The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
News, 5-11/10/02 (1) US MATTERS (1) * Kucinich Heads Anti-War Coalition in Congress * U.S. Groups Protest Iraq War Plans * Bush Offers New Rationale on Iraq * A decade transforms Democrats from doves to hawks * McDermott accuses Bush of plotting to be emperor * Help us to stop the war * Stars attack war plans * Text of President Bush's address to the nation Monday US MATTERS (1) http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021006/pl_nm/iraq_kucini ch_dc_1 * KUCINICH HEADS ANTI-WAR COALITION IN CONGRESS by Thomas Ferraro Yahoo, 6th October WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Let's stop wasting American lives," reads an old anti-war flier kept as a memento in the office of Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. Thirty years after handing out copies of this leaflet during his first run for Congress as a young foe of the Vietnam War, Kucinich is rallying opposition to a possible U.S. attack on Iraq. Kucinich lost that 1972 congressional campaign, and he will likely lose his bid to stop Congress from authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq. But dim prospects do not deter this long-time dove and liberal gadfly as he heads an anti war coalition of some two dozen fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives, none of them members of the chamber's top leadership. "War is a failure of diplomacy and imagination and creativity," Kucinich, 55, said in an interview with Reuters last week. "I'm trying to organize an effort that is based on resolving this crisis peacefully by insisting on U.N. weapons inspections of Iraq while also making efforts to bring Iraq back into the community of nations," he said. "How is it that we can solve this peacefully?" Kucinich asked rhetorically, barely pausing before providing an answer. "First, stop the war talk. It is destabilizing in the region and with our allies," Kucinich said. Kucinich sounds like a veteran of the anti-war movement that helped radicalize his generation. But he can now buttress his case with inside information he gets as a lawmaker. "Our intelligence agencies have not produced any evidence that suggests that (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein has usable weapons of mass destruction, the ability to deliver those weapons, or the intentions to do so," Kucinich said. Kucinich first gained national attention in 1977 when, at the age of 31, he was elected mayor of Cleveland. Two years later, after the city slipped into default, Kucinich was defeated for re-election and sent into political exile. He worked as a radio talk show host, college teacher, consultant and TV reporter before making a political comeback in 1994 when elected to the Ohio Senate. In 1996, he won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. For the past two years, he has headed the 56-member House Progressive Caucus, where he has waged fights on health care, education and the environment. "Some people see Dennis Kucinich as an articulate and staunchly liberal voice who is extremely good at making his point and getting attention," said a senior House Democratic leadership aide. "Others see him as a pain who constantly tries to push Democrats further to the left." Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois is a House deputy Democratic whip, a member of Kucinich's anti-war coalition and an admirer of the three-term lawmaker. "What I really appreciate is that Dennis has moved this agenda forward, he provides us with needed information, and has been constantly optimistic," said Schakowsky. Kucinich said his constituents -- "they include a lot of veterans, working people, very patriotic people" -- know where he stands and that his telephone calls from them have run 10-to-1 against a war with Iraq. Though national polls show the public somewhat split, Kucinich predicted that once people begin asking more questions, opposition will mount. Long before such Democratic heavyweights as former Vice President Al Gore, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts questioned Bush's policy on Iraq, Kucinich was challenging the president. In a speech in Los Angeles in February entitled, "A Prayer for America," Kucinich went after Bush for what his sees as overly aggressive post-Sept. 11 policies. "Let us work to make nonviolence an organizing principle of our own society," Kucinich said then. "Let us recommit ourselves to the slow and painstaking work of statecraft, which sees peace, not war, as inevitable." The speech prompted suggestions in some liberal circles that Kucinich buck the party establishment and seek the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. Kucinich brushes off such talk, saying only: "I'm just going to keep on speaking out. Wherever it leads, it leads." For now, Kucinich is focusing on Iraq. He fears that like Vietnam, a U.S. invasion of Baghdad could mushroom into a lengthy and divisive war with high casualties. "Our men and women as well as innocent civilians -- that is what I'm concerned about," Kucinich said. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-iraq protests1006oct06,0,1775420.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnation%2Dheadlines * U.S. GROUPS PROTEST IRAQ WAR PLANS by Typhanny Tucker Newsday, from Associated Press, 6th October PORTLAND, Ore. -- Chanting "no more war," an estimated 5,000 people rallied in the city's downtown Saturday against possible U.S. military attacks on Iraq, one of a number of such protests planned across the nation this weekend. In Texas, the chant by hundreds who flocked to the state capitol was "No more blood for oil." In Manchester, N.H., about 50 demonstrators protested outside as President Bush stumped for Senate candidate John Sununu. Bush did not mention the protests, but reiterated his stance that the United States must disarm Iraq to protect American lives. All the rallies were apparently peaceful. Organizers -- their effort centered on a Web site called "Not in Our Name" -- hoped to spark protests in at least two dozen cities Saturday and Sunday. In Portland, first-time protesters joined veteran pacifists for the march. They chanted, banged on drums and clapped their hands. "My