Bush’s Lies and Simple Truths

Posted on October 28, 2002 by Team VCS

George Bush HAS misled the American public. He IS misleading the American public, and we can assume he WILL continue to mislead the public. In fact, the entire Bush administration has been misleading the public, sometimes by misdirection, sometimes by fudging the facts, and sometimes by straightforward, outright lies.

Remember when Donald Rumsfeld told a congressional committee that Iraq kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998? That’s a lie. The head of the inspection team pulled the inspectors out after being informed that the Clinton administration was going to proceed with Operation Desert Fox, its illegal bombing of Iraq.

Fudged facts? Well, remember Rumsfeld’s declaration that the U.S. had “bulletproof evidence” of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda? For a bulletproof story, there certainly are a lot of holes, including a report from Czech President Vaclav Havel that suggests there is no evidence, at least of the long-rumored meeting between one of the 9/11 hijackers and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague.

Some lies are not lies, of course, but just “alternative interpretations.” Take the so-called no-fly zones, in the north and south of Iraq, where U.S. and U.K. planes patrol the skies and bomb Iraqi targets at will. The U.S. claims these zones are authorized by U.N. Security Council resolutions. That the rest of the world disagrees and sees it as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty is of little concern to the U.S. Power means your alternative explanation can’t be challenged.

Misdirection is helpful, too. Take Bush’s assertion that if Iraq could “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.” Yes, that’s likely true, but it is the equivalent of saying, “If Iraq had a nuclear weapon, it would have a nuclear weapon.” Creating the other components of a nuclear bomb would be relatively easy; the fissile material is the issue.

The question isn’t whether Saddam Hussein is a nice guy or not; in case anyone isn’t clear on that, he’s not. The question is whether he is a real threat. Given that none of his neighbors feel threatened and are adamantly against war, that Iraq is far weaker than in 1991, and that all the world thinks renewed weapons inspection and diplomacy is the proper course, it leaves the Bush administration only a few choices for dealing with other countries (mainly threats and bribery, what one British journalist called “diplomatic kneecapping”) and only one choice for dealing with the U.S. public — propaganda. They know that the only way they can get the American people is to frighten us with nightmare scenarios, no matter how implausible.

Well, on this one point, I actually agree. I am frightened, but not for the reasons Bush is pushing. International terrorism is a serious problem that requires serious attention, and there are reasons to be afraid of future attacks in the U.S. And if the U.S. goes to war against Iraq, the likelihood of such terrorists attack will increase dramatically. That’s a real reason to be afraid.

But beyond that, I am afraid of other threats.

I am afraid for a country that protects the greed of the few over the needs of the many, the United States.

I am afraid for a Middle East flooded with weapons sold by the the #1 arms dealer in the world, the United States.

And I am afraid — I am terrified — for a world dominated by an empire that has acquired such a massive destructive capability, and a demonstrated willingness to use it. I am afraid of the empire in which I live, the empire of which I am a citizen. I am afraid of the men sitting in Washington — of Rumsfeld and Cheney and Wolfowitz, and of George W. Bush — who are planning the lives and the deaths of people all over this planet.

But I hope that I am not afraid to resist this madness. I hope I am not afraid to speak out. That is always easier if one’s voice is not the only voice. So, today I hope we can all find our voices and come together to speak as one.

–A voice that says no to an illegal and immoral war, and says yes to international law and diplomacy.

–A voice that says no to an economic system that enriches the few at the expense of the many, and says yes to an economy that puts need above greed.

–And, most important, a voice that says no to imperial America, and yes to a truly democratic America, a democratic America that becomes part of the world, not a ruler of the world.

We must not only say yes to the vision of a truly new world order based on justice, but we must commit to the struggle that is necessary to make that world real. We must be willing to risk our own comforts and our own privilege, to be impolite when necessary, to agitate, to cause trouble.

In 1857, the great Frederick Douglass made it clear that:

“If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning, they want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

Let us not be unrealistic about this struggle. We have to ask, who is on our side in this struggle? Is the media on our side? No. Are the corporations on our side? No. Are the politicians on our side? No.

Who is on our side? Take a minute and look to the person at your side. That is what we have. We do not have the power of money; we have the power of people. Many voices into one, not denying our differences but uniting in our strength, the strength of people of conscience who will not abandon the struggle.

With that voice, we can confront Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and George W. Bush with our demand.

