significant part of the
oil trade.

Britain has yet to adopt the euro. If the US takes over Iraq and blocks the
euro's incursion into oil trading, Tony Blair will have given his French and
German counterparts a bloody nose, and gained more room to manouevre on the
issue -- perhaps years more room. Britain would be in a position to demand a
better deal from its EU partners for entering the "eurozone" if the new
currency could not make the huge value gains guaranteed by a significant
role in world oil trading. It might even be in a position to withdraw from
Europe and link with America against continental Europe.

On the other hand, if the US cannot maintain the oil trade dollar monopoly,
the euro will rapidly go from strength to strength, and Britain could be
left begging to be allowed into the club.

THE OPPOSITION

Some of the reasons for opposition to the American plan are obvious --
America is already the strongest nation on earth and dominates world trade
through its dollar. If it had control of the Iraqi oil and a base for its
forces in the Middle East, it would not add to, but would multiply its
power.

The oil-producing nations, particularly the Arab ones, can see the writing
on the wall and are quaking in their boots.

France and Germany are the EU leaders with the vision of a resurgent, united
Europe taking its rightful place in the world and using its euro currency as
a world trading reserve currency and thus gaining some of the free ride the
United States enjoys now. They are the ones who initiated the euro oil trade
with Iraq.

Russia is in deep economic trouble and knows it will get worse the day
America starts exploiting its take-over of Afghanistan by running a pipeline
southwards via Afghanistan from the giant southern Caspian oil fields.
Currently, that oil is piped northwards -- where Russia has control.

Russia is in the process of ramping up oil production with the possibility
of trading some of it for euros and selling some to the US itself. Russia
already has enough problems with the fact that oil is traded in US dollars;
if the US has control of Iraqi oil, it could distort the market to Russia's
enormous disadvantage. In addition, Russia has interests in Iraqi oil; an
American take over could see them lost. Already on its knees, Russia could
be beggared before a mile of the Afghanistan pipeline is laid.

ANOTHER SOLUTION?

The scenario clarifies the seriousness of America's position and explains
its frantic drive for war. It also suggests that solutions other than war
are possible.

Could America agree to share the trading goodies by allowing Europe to have
a negotiated part of it? Not very likely, but it is just possible Europe can
stare down the USA and force such an outcome. Time will tell. What about
Europe taking the statesmanlike, humanitarian and long view, and
withdrawing, leaving the oil to the US, with appropriate safeguards for
ordinary Iraqis and democracy in Venezuela?

Europe might then be forced to adopt a smarter approach -- perhaps
accelerating the development of alternative energy technologies which would
reduce the EU's reliance on oil for energy and produce goods it could trade
for euros -- shifting the world trade balance.

Now that would be a very positive outcome for everyone.

. . . .

Geoffrey Heard is a Melbourne, Australia, writer on the environment,
sustainability and human rights. . . . .

Geoffrey Heard (c) 2003. Anyone is free to circulate this document provided it
is complete and in its current form with attribution and no payment is
asked. It is prohibited to reproduce this document or any part of it for
commercial gain without the prior permission of the author. For such
permission, contact the author at gheard@surf.net.au.

SOME REFERENCES AND FURTHER INFORMATION:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth' by W. Clark, January 2003
(revised 20 February), Independent Media Center, www.indymedia.org

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=28 334
This war is about more than oil. OIL DOLLARS!!!! DOLLARS, THE EURO AND WAR
IN IRAQ. This story is based on material posted by Richard Douthwaite on the
FEASTA list in Ireland.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1550023_comme nt.php#1551138
USA intelligence agencies revealed in plot to oust Venezuela's President

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId"

< Text of 'Shock and Awe' On-Line | Brian Holmes, "Practicing Anti-Capitalism" >

Interactivist Info Exchange Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
# http://www.ratical.org/ratvill e/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
# http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bi n/newswire.cgi?id=28 334
# http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2 002/12/1550023_comme nt.php#1551138
# http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId

A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War
By Micheal Moore.

2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.

3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.

4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.

5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!

...Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!

Here is the full text of the letter in case the link goes bad:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php

Monday, March 17, 2003

A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War

George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC

Dear Governor Bush:

So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:

1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!

2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.

3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.

4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.

5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!

6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. -- spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.

Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!

But, hey, who knows -- maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start thinking like THAT! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil!!

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com

I'm a big fan of t r u t h o u t.

These guys are a group of human agents that go out and scour the internet for important articles from reputable sources (like the NY Times, Washinton Post, and other "accepted" sources of the mainstream -- so the powers that be can't just say that we saw it in the lefty news).

When I wake up at 6am. My list of articles is waiting in my mailbox for me.

I doubt I could even put a price on the amount of time they save me every day.

But now they're in trouble, and need your help to stay afloat. They provide their service for free to everyone that needs it, and then they ask for those of us with a little money (read: very little these days) to pitch in even $5 or $10 dollars a month to keep them afloat.

The thought of this organization going away when we need it more than ever prompted me to write this pitch on their behalf: help out if you can.

Here's an ongoing online demonstration you can participate in, if you are so inclined:
Attack Iraq? NO! An Online Demonstration. You can even put a logo on your site to oppose the war. (I'm deep in video footage land right now but am planning on getting on of these up this weekend...

# The way to honor the victims of September 11th is through peace and healing. We must spare additional innocent families the suffering that thousands of American families already have experienced. By continuing to perpetuate the cycle of violence and retaliation, we are doing a grave disservice to the victims of September 11th and their loved ones. [more: 1, 2]

# The best way to support our troops is to bring them home now. [more]

# The only weapon that can save the world is non-violence. [source]

# According to Pentagon figures, a preemptive strike could kill some 10,000 Iraqi civilians not to mention several young American men and women. [source; current body count]

Mr. Powell, there is such a thing as making a mistake. It would appear that, if you can admit to this one mistake, innocent people don't have to die. (The threat to the world is not what you thought, so we can give Iraq more time to disarm, etc.)

Is is really so hard to admit that someone else purposely misled you and the Shrub -- causing you to unknowingly mislead the American people?

We understand that you were acting accordingly, taking what you believed to be the truth into account. But the charade is over. Please let the madness stop.

Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake
U.N. Nuclear Inspector Says Documents on Purchases Were Forged
By Joby Warrick for the Washington Post.

Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.

ElBaradei also rejected a key Bush administration claim -- made twice by the president in major speeches and repeated by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell yesterday -- that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Also, ElBaradei reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.

"There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities," ElBaradei said...

ElBaradei's report yesterday all but ruled out the use of the tubes in a nuclear program. The IAEA chief said investigators had unearthed extensive records that backed up Iraq's explanation. The documents, which included blueprints, invoices and notes from meetings, detailed a 14-year struggle by Iraq to make 81mm conventional rockets that would perform well and resist corrosion. Successive failures led Iraqi officials to revise their standards and request increasingly higher and more expensive metals, ElBaradei said.

Moreover, further work by the IAEA's team of centrifuge experts -- two Americans, two Britons and a French citizen -- has reinforced the IAEA's conclusion that the tubes were ill suited for centrifuges. "It was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable redesign needed to use them in a revived centrifuge program," ElBaradei said.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59403-2003Mar7.html

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A01

A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.

Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.

ElBaradei also rejected a key Bush administration claim -- made twice by the president in major speeches and repeated by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell yesterday -- that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Also, ElBaradei reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.

"There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities," ElBaradei said.

Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger. The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away -- including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said.

"We fell for it," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents.

A spokesman for the IAEA said the agency did not blame either Britain or the United States for the forgery. The documents "were shared with us in good faith," he said.

The discovery was a further setback to U.S. and British efforts to convince reluctant U.N. Security Council members of the urgency of the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Powell, in his statement to the Security Council Friday, acknowledged ElBaradei's findings but also cited "new information" suggesting that Iraq continues to try to get nuclear weapons components.

"It is not time to close the book on these tubes," a senior State Department official said, adding that Iraq was prohibited from importing sensitive parts, such as tubes, regardless of their planned use.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein pursued an ambitious nuclear agenda throughout the 1970s and 1980s and launched a crash program to build a bomb in 1990 following his invasion of neighboring Kuwait. But Iraq's nuclear infrastructure was heavily damaged by allied bombing in 1991, and the country's known stocks of nuclear fuel and equipment were removed or destroyed during the U.N. inspections after the war.

However, Iraq never surrendered the blueprints for nuclear weapons, and kept key teams of nuclear scientists intact after U.N. inspectors were forced to leave in 1998. Despite international sanctions intended to block Iraq from obtaining weapons components, Western intelligence agencies and former weapons inspectors were convinced the Iraqi president had resumed his quest for the bomb in the late 1990s, citing defectors' stories and satellite images that showed new construction at facilities that were once part of Iraq's nuclear machinery.

Last September, the United States and Britain issued reports accusing Iraq of renewing its quest for nuclear weapons. In Britain's assessment, Iraq reportedly had "sought significant amounts of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear program that could require it."

Separately, President Bush, in his speech to the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 12, said Iraq had made "several attempts to buy-high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Doubts about both claims began to emerge shortly after U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq last November. In early December, the IAEA began an intensive investigation of the aluminum tubes, which Iraq had tried for two years to purchase by the tens of thousands from China and at least one other country. Certain types of high-strength aluminum tubes can be used to build centrifuges, which enrich uranium for nuclear weapons and commercial power plants.

By early January, the IAEA had reached a preliminary conclusion: The 81mm tubes sought by Iraq were "not directly suitable" for centrifuges, but appeared intended for use as conventional artillery rockets, as Iraq had claimed. The Bush administration, meanwhile, stuck to its original position while acknowledging disagreement among U.S. officials who had reviewed the evidence.

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Bush said Iraq had "attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Last month, Powell likewise dismissed the IAEA's conclusions, telling U.N. leaders that Iraq would not have ordered tubes at such high prices and with such exacting performance ratings if intended for use as ordinary rockets. Powell specifically noted that Iraq had sought tubes that had been "anodized," or coated with a thin outer film -- a procedure that Powell said was required if the tubes were to be used in centrifuges.

ElBaradei's report yesterday all but ruled out the use of the tubes in a nuclear program. The IAEA chief said investigators had unearthed extensive records that backed up Iraq's explanation. The documents, which included blueprints, invoices and notes from meetings, detailed a 14-year struggle by Iraq to make 81mm conventional rockets that would perform well and resist corrosion. Successive failures led Iraqi officials to revise their standards and request increasingly higher and more expensive metals, ElBaradei said.

Moreover, further work by the IAEA's team of centrifuge experts -- two Americans, two Britons and a French citizen -- has reinforced the IAEA's conclusion that the tubes were ill suited for centrifuges. "It was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable redesign needed to use them in a revived centrifuge program," ElBaradei said.

A number of independent experts on uranium enrichment have sided with IAEA's conclusion that the tubes were at best ill suited for centrifuges. Several have said that the "anodized" features mentioned by Powell are actually a strong argument for use in rockets, not centrifuges, contrary to the administration's statement.

The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based research organization that specializes in nuclear issues, reported yesterday that Powell's staff had been briefed about the implications of the anodized coatings before Powell's address to the Security Council last month. "Despite being presented with the falseness of this claim, the administration persists in making misleading arguments about the significance of the tubes," the institute's president, David Albright, wrote in the report.

Powell's spokesman said the secretary of state had consulted numerous experts and stood by his U.N. statement.

The Xanax Cowboy
By Maureen Dowd for The New York Times

As he rolls up to America's first pre-emptive invasion, bouncing from motive to motive, Mr. Bush is trying to sound rational, not rash. Determined not to be petulant, he seemed tranquilized.

But the Xanax cowboy made it clear that Saddam is going to pay for 9/11. Even if the fiendish Iraqi dictator was not involved with Al Qaeda, he has supported "Al Qaeda-type organizations," as the president fudged, or "Al Qaeda types" or "a terrorist network like Al Qaeda."

We are scared of the world now, and the world is scared of us. (It's really scary to think we are even scaring Russia and China.)

Bush officials believe that making the world more scared of us is the best way to make us safer and less scared. So they want a spectacular show of American invincibility to make the wicked and the wayward think twice before crossing us.

Of course, our plan to sack Saddam has not cowed the North Koreans and Iranians, who are scrambling to get nukes to cow us.

It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs, we're about to bomb one that didn't attack us on 9/11 (like Osama); that isn't intercepting our planes (like North Korea); that isn't financing Al Qaeda (like Saudi Arabia); that isn't home to Osama and his lieutenants (like Pakistan); that isn't a host body for terrorists (like Iran, Lebanon and Syria).

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09DOWD.html

The Xanax Cowboy
By Maureen Dowd
The New York Times

Sunday 9 March 2003

You might sum up the president's call to war Thursday night as "Message: I scare."

As he rolls up to America's first pre-emptive invasion, bouncing from motive to motive, Mr. Bush is trying to sound rational, not rash. Determined not to be petulant, he seemed tranquilized.

But the Xanax cowboy made it clear that Saddam is going to pay for 9/11. Even if the fiendish Iraqi dictator was not involved with Al Qaeda, he has supported "Al Qaeda-type organizations," as the president fudged, or "Al Qaeda types" or "a terrorist network like Al Qaeda."

We are scared of the world now, and the world is scared of us. (It's really scary to think we are even scaring Russia and China.)

Bush officials believe that making the world more scared of us is the best way to make us safer and less scared. So they want a spectacular show of American invincibility to make the wicked and the wayward think twice before crossing us.

Of course, our plan to sack Saddam has not cowed the North Koreans and Iranians, who are scrambling to get nukes to cow us.

It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs, we're about to bomb one that didn't attack us on 9/11 (like Osama); that isn't intercepting our planes (like North Korea); that isn't financing Al Qaeda (like Saudi Arabia); that isn't home to Osama and his lieutenants (like Pakistan); that isn't a host body for terrorists (like Iran, Lebanon and Syria).

I think the president is genuinely obsessed with protecting Americans and believes that smoking Saddam will reduce the chances of Islamic terrorists' snatching catastrophic weapons. That is why no cost - shattering the U.N., NATO, the European alliance, Tony Blair's career and the U.S. budget - is too high.

Even straining for serenity, Mr. Bush sounded rattled at moments: "My job is to protect America, and that is exactly what I'm going to do. . . . I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that's what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that's exactly what I am going to do."

But citing 9/11 eight times in his news conference was exploitative, given that the administration concedes there is no evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 plot. By stressing that totem, Mr. Bush tried to alchemize American anger at Al Qaeda into support for smashing Saddam.

William Greider writes in The Nation, "As a bogus rallying cry, `Remember 9/11' ranks with `Remember the Maine' of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964. . . ." A culture more besotted with inane "reality" TV than scary reality is easily misled. Mr. Greider pointed out that in a Times/CBS News survey, 42 percent believe Saddam was personally responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and in an ABC News poll, 55 percent believe he gives direct support to Al Qaeda.

The case for war has been incoherent due to overlapping reasons conservatives want to get Saddam.

The president wants to avenge his father, and please his base by changing the historical ellipsis on the Persian Gulf war to a period. Donald Rumsfeld wants to exorcise the post-Vietnam focus on American imperfections and limitations. Dick Cheney wants to establish America's primacy as the sole superpower. Richard Perle wants to liberate Iraq and remove a mortal threat to Israel. After Desert Storm, Paul Wolfowitz posited that containment is a relic, and that America must aggressively pre-empt nuclear threats.

And in 1997, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Fox News, and other conservatives, published a "statement of principles," signed by Jeb Bush and future Bush officials - Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams. Rejecting 41's realpolitik and shaping what would become 43's pre-emption strategy, they exhorted a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity," with America extending its domain by challenging "regimes hostile to our interests and values."

Saddam would be the squealing guinea pig proving America could impose its will on the world.

With W., conservatives got a Bush who wanted to be Reagan. With 9/11, they found a new tragedy to breathe life into their old dreams.

U.S. Missteps Led to Failed Diplomacy
By Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen for the Washington Post.

But these officials add that the problem was exacerbated by a series of missteps that occurred after the president decided in September to seek U.N. approval for his Iraqi policy, including what some acknowledge was a lackluster diplomatic effort by the president and some of his senior foreign policy advisers. The administration did not help itself, some Security Council members say, by signaling early on that it would not be deterred from what many governments viewed as a preset timetable for war.

"Could we have done the diplomacy better? Absolutely," an administration official said. "We were perceived as heavy-handed."

...By the time Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 12, the administration had angered its allies by its dismissal of the global warming treaty, the international criminal court and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. Even so, diplomats said, the administration likely would have won a second U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military action if it had shown a little more patience and more willingness to address the concerns of other member nations.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30858-2003Mar15.html

U.S. Missteps Led to Failed Diplomacy

advertisement
Click here!

President Bush speaks with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar from the Oval Office earlier this month. Aznar will join Bush for a summit today. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais -- AP)
By Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 16, 2003; Page A15

Six months after President Bush first appeared before the United Nations and urged a confrontation with Iraq, the United States appears to have lost diplomatic ground, not gained it, leaving it in a precarious international position as it prepares to launch a war.

A resolution authorizing military action has been blocked at the United Nations not only by permanent members with veto power such as France and Russia but also by close U.S. neighbors such as Chile and Mexico. Some of the president's closest allies, British Prime Minister Tony Blair foremost among them, are in desperate political straits over their support of Bush's Iraq policy, a key reason why Bush will hold a summit today with Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.

The groundwork for the diplomatic impasse confronting the United States was laid from the moment Bush took office, according to diplomats, analysts and some administration officials. They point to Bush's conviction in the primacy of U.S. power and his administration's early skepticism of international organizations and commitments.

But these officials add that the problem was exacerbated by a series of missteps that occurred after the president decided in September to seek U.N. approval for his Iraqi policy, including what some acknowledge was a lackluster diplomatic effort by the president and some of his senior foreign policy advisers. The administration did not help itself, some Security Council members say, by signaling early on that it would not be deterred from what many governments viewed as a preset timetable for war.

"Could we have done the diplomacy better? Absolutely," an administration official said. "We were perceived as heavy-handed."

Indeed, Bush has been unrelenting in his rhetorical and military buildup for a possible war, but his diplomatic efforts have appeared half-hearted. Last weekend, while Blair was working the phones -- he spoke to 30 heads of state in six days -- and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin was traveling to the capitals of uncommitted Security Council members, Bush made no visits or phone calls.

By the time Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 12, the administration had angered its allies by its dismissal of the global warming treaty, the international criminal court and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. Even so, diplomats said, the administration likely would have won a second U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military action if it had shown a little more patience and more willingness to address the concerns of other member nations.

"The bottom line is the U.S. will not move," a Security Council diplomat said. "Even the French might move if there was something to move to."

A senior official from the administration of Bush's father, who led allies against Iraq in 1991, said, "They've used unilateral tactics with a multilateral strategy. If your strategy is to go for U.N. support, you need to use U.N. tactics."

In fact, the current administration proceeded down a military track at virtually the same time it proceeded with diplomacy, creating an inevitable clash of interests and leaving many foreign diplomats believing the administration's appeal for U.N. backing was a fig leaf to cover a preordained decision to use military force against Iraq. In the view of other countries, the administration short-circuited the U.N. weapons inspections by arguing that the inspections could not be allowed to drag on because the U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf region had proceeded too far to turn back from war.

"Back in August, wittingly or unwittingly, the president accepted two totally incompatible strategies," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The administration achieved a 15-to-0 vote in the U.N. Security Council in November for a resolution that restarted the weapons inspections in Iraq and gave Iraq a final chance to reveal whether it possessed weapons of mass destruction. But that resolution papered over strong differences within the council, laying the seeds for the current impasse.

U.S. officials had won support for the resolution by arguing that the best way to avoid war was to support it. French officials date their break with the administration to mid-January, when U.S. officials signaled they were prepared to end the inspections only weeks after they had started. "There was shock and surprise," a French official said. "It was a signal that for Washington the time of inspections had almost ended."

U.S. officials argue that it is clear that France -- which has led the U.N. opposition to U.S. policy -- always intended to block a war, and that no amount of diplomacy would have bridged the gap. A senior official said the administration could be faulted for not grabbing at opportunities and for not showing a greater commitment to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in a bow to European public opinion. But he said it would not have made a difference.

"If we were diplomatically perfect, I'm not sure it would have fundamentally changed the outcome," he said. "The goal is not to reach consensus at any price." Foreign diplomats dismiss this as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The French official insisted that France would have supported the use of force and even participated in a military coalition if the United States had shown more patience with the inspection process. "What could have been claimed as victories were always denounced as deceptions," because the United States refused to budge from its timetable for war, the official said.

Bush's diplomatic efforts are particularly striking in contrast to those of his father, who assembled a worldwide coalition to attack Iraq 12 years ago. Bush's father had a much easier case to make, since Iraq had invaded Kuwait and was threatening Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally. By contrast, the current President Bush is trying to win support for a preventive war, arguing the Iraqi government is a potential danger to the world.

Yet, the first Bush administration appeared to work with greater skill and sophistication to ensure worldwide support for its policy, diplomats, analysts and former U.S. government officials say. Secretary of State James A. Baker III crisscrossed the globe, and President George H.W. Bush spent hours on the phones with foreign leaders in the months leading to the war. In the process, the administration won victories in the Security Council endorsing the confrontation with Iraq.

The president and senior officials in the current Bush administration spend less time on the phone or on the road, They appear more comfortable issuing demands than asking for help or bridging differences, diplomats and U.S. officials said. The summit will be Bush's first overseas trip in four months. He has not spoken to French President Jacques Chirac in more than five weeks.

Baker, in contrast to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, was almost constantly on the road before the Gulf War, flying at one point from the Middle East to Colombia to make the U.S. case to a Security Council member. "It was a very different level of activity, much more face-to-face than long-distance," said Dennis Ross, who was director of policy planning for Baker. "It was a way of demonstrating to those publics and those leaders that we were interested in their concerns."

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the two Iraq buildups cannot be fairly compared. "It's easier to see an invasion of Kuwait. It's harder to see an attack coming," he said. "September 11th may not have changed much for France. It's changed everything for President Bush."

The decision by Turkey's parliament to reject a U.S. request to station troops in the country is another example in which the current administration has asked for more and expended less effort.

In 1990, Baker made three trips to Turkey in five months. Bush's father called the Turkish leader 55 to 60 times after Turkey agreed to shut down an oil pipeline to Iraq before the Persian Gulf War began, said Morton Abramowitz, then U.S. ambassador to Turkey. The Turkish parliament was asked to open its bases to the United States after the bombs began to fall.

This time, not only did the United States want to insert 62,000 troops in Turkey, but also it demanded a vote when the United States insisted it was trying to disarm Iraq peacefully; Turkish officials said administration officials demanded a vote as quickly as possible. Turkish officials made one trip to Washington, but Powell didn't visit Turkey once during this period. Bush had three calls or meetings with Turkish leaders, according to White House records.

War risk to Iraqi treasures
By Dr. David Whitehouse for the BBC.

The institute urges all governments to follow the terms of the 1954 Hague Convention that seeks to protect cultural artefacts in times of conflict, and to protect ancient sites, monuments, antiquities, and cultural institutions in the case of war.

But the track record in the region is not encouraging.

In the aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991, many unique sites were plundered or damaged and researchers left Iraq to work abroad.

During the conflict, the mighty ziggurat at Ur, one of the first cities, was bombed and damaged. In addition, prized antiquities were looted and sold illegally. In some cases, thieves plundered Assyrian wall frescoes and sculptures.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2822095.stm

War risk to Iraqi treasures
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

Archaeologists are warning that another Gulf War would be catastrophic. History-changing discoveries could be lost forever through bombing and looting, they say.

The temple at Hatra
At risk: The temple at Hatra
Iraq is a cradle of civilisation with thousands of archaeological sites spanning more than 10,000 years.

It is the birthplace of agriculture; the first great cities and empires were in Iraq, and the origins of writing have been traced to the region.

Babylon was built on the banks of the Euphrates, Baghdad University is one of the oldest seats of learning in the world and the city of Mosul, in northern Iraq, is considered by some to the oldest continuously inhabited place on Earth.

As part of its preparations for war, the Pentagon recently asked archaeologists to list sensitive locations in Iraq, but as one researcher put it: "the whole country is one big archaeological site".

Not a good mix

Because of the threat of war, archaeologists have recently ceased excavations along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, as well as in Iraq's major cities.

In fact, researchers from all over the Middle East are stopping excavations.

ANCIENT ARTEFACTS
Baghdad battery
History-changing discoveries could be lost forever through bombing and looting, they say

Read about the Baghdad 'batteries'
In a statement, the Archaeological Institute of America said it was "concerned that in the aftermath of war, Iraqi cultural objects may be removed from museums and archaeological sites".

Professor McGuire Gibson, of the University of Chicago, summed it up succinctly. "War and archaeology do not mix," he said.

The institute points out that Iraq's museums - particularly the national museum in Baghdad and the regional museum in Mosul - house irreplaceable sculptures, inscribed tablets, reliefs, cylinder seals and other cultural objects.

"The removal of such objects would cause irreparable losses to some of the world's most significant archaeological sites," it adds.

Greater risk

The institute urges all governments to follow the terms of the 1954 Hague Convention that seeks to protect cultural artefacts in times of conflict, and to protect ancient sites, monuments, antiquities, and cultural institutions in the case of war.

But the track record in the region is not encouraging.

In the aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991, many unique sites were plundered or damaged and researchers left Iraq to work abroad.

During the conflict, the mighty ziggurat at Ur, one of the first cities, was bombed and damaged. In addition, prized antiquities were looted and sold illegally. In some cases, thieves plundered Assyrian wall frescoes and sculptures.

In January, archaeological curators, collectors and lawyers expressed their deep concern about the impact of another war, saying that sites "face a greater risk now than they did 10 years ago because of the greater American determination to topple Saddam Hussein".

Here's a small movie (3 MB) of the last part of Cook's speech I saw and the bumbling of CSPAN that took place afterwards.

I also have MP3s and high and low-res versions of it here.
("Part 3 of 3" is where the weirdness happens.)

A complete version of Cook's speech is also available.

I don't have time to create individual links so here's a link to the whole directory (including MP3s of Audio and low res video clips):
David Frum On The Shrub's Upcoming Speech

Hey, who needs the Shrub when you can talk to his speech writer and get the lowdown from him ahead of time?

Also of interest is the hosts apparent indifference to the sensitivity of the situation...

I don't believe what I just saw on CSPAN. Britian's Robin Cook was giving a speech against the war when the feed was cut and replaced with a wide shot of the Capital Building and then a rebroadcast of Colin Powell's speech from this morning.

I recorded it, but I've got to go to my Creative Commons seminar this afternoon so I'll have to get this up when I get back.

Massive Human Slaughter
By Marc Ash for truthout.

What George W. Bush and Tony Blair are planning is the greatest act of human slaughter since Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge orchestrated the Cambodian genocide in the mid 1970s. That act killing some 1.5 to 2 million largely defenseless and quite peaceful Cambodians.

Civilian Iraq is utterly defenseless and totally unprepared for the carnage that is about to be visited upon them. It is murder plain and simple, murder on an unimaginable scale.

There is no "war" looming, no "conflict" with Iraq, and no "standoff." What exists is a vast military force poised to inflict death and destruction on a major population center. Those who live there will attempt to defend themselves, but they will fail, and the dead will cover the ground like a fallen forest.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://truthout.org/docs_03/031703A.shtml

Massive Human Slaughter
By Marc Ash
t r u t h o u t | Opinion

Sunday 16 March 2003

What George W. Bush and Tony Blair are planning is the greatest act of human slaughter since Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge orchestrated the Cambodian genocide in the mid 1970s. That act killing some 1.5 to 2 million largely defenseless and quite peaceful Cambodians.

Civilian Iraq is utterly defenseless and totally unprepared for the carnage that is about to be visited upon them. It is murder plain and simple, murder on an unimaginable scale.

There is no "war" looming, no "conflict" with Iraq, and no "standoff." What exists is a vast military force poised to inflict death and destruction on a major population center. Those who live there will attempt to defend themselves, but they will fail, and the dead will cover the ground like a fallen forest.

Should this act of insanity proceed, it will stand as one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever recorded.

Know now, it can be stopped.

This deadly drama now playing out on the United Nations stage is not for diplomacy or disarmament or for some vague resolution. They joust for one thing: the hearts of common men. All that stands between Baghdad and unprecedented destruction is our favor, and nothing more.

The world does not oppose America; it opposes unbridled aggression. While their leaders disagree on what course to take, the people of France, England, Spain and the United States do not. It is not the collective will of these nations that Baghdad be destroyed and it's sons and daughters slain. We are tolerant and reasonable; we will allow the process of inspections to proceed. Men like Bush and Blair, small in numbers and spirit, beat the drum for invasion in the hopes that many will follow. If those many stand firm, their call will go unanswered.

The blood of innocents once shed cannot be unshed. Should the US military set about killing these people, the deed remains our doing for all time. We are given now a precious moment for reflection. Let us use it wisely. The voices of true American friends all over the world are clearly calling to us: Be patient... work as a group... you are not alone. Let us not taint the American experience for all time by answering, instead, a drumbeat to madness.

We hear day after day that "Time is running out." Running out on what, on who? On Saddam Hussein? On a five thousand year old city? On 24 million men, women and children? Or is time running out on the spirit of America? On the soul of our people? Why is it that the world no longer cherishes American values? Could it be because we no longer cherish them ourselves?

The right way is the American way. America's great gift to the world is fair play and due process. Democracy is not a sales slogan. It is a commitment to tolerating dissent and yielding to consensus. Genocide, on the other hand, is true anarchy.

You can send comments to t r u t h o u t Editor Marc Ash at: ma@truthout.com

Okay, so, the Shrub's Administration made a big mistake. It's managed to piss away a ton of money over this, but the good news is that thousands of innocents haven't died yet.

So the competent arms of the FBI and CIA have managed to uncover the doings of some of the uncompetent branches. Good work guys. Those of you that are trying to serve your country must be really frustrated by the other members of your organization that seem to be working against you half the time.

Thanks for turning this stuff up before it was too late!

So, can our boys come home now? Please?
Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.
By David Ensor for CNN.

Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council outlining the Bush administration's case against Iraq.

"I'm sure the FBI and CIA must be mortified by this because it is extremely embarrassing to them," former CIA official Ray Close said.

Responding to questions about the documents from lawmakers, Powell said, "It was provided in good faith to the inspectors and our agency received it in good faith, not participating ... in any way in any falsification activities."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html
Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.

From David Ensor
CNN Washington Bureau
Friday, March 14, 2003 Posted: 10:43 PM EST (0343 GMT)
image
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, February 5.

The finding that documents on an Iraqi uranium deal were most likely faked is proving to be an embarrassment to the United States. CNN's David Ensor reports.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council outlining the Bush administration's case against Iraq.

"I'm sure the FBI and CIA must be mortified by this because it is extremely embarrassing to them," former CIA official Ray Close said.

Responding to questions about the documents from lawmakers, Powell said, "It was provided in good faith to the inspectors and our agency received it in good faith, not participating ... in any way in any falsification activities."

"It was the information that we had. We provided it. If that information is inaccurate, fine," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday.

"We don't believe that all the issues surrounding nuclear weapons have been resolved [in Iraq]," he said.
How were forgeries missed?

But the discovery raises questions such as why the apparent forgeries were given to inspectors and why U.S. and British intelligence agents did not recognize that they were not authentic.

Sources said that one of the documents was a letter discussing the uranium deal supposedly signed by Niger President Tandja Mamadou. The sources described the signature as "childlike" and said that it clearly was not Mamadou's.

Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been foreign minister of Niger in 14 years, sources said.

"The IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents -- which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger -- are not in fact authentic," ElBaradei said in his March 7 presentation to the U.N. Security Council.

Close said the CIA should have known better.

"They have tremendously sophisticated and experienced people in their technical services division, who wouldn't allow a forgery like this to get by," Close said. "I mean it's just mystifying to me. I can't understand it."

A U.S. intelligence official said that the documents were passed on to the International Atomic Energy Agency within days of being received with the comment, " 'We don't know the provenance of this information, but here it is.' "

If a mistake was made, a U.S. official suggested, it was more likely due to incompetence not malice.

"That's a convenient explanation, but it doesn't satisfy me," Close said. "Incompetence I have not seen in those agencies. I've seen plenty of malice, but I've never seen incompetence."
Who made the forgeries?

But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries?

Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men.

Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.

President Bush even highlighted the documents in his State of the Union address on January 28.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Bush said.

U.S. officials said that the assertion by the president and British government was also based on additional evidence of Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from another African country. But officials would not say which nation and a knowledgable U.S. official said that there was not much to that evidence either.

Perhaps this will give the administration the out it needs to pull out of Iraq and still save face.

FBI Probes Fake Evidence of Iraqi Nuclear Plans
By Dana Priest and Susan Schmidt

The forgery came to light last week during a highly publicized and contentious United Nations meeting. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the Security Council on March 7 that U.N. and independent experts had decided that the documents were "not authentic."

ElBaradei's disclosure, and his rejection of three other key claims that U.S. intelligence officials have cited to support allegations about Iraq's nuclear ambitions, struck a powerful blow to the Bush administration's argument on the matter.

To the contrary, ElBaradei told the council, "we have to date found no evidence or plausible indications of the revival of a nuclear program in Iraq."

The CIA, which had also obtained the documents, had questions about "whether they were accurate," said one intelligence official, and it decided not to include them in its file on Iraq's program to procure weapons of mass destruction.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

The FBI is looking into the forgery of a key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program, including the possibility that a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military action against Iraq.

"It's something we're just beginning to look at," a senior law enforcement official said yesterday. Officials are trying to determine whether the documents were forged to try to influence U.S. policy, or whether they may have been created as part of a disinformation campaign directed by a foreign intelligence service.

"We're looking at it from a preliminary stage as to what it's all about," he said.

The FBI has not yet opened a formal investigation because it is unclear whether the bureau has jurisdiction over the matter.