co-workers were talking to me about this and it is something I believe in," said Cris Jackson, an office manager who has never attended a rally before. "Maybe it will spread awareness that not all of America is behind Bush." She waved her hand over the crowd: "They aren't, and I'm not either." In Texas, protesters carried signs saying "Free the Press" and "Stop the Bombs." Austin police reported no arrests. "Yes we are here, and yes we are angry, and yes we will not stop mobilizing," Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rahul Mahajan told the crowd. "We will not stop yelling until this war is avoided." Across the street, a small group waved American flags in opposition to the protesters. "I'd rather settle this peacefully, but if war is needed to protect our people, protect our land, then we need to take that action," said David Armstrong, 36, of Austin. In St. Louis, an anti-war vigil on Friday at the office of Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., the House minority leader, ended with the arrest of a woman who refused to leave the office when it closed. Protesters said they intended to resume the vigil Monday. http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-wh/2002/oct/06/100605354.html * BUSH OFFERS NEW RATIONALE ON IRAQ by Ron Fournier Las Vegas Sun, 6th October MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP): President Bush warned that Saddam Hussein could strike without notice and inflict "massive and sudden horror" on America, offering a new rationale for pre-emptive military action against Iraq. In the run-up to key congressional votes on war-making authority, Bush on Saturday promised in the clearest terms yet to rebuild Iraq after a war. He also said the Iraqi president has a "horrible history" of attacking his enemies first. "We cannot ignore history. We must not ignore reality. We must do everything we can to disarm this man before he hurts one single American," Bush told hundreds of cheering police and National Guardsmen. A leading Democrat, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, strongly challenged the "strike first" policy as Bush toured this politically important state. On Sunday, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Prime Minister Tony Blair's government and the United States have no disagreement about their aims in Iraq. "Both the prime minister and I and leaders of the American administration have made clear that we would wish to see the back of the Saddam Hussein regime," Straw told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. "But what are the objectives of the current efforts to develop an international coalition? Disarmament. Disarmament of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction," he continued. The president's remarks Saturday reflect subtle changes the White House is making in its case against Saddam as Bush prepares to address the nation Monday night from Cincinnati. Advisers say the address - now in its fifth draft - seeks to synthesize the case against Saddam, the reasons war may be necessary and why the threat is imminent. Bush and his advisers were tinkering with the speech during a weekend stay at his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine. He made a quick visit to New Hampshire to address soldiers and police officers, then headline a $500,000 fund-raiser for GOP Senate candidate John Sununu. The congressman's father was White House chief of staff for Bush's father. In a state whose motto is "live free or die," GOP donors jumped to their feet when Bush said of Saddam, "For the sake of peace, for the sake of freedom, for the sake of our future and our children's future, we will disarm him." Bush won agreement last week with a bipartisan group of House leaders for a resolution allowing him to use force against Iraq. Senate Democrat are more skeptical, though a resolution is expected to pass as early as this week. "Pre-emptive strikes are something we have to take very, very seriously and carefully," Daschle, D-S.D., said Saturday on CNN. "Number one, what kind of a standard does it set for the rest of the world? If it's OK for us, is it OK for India? How about Russia? How about Israel?" Daschle said the House resolution gave Bush too much latitude to wage war. He questioned whether there is enough evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat and said Bush has failed to explain how Iraq would be rebuilt after war. "How long will we be there? What will it entail, on the part of the United States? How much will it cost? Who will be involved?" Daschle asked. Bush's struggle to pass a tough U.N. resolution on Iraq was underscored Saturday when Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq should not be delayed. Bush wants the mission postponed while he presses for a new U.N. mandate. "The message to Russia is this is about peace, this is about how to preserve peace, by removing the greatest threat to peace," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, offering a new rhetorical twist likely to be appear in Bush's Monday address to counter critics who say the president is too hungry for war. In a preview of that speech, Bush tried in Manchester to address the issues raised by Daschle and other skeptics. On the question of launching pre-emptive action, Bush laid out his usual case against Saddam: The Iraqi leader produces weapons of mass destruction, consorts with terrorists, oppresses his own people and condones abuses against the wives and daughters of his political opponents. But then he added a new rationale, suggesting Saddam might strike first if not disarmed. "The regime is guilty of beginning two wars. It has a horrible history of striking without warning," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Delay, indecision, and inaction are not options for America, because they could lead to massive and sudden horror." While other administration officials have talked about efforts to bring democracy and stability to a post-Saddam Iraq, Bush has had little to say about his post-war intentions. "Should force be required to bring Saddam to account, the United States will work with other nations to help the Iraqi people rebuild and form a just government," Bush said. Aides