We all have many demands for justice, and over time we will press them all. But today we come together to say, in one voice, that at this crucial time in our nation’s history, in the world’s history, the best traditions of humanity — the political, moral and spiritual traditions that have led us here today — demand that we say, in one voice, loud and determined, proud and resolute:

NO WAR.

Robert Jensen is an associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, a member of the Nowar Collective, and author of the book Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream and the pamphlet “Citizens of the Empire.” He can be reached at

rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Bush’s Lies and Simple Truths

The Usual Suspects—and Beyond

Posted on October 28, 2002 by Team VCS

Even most flashes of seeming organization turned out to be spontaneous—the 50 percussionists who assembled “out of the air,” according to one, and the 60 Muslim men, strangers to each other, who paused for prayer at 4:30 alongside the march route, which led from a rally near the Vietnam Memorial around the White House and back. The International ANSWER Coalition, a/k/a the International Action Center, a/k/a the Workers World Party, may have gained infamy during Gulf War I for defying a national peace coalition by calling for a separate march one week earlier, but the group yet again proved its ability to fill buses to Washington. IAC co-director Brian Becker spoke of trying to spark “a firestorm of opposition at the grass roots,” and this march had that feel.

Homemade signs ruled the day, from the sarcastic (“At least we didn’t elect him”) to the earnestly pissed (“Congress, killing Iraqis for votes is pathetic!”) to the tabloid-inspired (“Drunk frat boy drives country into ditch, starts war to cover up”). Thirtysomething Rebecca Hergatt’s read “Sunday School Teachers Against the War.” Hergatt, who traveled from what she calls the “little Republican town” of Mansfield, Ohio, said this wasn’t only her first political march, but her “first time east of Pittsburgh.” She said she’s been in turmoil since September 11, plagued by a nagging sense that “we had it coming.” When the president proposed a new, preemptive war, she said, “I just felt like it was immoral to keep my mouth shut.” Ruth Zalph, from Carrboro, North Carolina, had never protested a war before, either—and at 72, she’s lived through a few. What brought her in on the five-hour bus ride was a sense that “if the U.S. were economically okay, there wouldn’t be a call for war,” that what’s at stake is nothing less than “whether we’ll survive as a democratic nation.” Polls show that 60 percent of Americans believe the country is seriously off track, and the streets of Washington vibrated with that unease.

While Zalph was struck by how young most marchers were, University of Illinois freshman Roz Ruiz, 18, who had also joined in September’s anti-IMF protest, was excited by the presence of the grandparent set. “Here the crowd is people from a lot of different political perspectives, not just leftists,” she said approvingly. The crowd wasn’t as racially mixed as polls suggest antiwar sentiment is; the river of white marchers was interrupted only by scattered clumps of African Americans or Latinos, the occasional Puerto Rican or Korean group, concerned about other U.S. military adventures, and a fairly significant Arab American presence, such as a block from the Palestine AID Society of Chicago, which packed 10 buses.

Gulf War vet Charles Sheehan-Miles was one of the rally’s many not-so-usual suspects, and an opening speaker. “My father is a Viet Nam vet, my grandfather is a World War II vet, and I didn’t question when I was sent to the Gulf,” he told the Voice. “But when my division wiped out a retreating Iraqi division two days after the ceasefire, it started me questioning.” He says virtually every Gulf vet he’s talked to has “grave concerns,” including those on active duty. A month ago he founded Veterans for Common Sense to oppose the new war drive, and got 10,000 Web hits in the first three days. More than 170 Gulf vets have already signed his statement.

Reverend Herbert Daughtry of House of the Lords Church in Brooklyn, one of the handful of clergy who addressed the rally (Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton also spoke), said that while many in the black church “oppose this mad rush to war, knowing it is our sons and daughters who will be fodder for their cannons, the churches were late to oppose Viet Nam, and we’re late today.” Likewise, only slim sectors of labor have taken official positions against the war—the San Francisco, Albany, and Washington State labor councils, along with some important locals such as 1199 in New York. Yet Ray LaForest, a senior organizer with AFSCME District Council 1707 in New York and a march-bus captain, is convinced that “if the leadership were willing to take a risk, union members would come together against this war.”