The phony documents -- a series of letters between Iraqi and Niger officials showing Iraq's interest in equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons -- came to British and U.S. intelligence officials from a third country. The identity of the third country could not be learned yesterday.

The forgery came to light last week during a highly publicized and contentious United Nations meeting. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the Security Council on March 7 that U.N. and independent experts had decided that the documents were "not authentic."

ElBaradei's disclosure, and his rejection of three other key claims that U.S. intelligence officials have cited to support allegations about Iraq's nuclear ambitions, struck a powerful blow to the Bush administration's argument on the matter.

To the contrary, ElBaradei told the council, "we have to date found no evidence or plausible indications of the revival of a nuclear program in Iraq."

The CIA, which had also obtained the documents, had questions about "whether they were accurate," said one intelligence official, and it decided not to include them in its file on Iraq's program to procure weapons of mass destruction.

The FBI has jurisdiction over counterintelligence operations by foreign governments against the United States. Because the documents were delivered to the United States, the bureau would most likely try to determine whether the foreign government knew the documents were forged or whether it, too, was deceived.

Iraq pursued an aggressive nuclear weapons program during the 1970s and 1980s. It launched a crash program to build a nuclear bomb in 1990 after it invaded Kuwait. Allied bombing during the Persian Gulf War in 1991 damaged Iraq's nuclear infrastructure. The country's known stocks of nuclear fuel and equipment were removed or destroyed during the U.N. inspections after the war.

But Iraq never surrendered the blueprints for its nuclear program, and it kept teams of scientists employed after U.N. inspectors were forced to leave in 1998.

A friend of mine sent me these links regarding Iraq and North Korea's recent switches to the Euro.

I'm just learning about all of this stuff myself, so I won't pretend to understand any of it yet.

It all seemed quite relevant and I felt compelled to pass the information on to you...

http://www.praesentia.us/archives/000117.html

December 06, 2002
Euro Vs. Dollar - The real reason behind Gulf War II?

This could be also titled, "The real reason behind Bush's Axis of
Evil statement"

What would happen if the Dollar stopped being the currency that most
of the world traded in/with? Some smart fellows at the Democratic
Underground have some ideas about this event.

Many thanks to GoreN4 and Reality Bytes for this wonderful information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------

THE REAL REASONS FOR THE UPCOMING WAR AGAINST IRAQ

...(Hint: It has nothing to do with any threat from Iraq's Weapons of
Mass Destruction, but it does have something to do with the mid-term
elections, not much about Isreal, but mostly it has to do with how
the ruling class at Langley and the Bush oligarchy view Iraq, Iran
and Saudi's hydrocarbons at the macroeconomic and geo-strategic
level.)

Short Answer about Iraq = Oil profits, geo-strategic control of the
2nd largest unclaimed hydrocarbon deposits, controlling OPEC, and the
threat to the U.S reserve currency from the Euro.

Long Answer about Iraq = OPEC, U.S. Dollar vs. Euro oil transaction
standards, and the Real Reason for a War with Iraq: "The Federal
Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its
international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard.
Iraq actually made this switch last year (when the euro was worth
around 80 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering
the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro.

The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in
Iraq - or more importantly, the reason why the
corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet
government in Iraq - is so that it will revert back to a dollar
standard and stay that way" (while also helping veto any wider OPEC
momentum for the switch from Iran - which is seriously considering
switching to euros as their oil transaction currency as of Sept 2002
- or other members such as Saudi Arabia whose regime appears
increasingly threatened/weak from an internal coup). The
administration is acutely aware of this and in preparation for
invading Iraq we will create a huge and permanent military presence
in the Persian Gulf region, just in case we need to grab Saudi's oil
fields as well as Iraq's oil fields

"Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late
2000 and converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to euros
- at that point, another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable
under Bush II. Only the most extreme circumstances could possibly
stop that now and I strongly doubt anything can - short of Saddam
getting replaced with a pliant regime."

Big Picture Perspective: Everything else aside from the reserve
currency and the Saudi/Iran oil issues (i.e. domestic political
issues andl international criticism) is peripheral and of marginal
consequence to this administration. Further, the dollar-euro threat
is powerful enough that they'll rather risk much of the economic
backlash in the short-term to stave off the long-term dollar crash of
an OPEC transaction standard change from dollars to euros. All of
this fits into the broader Great Game that encompasses Russia, India,
China."

This info about oil currency is completely censored in the
corporate-controlled U.S. media - as the truth would curtail consumer
confidence, reduce spending\ borrowing and it would create immense
political pressure on the Bush junta to form a new energy policy that
slowly weans us off middle-eastern oil. This article from Radio Free
Europe confirms Iraq switched from dollars to euros on Nov. 6, 2000

'Iraq: Baghdad Moves to Euro'
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp

Keep in mind that - contrary to one of the main points in this
November 2000 article - the steady depreciation of the dollar versus
the euro since Sept 2001 means that Iraq has profited handsomely from
the switch in their reserve & transaction currencies. The euro has
gained roughly 15% against the dollar in that time, which means any
reserve funds that Iraq would've previously held in dollars have
gained that same percent value since the euro transition.

Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that
oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their
reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash
anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one
could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think
Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds
stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets,
there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current
account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would
go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis
scenario.

The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar's role as
reserve currency. This doesn't mean that the U.S. couldn't function
otherwise, but that the transition would have to be gradual to avoid
such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be
the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the global economy)."

The following two articles from the summer of 2002 discuss Iran's
vacillating position about switching to the euro as their standard
currency payment for oil exports, and this may help explain Bush's
sudden urgency to topple Saddam. In the build-up for Iraq it is clear
the Bush junta plan to keep a large and permanent U.S. military force
in the Persian gulf to "maintain order" in a post-Saddam Iraq (aka.
to protect their newly installed puppet regime). Iran would become
essentially surrounded by the U.S. military in that scenario

'Economics Drive Iran Euro Oil Plan, Politics Also Key' (August 2002)

http://www.iranexpert.com/2002/economicsdriveiraneurooil23august.htm

'Iran may switch to the euro for crude sale payments' (Sept 2002)

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntm23638.htm

This administration is deceiving and manipulating the American people
on an unprecedented scale about the underlying weakness of our
economy due to massive debt manipulation and unsustainable personal
indebtedness, our utter dependence on middle-eastern oil, their
apparent complicity in allowing the September 11th attacks for occur
for geo-strategic and political purposes, as well the very real but
unspoken macroeconomic reasons for this upcoming war with Iraq. We no
longer have a free media, as the ugly truth is out there for those
who dare to seek it, and can face their own cognitive dissonance. For
those who wish can handle the truth about 9/11, this essay by the
famous American writer Gore Vidal is a good intro:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2531833.stm

North Korea embraces the euro

Communist North Korea has said it will stop using American dollars
from Sunday and start using euros instead.
The decision was made soon after a US-led international consortium
announced that it was halting fuel aid to the state because of its
covert nuclear weapons programme.

But the move is seen by many analysts as an attempt by the
authorities to exercise control over the foreign currency hoarded by
its citizens.

The US currency has been used widely in the black markets

Foreign residents in Pyongyang are none too happy with the enforced
currency swap and many have complained about the low exchange rates
set by the North Korean authorities.

I was wondering who was going to be the first popular musical act to write a song taking a stand against the war. Turns out it's one of my favorites!

Thanks guys! I love you for this.

In A World Gone Mad

Now we all have to start calling radio stations to demand
request that they play this song!

Check out the lyrics!

Mirrors, smokescreens and lies
It’s not the politicians but their actions I despise
You and Saddam should kick it like back in the day
With the cocaine and Courvoisier
But you build more bombs as you get more bold
As your mid-life crisis war unfolds
All you want to do is take control
Now put that axis of evil bullshit on hold
Citizen rule number 2080
Politicians are shady
So people watch your back 'cause I think they smoke crack
I don’t doubt it look at how they act...

It’s time to lead the way and de-escalate
Lose the weapons of mass destruction and the hate
Say ooh ah what’s the White House doin’?
Oh no! Say, what in tarnation have they got brewing??!!!!???!!
Well I’m not pro Bush and I’m not pro Saddam
We need these fools to remain calm
George Bush you’re looking like Zoolander
Trying to play tough for the camera
What am I on crazy pills? We’ve got to stop it
Get your hand out my grandma’s pocket
We need health care more than going to war
You think it’s democracy they’re fighting for?

Here is the full text of the lyrics at:

http://beastieboys.com/song_lyrics.html

In a World Gone Mad

In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
So much violence hate and spite
Murder going on all day and night
Due time we fight the non-violent fight

Mirrors, smokescreens and lies
It’s not the politicians but their actions I despise
You and Saddam should kick it like back in the day
With the cocaine and Courvoisier
But you build more bombs as you get more bold
As your mid-life crisis war unfolds
All you want to do is take control
Now put that axis of evil bullshit on hold
Citizen rule number 2080
Politicians are shady
So people watch your back 'cause I think they smoke crack
I don’t doubt it look at how they act

In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
So much violence hate and spite
Murder going on all day and night
Due time we fight the non-violent fight

First the ‘War On Terror’ now war on Iraq
We’re reaching a point where we can’t turn back
Let’s lose the guns and let’s lose the bombs
And stop the corporate contributions that their built upon
Well I’ll be sleeping on your speeches ‘til I start to snore
‘Cause I won’t carry guns for an oil war
As-Salamu alaikum, wa alaikum assalam
Peace to the Middle East peace to Islam
Now don’t get us wrong ‘cause we love America
But that’s no reason to get hysterica
They’re layin’ on the syrup thick
We ain’t waffles we ain’t havin’ it

In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
So much violence hate and spite
Murder going on all day and night
Due time we fight the non-violent fight

Now how many people must get killed?
For oil families pockets to get filled?
How many oil families get killed?
Not a damn one so what’s the deal?

It’s time to lead the way and de-escalate
Lose the weapons of mass destruction and the hate
Say ooh ah what’s the White House doin’?
Oh no! Say, what in tarnation have they got brewing??!!!!???!!
Well I’m not pro Bush and I’m not pro Saddam
We need these fools to remain calm
George Bush you’re looking like Zoolander
Trying to play tough for the camera
What am I on crazy pills? We’ve got to stop it
Get your hand out my grandma’s pocket
We need health care more than going to war
You think it’s democracy they’re fighting for?

In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
So much violence hate and spite
Murder going on all day and night
Due time we fight the non-violent fight

Here's comedian David Cross explaining how he was able to sponsor a bomb for Iraq. He explains that it's sort of like sponsoring a star -- you don't know which one you're going to get or where it will hit.
(He's hoping for a schoolyard :-)
Audio - David Cross On Daily Show (MP3 - 2 MB)
David Cross On Daily Show (Lo-res 10 MB)
David Cross On Daily Show (Hi-res 28 MB)

If this clip isn't enough for you, looks like the entire interview is up on the Daily Show site right now too...

Here's Senator John Warner (R-VA) answering Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) re: would we support Kurdish independence? (The answer is "no" we will try to quash all such rebellions to keep the larger Iraq in tact.)

Audio - Sen. John Warner On Iraq (MP3 - 1 MB)
Sen. John Warner On Iraq (Lo-res 11 MB)

Here's Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) on CSPAN last Friday, March 7, 2003 talking about the serious ethical and financial costs of marching in and taking over Iraq. Of particular interest is a reference to the Kurds and the question to the Repubs regarding whether or not we would support independence of the Kurds or other factions that might try to break free from the larger Iraq during this sequence of events.

Senator John Warner (R-VA) answers him in the next set of clips. (And the answer is "no" we will try to quash all such rebellions to keep the larger Iraq in tact.)

Audio - Sen. Edward Kennedy On Iraq - All (MP3 - 3 MB)
Sen. Edward Kennedy On Iraq - Part 1 of 2 (Lo-res 15 MB)
Sen. Edward Kennedy On Iraq - Part 2 of 2 (Lo-res 18 MB)

I'm told that the audio got screwed up on these video clips. I'm away from home and can't fix it. Apologies.--lisa

This is a clip from Friday's U.N. session (March 7, 2003) - Immediately following Colin Powell's speech. Note that Ivanov's testimony directly contradicts Powell's in that he feels the demands of previous U.N. Resolutions have been satisfied.

Igor Ivanov At the U.N. Audio - (MP3 - 1 MB)
Igor Ivanov At the U.N. (Hi-res 23 MB)
Igor Ivanov At the U.N. (Lo-res 9 MB)

Here is Colin Powell speaking to the U.N. last Friday, March 7, 2003.

More interesting than what Colin Powell is actually saying, which is the same thing he's been saying -- that almost everyone else in the U.N. disputes -- that Saddam has nuclear capabilities and hasn't lived up to the previous U.N. Resolutions, are the reactions of the diplomats surrounding him during his speech. They are frantically writing notes back and forth to each other and making faces in reaction to his words.

I'm working on putting up lower-resolutions of this stuff with iMovie...sorry for the large file sizes.

(Next comes a clip of Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov -- disputing
Colin Powell's latest allegations about the demands of the last U.N. resolution not being met.)

Audio - Colin Powell at the U.N. (MP3 - 4 MB)
Colin Powell at the U.N. (Hi-res 137 MB)
Colin Powell at the U.N. (Lo-res 21 MB)
Colin Powell at the U.N. (Lo-res 19 MB)
Colin Powell at the U.N. (Lo-res 13 MB)

And they're already off to a great start with petty offenses that violate International Law. Bummer.

Marines May Have Broken International Law

U.N. peacekeepers recently spotted armed U.S. Marines cutting a fence between Kuwait and Iraq, an act which was reported to the Security Council on Thursday as a possible violation of international law.

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said peacekeepers who monitor a demilitarized zone set up after the 1991 Persian Gulf War between Iraq and Kuwait reported ``numerous violations,'' since March 4 ``by personnel in civilian clothes in 4 x 4 vehicles, at least some of whom were armed and identified themselves as U.S. Marines.''

...According to Eckhard, peacekeepers observed three breaches that had been cut in an electric fence which Kuwait erected after a U.S.-led coalition forced Iraqi troops out of the country in 1991.

Eckhard went on to say that the U.N. team raised the recent violations with the Kuwaiti government. The information was then sent to the Security Council in the form of a letter from the U.N. peacekeeping department. Eckhard said the breach may violate the Security Council resolution that set up the zone but that it was up for the council to make that determination.

The United States has amassed more than 300,000 troops in the region in preparation for another possible war with Iraq. In the meantime, it is pushing council members to adopt a new resolution that would authorize military force, as it did in 1991.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2460378,00.html

UP

Marines May Have Broken International Law

Thursday March 6, 2003 11:30 PM

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - U.N. peacekeepers recently spotted armed U.S. Marines cutting a fence between Kuwait and Iraq, an act which was reported to the Security Council on Thursday as a possible violation of international law.

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said peacekeepers who monitor a demilitarized zone set up after the 1991 Persian Gulf War between Iraq and Kuwait reported ``numerous violations,'' since March 4 ``by personnel in civilian clothes in 4 x 4 vehicles, at least some of whom were armed and identified themselves as U.S. Marines.''

U.S. diplomats had no immediate comment on the matter.

According to Eckhard, peacekeepers observed three breaches that had been cut in an electric fence which Kuwait erected after a U.S.-led coalition forced Iraqi troops out of the country in 1991.

Eckhard went on to say that the U.N. team raised the recent violations with the Kuwaiti government. The information was then sent to the Security Council in the form of a letter from the U.N. peacekeeping department. Eckhard said the breach may violate the Security Council resolution that set up the zone but that it was up for the council to make that determination.

The United States has amassed more than 300,000 troops in the region in preparation for another possible war with Iraq. In the meantime, it is pushing council members to adopt a new resolution that would authorize military force, as it did in 1991.

Audio - Nancy Pelosi Regarding Her Position On The War (MP3 - 1 MB)
Nancy Pelosi Regarding Her Position On The War (Hi-res 15 MB)
Nancy Pelosi Regarding Her Position On The War (Lo-res 6 MB)

So I was planning on being on a plane all day today, but I decided to wait a day and rest up a bit before this week's SXSW Conference in Austin, TX.

I didn't get into the Music Showcase as I had hoped, but I'll still be there all week and I'm going to bring my guitar just in case any of you with gigs feel like letting a girl with a guitar sing a quick 3 minute song or two before your set. (Or perhaps in the middle of your party -- I only have two songs so I can't take it over -- and I need zero preparation or set-up -- just let me sit down somewhere with the guitar.)

Shoot me an email if you're interested: lisarein@finetuning.com.

Attention: Speakers and bands. I've got my camera and a relatively flexible roaming schedule. There's no reason why I couldn't roam over you're way if you'd appreciate some footage of your work. Just drop me a line.

Okay so what's in the kitty for today: Raving at the Feb 16 march, The Daily Show takes a look at the Shrub's "Faith-based Aid", Pelosi finally speaks up (a little), and Colin Powell continues to say close to nothing at all...

Plus some clips of the Senate arguing about the war and addressing the issue of the potential future (or lack thereof) of a Kurdish nation under American rule.

Advisors warn Bush he faces "humiliating" defeat on UN resolution
By the staff at Capital Hill Blue.

"You will lose, Mr. President," Powell told Bush. "You will lose badly and the United States will be humiliated on the world stage."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1870.shtml

Last Updated: Mar 4th, 2003 - 23:00:40

1600 Pennsylvania
Advisors warn Bush he faces "humiliating" defeat on UN resolution
By CHB Staff
Mar 4, 2003, 06:22

Email this article
Printer friendly page

Senior aides to President George W. Bush say he faces a humiliating defeat before the United Nations Security Council next week.

And signs emerged today that the U.S. may withdraw the resolution from security council consideration.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, fresh from his latest round of meetings with representatives of countries on the Security Council, delivered the bad news to Bush on Monday.

"You will lose, Mr. President," Powell told Bush. "You will lose badly and the United States will be humiliated on the world stage."

President Bush
Powell told Bush he has only four of the nine votes needed for approval of a second resolution. As a result, some White House advisors are now urging the President to back off his tough stance on war with Iraq and give UN weapons inspectors more time.

"We have no other choice," admits one Bush advisor. "We don't have the votes. We don't have the support."

Presidential spokesman Ari Fleisher, in today's press briefing, appeared to signal a U.S. retreat from demanding a vote next week, saying "the president has said he believes that a vote is desirable. It is not mandatory."

John Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said that while it is too early for the United States to withdraw the resolution, "we haven't crossed that bridge," Negroponte said.

Powell told Bush on Monday that Turkey's refusal to allow U.S. troops to stage at the country's border with Iraq doomed any chance of consensus at the UN.

"Many were watching Turkey," Powell told Bush. "Had they agreed, it might have helped us sway critical votes."

Powell met privately today with Mexico Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez to try and "parse" new language for the second resolution to satisfy a Mexican request to modify the text and extend the deadline for weapons inspections.

"It (the meeting) did not produce results," a Powell spokesman said afterwards.

Publicly, Powell is leaving the door open for the U.S. to withdraw the resolution, telling a German television interviewer: "At the start of next week we'll decide when, depending on what we have heard, we will vote on a resolution. It will be a difficult vote for the U.N. Security Council."

Some Bush aides now admit privately that the President, for all his tough talk, may have to back down and postpone his plans to invade Iraq in the near future, delaying any invasion until April or May at the earliest.

"The vote in Turkey fucked things up big time," grumbles one White House aide. "It pushes our timetable back. On the other hand, it might give us a chance to save face."

"Saving face" could mean backing away from a showdown with the UN Security Council next week and agreeing to let the weapons inspection process run its course.

"The arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed gives us some breathing room," says a Bush strategist. "We can concentrate on the favorable publicity generated by the arrest and the valuable intelligence we have gained from that event."

Mohammed, arrested in Pakistan, masterminded the 9-11 terrorist attacks. CIA agents found computer files, memos and other materials which pointed to plans for new attacks against the U.S.

"The prudent thing to do would be to let Iraq cool off on a back burner and concentrate on Mohammed," says Republican strategist Arnold Beckins. "Saddam isn't going anywhere. There's too much heat on him right now for him to pull something."

But a delay would not mean a war with Iraq is off. Most Bush strategists and Pentagon military planners agree that the U.S. will probably have to take military action sooner or later.

Right now, only the U.S., Britain and Spain favor immediate military action against Iraq. With most of the other allies lining up against the U.S., Bush faces both a diplomatic and public relations nightmare if he proceeds against Hussein without setting a proper public stage.

"We've always needed an exit strategy," admits a White House aide. "Circumstances have given us one. Perhaps we shouldn't ignore it."

Bill Moyers on Patriotism and the American Flag

I wore my flag tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans...

It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15.

So what's this doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo — the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the good housekeeping seal of approval. During the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration's patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's little red book on every official's desk, omnipresent and unread.

But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapels while writing books and running Web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting. They're in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks even as they call for more spending on war.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers19.html

Bill Moyers on Patriotism and the American Flag

I wore my flag tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans.

Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose ideals inspired me; I offered my heart's affections in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15.

So what's this doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo — the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the good housekeeping seal of approval. During the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration's patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's little red book on every official's desk, omnipresent and unread.

But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapels while writing books and running Web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting. They're in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks even as they call for more spending on war.

So I put this on as a modest riposte to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don't have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the coalition of the willing (after they first stash the cash.) I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what Bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to the government. And it reminds me that it's not un-American to think that war — except in self-defense — is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve, and diplomacy. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country.

Letter and link to Washington post story: U.S. Diplomat Resigns, Protesting 'Our Fervent Pursuit of War'

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country...

...until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security...

...this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

...Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

John Brady Kiesling

Here is the full text of the letter and article in case the link goes bad:

http://truthout.org/docs_03/030103A.shtml

Print This Story E-mail This Story

EDITOR'S NOTE: What follows is a letter of resignation written by John Brady Kiesling, a member of Bush's Foreign Service Corps and Political Counselor to the American embassy in Greece. Kiesling has been a diplomat for twenty years, a civil servant to four Presidents. The letter below, delivered to Secretary of State Colin Powell, is quite possibly the most eloquent statement of dissent thus far put forth regarding the issue of Iraq. The New York Times story which reports on this remarkable event can be found after Kiesling's letter. - wrp

Go to Original

t r u t h o u t | Letter
U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling
Letter of Resignation, to:
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell

ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

John Brady Kiesling

Go to Original

U.S. Diplomat Resigns, Protesting 'Our Fervent Pursuit of War'
By Felicity Barringer
New York Times

Thursday 27 February 2003

UNITED NATIONS — A career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan resigned this week in protest against the country's policies on Iraq.

The diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, the political counselor at the United States Embassy in Athens, said in his resignation letter, "Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson."

Mr. Kiesling, 45, who has been a diplomat for about 20 years, said in a telephone interview tonight that he faxed the letter to Secretary of State Colin L, Powell on Monday after informing Thomas Miller, the ambassador in Athens, of his decision.

He said he had acted alone, but "I've been comforted by the expressions of support I've gotten afterward" from colleagues.

"No one has any illusions that the policy will be changed," he said. "Too much has been invested in the war."

Louis Fintor, a State Department spokesman, said he had no information on Mr. Kiesling's decision and it was department policy not to comment on personnel matters.

In his letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times by a friend of Mr. Kiesling's, the diplomat wrote Mr. Powell: "We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners."

His letter continued: "Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests."

It is rare but not unheard-of for a diplomat, immersed in the State Department's culture of public support for policy, regardless of private feelings, to resign with this kind of public blast. From 1992 to 1994, five State Department officials quit out of frustration with the Clinton administration's Balkans policy.

Asked if his views were widely shared among his diplomatic colleagues, Mr. Kiesling said: "No one of my colleagues is comfortable with our policy. Everyone is moving ahead with it as good and loyal. The State Department is loaded with people who want to play the team game — we have a very strong premium on loyalty."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Print This Story E-mail This Story

I've got a ton of links to put up about the protests that have been going on all over the world the last two days, and then I'm going early to the protest around 10:30 so I won't miss anything. (Update at 10am: I'm running late and will have to post all of this stuff this afternoon after the protest -- in between video crunching.)

Downtown San Francisco isn't really equipped to hold more than it had to at the last protest (150,000+), so it will be quite interesting to see how everything pans out.

If you're into showing your support, but not into walking 15 blocks or so with a huge crowd, you should just show up at Civic Center around 2pm. If it's anything like last time, the entire area in a six block radius around the Civic Center will be alive with people, music, dance, theatre and song.

If you live within walking distance -- even a bit of a long walk -- that's definitely the best form of transportation.

See you there! I'll have footage up tonight!

Feb 15 Peace Action In Tokyo

Now, citizens all over the country stand up against U.S. tyranical warmonger. On Jan. 18, over a million people cried "No to Attack on IRAQ" in more than 40 countries. In Japan, about 7,000 citizens of various fields and generations participated WORLD PEACE NOW Jan. 18 at Hibiya park in Tokyo. There were also same kind of joint actions in about 30 cities in Japan. TV and news paper reported anti war joint actions in Japan and world scale.

In spite of anti war actions spreading worldwide, U.S. attack on IRAQ is drawing to a crisis day by day. Therefore Stop the War Coalition in London called for world-wide day of demonstrations on 15 February against the prospect of war. We support this appeal and will hold acitons for peace to protest against U.S. war drive and its supporter; Koizumi government in Japan.

"Long War" is doublespeak for "thousands of our soldiers will die and we'll keep sending more over."

What happened to killing Saddam within 48 hours and leaving it at that? The story keeps changing and changing...

Even Colin Powell is trying to warn us about this war. As best he can, considering he works for the crazies that are in favor of this war.

Colin Powell. If you're listening. I have a question for you:
Why don't you stop this war right now by speaking out against it?

You could stop all the madness right now, by just picking up the telephone, resigning, and telling the world why.

Why not tell the truth you must know better than anyone else? Why show up to the U.N. with smoke and mirrors and a vial of anthrax and a dog and pony show?
(Video of this on the way, of course, courtesy of The Daily Show...of course.)

Powell: Commitment in Iraq Would Be Long

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites),
on the eve of another faceoff at the United Nations
(news - web sites) over disarming Saddam Hussein
(news - web sites), said Thursday the American
people should be "prepared for a fairly long-term
commitment" in Iraq...

Once those goals are achieved, Powell said, the
U.S. military leader in such a war would take
temporary charge of Iraq. But that person
would give way to a prominent American
or international figure, whose own term
would be limited with an eye toward turning
over the government to the Iraqis themselves,
the secretary of state said.

"We would try to build as much as we can
on the structure that is there," Powell said.
"The challenge would be to put in place a
representative leadership."

...His confrontation with officials of those
two countries is set for Friday in New York.
That's when chief U.N. weapons inspectors
Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei report
on searches that have not turned up what
the Bush administration has characterized
as hundreds of concealed and illicit
biological and chemical weapons...

Meanwhile, a new audio recording by
Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) was
reported Wednesday — the second to
surface this week — in which the al-Qaida
leader purportedly predicts his own death
in an unspecified act of "martyrdom."

Al-Ansaar, a British-based Islamic news
agency, said it believed the 53-minute tape,
allegedly recorded earlier this month and
acquired by the news agency from an
unidentified man via an Internet contact,
was a carefully worded last will and
testament from bin Laden.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=542&e=1&u=/ap/20030213/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), on the eve of another faceoff at the United Nations (news - web sites) over disarming Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), said Thursday the American people should be "prepared for a fairly long-term commitment" in Iraq.

Appearing before the House Budget Committee, Powell said he could furnish no estimate of the cost of any war with Iraq. But he did say he thought that Arab nation should be able to adjust quickly after a war — in contrast to the slow pace of recovery in Afghanistan (news - web sites).

Iraq has an effective bureaucracy, rich oil resources and a developed middle class, Powell said. "I would hope that it would be a short conflict and that it would be directed at the leadership, not the society," he said.

Once those goals are achieved, Powell said, the U.S. military leader in such a war would take temporary charge of Iraq. But that person would give way to a prominent American or international figure, whose own term would be limited with an eye toward turning over the government to the Iraqis themselves, the secretary of state said.

"We would try to build as much as we can on the structure that is there," Powell said. "The challenge would be to put in place a representative leadership."

At another hearing, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, asked whether U.S. forces were prepared for a possible war with Iraq while continuing the fight against terrorism.

"Absolutely," replied Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also told senators he couldn't estimate the cost of a war, but added, "It would cost a heck of a lot less than 9-11 cost and 9-11 would cost a heck of a lot less than a chemical or biological 9-11," referring to administration concerns that Iraq could provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

Asked by Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), D-Ind., about the future of NATO (news - web sites) following a dispute with allies over defending Turkey, Rumsfeld joked "I have a feeling you're trying to put me in a position of defending Germany or France."

Bayh replied: "It's hard to defend the indefensible."

Rumsfeld said that while he is disappointed by the dispute, he believes the alliance is important. He recalled that the alliance has survived past disputes. "It's never been perfect. it's always been bumpy," he said.

Powell said Wednesday he intends to ask France and Germany whether they are opposing war with Iraq in order to get Saddam "off the hook."

His confrontation with officials of those two countries is set for Friday in New York. That's when chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei report on searches that have not turned up what the Bush administration has characterized as hundreds of concealed and illicit biological and chemical weapons.

U.S. and Russian officials on Wednesday said international missile experts this week did find that an Iraqi missile exceeds the maximum 93-mile range allowed under U.N. resolutions. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said it was now up to Blix to recommend what to do about the violation.

In addition, Turkey's foreign minister, Yasar Yakis, was holding talks in Washington on basing American troops in Turkey for use against Iraq.

And Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn., asked President Bush (news - web sites) to consider convening debtor and donor conferences to pay for a smooth, post-Saddam transition.

Powell told the House International Relations Committee on Wednesday that all 15 nations who voted unanimously in November to threaten Iraq with "serious consequences" if it did not disarm knew they were voting for force as an option.

"I hope in the days ahead we will be able to rally the United Nations around the original resolution and what other resolution might be necessary in order to satisfy the political needs of a number of the countries," Powell said.

But he said the United States would not be deterred by opposition to using force.

"France and Germany are resisting," he said. "They believe that more inspections, more time" should be allowed.

"The question I will put to them is: Why more inspections? And how much more time?" Powell said. "Or are you just delaying for the sake of delaying in order to get Saddam Hussein off the hook and no disarmament? That's a challenge I will put to them."

A U.S. official confirmed that Powell would be in New York, speaking to his counterparts Friday. The Security Council members will have a chance to discuss the report from Blix and ElBaradei first at the open meeting, and then in a closed session, said Germany's U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger, the current council president.

The New York Times reported in Thursday's editions that Pentagon (news - web sites) officials say Iraqi forces have moved explosives into the southern part of the country in preparation for blowing up bridges, bursting dams and igniting oil fields in a strategy to slow an American attack.

Meanwhile, a new audio recording by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) was reported Wednesday — the second to surface this week — in which the al-Qaida leader purportedly predicts his own death in an unspecified act of "martyrdom."

Al-Ansaar, a British-based Islamic news agency, said it believed the 53-minute tape, allegedly recorded earlier this month and acquired by the news agency from an unidentified man via an Internet contact, was a carefully worded last will and testament from bin Laden.

U.S. counterterrorism officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they were studying the new message.

Antiwar protesters rally to cause
By By Burhan Wazir for The Observer.

If half a million people pour on to the streets of
London next week to protest about the prospect
of war in Iraq, as many are now predicting, John
Rees will have reason to be pleased with himself.
He is among a tiny handful of people behind one
of the most rapidly growing and widely based protest
movements to emerge in Britain since the war...

Over the past 18 months, the coalition, chaired
by Andrew Murray, a former journalist and trade
union official, has established itself at the forefront
of the anti-war movement in the UK. Each week the
organisation gathers people at small town hall
meetings, churches and mosques throughout Britain.
People have, for the most part, then organised
themselves. A snowball effect has resulted. Nearly
200 coaches have been booked to ferry supporters
into the capital.

As well as emails, organisers have used text
messaging, professionally designed adverts and
computer banking techniques to raise cash. 'The
volume of emails - 1,000 a day - is particularly
difficult to keep up with,' said Rees.

So too is the lack of experience of many of the
would-be marchers. 'Many people have never
attended a march before. They have no idea of
what to do. So they organise themselves slowly.
Whereas before five people were turning
up at these small meetings, these days it's closer
to 100.'

Here is the entire text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,891988,00.html

Observer February 9, 2003

Antiwar protesters rally to cause

By Burhan Wazir

If half a million people pour on to the streets of London next week to
protest about the prospect of war in Iraq, as many are now predicting, John
Rees will have reason to be pleased with himself. He is among a tiny handful
of people behind one of the most rapidly growing and widely based protest
movements to emerge in Britain since the war.

Rees is a key organiser behind the Stop The War Coalition. As he sits and
mass-emails the coalition's daily information updates at the organisation's
Brick Lane headquarters, he explains its workings. Email addresses are
passed on to like-minded groups and activists who have donated around £100
each to the organisation's advertisements and fliers. Mass mail-outs are
then sent out to attract support, disseminate information and rebuke what is
considered propaganda.

Over the past 18 months, the coalition, chaired by Andrew Murray, a former
journalist and trade union official, has established itself at the forefront
of the anti-war movement in the UK. Each week the organisation gathers
people at small town hall meetings, churches and mosques throughout Britain.
People have, for the most part, then organised themselves. A snowball effect
has resulted. Nearly 200 coaches have been booked to ferry supporters into
the capital.

As well as emails, organisers have used text messaging, professionally
designed adverts and computer banking techniques to raise cash. 'The volume
of emails - 1,000 a day - is particularly difficult to keep up with,' said
Rees.

So too is the lack of experience of many of the would-be marchers. 'Many
people have never attended a march before. They have no idea of what to do.
So they organise themselves slowly. Whereas before five people were turning
up at these small meetings, these days it's closer to 100.'

Many attending the rally are political debutantes who have been persuaded
after seeing the organisation's full-page adverts in newspapers. Ruth
Linnett, 27, an actress from Mitcham, has never attended a rally before.

