Thanks Douglas,
My daughter has been asked to write an essay on whether America should be at
war with Iraq for school
This will be helpful.
Claire
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Clark" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 7:47 AM
Subject: Sorry..this is it..very long


Article 6507 of uk.current-events.terrorism:
Xref: bath.ac.uk uk.current-events.terrorism:6507
Path:
bath.ac.uk!server2.netnews.ja.net!server6.netnews.ja.net!feeder.news.heanet.
ie!newsfeed.esat.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet
.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-ber1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!12.ppp1-3.h
ad.worldonline.DK!not-for-mail
From: "Nes" <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
Subject: "Detailed Analysis of October 7 Speech by Bush on Iraq" from IPA
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:26:38 +0200
Lines: 861
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.ppp1-3.had.worldonline.dk (212.54.69.140)
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1035314804 28928276 212.54.69.140 (16 [130862])
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

Very interesting and detailed examination of President Bush' speech to the
nation on October 10th. For enhanced readability and for the full benefit of
the well documented analysis, reading the original HTML-text at the link
supplied below is recommended.

Warning. Medium length!

Nes

**********************
http://www.accuracy.org/bush/

Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA)

Detailed Analysis of October 7 Speech by Bush on Iraq

Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to
be here tonight. I appreciate you all coming.

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.

Chris Toensing, editor of Middle East Report: "This might indicate that Iraq
is actively threatening the peace in the region. There is no evidence
whatsoever that Iraq is doing so, or has any intention of doing so. Other
powers are actively disrupting the peace in the region: Israel is trying to
crush Palestinian resistance to occupation with brute force, and the U.S.
and Britain have bombed Iraq 46 times in 2002 when their aircraft are
'targeted' by Iraqi air defense systems in the bilaterally enforced no-fly
zones. Most of our 'friends' in the region -- Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
Jordan -- have strongly urged us not to go to war, and to tone down the war
rhetoric. Aren't they better positioned than we are to judge what threatens
their safety?"

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.

Rahul Mahajan, author of The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism:
"Resolution 687 also speaks of 'establishing in the Middle East a zone free
from weapons of mass destruction' -- which also means Israel's 200-plus
nuclear weapons as well as Syria's and Egypt's apparent chemical weapons
capabilities, and any nuclear capability the U.S. has placed in the region."

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and
produces chemical and biological weapons.

As'ad Abukhalil, author of Bin Laden, Islam & America's New 'War on
Terrorism' and associate professor of political science at California State
University at Stanislaus: "The president fails to credit Reagan's and his
father's administrations --prominent members of which included Rumsfeld and
Cheney-- for their help in the construction of Saddam's arsenal, especially
in the area of germ warfare."
Toensing: "After being presented with evidence that Iraq had used chemical
weapons to attack the Kurds in 1987-88, the Reagan administration blocked a
Senate resolution imposing sanctions on Iraq, and continued to pursue good
relations with the regime."
James Jennings, president of Conscience International, a humanitarian aid
organization that has worked in Iraq since 1991: "The evidence that Iraq
gassed its own people is also not about a current event, but one that
happened fourteen years ago. If that did not constitute a good enough reason
for going to war with Iraq in 1988 (which the U.S. did not even contemplate
at the time), it certainly is not a good enough reason now."

It is seeking nuclear weapons.

Susan Wright, co-author of Biological Warfare and Disarmament: New
Problems/New Perspectives: "How does Bush know this? It's as if the
inspections have already been conducted and we know the outcome. We're
expected to accept the administration's word for this without seeing any
evidence. We have no way of judging the accuracy of these claims and the
only way to do so is to hold inspections. The only country in the region
that is known to possess a nuclear arsenal is Israel." [The Administration
says that it does not know if Israel has nuclear weapons:
www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0521-06.htm]
Mahajan: "There's no evidence that Iraq has gotten anywhere with seeking
nuclear weapons. The pitiful status of evidence in this regards is shown by
claims in e.g. Blair's dossier that Iraq is seeking uranium from Africa,
year and country unspecified. South Africa is, of course, the only country
in the continent that has potentially the capacity for enrichment of uranium
to bomb quality, and claims not to have supplied Iraq with uranium.
Unenriched uranium does Iraq little good, since enrichment facilities are
large, require huge investment, and cannot easily be hidden."