New York City activist Leslie Cagan, who was a national student leader of the movement against the Viet Nam War, said that her guess is ANSWER’s load-up-the-buses strategy has just scratched the surface of public dissent. She and Bill Fletcher, the former John Sweeney lieutenant who now heads TransAfrica, convened a meeting the day before the march to take, said Cagan, “the very initial steps toward bringing greater coordination and cohesion to this antiwar movement.” Representatives from NOW, the National Council of Churches, Global Exchange, and a who’s who of progressive Beltway advocates were present at the launch of a new national antiwar network. “A broader effort,” Cagan called it, “that could finally tap into churches, trade unions, and campuses—where we could really get the numbers.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on The Usual Suspects—and Beyond

Sounds Fishy, Mr. President

Posted on October 28, 2002 by Team VCS

As the United Nations Security Council considers the brief against Iraq prepared by George W. Bush, its undecided permanent members should ask themselves a basic question: How much of what the President says is actually true?

The French, Russian and Chinese ambassadors would do well to recall that the Bush presidents, father and son, have a poor record of truth-telling when it comes to war and the UN — that they often cheat when they can’t win an argument on its merits.

Twelve years ago, to sell the first war against Iraq, Bush I and his ambassador to the United Nations, Thomas Pickering, sponsored an audio-visual presentation at the Security Council that purported to prove egregious human-rights abuses by Saddam Hussein’s legions in Iraqi-occupied Kuwait. The most spectacular charge was that Iraqi soldiers had pulled babies from incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals, and stolen the incubators. The story was false, but wasn’t completely refuted until well after the war in the Persian Gulf had run its 100-hour course.

The atrocities propaganda had a tremendous impact on public opinion, blunting the criticism that Bush I was fighting to control the Persian Gulf oil supply, rather than to uphold principle. Once Saddam Hussein became Hitler, the job of vote-getting in the U.S. Senate, as well as in the Security Council, became a good deal easier.

But if the image of Mr. Hussein as Hitlerish butcher was useful, that of Mr. Hussein as Hitlerish empire-builder was almost as important in obtaining congressional and UN backing for war.

In August, 1990, before any votes had been taken, the White House asserted the existence of military satellite photographs that showed Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi Arabian border — preparing, said the White House, to invade that kingdom and extend Mr. Hussein’s conquest. (The purpose for sending U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia in the first place, according to Bush I, was defensive, not to evict Mr. Hussein from Kuwait.)

These photos have never been made public, probably because they don’t exist. Genuine commercial-satellite photographs of the Kuwait-Saudi Arabia border from that time, published in the St. Petersburg Times, showed no Iraqi troops along the frontier. These pictures have the ring of truth, given what little resistance U.S. troops encountered when they crossed the border into Kuwait in February of 1991.

Analyzing Bush I’s propaganda campaign helps us analyze Bush II’s rhetoric (most completely laid out in his speech in Cincinnati), for here the two campaigns begin to merge in ways that reveal a theme. Early on in the Cincinnati speech, Bush II made the broad assertion that “the Iraqi regime has violated all [its] obligations” under the agreement in March, 1991, to end the gulf war (including its defiant, continuing program to acquire or build nuclear weapons). Bush II said: “The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. . . . Satellite photos reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.”

Uncorroborated accusations such as these form part of a pattern of deception. When Bush II met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Sept. 7, both men referred to an apparently “new” report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that had found Mr. Hussein trying to rebuild, as Mr. Blair put it, at his “former nuclear-weapon sites.” Mr. Bush elaborated, citing an IAEA report that Iraq was “six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.”

The IAEA responded that not only was there no new report, “there’s never been a report” asserting that Iraq was six months away from constructing a nuclear weapon — not in 1998, not in 1991. White House deputy press secretary Scott McClellan evidently didn’t persue his Nexis search far enough to find Andrew Rosenthal’s front-page analysis in the Sept. 26, 1991, New York Times stating that “American officials, including Gen. Colin L. Powell . . . acknowledged . . . that [Iraq’s nuclear threat] is not any real threat — in the short term or even medium term.”

Thus, when Bush II says Mr. Hussein “is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon,” he is, for all practical purposes, lying. When he says, “the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become,” he sounds very much like Bush I, who said: “Each day [that] passes means another day that Saddam Hussein can work toward perfecting his chemical and biological weapons capability. Another day of atrocities for Amnesty International to document.”

Speaking of atrocities, what about Mr. Hussein’s real human-rights record? In 1988, during the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi dictator’s campaign killed many thousands of Kurds, often with poison gas. The Reagan-Bush administration cast a blind eye on these horrors, because it was providing military aid to Mr. Hussein’s commanders in the war with Iran.