'There are quite a few issues I have felt strongly about in the past,' she
said. 'A number of my friends are also going on the march. This is something
that could have implications for all of us for the rest of our lives.'

Aura Ghanieri, 19, studying in London, was born on Long Island, New York.
She has never attended a rally before. 'I want to help the cause,' she said.
'I hope I will be able to stop this war. This is unjust, immoral and
illegal. As for the fresh evidence last week: I didn't believe any of it. It
was all fuzzy pictures and bad videos.'

Those marching next Saturday span all ages and social backgrounds. Dan
Goldwater, 13, said he was persuaded to join the march by talking to his
schoolfriends. 'I'm strongly against the war, and I would like to
demonstrate that. My friends and I think that the inspectors need more time.
All countries should be disarmed, and that includes America and Britain.'

As with any anti-war collation, STW has attracted supporting groups from all
walks of British life. The Liverpool Dockers Shop Stewards Committee, the
Arab Organisation of Human Rights, the Black Racial Attack Independent
Network, the British Humanist Association, Globalise Resistance, the London
Council of Mosques, Roman Catholics and Church of England groups are all
represented. Despite differences in emphasis, the organisers are confident
that marchers will be united behind one main goal, to stop the war

As with any march of this nature, the police have made some extensive
preparations. Around 1,300 officers will be out in force on the day, backed
up by helicopters with cameras and CCTVs. 'The main concerns is for this
march to pass off safely and without any trouble. The organisers have been
very cooperative,' said Deputy Assistant Commissioner Andy Trotter.

Commentators believe the march has all the prospects of becoming a pivotal
moment in the run-up to any war on Iraq.

Eric Hobsbawm, the historian and writer, told The Observer: 'Next week's
march very much goes against the theory that people are not interested in
politics anymore. Of course, you cannot expect the march to achieve anything
such as a change of policy but with an obviously large turn-out expected,
most people will be very encouraged. It will show them that popular protest
is very much alive.'

Here's another story from my local station KTVU Channel 2 - (Lo-Res - 26 MB) about how local business are fearing that this War will mean the end for them (finish off what's left of their businesses after 911).

It is my belief that people feel that small business' across the country will be hurt straight across the board.

Let me know if you need this file in smaller chunks.

Although the Shrub has hopped up the war talk this week, the reality of the situation is that Saddam is complying with U.N. demands -- now more than ever.

Here's a story that got out Sunday night on my local station KTVU Channel 2 before the nation-wide war push got going:

Update On Iraq Situation (Lo-Res - 20 MB)

February 16, 2003 Peace March

Rumsfeld family tie is first victim of war
The American defence chief Donald Rumsfeld has been disowned by his anti-war relatives in north Germany, reports Tony Paterson
By Tony Paterson for The Telegraph.

The Rumsfelds of Weyhe-Sudweyhe, an unremarkable red-brick suburb of Bremen, were once proud of their long-lost cousin, America's secretary of state for defence - but no longer.

Like many Germans, they are appalled by Donald Rumsfeld's hawkish attitude to military action against Saddam Hussein. About 18,000 anti-war demonstrators marched through Munich yesterday to protest at his presence at an international security conference - chanting slogans such as "No room for Rumsfeld!"

"We think it is dreadful that Donald Rumsfeld is out there pushing for a war against Iraq," Karin Cecere (nee Rumsfeld), 59, said from her two-up, two-down home last week. "We are embarrassed to be related to him," she told The Telegraph.

Margarete Rumsfeld, her 85-year-old mother, was equally dismissive: "We don't have much to do with him anymore. Nowadays he's just the American defence secretary to us, but for God's sake, he'd better not start a war," she added.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/09/wrums09.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/02/09/ixworld.html

Login or Register | Headlines | Emailed News
daily news, uk weather, business news - online newspaper - The Telegraph
Sunday 9 February 2003

Rumsfeld family tie is first victim of war
By Tony Paterson
(Filed: 09/02/2003)

The American defence chief Donald Rumsfeld has been disowned by his anti-war relatives in north Germany, reports Tony Paterson

The Rumsfelds of Weyhe-Sudweyhe, an unremarkable red-brick suburb of Bremen, were once proud of their long-lost cousin, America's secretary of state for defence - but no longer.

Like many Germans, they are appalled by Donald Rumsfeld's hawkish attitude to military action against Saddam Hussein. About 18,000 anti-war demonstrators marched through Munich yesterday to protest at his presence at an international security conference - chanting slogans such as "No room for Rumsfeld!"

"We think it is dreadful that Donald Rumsfeld is out there pushing for a war against Iraq," Karin Cecere (nee Rumsfeld), 59, said from her two-up, two-down home last week. "We are embarrassed to be related to him," she told The Telegraph.

Margarete Rumsfeld, her 85-year-old mother, was equally dismissive: "We don't have much to do with him anymore. Nowadays he's just the American defence secretary to us, but for God's sake, he'd better not start a war," she added.

They used to feel differently. Twenty-five years ago, the German Rumsfelds were thrilled to welcome Mr Rumsfeld - then the United States ambassador to Nato stationed in Brussels - into their extended family.

Like many Americans keen to trace their European antecedents, Mr Rumsfeld had made contact with the Weyhe-Sudweyhe Rumsfelds, a branch of the family with whom his near relations had lost touch since his great-great-grandfather, Heinrich, emigrated to America during the 19th century.

Mr Rumsfeld paid three visits to Dietrich Rumsfeld, a bricklayer, and his wife Margarete in their small artisan's cottage. On the last occasion, they greeted him with chicken soup and roast pork for lunch "It was a really pleasant family gathering, almost like a wedding," said Mrs Cecere last week. "Mr Rumsfeld seemed a genuinely nice man. It is such a shame about his war ambitions."

She had grown up, she said, during the Second World War and her instincts were to search for a solution to the deadlock with Saddam that did not involve military action. "I was born in the war and saw its aftermath, and my mother went through it," she said. "There must be a peaceful way of solving the Iraq problem."

This change of heart over their Rumsfeld cousin reflects the mood in Germany. More than 60 per cent of Germans oppose a war and the US defence secretary has become a hate figure for the country's peace movement.

His desire to topple Saddam by force is at odds with the Social Democrat-led government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, which is directly opposed to war in Iraq.

Even before his arrival in Germany yesterday, Mr Rumsfeld had faced fierce criticism from senior German government officials for describing France and Germany as "old Europe".

Last week he caused further outrage when he told the House Armed Services Committee in Washington that Germany, like "Libya and Cuba", had indicated that it "did not want to help in any way" the international efforts to tackle Iraq.

The German government attempted to play down the criticism. "Mr Rumsfeld is like he is. I can say no more," said Joschka Fischer, the foreign minister. Other senior politicians were more explicit. "Rumsfeld has flipped out - his behaviour is impossible," said Klaus Kinkel, a Free Democrat and former foreign minister.

Some Germans have misgivings, however, that their country's hard line against war with Iraq may backfire - especially if, as widely predicted, France drops its own objections at the last minute and joins in military action.

Angela Merkel, the leader of the Christian Democrats, yesterday became the first opposition figure to call for Germany to become involved. "If it is impossible to solve the situation peacefully then Germany has to take part in a military operation," she said, accusing Mr Schröder's government of "spreading ill-will and confusion" in Nato.

In Munich Mr Rumsfeld sought to dispel the furore over his own comments by claiming that he had intended the phrase "old Europe" as a term of affection, like that of "old friends".

He admitted that he was sometimes inclined to be blunt - but blamed it on his German roots. "My family originates from northern Germany. People there are well known for their direct and clear manner of speaking."

His explanation did not impress most Germans - least of all his cousins in Weyhe-Sudweyhe. Mrs Cecere said: "We're all in favour of plain-speaking but our relation goes just too far."

An Alternative to War
By Jimmy Carter -- Former U.S. President and Nobel Laureate

In Washington, there is no longer any mention of Osama bin Laden, and the concentration of public statements on his international terrorist network is mostly limited to still-unproven allegations about its connection with Iraq. The worldwide commitment and top priority of fighting terrorism that was generated after September 11th has been attenuated as Iraq has become the preeminent obsession of political leaders and the general public.

In addition to the need to re-invigorate the global team effort against international terrorism, there are other major problems being held in abeyance as our nation's foreign policy is concentrated on proving its case for a planned attack on Iraq. We have just postponed again the promulgation of the long-awaited "road map" that the U.S. and other international leaders have drafted for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a festering cancer and the root cause of much of the anti-American sentiment that has evolved throughout the world. At the same time, satellite observations of North Korea have indicated that nuclear fuel rods, frozen under international surveillance since 1994, are now being moved from the Yongbyon site to an undisclosed destination, possibly for reprocessing into explosives. It is imperative that this threat to Asian stability be met with aggressive diplomacy.

Since it is obvious that Saddam Hussein has the capability and desire to build an arsenal of prohibited weapons and probably has some of them hidden within his country, what can be done to prevent the development of a real Iraqi threat? The most obvious answer is a sustained and enlarged inspection team, deployed as a permanent entity until the United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council determine that its presence is no longer needed. For almost eight years following the Gulf War until it was withdrawn four years ago, UNSCOM proved to be very effective in locating and destroying Iraq's formidable arsenal, including more than 900 missiles and biological and chemical weapons left over from their previous war with Iran.

Even if Iraq should come into full compliance now, such follow-up monitoring will be necessary. The cost of an on-site inspection team would be minuscule compared to war, Saddam would have no choice except to comply, the results would be certain, military and civilian casualties would be avoided, there would be almost unanimous worldwide support, and the United States could regain its leadership in combating the real threat of international terrorism."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://truthout.org/docs_02/020303B.htm

t r u t h o u t | Statement
Jimmy Carter
Former U.S. President, Nobel Laureate

An Alternative to War

Friday 31 January 2003

ATLANTA, Jan. 31 -- "Despite marshalling powerful armed forces in the Persian Gulf region and a virtual declaration of war in the State of the Union message, our government has not made a case for a preemptive military strike against Iraq, either at home or in Europe.

Recent vituperative attacks on U.S. policy by famous and respected men like Nelson Mandela and John Le Carre, although excessive, are echoed in a Web site poll conducted by the European edition of TIME magazine. The question was "Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?" With several hundred thousand votes cast, the responses were: North Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8 percent; the United States, 84 percent. This is a gross distortion of our nation's character, and America is not inclined to let foreign voices answer the preeminent question that President Bush is presenting to the world, but it is sobering to realize how much doubt and consternation has been raised about our motives for war in the absence of convincing proof of a genuine threat from Iraq.

The world will be awaiting Wednesday's presentation of specific evidence by Secretary of State Colin Powell concerning Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. As an acknowledged voice of moderation, his message will carry enormous weight in shaping public opinion. But even if his effort is successful and lies and trickery by Saddam Hussein are exposed, this will not indicate any real or proximate threat by Iraq to the United States or to our allies.

With overwhelming military strength now deployed against him and with intense monitoring from space surveillance and the U.N. inspection team on the ground, any belligerent move by Saddam against a neighbor would be suicidal. An effort to produce or deploy chemical or biological weapons or to make the slightest move toward a nuclear explosive would be inconceivable. If Iraq does possess such concealed weapons, as is quite likely, Saddam would use them only in the most extreme circumstances, in the face of an invasion of Iraq, when all hope of avoiding the destruction of his regime is lost.

In Washington, there is no longer any mention of Osama bin Laden, and the concentration of public statements on his international terrorist network is mostly limited to still-unproven allegations about its connection with Iraq. The worldwide commitment and top priority of fighting terrorism that was generated after September 11th has been attenuated as Iraq has become the preeminent obsession of political leaders and the general public.

In addition to the need to re-invigorate the global team effort against international terrorism, there are other major problems being held in abeyance as our nation's foreign policy is concentrated on proving its case for a planned attack on Iraq. We have just postponed again the promulgation of the long-awaited "road map" that the U.S. and other international leaders have drafted for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a festering cancer and the root cause of much of the anti-American sentiment that has evolved throughout the world. At the same time, satellite observations of North Korea have indicated that nuclear fuel rods, frozen under international surveillance since 1994, are now being moved from the Yongbyon site to an undisclosed destination, possibly for reprocessing into explosives. It is imperative that this threat to Asian stability be met with aggressive diplomacy.

Since it is obvious that Saddam Hussein has the capability and desire to build an arsenal of prohibited weapons and probably has some of them hidden within his country, what can be done to prevent the development of a real Iraqi threat? The most obvious answer is a sustained and enlarged inspection team, deployed as a permanent entity until the United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council determine that its presence is no longer needed. For almost eight years following the Gulf War until it was withdrawn four years ago, UNSCOM proved to be very effective in locating and destroying Iraq's formidable arsenal, including more than 900 missiles and biological and chemical weapons left over from their previous war with Iran.

Even if Iraq should come into full compliance now, such follow-up monitoring will be necessary. The cost of an on-site inspection team would be minuscule compared to war, Saddam would have no choice except to comply, the results would be certain, military and civilian casualties would be avoided, there would be almost unanimous worldwide support, and the United States could regain its leadership in combating the real threat of international terrorism."

--------

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is chair of The Carter Center in Atlanta, Ga., a not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization that advances peace and health worldwide.

For more information, contact The Carter Center Public Information, 404-420-5108.

Here's the actual public report by Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix.

US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix
By Judith Miller and Julia Preston for NY Times Agencies (Australia)

In an interview on Wednesday, Dr Blix, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the United States' campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.

"Whatever we say will be used by some," Dr Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."

Dr Blix took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.

Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to other countries to prevent them from being interviewed.

Nor had he any reason to believe, as President George Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists, or that his inspection agency had been penetrated by Iraqi agents and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad.

Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520548.html

SMH Home
Home > World News > Target Iraq > Article
- national
- world
snapshots
- opinion
- business
- technology
- sport
- entertainment
- multimedia
..........
classifieds
jobs
property
cars
place an ad
- - - -
extra
personal finance
travel
education
- - - -
subscribe
home delivery
eNewsletter
- - - -
archives
- - - -
today's edition: am
past 10 days
- - - -
site guide
- - - -

US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix

By Judith Miller and Julia Preston in New York
February 1 2003

Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix arrives at UN headquarters in New York. Photo: AFP

Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix challenged several of the Bush Administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.

In an interview on Wednesday, Dr Blix, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the United States' campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.

"Whatever we say will be used by some," Dr Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."

Dr Blix took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.

Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to other countries to prevent them from being interviewed.

Nor had he any reason to believe, as President George Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists, or that his inspection agency had been penetrated by Iraqi agents and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad.

Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Dr Blix said. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."

Russia has also denied any knowledge of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda extremists. The Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, said on Thursday that "so far, neither Russia nor any other country has information about Iraq's ties with al-Qaeda".

"If we receive such information we will analyse it," he said. "Statements made so far are not backed by concrete documents and concrete facts."

Meanwhile the founder of a militant Islamist group in northern Iraq has denied US reports that his organisation was the secret link between Baghdad and al-Qaeda.

Mullah Krekar, a refugee in Norway, said Saddam was his foe, and the Kurdish Islamist said he had no contact with al-Qaeda.

He said that he could prove that his Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam) organisation, which controls a sliver of land in northern Iraq, had "no contact with al-Qaeda, with Osama [bin Laden], with Saddam Hussein, with Iran or Iraq".

Ansar's role is at the heart of the US's latest attempt to demonstrate a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

The New York Times, agencies

You probably didn't hear a whole lot about the vital information contained in this report that was published on Tuesday because of all the Shrub's war mongering going on at the same time (that, in all fairness, had to be reported on, I suppose).

So now that that's all over...Meanwhile, back here in reality, some of us would like to know what the inspectors over there in Iraq actually had to say in their report to the U.N. Security Council. (And it's on FOX News online, of all places :-)

The document also provides a great backgrounder on the last eleven years of weapons inspections in Iraq, right up until yesterday.

There's good news and bad news -- but at least you can read it all here for yourselves. (Thanks Pat.)
Hans Blix's Report to the U.N.

Mr President, I must not conclude this "update" without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.

In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else.

Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training program continues — even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.

A team supplied by the Swiss Government is refurbishing our offices in Baghdad, which had been empty for four years. The Government of New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German Government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. The Government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a Field Office in Larnaca.

All these contributions have been of assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities. So has help from the UN in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.

In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work.

We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to "freeze" large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.

Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.

Mr. President, we have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76710,00.html

Raw Data: Hans Blix's Report to the U.N.
Tuesday, January 28, 2003

The following is the text of UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix's report to the United Nations on Jan. 27, 2003:

The resolution adopted by the Security Council on Iraq in November last year asks UNMOVIC and the IAEA to "update" the Council 60 days after the resumption of inspections. This is today. The updating, it seems, forms part of an assessment by the Council and its Members of the results, so far, of the inspections and of their role as a means to achieve verifiable disarmament in Iraq.

As this is an open meeting of the Council, it may be appropriate briefly to provide some background for a better understanding of where we stand today.

With your permission, I shall do so.

I begin by recalling that inspections as a part of a disarmament process in Iraq started in 1991, immediately after the Gulf War. They went on for eight years until December 1998, when inspectors were withdrawn. Thereafter, for nearly four years there were no inspections. They were resumed only at the end of November last year.

While the fundamental aim of inspections in Iraq has always been to verify disarmament, the successive resolutions adopted by the Council over the years have varied somewhat in emphasis and approach.

In 1991, Resolution 687 (1991), adopted unanimously as a part of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, had five major elements. The three first related to disarmament. They called for:

• Declarations by Iraq of its programs of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles;

• Verification of the declarations through UNSCOM and the IAEA;

• Supervision by these organizations of the destruction or the elimination of proscribed programs and items.

After the completion of the disarmament:

• The Council would have authority to proceed to a lifting of the sanctions (economic restrictions); and

• The inspecting organizations would move to long-term ongoing monitoring and verification.

Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance — not even today — of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

As we know, the twin operation "declare and verify," which was prescribed in resolution 687 (1991), too often turned into a game of "hide and seek." Rather than just verifying declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programs and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations.

As a result, the disarmament phase was not completed in the short time expected. Sanctions remained and took a severe toll until Iraq accepted the Oil for Food Program and the gradual development of that program mitigated the effects of the sanctions.

The implementation of resolution 687 (1991) nevertheless brought about considerable disarmament results. It has been recognized that more weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under this resolution than were destroyed during the Gulf War: large quantities of chemical weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision before 1994.

While Iraq claims — with little evidence — that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.

One of three important questions before us today is how much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991; and, possibly, thereafter; the second question is what, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998, when the inspectors left; and the third question is how it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future.

In December 1999 — after one year without inspections in Iraq — Resolution 1284 (1999) was adopted by the Council with four abstentions. Supplementing the basic resolutions of 1991 and following years, it provided Iraq with a somewhat less ambitious approach: In return for "cooperation in all respects" for a specified period of time, including progress in the resolution of "key remaining disarmament tasks", it opened the possibility, not for the lifting, but the suspension of sanctions.

For nearly three years, Iraq refused to accept any inspections by UNMOVIC. It was only after appeals by the Secretary-General and Arab states and pressure by the United States and other Member States, that Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept inspections without conditions.

Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active. The resolution contained many provisions, which we welcome as enhancing and strengthening the inspection regime. The unanimity by which it was adopted sent a powerful signal that the Council was of one mind in creating a last opportunity for peaceful disarmament in Iraq through inspection.

UNMOVIC shares the sense of urgency felt by the Council to use inspection as a path to attain, within a reasonable time, verifiable disarmament of Iraq. Under the resolutions I have cited, it would be followed by monitoring for such time as the Council feels would be required. The resolutions also point to a zone free of weapons of mass destruction as the ultimate goal.

As a subsidiary body of the Council, UNMOVIC is fully aware of and appreciates the close attention, which the Council devotes to the inspections in Iraq. While today's "updating" is foreseen in Resolution 1441 (2002), the Council can and does call for additional briefings whenever it wishes. One was held on 19 January and a further such briefing is tentatively set for 14 February.

I turn now to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course. An initial minor step would be to adopt the long-overdue legislation required by the resolutions.

I shall deal first with cooperation on process.

Cooperation on Process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

In this updating I am bound, however, to register some problems. Firstly, relating to two kinds of air operations.

While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in Resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. I hope this attitude will change.

Another air operation problem — which was solved during our recent talks in Baghdad — concerned the use of helicopters flying into the no-fly zones. Iraq had insisted on sending helicopters of their own to accompany ours. This would have raised a safety problem. The matter was solved by an offer on our part to take the accompanying Iraq minders in our helicopters to the sites, an arrangement that had been practiced by UNSCOM in the past.

I am obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.

On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites.

The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.

Shortly thereafter, we receive protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not. Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional and, at the same time, correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.

Cooperation on Substance

The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusion that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be "active". It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can". Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.

The Declaration of 7 December

On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to Paragraph 3 of Resolution 1441 (2002) and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome.

One might have expected that in preparing the Declaration, Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues, which the Iraqi side should be familiar with from the UNSCOM document (S/1999/94) of January 1999 and the so-called Amorim Report of March 1999 (S/1999/356). These are questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited.

While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current "unresolved disarmament issues" and "key remaining disarmament tasks" in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.

They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.

I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.

Chemical Weapons

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few [metric] tons and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponizied. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 [metric] tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further four chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.

I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.

Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.

Biological Weapons

I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq's Foreign Minister stated that "all imported quantities of growth media were declared". This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

Missiles

I turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that program or data on the consumption of the missiles.

There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years presented by Iraq as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.

Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fueled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.

The Al Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.

During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.

These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.

In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

Mr. President, I have touched upon some of the disarmament issues that remain open and that need to be answered if dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. Which are the means at the disposal of Iraq to answer these questions? I have pointed to some during my presentation of the issues. Let me be a little more systematic.

Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and if no evidence is presented to the contrary they should have the benefit of the doubt, be presumed innocent. UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq, but nor is it — or I think anyone else after the inspections between 1991 and 1998 — presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem. Evidence and full transparency may help. Let me be specific.

Find the Items and Activities

Information provided by Member States tells us about the movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological weapons production. We shall certainly follow up any credible leads given to us and report what we might find as well as any denial of access.

So far we have reported on the recent find of a small number of empty 122 mm warheads for chemical weapons. Iraq declared that it appointed a commission of inquiry to look for more. Fine. Why not extend the search to other items? Declare what may be found and destroy it under our supervision?

Find Documents

When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have been presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons.

However, Iraq has all the archives of the Government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports on how they have been used. It should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports on production and losses of material.

In response to a recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 193 pages which Iraq stated included all imports from 1983 to 1990 by the Technical and Scientific Importation Division, the importing authority for the biological weapons program. Potentially, it might help to clear some open issues.

The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals.

This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.

Any further sign of the concealment of documents would be serious. The Iraqi side committed itself at our recent talks to encourage persons to accept access also to private sites. There can be no sanctuaries for proscribed items, activities or documents. A denial of prompt access to any site would be a very serious matter.

Find Persons to Give Credible Information: A List of Personnel

When Iraq claims that tangible evidence in the form of documents is not available, it ought at least to find individuals, engineers, scientists and managers to testify about their experience. Large weapons programs are moved and managed by people. Interviews with individuals who may have worked in programs in the past may fill blank spots in our knowledge and understanding. It could also be useful to learn that they are now employed in peaceful sectors. These were the reasons why UNMOVIC asked for a list of such persons, in accordance with resolution 1441.

Some 400 names for all biological and chemical weapons programs as well as their missile programs were provided by the Iraqi side. This can be compared to over 3,500 names of people associated with those past weapons programs that UNSCOM either interviewed in the 1990s or knew from documents and other sources. At my recent meeting in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to supplementing the list and some 80 additional names have been provided.

Allow Information Through Credible Interviews

In the past, much valuable information came from interviews. There were also cases in which the interviewee was clearly intimidated by the presence of and interruption by Iraqi officials. This was the background of Resolution 1441's provision for a right for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to hold private interviews "in the mode or location" of our choice, in Baghdad or even abroad.

To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual will only speak at Iraq's monitoring directorate or, at any rate, in the presence of an Iraqi official. This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say.

At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews "in private", that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed. However, we hope that with further encouragement from the authorities, knowledgeable individuals will accept private interviews, in Baghdad or abroad.

UNMOVIC's Capability

Mr President, I must not conclude this "update" without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.

In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else.

Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training program continues — even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.

A team supplied by the Swiss Government is refurbishing our offices in Baghdad, which had been empty for four years. The Government of New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German Government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. The Government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a Field Office in Larnaca.

All these contributions have been of assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities. So has help from the UN in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.

In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work.

We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to "freeze" large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.

Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.

Mr. President, we have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.

I love it. Even Schwarzkopf couldn't, in good conscience, not speak out against this war. Thanks Norman. It means a lot.
Desert Caution
Once 'Stormin' Norman,' Gen. Schwarzkopf Is Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq
By Thomas E. Ricks for the Washington Post.

And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

In fact, the hero of the last Gulf War sounds surprisingly like the man on the street when he discusses his ambivalence about the Bush administration's hawkish stance on ousting Saddam Hussein. He worries about the Iraqi leader, but would like to see some persuasive evidence of Iraq's alleged weapons programs.

"The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, okay?" he says. "Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I would like to have better information."

He hasn't seen that yet, and so -- in sharp contrast to the Bush administration -- he supports letting the U.N. weapons inspectors drive the timetable: "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive."

This isn't just any retired officer speaking. Schwarzkopf is one of the nation's best-known military officers, with name recognition second only to his former boss, Secretary of State Powell. What's more, he is closely allied with the Bush family. He hunts with the first President Bush. He campaigned for the second, speaking on military issues at the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia and later stumping in Florida with Cheney, who was secretary of defense during the 1991 war.

But he sees the world differently from those Gulf War colleagues. "It's obviously not a black-and-white situation over there" in the Mideast, he says. "I would just think that whatever path we take, we have to take it with a bit of prudence."

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52450-2003Jan27.html

Desert Caution
Once 'Stormin' Norman,' Gen. Schwarzkopf Is Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq

Schwarzkopf: "I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made." (Jim Stem -- Silver Images For The Washington Post)

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 28, 2003; Page C01

TAMPA--Norman Schwarzkopf wants to give peace a chance.

The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq.

And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

In fact, the hero of the last Gulf War sounds surprisingly like the man on the street when he discusses his ambivalence about the Bush administration's hawkish stance on ousting Saddam Hussein. He worries about the Iraqi leader, but would like to see some persuasive evidence of Iraq's alleged weapons programs.

"The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, okay?" he says. "Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I would like to have better information."

He hasn't seen that yet, and so -- in sharp contrast to the Bush administration -- he supports letting the U.N. weapons inspectors drive the timetable: "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive."

This isn't just any retired officer speaking. Schwarzkopf is one of the nation's best-known military officers, with name recognition second only to his former boss, Secretary of State Powell. What's more, he is closely allied with the Bush family. He hunts with the first President Bush. He campaigned for the second, speaking on military issues at the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia and later stumping in Florida with Cheney, who was secretary of defense during the 1991 war.

But he sees the world differently from those Gulf War colleagues. "It's obviously not a black-and-white situation over there" in the Mideast, he says. "I would just think that whatever path we take, we have to take it with a bit of prudence."

So has he seen sufficient prudence in the actions of his old friends in the Bush administration? Again, he carefully withholds his endorsement. "I don't think I can give you an honest answer on that."

Now 68, the general seems smaller and more soft-spoken than in his Riyadh heyday 12 years ago when he was "Stormin' Norman," the fatigues-clad martinet who intimidated subordinates and reporters alike. During last week's interview he sat at a small, round table in his skyscraper office, casually clad in slacks and a black polo shirt, the bland banks and hotels of Tampa's financial district spread out beyond him.

His voice seems thinner than during those blustery, globally televised Gulf War briefings. He is limping from a recent knee operation. He sometimes stays home to nurse the swelling with a bag of frozen peas.

He's had time to think. He likes the performance of Colin Powell -- chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, now secretary of state. "He's doing a wonderful job, I think," he says. But he is less impressed by Rumsfeld, whose briefings he has watched on television.

"Candidly, I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made," says Schwarzkopf.

He contrasts Cheney's low profile as defense secretary during the Gulf War with Rumsfeld's frequent television appearances since Sept. 11, 2001. "He almost sometimes seems to be enjoying it." That, Schwarzkopf admonishes, is a sensation to be avoided when engaged in war.

The general is a true son of the Army, where he served from 1956 to 1991, and some of his comments reflect the estrangement between that service and the current defense secretary. Some at the top of the Army see Rumsfeld and those around him as overly enamored of air power and high technology and insufficiently attentive to the brutal difficulties of ground combat. Schwarzkopf's comments reflect Pentagon scuttlebutt that Rumsfeld and his aides have brushed aside some of the Army's concerns.

"The Rumsfeld thing . . . that's what comes up," when he calls old Army friends in the Pentagon, he says.

"When he makes his comments, it appears that he disregards the Army," Schwarzkopf says. "He gives the perception when he's on TV that he is the guy driving the train and everybody else better fall in line behind him -- or else."

That dismissive posture bothers Schwarzkopf because he thinks Rumsfeld and the people around him lack the background to make sound military judgments by themselves. He prefers the way Cheney operated during the Gulf War. "He didn't put himself in the position of being the decision-maker as far as tactics were concerned, as far as troop deployments, as far as missions were concerned."

Rumsfeld, by contrast, worries him. "It's scary, okay?" he says. "Let's face it: There are guys at the Pentagon who have been involved in operational planning for their entire lives, okay? . . . And for this wisdom, acquired during many operations, wars, schools, for that just to be ignored, and in its place have somebody who doesn't have any of that training, is of concern."

As a result, Schwarzkopf is skeptical that an invasion of Iraq would be as fast and simple as some seem to think. "I have picked up vibes that . . . you're going to have this massive strike with massed weaponry, and basically that's going to be it, and we just clean up the battlefield after that," he says. But, he adds, he is more comfortable now with what he hears about the war plan than he was several months ago, when there was talk of an assault built around air power and a few thousand Special Operations troops.

He expresses even more concern about the task the U.S. military might face after a victory. "What is postwar Iraq going to look like, with the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shiites? That's a huge question, to my mind. It really should be part of the overall campaign plan."

(Rumsfeld said last week that post-Saddam planning "is a tough question and we're spending a lot of time on it, let me assure you." But the Pentagon hasn't disclosed how long it expects to have to occupy Iraq, or how many troops might be required to do that.)

The administration may be discussing the issue behind closed doors, Schwarzkopf says, but he thinks it hasn't sufficiently explained its thinking to the world, especially its assessment of the time, people and money needed. "I would hope that we have in place the adequate resources to become an army of occupation," he warns, "because you're going to walk into chaos."

The Result of a Bad Ending?

Just as the Gulf War looks less conclusive in retrospect, so has Schwarzkopf's reputation diminished since the glory days just after the war, when, Rick Atkinson wrote in "Crusade," Schwarzkopf "seemed ubiquitous, appearing at the Kentucky Derby, at the Indianapolis 500, on Capitol Hill, in parades, on bubblegum cards."

Twelve years and two American presidents later, Saddam Hussein is still in power, and the U.S. military is once again mustering to strike Iraq.

Some strategic thinkers, both inside the military and in academia, see Schwarzkopf's past actions as part of the problem. These experts argue that if the 1991 war had been terminated more thoughtfully, the U.S. military wouldn't have to go back again to finish the job.

"Everyone was so busy celebrating the end of the Vietnam syndrome that we forgot how winners win a war," says one Gulf War veteran who asked that his name not be used because he hopes to work in the administration.

Schwarzkopf in particular draws fire for approving a cease-fire that permitted the Iraqi military to fly helicopters after the war. Soon afterward, Iraqi helicopter gunships were used to put down revolts against Hussein in the Shiite south and the Kurdish north of Iraq. Only later were "no-fly zones" established to help protect those minority populations.

"It's quite clear that however brilliant operationally and technologically, the Gulf War cannot be viewed strategically as a complete success," says Michael Vickers, a former Special Forces officer who is now an analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense think tank.

Added one Pentagon expert on Iraq, "With benefit of hindsight, the victory was incomplete, and the luster of the entire operation has faded."

When Army colonels study the Gulf War at the Army War College nowadays, notes one professor there, "a big part of the class is discussing war termination."

For all that, few experts contend that Schwarzkopf is really the one to blame for the way the Gulf War ended. "Insofar as Gulf War 1 didn't finish the job, blame is more likely and appropriately laid on Bush 41 and, to a somewhat lesser extent, on Colin Powell," says John Allen Williams, a political scientist who specializes in military affairs at Loyola University Chicago.

Schwarzkopf himself doesn't entirely disagree with the view that the war was ended badly. "You can't help but sit here today and, with 20/20 hindsight, go back and say, 'Look, had we done something different, we probably wouldn't be facing what we are facing today.' "

But, he continues, Washington never instructed him to invade Iraq or oust Saddam Hussein. "My mission, plain and simple, was kick Iraq out of Kuwait. Period. There were never any other orders." Given the information available back then, the decision to stop the war with Saddam Hussein still in power was, he says, "probably was the only decision that could have been made at that time."

'Tell It Like It Is'

Schwarzkopf was never as lionized in military circles as he was by the general public. Like a rock star, he shuns commercial air travel mainly because he can barely walk through an airport without being besieged by autograph seekers and well-wishers. But his reputation inside the Army has "always been a bit different from the outside view," notes retired Army Col. Richard H. Sinnreich, who frequently participates in war games and other military training sessions.

Sinnreich doesn't think that many in the armed forces blame Schwarzkopf for the inconclusive ending of the Gulf War. "I know of no Army officer, active or retired, who holds such a view," he says. "The decision to suspend offensive operations clearly was a political decision that I suspect the relevant principals now profoundly regret, even if they're loath to admit it."

But what did sour some in the Army on Schwarzkopf, says Sinnreich, was his "rather ungracious treatment of his Gulf War subordinates."

