BlueHummingbird, News
Bush v. Saddam, page 2
At Salon.com: Oct. 10, 2002
"The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors"
Not every Democrat has caved to Bush's martial fervor. Rep. Pete Stark makes it stunningly clear why he voted against the Iraq war resolution.
Editor's note: Below is the fiery statement delivered on the floor of the House Wednesday by veteran California Democrat Rep. Pete Stark.
Oct. 10, 2002 | "Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution (authorizing military force against Iraq). I am deeply troubled that lives may be lost without a meaningful attempt to bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions through careful and cautious diplomacy.
"The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors.
"Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total authority to the president, who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any specific act of provocation. This would authorize the United States to act as the aggressor for the first time in our history. It sets a precedent for our nation -- or any nation -- to exercise brute force anywhere in the world without regard to international law or international consensus.
"Congress must not walk in lockstep behind a president who has been so callous to proceed without reservation, as if war was of no real consequence.
"You know, three years ago in December, Molly Ivins, an observer of Texas politics, wrote: 'For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too hard. At a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy.'
"'Somebody,' she said, 'should be worrying about how all this could affect his handling of future encounters with some Saddam Hussein.' How prophetic, Ms. Ivins.
"Let us not forget that our president -- our commander in chief -- has no experience with, or knowledge of, war. In fact, he admits that he was at best ambivalent about the Vietnam War. He skirted his own military service and then failed to serve out his time in the National Guard. And, he reported years later that at the height of that conflict in 1968 he didn't notice 'any heavy stuff going on.'
"So we have a president who thinks foreign territory is the opponent's dugout and Kashmir is a sweater.
"What is most unconscionable is that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the certain loss of life. Do the generalized threats and half-truths of this administration give any one of us in Congress the confidence to tell a mother or father or family that the loss of their child or loved one was in the name of a just cause?
"Is the president's need for revenge for the threat once posed to his father enough to justify the death of any American?
"I submit the answer to these questions is no.
"Aside from the wisdom of going to war as Bush wants, I am troubled by who pays for his capricious adventure into world domination. The administration admits to a cost of around $200 billion!
"Now, wealthy individuals won't pay. They've got big tax cuts already. Corporations won't pay. They'll cook the books and move overseas and then send their contributions to the Republicans. Rich kids won't pay. Their daddies will get them deferments as Big George did for George W.
"Well then, who will pay?
"School kids will pay. There'll be no money to keep them from being left behind -- way behind. Seniors will pay. They'll pay big time as the Republicans privatize Social Security and rob the Trust Fund to pay for the capricious war. Medicare will be curtailed and drugs will be more unaffordable. And there won't be any money for a drug benefit because Bush will spend it all on the war.
"Working folks will pay through loss of job security and bargaining rights. Our grandchildren will pay through the degradation of our air and water quality. And the entire nation will pay as Bush continues to destroy civil rights, women's rights and religious freedom in a rush to phony patriotism and to courting the messianic Pharisees of the religious right.
"The questions before the members of this House and to all Americans are immense, but there are clear answers. America is not currently confronted by a genuine, proven, imminent threat from Iraq. The call for war is wrong.
"And what greatly saddens me at this point in our history is my fear that this entire spectacle has not been planned for the well-being of the world, but for the short-term political interest of our president.
"Now, I am also greatly disturbed that many Democratic leaders have also put political calculation ahead of the president's accountability to truth and reason by supporting this resolution. But, I conclude that the only answer is to vote no on the resolution before us."
Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., represents the Fremont, Calif., congressional district.
From The Guardian (UK): Wednesday October 9, 2002
White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'
Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence
By Julian Borger in Washington
Excerpt from The Baltimore Sun - Op/Ed: Originally published October 8, 2002
If we back war, where's the enlistment?
By Alexander E. Hooke
" ... A scholar on civil-military relations, sociologist James Burk, points out that an all-volunteer army cannot alone sustain a lasting war. Sooner or later it requires the physical support, not just the lip service, of the citizenry. Whether stagnant on the front lines, holed up in makeshift shelters, or scouting the area for snipers or guerillas, soldiers tend to reach a threshold.
To displace Mr. Hussein, American soldiers can expect a lengthy presence, making them vulnerable to counterattacks from loyalists and patriots. Though Mr. Hussein has been painted as a villain in the likes of Hitler or Stalin, we should not forget how they nevertheless garnered the devotion of some of the population. That means millions of potential threats lurking about in a country the size of Iraq.
Hence, the question posed to Americans should be more direct. And if you or I hem or haw about the unlikelihood of our physical contribution, then we are doing more than underestimating the myriad repercussions possible in the Middle East. We are also denying our own civic responsibility.
Being unwilling to offer our flesh and blood is tantamount to confessing that overtaking Iraq has nothing to do with democracy or freedom. If content that a volunteer army should suffer all the wounds and casualties for this enterprise, then we are donning the mantle of an international ogre who consigns its soldiers to mercenary status.
Such a scenario involves more than the slogan that talk is cheap or that the Bush administration is committed to satisfying our appetite for cheap energy. Rather, it indicates that Americans desire a still stranger bargain -- war on the cheap."
Alexander E. Hooke teaches philosophy at Villa Julie College.
Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun
From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/29/02
The president's real goal in Iraq
By JAY BOOKMAN
From Reuters: Wed Oct 16, 8:14 PM ET
U.S. Fumes at U.N. Resistance on Iraq
By Evelyn Leopold and Nadim Ladki
" ... At the United Nations, nation after nation lined up before the Security Council to warn Washington against military action before U.N. inspectors had a chance to determine if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ...
Iraq's U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, said his country was not guilty of any of the accusations against it. The Bush administration "unabashedly declared plans for an invasion of Iraq" and wanted the council "to give it a blank check to occupy Iraq," Aldouri told the council. ... "
From AP: Oct 26, 1:35 PM (ET)
Bush: U.S. Can Bypass U.N. on Iraq
By RON FOURNIER
CABO SAN LUCAS, Mexico (AP) - President Bush said Saturday that the United States will lead a coalition against Iraq if the United Nations does not pass a strong resolution insisting Saddam Hussein disarm. ...
From Reuters: Oct 28, 7:31 pm ET
U.S. Vows to Disarm Iraq with or Without U.N.
By Patricia Wilson and Evelyn Leopold
DENVER/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Boosted by apparent support from top U.N arms inspectors, the United States on Monday demanded that the United Nations disarm Iraq or watch the world's superpower do it. ... "The message from America is this," President Bush told Republican supporters. "If the United Nations doesn't have the will or the courage to disarm (Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein and Saddam Hussein will not disarm ... the United States will lead a coalition and disarm Saddam Hussein." ...
From Oxford Research Group:
"Iraq: Consequences of War".
Professor Paul Rogers, October 2002
From The Washington Post: Wednesday, October 30, 2002; Page A01
U.S. Would Seek to Try Hussein for War Crimes
By Peter Slevin
From The NYT: November 9, 2002
Security Council Votes, 15-0, for Tough Iraq Resolution
By JULIA PRESTON
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 8 — The Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution today that President Bush called a "final test" of Saddam Hussein's willingness to disarm, saying the Iraqi president's response must be "prompt and unconditional, or he will face the severest consequences." "Any act of delay or defiance will be an additional breach of Iraq's international obligations, and a clear signal that the Iraqi regime has once again abandoned the path of voluntary compliance," Mr. Bush said in the White House Rose Garden. The president praised the United Nations for meeting its leadership responsibilities, but he put the Council on notice that the United States would be watching the weapons inspections very closely, and expected a strong and swift response to any Iraqi violation. "The outcome of the current crisis is already determined: the full disarmament of Iraq will occur," Mr. Bush said. "The only question for the Iraqi regime to decide is how. The United States prefers that Iraq meet its obligations voluntarily, yet we are prepared for the alternative." ...
United States officials said that language gave Washington the legal basis to go to war unilaterally if the Council could not agree how to respond to new violations by Baghdad. ...
To continue with the latest news please Click Here.
BACK
HOME