In May of 1990, Bush I’s Pentagon leaked an analysis of the massacre of 4,000 Kurds at Halabja to the Washington Post. The Post’s Patrick Tyler wrote that the Pentagon study assembled conclusive intelligence that “the [Halabja massacre] was caused by repeated chemical bombardments from both [Iraqi and Iranian] armies.” This was Bush I spin control at its finest: The administration was just then trying to extend a program of grain-export credits to its friends in Iraq over determined congressional opposition, and thus “Kurds Killed in Crossfire” was a preferable headline to “Saddam is New Hitler.”

So when Bush II tells the cheering throng in Cincinnati that “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,” should we believe him?

Maybe: Mr. Hussein is a very bad actor. Last week I called Ken Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch (in my opinion the most reliable of the human-rights watchdogs) for a comment on the lurid passage cited above. Mr. Roth knows how vile Mr. Hussein’s regime has been to Kurds, Shiites and garden-variety political foes. But Human Rights Watch has no documentation of the President’s most spectacular accusations. As for decapitations, they are widespread in Muslim countries, including our “moderate” ally Saudi Arabia. “This war,” says Mr. Roth, “is clearly not about human rights, because if Saddam was replaced tomorrow by an equally repressive dictator who would co-operate with the inspectors, there would be no invasion.”

The “facts” cited by the White House are beginning to look like so many hanging chads.

John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine, is author of Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , | Comments Off on Sounds Fishy, Mr. President

100,000 Rally, March Against War in Iraq

Posted on October 27, 2002 by Team VCS

Organizers with International ANSWER, a coalition of antiwar groups that coordinated the demonstration, had hoped for a turnout rivaling that of its pro-Palestine rally in April that officials estimated at about 75,000. Organizers said they easily eclipsed that figure yesterday, assessing attendance at well more than 100,000. D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey also said he figured yesterday’s rally turnout exceeded that in April, but he didn’t provide a specific number.

“We think this was just extremely, extremely successful,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a D.C. organizer with International ANSWER, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. “It absolutely shows that when George Bush says America speaks with one voice, and it’s his voice, he’s wrong.”

After a rally that lasted more than three hours at Constitution Gardens, near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the march began at 21st Street and Constitution Avenue. Using 17th, H, 15th and E streets NW, they circled the White House and returned to their starting point. Shoulder-to-shoulder crowds filled the streets for several blocks. When marchers at the front of the procession returned to Constitution Avenue on their way back, they had to wait to allow demonstrators at the tail of the march to pass.

Other demonstrations in cities including Rome, Berlin, Copenhagen, Denmark, Tokyo and Mexico City were held to coincide with the Washington march, and in San Francisco at a sister march, thousands marched through downtown.

Protesters arrived by the busload, by car and by Metro early yesterday morning, some carrying signs and later joining in chants that echoed a common theme: A war against Iraq would be unjustified, they said, and there is no consensus for it.

“Nebraskans for Peace” and “Hoosiers for Non-Violence” chanted alongside silver-coiffed retirees from Chicago and a Muslim student association from Michigan. Parents could be seen enjoying a sunny, picnic-perfect afternoon by pushing a stroller with one hand and carrying a “No War for Oil” sign with the other, and police on horseback monitored nearby.

The tone of the rally was far different from D.C.’s last major protest — the September demonstrations against the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. During those events, anti-globalization protesters had intended to paralyze the city with disruptive throngs, but their numbers were much smaller than expected, and they were dominated by a massive police presence. More than 600 people were arrested during the IMF and World Bank protests; yesterday, police reported three arrests.

Several groups, including the Anti-Capitalist Convergence that organized one of September’s protests, mounted an independent march that fed into yesterday’s rally and said everyone had agreed upon a non-confrontational goal from the outset.

“I don’t think police want problems, and I don’t think we want problems either,” said Pat Elder, 47, a Bethesda antiwar activist who participated in the unpermitted feeder march.

The morning began under hazy skies on the wet grass at Constitution Gardens, as thick mud sucked at the heels of the arriving demonstrators and the nearby Washington Monument appeared truncated by fog. But by noon the skies cleared and most of the lawn was shoulder-to-shoulder with people listening to Jesse Jackson, actress Susan Sarandon, singer Patti Smith and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, among other speakers.