Schwarzkopf raised eyebrows across the Army when, in his Gulf War memoir, he denounced one of his generals, Frederick Franks, for allegedly moving his 7th Corps in a "plodding and overly cautious" manner during the attack on the Iraqi military. He elaborated on that criticism in subsequent rounds of interviews. This public disparagement of a former subordinate rankled some in the Army, which even more than the other services likes to keep its internal disputes private.

"I think his attack on Franks was wrong," says Army Maj. Donald Vandergriff, in a typical comment.

"It wasn't meant to be an attack on Fred Franks," Schwarzkopf responds in the interview. Rather, he says, he was trying to provide an honest assessment, in the tradition of the Army's practice of conducting brutally accurate "after-action reviews." "No matter how painful it is, [when] you do your after-action review, tell it like it is."

The other behavior that bothered some was Schwarzkopf's virtual absence from the Army after the Gulf War. Many retired generals make almost a full-time job of working with the Army -- giving speeches at West Point and at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., visiting bases to mentor up-and-coming officers, sitting on Pentagon advisory boards, writing commentaries in military journals.

"The fact that Schwarzkopf . . . did not make himself available to speak to the many, many Army audiences anxious to listen to him won him no friends in the Army," notes retired Army Brig. Gen. John Mountcastle.

Adds Earl H. Tilford Jr., a former director of research at the War College's Strategic Studies Institute: "You never saw him at Carlisle, never."

Likewise, a professor at West Point recalls repeatedly being brushed off by Schwarzkopf's office.

Schwarzkopf says he avoided those circles for good reason. After the Gulf War, he says, he decided to take a low profile within the Army because he didn't want to step on the toes of the service's post-Gulf War leaders. There were sensitivities about overshadowing those generals, he says, especially after word leaked that he had been considered for the post of Army chief of staff but had declined the position.

Seeing that "open wound," he says, "I purposely distanced myself for a reasonable time."

The Army War College's location in rural Pennsylvania makes it difficult to reach from his home in the Tampa area, he says. And he notes that he has done much other work behind the scenes on behalf of the Army, including meeting with presidential candidate Bush to lobby him on military readiness issues.

He also has been busy with nonmilitary charities. After a bout with prostate cancer in 1994, he threw himself into helping cancer research; no fewer than 10 groups that fight cancer or conduct other medical research have given him awards in recent years.

No More Heroes?

Perhaps the real reason that Schwarzkopf's reputation has shrunk has more to do with America and less to do with Schwarzkopf's actions. American wars used to produce heroes such as Washington, Grant and Eisenhower, whose names were known by all schoolchildren, notes Boston University political scientist Andrew Bacevich.

But in recent decades, Bacevich says, "military fame has lost its durability." Sen. John McCain may appear to be an exception, he says, but he is someone noted less for what he did in the military than for what he endured as a prisoner of war.

More representative, Bacevich notes, may be Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the officer who would lead U.S. forces in any new war with Iraq. Franks "has not ignited widespread popular affection," says Bacevich, himself a retired Army colonel.

It may be that American society no longer has an appetite for heroes, military or otherwise, says Ward Carroll, a recently retired naval aviator and author of "Punk's War," a novel about patrolling the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. American society may not be making the kinds of sacrifices that make people look for heroes to celebrate. "You don't have rationing, you don't have gold stars in the window, and the other things that made [war heroes] a part of the fabric of American life" in the past, he says.

Even Schwarzkopf's own Gulf War memoir was titled "It Doesn't Take a Hero."

Or it just may be that America no longer puts anyone up on a pedestal. "Even our sports heroes aren't heroes anymore, in the way that Lou Gehrig and Mickey Mantle were," says Carroll. "The picture is a lot more blurred nowadays."

Washington Post researcher Rob Thomason contributed to this report.

More peaceful protest and cooperation between Cops and Citizens -- this time in Pittsburgh, PA:
Peaceful weekend pleases police, marchers
By Bob Batz Jr. for the Post-Gazette.
(Thanks, David.)

Key was communication, which the police started
weeks ago with organizers from the Thomas
Merton Center and the Pittsburgh Organizing Group.

Valenta also cited cooperation between city police
and other agencies, including the state police,
Allegheny County Police, Carnegie Mellon
University police and University of Pittsburgh
police, as well as the FBI and the federal
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

He said about 70 officers staffed Saturday's
parade through the South Side, and about
100 covered Sunday's rally and march in
Oakland.

Police estimated at least 1,500 participants
Saturday and 5,000 Sunday, making for
what many agreed was the biggest anti-war
protest here in three decades...

"It's certainly rewarding to know that they
held true to their word, and I think we held
true to ours," Valenta said. "When you can
build a rapport like that, if events happen
in the future, both sides know they can trust
each other."

"We are deeply grateful for the police" who
"went beyond the call of duty" to enable
participants to exercise their constitutional
rights, Vining said.

Vining said the convergence went "beyond
our expectations."

"I had people say it gave them hope for
Pittsburgh as a community -- that we can
actually organize something. It was not a
football game kind of rah-rah, but a unifying
thing."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://post-gazette.com/localnews/20030128peace0128p4.asp

Pittsburgh, PA
Tuesday
January 28, 2003

Peaceful weekend pleases police, marchers

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

By Bob Batz Jr., Post-Gazette Staff Writer

All they were saying was, "Give peace a chance," and Pittsburgh did: The weekend Regional Convergence Against the War happened peaceably.

"I was just thrilled with the outcome of the weekend. ... It was a rousing success."

That's not from one of the protest organizers, but from Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Cmdr. William Valenta, who coordinated police response to the three-day mobilization against war with Iraq.

Despite the cold, the crowds and concerns about extremist acts, the convergence took place without an arrest. As Valenta explained yesterday, "A lot of things had a hand in that."

Key was communication, which the police started weeks ago with organizers from the Thomas Merton Center and the Pittsburgh Organizing Group.

Valenta also cited cooperation between city police and other agencies, including the state police, Allegheny County Police, Carnegie Mellon University police and University of Pittsburgh police, as well as the FBI and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

He said about 70 officers staffed Saturday's parade through the South Side, and about 100 covered Sunday's rally and march in Oakland.

Police estimated at least 1,500 participants Saturday and 5,000 Sunday, making for what many agreed was the biggest anti-war protest here in three decades.

Officials planned to make arrests only as a last resort -- a philosophy CMU Chief Creig Doyle summed up beforehand as "no harm, no foul."

Valenta said he can live with the one loss, a smashed window at an Oakland military recruiting center.

At the end of the Sunday activities, Valenta shook hands with Merton Center Executive Director Tim Vining. Vining thanked him.

"It's certainly rewarding to know that they held true to their word, and I think we held true to ours," Valenta said. "When you can build a rapport like that, if events happen in the future, both sides know they can trust each other."

"We are deeply grateful for the police" who "went beyond the call of duty" to enable participants to exercise their constitutional rights, Vining said.

Vining said the convergence went "beyond our expectations."

"I had people say it gave them hope for Pittsburgh as a community -- that we can actually organize something. It was not a football game kind of rah-rah, but a unifying thing."

Bob Batz Jr. can be reached at bbatz@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1930.

(I guess the brits are right -- the Shrub's Administration is only interested in bodies...)

I am growing increasingly concerned about our boys overseas (the 150,000 troops or so that are already there).

How well can the Shrub be planning on treating them if he's already planning mass graves for them (per a potential bioterrorist threat)?

Pentagon Eyes Mass Graves Option Would Fight Contamination After Bioterror Deaths

By Greg Seigle for The Denver Post.

The bodies of U.S. soldiers killed by chemical or biological weapons in Iraq or future wars may be bulldozed into mass graves and burned to save the lives of surviving troops, under an option being considered by the Pentagon.

Since the Korean War, the U.S. military has taken great pride in bringing home its war dead, returning bodies to next of kin for flag-draped, taps-sounding funerals complete with 21-gun salutes.

But the 53-year-old tradition could come to an abrupt halt if large numbers of soldiers are killed by chemical or biological agents, according to a proposal quietly circulating through Pentagon corridors.

here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012603A.mass.graves.htm

Print This Story E-mail This Story

(*Editors Note | As we stride towards an open war in Iraq, there is a quieter sort of battle being waged between the Pentagon and the White House. There are a great many Generals in the Defense Department who are deeply concerned about this coming war, as described in a truthout report from yesterday. In that report, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is described as telling the Generals to get in line or find new jobs, and Mr. Bush is described as believing that any resistance to his plans is tantamount to treason. Today, the Washington Times carried a report detailing a bitterly critical memo written by Rumsfeld regarding the very Generals he told to get in line. Now comes this ghoulish story below, straight out of the Pentagon. Why? Perhaps it is an attempt to give the American people a glimpse of what may be coming, a glimpse of the dangers that arise when we charge off into unnecessary war. Perhaps it is a warning from those same Generals, a warning delivered both to Mr. Rumsfeld and to the citizenry. These soldiers cannot speak publicly about their concerns for fear of being labeled disloyal. Stories like this, however, show that someone is talking, and is deeply concerned. - wrp)

Go To Original

Pentagon Eyes Mass Graves Option Would Fight Contamination After Bioterror Deaths
By Greg Seigle
The Denver Post

January 24, 2003

The bodies of U.S. soldiers killed by chemical or biological weapons in Iraq or future wars may be bulldozed into mass graves and burned to save the lives of surviving troops, under an option being considered by the Pentagon.

Since the Korean War, the U.S. military has taken great pride in bringing home its war dead, returning bodies to next of kin for flag-draped, taps-sounding funerals complete with 21-gun salutes.

But the 53-year-old tradition could come to an abrupt halt if large numbers of soldiers are killed by chemical or biological agents, according to a proposal quietly circulating through Pentagon corridors.

Army spokesmen said the option to bury or even burn bodies contaminated by chemical or biological weapons is being considered, along with the possibility of placing contaminated corpses in airtight body bags and sending them home for closed-casket funerals.

"All due care is taken to honor the remains of our fallen comrades," said Maj. Chris Conway, an Army spokesman. "It's just too premature to speculate on any plan or policy."

Lt. Col. Ryan Yantis, an Army spokesman, said, "Military planners look at an operation in the full spectrum from the best-case scenario to the worst, and you have to make plans accordingly."

Yantis said that if a biological or chemical attack occurs, "we're going to treat the wounded with the best possible medical care. Those who are, unfortunately, deceased, we're going to treat with the utmost dignity and respect. ... We're going to have to take care of the mission and we're going to have to ensure the safety of the force."

Iraq admitted to United Nations inspectors in 1995 that it had produced large amounts of chemical and biological weapons during the 1980s and 1990s. American and British intelligence agencies say Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has continued to produce the deadly weapons covertly since then, despite Iraqi denials.

U.N. inspectors have found no proof Iraq is hiding weapons, but the U.S. insists they are there and is massing troops in the Persian Gulf for a possible war.

The U.S. had a plan for mass burials during the Gulf War in 1991, said Lt. Gen. William "Gus" Pagonis, the chief logistician for that conflict and the man who conceived the plan.

"The bulldozers were all lined up and ready to go," to deposit contaminated bodies in "mass graves," Pagonis said.

"You'll use whatever equipment is necessary to avoid contaminating more people," Pagonis said in a recent interview. "You don't want anybody else to die."

Pagonis said that before the Gulf War, he sent the plan simultaneously to commanding Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf and the Department of the Army and no one responded. "When you send a plan and no one gets back to you, you assume it's been approved," he said.

Army spokesman Capt. Ben Kuykendall said the Pagonis plan is similar to the option currently under consideration - except that bodies infected by biological agents might be both cremated and buried.

If soldiers are killed by "something like smallpox in which bodies cannot be decontaminated, we would have to cremate them right there," Kuykendall said. He said he recently discussed the option in detail with Brig. Gen. Steve Reeves, program executive officer for the Army's chemical and biological defense office. Reeves declined to comment.

"You would have to protect the living, so you'd have to get rid of the (contaminated) bodies as quickly as possible," Kuykendall said. "You don't want to contaminate any survivors who are not already contaminated."

It is possible to decontaminate bodies, but such efforts would be "very sensitive, expensive and time-consuming," particularly for corpses infected with contagious biological agents, Kuykendall said.

But even if a body was believed to be decontaminated, it could not be sent stateside for fear it might still contain lethal germs or viruses that could fester deep inside and seep out later, he said. "That just would not be worth the risk."

If bodies contaminated with biological agents such as smallpox or anthrax were flown home, they could pass potentially lethal contaminants to every vehicle, aircraft, building and person that came in contact with them, Kuykendall said.

Bodies infected with chemical agents such as VX and mustard gas, which are very persistent, could also contaminate others, said Jonathan Tucker, a Washington-based senior scholar at the Monterey Institute of International Studies who has written extensively about chemical and biological agents.

It is easier to decontaminate chemically contaminated bodies for shipment and traditional burials than those infected by biological agents, Tucker said.

But in the heat of battle, Pagonis said, a field commander doesn't have time to make the distinction. "You want to do away with this (biological threat) as quickly as possible," he said.

Military veterans said they hope those commanders will never have to make such a choice.

"I know this is a plan to protect people and to make sure that we don't bring back any biological agents, but we're more concerned with how the (living) soldiers are going to protect themselves on the battlefield," said Steve Robinson, a retired Army Ranger and executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center.

"It makes sense" to bury or burn contaminated bodies, Robinson said, "but it's still going to be hard on the families. ... If you are told your son was killed in Iraq but buried in a mass grave, you are going to be forever speculative on how he died."

Mass burial is "a sensitive issue, and we don't want to think about it because our hopes and prayers are that it won't happen," said Tom Corey, president of the Vietnam Veterans of America who was wounded in Vietnam and now uses a wheelchair.

A top Army mortuary official said he is confident his nearly 700 soldiers could decontaminate any corpses and send them home for proper burial.

"They would process them as best they could and move them to the rear," said Douglas Howard, deputy director of the Army Mortuary Affairs Center in Fort Lee, Va., which is responsible for handling the bodies of soldiers.

"If we bury on the battlefield, it will only be as a last resort," Howard said.

But mortuary teams would have to be wary of charging into areas filled with noxious fumes or deadly germs.

"The primary difficulty is concern for the safety of the mortuary affairs soldiers," said Howard, who has been an Army mortician for 30 years. "We never launch forth into a contaminated area without the advice and consent of the chemical community."

Pentagon officials declined to reveal exactly how many people staff the decontamination teams. The Army mortuary affairs center has only one such group - the 246th Quartermaster Mortuary Affairs Company, a 220-soldier reserve unit based in Puerto Rico.

Kuykendall said the Army's limited decontamination assets would have to be concentrated on survivors. Pagonis and other defense experts agreed.

"The military's first concern would be its own people - if they're still alive they would be the top priority. Next would be civilian noncombatants. People who are already dead would not be at the top of the triage," Philip Coyle said.

Coyle served as an undersecretary of defense from 1997 to 2001 and oversaw the testing and evaluation of much of the military's new decontamination and protective gear but said he was never informed of the option for cremation or mass burial of casualties.

Decontamination teams use large, showerlike pressure washers to spray victims with special disinfectants, cleaning solutions or even water. The teams, which can operate together or in small subgroups, rely on the guidance of specialists in chemical-biological warfare and sometimes even transport from other units.

Soldiers contaminated by chemical weapons would need to leave the scene as quickly as possible to limit their exposure. Those contaminated by biological agents would need to stay put to avoid spreading germs or viruses to their colleagues or civilians, Tucker said.

Chemical weapons generally contaminate relatively small areas, while biological weapons such as smallpox, which is highly contagious and lethal, can spread for long distances if contaminated people, bodies, gear or equipment are moved around, Tucker said.

Every U.S. soldier deployed to a potential combat zone carries an advanced gas mask and at least one air-tight, charcoal-lined protective suit. But such gear is useless if ripped open by bullets or shrapnel, or if troops are caught without all their garb on. Experts worry that the troops might be tempted to remove some or all of the bulky, uncomfortable equipment, particularly in the searing heat of the gulf region.

U.S. troops also carry auto-injecting needles that can inject atropine and oxine to counteract the effects of chemical nerve agents. But those must be applied immediately after contamination to be effective, Tucker said.

Tucker said the Iraqis are believed to have large, hidden stockpiles of chemical weapons, including "very high quality" mustard gas, a blistering agent, and nerve agents such as sarin, cyclosarin and VX. The chemicals are liquids that can be administered in person, or by aircraft, missiles or artillery shells.

"A drop (of VX) on the skin can kill within 15 to 20 minutes unless antidotes are immediately administered," Tucker said. "In the case of smallpox it would be impossible to decontaminate the body ... or the linens or anything else the body comes in contact with."

Iraq also has produced "significant quantities" of highly lethal biological agents such as anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflotoxin, gas gangrene and ricin, Tucker said. The Iraqis are also believed to harbor lesser amounts of smallpox.

The possibility of U.S. troops having to bulldoze or burn comrades killed by chemical or biological weapons foreshadows the possibility that similar methods would have to be used on civilians caught in similar attacks, Pagonis said.

That could happen overseas during wartime or even in the United States in the event of a terrorist attack, he said.

Most Army officers deflected questions about the mass graves option to Pentagon superiors, who in turn deferred to the White House. White House officials also declined to comment, saying any such plan is a Pentagon issue.

"I'd have to refer you to the Defense Department," Sean McCormick, spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, repeated several times during a brief telephone conversation. "We don't comment on military plans, operations or procedures."

A final decision on the option would have to be made by President Bush or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Kuykendall said.

"Not everybody's going to support whatever we do," he said.

Here's the original story in the Denver Post:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0%2C1413%2C36%25257E6439%25257E1132683%2C00.html

Go to DPO front page

ABOUT US/HELP
ARCHIVES
BOOKS
BUSINESS
COLUMNISTS
COMMUNITY
CONTACT US
DISCUSSION
DPO BY E-MAIL
ENTERTAINMENT
FOOD/DINING
FRONT PAGE
LIFESTYLES
MARKETPLACE
NATION/WORLD
NEWS
NEWSPAPER ADS
OBITUARIES
OPINION
SEAS. TO SHARE
SPORTS
STOCK SHOW
TRAVEL
WAR ON TERROR
Inside the War
AP Updates
Overseas Reports
WEATHER
DPO HOME

SEARCH DPO:

Enter search term,
hit enter key
Click here for
advanced search

Pentagon eyes mass graves
Option would fight contamination after bioterror deaths
By Greg Seigle
Special to The Denver Post
Friday, January 24, 2003 - WASHINGTON - The bodies of U.S. soldiers killed by chemical or biological weapons in Iraq or future wars may be bulldozed into mass graves and burned to save the lives of surviving troops, under an option being considered by the Pentagon.

Since the Korean War, the U.S. military has taken great pride in bringing home its war dead, returning bodies to next of kin for flag-draped, taps-sounding funerals complete with 21-gun salutes.

But the 53-year-old tradition could come to an abrupt halt if large numbers of soldiers are killed by chemical or biological agents, according to a proposal quietly circulating through Pentagon corridors.

Army spokesmen said the option to bury or even burn bodies contaminated by chemical or biological weapons is being considered, along with the possibility of placing contaminated corpses in airtight body bags and sending them home for closed-casket funerals.

"All due care is taken to honor the remains of our fallen comrades," said Maj. Chris Conway, an Army spokesman. "It's just too premature to speculate on any plan or policy."

Lt. Col. Ryan Yantis, an Army spokesman, said, "Military planners look at an operation in the full spectrum from the best-case scenario to the worst, and you have to make plans accordingly."

Yantis said that if a biological or chemical attack occurs, "we're going to treat the wounded with the best possible medical care. Those who are, unfortunately, deceased, we're going to treat with the utmost dignity and respect. ... We're going to have to take care of the mission and we're going to have to ensure the safety of the force."

Iraq admitted to United Nations inspectors in 1995 that it had produced large amounts of chemical and biological weapons during the 1980s and 1990s. American and British intelligence agencies say Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has continued to produce the deadly weapons covertly since then, despite Iraqi denials.

U.N. inspectors have found no proof Iraq is hiding weapons, but the U.S. insists they are there and is massing troops in the Persian Gulf for a possible war.

The U.S. had a plan for mass burials during the Gulf War in 1991, said Lt. Gen. William "Gus" Pagonis, the chief logistician for that conflict and the man who conceived the plan.

"The bulldozers were all lined up and ready to go," to deposit contaminated bodies in "mass graves," Pagonis said.

"You'll use whatever equipment is necessary to avoid contaminating more people," Pagonis said in a recent interview. "You don't want anybody else to die."

Pagonis said that before the Gulf War, he sent the plan simultaneously to commanding Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf and the Department of the Army and no one responded. "When you send a plan and no one gets back to you, you assume it's been approved," he said.

Army spokesman Capt. Ben Kuykendall said the Pagonis plan is similar to the option currently under consideration - except that bodies infected by biological agents might be both cremated and buried.

If soldiers are killed by "something like smallpox in which bodies cannot be decontaminated, we would have to cremate them right there," Kuykendall said. He said he recently discussed the option in detail with Brig. Gen. Steve Reeves, program executive officer for the Army's chemical and biological defense office. Reeves declined to comment.

"You would have to protect the living, so you'd have to get rid of the (contaminated) bodies as quickly as possible," Kuykendall said. "You don't want to contaminate any survivors who are not already contaminated."

It is possible to decontaminate bodies, but such efforts would be "very sensitive, expensive and time-consuming," particularly for corpses infected with contagious biological agents, Kuykendall said.

But even if a body was believed to be decontaminated, it could not be sent stateside for fear it might still contain lethal germs or viruses that could fester deep inside and seep out later, he said. "That just would not be worth the risk."

If bodies contaminated with biological agents such as smallpox or anthrax were flown home, they could pass potentially lethal contaminants to every vehicle, aircraft, building and person that came in contact with them, Kuykendall said.

Bodies infected with chemical agents such as VX and mustard gas, which are very persistent, could also contaminate others, said Jonathan Tucker, a Washington-based senior scholar at the Monterey Institute of International Studies who has written extensively about chemical and biological agents.

It is easier to decontaminate chemically contaminated bodies for shipment and traditional burials than those infected by biological agents, Tucker said.

But in the heat of battle, Pagonis said, a field commander doesn't have time to make the distinction. "You want to do away with this (biological threat) as quickly as possible," he said.

Military veterans said they hope those commanders will never have to make such a choice.

"I know this is a plan to protect people and to make sure that we don't bring back any biological agents, but we're more concerned with how the (living) soldiers are going to protect themselves on the battlefield," said Steve Robinson, a retired Army Ranger and executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center.

"It makes sense" to bury or burn contaminated bodies, Robinson said, "but it's still going to be hard on the families. ... If you are told your son was killed in Iraq but buried in a mass grave, you are going to be forever speculative on how he died."

Mass burial is "a sensitive issue, and we don't want to think about it because our hopes and prayers are that it won't happen," said Tom Corey, president of the Vietnam Veterans of America who was wounded in Vietnam and now uses a wheelchair.

A top Army mortuary official said he is confident his nearly 700 soldiers could decontaminate any corpses and send them home for proper burial.

"They would process them as best they could and move them to the rear," said Douglas Howard, deputy director of the Army Mortuary Affairs Center in Fort Lee, Va., which is responsible for handling the bodies of soldiers.

"If we bury on the battlefield, it will only be as a last resort," Howard said.

But mortuary teams would have to be wary of charging into areas filled with noxious fumes or deadly germs.

"The primary difficulty is concern for the safety of the mortuary affairs soldiers," said Howard, who has been an Army mortician for 30 years. "We never launch forth into a contaminated area without the advice and consent of the chemical community."

Pentagon officials declined to reveal exactly how many people staff the decontamination teams. The Army mortuary affairs center has only one such group - the 246th Quartermaster Mortuary Affairs Company, a 220-soldier reserve unit based in Puerto Rico.

Kuykendall said the Army's limited decontamination assets would have to be concentrated on survivors. Pagonis and other defense experts agreed.

"The military's first concern would be its own people - if they're still alive they would be the top priority. Next would be civilian noncombatants. People who are already dead would not be at the top of the triage," Philip Coyle said.

Coyle served as an undersecretary of defense from 1997 to 2001 and oversaw the testing and evaluation of much of the military's new decontamination and protective gear but said he was never informed of the option for cremation or mass burial of casualties.

Decontamination teams use large, showerlike pressure washers to spray victims with special disinfectants, cleaning solutions or even water. The teams, which can operate together or in small subgroups, rely on the guidance of specialists in chemical-biological warfare and sometimes even transport from other units.

Soldiers contaminated by chemical weapons would need to leave the scene as quickly as possible to limit their exposure. Those contaminated by biological agents would need to stay put to avoid spreading germs or viruses to their colleagues or civilians, Tucker said.

Chemical weapons generally contaminate relatively small areas, while biological weapons such as smallpox, which is highly contagious and lethal, can spread for long distances if contaminated people, bodies, gear or equipment are moved around, Tucker said.

Every U.S. soldier deployed to a potential combat zone carries an advanced gas mask and at least one air-tight, charcoal-lined protective suit. But such gear is useless if ripped open by bullets or shrapnel, or if troops are caught without all their garb on. Experts worry that the troops might be tempted to remove some or all of the bulky, uncomfortable equipment, particularly in the searing heat of the gulf region.

U.S. troops also carry auto-injecting needles that can inject atropine and oxine to counteract the effects of chemical nerve agents. But those must be applied immediately after contamination to be effective, Tucker said.

Tucker said the Iraqis are believed to have large, hidden stockpiles of chemical weapons, including "very high quality" mustard gas, a blistering agent, and nerve agents such as sarin, cyclosarin and VX. The chemicals are liquids that can be administered in person, or by aircraft, missiles or artillery shells.

"A drop (of VX) on the skin can kill within 15 to 20 minutes unless antidotes are immediately administered," Tucker said. "In the case of smallpox it would be impossible to decontaminate the body ... or the linens or anything else the body comes in contact with."

Iraq also has produced "significant quantities" of highly lethal biological agents such as anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflotoxin, gas gangrene and ricin, Tucker said. The Iraqis are also believed to harbor lesser amounts of smallpox.

The possibility of U.S. troops having to bulldoze or burn comrades killed by chemical or biological weapons foreshadows the possibility that similar methods would have to be used on civilians caught in similar attacks, Pagonis said.

That could happen overseas during wartime or even in the United States in the event of a terrorist attack, he said.

Most Army officers deflected questions about the mass graves option to Pentagon superiors, who in turn deferred to the White House. White House officials also declined to comment, saying any such plan is a Pentagon issue.

"I'd have to refer you to the Defense Department," Sean McCormick, spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, repeated several times during a brief telephone conversation. "We don't comment on military plans, operations or procedures."

A final decision on the option would have to be made by President Bush or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Kuykendall said.

"Not everybody's going to support whatever we do," he said.

Rumsfeld's Remarks Draw Anger in France

Rumsfeld downplayed France and Germany's reluctance, saying he was confident that other NATO members would come together behind the United States.

"Germany has been a problem and France has been a problem ... but you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe, they're not with France and Germany on this. They're with the United States," he said.

In responding to a reporter's question about French and German qualms, Rumsfeld hinted the United States would turn to new NATO members in Eastern Europe for support.

"You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't," he said. "I think that's old Europe. If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the east and there are a lot of new members."

Washington's European allies are deeply divided over the possibility of war, with the French and Germans opposing any rush toward military action while the United States and Britain intensify their military buildup on Iraq's borders.

The Bush administration accuses Iraq of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

Russia and China have also expressed reservations about going to war against Iraq. On Thursday, China said it supports French efforts to find a peaceful solution, underlining the challenge the United States would face if it seeks U.N. Security Council support for military action.

"We have always stood for a diplomatic and political resolution of the Iraqi issue," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030123_411.html

Rumsfeld's Remarks Draw Anger in France

January 23, 2003

PARIS Jan. 23 —

French leaders reacted angrily Thursday to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's dismissal of France and Germany as the "old Europe," saying the comments underscore America's arrogance.

Finance Minister Francis Mer said he was "profoundly vexed" by the remarks.

"I wanted to remind everyone that this 'old Europe' has resilience, and is capable of bouncing back," Mer told LCI television. "And it will show it, in time."

"If you knew what I feel like telling him, to Mr. Rumsfeld ... " said Ecology Minister Roselyne Bachelot on Europe-1 radio. She then stopped herself and said the word would be too offensive to publish.

Martine Aubry, a Socialist leader and influential former labor minister, said Rumsfeld's comments "show once again a certain arrogance of the United States."

Washington "continues to want to alone govern the world and more and more without rules," she told RTL radio.

Rumsfeld made the remarks at a news conference in Washington on Wednesday after the leaders of France and Germany agreed to counter U.S. threats of war against Iraq by committing together to give peace a chance.

The decision from the two European powerhouses led NATO to postpone its planning for a possible war in Iraq.

Rumsfeld downplayed France and Germany's reluctance, saying he was confident that other NATO members would come together behind the United States.

"Germany has been a problem and France has been a problem ... but you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe, they're not with France and Germany on this. They're with the United States," he said.

In responding to a reporter's question about French and German qualms, Rumsfeld hinted the United States would turn to new NATO members in Eastern Europe for support.

"You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't," he said. "I think that's old Europe. If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the east and there are a lot of new members."

Washington's European allies are deeply divided over the possibility of war, with the French and Germans opposing any rush toward military action while the United States and Britain intensify their military buildup on Iraq's borders.

The Bush administration accuses Iraq of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

Russia and China have also expressed reservations about going to war against Iraq. On Thursday, China said it supports French efforts to find a peaceful solution, underlining the challenge the United States would face if it seeks U.N. Security Council support for military action.

"We have always stood for a diplomatic and political resolution of the Iraqi issue," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue.

in his own words.

more analysis...

Rumsfeld at this point was sidestepping a bitter truth. There has been for some time now a word floating around the political lexicon: "Chickenhawk." The accepted definition of the word is, "One who tends to advocate, or are fervent supporters of those who advocate, military solutions to political problems, and who have personally declined to take advantage of a significant opportunity to serve in uniform during wartime." Notable administration officials Dick Cheney, Andrew Card, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, and Karl Rove all came of age during the Vietnam war. Each and every single one of them found a way to avoid service. Each of these man has, in the last several months, gone out of their way to push hard for military solutions to political problems.

Here's the full text of both links in case they go bad:

First the DOD:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/b01212003_bt029-03.html

Home Page - U.S. Department of Defense

Updated: 21 Jan 2003
Image of Pentagon oval, linked to DoD News page United States Department of Defense
News Release
On the web: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/b01212003_bt029-03.html
Media contact: media@defenselink.mil or +1 (703) 697-5131
Public contact: public@defenselink.mil or +1 (703) 428-0711

No. 029-03
IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 21, 2003

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE STATEMENT ON THE DRAFT

During a recent press briefing at the Pentagon, a reporter asked my views on the old military draft system. Although not eloquently stated, I responded to the question in part as follows:

"If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in, they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market, because they were without choices. Big categories [of people] were exempted-people that were in college, people that were teaching, people that were married . . . And what was left [those who were not exempted] were sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months and then went out, adding no value, no advantage really, to the United States Armed Services over any sustained period of time, because (of) the churning that took place - it took an enormous amount of effort in terms of training and then they were gone."

Again, my statement was not eloquent. A few columnists and others, though, have suggested that those words were intended to mean that draftees added no value to the military. That is not true. I did not say they added no value while they were serving. They added great value. I was commenting on the loss of that value when they left the service. I certainly had no intention of saying what has been reported, or of leaving that impression. Hundreds of thousands of military draftees served over years with great distinction and valor - many being wounded and still others killed.

The last thing I would want to do would be to disparage the service of those draftees. I always have had the highest respect for their service, and I offer my full apology to any veteran who misinterpreted my remarks when I said them, or who may have read any of the articles or columns that have attempted to take my words and suggest they were disparaging.

The intent of my comments was to reflect a view I have held for some time: that we should lengthen tours of duty and careers for our all-volunteer forces, so that these highly trained men and women in uniform can serve in specific assignments longer, and also not be forced to leave the service when they are at the peak of their skills and knowledge.

It is painful for anyone, and certainly a public servant whose words are carried far and wide, to have a comment so unfortunately misinterpreted.

It is particularly troubling for me that there are truly outstanding men and women in uniform or their families -- past and present -- who may believe that the Secretary of Defense would say or mean what some have written. I did not. I would not.

I hope this deeply felt statement reaches those who have served those who are serving, and their families.

next truthout:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012403E.rumsf.vets.htm

Print This Story E-mail This Story

(*Editors Note | On January 9, 2003 I published an article here entitled 'The Stand.' It dealt, in part, with the remarks Rumsfeld had made about the worthiness of drafted soldiers in the U.S. military. The relevant portion of that essay is below. Beneath it is a newly-released apology from Rumsfeld in this matter. This apology came after a large number of veterans groups, especially Vietnam veterans groups, read of Rumsfeld's comments and took after him with a vengeance. Read his apology for yourself and decide if the matter is properly settled. - wrp)

Excerpted from 'The Stand,' by William Rivers Pitt:

Consider the words of Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, when asked on January 7th about the possibility of required conscription being reinstated as we march to war against much of the world:

"If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in; they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market because they were without choices. Big categories were exempted - people that were in college, people that were teaching, people that were married. It varied from time to time, but there were all kinds of exemptions. And what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."

This is the man not only responsible for the care and well-being of our soldiers today, but of the reputation and honor of the soldiers who have come and gone. His was the generation that faced the challenge of Vietnam, a truth which applies to a great many within the administration that claims him. Analyze the words:

"If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in; they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market because they were without choices."

People were brought in to the armed services during the Vietnam era because they were drafted, under penalty of prison or estrangement from their country, and were paid a fraction of the going rate in the civilian marketplace because of the basic nature of that forced conscription. As for being without choice, this is correct. If a 19 year-old in that time in American did not want to go to jail, or to Canada, or to Mexico, or if he did not have powerful family connections that guaranteed a safe posting somewhere away from the combat zone, then indeed they were without choices.