said it was his most firm commitment yet, though it came with no details. Bush said a congressional resolution would help persuade skeptical world leaders to back a tough new U.N. resolution on Iraq. "I urge Americans to call their members of Congress to make sure your voice is heard," Bush said. http://www.iht.com/articles/72927.html * A DECADE TRANSFORMS DEMOCRATS FROM DOVES TO HAWKS by Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin International Herald Tribune, from The Washington Post, 7th October WASHINGTON: A decade ago, a young Democratic congressman from South Dakota, Timothy Johnson, so loathed the idea of war with Iraq that he sued President George H.W. Bush for deploying 500,000 U.S. troops to the Gulf to fight it. "The body bags will be almost exclusively American," Johnson declared in 1991, joining a flock of Democratic doves in decrying U.S. bellicosity in the region. What a difference a decade of political and international upheaval has made for Johnson - and much of the Democratic Party. Johnson, now a freshman senator battling for re-election on South Dakota's plains, is backing the son of the president he once opposed, as a possible second U.S. war looms against President Saddam Hussein of Iraq in the sands around Baghdad. And many of 1991's anti-war Democrats are proudly joining him. The implications of this transformation could be profound - for U.S. foreign policy, the war on terrorism, domestic politics and, perhaps, the Democratic Party's future, according to interviews with dozens of lawmakers and government scholars. President George W. Bush is likely to win a resounding, bipartisan vote this week authorizing military action in Iraq, thanks in large part to the conversion of the 1991 Democrats and the rise within the party of an internationalism often based on human rights as much as it is on national security. Two-thirds or more of House and Senate Democrats appear poised to back Bush's war resolution, according to lawmakers. In January 1991, only 86 of 265 House Democrats and 10 of 55 Senate Democrats voted for the Gulf War resolution. The dynamics in the 1991 war were much different, of course. The nation then was reacting to Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and fears that Saddam might destabilize other oil-rich Mideast regimes. Many Democrats considered it a regional conflict. Today Bush is leading the country toward confrontation with Saddam to eliminate his stockpile of dangerous weapons, trying to protect the country from a terrorist attack with potentially deadlier consequences than Sept. 11, 2001. This perception of a life-and-death choice resonates with many Democrats. No Democrat personifies the party's philosophical shift more dramatically than Dick Gephardt of Missouri, the House minority leader. Gephardt was among those who voted against war authority a decade ago, but last week he joined the president in crafting language endorsing a unilateral strike in Iraq, opening a floodgate of support from fellow congressional Democrats. A likely presidential candidate in 2004, Gephardt staked out this hawkish position even before Bush started to make his impassioned case a month ago. Of all the reasons for the turnabout among Democrats, probably none outweighs the simple fact that the 1991 ouster of Saddam's army from Kuwait proved wildly successful, militarily and politically. Many Democrats spent the next few years questioning their decisions and the ramifications. With Gephardt and many other Democrats now solidly behind the president, the House and Senate plan to vote this week on a resolution granting Bush the power to strike Iraq unilaterally if Saddam fails to comply with United Nations mandates to eliminate his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. The resolution requires Bush to report to Congress, within 48 hours of taking action, that attacking Iraq is consistent with his broader war on terrorism and that he has exhausted diplomatic efforts. Thomas Daschle, of South Dakota, the Senate majority leader, and several other Senate Democrats, as well as a few Republicans, want to restrict Bush's military option to enforcing UN resolutions that deal only with disarmament and not other issues, such as human rights. Still, they support military action in Iraq with or without the formal endorsement of other world leaders. In this showdown with Saddam, the Democratic opponents of war are on the defensive. Al Gore, one of the few Senate Democrats to back the elder Bush in '91, came out strongly against the president's war planning this time around. Much of the Democratic establishment privately criticized his remarks, and Gore has said little on the subject since. Representative David Bonior, Democrat of Michigan, and Representative James McDermott, Democrat of Washington, taking the most defiant stand, flew to Baghdad a week ago and suggested on national television that Bush was lying about the threat posed by Saddam. They, too, were ridiculed privately by party leaders and tagged derisively as the "Baghdad Democrats" by others. Why is the party so gung-ho today? For starters, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks deeply affected American public life. Federal Washington is rethinking foreign policy and self-defense doctrines now that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have shown how vulnerable the nation is to terrorist attacks. The attacks, says Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, were "transformative." Democrats "have changed in the same way the American people have changed," says Representative Robert Andrews, Democrat of New Jersey, who voted against war with Iraq in 1991 but supports it now. "We are acutely aware of how vulnerable the country is, right here, to an attack." Democrats have taken their biggest lesson, ironically perhaps, from a Republican president who failed to win a second term. The first President Bush was hugely popular after the Gulf victory, but voters rejected him in November 1992, primarily because he reacted slowly to a recession back home. The election in 1992 of Bill Clinton, a "New Democrat" governor from Arkansas, ushered in a new brand of internationalism focused on humanitarian goals. Many Democratic voters and lawmakers supported U.S. military action in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti. Domestic politics are motivating the turnabout, too, Democrats said. The Democratic Caucus chairman, Martin Frost of Texas, said that a strong vote for going to war with Iraq may help his party shed, once and for all, its image as the anti-war, anti military national political organization. "There's an awareness that if we are going to be back in the majority, the party needs to be seen as - and not just seen as, but actually - standing up for a secure America," Frost said. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134549992_mcdermott07m.html * McDERMOTT ACCUSES BUSH OF PLOTTING TO BE EMPEROR by David Postman Seattle Times, 7th October After holding a town-hall meeting on Beacon Hill, U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott arrives yesterday at Westlake Plaza with anti-war marchers protesting against President Bush's request to Congress for permission to attack Iraq. U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott broadened his attack on George W. Bush's war plans yesterday, saying the president is threatening military action in Iraq as part of a plot to crown himself emperor of America. Criticized for saying on a trip to Iraq early last week that Bush would mislead the American public, McDermott, a Seattle Democrat, was back in his district yesterday telling cheering supporters that Bush is planning a war to distract voters' attention from domestic problems. He said Bush is trying to "submarine" efforts to restart weapons inspections in Iraq to give him a pretext for starting a war ‹ a war McDermott said is being planned in part to bolster U.S. oil interests. "And what we are dealing with right now in this country is whether we are having a kind of bloodless, silent coup or not," McDermott said at a town-hall meeting at the Jefferson Park Community Center on Beacon Hill. The event was sponsored by local Democrats and other groups in his congressional district. At the heart of the debate, McDermott said, is whether Congress or the president has the power to declare war. "This president is trying to bring to himself all the power to become an emperor ‹ to create Empire America," he said. And he warned his supporters, "If you go along like sheep that is what will happen." State Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance said McDermott's comments about a coup "were the most irresponsible thing I've ever heard an American politician say." "Sometimes politicians, like everyone else, will blurt out things they don't mean," Vance said. "But it sounds like he has thought about this carefully and really believes that." The resolution Congress will vote on next week was negotiated between the White House and Congressional leaders of both parties. "The president is not trying to bypass Congress," Vance said. "He's taking his case to Congress." "If President Bush is engaged in a coup then his co-conspirators are Richard Gephardt and Joseph Lieberman," he said, referring to Democratic leaders. About 200 people showed up for McDermott's meeting in the Beacon Hill Community Center. Nearly all were supporters. Outside, four or five protesters carried signs objecting to McDermott's recent trip to Iraq and his comments about Bush and Saddam Hussein. "Saddam Good ‹ Bush Bad. This is Baghdad Jim's Mind On Drugs," said a sign carried by Brandon Swalley of Lakewood. "I think he should be thrown out," she said. When McDermott arrived, he was escorted into the hall by Seattle police and followed by a few protesters, one of whom shouted after him, "Our president is not a liar. If you want to say it, say it here but don't go to foreign lands to say it." Inside the crowd was heavily in favor of McDermott's view. When opponents took a microphone to talk, they were shouted at and told to get to their question. Supporters, though, were able to talk uninterrupted and give anti-war speeches. Late last week McDermott said that he may have overstated his case against Bush while in Iraq. But yesterday it was clear he believes there's a pattern of deception within the Bush administration to justify a war. He said that Bush is using the memory of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to fuel a war with Iraq. "One of the dilemmas we've had since 9/11 is that this country has been continuously terrorized by the government," McDermott said. "Every week they announce a new threat. 'Today is a code orange.' 'Today is a code red.' "Granted it was an awful day. It was a heinous act. Nobody has anything but horror over what happened that day. "But the message to draw from that day is not that we should suddenly go to war with the whole world, which is what the president is saying." McDermott is convinced that Bush is bent on war with Iraq to distract voters' attention from a collapsing stock market and other problems at home. "It is the oldest game in the book," he said. "They found this war very convenient to obscure people's views about what is happening domestically." McDermott said he and two other Democratic members of Congress went to Iraq to see firsthand the effect of economic sanctions on the country, as well as to tell Iraqi leaders that if they didn't agree to weapons inspections there would be a war. He said the demand for inspections was delivered to 15 or 20 government officials, but not to Saddam, who they did not ask to see. "We knew there was no point in getting into a situation where we're shaking hands and smiling with somebody we don't really think is doing the right thing by the country or the world, and we knew that message would get to him." McDermott's comments went much further than his television interviews from Iraq, in which he said Bush would mislead Americans in order to build support for a war. When someone asked him if the war was meant to bolster U.S. oil interests, McDermott talked about what oil companies could gain from a war and said, "I'm not going to connect the dots exactly, but I think a dotted line certainly seems within the realm of possibility. ... "Oil is certainly a part of it but I don't think it's the underlying issue." The underlying issue, he said repeatedly, is a