Several speakers referred to Vietnam era protests, and organizers were eager to compare the current movement with the one that peaked with a rally of between 250,000 and 500,000 people in Washington in 1969. The last large-scale peace protest in Washington was in 1991, when about 75,000 demonstrated during the height of the Persian Gulf War.

Unlike those protests, yesterday’s rally was different in that it preceded war, and many interpreted that as an indication of a potentially powerful movement.

“During the Vietnam War, no demonstration of comparable size took place until 1967, three years after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution [that gave President Lyndon B. Johnson congressional authority to expand the war in Vietnam],” said Brian Becker, co-director of the International Action Center, one of the groups that make up International ANSWER.

But if the passions of the Vietnam era led to protests that often trembled on the edge between control and chaos, yesterday’s event suggested that this movement is burning at a lower flame.

“Here I’m not being spit on, people aren’t throwing tomatoes at me and Joan Baez isn’t singing,” said protest veteran Dot Magargal, 77, from Media, Pa. “People just want to come out and say that not everyone wants to go to war. This is a lot of people, a lot of voters, and it has to count for something.”

For those looking for symbols often associated with left-wing demonstrations — Grateful Dead T-shirts, dreadlocks, anti-corporate slogans, Socialist newsletters — plenty could be found. But it wasn’t necessary to comb through the fringe to find people who didn’t fit the mold. Many said they were first-time protesters who had never attended a rally. Some said they were against all war, no matter the circumstances, and others said they were simply against the possibility of an Iraq invasion.

“I’ve never in my life done anything like this before,” said Marie Johnson, 31, of Columbia. “What I wanted to do was say that even though Bush puts forth that everyone supports going to war against Iraq, some of us don’t. I just thought it was important for me to do something to show how I felt.”

Peggy McGrath, 59, said she hoped that Bush would look out of the windows of the White House to see that thousands disagreed with him. She said she remained optimistic that he might change his mind, especially if enough people voiced opposition.

“I think there’s actually been a shift already in Bush’s rhetoric in the last two weeks,” said McGrath, who was on one in a caravan of eight buses from Chicago. “The hope is that maybe he’ll see this, and maybe it can be stopped before it’s started.”

Bush, however, wasn’t at the White House. He and first lady Laura Bush flew yesterday from their Texas ranch to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, where the president was attending the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. Among other things, Bush was seeking to rally fellow leaders behind his Iraq stance.

The president had some support at the rally from a group of about 100 counter-protesters who gathered at 17th Street and Constitution Avenue. Along with activists from the national group Free Republic, a group of Iraqi exiles chanted slogans against Saddam Hussein. In one of the few points of tension during the day, police stepped into a scuffle between peace activists and counterprotesters and led away two of the former.

One who joined the counter-protesters, Imam Husham Al-Husainy, explained that he came to Washington from the Detroit area with about 40 Iraqis to present the view of people who had suffered under Hussein.

“Most of these people across the street, they don’t know the reality in Iraq,” Al-Husainy said.

Although the main protest message was focused on opposing war in Iraq, a few other causes slipped into the mix. Many of the same people who marched for Palestinian rights in April joined yesterday’s march, waving Palestinian flags. But like others who had become activists for other causes, they said opposing the war was what brought them out yesterday.

“I don’t come here to carry signs for fun,” said Ribhi Ramadan, 36, who brought his family of seven from Paterson, N.J., to the protest. “I support not just Palestine, but everywhere that’s threatened by war.”

Luigi Procopio, 45, a social worker from the district, wore a pink triangle with “$ FOR AIDS NOT WAR” written on it. He said even though he normally focuses his activism on issues in the gay community, he and at least a dozen friends came to protest the war in Iraq.

“It’s time, man. . . .it feels imminent,” he said. “Congress has just rolled over.”

Some protesters said they had been worried about attendance before they arrived at the rally. Larina Brown, 22, a student from the University of Minnesota-Morris, said she had feared that she and the 30 friends she traveled with would be greeted by scant crowds.

“It’s a relief, really,” Brown said. “I really wanted this to be a big statement, to show it’s not just radical, anti-American people who go to these things.”

Most of those who arrived in the morning on buses climbed back aboard shortly after the rally ended. By 5:45 p.m., the streets were almost deserted, and protesters had put downtheir signs and were sitting on park benches snacking.