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
September 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.

Toensing: "Only two members of the U.N. Security Council would appear to
agree with the idea that Iraq threatens, or will threaten, 'America and the
world' with Weapons of Mass Destruction, making the next sentence
disingenuous at best."
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.

Toensing: "Bush may have shared the discussion, but he did not share the
evidence, saying, like the British dossier and CIA reports, that
intelligence has established the threat. But Americans apparently will not
be seeing it."
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.

Stephen Zunes, author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of
Terrorism and associate professor of politics at the University of San
Francisco: "The hostility toward the United States is a direct consequence
of U.S. hostility toward Iraq. Iraq was quite unhostile to the United States
when it was receiving support from the United States during the 1980s. The
answer is certainly not to appease Iraq's tyrannical regime, as was done in
the past. However, to imply this hostility is unrelated to the U.S.
destruction of much of Iraq's civilian infrastructure and other actions
during the Gulf War which went far beyond what was necessary to rid Iraqi
forces from Kuwait and the U.S.-led sanctions and its impact upon the
civilian population is very misleading."

AbuKhalil: "If Bush wants to punish nations that 'tried to dominate the
Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck
other nations without warning' then he would have to punish Israel for an
occupation of Palestinian lands that lasted far longer than the now famous
(yet brief) Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. Of course, Iraq did attack Iran and
Kuwait, and Israel in the span of 30 years has attacked Egypt, Iraq,
Tunisia, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, not to mention Palestine, and not to
mention a civilian Libyan airliner that was downed by Israeli forces in
1973."

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 U.N. 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?

Zunes: "He was far more dangerous in the 1980s when the U.S. was supporting
him. It will take many years, assuming military sanctions continue in
effect, before he comes close to the strength he was then. If U.N.
inspectors are allowed to return, it would be impossible -- even if they
don't find 100 percent of everything -- to get much stronger than he is
today."
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.

Zunes: "If this is really a concern, then why did the United States supply
Iraq with the seed stock of anthrax spores back in the 1980s?" [William
Blum, "Anthrax for Export: U.S. Companies Sold Iraq the Ingredients for a
Witch's Brew," The Progressive, April 1998, p. 18]
This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been
accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.

Zunes: "This is like saying that a man is capable of making millions of
women pregnant. It's a matter of delivery systems, of which there is no
proof that Iraq currently has."
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 forty 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 September 11.

Mahajan: "All of this was done with the full support, approval, and
connivance of the U.S. government. U.S.-supplied 'agricultural credits'
helped fund the sustained counterinsurgency campaign in northern Iraq; the
United States supplied military intelligence to Iraq for use against Iran
even when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons in the war; and the United
States ran diplomatic interference for Iraq at the U.N."
Toensing: "The U.S. restored diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1984, while
it was in the midst of fighting the first of these wars of aggression,
because the U.S. wanted to contain the Islamic Revolution in Iran. The U.S.
and Britain tilted toward Iraq throughout the war, and U.S. allies in the
region, chief among them Saudi Arabia, bankrolled the Iraqi war effort. The
U.S. was still trying to become closer to Iraq when it invaded Kuwait."

Zunes: "He attacked Iranian troops because he knew Iran had no allies that
would defend it. And we now know that officials from the U.S. Defense
Intelligence Agency assisted Iraq in targeting Iranian forces in the full
knowledge that they were using chemical weapons. Saddam used chemical
weapons against Kurdish civilians because he knew they couldn't fight back.
And the U.S. helped cover up the Halabja massacre and other assaults by
falsely claiming the Iranians were responsible. In other words, Saddam is a
coward. He will use WMDs when he knows he won't have to suffer the
consequences, especially when the world's most powerful country is
supporting him."