"Big categories were exempted - people that were in college, people that were teaching, people that were married. It varied from time to time, but there were all kinds of exemptions."

This is code. Rumsfeld at this point was sidestepping a bitter truth. There has been for some time now a word floating around the political lexicon: "Chickenhawk." The accepted definition of the word is, "One who tends to advocate, or are fervent supporters of those who advocate, military solutions to political problems, and who have personally declined to take advantage of a significant opportunity to serve in uniform during wartime." Notable administration officials Dick Cheney, Andrew Card, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, and Karl Rove all came of age during the Vietnam war. Each and every single one of them found a way to avoid service. Each of these man has, in the last several months, gone out of their way to push hard for military solutions to political problems.

Foremost on this list is George W. Bush, leader of the free world, who was eased into a National Guard posting in Texas in 1972, and who by all accounts failed to show up for this duty for some 17 months. When Mr. Rumsfeld referred to "all kinds of exemptions," be safe in the knowledge that his understanding of that phrase is as broad as it is shallow.

"And what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."

There are 58,229 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. Many of those names belong to men who were without the choices afforded to Bush, Cheney, Perle, Card, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Ashcroft and Rove. In all likelihood, there are names on that wall representing men who went, served and died in Vietnam in place of these administration officials. That the man immediately in charge of our armed services stated that these lost soldiers added "no value, no advantage" to the country they served is a profound insult not only to the honored dead, but to those who died so Bush and the members of his administration could hide from duty when it came calling. Indeed, Mr. Rumsfeld, these men are gone, and never to return.

Go To Original

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld Statement on the Draft
Department of Defense

Tuesday 21 January 2003

During a recent press briefing at the Pentagon, a reporter asked my views on the old military draft system. Although not eloquently stated, I responded to the question in part as follows:

"If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in, they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market, because they were without choices. Big categories [of people] were exempted-people that were in college, people that were teaching, people that were married . . . And what was left [those who were not exempted] were sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months and then went out, adding no value, no advantage really, to the United States Armed Services over any sustained period of time, because (of) the churning that took place - it took an enormous amount of effort in terms of training and then they were gone."

Again, my statement was not eloquent. A few columnists and others, though, have suggested that those words were intended to mean that draftees added no value to the military. That is not true. I did not say they added no value while they were serving. They added great value. I was commenting on the loss of that value when they left the service.

I certainly had no intention of saying what has been reported, or of leaving that impression. Hundreds of thousands of military draftees served over years with great distinction and valor - many being wounded and still others killed.

The last thing I would want to do would be to disparage the service of those draftees. I always have had the highest respect for their service, and I offer my full apology to any veteran who misinterpreted my remarks when I said them, or who may have read any of the articles or columns that have attempted to take my words and suggest they were disparaging.

The intent of my comments was to reflect a view I have held for some time: that we should lengthen tours of duty and careers for our all-volunteer forces, so that these highly trained men and women in uniform can serve in specific assignments longer, and also not be forced to leave the service when they are at the peak of their skills and knowledge.

It is painful for anyone, and certainly a public servant whose words are carried far and wide, to have a comment so unfortunately misinterpreted.

It is particularly troubling for me that there are truly outstanding men and women in uniform or their families -- past and present -- who may believe that the Secretary of Defense would say or mean what some have written. I did not. I would not.

I hope this deeply felt statement reaches those who have served those who are serving, and their families.

By John Tagliabue for the New York Times.

In a blunt rejection of American impatience toward Baghdad, the leaders of France and Germany said today that they shared common views on Iraq, and that any Security Council resolution for military action would have to await the report of United Nations weapon inspectors.

"War is always the admission of defeat and is always the worst of solutions," President Jacques Chirac of France said. "And hence everything must be done to avoid it."

He added, "France and Germany have a judgment on this crisis that is the same."

Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany, appearing with Mr. Chirac at a news conference, said, "We both want a peaceful solution to the crisis in Iraq, and we will work toward that in close cooperation." On Tuesday, Mr. Schröder expressed his most forceful rejection yet of any war.

The two leaders' remarks took on peculiar weight since France and Germany hold the Security Council presidency this month and next...

But the statements of unity by Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schröder vividly illustrated just how far apart the Europeans stand. Britain announced on Monday that it is preparing 30,000 troops for action in Iraq. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair, appearing to side with Washington, stated that fresh intelligence indicated that the escalation of armed force in the Persian Gulf was undermining the rule of Saddam Hussein...

Late Tuesday, Mr. Schröder made his most resolute statement to date of opposition to any resolution for war. At a local election rally of his Social Democratic Party in the German city of Goslar, Mr. Schröder said, "I have told, in particular, our French friends, but others as well, and I am going a step further in what I say here and now: do not reckon with Germany approving a resolution authorizing war. Do not reckon with that."

In his remarks today, Mr. Chirac did not go that far.

But Mr. Chirac said the common view of Paris and Berlin was "grounded in two ideas: the first is that any decision belongs to the Security Council, and to it alone, expressing itself after having heard the report of the inspectors in conformity with the pertinent resolutions approved by the council."

The second, he said, was that "war is always the admission of defeat and is always the worst of solutions. And hence everything must be done to avoid it."

..Now, the French-German understanding is feeling some possible strains with the addition of 10 additional members to the European Union, along with the discussions taking place in Brussels to craft a kind of constitution for the enlarged union.

For the French, the confrontation with Iraq appears to afford Paris the opportunity to revive a strong French-German bond as the basis for a more vigorously assertive European foreign policy. With the question of Iraq welding the ties between Washington and London even more closely, the French appear to have a sense of urgency.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/22/international/22CND_EURO.html?pagewanted=all&position=top

French and German Leaders Jointly Oppose Iraqi War Moves
By John Tagliabue
New York Times

Wednesday 22 January 2003

PARIS, Jan. 22 -- In a blunt rejection of American impatience toward Baghdad, the leaders of France and Germany said today that they shared common views on Iraq, and that any Security Council resolution for military action would have to await the report of United Nations weapon inspectors.

"War is always the admission of defeat and is always the worst of solutions," President Jacques Chirac of France said. "And hence everything must be done to avoid it."

He added, "France and Germany have a judgment on this crisis that is the same."

Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany, appearing with Mr. Chirac at a news conference, said, "We both want a peaceful solution to the crisis in Iraq, and we will work toward that in close cooperation." On Tuesday, Mr. Schröder expressed his most forceful rejection yet of any war.

The two leaders' remarks took on peculiar weight since France and Germany hold the Security Council presidency this month and next.

Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schröder were speaking at daylong ceremonies in the French capital and at nearby Versailles that marked the 40th anniversary of the Élysée Treaty of French-German cooperation and that were aimed at setting the agenda for new stages of European integration.

A catalog published today listing areas in which both countries seek closer cooperation included a pledge that they would "be attentive to adopt common positions in international bodies, including the Security Council" of the United Nations.

On Tuesday, the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said France would seek the agreement of other European countries, including Britain, to oppose American pressure for military action before there was a clear signal from the weapons inspectors and agreement by the Security Council.

Earlier, Mr. de Villepin refused to rule out the possibility that France would use its veto power if the United States pressed later this month for a Security Council resolution authorizing a war in Iraq.

But the statements of unity by Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schröder vividly illustrated just how far apart the Europeans stand. Britain announced on Monday that it is preparing 30,000 troops for action in Iraq. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair, appearing to side with Washington, stated that fresh intelligence indicated that the escalation of armed force in the Persian Gulf was undermining the rule of Saddam Hussein.

The show of unity by France and Germany reflected the determination of the French -- who hold the Security Council presidency this month -- to prevent the Bush administration from forcing the issue of Iraqi compliance in the council later in January. Mr. Chirac said that "as regards this common position," France and Germany -- which holds the Security Council presidency in February -- were "entirely coordinated and in permanent contact every day."

Late Tuesday, Mr. Schröder made his most resolute statement to date of opposition to any resolution for war. At a local election rally of his Social Democratic Party in the German city of Goslar, Mr. Schröder said, "I have told, in particular, our French friends, but others as well, and I am going a step further in what I say here and now: do not reckon with Germany approving a resolution authorizing war. Do not reckon with that."

In his remarks today, Mr. Chirac did not go that far.

But Mr. Chirac said the common view of Paris and Berlin was "grounded in two ideas: the first is that any decision belongs to the Security Council, and to it alone, expressing itself after having heard the report of the inspectors in conformity with the pertinent resolutions approved by the council."

The second, he said, was that "war is always the admission of defeat and is always the worst of solutions. And hence everything must be done to avoid it."

Mr. Schröder, asked whether he had anything to add, replied with one word: "No."

Opinion polls across Europe indicate that opposition to the use of force against Iraq is widespread. Antiwar demonstrators have taken to the streets repeatedly in numerous European cities, with marchers silently or loudly objecting to America's threats to use its military might against Baghdad.

The two leaders gave their views at ceremonies aimed at reassuring each other, as well as their European partners, that their countries still see their destines intertwined and that the world can expect them to speak with one voice.

Early in 1963, with the wounds of World War II still raw, President Charles de Gaulle and Chancellor Konrad Adenauer met in the Élysée Palace, the seat of French presidents, to sign a treaty that President de Gaulle predicted would gradually end "centuries of rivalry."

During much of the cold war, while West Germany served as the motor of European economic growth, it bowed to the political leadership of France, a nuclear power and permanent member of the Security Council. With the collapse of communism and German unification, Paris initially harbored concern over possible German domination.

But in recent years, Germany has been struggling to overhaul its nearly inflexible economy, while the French have better mastered the challenges of globalization and all but replaced the Germans as the engines of European growth.

Now, the French-German understanding is feeling some possible strains with the addition of 10 additional members to the European Union, along with the discussions taking place in Brussels to craft a kind of constitution for the enlarged union.

For the French, the confrontation with Iraq appears to afford Paris the opportunity to revive a strong French-German bond as the basis for a more vigorously assertive European foreign policy. With the question of Iraq welding the ties between Washington and London even more closely, the French appear to have a sense of urgency.

"Passing from 15 to 25 members, the European Union is not only in danger of being diluted into a free trade zone," Charles Lambroschini, chief editorialist of the French daily Le Figaro, wrote today. "It risks being transformed into a simple protectorate of the United States."

In their list of areas for cooperation, both governments proposed such goals as allowing French and German citizens joint nationality, holding joint cabinet meetings, intensifying military cooperation and having joint French-German embassies in third countries.

From Rumsfeld Smears Veterans, Extends Marines' Enlistments (Rumsfeld, an ugly smear and a giant fib)
By Mark Shields for CNN.

Now to Rumsfeld's fiction about the all-volunteer service. Asked about legislation introduced to re-institute the draft on the eve of war, Rumsfeld was emphatic: "We're not going to re-implement the draft. There is no need for it at all. ... We have people serving today -- God bless 'em -- because they volunteered. They want to be doing what it is they're doing."

Sounds good, except that it is not true. Two days after these unequivocal words, the United States Marine Corps -- which reports to the secretary of defense -- froze for the next 12 months every one of its 174,312 members currently on active duty. Marines who had completed their voluntary enlistments or their 20 years and had chosen to return to civilian life or retirement will instead remain, involuntarily, in the service.

Marines being Marines, they will answer their country's call. But let us be clear: This action, along with other more limited freezes affecting other thousands in uniform imposed by the other services, means the volunteer U.S. military is no longer all-volunteer.

The unavoidable question that now must be answered by Rumsfeld and the president is not whether Americans ought to be "drafted" to defend the country, because we are already doing that, but exactly which Americans will be drafted.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/article.asp?id=305

Rumsfeld Smears Veterans, Extends Marines' Enlistments
Mark Shields CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/column.shields.opinion.rumsfeld/index.html

January 20, 2003

... US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld alleged that Vietnam War draftees "added no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services ...." In addition, Rumsfeld ordered all Marines to remain on active duty 12 more months past their discharge date ...

Washington - Known primarily through his combative, and self-confident, press conferences on C-SPAN, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has won boffo reviews from critics who rarely agree.

Rumsfeld's "wit and charismatic candor" were praised on the liberal New York Times op-ed page, while the editorial page chief of the conservative Washington Times, proclaimed as "most charismatic" of the year the defense secretary "who's the heartthrob of neo-cons and mature women around the country, and Republicans everywhere."

Well, this is a different year, and in his first 2003 press conference, Rumsfeld shamefully smeared American veterans and then deliberately fibbed about how there is absolutely "no need " to consider reinstating the draft because the nation's all-volunteer military was, he assured us, working perfectly.

First, the smear of veterans. Speaking of the 11 million Americans who, during the Vietnam years, answered their country's draft call and the 2 million who served in Vietnam, Rumsfeld alleged that these draftees "added no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."

I'll say "then, they were gone!" Of the 58,152 Americans who gave their lives in Vietnam 20,352 of them were draftees. How dare the secretary of defense say these good and brave Americans "added no value, no advantage, to the United States armed services?"

Why would he slander the sacrifice of these brave men, dishonor their memory and rub salt in their families' wounds?

Certainly a man as smart as Rumsfeld knows that the draft was specifically intended to trigger volunteers. Faced with the certainty of a future draft call, many young men chose to "volunteer" because then they could select which branch of the service they preferred and, if qualified, the specialized training they desired.

So, the overwhelming majority of the American veterans -- from 1940 to 1973 -- had entered the service directly -- or indirectly -- because of the draft law.

Rumsfeld, himself, was "drafted." He chose, after graduating from Princeton in 1954, to serve three years on active duty as a Navy aviator. More than two out of three of his Princeton classmates, also motivated by the reality of the draft, served on active duty. Two years ago -- with no draft -- exactly two members of the Princeton graduating class chose to become officers in the United States military.

Now to Rumsfeld's fiction about the all-volunteer service. Asked about legislation introduced to re-institute the draft on the eve of war, Rumsfeld was emphatic: "We're not going to re-implement the draft. There is no need for it at all. ... We have people serving today -- God bless 'em -- because they volunteered. They want to be doing what it is they're doing."

Sounds good, except that it is not true. Two days after these unequivocal words, the United States Marine Corps -- which reports to the secretary of defense -- froze for the next 12 months every one of its 174,312 members currently on active duty. Marines who had completed their voluntary enlistments or their 20 years and had chosen to return to civilian life or retirement will instead remain, involuntarily, in the service.

Marines being Marines, they will answer their country's call. But let us be clear: This action, along with other more limited freezes affecting other thousands in uniform imposed by the other services, means the volunteer U.S. military is no longer all-volunteer.

The unavoidable question that now must be answered by Rumsfeld and the president is not whether Americans ought to be "drafted" to defend the country, because we are already doing that, but exactly which Americans will be drafted.

Maybe the war-hawk Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill can now explain why it is more just to retain on active duty involuntarily an American who has fulfilled his voluntary obligation to his country than it would be to bring to active duty involuntarily those Americans -- including the sons of senators and CEOs -- who have yet to serve.

Now before the bullets fly and before the bombs drop and before the brave young widows again climb the hill at Arlington Cemetery, we must face that test of whether we have the will to stand together on individual sacrifice for the common good and determine whose brothers, whose sons and whose fathers will fight in war.

Posted 1/21/2003 3:42:13 PM

Here's a little montage of shots from the march itself, which went on from 11 am until after I left around 3-ish.

Bart trains weren't even allowed to stop at Embarcadero Bart by 11:30 am because there were so many people in the area. There was just nowhere to put these people. (I had to get off at Montgomery. I'm sure they started letting people back off there eventually. And we were told they added 60 extra trains.)

I'm telling you there were people pouring in from every street connected to Market and people pouring up out of the Bart Stations for hours on end.

It was bad craziness at its finest. And what a happy peaceful and well-behaved crowd. Most of the cops were sitting down or standing around staying out of the way unless people came up to them to ask questions. It seemed like they were around to make the store owners feel better more than anything else -- because there were so many people.

Anyway, you get the message. Check it out for yourself.

SF Peace March (Hi-res - 27 MB)

SF Peace March (Med-res - 21 MB)

SF Peace March (Lo-res - 12 MB)

Poverty, Racism and War: The REAL axis of evil

Representative Barbara Lee In San Francisco

Barbara Lee In San Francisco Part 1 of 3 (Hi-res - 41 MB)

Barbara Lee In San Francisco Part 1 of 3 (Med-res - 33 MB)

Barbara Lee In San Francisco Part 1 of 3 (Lo-res - 19 MB)

Barbara Lee In San Francisco Part 2 of 3 (Hi-res - 40 MB)

Barbara Lee In San Francisco Part 2 of 3 (Med-res - 32 MB)

Barbara Lee In San Francisco Part 2 of 3 (Lo-res - 19 MB)

Barbara Lee In San Francisco Part 3 of 3 (Hi-res - 39 MB)

Barbara Lee In San Francisco Part 3 of 3 (Med-res - 32 MB)

Barbara Lee In San Francisco Part 3 of 3 (Lo-res - 18 MB)

Audio - Barbara Lee In San Francisco (MP3 - Hi-res - 9 MB)

Audio - Barbara Lee In San Francisco (MP3 - Lo-res - 5 MB)

(Note: I'm actually posting this entry while the files are still uploading to the archive. May need a few more minutes to finish.)

Here's video footage of the unprecedented crowd of peaceful protesters. I was able to score a press badge on the fly and get up on stage to get this.

I wanted to get this footage out as soon as possible in the hopes of getting the truth out before the facts become completely distorted by the commercial media.
(It's happening already -- A friend of mine heard on the Television last night that there were "at least 50,000 or more people".)

Crowd Shot - SF Peace Rally (Hi-res - 22 MB)

Crowd Shot - SF Peace Rally (Med-res - 19 MB)

Crowd Shot - SF Peace Rally (Lo-res - 10 MB)

Here are video and MP3 files of the speaking part of her performance:
(The music part can be found here.)

Bonnie Raitt Live In San Francisco - 1 of 2 (Hi-res - 23 MB)
Bonnie Raitt Live In San Francisco - 1 of 2 (Med-res - 29 MB)
Bonnie Raitt Live In San Francisco - 1 of 2 (Lo-res - 11 MB)

Bonnie Raitt Live In San Francisco - 2 of 2 (Hi-res - 13 MB)
Bonnie Raitt Live In San Francisco - 2 of 2 (Med-res - 10 MB)
Bonnie Raitt Live In San Francisco - 2 of 2 (Lo-res - 6 MB)

Audio - Bonnie Raitt Live In San Francisco (MP3 - hi-res - 4 MB)
Audio - Bonnie Raitt Live In San Francisco (MP3 - Lo-res - MB)

The great music part of the new peace movement is starting up!

Note that the cool tambourine you hear is coming from behind me from someone in the audience!

Bonnie Raitt Sings A Jackson Browne Song

Bonnie Raitt Singing Live In San Francisco (Hi-res - 44 MB)
Bonnie Raitt Singing Live In San Francisco (Med-res - 35 MB)
Bonnie Raitt Singing Live In San Francisco (Lo-res - 21 MB)

Audio - Bonnie Raitt Singing Live In San Francisco (MP3 - Hi-res - 4 MB)
Audio - Bonnie Raitt Singing Live In San Francisco (MP3 - Lo-res - 2 MB)

Meanwhile, the peace movement and the Pope get a mention in the same breath...
U.N. Experts Want Up to a Year for Iraq Inspections

U.N. arms experts said on Monday they wanted up to a year to complete their inspections in Iraq, even as Washington masses a force in the Gulf that will be ready to wage war within weeks...

The U.N. inspectors' comments were likely to further fuel an anti-war camp that includes much of the public in Europe and the Middle East, many of their governments, and the Pope, who declared on Monday war would be a "defeat for humanity."

Top U.N. inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei go to Baghdad next weekend to demand Iraq account for missing stocks of such items as chemical bombs, nerve gas and missile engines. Iraq says it will answer their questions.

The U.N. experts appeared anxious to slow the timetable of the attack the United States threatens to launch if Iraq's answers fail to satisfy...

The United States announced new troop deployments over the weekend amid signs most governments in Europe and the Middle East are nervous about war and want all other options explored.

"No to war!" Pope John Paul (news - web sites) said in an address on Monday.

"What are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than 12 years of embargo?" he said.

Germany, a new Security Council member, is strongly opposed.

A German official was quoted as saying France and Germany must vote together on any new Council resolution on Iraq if they are to realize their goal of a common European foreign policy.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20030113/ts_nm/iraq_dc_104

U.N. Experts Want Up to a Year for Iraq Inspections

By Hassan Hafidh and Louis Charbonneau

BAGHDAD/VIENNA (Reuters) - U.N. arms experts said on Monday they wanted up to a year to complete their inspections in Iraq, even as Washington masses a force in the Gulf that will be ready to wage war within weeks.

Photo
Reuters Photo

AP Photo Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein

Video Hussein Meets With Foreign Dignitaries
(AP Video)
Video Bush: Time Running Out for Iraq
(AP Video)

The U.N. inspectors' comments were likely to further fuel an anti-war camp that includes much of the public in Europe and the Middle East, many of their governments, and the Pope, who declared on Monday war would be a "defeat for humanity."

Top U.N. inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei go to Baghdad next weekend to demand Iraq account for missing stocks of such items as chemical bombs, nerve gas and missile engines. Iraq says it will answer their questions.

The U.N. experts appeared anxious to slow the timetable of the attack the United States threatens to launch if Iraq's answers fail to satisfy.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) spokesman Mark Gwozdecky told Reuters in Vienna U.N. resolutions gave timelines of "somewhere between six and 12 months" for inspections.

IAEA chief ElBaradei said in Paris: "We need to take a few months... How long depends on the cooperation of Iraq."

Asked if the timeframe of a year quoted by his spokesman was conservatively lengthy, ElBaradei replied, "Yes."

President Bush (news - web sites)'s spokesman reacted guardedly to those comments. "The president thinks it remains important for the inspectors to do their job and have time to do their job," he said. "The president has not put an exact timetable on it."

Tens of thousands of U.S. troops are already in the Gulf or on their way, and analysts say military chiefs want any attack on Iraq to be launched within the next two or three winter months, before temperatures in the desert region rise.

"It is a far better option to wait a little bit longer than to have to resort to war," Gwozdecky told CNN separately.

He stressed that January 27, when inspectors are scheduled to report to the U.N. Security Council on Iraq's compliance with disarmament demands, was not a final deadline.

"There's a little bit of misunderstanding about this January 27 reporting date. The Security Council is asking us to report but not to have all the answers at that point," Gwozdecky said.

Inspectors briefed the Security Council last week on the Iraq inspections. "We heard unanimous support from the council members that they were four-square behind us, and we believe that they're willing to give us the time that we need," he said.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites), Washington's closest ally, said there should be no "arbitrary timescale" and added Iraq had to be disarmed peacefully or else by force. "We have complete and total determination to do this," he said.

POPE OPPOSES WAR

The newspaper USA Today said on Monday the U.S. force in the Gulf would not be ready for full-scale war until late February or early March because of logistical complications.

It said the delayed timetable had made Bush's administration more willing to accept extending arms inspections beyond the January 27 report.

The United States announced new troop deployments over the weekend amid signs most governments in Europe and the Middle East are nervous about war and want all other options explored.

"No to war!" Pope John Paul (news - web sites) said in an address on Monday.

"What are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than 12 years of embargo?" he said.

Germany, a new Security Council member, is strongly opposed.

A German official was quoted as saying France and Germany must vote together on any new Council resolution on Iraq if they are to realize their goal of a common European foreign policy.

Saudi Arabia is mounting a diplomatic drive to ask fellow Arab states to unanimously oppose an attack on one of their own.

Bush and Blair, who say they have solid intelligence Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, will meet soon after the January 27 report to discuss what to do next on Iraq.

But even in Britain, a poll showed only 13 percent of people would support a war waged without U.N. approval.

In Washington there is deep skepticism that inspection teams are capable of uncovering the truth about Iraq's arsenal.

Critics express dismay that Iraqi minders have accompanied all Iraqi scientists interviewed by inspectors so far. Iraq said on Sunday two scientists interviewed by inspectors last month had refused to leave the country for further interviews.

The U.S. military said Western warplanes bombed an anti-ship missile launcher in south Iraq on Monday, deeming it a threat to its vessels in the Gulf. Planes dropped hundreds of thousands of leaflets urging Iraqis to listen to U.S. radio broadcasts.

U.N. inspectors swooped on more suspected sites in Iraq, and Britain said it had sent a military reconnaissance team of about 20 to Kuwait to make plans for deploying a ground force to join the already large U.S. contingent. British aircraft carrier Ark Royal sailed for the region at the weekend.

More than 30 anti-war American academics arrived in Baghdad on what they called "a fact-finding humanitarian mission."

"War is the number one destroyer of human rights. We believe that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq is unwise, unnecessary and contradicts American values," said James Jennings, head of the Atlanta-based aid organization Conscience International.

Games Nations Play
By Paul Kruger for the New York Times.

So you might be tempted to conclude that the Bush administration is big on denouncing evildoers, but that it can be deterred from actually attacking countries it denounces if it expects them to put up a serious fight. What was it Teddy Roosevelt said? Talk trash but carry a small stick?

Your own experience seems to confirm that conclusion. Last summer you were caught enriching uranium, which violates the spirit of your 1994 agreement with the Clinton administration. But the Bush administration, though ready to invade Iraq at the slightest hint of a nuclear weapons program, tried to play down the story, and its response — cutting off shipments of fuel oil — was no more than a rap on the knuckles. In fact, even now the Bush administration hasn't done what its predecessor did in 1994: send troops to the region and prepare for a military confrontation.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/03/opinion/03KRUG.html

The New York Times The New York Times Opinion January 3, 2003

By PAUL KRUGMAN

What game does the Bush administration think it's playing in Korea?

That's not a rhetorical question. During the cold war, the U.S. government employed experts in game theory to analyze strategies of nuclear deterrence. Men with Ph.D.'s in economics, like Daniel Ellsberg, wrote background papers with titles like "The Theory and Practice of Blackmail." The intellectual quality of these analyses was impressive, but their main conclusion was simple: Deterrence requires a credible commitment to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior.

I know, it sounds obvious. Yet the Bush administration's Korea policy has systematically violated that simple principle.

Let's be clear: North Korea's rulers are as nasty as they come. But unless we have a plan to overthrow those rulers, we should ask ourselves what incentives we're giving them.

So put yourself in Kim Jong Il's shoes. The Bush administration has denounced you. It broke off negotiations as soon as it came into office. Last year, though you were no nastier than you had been the year before, George W. Bush declared you part of the "axis of evil." A few months later Mr. Bush called you a "pygmy," saying: "I loathe Kim Jong Il — I've got a visceral reaction to this guy. . . . They tell me, well we may not need to move too fast, because the financial burdens on people will be so immense if this guy were to topple — I just don't buy that."

Moreover, there's every reason to take Mr. Bush's viscera seriously. Under his doctrine of pre-emption, the U.S. can attack countries it thinks might support terrorism, whether or not they have actually done so. And who decides whether we attack? Here's what Mr. Bush says: "You said we're headed to war in Iraq. I don't know why you say that. I'm the person who gets to decide, not you." L'état, c'est moi.

So Mr. Bush thinks you're a bad guy — and that makes you a potential target, no matter what you do.

On the other hand, Mr. Bush hasn't gone after you yet, though you are much closer to developing weapons of mass destruction than Iraq. (You probably already have a couple.) And you ask yourself, why is Saddam Hussein first in line? He's no more a supporter of terrorism than you are: the Bush administration hasn't produced any evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. Maybe the administration covets Iraq's oil reserves; but it's also notable that of the three members of the axis of evil, Iraq has by far the weakest military.

So you might be tempted to conclude that the Bush administration is big on denouncing evildoers, but that it can be deterred from actually attacking countries it denounces if it expects them to put up a serious fight. What was it Teddy Roosevelt said? Talk trash but carry a small stick?

Your own experience seems to confirm that conclusion. Last summer you were caught enriching uranium, which violates the spirit of your 1994 agreement with the Clinton administration. But the Bush administration, though ready to invade Iraq at the slightest hint of a nuclear weapons program, tried to play down the story, and its response — cutting off shipments of fuel oil — was no more than a rap on the knuckles. In fact, even now the Bush administration hasn't done what its predecessor did in 1994: send troops to the region and prepare for a military confrontation.

So here's how it probably looks from Pyongyang:

The Bush administration says you're evil. It won't offer you aid, even if you cancel your nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil. It won't even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose any threat to the U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to confront only regimes that are militarily weak.

The incentives for North Korea are clear. There's no point in playing nice — it will bring neither aid nor security. It needn't worry about American efforts to isolate it economically — North Korea hardly has any trade except with China, and China isn't cooperating. The best self-preservation strategy for Mr. Kim is to be dangerous. So while America is busy with Iraq, the North Koreans should cook up some plutonium and build themselves some bombs.

Again: What game does the Bush administration think it's playing?

Columnist Biography: Paul Krugman

Forum: Discuss This Column

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

I realize that the words "Peace On Earth" don't have the same ring to them this year. I know "peace" seems a million miles away sometimes these days, but we have to envision a time when there will be peace again. It will obviously take years to undo what has been done at this point to our international relations, but we have to try.

So with all that in mind, here's the most frightening thing I've seen in the news all week.

It looks like the North Koreans may have taken some of that 'Axis of Evil' stuff the Shrub has been babbling about a bit personally after all.

It just goes to show that if you treat someone like an enemy for long enough, they will become one.

North Korea Warns the U.S. to Negotiate or Risk 'Catastrophe'
By Howard French for the NY Times.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/24/international/asia/24CND-KORE.html

The New York Times The New York Times International December 24, 2002

North Korea Warns the U.S. to Negotiate or Risk 'Catastrophe'
By HOWARD W. FRENCH

SEOUL, South Korea, Dec. 24 - North Korea warned today of an ``uncontrollable catastrophe'' unless the United States agreed to a negotiated solution to a standoff over its nuclear energy and weapons programs.

The statement came as a stiff pre-emptive rebuff to a conciliation-minded, newly elected president in South Korea, and as a warning to other countries that their efforts to mediate the crisis would be futile.

``There is no need for any third party to meddle in the nuclear issue on the peninsula,'' said North Korea's ruling-party newspaper, the Rodong Sinmun.

Using the initials for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, North Korea's official name, the newspaper asserted: ``The issue should be settled between the D.P.R.K. and the U.S., the parties responsible for it. If the U.S. persistently tries to internationalize the pending issue between the D.P.R.K. and the U.S. in a bid to flee from its responsibility, it will push the situation to an uncontrollable catastrophe.''

Going even further, the North Korean defense minister, Kim Il Chol, warned of ``merciless punishment'' to the United States if it pursued a confrontational approach.

``The U.S. hawks are arrogant enough to groundlessly claim that North Korea has pushed ahead with a `nuclear program,' bringing its hostile policy toward the D.P.R.K. to an extremely dangerous phase,'' the state-run Korean Central News Agency quoted Mr. Kim as saying.

[In Washington, the State Department said it was following developments closely. ``Again, we urge North Korea not to restart any of its frozen nuclear facilities,'' the department said in a statement that reflected no change since it declared on Monday that there could be no negotiations while North Korea pursued a nuclear program, and that the United States ``will not give in to blackmail.''

[President Bush was said to be monitoring developments from the presidential retreat at Camp David, Md., where he will spend Christmas with his family. The Associated Press reported that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was continuing to reach out to North Korea's neighbors, calling Japan's foreign minister, Yoriko Kawaguchi. Since Saturday, Mr. Powell has also conferred with leaders in Russia, China, South Korea, Britain and France.]

Some analysts here saw the defense minister's statement as a defiant response to comments by his American counterpart, Donald H. Rumsfeld, who said on Monday that the United States had enough military power in reserve to prevail over North Korea in the event a conflict with the country should occur in the midst of a war with Iraq.

``We're capable of winning decisively in one and swiftly defeating in the case of the other, and let there be no doubt about it,'' Mr. Rumsfeld said.

The North's comments come as Pyongyang accelerates its takeover of nuclear fuel and reactors that were placed under international surveillance by a 1994 agreement with the United States following a crisis remarkably similar to the current one.

Today, South Korean officials said that North Korea had begun taking steps to reactivate a five-megawatt nuclear reactor that had been mothballed under the eight-year-old agreement, the so-called Agreed Framework. North Korea has completed the removal of the last International Atomic Energy Agency seals and the disabling of surveillance cameras at a fuel fabrication plant in Yongbyon, South Korean officials said Tuesday.

The facility is technically known as a research reactor, but all along, Western arms control experts have said that its true purpose of the plant is to produce plutonium for North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

``There are varying estimates on how long it would take them to reprocess the spent fuel, but they probably have plans to do it a lot faster than outsiders imagine - and will do so if their equipment works,'' said an American official who has studied North Korea's nuclear programs for years. ``Here are a few of the ugly signposts we might whiz pass: asking the inspectors to leave, starting up the reprocessing line, finalizing their withdrawal from the Nonproliferation Treaty, and declaring themselves a nuclear power - with a ``Korean bomb'' intended to protect the whole of the Korean people by keeping the Americans from starting a war.''

Continued
1 | 2 | Next>>

100 Arrested in U.S. Anti-War Protests
By Allen G. Breed for the Associated Press (Associated Press writers Jessica Brice in Sacramento; Mike Robinson in Chicago; Carol Ann Riha in Des Moines; Danny Freedman in Washington; Michael Virtanen in Albany; Karen Matthews in New York; and Elizabeth Zuckerman in Providence contributed to this report.)

About half of the 200 protesters demonstrating outside the U.S. mission to the United Nations in New York were arrested for disorderly conduct, including clergy members. Across the country in Sacramento, Calif., nine were taken into custody for blocking the entrance to a federal courthouse...

In the nation's capital, about 300 protesters, many with gray hair, staged a march to a park near the White House. Flanked by police, John Steinbach, 56, of Manassas, Va., an organizer of the Gray Panthers, was pushing the wheelchair of his 97-year-old wife, Louise Franklin-Ramirez, who he said had been protesting since 1917...

Earlier in Washington, several people were arrested after converging on two military recruiting stations chanting, "Hell no, we won't go," and plastering windows with red tape.

Students at the University of Michigan set up a makeshift graveyard on a major walkway through the Ann Arbor campus, using cardboard headstones that read "Iraqi child" and "Iraqi man." About 100 students and faculty at Brown University in Providence, R.I., marched with signs and staged a "die-in" in front of the city's federal building.

Here's the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-anti-war-protests1210dec10,0,4125576.story?coll=la%2Dap%2Dtopnews%2Dheadlines

100 Arrested in U.S. Anti-War Protests
By Allen G. Breed
Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, 10 December, 2002

>From Goshen, Ind., grannies collecting relief kits to a "die-in" on an Ivy League campus, Americans took to the streets Tuesday in mostly small, low-key events to protest a possible war on Iraq. More than 100 people were arrested.

World War II veteran Ray Kaepplinger was among 40 people picketing outside a Chicago federal office building as 20 others were being arrested in the lobby for criminal trespass.

Kaepplinger, 84, said he had "been through the plume of hell in New Guinea" and didn't want to see another war erupt. "As far as I'm concerned, President George II is as bad as Saddam Hussein," he said.

About half of the 200 protesters demonstrating outside the U.S. mission to the United Nations in New York were arrested for disorderly conduct, including clergy members. Across the country in Sacramento, Calif., nine were taken into custody for blocking the entrance to a federal courthouse.

"It's my first time ever," said Maria Cornejo, 41, a mother of four from Dixon, Calif. "That's how important this is."

The group United for Peace counted more than 120 planned vigils, acts of civil disobedience and marches in 37 states from Alaska to Florida. Protests were being organized by fax and over the Internet by anarchists and Communists, evangelicals and Quakers.

In the Mennonite community of Goshen, people gathered soap, bandages, towels and other items to send to the poor of Iraq. Sharon Baker, 64, brought in three kits for shipment through the Mennonite Central Committee.

"I'm opposed to any war, any time, anywhere, any place because war doesn't solve anything," she said.

At the Women's Building in Albany, N.Y., dozens have signed up to fast for one day each to protest the Bush administrations threats of war.

In the nation's capital, about 300 protesters, many with gray hair, staged a march to a park near the White House. Flanked by police, John Steinbach, 56, of Manassas, Va., an organizer of the Gray Panthers, was pushing the wheelchair of his 97-year-old wife, Louise Franklin-Ramirez, who he said had been protesting since 1917.

"The movement was looked on as being mainly youngsters," said Irving Irskin, 84, of Bethesda, Md., "but we want to show it's our war, too."

Earlier in Washington, several people were arrested after converging on two military recruiting stations chanting, "Hell no, we won't go," and plastering windows with red tape.

Students at the University of Michigan set up a makeshift graveyard on a major walkway through the Ann Arbor campus, using cardboard headstones that read "Iraqi child" and "Iraqi man." About 100 students and faculty at Brown University in Providence, R.I., marched with signs and staged a "die-in" in front of the city's federal building.

The White House said President Bush welcomed the protests as part of a "time-honored tradition" of democracy.

While a recent USA/CNN/Gallup Poll found that a majority of Americans still support sending ground troops to remove the Iraqi president, the percentage opposed has nearly doubled to 37 percent since a year ago.

The protests were a far cry from October's mass rallies in Washington, San Francisco and elsewhere that drew an estimated 200,000 participants. But Eric Garris, director of antiwar.com, an affiliate of the nonprofit Center for Libertarian Studies, said those events were sponsored in large part by groups with agendas other than stopping a war with Iraq.

Unlike during the Vietnam War, mainstream groups are not waiting for a full-blown conflict to register their opposition. The National Council on Churches, which represents 50 million Christians, took out a full-page ad in the New York Times last week asking Bush to avert a war.

"It took 12 years for the mainline Christian churches and the Roman Catholic Church to come to an understanding that the war in Vietnam was wrong," said the Rev. Robert Edgar, the council's general secretary and a member of Congress at war's end in 1975.

The day of protest also coincided with former President Jimmy Carter's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway.

"War may sometimes be a necessary evil," he said in his acceptance speech. "But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good."

-------

Associated Press writers Jessica Brice in Sacramento; Mike Robinson in Chicago; Carol Ann Riha in Des Moines; Danny Freedman in Washington; Michael Virtanen in Albany; Karen Matthews in New York; and Elizabeth Zuckerman in Providence contributed to this report.

I've uploaded my video footage from the Anti-war in Iraq/Anti-Feinstein protest in San Francisco Monday, November 18, 2002.

As always with my news video footage, everything is Dedicated to the Public Domain.

Lisa Rein's Movies and Pictures From the November 18, 2002 Anti-war/ Anti-Feinstein Protest in San Francisco

I'm working on a better interface and a comprehensive index so folks won't get lost in the quagmire of my rapidly-expanding library of video footage.

I'll also have some technical notes up soon to help explain how to install the software required to get the movies to run on various platforms for you non-uber techie folks.

I also still need to re-encode everything as MPEGs capable of running on unix-based operating systems.

CANESI (Canadian Network to End Sanctions On Iraq) has organized a number of rally's for this weekend in 14 cities across Canada: Halifax/Dartmouth, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Midlland, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Penticton, Grand Forks, Vancouver and Victoria.

Note: Pay close attention to the dates listed for each city, because some are happening on Saturday, November 16 and others on Sunday, November 17th. (Thanks, Cory.)

Bill Moyers has writes about his experience as Press Secretary to Lyndon Johnson during the beginning of the Vietnam War and the inevitable cost of the War on Iraq to the innocents on both sides.

The Costs Of War

Our Secretary of Defense has a plaque on his desk that says, "Aggressive fighting for the right is the noblest sport the world affords." I don't think so.

To launch an armada against Hussein's own hostages, a people who have not fired a shot at us in anger, seems a crude and poor alternative to shrewd, disciplined diplomacy.

Don't get me wrong. Vietnam didn't make me a dove; it made me read the Constitution. That's all. Government's first obligation is to defend its citizens. There's nothing in the Constitution that says it's permissible for a great nation to go hunting for Hussein by killing the people he holds hostage, his own people, who have no choice in the matter, who have done us no harm.

Unprovoked, the noble sport of war becomes the murder of the innocent.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers14.html

The Costs of War

By Bill Moyers

Iraq is not Vietnam, but war is war. Some of you will recall that I was Press Secretary to Lyndon Johnson during the escalation of war in Vietnam. Like the White House today, we didn't talk very much about what the war would cost. Not in the beginning. We weren't sure, and we didn't really want to know too soon, anyway.

If we had to tell Congress and the public the true cost of the war, we were afraid of what it would do to the rest of the budget — the money for education, poverty, Medicare. In time, we had to figure it out and come clean. It wasn't the price tag that hurt as much as it was the body bag. The dead were coming back in such numbers that LBJ began to grow morose, and sometimes took to bed with the covers pulled above his eyes, as if he could avoid the ghosts of young men marching around in his head. I thought of this the other day, when President Bush spoke of the loss of American lives in Iraq. He said, "I'm the one who will have to look the mothers in the eye."

LBJ said almost the same thing. No president can help but think of the mothers, widows, and orphans.

Mr. Bush is amassing a mighty American armada in the Middle East - incredible firepower. He has to know that even a clean war — a war fought with laser beams, long range missles, high flying bombers, and remote controls — can get down and dirty, especially for the other side.

We forget there are mothers on the other side. I've often wondered about the mothers of Vietnamese children like this one, burned by American napalm. Or Afghan mothers, whose children were smashed and broken by American bombs.

On the NBC Nightly News one evening I saw this exclusive report from Afghanistan — those little white lights are heat images of people on foot. They're about to be attacked.

That fellow running out in the open - were he and the people killed members of Al Qaeda, or just coming to worship?

We'll never know. But surely their mothers do. And there will be mothers like them in Iraq. Saddam won't mind - dead or alive; and we won't mind, either. The spoils of victory include amnesia.

Ah, the glories of war; the adrenaline that flows to men behind desks at the very thought of the armies that will march, the missiles that will fly, the ships that will sail, on their command.

This headline was going to be: "Anti-War Rally In Boston Gets Usual Lack of Media Coverage," but I didn't want to emphasize the negative...

Luckily, Steve Garfield has put together a movie of the event.

A Hundred Thousand March -- Media Censors?

Which also includes a great reprint of John Perry Barlow's account of the day.
(Thanks, Kevin)

When we finally got up to Market Street around noon, the march had already launched toward the Civic Center. Market was dense with humanity as far as I could see in that direction. We counted several different cross-sections of the moving populace, and the parade seemed to be about 20 people across. Assuming that each phalanx of 20 moved though per second, this would be about 72,000 people per hour. The march continued unabated for at least 2 and a half hours. If our calculations are even a little accurate, this would be over a hundred fifty thousand people who had gathered to protest a war that has barely begun.

I remember the first anti-war protest I ever attended. It was in the fall of 1965 and it took place on Boston Commons. I'd be surprised if there were more than a hundred people there, though they included, as I recall, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. It was not until after Kent State, five years later, that I saw anything like the assembly of protesters I witnessed yesterday.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2002/10/30/21821/475

A Hundred Thousand March -- Media Censors? (Politics)

By darkonc
Fri Nov 1st, 2002 at 07:36:00 AM EST
Freedom

A couple of days ago, I got an email. The email went to a political list I'm on. It said that on Oct. 26, between 50,000 and 150,000 people had marched in San Francisco to protest against plans for war against Iraq. That wasn't the story, though. The story was that the national news sources had all but ignored the protest.

Even stranger than that (it may be coincidence) I can't currently bring up any SF newspaper sites to verify this story. In any case, the email I recieved is below. Can people in SF verify that this event occured, and can people outside SF verify that they haven't heard about it?

100, 000 March in San Francisco. Media Fail to Notice.
From: "John Perry Barlow"

So I went down to the demonstration yesterday. Instead of getting my fair share of abuse - the San Francisco police were as non-confrontational as Muppets - I was ignored. Along with anywhere from 50,000 to 150,000 other people.

In spite of its being largest and most demographically diverse demonstration I've seen in a long career of dissent, the closest the Bay Area peace march came to being a national event was a mention on page 8 of the New York Times that thousands had also gathered in San Francisco.

Perhaps if it had turned violent... But probably not. As I said in my last blast, the best way to neutralize us is to pretend that we don't exist. The puzzling question to me is, why are the media going along with George II on this. What the hell is in it for them?

I mean, we know that the war sells papers. William Randolph Hearst, a pioneer in this regard, told his photographer in Cuba - where the battleship Maine had just exploded, providing the excuse for the Spanish-American War - "You get the pictures. I'll get the war."

But if all you're trying to do is to get and keep public attention, any popular fracas will suffice. I am certain that a lot of people bought the paper today to find out about yesterday's demonstrations. Why couldn't such a modest desire find its gratification? It's weird. I can think of no mechanism by which the White House could directly muzzle the press without someone getting the word out over the Internet. But something is making the media act as if opposition to this war is no big deal.

But from where I was marching, it looked like a big deal, and not simply because everything I'm involved with looks like a big deal to me. This was huge. Let me tell you a little about it, since apparently no one else is going to.

I've been on the road with Mountain Girl Garcia. We have been staying at her daughter Trixie's Julia Morgan house in Oakland and decided to take BART across the Bay rather than experience the agony of looking for a parking place in a city that doesn't have parking places even when nothing unusual is going on in town. When we got to the north Oakland BART station around 11:00, there was already a line for the ticket machines that snaked half an hour out into the parking lot. The train, when we finally got on it, was breathing room only. There was a line to get out of the station at the Embarcadero.

I'm not keen on being in line, but these experiences were not at all unpleasant. There was a lovely energy among the protesters, who seemed to be of all social sorts. It was not just the usual suspects. There were children, old people, men in suits, as well as people who will never wear a suit. A lot of tweedy academic types. Not so many with darker skins, I regret to say, but some. The only truly common element seemed to be a pleasant civilization.

And there were one hell of a lot of us.

When we finally got up to Market Street around noon, the march had already launched toward the Civic Center. Market was dense with humanity as far as I could see in that direction. We counted several different cross-sections of the moving populace, and the parade seemed to be about 20 people across. Assuming that each phalanx of 20 moved though per second, this would be about 72,000 people per hour. The march continued unabated for at least 2 and a half hours. If our calculations are even a little accurate, this would be over a hundred fifty thousand people who had gathered to protest a war that has barely begun.

I remember the first anti-war protest I ever attended. It was in the fall of 1965 and it took place on Boston Commons. I'd be surprised if there were more than a hundred people there, though they included, as I recall, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. It was not until after Kent State, five years later, that I saw anything like the assembly of protesters I witnessed yesterday.

Furthermore, on that occasion, in May of '70, it seemed that just about everyone filling the Mall in DC looked pretty much like me. We were not The People. Not to say that scruffy, dope-smoking kids weren't well represented in yesterday's march. But they were certainly not the majority, even if you counted the scruffy, dope-smoking seniors like me. Mostly the marchers seemed like Just Plain Folks.

There were some great signs. Like "Impeach the Uber-Goober." Or "No Weapons of Mass Distraction." Or "If Tim McVeigh caused 911, would we bomb Michigan?" Or "Chez Panisse for Peace." Or "Stop The Bushit!" Or "Stay Glued to the TV, You Hysterical, Brainwashed Fool!" One showed a concerned looking whale with a thought balloon that said, "Save the Humans."

It seems important to me that this many Just Plain Folks could come to together on such short notice. It seems important that so many could gather in indignation without any violent or rude behavior. It seems important to me.

But it's not important to the media. Why?
________

So is this story true? If it's true, why hasn't this been in the national media? Like the original writer of this article, I can't see how a hundred thousand people demonstrating against the proposed war in Iraq shouldn't be national news.

If this is being supressed, what else is?

Times, NPR Change Their Take on DC Protests

Three days after its first report on the D.C. antiwar protests, readers of the New York Times were treated to a much different account of the same event. On October 30, the Times reported that the October 26 protests "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."

This directly contradicted the Times' October 27 report, which noted that the "thousands" of demonstrators were "fewer people... than organizers had said they hoped for." The October 30 Times report also included much more information about similar protests around the country, and featured quotes from various antiwar activists...

...National Public Radio, another target of FAIR's action alert, has also offered a correction of its misleading coverage of the D.C. protest. The following message is now posted on NPR's website:

On Saturday, October 26, in a story on the protest in Washington, D.C. against a U.S. war with Iraq, we erroneously reported on All Things Considered that the size of the crowd was "fewer than 10,000." While Park Service employees gave no official estimate, it is clear that the crowd was substantially larger than that. On Sunday, October 27, we reported on Weekend Edition that the crowd estimated by protest organizers was 100,000. We apologize for the error.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.fair.org/activism/npr-nyt-update.html

FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 112 W. 27th Street New York, NY 10001

ACTIVISM UPDATE:
Times, NPR Change Their Take on DC Protests

October 30, 2002

Three days after its first report on the D.C. antiwar protests, readers of the New York Times were treated to a much different account of the same event. On October 30, the Times reported that the October 26 protests "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."

This directly contradicted the Times' October 27 report, which noted that the "thousands" of demonstrators were "fewer people... than organizers had said they hoped for." The October 30 Times report also included much more information about similar protests around the country, and featured quotes from various antiwar activists.

The second Times story may have been a reaction to the overwhelming response to FAIR's October 28 Action Alert critical of the paper's downplaying of the protest. FAIR has received more than 1,100 copies of individual letters sent to the Times or to NPR, whose coverage was also cited in the action alert-- one of the largest volumes of mail ever generated by a FAIR action alert. The newspaper trade magazine Editor & Publisher (10/30/02) suggested that the October 30 piece was a "make-up article" that may have been written "in response to many organized protest letters sent to the Times since the paper's weak, and inaccurate, initial article about the march on Sunday."

The paper has not yet issued an editor's note or correction explaining the different reports, though senior editor Bill Borders sent an apologetic message to many of the people who wrote to the paper.

"I am sorry we disappointed you," he said. "Accurately measuring the size of a crowd of demonstrators is nearly impossible and often, as in this case, there are no reliable objective estimates." Borders defended the Times' overall coverage of the Iraq debate, and thanked activists for contacting the paper: "We appreciate your writing us and welcome your careful scrutiny. It helps us to do a better job."

National Public Radio, another target of FAIR's action alert, has also offered a correction of its misleading coverage of the D.C. protest. The following message is now posted on NPR's website:

On Saturday, October 26, in a story on the protest in Washington, D.C. against a U.S. war with Iraq, we erroneously reported on All Things Considered that the size of the crowd was "fewer than 10,000." While Park Service employees gave no official estimate, it is clear that the crowd was substantially larger than that. On Sunday, October 27, we reported on Weekend Edition that the crowd estimated by protest organizers was 100,000. We apologize for the error.

FAIR thanks all of the activists who wrote to the New York Times and NPR about their coverage of the D.C. protests. Those who did write or call might consider sending a follow-up note to the outlets to encourage serious, ongoing coverage of the growing antiwar movement.

To read the New York Times' new report on the protests, go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/30/national/30PROT.html
(Registration required)

To read the initial NPR story with the correction, go to: http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2002/oct/021026.brand.html

To read FAIR's October 28 action alert on protest coverage, go to:
http://www.fair.org/activism/npr-nyt-protests.html

NOTE: FAIR mistakenly referred to NPR's October 26 report as being part of the show Weekend Edition. That report actually aired on All Things Considered, while the report the following day aired on Weekend Edition.

What a funny headline. It leaves out the part about the NYT having most of the information wrong in its earlier articles on the subject.

Luckily the public wrote in over 1,000 letters to help clairfy the situation.
Rally in Washington Is Said to Invigorate the Antiwar Movement
By Kate Zernike.

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.

Here's the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/30/national/30PROT.html

The New York Times The New York Times National October 30, 2002

DISSENT
Rally in Washington Is Said to Invigorate the Antiwar Movement
By KATE ZERNIKE

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.

"The rally was like a huge gust of wind into the sails of the antiwar movement," said Brian Becker, an organizer of the Washington protest. "Our goal was not simply to have a big demonstration, but to give the movement confidence that it could prevail. The massive turnout showed it's legitimate, and it's big."

Building on those demonstrations, a coalition of groups called International Answer — short for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism — is asking people to vote in a referendum called VoteNoWar.org, which organizers hope will serve as a countervote to the Congressional resolution in support of military action in Iraq.

The coalition, which has absorbed several smaller groups around the country, is also planning another protest on Jan. 18 and 19 in Washington, to coincide with the commemoration of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday and the 12th-year anniversary of the Persian Gulf war. Organizers are also planning what they call a Grass Roots Peoples' Congress to publicize the results of the referendum.

Smaller groups that attended the demonstrations in San Francisco and Washington said they were planning their own protests back home. Protesters plan to march in New Orleans and Tampa, Fla., this weekend; in Charleston, S.C., in mid-November; and again in San Francisco on Nov. 22. A group in Louisiana is planning a peace walk between Baton Rouge and New Orleans at the end of November, and the National Council of Churches is discussing another rally in Washington for Nov. 24.

MoveOn.org is conducting an online petition drive, and has raised about $2 million for candidates, including the late Senator Paul Wellstone, who opposed a war in Iraq.

In California, college students are leading teach-ins against the war at high schools. Richard Becker, an organizer with Answer in San Francisco, said the group was setting up an emergency response plan to accommodate a mass protest — complete with sound systems, placards, the requisite permits and even portable toilets — on the day United States troops enter Iraq.

"There is not going to be one speech or one demonstration, after which everyone goes home," said Barbara Lubin, the founder of the Middle East Children's Organization in Berkeley, Calif. "This is a movement against war and it's building momentum."

Those who have been organizing and attending demonstrations for several months said the swelling size of the protests showed how much antiwar sentiment had increased as the threat of war intensified.

In San Francisco, a march on Sept. 6 drew 2,500 people, one two weeks later, 6,000, and one on Oct. 6, 10,000.

"People are very emboldened right now," said Mike Zmolek, an organizer with the National Network to Stop the War in Iraq. "We've been in a financial crunch since we started — suddenly people are sending checks out of nowhere."

Mr. Zmolek said his organization had attracted 100 new antiwar groups across the country in the last three months.

The march in Washington was planned by International Answer, with coordinators of local chapters working in more than two dozen cities around the country. It attracted homemakers as well as college students, seasoned activists and those who had never attended any kind of political rally before.

"It was beautiful," said Merrill Chapman, 35, who called herself "just a housewife" in Charleston, S.C. "I'm in a very conservative town, and I feel like the lone voice. Being in Washington energized me, by seeing I was not alone."

Ms. Chapman had never been to a protest before the demonstration in Washington, but got involved after organizing a group called Thinking People in Charleston. She is planning a rally for Nov. 16 in her city.

In Houston, Lois Wright, a 46-year-old saleswoman in a drapery workroom, said she felt compelled to take the two-day bus ride to Washington, because the Bush administration seemed "hellbent on going to war."

"It's O.K. to do stuff in Houston, but nobody gets to hear about it," she said. "I felt if we were right in their faces, they couldn't ignore us."

Polls show that about 50 percent of Americans support sending ground troops to Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Antiwar organizers acknowledge some public support for military action, but said that until now, the voices of those who do not support the policy have not been heard.

"I think the president has considerable support," Mr. Zmolek said, "but I think the nation is pretty divided on this."

Certainly, there is still debate. In Austin, the University of Texas student government passed a resolution on Oct. 22 opposing an attack, by a vote of 20 to 17. Some students seek to have that vote overturned, saying it does not reflect the sentiment of the campus's 50,000 students.

Giving the Draft the Shaft

Maureen Farrell connects the dots. And she did it way back in July.

To weigh which view is accurate, ask yourself: What kind of uproar would arise if reinstatement of the draft followed an ill-advised, illegal, and undeclared war that Pentagon officials and our allies have spoken out against? And even worse, how many mothers would stand for having their sons inducted when those declaring war stand to benefit from war? How will President Bush's ties to the Carlyle Group be received? Or Cheney's ties with military contractor, Kellogg, Brown and Root? And what about Army Secretary White's ties to Lockheed, Enron and scandal, in general?

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/07/30_draft.html

Giving the Draft the Shaft
July 30, 2002
By Maureen Farrell

These days, whether referring to a regime change in Iraq or another terrorist attack on America, government spokespeople are almost certain to repeat the mantra: "It's not a matter of if, but when."

Says who?

Even as fatalism spreads through the land, some of us believe America functions best as a democracy, and that "eternal vigilance" is still "the price of liberty." We write congressmen, senators and newspaper editors, knowing that when enough of us are mobilized, we can indeed, change the world. War in Iraq? Nukes in New York? It's not a matter of if, or when, but a matter of "how do we stop it?"

The same can be said of reinstating the draft.

This March, when asked about the possibility of the nation once again relying upon conscription, President Bush stated that "the country shouldn't expect there to be a draft." Yet Lewis C. Brodsky, director of public and congressional affairs with the Selective Service System, said that, "the nation must be prepared to conduct one."

When one looks at recent trends, it seems that the country is indeed becoming prepared.

As of May 2001, seven states followed Delaware's lead by enacting laws linking driver's license applications to Selective Service registration. Essentially they're saying, "Want to drive a car? Sign up for duty." By July 2002, 25 states, 2 territories and the District of Columbia adopted similar laws.

According to the Selective Service, boys in Oklahoma, Delaware, Arkansas, Utah, Georgia, Hawaii, Alabama, Florida, Colorado, Texas, Louisiana, Illinois, Ohio, South Dakota, Mississippi, Idaho, Virginia, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Maryland, Rhode Island, Missouri, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands are now required to sign up for selective service when they register for driver's licenses. New Yorkers will soon follow similar procedures, and North Carolina and Pennsylvania are halfway through the legislative process. Other states are considering following suit.

Some of our more progressive and populist leaders are against reinstating the draft, under any circumstance. On April 5, 2002, Representative Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, issued a resolution opposing the reinstatement of the draft. Vietnam War veteran John McCain has also spoken out against conscription, while Senator Robert Byrd, one of two prescient senators who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, has warned that should the War on Terror take us to Iraq, we might face another Vietnam.

Arguments that conscription is unconstitutional are often countered with the example set forth in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. Certainly, the words, 'We the people ... [shall] provide for the common defense'" could be construed as proof the framers had conscription in mind. Yet if one is going to invoke the Constitution to uphold the draft, one also has to remember that, according to the Constitution, only Congress can declare war - and the founders were well aware of the dangers presented by presidents acting as tyrants. Purists might also want to inquire as to whether it's Constitutional to hold citizens as "enemy combatants," or to violate International law by calling for "regime change."

In response to his state's new driver's license/selective service law, Virginia Govenor Mark Warner said, "In this time of war, we need to make sure that we have a full sign up Selective Service," while adding, "I think most boys would be proud to do it." Yet Republican pollster Frank Lutz recently discovered that a full 37% of college kids would evade the draft.

To weigh which view is accurate, ask yourself: What kind of uproar would arise if reinstatement of the draft followed an ill-advised, illegal, and undeclared war that Pentagon officials and our allies have spoken out against? And even worse, how many mothers would stand for having their sons inducted when those declaring war stand to benefit from war? How will President Bush's ties to the Carlyle Group be received? Or Cheney's ties with military contractor, Kellogg, Brown and Root? And what about Army Secretary White's ties to Lockheed, Enron and scandal, in general?

At the moment, this conscription conversation is mere speculation - just an exercise in "connecting the dots," based upon circumstantial evidence. The same can be said of concerns over Posse Comitatus or Operation TIPs, and fears that America might become a police state monitored by a red, white and blue-adorned Stasi. Could the tanks recently deployed out of Alabama for Homeland Security be used to keep dissidents in line? Could stated opposition to the War on Terror be enough to make the cable guy turn you in? Might Army civilian labor camps be used as modern-day interment camps? Who knows?

These question might stem from paranoia. And they may be silly and pointless. But they could also be an exercise in eternal vigilance. Our liberty depends upon our asking.

The Christian Science Monitor was nice enough to put together this Draft Refresher Course to help us all get ramped up on the logistics of sending an entire generation to their deaths:

A lottery based on birthdays determines the order in which registered men are called up by Selective Service. The first to be called, in a sequence determined by the lottery, will be men whose 20th birthday falls during that year, followed, if needed, by those aged 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. 18-year-olds and those turning 19 would probably not be drafted...

...According to current plans, Selective Service must deliver the first inductees to the military within 193 days from the onset of a crisis.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.csmonitor.com/explainers/Draft.html

Questions and answers about...
The Draft

Overview:

While there have been no formal, public proposals for a reinstatement of the draft, the national campaign against terrorism has turned America's thoughts toward issues of military preparedness.

But according to Jeffrey Taliaferro, an assistant professor of history at Tufts University, "Any reinstitution of the draft would be extremely unlikely, even in the aftermath of [the Sept. 11] attacks."

"The primary opposition to a reinstatement of the draft would most likely come from the armed forces themselves. Reinstating the draft would require the military to divert additional resources (Non-Commissioned Officers, money, building materials, etc.) from frontline and reserve units. In any given pool of inductees, there would be a number of men who seek to avoid military service, but failed to obtain 'conscientious objector' status. In addition, there would likely be inductees of sub-par educational backgrounds."

1) What happens in a draft?

The following overview is taken from The Selective Service System's web page.

A. Congress and the president authorize a draft

A crisis occurs which requires more troops than the volunteer military can supply. Congress passes and the President signs legislation which starts a draft.

B. The lottery

A lottery based on birthdays determines the order in which registered men are called up by Selective Service. The first to be called, in a sequence determined by the lottery, will be men whose 20th birthday falls during that year, followed, if needed, by those aged 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. 18-year-olds and those turning 19 would probably not be drafted.

C. All parts of selective service are activated

The Agency activates and orders its State Directors and Reserve Forces Officers to report for duty.

D. Physical, mental, and moral evaluation of registrants

Registrants with low lottery numbers are ordered to report for a physical, mental, and moral evaluation at a Military Entrance Processing Station to determine whether they are fit for military service. Once he is notified of the results of the evaluation, a registrant will be given 10 days to file a claim for exemption, postponement, or deferment.

E. Local and appeal boards activated and induction notices sent

Local and Appeal Boards will process registrant claims. Those who pass the military evaluation will receive induction orders. An inductee will have 10 days to report to a local Military Entrance Processing Station for induction.

F. First draftees are inducted

According to current plans, Selective Service must deliver the first inductees to the military within 193 days from the onset of a crisis.

2) Will gay men be screened out of the military by the draft?

Lew Brodsky, Director of Public & Congressional Affairs for the Selective Service System, says the main emphasis of the Selective Service's moral screening process is exploring a potential draftee's legal history, not preventing homosexual men from being inducted.

"The 'moral' portion of determining a man's suitability for military service is a police check to see if a prospective inductee has a felony record," says Brodsky.

Professor Taliaferro agrees: The draft's main emphasis isn't on screening out suspected gay men.

"Under the Defense Department's pathological personnel policy (a.k.a., Don't ask, Don't tell), recruiting officers are not allowed to ask would-be recruits about their sexual orientation," writes Taliaferro. "If the would-be recruit volunteers that information, however, he or she can be excluded from military service."

"I would imagine that if the draft were reinstated, the current exclusion policy would remain in effect. Whether local draft boards would uniformly comply with directives to screen out gays is a matter of speculation. This, of course, raises several additional problems and paradoxes:

"(1) Presumably, troop shortages would be the main rationale for reinstating the draft. If the armed forces are unable to main sufficient troop levels during the current national emergency, it would seem rather absurd (at least in the minds of most educated, middle-class or upper-middle-class Americans living outside of the deep South and the heartland) to systemically exclude young men from military service based upon sexual orientation. Opponents of the draft in both the House and the Senate would likely raise this issue in committee and floor debate on legislation to amend the Selective Service Act.

"(2) The systematic exclusion of any discrete group of young men from mandatory military service would undermine the Bush administration's rhetoric about American unity.

"(3) A sizable number of 18-26 year-old men would tell their local draft boards that they are gay in an effort to avoid induction."

Why aren't women required to register?

As it is currently written, Selective Service law refers to "male persons" in stating who must register and who would be drafted. A Supreme Court decision written in 1981 (Rostker v. Goldberg) held that registering only men did not violate the due process clause of the Constitution.

An extensive history of women and the draft is available on the Selective Service System's website.

Who serves on draft boards, and how many are there?

"There are about 2,000 Local and District Appeal Boards composed of 10,600 uncompensated civilian volunteers," says Brodsky. "Each board member is nominated by his/her state's governor and appointed by the Director of Selective Service on behalf of the president."

The goal is to have Board Members that makeup of the communities they would serve. Board Members are both men and women. They cannot be retired or active military, nor can they be serving in the National Guard or Reserve. Additionally, they cannot be judicial or law enforcement officials."

Here is Ron Kovic's speech from yesterday's Anti-War Rally in San Francisco
(as transcribed from my video footage, which I'll be posting Monday afternoon):

This is the most important moment in American History. You are a part of an extraordinary moment in the turning of the history of this country. You will take this government back on behalf of the people of the United States.

Because we all know here, each and every one of us who have come to this place on this day know, that the truth is, this country, the power, this country belongs to the people of the United States. We are going to be represented, if we have to take democracy to the streets of every city and town across this country. They're going to listen to us!

This is your moment. You were born to be here at this moment. You were born to take this country back on behalf of the people, on behalf of democracy, to make this nation a true, authentic democracy: "Of the people, by the people and for the people."

And there's an old saying: "Move on over or we'll move on over you." And in the days, the difficult days, and it's going to be difficult, in the difficult days and weeks and months ahead, I encourage you to move with dignity. Move with the spirit of Martin Luther King. And as our numbers continue to grow and we begin to recognize that this is not only an anti-war movement more powerful than any anti-war movement in the history of this country, but that this is also becoming a powerful movement for peoples' democracy in this country. When we begin to realize...

And when the leaders in Washington that are perpetrating this terrible, terrible war. The leaders, the President, those in power right now, who have in fact made targets of terror of all of us because of their policy. They are the ones who have brought on 911. It is their violence that brought the violence to our nation, and it's their violence that we must stop and stop forever!

Never underestimate...Never underestimate who you are! Never underestimate the power of what you represent. Your beauty and your dignity. Your honesty and your integrity. You are going to change this nation. Think about it. This is your moment. Your destiny is to change this nation. Years from now many of you will be able to tell your children that we lived through an extraordinary turning point in American History. And we have the courage to step over that line with dignity, with non-violence and with great determination, and make this is a country that we can all love again and can all be proud of. Thank you so very much. Thank you!

Peace Now! Peace Now!

This is just the beginning! Thank you!

Sorry for only getting the tail end of this! I'll have the video that goes with this up sometime tomorrow afternoon. Ron Kovic's speech is on the way...(yes, the whole thing :-)

Barbara Lee is really starting to shine as a leader in this movement.

I'm so happy to have been able to capture yesterday's experience for all the people across the country and around the world who couldn't be there to see for themselves.

...to re-dedicate ourselves to moving forward aggresively to making sure that this silent, they say minority, which it is a vocal majority, is being heard in Washington DC -- and that is you!
Keep the peace process moving forward! Keep it moving forward!

And I just want to thank you for all of your support. I want you to know that your emails and your rallys and your marches and your voices are being heard very loudly in Washington DC. We're gonna stop this madness! We're gonna, yes, rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. We're gonna rid the entire world, including our own country, of weapons of mass destruction! That's what we're gonna do! That's what we must do! That's what we must do!

How can we tell our children that violence is not an option, when they see our government supporting first strikes! How do we explain that to young people? How do we tell them "no" to violence?

So let me conclude by just saying: Let today be the first day of taking back the White House in 2004! That's what we gotta do! Thank you!