Mark Zheng, 33, of Amherst, Mass., stopped to take a photo of two friends in front of a fountain in Lafayette Square. Zheng, from China, had been at the Tiananmen Square protests. He said he was impressed by the orderliness of the march.

“I think maybe people have different thoughts on things, but one thing is clear,” he said. “Peace.”

Staff writers David A. Fahrenthold, Ylan Q. Mui and Mary Beth Sheridan and special correspondent Liz Garone in San Francisco and wire services contributed to this report.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on 100,000 Rally, March Against War in Iraq

Iraq expels CNN staff

Posted on October 25, 2002 by Team VCS

Arraf and five other non-Iraqi CNN staff members, including correspondents Nic Robertson and Rym Brahimi, were told they must leave the country by Monday. This latest Iraqi move follows government complaints about the reporting of several international journalists on assignment in the country.

According to CNN, Iraqi officials expressed particular outrage over CNN reporting, specifically its coverage this week of an unprecedented anti-government demonstration outside the Iraqi Information Ministry in Baghdad. Government officials added they opposed strongly to the presence and reporting of a CNN team in Kurd-controlled northern Iraq. (Albawaba.com)

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Iraq expels CNN staff

France says US text on Iraq could permit strike

Posted on October 25, 2002 by Team VCS

“We cannot accept an element of automatic resort to force,” a senior French official said on the sidelines of a European Union summit in Brussels.

“In the current resolution text there are some ambiguities, some key words which could allow an automatic resort to force. Both war and peace can be triggered by ambiguities.”

Washington, hoping to break a month-long deadlock, gave its four veto-wielding U.N. Security Council colleagues — Britain, China, France and Russia — its draft resolution earlier this week. The Security Council is expected to debate the text for the first time on Friday.

Russia and France have voiced reservations about the draft, saying its language could trigger military action before U.N. arms inspectors report on any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. draft, co-sponsored by Britain, would declare Iraq in “material breach” of past U.N. resolutions and warn Iraq of “serious consequences” if it thwarts new weapons inspections — language Russia and France fear could prompt military action.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told reporters at the EU summit on Thursday that “a number of clarifications” were still needed for a consensus to be reached.

“France is continuing with the others to seek changes to the text,” the official said, mentioning China and Russia.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on France says US text on Iraq could permit strike

Gulf War Veterans and military analysts question new war in Iraq

Posted on October 23, 2002 by Team VCS

The president’s chief economic advisor, Lawrence Lindsey, says a war in Iraq “could cost as much as $200 billion.” Based on experience, combat veterans know the price of a new war in Iraq may be far greater, causing serious U.S. casualties and impacting the international standing and safety of the American people. The previous Gulf War taught us that such losses are not simply experienced on the battlefield. Tens of thousands of casualties can occur years later, costing our nation the health and welfare of the veterans who served.

To bring common sense and experience to the current debate over Iraq, Veterans for Common Sense is holding a press briefing and highlighting some of the critical questions and concerns that the Bush administration has failed to address. The panel will include respected authorities on Iraq and arms control as well as Desert Storm veterans who know firsthand the effects of war and the meaning of sacrifice.

Panelists

Erin Cole, Spokeswoman, Veterans for Common Sense. She was a Sergeant with the Army 501st Military Intelligence Battalion, which was attached to the 1st Armored Division during the Gulf War. She is currently a small business owner in Alexandria, VA.

Lieutenant General (Retired) Robert G. Gard, Jr., Military Advisor, Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation (VVAF). His distinguished military career included service as an Executive Assistant to Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara (1961-68) during the Vietnam War.

Alistair Millar, Vice President, Fourth Freedom Forum, and former analyst at the British American Security Information Council. He is the author of a forthcoming book on tactical nuclear weapons and has written extensively on Iraq’s non-conventional weapons programs and UN sanctions policy on Iraq.

Stephen L. Robinson, Executive Director, National Gulf War Resource Center, former Sergeant First Class with the Pentagon’s Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses (OSAGWI). In the aftermath of the Gulf War, he served with the 1st /10th Special Forces assigned to provide humanitarian and medical assistance to repatriated Kurds.

The panel will be moderated by Erik K. Gustafson, National Co-coordinator, Veterans for Common Sense. He served as a Specialist with the Army 864th Engineer Combat Battalion (Heavy) which built hospitals, main supply routes and enemy prisoner of war camps during the Gulf War. He currently directs the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC), a Washington, DC-based human rights organization.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Gulf War Veterans and military analysts question new war in Iraq

GAO: Pentagon has misplaced 250,000 defective suits

Posted on October 23, 2002 by Team VCS

The General Accounting Office said the Defense Department has lost track of at least 250,000 defective protective suits that were being stored for U.S. soldiers overseas. The congressional watchdog said more than 750,000 suits have been deemed as defective by the Pentagon.

The GAO said that the defects were discovered in 1996 during the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. Since then, the Pentagon appears to have lost track of hundreds of thousands of suits, Middle East Newsline reported.

“We have received no evidence they have found [the remaining defective] 250,000 suits,” Raymond Decker, a GAO director, told the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security.

Decker told the subcommittee that unless the defective suits are located they could be handed out to troops being deployed for combat operations. The military’s Central Command has ordered thousands of suits for troops being prepared for any war against Iraq. The regime of President Saddam Hussein is said to have both biological and chemical weapons.

The Pentagon’s Defense Logistic Agency asserts that it has identified all the faulty suits.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on GAO: Pentagon has misplaced 250,000 defective suits

Headquarters Elements to Deploy to Central Command

Posted on October 23, 2002 by Team VCS

They said the deployments are part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

V Corps, based in Heidelberg, Germany, received the deployment order about six weeks ago, its officials said. They would not say where command elements will deploy or the numbers involved.

The 1st MEF, a Marine Corps equivalent of an Army corps, is loading the sealift ship USNS Bellatrix, which is due to sail from San Diego shortly. Marine officials also declined comment about numbers and itineraries. They said the expeditionary force received the deployment order about a month ago.

“The United States is repositioning some of its military forces where required to support the global war on terrorism and to support efforts to locate and hold accountable terrorists and those who support and harbor them,” DoD officials said.

At full combat strength, V Corps has the 1st Armored and 1st Infantry divisions plus a corps support command. The 1st MEF contains the 1st Marine Division, a Marine air wing and service support groups.

The elements going to Central Command are decidedly smaller than the commands’ strength of roughly 45,000 troops each. Central Command officials said the headquarters elements will be like any other Central Command units once they arrive in theater. They will report to Gen. Tommy Franks via the command’s coalition force land component commander.

The two headquarters will take part in Central Command’s Exercise Internal Look. In November, CENTCOM will deploy a 600-man headquarters to Qatar. The exercise is slated to run for three weeks.

Officials would not speculate on possible future operations.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Headquarters Elements to Deploy to Central Command

Straw puts UN on Iraq warning

Posted on October 18, 2002 by Team VCS

Mr Straw’s warning comes as the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the UK, US, China, France and Russia – prepare to try to end weeks of wrangling on Friday.

The foreign secretary stressed the UK was “completely committed” to using the UN if that was successful.

But America and the US reserved the right to go it alone if military action was blocked and if Iraq was in “flagrant breach” of UN resolutions, he said.

Ending the wrangling

The US says it will soon table a draft resolution to the Security Council aimed at strengthening the weapons inspections regime.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said the resolution would make it clear Iraq had been “in violation” of UN resolutions for a long time.

And it would make clear there would have to be “consequences for continued violation”, said Mr Powell.

Russia’s Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, said he believed there were “favourable conditions” for the council to agree a resolution that quickly restarted weapons inspections.

France is seen as isolated among the key five council members as it continues to insist military action should only come after a second resolution is passed.

Options open
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Straw increased the pressure on the other council members to accept America’s proposals.

“We reserve the right to act within international law in respect of the use of force which may or may not be covered by a new resolution,” he said.

“It is entirely appropriate for America, as for us, to reserve their position if the United Nations does not meet its responsibilities.

“We are completely committed to the United Nations route if that is successful.

“If, for example, we end up being vetoed on statements which are as plain as daylight that Iraq is in flagrant breach of United Nations resolutions, then of course we are in a different situations.”

Weapons focus
Those comments are likely to increase criticism from those who say America is planning to attack Iraq regardless of what the UN decides.

UK ministers have stressed their prime objective is dealing with Iraq’s alleged build-up of weapons of mass destruction.

They say they would be delighted to see Saddam Hussein’s government toppled in Baghdad but, unlike some US figures, argue it should not be the aim of their policy.

Iraq’s latest offer to readmit weapons inspectors has not proved enough to satisfy the US and UK Governments.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Straw puts UN on Iraq warning