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that
it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons.

Toensing: "That it 'has used.' The last time Bush made a big deal of this,
he claimed that Iraq was again using the facilities in this way, an
assertion which the IAEA promptly rebutted as unverifiable. It still is
unverifiable."
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.

Mahajan: "There are no credible allegations that Iraq produced chemical or
biological agents while inspectors were in the country, until December 1998.
The reason we don't know whether they are producing those agents or not
since then is that inspectors were withdrawn at the U.S. behest preparatory
to the Desert Fox bombing campaign."
Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons, despite
international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized
world.

[The U.S. has maintained for years that it would continue the sanctions
regardless of Iraq's behavior regarding weapons, see "Autopsy of a Disaster:
The U.S. Sanctions Policy on Iraq -- Myth: The Sanctions Will be Lifted When
Iraq Complies with the U.N. Inspections": www.accuracy.org/iraq]
Zunes: "Again, the U.S. has yet to produce evidence that Iraq is building
such weapons. Also, U.N. Security Council  Resolution 687 calls for Iraqi
disarmament as part of a region-wide disarmament effort which the United
States has refused to enforce or even support."

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.

Toensing: "This is a neat rhetorical trick. Bush knows that Turkey and Saudi
Arabia themselves do not feel under threat from Iraq's WMD, so he doesn't
claim that. Rather, it's the threat to U.S.servicemen and oil company
employees based in those countries which should concern us. The questions
left unasked are why Iraq would attack Americans, knowing the massive
response that would incur, and of course why so many American troops 'live
and work' in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. They're partly there in forward
deployment against Iraq."
Zunes: "According to UNSCOM, 817 of Iraq's 819 Soviet-build ballistic
missiles have been accounted for and destroyed. They may possess up to a
couple of dozen home-made versions, but none of these have been tested and
it is questionable whether they have any functional launchers."
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of
manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical
and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is
exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.

Toensing: "Other intelligence experts have disputed that UAVs are a threat,
because the agents they released might disperse to basically harmless levels
by the time they reached the ground if the UAV was trying to cover such a
broad area."
Mahajan: "The claim that these UAVs have ranges that would enable attacking
the United States, and that they could reach it undetected, is a startlingly
new one, and entirely untenable. No one has ever produced evidence of Iraqi
capability or intent to target the United States directly."

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.

Mahajan: "Bioterrorist attacks and delivery of biological agents aren't that
easy -- the very limited effects of the anthrax attacks showed that. In
fact, the loss of life in the anthrax attacks occurred mostly among the
postal workers who were not issued antibiotics, and not among the
congressional staff who were. As for chemical attacks with 'a small
container and one terrorist,' they would be severely limited in effect."
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 ninety terrorist
attacks in twenty countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people,
including 12 Americans.

Michael Ratner is president of the Center for Constitutional Rights:
"Although U.S.intelligence agencies have not found a relationship between
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Bush mentions one, but no evidence is shown.
Likewise he tries to frighten Americans by talking about the crimes of Abu
Nidal, but Abu Nidal is dead. Again it is an attempt to create fear by
association with something from the past, not evidence of a current threat."
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.

Toensing: " Yes, but neither of these groups is ideologically anti-American.
Their attacks are aimed at Israel and Israeli interests, including the
killing of Leon Klinghoffer and other Americans. This is a crucial piece of
context."
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy --
the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had
high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled
Afghanistan went to Iraq.

These include one very senior al Qaeda 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 Qaeda
members in bomb making, poisons, and deadly gases.

Jennings:  "The claim that al-Qaeda is in Iraq is disingenuous, if not an
outright lie. Yes, the U.S.has known for some time that up to 400
al-Qaeda-type Muslim extremists, the Ansar al-Islam, formerly 'Jund
al-Islam,' a splinter of the Iranian-backed Islamic Unity Movement of
Kurdistan, were operating inside the Kurdish security zone set up under U.S.
protection in the North of Iraq. For some reason this was kept quiet and has
not been much reported in the mainstream media. Finally last Spring the
Kurds themselves attacked and killed most of the terrorists in their
territory, sending the rest fleeing for their lives across the border into
Iran. Since this area was under U.S. protection, and not under Saddam
Hussein's rule, it's pretty hard to claim that al-Qaeda operates in Iraq."
Mahajan: "Al-Qaeda has carried out no chemical or biological attacks. The
anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001 were almost certainly from a U.S.
government employee.  It's hard to know what, if anything, to make of claims
that one "senior al Qaeda leader" got medical treatment in Baghdad. Giving
medical treatment, even to criminals, is not illegal, and with so little
evidence given to us, there's no reason to suppose this isn't another story
like the one about a meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence in
Prague (now discredited)."

And we know that after September 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.

Mahajan: "Biological or chemical weapons would undoubtedly leave
fingerprints, just as the anthrax attacks in the fall did. Even if Iraq
couldn't be conclusively shown to be the source of such materials, the U.S.
government would assume Iraq was the source. Iraq has been under the gun
ever since the Gulf War, and can't possibly assume that it could get away
with such an attack. Moreover, Saddam has traditionally seen WMD as his ace
in the hole, protecting him from defeat. Paranoid dictators do not give
control of something they see as the foundation of their security into the
hands of networks, like al-Qaeda, which they can't control."
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.

Toensing: "Yes, inspectors learned all of this -- the inspections worked."
Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy
Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including
three uranium-enrichment sites.

Robert Jensen, author of Writing Dissent and an associate professor at the
University of Texas at Austin: "Bush at least acknowledged that we know
little about Saddam's nuclear capability, but he lied about why. Bush
claimed that Iraq barred the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy
Agency in 1998. In fact, the inspectors, along with those from the U.N.
Special Commission, were withdrawn by their agencies -- not expelled by
Iraq -- in December 1998 when it became clear the Clinton administration was
going to bomb Iraq (as it did) and the safety of the inspectors couldn't be
guaranteed. The inspectors also spied for the United States, in violation of
their mandate."
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 mujahedeen" -- 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.

Toensing: "As Lincoln Chafee said on NPR, if these satellite photos exist,
then surely the public has a right to see them. Surely mere photos would not
compromise sources and methods." [In 1990, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the
U.S. government claimed that Iraqi troops were threatening Saudi Arabia;
this turned out to be false.]
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.

Mahajan: "The aluminum tubes can also be used in conventional artillery,
which Iraq is allowed to have. In the past, when Iraq tried to build such
centrifuges, they used steel tubes. This is an incredibly weak indicator."
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.

Toensing: "Both the CIA report and the British dossier say that this is very
unlikely as long as Iraq remains under sanctions."
Mahajan: "This means only that it has the technological know-how to create
the high-explosive 'lenses' necessary to set off the appropriate nuclear
chain reaction. As long as it retains its scientists, this will remain the
case."

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.

Mahajan: "Again, such an act is not at all consonant with the history or the
mindset of Saddam Hussein. One organization hosted by the Iraqi government,
which is classified as terrorist by the State Department, is the Iranian
Mujahedin-I-Khalq, whose activities are directed against the current
government of Iran. They have never had access to any nonconventional
resources from the Government of Iraq. Saddam Hussein sees the radical
Islamist terrorist networks like al-Qaeda as a huge potential threat to his
own rule, something that concerns him far more than any unrealistic ideas of
revenge against the United States. Anything that could allow al-Qaeda
(which, in its turn, is likely more concerned with replacing regimes in the
Middle East with new radical Islamist regimes) to blackmail him would be the
last thing he would give them."
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 September 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, or a nuclear
weapon.

Mahajan: "Invoking September 11 without showing any kind of link between the
government of Iraq and those attacks is just transparent manipulation. What
he really means is that after September 11 he thinks he can get away with
such a policy."
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."

Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal
Foundation: "The hypocrisy in this speech -- and in the Bush Administration'
s overall national security strategy -- is monumental. If having weapons of
mass destruction and a history of using them is a criteria, then surely the
United States must pose the greatest threat to humanity that has ever
existed. While Bush warns that 'we cannot wait for the final proof.... the
smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,' his September
2002 National Security Strategy states that 'America will act
against...emerging threats before they are fully formed....by acting
preemptively.' And his top-secret Nuclear Posture Review, leaked to the New
York Times earlier this year, reveals that 'U.S. nuclear forces will
continue to provide assurance.... in the event of surprising military
developments....Current examples of immediate contingencies include an Iraqi
attack on Israel or its neighbors....' It doesn't take a lot of imagination
to predict that if Iraq is attacked by the U.S. it might launch whatever it
has at Israel -- itself a nuclear power. Further, while the U.S. is
massively expanding its biological weapons research capabilities ­ for
example by upgrading its bioresearch facilities at the Livermore and Los
Alamos Nuclear weapons labs to aerosolize live anthrax and genetically
modify bioorganisms ­ it is blocking a protocol to the Biological Weapons
Convention that would allow international inspectors into U.S. facilities.
The Bush Administration's unilateral headlong rush to war threatens to
unleash unprecedented regional instability and potentially catastrophic loss
of life. It's hard to image a more self-destructive course of action."
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.

[In fact, there were inspections of these "presidential palaces."]
Zunes: "These are not off-limits. They are open to unfettered inspections as
long as an Iraqi official is accompanying the inspectors. Such a proviso is
quite legal under U.N. Security Council resolutions authorizing the creation
of UNMOVIC, resolutions that were supported by the United States."

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.

Toensing: "Yes, and all the while, the U.S.and Britain were undermining the
logic of sanctions and inspections by speaking of regime change, giving the
regime no incentive to cooperate."
Mahajan: "The government-instituted food ration program in Iraq has been
widely praised, characterized as 'second to none' by Tun Myat, current U.N.
Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq. Money that comes in under the Oil for Food
program cannot, despite constant allegations, be used for weapons
purchases -- all proceeds from such sales are deposited to an escrow account
in New York which is controlled by the U.N. Sanctions Committee. The
government of Iraq cannot touch any of this money."

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.

Mahajan: "For 'world' here, read 'United States and its lieutenant, the
United Kingdom.' Those military strikes were a blatant violation of
international law, done without Security Council authorization."

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.

Toensing: "Another remarkable rhetorical trick. The no-fly zones did not
protect the Kurds from Iraqi incursions in 1995-96, nor have they protected
the Shia or the marsh Arabs from ground-based repression throughout the
decade. But rather than mention these somewhat significant failures, Bush
concentrates on Iraqi air defenses, which have yet to come close to actually
hitting a U.S.or U.K. jet. As with the Saudi-Turkish point above, it appears
that US-U.K. attempts to protect the peoples of the region are to be counted
as failures because the U.S.and U.K. are in danger."
Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois
College of Law and author of The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence: "It is
the U.S. government that is violating the United Nations Charter ... by
using military force to allegedly 'police' these illegal 'no-fly' zones that
have never been authorized by the U.N. Security Council or by the U.S.
Congress, in violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution as well. Iraq is
simply exercising its legitimate right of self-defense under U.N. Charter
article 51. The Bush administration has deliberately put U.S. pilots in
harm's way in order to concoct a pretext for a catastrophic war of
aggression against Iraq. The best way for the American people to protect the
lives of our military personnel in the Persian Gulf is to bring them all
home."

Mahajan: "Again, the no-fly zones don't involve the 'world,' but are a naked
projection of American and British power (France, the third partner in the
no-fly zones, withdrew in 1996), unsanctioned by the Security Council."

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.

AbuKhalil: "Bush also fails to mention American violations of the sanctions
regime, by using the inspectors to spy on Iraq, and to obtain information
unrelated to the U.N. mandate."
Among those requirements, the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under
U.N. 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.

Susan Wright: "[The evidence] suggests that the United States and the United
Kingdom intend to set such tough conditions for further arms inspections in
Iraq that they would create a double bind. If Iraq rejects the conditions,
then war with the United States will follow. If Iraq attempts to comply and
an ambiguity triggers action by the security forces of one of the permanent
members of the Security Council, which according to this draft, might
accompany an inspection team, war could follow anyway. Other members of the
Security Council should reject such traps. It is also essential to avoid a
situation in which the inspection force is effectively hijacked by the
United States and used for espionage, as was the case with the U.N. Special
Commission in the 1990s."
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.

AbuKhalil: "When Bush speaks about 'many nations' supporting the U.S., he
certainly means Israel and U.K., although public opinion in U.K. is running
solidly against Bush's war."
And that is why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions
of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

Zunes: "There are well over 90 U.N. Security Council resolutions that are
currently being violated by countries other than Iraq. The vast majority of
these resolutions are being violated by allies of the United States that
receive U.S. military, economic and diplomatic support. Indeed, the U.S. has
effectively blocked the U.N. Security Council from enforcing these
resolutions against its allies."
 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.

Zunes: "Most of these do not fall under Chapter VII, which allows for the
UNSC to authorize the use of force."
AbuKhalil: "And Bush's sudden concern for U.N. resolutions should not lead
one to believe that he will next move to implement all U.N. resolutions --
including those against U.S. allies".

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.

Mahajan: "Throughout all of this, there has never been any credible evidence
introduced to indicate that Hussein has any policy of trying to target
Americans. His depredations have almost always been distinguished by actions
against people that the Western powers don't care about."
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.

Zunes: "Then why did the United States support Indonesian dictator Suharto
for over three decades, as he oversaw the massacre of over a half million of
his own people, invaded the tiny nation or East Timor, resulting in the
deaths of an additional 200,000? How about brutal and lawless governments in
Turkey, Morocco and Israel that have invaded neighboring countries at the
cost of thousands of civilian lives? How about Pinochet and other Latin
American tyrants supported by the U.S.?"
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.

Toensing: "Given what is known about the return of warlordism and chaos to
Afghanistan -- not to mention the fiction that Afghan women have all thrown
away their burqas -- this is a debatable proposition, and indicative of the
administration's lack of interest in rebuilding Afghanistan. Why would Iraq
be any different?"
Mahajan: "On every test of justice and of pragmatism, the war on Afghanistan
fails. Worse, every one of these aspects, from an increased threat of
terrorism to large numbers of civilian deaths to installation of a
U.S.-controlled puppet regime is due to play out again in the war on Iraq.
In fact, though it has been little noted, the sanctions regime has made
Iraqis dependent on centralized, government-distributed food to survive and
relief agencies have already expressed their concerns about the potential
for a humanitarian crisis once war starts."

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.

Jensen: "All of that and more was going on while Iraq was a 'valued ally' of
the United States -- hence the hypocrisy of the next few sentences."
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.