Just got back from having a totally incredible experience at the Anti-War March today!

Barbara Lee and Ron Kovic (the Vietnam Veteran and war hero/anti-war hero of "Born on the 4th of July") both spoke at the rally. I'm in the process of transcribing their speeches now -- I filmed their speeches and shot a bunch of great footage.

I was able to grab some stills that will have to tide you over until I upload the movies:
My Pictures From the October 26, 2002 Anti-war March in San Francisco

I'll be there at Justin Herman Plaza with my video camera!

See you there!

STOP THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ BEFORE IT STARTS!

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 26

NATIONAL MARCH ON WASHINGTON DC
Rally @ 11 am
Constitution Gardens adjacent to the
Vietnam Veterans War Memorial
21st St. & Constitution Ave. NW

**March to the White House**

JOINT ACTION IN SAN FRANCISCO
11 am at Justin Herman Plaza

Here is the full text of the page in case the link goes bad:

http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/o26/o26endorse.html

The Bush administration is rushing towards war. The time to act is now. The people of the United States can stop this madness.

World public opinion and almost every government opposes Bush's planned war of aggression. But it will take a mass peoples' movement--in the streets, workplaces, communities, campuses and high schools--to stop the coming war.

On Saturday, October 26, 2002 -- the first anniversary of the signing of the so-called Patriot Act -- anti-war, civil rights, labor, student and other forces are joining together to launch a massive international mobilization in opposition to a new war against the people of Iraq. Mass marches and rallies will be held in Washington DC and San Francisco in the U.S., and in many other countries.

As the Bush administration violates international law it has been systematically engaged in a campaign of division and repression in the United States including a wholesale assault on the Bill of Rights, institutionalization of racial profiling, and aggregation of near dictatorial powers to the Executive branch.

In articulating the so-called doctrine of preemptive war, the Bush administration is preparing to violate all existing international law and the UN charter which forbids countries to carry out war except in the case of self-defense. Preemption is merely a slogan to justify a foreign policy of armed aggression and military adventure.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and company are planning to send tens of thousands of young GIs to kill and be killed in another war for Big Oil. Simultaneously, the Bush Administration is diverting billions of dollars to feed military conquest and away from jobs, education, healthcare, childcare and housing.

The so-called debate that is opening now to public view from within the political establishment presents a necessity for all anti-war forces to become a major factor in generating an authentic opposition to U.S. war plans in the Middle East. The October 26 National March in Washington DC and joint action in San Francisco come just one week before midterm Congressional elections.

There won't be a real national debate on a planned invasion of Iraq until the people are in the streets. We can't leave it to the military establishment to decide when and how they will go to war and to define the debate. We must tell Bush and his corporate and Big Oil patrons that we will not allow this to happen.

This war can be stopped. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and company can be stopped. But the essential element must be the mobilization of a massive new anti-war movement in the streets. We call for civilians and soldiers alike to exercise their political right to speak out against an illegal war. On October 26, there will be a National March in Washington DC, a West Coast march in San Francisco, and protests around the world.

ONLY THE PEOPLE CAN STOP THE WAR!
JOIN US ON OCTOBER 26, 2002!

Here's a good site if you're interested in which Senators and Representatives voted "No" on the Iraq Resolution (like I am):

Senate Roll Call

Here's the full text of the page in case the link goes bad:

http://www.clw.org/control/iraqvote.html

Roll Call Vote on Iraq Resolution

Elections

110 Maryland Ave. NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 543-4100
clw@clw.org

October 11, 2002

Senate Roll Call

The 77-23 roll call by which the Senate voted Friday, October 11 to authorize President Bush to use military force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq.

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to pass the resolution and a "no" vote was a vote to defeat it.

Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans.

Voting "no" were 21 Democrats, one Republican and one independent.
Democrats Yes:
Baucus, Mont. Bayh, Ind. Biden, Del.
Breaux, La. Cantwell, Wash. Carnahan, Mo.
Carper, Del. Cleland, Ga. Clinton, N.Y.
Daschle, S.D. Dodd, Conn. Dorgan, N.D.
Edwards, N.C. Feinstein, Calif. Harkin, Iowa
Hollings, S.C. Johnson, S.D. Kerry, Mass.
Kohl, Wis. Landrieu, La. Lieberman, Conn.
Lincoln, Ark. Miller, Ga. Nelson, Fla.
Nelson, Neb. Reid, Nev. Rockefeller, W.Va.
Schumer, N.Y. Torricelli, N.J.
Democrats No:
Akaka, Hawaii Bingaman, N.M. Boxer, Calif
Byrd, W.Va. Conrad, N.D. Corzine, N.J.
Dayton, Minn. Durbin, Ill. Feingold, Wis
Graham, Fla. Inouye, Hawaii Kennedy, Mass.
Leahy, Vt. Levin, Mich. Mikulski, Md.
Murray, Wash. Reed, R.I. Sarbanes, Md.
Stabenow, Mich. Wellstone, Minn. Wyden, Ore.
Republicans Yes:
Allard, Colo. Allen, Va. Bennett, Utah
Bond, Mo. Brownback, Kan. Bunning, Ky.
Burns, Mont. Campbell, Colo. Cochran, Miss.
Collins, Maine Craig, Idaho Crapo, Idaho
DeWine, Ohio Domenici, N.M. Ensign, Nev.
Enzi, Wyo. Fitzgerald, Ill. Frist, Tenn.
Gramm, Texas Grassley, Iowa Gregg, N.H.
Hagel, Neb. Hatch, Utah Helms, N.C.
Hutchinson, Ark. Hutchison, Texas Inhofe, Okla.
Kyl, Ariz. Lott, Miss. Lugar, Ind.
McCain, Ariz. McConnell, Ky. Murkowski, Alaska
Nickles, Okla. Roberts, Kan. Santorum, Pa.
Sessions, Ala. Shelby, Ala. Smith, N.H.
Smith, Ore. Snowe, Maine Specter, Pa.
Stevens, Alaska Thomas, Wyo. Thompson, Tenn.
Thurmond, S.C. Voinovich, Ohio Warner, Va.

Republicans No: Chafee, R.I.;

Others No: Jeffords, Vt.
House Vote
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 455
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

H J RES 114 YEA-AND-NAY 10-OCT-2002 3:05 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

YEAS NAYS PRES NV
REPUBLICAN 215 6 2
DEMOCRATIC 81 126 1
INDEPENDENT 1
TOTALS 296 133 3

--- YEAS 296 ---
Ackerman Goode Oxley
Aderholt Goodlatte Pascrell
Akin Gordon Pence
Andrews Goss Peterson (MN)
Armey Graham Peterson (PA)
Bachus Granger Petri
Baker Graves Phelps
Ballenger Green (TX) Pickering
Barcia Green (WI) Pitts
Barr Greenwood Platts
Bartlett Grucci Pombo
Barton Gutknecht Pomeroy
Bass Hall (TX) Portman
Bentsen Hansen Pryce (OH)
Bereuter Harman Putnam
Berkley Hart Quinn
Berman Hastert Radanovich
Berry Hastings (WA) Ramstad
Biggert Hayes Regula
Bilirakis Hayworth Rehberg
Bishop Hefley Reynolds
Blagojevich Herger Riley
Blunt Hill Roemer
Boehlert Hilleary Rogers (KY)
Boehner Hobson Rogers (MI)
Bonilla Hoeffel Rohrabacher
Bono Hoekstra Ros-Lehtinen
Boozman Holden Ross
Borski Horn Rothman
Boswell Hoyer Royce
Boucher Hulshof Ryan (WI)
Boyd Hunter Ryun (KS)
Brady (TX) Hyde Sandlin
Brown (SC) Isakson Saxton
Bryant Israel Schaffer
Burr Issa Schiff
Burton Istook Schrock
Buyer Jefferson Sensenbrenner
Callahan Jenkins Sessions
Calvert John Shadegg
Camp Johnson (CT) Shaw
Cannon Johnson (IL) Shays
Cantor Johnson, Sam Sherman
Capito Jones (NC) Sherwood
Carson (OK) Kanjorski Shimkus
Castle Keller Shows
Chabot Kelly Shuster
Chambliss Kennedy (MN) Simmons
Clement Kennedy (RI) Simpson
Coble Kerns Skeen
Collins Kind (WI) Skelton
Combest King (NY) Smith (MI)
Cooksey Kingston Smith (NJ)
Cox Kirk Smith (TX)
Cramer Knollenberg Smith (WA)
Crane Kolbe Souder
Crenshaw LaHood Spratt
Crowley Lampson Stearns
Cubin Lantos Stenholm
Culberson Latham Sullivan
Cunningham LaTourette Sununu
Davis (FL) Lewis (CA) Sweeney
Davis, Jo Ann Lewis (KY) Tancredo
Davis, Tom Linder Tanner
Deal LoBiondo Tauscher
DeLay Lowey Tauzin
DeMint Lucas (KY) Taylor (MS)
Deutsch Lucas (OK) Taylor (NC)
Diaz-Balart Luther Terry
Dicks Lynch Thomas
Dooley Maloney (NY) Thornberry
Doolittle Manzullo Thune
Dreier Markey Thurman
Dunn Mascara Tiahrt
Edwards Matheson Tiberi
Ehlers McCarthy (NY) Toomey
Ehrlich McCrery Turner
Emerson McHugh Upton
Engel McInnis Vitter
English McIntyre Walden
Etheridge McKeon Walsh
Everett McNulty Wamp
Ferguson Meehan Watkins (OK)
Flake Mica Watts (OK)
Fletcher Miller, Dan Waxman
Foley Miller, Gary Weiner
Forbes Miller, Jeff Weldon (FL)
Ford Moore Weldon (PA)
Fossella Moran (KS) Weller
Frelinghuysen Murtha Wexler
Frost Myrick Whitfield
Gallegly Nethercutt Wicker
Ganske Ney Wilson (NM)
Gekas Northup Wilson (SC)
Gephardt Norwood Wolf
Gibbons Nussle Wynn
Gilchrest Osborne Young (AK)
Gillmor Ose Young (FL)
Gilman Otter
--- NAYS 133 ---
Abercrombie Hinchey Oberstar
Allen Hinojosa Obey
Baca Holt Olver
Baird Honda Owens
Baldacci Hooley Pallone
Baldwin Hostettler Pastor
Barrett Houghton Paul
Becerra Inslee Payne
Blumenauer Jackson (IL) Pelosi
Bonior Jackson-Lee (TX) Price (NC)
Brady (PA) Johnson, E. B. Rahall
Brown (FL) Jones (OH) Rangel
Brown (OH) Kaptur Reyes
Capps Kildee Rivers
Capuano Kilpatrick Rodriguez
Cardin Kleczka Roybal-Allard
Carson (IN) Kucinich Rush
Clay LaFalce Sabo
Clayton Langevin Sanchez
Clyburn Larsen (WA) Sanders
Condit Larson (CT) Sawyer
Conyers Leach Schakowsky
Costello Lee Scott
Coyne Levin Serrano
Cummings Lewis (GA) Slaughter
Davis (CA) Lipinski Snyder
Davis (IL) Lofgren Solis
DeFazio Maloney (CT) Stark
DeGette Matsui Strickland
Delahunt McCarthy (MO) Stupak
DeLauro McCollum Thompson (CA)
Dingell McDermott Thompson (MS)
Doggett McGovern Tierney
Doyle McKinney Towns
Duncan Meek (FL) Udall (CO)
Eshoo Meeks (NY) Udall (NM)
Evans Menendez Velazquez
Farr Millender-McDonald Visclosky
Fattah Miller, George Waters
Filner Mollohan Watson (CA)
Frank Moran (VA) Watt (NC)
Gonzalez Morella Woolsey
Gutierrez Nadler Wu
Hastings (FL) Napolitano
Hilliard Neal
--- NOT VOTING 3 ---
Ortiz Roukema Stump

The contents of this page may be reproduced in whole or in part without further permission with proper credit given.

Ryan Junell has given me permission to reprint a very thoughtful email he sent me earlier today.

I think it comes down to POWER and energy and fuel for our lifestyles.
I think if we want things to change we need to consider alternative, independent, sustainable fuel resources. we also need to tune into government and policy. and most importantly - we must REGISTER TO VOTE and ACTUALLY
SHOW UP TO VOTE. there's a statewide election coming up on november
5th along with a few dozen local propositions. voting is EASY and
IMPORTANT. here's the sf url for local stuff. there's a link at the
bottom where you can register to vote online. do it.

http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/election

From: ryan junell
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:15:29 -0700
To: xxxx
Subject: who votes


AN ORIGINAL EMAIL WRITTEN BY RYAN JUNELL (and not a forward, whoa!)

---

in a democrat controlled senate (50 dems/49 reps/1 ind)
and a republican controlled house (208 dems/223 reps/1 ind/3 vacancies)

nancy listened and voted "no" to bush war-powers.
barbara listened and voted "no" to bush war-powers.
diane feinstein did NOT listen and voted "yes" to bush war-powers.

and together, the house and senate passed the resolution granting
bush powers to wage war on iraq, enabling a preemptive attack without
approval from the united nations and/or the security council.

---

MOST house and senate democrats voted FOR war with iraq. middle
america doesn't seem to mind war so much. but our california democrat
senator voted FOR bush and war with iraq.

call feinstein's office and tell her how you feel about her vote.
read her press release on the issue on her website and see WHY she
voted the way she did. her office received THOUSANDS of responses
about the issue which she chose to ignore when casting her vote
this morning. she sits on the senate "intelligence" committee, but
that doesn't necessarily signify any sort of meaningful intelligence.


http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/Releases02/r-iraq10.htm

---

my understanding of all of this is that we as americans are complicit
in a lifestyle and civilization that requires our dependence on finite
resources (OIL and GAS), both foreign and domestic. our values of
consumption and depletion know no bounds. we as a nation continue to
morally and ethically CHALLENGE OURSELVES in this world to preserve
our unsustainable, dependent civilization. I think it comes down to
POWER and energy and fuel for our lifestyles. I think if we want
things to change we need to consider alternative, independent,
sustainable fuel resources. we also need to tune into government and
policy. and most importantly - we must REGISTER TO VOTE and ACTUALLY
SHOW UP TO VOTE. there's a statewide election coming up on november
5th along with a few dozen local propositions. voting is EASY and
IMPORTANT. here's the sf url for local stuff. there's a link at the
bottom where you can register to vote online. do it.

http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/election

oh well,
ryan junell






Senator Barbara Boxer (dem)
DC Phone: 202-224-3553
Local Phone: 415-403-0100

Senator Dianne Feinstein (dem)
DC Phone: 202-224-3841
Local Phone: 619-231-9712

Representative Nancy Pelosi (dem)
DC Phone: 202-225-4965
Local Phone: 415-556-4862

Look up your Rep's fax and phone numbers here.

John Perry Barlow sent this out today...

If you have opened this e-mail today, Thursday, October 10, stop
reading it right now.

Drop your mouse and grab your phone.

Call the offices of your senators and representatives and tell them how you feel about their willingness to give "President" Bush blanket authorization to make war whenever and however he feels like it, renewable indefinitely. They may vote to do so as early as this evening.

Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.
-- Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, 1916, Ch.9

(Thanks, Cory)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:6:./temp/~r107TB8tOV::
oct 4 byrd

Begin forwarded message:

From: John Perry Barlow barlow@eff.org
Date: Thu Oct 10, 2002 12:17:18 PM US/Pacific
To: John Perry Barlow barlow@eff.org
Subject: (SPAM?) [E-S] BarlowFriendz 8.6: Please, Folks, Call The
Capital Today!

^

(o)

/_ _\
--------- B a R L o W F R i e N D Z
-----

A continuing series of occasional outbursts to about 1052 of my
dearest friends. Please let me know if you wish to be removed from
this list. But you'll miss some great parties if you do...

Also, if this broadcast feels as spammish to you as it obviously is, I
hope you remember that individual responses generally elicit personal
replies. And whether or not I have time to write back, I always read
your replies with careful delight.
------------------------------ ------------------- --------

CALL YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES. NOW.

If you have opened this e-mail today, Thursday, October 10, stop
reading it right now.

Drop your mouse and grab your phone.

Call the offices of your senators and representatives and tell them
how you feel about their willingness to give "President" Bush blanket
authorization to make war whenever and however he feels like it,
renewable indefinitely. They may vote to do so as early as this
evening.

This is nuts, folks. Good Ol' Dubya has the brains of a cocker
spaniel, but unlike a cocker spaniel, he has nuclear weapons. Not to
mention the masculine insecurities of a Houston frat jock working on
his second six pack. Not to mention the conscience-anaesthetizing
belief that God is on his side.

Worse, he has in the background some very bright people whose almost
autistic capacity for compassion would make Stalin look like the Dalai
Lama.

It was Stalin who said, "The death of one person is a tragedy. The
death of a million people is a statistic." Dick Cheney, whom I've know
quite well since 1976, is perfectly capable of thinking something like
that. It's no small wonder that he has a heart condition. For years,
his heart has been crying out for the attention of the HAL 9000 in his
head.

Dick wants to impose the Pax Americana upon the world. By force. He
wants to disarm Irag for the same reasons that Caeser wanted to disarm
Gaul. The reason he isn't, like George Bush I, concerned about what
sort of government would replace Saddam's is because *we* would govern
Iraq for the indefinite future. As we now govern Afghanistan and will,
according to his plan, come to govern the entire oil-producing portion
of the Islamic world.

But Rome ruled by fear, not moral example. They crucified a lot more
people than Jesus Christ. They had no more interest in the well-being
of their subjects than do the architects of Pax Americana, which was
first designed by Cheney and Wolfowitz at the end of Bush I.

This concept was buffed up and re-codified in September 2000. It took
the form of a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses, which
was released then by an outfit called The Project for the New American
Century. You may find this document at
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.

After you've called DC, I strongly recommend that you read it. Like
all great authoritarian literature, it produces in the reader a
perfect combination of boredom and terror.

One of its authors, Yale's Donald Kagen, gave us a foretasted flavor
of our Imperial ruling style when he said recently, "People worry a
lot about how the Arab street is going to react [to the invasion of
Iraq]. Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet
since we started blowing things up."

This is not the quiet of tranquillity. This is the smoldering quiet of
rage.

We have the military force to blow a lot of things up. But if that is
how the Pax is to be maintained, it will be a pox on America's soul.
For most of our history, we have led by moral rather than military
force. Are we ready to forsake that tradition?

Besides, I believe the strategy of coerced Islamic pacification will
backfire hideously. Those quiet Arab streets will produce a virulent
bloom of young men who have nothing to lose and Paradise to gain.

As we learned on September 11, it doesn't take a nation state to
threaten us, nor does it take a nation state to create genuine weapons
of mass destruction. A pencil sized stick of Cesium 137, which can be
easily acquired at any food irradiation facility, could, with 10
pounds of dynamite wrapped around it, deliver a lethal dose of
radiation to everyone in Lower Manhattan.

Modern technology greatly favors the underdog. As a purely practical
matter - never mind the moral questions - do we want to be the
perpetual Overdog in a world like that?

Pax Americana may slouch out of the Capital tonight and head off to
Baghdad to be born. If it is, we will make America safe for SUV's. And
almost nothing else.

Call your senators and representative. Now.

We contained the Soviet Union for 57 years. We've contained Iraq for
11 years. However dishonest or barbaric or conniving Saddam's
government, they have provided us with precisely zero identifiable
threat since 1991. We can go on containing them for a long time. With
proper intelligence - which may be hard for us to muster - we could
probably neutralize them as well and do so without "collateral damage"
(our pleasant phrase for killing innocent bystanders).

But, as a nation, we no longer seem to think there are Moslem
innocents. We are systematically dehumanizing them. I beg you not to
do this. Do not turn the Islamic world into statistics instead of
human beings like yourselves. Following one of my previous missives on
this subject, I received some astonishingly bigoted replies. One
former BarlowFriend said, essentially, "kill them all, let Allah sort
'em out."

I make faint defense for either the cultural or political practices of
the Middle East. I've spent time there. It's pretty awful, at least by
my standards. Egypt is a place so broken that it makes Mexico look
like France. But the people, even the ones who hated everything I
stood for, were incredibly sweet to me.

However bad their governments may be, however narrowing their
ideology, each of them is, like you, another mask that God wears. They
laugh, they love, they toss their babies in the air with as much
affection as you toss yours.

There are many babies in Iraq who will likely soon be tossed into mass
graves, assuming there's a recognizable body to toss. There are many
adults in Iraq who have done nothing to you who will die horrible
deaths simply because their leader, whom they hate as much as we do,
just might possibly someday become able to do something bad to us.

These are real human beings. Very few of them mean you any harm. Even
their leader, who probably does mean you harm, is smart enough to know
better than to inflict it.

Imagine them, not as millions, but one person at a time. Grace them
with actual faces. Look into their deep, dark eyes. Are you still
ready to kill them? Do you have reason enough?

Call your senators and representatives. Now.

It's probably too late. Even Tom Daschle has caved. But if we lose
today, we can begin to organize the long struggle that will be
necessary to save America and the world from Pax Americana. And you
might as well begin your new career as a political activist with a
phone call today. You'd do well to get into the habit.

With bleak heart,

Barlow

P.S. Please scroll down to my current .sig quote. It's timely.

--

*************************************************************
John Perry Barlow, Cognitive Dissident
Co-Founder & Vice Chairman, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Berkman Fellow, Harvard Law School

Home(stead) Page: http://www.eff.org/~barlow

Call me anywhere, anytime: 800/654-4322

Fax me anywhere, anytime: 603/215-1529

Current Cell Phone: 646/286-8176 (GSM)

Alternative (Inactive) Cell Phone: 917/863-2037 (AT&T)

**************************************************************

Barlow in Meatspace Now: New York City! (Until 10/12) 212/965-1991

(Provisional) Trajectory from Here: Salt Lake City (10/12-15) -
Steamboat Springs, CO (10/15-16) - Pinedale, Wyoming (10/17-20) -
Eugene, OR (10/21-22) - Down the West Coast (10/22-24) - San
Francisco (10/24-28) - LA (10/28-31) - Las Vegas (11/1-2) - Salt
Lake City (11/3) - New York City (11/4-5) - London (11/6-9) -
Pinehurst, NC (11/9-12) - New York City...

**************************************************************

Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the
nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and
refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by
convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the
better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.

-- Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, 1916, Ch.9

I've been catching up on what's been going on with the Iraq situation this week via the congressional record. He said a bunch of things yesterday and I haven't read them all yet, but you can get to them all yourself by going to Thomas.gov and then clicking on "Text Search" and then typing in "Iraq" and selecting "Senator Byrd" and then "Search."

For yesterday's comments from him, you can just click on this.

Here's the full text of http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:4:./temp/~r107TB8tOV:e202447:
in case the link goes bad:

AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ--Continued -- (Senate - October 09, 2002)

Mr. McCAIN. Finally, could I ask Senator Byrd's predilections on this issue?

[Page: S10186] GPO's PDF

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his question. I say to the Senator, he has amendments, and he has already submitted his amendments. I would like to have a chance to vote on these amendments before the cloture vote. I hope we will get the cloture vote delayed at least a few hours tomorrow until Senators, such as Mr. Levin, who have amendments will have a fair shot at explaining their amendments and have a vote on them before cloture. I do not know whether the Senate will be disposed to do that or not.

Let me see if I can answer the distinguished Senator from Arizona. I have another amendment I would like to get voted on, too. I would like to offer it to the amendment that is pending. I say to the distinguished Senator from Arizona--and he is a very distinguished Senator--the other amendment would be to provide a sunset provision.

So if the Senate is going to waive its constitutional powers to the extent that I think would be required if the Lieberman amendment were to be agreed upon, I would like at least for the Senate to have a sunset provision so there would be a time limit when the Lieberman amendment would run its course. If the Congress wanted to renew that, Congress could do it, of course, but at least my amendment would say 12 months, and the President could extend that for 12 months.

That is a rough explanation of my amendment. So that would be 12 months for the President under my amendment, providing for the President on his own to extend that for an additional 12 months, but at the end of that time it is over unless the Congress renews or extends it. I would like to have that amendment also voted upon.

I am very willing to enter into some kind of an agreement, say, to vote up or down on both amendments. There would be a vote on the Lieberman amendment and then a vote on cloture tomorrow at some point.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have been endeavoring to accommodate the pending amendment with the time agreement such that it could be brought up as soon as possible.

The Senator from West Virginia and I have had no discussion about a second amendment, and I urge that we allow the Senator from Tennessee to speak, and in the interim let's gather and see whether or not we can reconcile honest differences and motives.

Mr. REID. If I could just suggest one thing, maybe we could have all of this taken care of by not having a cloture vote. Cloture is going to be invoked by a large margin. Maybe we would not need a cloture vote.

Mr. WARNER. There are Senators on this side who wish to leave intact this present procedure, which is working well. It has produced 13 amendments, 7 of which have been ruled germane thus far by the Parliamentarian. This debate is well underway, well structured, and can proceed.

At the moment, we have a pending amendment, and I urge that we allow the Senator from Tennessee----

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the 15 minutes allocated to the Senator from Tennessee be given in its entirety. We have taken most of that time. Then during that time, we will confer as to how we can proceed.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DAYTON). The Senator from Tennessee has the floor.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the Members of this body will soon vote on authorizing the President to use the military might of this Nation against Saddam Hussein. This decision has weighed heavily on me, as it has on us all. No one takes lightly the prospect of young Americans risking their lives on the battlefield of war, but we and they swear an oath to defend our rights and freedoms against all enemies. And so our duty we must now do.

Saddam Hussein is a direct and deadly threat to the American people and to the people of the world. He holds the power to murder not just hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands, but millions. He defies all international efforts to restrain that power and keep world peace, and he disdains the value of human life, even the lives of his own people. This is an evil, lawless, and murderous man.

The resolution before the Senate is carefully constructed to encourage the widest possible international support for unified action against Saddam Hussein. The nations of the world need to show him they will no longer tolerate his arrogant contempt for United Nations resolutions, requiring him to give up his weapons of mass destruction and cease the gross human rights violations he has committed on his own people. I support the President's intensive efforts to build such a coalition, and I pray for his success.

No one wants to avoid a war more than I do. I am a physician. I have devoted my life to a profession that is centered on saving lives. Only when we have exhausted all reasonable efforts at keeping peace should we consider waging war. The President shares a firm commitment to this principle. I consider this resolution a strong statement of support for peace and, if the Nation must, for war as well. For if the safety of our people, the security of our Nation, and the stability of the world remain so threatened, we must risk war for peace. To do anything less would leave a grave and growing danger looming over the lives of millions.

This evening I will talk about Saddam Hussein's past, his present, and what I consider his greatest danger, a robust biological weapons program. More than chemical and nuclear weapons, Saddam's biological weapons pose a unique and immediate threat. Unlike other conventional weapons, they are easily made. They can be readily concealed and are beyond the reach of inspectors and can readily be delivered across borders and, yes, even across oceans. In the hands of a madman, biological weapons literally threaten us all.

I refer to the words on this chart concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, excerpts from an October 2002 unclassified CIA report, which reads:

Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW--

Biological weapon--

agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives, including potentially against the U.S. homeland.

Indeed, these biological weapons literally threaten us all--``potentially against the U.S. homeland.''

Saddam Hussein has pursued the most deadly weapons known to man, with brutal determination. His arsenal has included tens of thousands of tons of chemical agents and biological agents. He has come within months of acquiring nuclear weapons, and he has developed many means, both in number and type, to deliver his desired destruction.

History shows that dictators do not amass such weapons without the intent to use them. Indeed, Saddam Hussein has accumulated chemical weapons and used them to attack his neighbors and even murder his own people. During the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted from 1980 to 1988, Saddam Hussein inflicted 20,000 casualties by striking with chemicals--mustard gas, sarin, and tabun. He also used mustard and nerve agents to murder as many as 5,000 Iraqi Kurds and inflict the misery of chemical warfare on another 10,000.

I show this chart briefly to demonstrate the impact of these chemicals. Saddam Hussein used the chemicals on his own people. We can see the effects of this tragedy among the victims, who are women and children in this picture.

Saddam Hussein was fully prepared to use biological weapons during the gulf war. In 1995, Iraq admitted it had produced 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 8,500 liters of anthrax, and 2,200 liters of aflatoxin. That is enough botulinum toxin--remember, that is the most potent poison known to man--to kill every man, woman and child on Earth.

Iraq also admitted it had loaded thousands of liters of agents into bombs, into munitions, into dozens of warheads and aircraft spray tanks, just as American and allied forces prepared to liberate Kuwait. Before the gulf war, intelligence experts believed Saddam Hussein was at least 8 to 10 years from having a nuclear weapon. That estimate was way off. Iraq had already assembled many of the pieces needed to build a nuclear weapon. What it lacked was fissile material that makes up the explosive core of a nuclear device. If Saddam Hussein had been able to obtain that material, either by making it or buying it, he would likely have had a nuclear bomb by no later than 1993.

[Page: S10187] GPO's PDF

Indeed, Iraq has gone to great lengths to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Its efforts to hide the weapons have been equally ambitious. Saddam Hussein has defied the international community almost from the moment he came to power in 1979. His rule has been a constant threat to peace among the Iraqi people, in the Middle East, and throughout the world.

Saddam Hussein has twice invaded sovereign nations. In 1980, he launched the Iran-Iraq war solely for territorial gain. Eight years, one million casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars later, the war ended with Iraq gaining nothing. In 1990, Saddam Hussein started the gulf war by invading Kuwait. His objective? Seize control of his neighbor's oil fields. We expelled him. As we did, he fired dozens of Scud missiles into Israel and into Saudi Arabia and the waters off Qatar.

Iraq has shown as much contempt for the international community as it has shown aggression toward its neighbors. Since 1990, Iraq has violated 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions. Inspectors charged with enforcing those resolutions have been deceived, they have been obstructed, they have been intimidated by Saddam Hussein and his henchmen.

Saddam Hussein has funneled as much as $9 billion from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program into his weapons of mass destruction program and other illegal activities, starving his people and strangling the economy.

To Saddam Hussein international treaties are worth less than the paper on which they are written. Iraq is the only nation publicly cited for violating the Geneva Convention ban on using chemical weapons. Its biological weapons program has directly violated the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. And Iraq has utterly ignored the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has been signed by 187 countries since its inception in 1968.

Saddam Hussein said in a recent speech, ``The present of any nation or people cannot be isolated from its past .....'' Indeed. What Saddam has done in the past is reckless, lawless and appalling. But what he is doing now should frighten us all and compel the world to action. Not only does he continue to develop and produce weapons of mass destruction, but he's more likely to use them than ever before. I am particularly concerned about the unique and immediate threat Saddam's biological weapons program presents.

Iraq has lethal and incapacitating biological weapons agents potentially to use against the United States homeland.

Iraq likely produced two to four times more biological agents than it publicly admitted in 1995. United Nations inspection teams could not account for biological culture growth media that would have easily tripled Saddam's stocks of anthrax--a bacteria that can be rapidly and easily produced as a weapon of mass destruction. Mr. President, 30,000 munitions designed solely for chemical and biological agents were also unaccounted for. Missing biological agents, missing biological munitions and Iraq's pattern of deception lead to only one conclusion: Saddam Hussein today retains a large arsenal of deadly living microorganisms available as weapons of mass destruction.

That arsenal likely contains stocks of live viruses and bacteria produced not only before the Gulf War, but also after, especially since weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998. Saddam has expanded so-called ``dual-use'' facilities--laboratories, research centers and manufacturing plants that have civilian or commercial uses, but are likely used to build his arsenal of microbiological terror, as well.

Iraq has rebuilt known biological weapons facilities that were destroyed during the Gulf War, by our military, or after, by weapons inspectors. Also, Saddam retains the equipment and, even more crucial, the human expertise to continue building his biological weapons capability. Unlike nuclear weapons, which take years and massive resources to make, biological weapons are inexpensive, can be made easily, within weeks, in a small room, with minimal equipment and manpower. That is what makes biological weapons so unique and capable of causing such death and destruction.

To that end, our intelligence community believes Iraq has built mobile germ warfare production laboratories. Iraq has learned a lot about weapons inspections since the Gulf War. Saddam hid his biological weapons program from inspectors for 4 years. Mobile biological labs are the ideal weapon of deception. They can be quickly moved in inconspicuous trailers and hidden in very small spaces, including, for example, in a single room in one of Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces. Such laboratories would be almost invisible to the outside world.

There is also evidence that Iraq may be developing and producing a new generation of more virulent biological agents. Defectors allege that Iraq is developing an agent called ``Blue Nile''--which may be a code name for the ebola virus. Ebola is a deadly virus for which there is no treatment and there is no vaccine. And many experts believe Saddam Hussein may have stocks of the smallpox virus. One of the last naturally occurring smallpox outbreaks occurred on Iraqi soil in the early 1970s, which is precisely when Iraq launched its weapons of mass destruction program.

Though U.S. defenses against smallpox are now much stronger, a 2001 study by Johns Hopkins University found that a smallpox attack launched at three locations in the United States could kill in a worst case scenario one million and infect another two million Americans within two months.

Saddam has invested not only in developing and producing new viruses and bacteria, but also new means to deliver those agents. Iraq has experimented with a variety of unmanned aerial vehicles as part of its longstanding weapons of mass destruction program. But intelligence experts believe Iraq has vastly improved its designs and now has a drone aircraft that can carry and spray up to 80 gallons of anthrax. Such an airplane would be the most effective way to deliver biological weapons over a vast area and would represent a dire threat to the Iraqi people, its neighbors and the international community.

The danger of germ weapons is not merely that Saddam Hussein has them, but that he would use them . . . even against the United States. Biological agents are ideal terrorist weapons. Unlikely other weapons of mass destruction, one cannot hear them or taste them or smell them. They can be invisible to the human eye.

They can be transported long distances without detection in, for example, a terrorist's pocket. They can take hours and even days to take effect, allowing a terrorist to be long gone--to escape.

Thus, Saddam's robust biological weapons program, combined with the support of terrorism, is a deadly force capable of exceeding the death and destruction of even a nuclear bomb.

Saddam does support terrorism. Iraq harbors several terrorist groups that have targeted and murdered American citizens. The Iraqi regime has been in contact with al-Qaida for at least a decade and, as recently as this year, allowed a senior leader to receive medical treatment in Baghdad.

I am hopeful that inspectors will return to Iraq with totally unfettered access to all suspected biological weapons sites. But, remember, such a site can be an 8-by-12-foot room deep in the basement of a huge Presidential palace.

I am hopeful that Saddam Hussein will disarm and destroy his ability to develop and produce such weapons in the future. But I am not optimistic. Saddam Hussein knows his chemical and biological stocks are the source of his power at home and in his region and can be a tool of blackmail. Weapons of mass destruction are as much a part of Saddam Hussein as freedom and democracy are of America.

The test of our resolve in the war on terror was Afghanistan. There we fought the terrorist group and its supporting regimes that murdered more than 3,000 of our own citizens. We were attacked, and, as any capable nation would do, we responded.

Now we face a second test. Saddam Hussein has not yet struck, and we hope he doesn't. We hope he disarms his weapons of mass destruction and chooses peace over war. It is his choice. But should he force us to war, we will fight for a noble and a just cause--to prevent a future and far worse attack than that of September 11, 2001. America will be victorious in this next phase of the war on terror, for the worst of a

[Page: S10188] GPO's PDF

dictator cannot defeat the will of a free people.

Saddam Hussein will fight to preserve his grip on power and protect weapons that murder millions. But if we must fight, we will do so for love of country, for respect of humanity, and for the rights and freedoms that all people deserve to enjoy, including the Iraqi people.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico, under the previous order, is to be recognized.

The Chair wants to say that it is his view that the subject matter is of enormous gravity, and the subject matter and statement of the Senator is most compelling. So anyone who does not share that view will leave the Chamber. And that will be pursued by those officers. And the Sergeants at Arms in the galleries are requested to ensure the gallery follows the same.

The Chair recognizes the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before I proceed, I would like to congratulate the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. When he writes his name uses the title ``Senator'' followed by ``M.D.'' I think you will always be a doctor even if you are not always a Senator. I am happy to know you in both capacities--as a member of the medical profession--and among our ranks as senators. We in the Senate are very fortunate that a few years ago at the peak of your profession you decided to come here, and your people there in Tennessee sent you. I have been here 30 years--roughly five times, I think, that you have been here. I have gotten to know you very well. I consider you among one of my very best friends--not only here but in the world. I am very proud of what you had to say here tonight.

I am not going to speak about the technical matters. If anybody wants proof about the quantity and the tremendous damage that the weapons which Saddam probably possesses can cause humankind, they can read Senator BILL FRIST's statement just ahead of mine.

Drat! I didn't get much of the stuff from the Senate transcribed over the weekend due to my having to get ready to fly to Washington DC today for Wednesday's Eldred argument.

Just know that on Friday in the House and Senate in particular there was a lot of talk about accountability to the people -- about how questions about this War have not been answered to the members of the House and Senate's satisfaction and therefore not to the people's satisfaction -- and that many of the committees put together to discuss and decide on some of the most critical issues surrounding the exact details of the situation still have not yet been provided with the information promised to them by the Defense and Intelligence Agencies that were assigned to the task.

There was also a strong urgency from the Senate to at least wait until we could invade with a proper international coalition. Also we would be going against the advice of a number of our own War experts if we invade now.

Damn I wish I had time to transcribe a bit more of the tape. I'm bringing it with me, maybe there's a library or something somewhere I can use this week...

I'll fish around for links online backing this stuff up, once I'm back online this evening.

Bush is going to come on television tonight and try to scare you into believing in this War. Don't be fooled.

Note: I will be putting these all on one page sometime tomorrow, but I thought I'd post them as they trickle in for those who are interested.

Quotes from Senator Byrd from my video tape of yesterday's U.S. Senate hearings (as broadcast on CSPAN):

Let's go back to that war in Vietnam. I was here (referring to the Senate). I was one of the Senators that voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Yes! I voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. I'm sorry for it. I'm guilty of doing this.

I should have been one of the two, or at least I should have made it three Senators who voted against that Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, but I'm not wanting to commit that sin twice!

And that's exactly what we're doing here. This is another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. And I'm not going to vote for that this time. No! Don't count me in that!

Now it looks like the safety of our own troops during an invasion of Iraq is largely in question, and just plain hasn't been thought out all that well yet.

There could be a ton of bogus equipment (including as many as 250,000 unaccounted for defective biohazard suits) that's mixed in with the inventory shipped out to our active troops.

The Department of Defense Reps are also admitting that they are recalculating the risk because the old way of calculating the risk was inaccurate. Although they don't want to commit to saying one way or the other yet until they are finished, they did admit that they no longer feel that the risk would clearly be "low" (their previous assessment) and in fact might be "high" but that they really don't know yet because they've just come up with a new, better way of calculating the risk and they're not done yet.

It's worth watching and recording on CSPAN-HOUSE if you've got a VCR handy.

Wow things are finally heating up in the Senate today:

"I was one of the people that voted yes on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and I made a huge mistake...I don't want to make that mistake again," said Senator Robert Byrd, holding up the President's Resolution for attacking Iraq. "That's what this is -- another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution!"

I'm recording it all today and I'll be transcribing it tonight and tomorrow as fast as I can.

Ha! Talk about a Freudian slip! Today's lead Weapons of Mass Destruction story on Salon had "Weapons of Mass Distraction" in the browser window title bar up top -- and that's exactly what this story is -- a big distraction from the fact that we shouldn't even be in this "War On Terror" -- complete with its undefined enemies and open-ended time table.

Here are some quotes from Black Hawk Down film maker Mark Bowden, who refused to participate in the development of the America's Army video game because he didn't feel comfortable working on a game that might trivialize the actual realities of war (paraphrasing of his words my own):

"I think there's a substantial difference between a work of art, which I consider a film to be, even a Hollywood film, [and a game]," Bowden explains, reached while on a train headed for Manhattan. For him, "A game is a game. It's something that you play. And this story is about real people, and I know many of the family members who lost brothers and husbands and sons in that battle. And I did not want to be part of something that turns it into a game...

...[Games] have a certain amount of potential value in making someone interested in history or in the military or how the military operates," says Bowden. "It has that kind of educational value." But he's skeptical their utility may extend beyond that. "In terms of preparing someone for the actual experience of combat, particularly infantry soldiers, I just regard that as really unlikely. Because I think the essential element in real combat is terror. And I don't believe you can re-create actual terror in a video game. It's a game; you can turn it off whenever you want to."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://salon.com/tech/feature/2002/10/04/why_we_fight/index.html

page 1

Weapons of mass destruction
A new breed of computer games is teaching today's teenagers how to wage, and win, the war against terror.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Wagner James Au

printe-mail

Oct. 4, 2002 | You can never be the enemy, in America's Army. In this popular new game of multiplayer combat, you can log on as a U.S. soldier who must, say, invade a terrorist camp -- but if someone logs onto the opposing side, to fight you, he also plays as a U.S. soldier. It's just that from his point of view, he's defending a U.S. camp from terrorist invasion. You will always see yourself and your squad in U.S. Army uniforms, wielding U.S. weapons. Everyone who signs up to fight, then, fights as an American.

The game has become so popular with U.S. troops and Pentagon brass, says Lt. Colonel Wardynski, director of the Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis and the man who initially conceived it, that there's even talk of shipping computers to Afghanistan, so soldiers can play it from there.

"I had high hopes that it would be something pretty hot," says Capt. Jason Amerine, an Army officer who recently served in Afghanistan. A longtime gamer who counts Command & Conquer and Rainbow Six among his favorites, Amerine was not disappointed. America's Army was so realistic that for the first time, he says, "I was actually looking at it more as a soldier than even a gamer -- but it happened to be good in both ways."

But America's Army's real purpose is to be a recruiting tool, which is why the game has been made freely available since July, with new units and missions added on a regular basis. (It'll be out on CD in recruitment offices soon.) And while its impact on recruitment won't be evident until December, when July enlistees arrive for basic training, early signs, say Army spokesmen, are promising: 28 percent of Americasarmy.com visitors click through to goarmy.com, the government's official recruitment site.

The Army claims that 470,000 people have the game or are playing it now. But there is some skepticism as to whether such success will translate into more recruits. "I don't believe it is any more likely to do this than a good book or a good movie," says Henry Jenkins, director of MIT's Comparative Media Studies Program. But in terms of cost effectiveness, that might be enough. Compared to investment in traditional recruiting ads in other media, says Mike Zyda, director of the MOVES Institute, the Navy's Monterey, Calif., virtual-reality think tank that developed the project with Wardynski, the game is much cheaper.

America's Army is the first game to make recruitment an explicit goal, but it snugly fits into a subgenre of games already in vogue: the "tactical shooter," a first-person shooter that emphasizes realistic, squad-based combat. The realism factor means these games are often modeled on recent events. Next month comes NovaLogic's Delta Force: Black Hawk Down, adapted from journalist Mark Bowden's 1999 book and from Ridley Scott's film of the same name, which reenact the brutal firefight between U.S. soldiers and Somalia's bin Laden-funded militants in 1993. Before that, gamers will get to replay an earlier battle: SCi/Gotham Games' Conflict Desert Storm is loosely based on covert operations against the Iraqi defense infrastructure conducted by American Delta Force and British SAS commandos, in the days leading up to the Gulf War.

Given the warlike tenor of current events, it's not surprising that America's Army has taken fire from its left flank. An article on the liberal-left Web site Tompaine.com called it "propaganda," part of "America's escalating militarization -- designed by the Bush administration," while the Nation's Web site recently fretted over the "political implications" of its gameplay: "nonstop Army cheerleading, with frequent terrorist and Arab bashing ... What better way to reinforce [the war on terrorism's] legitimacy?"

But the squeamishness some lefty critics are expressing over America's Army only demonstrates how many people are still too incurious or too craven to acknowledge the brutal reality the terrorist threat currently poses. Even now, antiwar advocates prattle on about the "root causes of terrorism" -- when the only meaningful cause spurring on al-Qaida and their like is, in Christopher Hitchens' clumsily apt coinage, Islamofascism: a well-organized assault on Western democracy and values (and a close nephew to the original German variation).

Meanwhile, the spiritual sons of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian intellectual who turned his hatred for American secularism, Jews and sexually liberated women into a galvanizing cry for totalitarian theocracy, are still active and influential, even now sending out calls for world domination.

During World War II, as the country girded for battle, director Frank Capra created a series of films to instruct the Army's soldiers. A classic of righteous propaganda, "Why We Fight" laid out for the greatest generation who the enemy was, and why they must be defeated. If the presentation was simplistic, its message was irrefutable, and comprehensible to the least literate recruit.

A contemporary version of "Why We Fight" seems unlikely to emerge from Hollywood, outside of a rush of thrillers with stock terrorist villains. But the need for one now is just as urgent, even as al-Qaida is whittled away by gun battles in Karachi or raids on a Buffalo suburb. The war on terror -- which, if we parse out the diplomatic niceties, really means a war on Islamist militants, and the nations who back them (beginning with Saddam's Iraq) -- must be fought, and over a campaign of many years, decisively won.

In that regard, America's Army and Delta Force: Black Hawk Down are the "Why We Fight" for the digital generation. Though not explicitly doctrinaire in an ideological sense, by showing the very young how we fight, applying the moral application of lethal force on behalf of liberal values, these games create the wartime culture that is so desperately needed now. One hopes they'll inspire the best gamers to consider a career of military service, while preparing them for the battles to come. There are even indications that playing these games provide useful experience for when they do go into real-world combat. All to the good: it will aid them in the war to conclude what is truly the unfinished business of 1945.

page 2

The first-person shooter was invented roughly a year after the Gulf War. In 1992's Wolfenstein 3D, you mowed your way through a Nazi stronghold, gunning down poorly animated waves of blobby fascists. (They yelped, "Mein leiben!" when you shot them.) After that game and Doom, its follow-up, the archetypal antagonist for the FPS was pretty much set: Nazis, aliens or some variation of either. And why not? The Cold War was over -- who was left to fight in the real world?

That there was a larger geopolitical context to 1993's firefight in Mogadishu would remain obscure, even after Bowden's 1999 book -- even after a grandiose fanatic began taking credit for arming the militants who drove the Americans from Somalia. For the rest of the decade, it seemed as if there would be no other real-world enemies worth depicting -- certainly not for killing over and over. Subsequent shooters like Unreal and the Quake series made their aliens bigger, and their weapons more absurdly elephantine. In a decade of peace and excess, this looked like grotesque overcompensation to many, including myself; all that firepower directed at enemies who didn't exist, by bloodthirsty adolescents who'd never see genuine violence in their entire lives.

Half-Life (1998) also featured aliens, but emphasized realistic, contemporary weapons; many gamers counted as their favorite opponents not the spoogey invaders from another dimension, but the artificial-intelligence-driven commandos who fought you with coordinated precision at the beginning of the game. Counterstrike, a fan-made, custom modification (or mod) of Half-Life, ran with the human element, to create the most popular multiplayer game of all time. Millions still gather on thousands of servers worldwide, taking on the role of terrorist, or a special forces operative out to stop them.

Rainbow Six and other Tom Clancy-derived franchises sold well, as did NovaLogic's Delta Force series, but it was probably the growing popularity of Counterstrike that fostered the current audience for tactical shooters. And while African bodies were removed from the rubble of the double strike on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1999, and lifeless sailors were lifted from the thrashed hull of the USS Cole in 2000, Counterstrike went from free mod to retail game, and kept right on drawing fans. But it was the gameplay, not hatred of terrorism, that made it a phenomenon. "Tactical games take the best elements of first-person shooters and add in accuracy and teamwork," says Jason Bergman, news editor at Shacknews.com. "You simply can not do well in a tactical shooter without teamwork."

____

newsletter

Get Salon's daily headlines sent to your e-mail box.

Blog it! Say your piece on the Web with Salon Blogs

____

Teamwork is also key in America's Army, as a strategy and as a value Col. Wardynski wants to impart. Notwithstanding how some misinterpret the Army's new "Army of One" slogan, says Wardynski. "What [that] really means is that the Army is a lot of individuals put together so that it adds up to more than the sum of the parts -- and the game is sort of designed to capture it as well."

Some have dismissed the game as a recruiting gimmick. But the weight that the Army puts on this project might be better gauged by looking at the other duties that fall to the colonel -- while he tracks the download stats for America's Army, for example, Wardynski also handles personnel and funding issues for Afghanistan's very fragile, very real army. This is not the brainchild of a geeky corporal in Pentagon P.R.

As it turns out, the priority placed on America's Army is due to its integral place in "transformation," a new American military doctrine that aims to fully upgrade the Army into an information-driven force. "Mr. Rumsfeld talks about it a lot," says Wardynski. Starting next year, they'll begin to implement helmet-mounted, heads-up displays [HUDS] that will provide the next iteration of infantrymen with real-time data on terrain, enemy concentrations and so on -- "and it looks a lot like a game," according to Wardynski.

While writing a dissertation at the RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., Wardynski would return home to watch his kids play games like Mechwarrior, and he was impressed by their ability to process multiple data streams from several HUDs at once. "The kinds of kids that are very comfortable with lots of information coming at them in visual presentations will feel very comfortable with our transformed Army," he says. This was the seed to America's Army; the funding to create it was approved in the final year of the tech-friendly Clinton administration.

So Wardynski and MOVES were already developing the game when American Airlines Flight 77 went plowing through the northwest side of the Pentagon. Among the 189 killed was Wardynski's boss.

Up to then, the designers were leaning more toward narco-terrorists or drug traffickers as the opposing combatants. "After 9/11 it was pretty clear the United States was at war, and we do have real enemies out there," says Wardynski.

page 3

When I ask Wardynski about the theories of Lt. Col. David Grossman, his "Oh, yeah" is mixed with a barely audible sigh. After the Columbine massacre, Grossman enjoyed momentary prominence for his theories of "killology."

By playing first-person shooters, Grossman asserted to "60 Minutes," Clinton and anyone else who'd listen, kids were training in a "murder simulator," being taught -- as the Army does in boot camp -- to deliver expert kill shots on reflex.

So does this mean America's Army is rearing the next generation of serial killers?

"We brought in Ph.D.s in behavioral science, political science, Army experts in training, and I have yet to find one who [subscribes to these theories]," says Wardynski. (Grossman did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.)

____

newsletter

Get Salon's daily headlines sent to your e-mail box.

Meet Salon writers on October 3rd

____

In a similar vein, I challenge Wardynski on the game's dearth of on-screen gore. (Hits are rendered with a prim red dot, as if the weapons were shooting out magic markers.) Doesn't that sanitize the gruesome aftermath of an M-16 hit? Gore would disqualify the game from getting the intended Teen rating from the ratings board, he responds -- and besides, "We respect our audience [enough] to know that if we don't have that in our game, they're not dumb and they'll still know that [gore is] part of combat."

Even with terrorism designated as the primary enemy, care was taken to keep scenarios and combatants as generic as possible, says Wardynski. While his men in Kabul are conducting subject-matter reviews, so that future missions can be based on active units in Afghanistan, no nation or people is identified in its depiction of terrorists: "There's some blond white guys, there's some skinheads ... so it's not like we settled on any ethnic group or anything like that." (This despite the Nation's dishonest claim that the game encourages "Arab bashing.")

There's nothing generic about the opponents in NovaLogic's Delta Force: Black Hawk Down, who fire at you from turret-mounted jeeps, or from the rooftops in the game's vividly rendered, 3-D Mogadishu. They unmistakably resemble the Somali militants who took the lives of 18 U.S. soldiers, after downing two troop choppers with rocket-propelled grenades -- an operation orchestrated in part by Qutb disciple and bin Laden consigliere Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The United States' subsequent withdrawal from Somalia was a milestone in the al-Qaida narrative, one more victory that proved that atrocity would be met with retreat -- eventually making their designs on New York and Washington seem like an inevitable next step.

For unrelated reasons, the game generated some controversy, especially after Mark Bowden refused to have anything to do with NovaLogic's project. "I think there's a substantial difference between a work of art, which I consider a film to be, even a Hollywood film, [and a game]," Bowden explains, reached while on a train headed for Manhattan. For him, "A game is a game. It's something that you play. And this story is about real people, and I know many of the family members who lost brothers and husbands and sons in that battle. And I did not want to be part of something that turns it into a game."

"Mr. Bowden is certainly entitled to his opinion," NovaLogic producer Wes Eckhart e-mails me later, "but who is he to judge what a work of art is, or even what an acceptable form of entertainment is?" Eckhart says that NovaLogic hired two Rangers who fought and were wounded in the conflict as the game's subject-matter experts, and on their request, will donate some of the profits from the game to charities that will benefit those families.

"[Games] have a certain amount of potential value in making someone interested in history or in the military or how the military operates," says Bowden. "It has that kind of educational value." But he's skeptical their utility may extend beyond that. "In terms of preparing someone for the actual experience of combat, particularly infantry soldiers, I just regard that as really unlikely. Because I think the essential element in real combat is terror. And I don't believe you can re-create actual terror in a video game. It's a game; you can turn it off whenever you want to."

I ask Bowden how many games he's actually played. "I think I got pretty good at Super Breakout, but that's pretty much the extent of my video game experience." He readily agrees that declining NovaLogic was a visceral reaction to the medium, though "I have no personal grudge against video games; my kids play them all the time."

Bowden's repute as a journalist of military and international affairs is without peer -- his stunning Atlantic Monthly profile of Saddam Hussein is a tour de force -- so it's understandable if he's not also versed on the latest in interactive entertainment. If anything, his wariness says more about the distance between generations, and the mediums they call their culture.

The tactical shooter is already a tool in the military's regimen. "Indeed," says Eckhart, "a modified version of NovaLogic's Delta Force is used for training plebes in their first year at West Point. The software helps teach principles of maneuver, elements of combat power and land navigation."

Capt. Jason Amerine, a West Point grad who recently served in Afghanistan, agrees with Eckhart's observations on the value of games as training tools. "The Army taught me all the skills I have, but at the same time, a lot of these first-person shooters, I think that they do tend to kind of get you in the right mind-set for some of the situations you might encounter in real life," he says. He compares them to the battle drills of his field training. "When you're sitting there in some of these multiplayer shootouts, engaging your opposition, I think that it does kind of condition you a little bit to know what to look for. You get those visual cues down, I think is the best way to put it."

page 4

Capt. Amerine is a Green Beret with Fifth Special Forces Group. And when Defense Secretary Rumsfeld demanded summary "boots on the ground," two of the first were Amerine's. Scarcely a month after 9/11, his A-Team detachment was airdropped deep within Taliban-controlled territory, to link up with then-tribal leader Hamid Karzai and his lightly armed band of highly irregulars. Armed with an improvised arsenal of satellite phones, Karzai's charisma and the best air support after the wrath of God, Amerine's detachment and Karzai's freedom fighters rode in motley caravan from village to village, fomenting rebellion, gathering a makeshift militia, until they reached and took the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar. (A friendly fire incident blew out Amerine's left ear and battered his leg with shrapnel, removing him from action days before Karzai marched into the city.)

Kandahar's fall was a turning point in the conflict, but Amerine names as his proudest moment an earlier engagement, when he and his men deployed on a ridgeline above the small town of Tarin Kot. Kandahar's leaders had sent 500 heavily armed Taliban and al-Qaida fighters rumbling to the town in 80 vehicles, with orders to slaughter its civilians, sparing neither woman nor child (retribution for driving out their Islamist masters, days earlier). From the height of the ridgeline, Amerine and his men turned a tripod-mounted laser onto the convoy, to guide in the F-18's that were arcing into position, high above. (Amerine's unit was eventually forced to return to town, and continued directing the airstrike from there -- even as village children laughed and scampered at their feet.) The Taliban murder party was still barreling through a narrow valley, closing on Tarin Kot, when the laser-led bombs found them. And discounting the battered survivors who fled back to Kandahar, killed them all. The town was secure.

At the moment, though, Amerine is still trying to secure a copy of Battlefied 1942, a new tactical shooter set in various World War II theaters. "Babbages messed up and gave away the copy that I pre-ordered," he says, "but I should be picking that up I think tomorrow." He speaks with an easy, placid drawl that belies the ferocity of his chosen profession -- but seems more reflective of a childhood spent on Oahu. Recovering from his wartime injuries, he's now earning a master's, in preparation for lectureship duties at West Point.

When he first got a chance to play America's Army, "I was really curious what the Army was going to come up with," says Amerine. "Knowing Col. Wardynski and the people who were working on the game, I had high hopes that it would be something pretty hot." A longtime gamer who counts Command and Conquer and Rainbow Six among his favorites, Amerine was not disappointed. It was so realistic that for the first time, he says, "I was actually looking at it more as a soldier than even a gamer -- but it happened to be good in both ways."

____

newsletter

Get Salon's daily headlines sent to your e-mail box.

Meet Salon writers on October 3rd

____

And what's impressed him, playing America's Army, is how many competitors he's fought who come to the game without his experience base, but learn usable tactics on the fly: "You could tell in some cases you have significantly younger people, probably junior high or so ... they'd be saying things back and forth that indicated to me that this was sort of an extension of guys who grew up on Rainbow Six and other first-person shooters ... the techniques they would use just by figuring it out would end up being very similar to what we would do in real life." He found himself up against kids staggering their formations, using smoke to cover their approach, closing on the enemy with fire and maneuver, individual movement techniques (IMT) -- in short, acquiring through gameplay knowledge that was once available only through military training.

At one point during his tour in Afghanistan, Amerine was on a ridge, outside a town where Taliban gunmen had pinned down Karzai's men with assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.

"So I got on up there and started shooting to try and get my guerrillas into the fight ... [T]he Taliban were all shooting AK-47s and RPGs, and with my M4 and an ACOG, I was able to outshoot the Taliban. Especially at 300 meters, they weren't very good shots. The RPG was getting close," Amerine deadpans, "but I got him before he could get me."

Emboldened, the freedom fighters returned to the fray, and helped Amerine drive the Taliban from the village. But during the firefight, Capt. Amerine had an odd thought. "It was kind of funny, because it was sort of like, Well, this is just like what I did on my computer, I guess." Having reenacted similar scenarios so many times, he found these games had helped prepare him for that moment, when he came up firing. "It definitely made it easier ... in a lot of ways it was similar to what you would see if you were playing a sniper in the original Delta Force, for example."

And apart from his concern for the safety of Karzai and the soldiers, Amerine describes the experience as, well, fun. "It was exhilarating, the actual going through it, bullets whizzing over your head, bombs blowing up. But as far as taking human life, that's a horrible aspect of the job -- but you know, they were trying to do the same thing to us, and we got them first."

And about here is where the similarities end. "When I was in a shootout with the Taliban, it occurred to me that I had to stick my head up to shoot at them and I might very well catch a bullet between my eyes ... and I was aware of it, but I knew what I had to do. That's not something you can re-create in a computer game, the fact that your life is in danger. And also, when you actually have to see the results of what you did, when you go over and you see the enemies that've fallen by your hand, that's something else you can't re-create."

But even here, developers are seeking to convey, if not the horror, the strategic implications of violence. With America's military dominance never in doubt, victory now depends not just on winning the battle, but on preventing as much as possible the friendly fire and civilian casualties that would turn domestic and world opinion against the action. So in "America's Army," the server keeps tabs on your fealty to the military's strict rules of engagement (ROE) -- crossing them too often gets you removed from the game, thrown into a virtual depiction of Fort Leavenworth prison. (Multiplayer games are usually anarchic, free-fire zones.)

And in the single-player game of Black Hawk Down, says NovaLogic's Wes Eckhart, "In most cases, killing civilians or noncombatants will result in the player losing the mission and being forced to replay it." Not only that, many of the game's missions emphasize the U.S. effort to protect the United Nations' relief effort to the warlord-enforced famine that was devastating Somalia.

This overall shift of focus is a positive development for the genre, says MIT's Henry Jenkins. "It seems to me that they may be making some interesting steps toward achieving the 'meaningful violence' I have been advocating," he says, "heightening the emphasis on choice and consequence."

For Amerine, it's an essential element to "America's Army" working as an educational tool for gamers who'd consider a place in the military: "On the one hand, we're becoming extremely technologically advanced; nobody can be computer illiterate in the Army anymore," he says. "The other aspect to it, though, the human aspect, that's the part that we also need to make sure we never lose sight of, because we can never forget our humanity. We still need to remember we're out there using very lethal weapons; often we're in close proximity to noncombatants, to civilians, and [we must] protect their lives as well as we can while we're attempting to engage the enemy."

Fortunately, Amerine suspects that "America's Army" gamers who do end up in the recruitment office will have a reservoir of experience to draw from. "I don't think that they'll really quite appreciate a lot of the lessons until they do it for real, and then they can kind of make the mental leap to put [the gameplay and real-world experience] together."

For his own part, as he heals and continues his education, his only regret is that he's not part of the latest deployment. "All my friends, all my soldiers, they could be invading Iraq soon, and I'm going to college -- that's kinda hard to take ... I'd want to be out there sharing the risk with everybody rather than ... watching it on the news."

When asked about Hamid Karzai's recent narrow escape from an assassination attempt, he speaks of his friend the president of Afghanistan as of a fellow soldier. "He's an incredibly brave man who's truly a patriot for his country. He knew from the beginning that there'd be people trying to assassinate him ... So this really doesn't change anything -- he's still going to work hard to bring stability to his country, and he'll just keep dodging the bullets as he tries to do so."

He might soon act as an advisor to future expansions of "America's Army," so I ask him what kind of missions he'd imagine, if the designers were to implement, say, laser-guided airstrikes.

"You can lase a target from several kilometers away," he says. "So one thing might be you have an observation post, you have a laser setup, where you're trying to lase the enemy, and you're trying to protect your position as enemy forces are coming right up on you."

It occurs to me that such a mission would resemble what Amerine did in his finest hour, when he turned a beam of light on the would-be butchers of women and children, and brought down the thunder.

When Sayyid Qutb came to America, he reportedly admired the country's scientific and technological achievements, but seethed with contempt for its obsession with "entertainment, or what they call in their language, 'fun.'" But perhaps Western culture is poised for the ultimate in ironic revenge -- America's Army heralds the day when computer gaming's synthesis of entertainment and technology will become the greatest threat to the terrorist menace, as it continues its struggle to carry out the jihad of Qutb and bin Laden's fevered longings.

"We're going to continue to be out hunting for terrorists," Amerine promises me, "and doing what we can to support the Arab world." When I thank him for what he did in Afghanistan -- helping uproot the al-Qaida network, liberating a brutalized people, stuff like that -- Amerine answers cheerily, "I really had fun doing it."

In his early 30s, Amerine is among the first generation of soldiers to grow up with computer games. It's not hard to have confidence in the soldiers who'll come after him, kids in their early teens who are already giving him a hard fight, online. You can see them in the field, in subsequent years, dedicated young men and women, their weapons merged into an information network that enables them to cut out with surgical precision the cancer that threatens us all -- heat-packing humanitarians who leave the innocent unscathed, and full of renewed hope. In their wake, democracy, literacy and an Arab world restored to full flower, as it deserves to be, an equal in a burgeoning global culture, defended on all fronts by the best of the digital generation.

Is it a lie if a person says what they believe to be true in their own confused mind?
Democratic Congressman Asserts Bush Would Mislead U.S. on Iraq
By John H. Cushman Jr. for the NY Times.

One of the congressmen, Representative Jim McDermott of Washington State, said today that he thought President Bush was willing "to mislead the American people" about whether the war was needed and that the administration had gone back and forth between citing supposed links between Iraq and the terrorist network Al Qaeda and Iraq's supposed attempts to obtain weapons of mass destruction...

...Speaking of the administration, Mr. McDermott said, "I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation." Then he added: "It would not surprise me if they came up with some information that is not provable, and they've shifted. First they said it was Al Qaeda, then they said it was weapons of mass destruction. Now they're going back and saying it's Al Qaeda again."

When pressed for evidence about whether President Bush had lied, Mr. McDermott said, "I think the president would mislead the American people." But he said he believed that inspections of Iraq's weapons programs could be worked out.

Here's the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/30/international/30CONG.html

Democratic Congressman Asserts Bush Would Mislead U.S. on Iraq
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — Democratic congressmen who are visiting Iraq this week stirred up anger among some Republicans when they questioned the reasons President Bush has used to justify possible military action against Iraq.

One of the congressmen, Representative Jim McDermott of Washington State, said today that he thought President Bush was willing "to mislead the American people" about whether the war was needed and that the administration had gone back and forth between citing supposed links between Iraq and the terrorist network Al Qaeda and Iraq's supposed attempts to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
Advertisement

Mr. McDermott and Representative David E. Bonior of Michigan also said it might still be possible to work out a new inspection approach that would satisfy the Iraqis but fall short of what Mr. Bush wants.

The two Democrats' strong comments about a foreign policy matter while traveling abroad drew rebukes from Republicans at a time when the political furor over Iraq and over a bill on domestic security has sharply divided leaders of the two parties.

They spoke on the ABC News program "This Week" and in other broadcast interviews.

Senator Don Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma, who is the party's assistant leader in the Senate, said Mr. McDermott and Mr. Bonior "both sound somewhat like spokespersons for the Iraqi government." He said it was "counterproductive" to undermine Mr. Bush when he was seeking support from allies.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, was gentler. "As long as they're careful what they say and what they do, then I think it's fine," he said. "But all of us should keep in mind that foreign affairs, national security issues, etc., are generally handled by the executive branch, with the advice and consent of the Congress."

Speaking of the administration, Mr. McDermott said, "I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation." Then he added: "It would not surprise me if they came up with some information that is not provable, and they've shifted. First they said it was Al Qaeda, then they said it was weapons of mass destruction. Now they're going back and saying it's Al Qaeda again."

When pressed for evidence about whether President Bush had lied, Mr. McDermott said, "I think the president would mislead the American people." But he said he believed that inspections of Iraq's weapons programs could be worked out.

"I think they will come up with a regime that will not require coercive inspections," Mr. McDermott said, anticipating meetings on Monday between Hans Blix, the leader of the United Nations inspection group, and Iraqi officials.

"They said they would allow us to go look anywhere we wanted," he said of the Iraqis. "And until they don't do that, there is no need to do this coercive stuff where you bring in helicopters and armed people and storm buildings."

"Otherwise you're just trying to provoke them into war," he added.

Mr. Bonior, the second-ranking Democrat in the House, said: "We've got to move forward in a way that's fair and impartial. That means not having the United States or the Iraqis dictate the rules to these inspections."

Transcription of a clip I saw from Thursday's session in congress on the Daily Show. They were making fun of Byrd's dramatic gestures, but if you listen to what he was saying, it's no laughing matter.

"I've been in this Congress fifty years. I have never seen a President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States stoop to such low levels," said Senator Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia, as he turned and pointed at the people watching at home. "It's your blood," he said. "Your sons and daughters."

This is an experiment...

If you email me at lisarein@finetuning.com with your full name and snail mail address (or even just your name and zip code) with "FAX A LETTER FOR ME PLEASE" in the subject header, I'll look up your Representative for you and FAX him or her the appropriate letter, depending on whether or not they already support HR 473.

Re: The obvious question -- can you trust me to not use this information in some way other than intended?

How about this: I will permanently delete your email (without saving your address anywhere) and will literally burn the letter I've faxed over for you in my fireplace afterwards. This will be the default procedure unless you explicitly say not to do so in your email. (It's just easier that way.)

I'm just trying to help out those folks who might not have a FAX machine handy, who would still like for their voices to be heard by their Representatives (but don't want to end up on some mailing list either).

Thanks!

So I've got all my HR 473 letter-writing stuff all in one place now.

Letters you can send now, links to the actual texts of the opposing Bills, and what will hopefully be a growing list of Congressional Supporters.