fight over the Constitutional power to declare war. "People that I trust say if we don't derail this coup that is going on, we are going to wind up with a government run by the president of the United States and all the rest of us will be standing around just watching it happen." http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,805841,00.html * HELP US TO STOP THE WAR by Scott Ritter The Guardian, 7th October As a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and as a registered member of the Republican party who voted for George Bush in the last presidential election, I have to admit to a certain trepidation and uncertainty when I was asked by Labour MPs to participate in the massive anti-war rally in London on September 28. In my way of thinking, mass demonstrations, regardless of the righteousness of the cause, were the theatre of the political left, and not something with which I should be associated. I was proven wrong on all counts. The outpouring of democratic will that occurred on that day came not only from the left, but from across the breadth of mainstream British society. It sent a message to a Blair government that had grown increasingly isolated from public opinion: UK support for an American unilateral war on Iraq would not be tolerated. That message met a response a few days later from the Labour party at its annual conference in Blackpool. Democracy in action is a wonderful thing. Across the Atlantic, in the United States, a debate is about to begin in the US Congress over the granting of sweeping war powers that would enable President Bush to wage war against Iraq, even if such action were unilateral and lacking in authority from the United Nations. To many Americans, myself included, the granting of such powers represents a breach of constitutional responsibility on the part of Congress, which alone under the constitution of the United States is authorised to declare war. There is at least one US senator - Robert Byrd of West Virginia - who recognises this, and has indicated his willingness to launch a filibuster of the debate. Senator Byrd is famous for carrying a copy of the US constitution in his breast pocket, and pulling it out on the floor of the Senate to remind fellow senators what American democracy is founded on. One man fighting in defence of the basic foundation of American society. Where are the large-scale US demonstrations in support of this struggle? Where are the voices of outrage over what amounts to a frontal assault on the constitution of the United States? Democracy silenced is awful. The constitution has always guided me in my actions as an American citizen. It establishes the US as a nation of laws, and sets high standards for the ideals we Americans strive to achieve as a nation. As an officer of Marines, I took an oath to defend the US constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is an oath I take very seriously and I am willing to give my life in defence of this document - something I demonstrated during my time in uniform, including service in Operation Desert Storm. I am no pacifist, but I am opposed to President Bush's rush towards war with Iraq this time around. As signatories to the UN charter, Americans have agreed to abide by a body of international law that explicitly governs the conditions under which nations may go to war. All require authority of the security council, either through an invocation of article 51 (self defence), or a resolution passed under chapter seven of the charter (collective security). President Bush's case for war simply has not been demonstrated to meet any of these criteria. The president repeatedly announced that Iraq has failed to comply with its obligation to disarm, and as such poses a threat to international peace and security. The president declared that Iraq must allow weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, without conditions, with unfettered access to all sites. Iraq's failure to allow inspectors to return to work since their withdrawal in December 1998 has prompted fear in many circles (recently demonstrated by the UK government's dossier on Iraqi weapons programs) that Iraq has taken advantage of the intervening time to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs dismantled under UN supervision. With no inspectors in Iraq, it was impossible to know for certain what the regime of Saddam Hussein was up to; and, given Iraq's past record of deceit over these weapons, the US and others were justified in presuming ill intent. But now Iraq has agreed to allow the inspectors to return, unconditionally, and to be held accountable to the rule of law as set forth in existing security council resolutions governing Iraq's disarmament. The opportunity finally exists to bring clarity to years of speculation about the potential threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as an opportunity to resolve this ongoing crisis of international law peacefully. But President Bush refuses to take "yes" for an answer. The Bush administration's actions lay bare the mythology that this war is being fought over any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It has made it clear that its objective is the elimination of Saddam Hussein. And this is where I have a fundamental problem. The UN charter prohibits regime removal. The US constitution states that international agreements entered into by the United States carry the force of law. The US has signed the UN charter. Regime removal is not only a violation of international law, it is unconstitutional. There is a way to deal with the need to change a regime deemed to be a risk to international peace and security, and that is through the UN. If President Bush truly wanted to seek regime removal in Baghdad, then he would push for an indictment of Saddam Hussein and his senior leadership in the international court for crimes against humanity, something that should not prove hard to do, given the record of the Butcher of Baghdad (and something other members of the UN would clearly support as an alternative to war). But seeking judgment through the international court requires a recognition by the US of the primacy of international law, something the Bush administration has