Anthony Arnove, editor of the book Iraq Under Siege: "But the people of Iraq
have good reason to feel otherwise. As Nicholas Kristof of the New York
Times noted in his October 4 report from Baghdad, 'while ordinary Iraqis
were very friendly toward me, they were enraged at the U.S. after 11 years
of economic sanctions.... Worse, U.S. bombing of water treatment plants,
difficulties importing purification chemicals like chlorine (which can be
used for weapons), and shortages of medicines led to a more than doubling of
infant mortality, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.'
Another war on Iraq -- this time, a 'pre-emptive' attack aimed at 'regime
change' -- will lead to more civilian casualties and damage to Iraq's
infrastructure. And Iraqis are right to worry that the regime Washington
installs, in violation of their right to self-determination, will be one
that serves U.S. interests, not their own. We should recall the impact of
the last war. In the words of Gulf War veteran Anthony Swofford, a former
Marine corporal, writing in the New York Times, October 2, 'From the ground,
I witnessed the savage results of American air superiority: tanks and troop
carriers turned upside down and ripped inside out; rotten, burned,
half-buried bodies littering the desert like the detritus of years -- not
weeks -- of combat.' We should be skeptical of Bush's stated concern for the
Iraqi people. His real interests in this war are not the Iraq people, or
defending Americans from attack, but expanding U.S.hegemony in the Middle
East."
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.

Jennings: "The president has repeatedly claimed, 'We have no quarrel with
the Iraqi people.' In his speech to the nation on Oct. 7, he said, 'America
is a friend of the people of Iraq.' Try telling that to a friend of mine in
Baghdad who walked out of his house following a U.S.bomb attack to find his
neighbor's head rolling down the street; or to a taxi driver I met whose
four year old child shook uncontrollably for three days following Clinton s
1998 'Monicagate' bombing diversion. Try telling it to the mother of Omran
ibn Jwair, whom I met in the village of Toq al-Ghazzalat after a U.S.missile
killed her 13 year old son while he was tending sheep in the field. Try
telling it to the hundreds of mothers I have seen crying over their dying
babies in Iraqi hospitals, and to the hundreds of thousands of parents who
have actually lost their infant children due to the cruel U.S.blockade,
euphemistically called 'sanctions.' Are the Iraqi people supposed to rejoice
now that a new war is being forced upon them by their so-called 'friends?'
It is understandable that people are frightened following the disastrous
attacks of September 11. But fear is not a good reason to stop thinking. In
fact, when we are in danger is when clear thinking is needed most of all."
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.

John Berg, director of graduate studies of the government department at
Suffolk University: "Our Constitution makes it clear that Congress, not the
President, is to 'declare war' -- that is, make the decision that war is
necessary in a given situation. For Congress to delegate this determination
to the President would be an abdication of its Constitutional
responsibility."
Zunes: "According to the articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations charter,
this can only be done if the U.N. Security Council finds the violator in
material breach of the resolution, determines all non-military means of
enforcement have been exhausted, and specifically authorizes the use of
force. Otherwise, it will be illegal. Members of Congress would therefore be
obliged to vote against it since -- according to Article VI of the U.S.
Constitution -- international treaties such as the U.N. Charter are the
supreme law of the land. Furthermore, if the United States can invade Iraq
for its violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions, then Britain could
invade Morocco, France could invade Turkey, Russia could invade Israel,
etc."

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 September 11 showed our country that vast oceans no longer
protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al
Qaeda'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.

Phyllis Bennis, author of the just-released book Before & After: U.S.
Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis and a fellow at the Institute for
Policy Studies: "President Bush's speech ignored Congress, and instead was
aimed at U.S. public opinion (where his support is dwindling) and
international allies in the U.N. (where the U.S. is significantly isolated).
It was designed to divert attention from the real reasons for this coming
war: oil and empire. It is a war designed to rewrite the political map of
the Middle East, and is not dependent on the particular threat posed by a
particular dictator. The crimes of the Iraqi regime are serious and
longstanding -- back to the days of massive U.S. economic and military
support, and U.S. provision of the biological seed stock for the anthrax and
other germs President Bush warned us about. But launching a massive bombing
campaign against Baghdad, a city of more than 5 million inhabitants--
grandmothers, kindergarten classes, teenagers -- will not secure human
rights for those living and dying under those bombs."

Thank you, and good night.






Douglas Clark, Bath, England           mailto: [log in to unmask]
Lynx: Poetry from Bath  ..........  http://www.bath.ac.uk/~exxdgdc/lynx.html