been loath to do. The fact of the matter is this crisis between Iraq and the US goes beyond even the issue of regime removal. It represents the first case study of the implementation of a new US national security strategy, published last month, which sets forth a doctrine of unilateralism that capitalises on American military and economic might to maintain the US as the sole superpower, to impose our will on the rest of the world, even through pre-emptive military action. This strategy is a rejection of multilateralism, a turning away from the concepts of international law. This new Bush doctrine of American unilateralism reeks of imperial power, the very power against which Ameri cans fought a revolution more than 200 years ago. The streets of Washington DC are empty of demonstrators protesting at this frontal assault on American democracy. Will the streets of London be filled again with protesters against this assault on the rule of international law? I certainly hope so, because the people of Britain could lead by example, sending a clear signal to fellow practitioners of democracy in America that when it comes to determining what actions a government takes in the name of the people, the will of the people cannot, and will not, be ignored. Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq in 1991-98 and chief of the concealment investigations team. His interview with William Rivers Pitt forms the core of War on Iraq (Profile Books) http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,5239572%255E10431 ,00.html * STARS ATTACK WAR PLANS The Mercury (Australia), 7th October AS the Washington rattles its sabre at Saddam Hussein, a constellation of Hollywood megastars has come out to do public battle against President George W Bush's policy towards Iraq. In a town with a strong liberal tradition and long history of political activism, there is an increasing rumbling over Iraq coming from some top celebrities - although not all are opposed to war with Baghdad. However, with their names alone able to generate headlines and huge press coverage, many have chosen to throw their weight into the political debate surrounding a possible US and British led war with Iraq. Diva Barbra Streisand led the attack on Bush, telling a star-studded audience today that she found his administration "frightening" and slamming its alleged bellicose stance and failure to protect civil rights. "I find bringing the country to the brink of war unilaterally five weeks before an election questionable -- and very, very frightening," the singer and actress told the Democratic party fundraiser in Hollywood. Streisand is the biggest Tinseltown personality to take aim at Bush's eagerness to oust Saddam by force, but a growing list of stars is joining the movement. On Friday, several hundred celebrities and intellectuals published a manifest entitled Not in our Name in the Los Angeles Times, a tract which urged Americans to resist their government's policies. We "call on the people of the US to resist the policies and overall political direction that have emerged since September 11, 2001, and which pose grave dangers to the people of the world," they wrote. Among the signatories were JFK movie director Oliver Stone, Gosford Park filmmaker Robert Altman, British-born Terry Gilliam, actress Jane Fonda, Lethal Weapon star Danny Glover and Susan Sarandon, star of Thelma and Louise. Oscar-winning Sarandon and long-time partner Tim Robbins went even further during the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, publicly voicing their fears about a war with Iraq and saying they were opposed to "military expansion." "I don't think that a military expansion of violence is the solution," she said. "No, I don't think I would want to go to war against Iraq." Tootsie star Jessica Lange weighed in while in Madrid last week, saying military action on Iraq as "wrong, immoral and basically illegal. It makes me feel ashamed to come from the United States. It is humiliating." But while many stars have come out against military action, some have backed it, creating something of an ideological divide in usually superficial Tinseltown. Superstar Tom Cruise and movie magnate Steven Spielberg backed Bush's stance during a publicity tour to Italy last month. "If Bush, as I believe, has reliable information on the fact that Saddam Hussein is making weapons of mass destruction, I cannot not support the policies of his government," Spielberg said, adding that Bush's policies were "solid and rooted in reality." Cruise also came down on Washington's side, saying that he believed "Saddam has committed many crimes against humanity and against his own people". http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-wh/2002/oct/07/100708359.html * TEXT OF PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADDRESS TO THE NATION MONDAY Las Vegas Sun (from AP), 7th October Good evening. Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat. The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions - its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction "to cease all development of such weapons" and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's 11-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith. We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On Sept. 11, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then and we are resolved today to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. Members of the Congress of both political parties and members of the United Nations Security Council agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is: "How can we best achieve it?" Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: About the nature of the threat. About the urgency of action - and why be concerned now? About the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we have discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you. First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone - because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant, who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning and holds an unrelenting hostility towards the United States. By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector for the UN has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction." Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today - and we do - does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for and is capable of killing millions. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran and on more than 40 villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of Sept. 11. And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons, despite international sanctions, U.N. demands and isolation from the civilized world. Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles - far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations - in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) for missions targeting the United States. And of course, sophisticated delivery systems are not required for a chemical or biological attack - all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it. And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in twenty countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace. We know that Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al-Qaida leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We have learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb making, poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after Sept. 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliances with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints. Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to the Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them or provide them to a terror network. Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both. Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. We don't know exactly, and that is the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon; after the war, international inspectors learned that the regime had been much closer. The regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue. The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists. Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of Sept. 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing - in fact they would be eager - to use a biological or chemical weapon or, when they have one, a nuclear weapon. Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril." Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring. Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next. They forged documents, destroyed evidence and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass 12 square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden. The world has also tried economic sanctions and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people. The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist. The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people ... and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times. After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon. Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps to keep the peace. That is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements, the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under UN supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside of the country. And these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them, so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions. The time for denying, deceiving and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself - or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that is why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously. Those resolutions are very clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. And it must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown. By taking these steps, and only by taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. These steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. This is why two administrations - mine and President Clinton's - have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation. I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully, we will act with the full power of the United States military, we will act with allies at our side and we will prevail. There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait - and that is an option. In my view, it is the riskiest of all options - because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I am convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace - we work and sacrifice for peace - and there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I am not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein. Failure to act would embolden other tyrants; allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources; and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear. That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. This nation - in World War and in Cold War - has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom and help others to find freedom of their own. Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control within his own cabinet and within his own army and even within his own family. On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured. America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights - to the non negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end and an era of new hope will begin. Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors. Later this week the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations and all nations that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only choice is full compliance - and the time remaining for that choice is limited. Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote, and I am confident they will fully consider the facts and their duties. The attacks of Sept. 11 showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al-Qaida's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined - and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice - and there is no refuge from our responsibilities. We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. By our actions, we will secure the peace and lead the world to a better day. Thank you, and good night. _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk