October 9, 2002

Defeating the U.S. War Plans Series #5: The Growing Rumble of Peace Demos

Hello everyone

After going though 585 new emails since I last checked my emails 48 hours ago (sigh!!), here is what I've prepared for you tonight. And I have more coming your way - as usual ;-)

Love and Light will prevail

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."

- Abraham Lincoln -- Sent by Christopher <geonotes@mcn.net>


1. Make your voice heard
2. Nafeez Ahmed's "The War on Freedom" surpasses expectations
4. Anti-war Ad campaign
5. Preventing World War 3
6. Rush to War Ignores U.S. Constitution
7. The "Pre-emptive Strike" Vote

See also:

While Bush Focuses on Iraq, Troubles Grow at Home

Peace Demonstrations Worldwide: 1.5 Million in Italy -- US Nationwide

Tens of thousands rally in cities across the country to say No to war with Iraq.

This Indymedia Webpage is compiling reports on demonstrations that took place all across the U.S. on October 6 including at least 10,000 in front of the L.A. Federal Building

Eloquent and masterful words regarding the US and Iraq

Across the Rubicon
Anything is possible as the economy approaches a near-certain meltdown this October, which may well see the Dow below 6000 after devastating third quarter earnings reports become official and the explosion of a $50 trillion derivatives bubble occurs. I can see no better combination of factors than a bloody war, threats of or actual terrorist attacks, and draconian health legislation that will allow for the immediate confiscation of property and the uncontested quarantine of anyone as convenient methods to control an angry population that may soon be going hungry and cold. President Bush has made it clear that he wants the Homeland Security Act -- with all of its suppressive powers -- signed before the Iraqi invasion and, as of Oct. 1.

Global crash fears as German bank sinks (Oct 6)

NYT/CBS Poll: Focus on Economy, Go Slow on Iraq

What the World Wants (*MUST SEE!!!*)

Unlike in '90, Fear of U.S. Defines U.N. Iraq Debate

Truth on Iraq Seeps Through (October 8 - LA Times)
In a speech intended to frighten the American people into supporting a war, the president Monday again trotted out his grim depiction of Saddam Hussein as a terrifying boogeyman haunting the world. However, a CIA report released late last week and designed to bolster Bush's case for preemptive invasion instead provided clear evidence that Iraq poses less of a threat to the world than at any other time in the past decade. In its report, the CIA concludes that years of U.N. inspections combined with U.S. and British bombing of selected targets have left Iraq far weaker militarily than in the 1980s, when it was supported in its war against Iran by the United States. The CIA report also concedes that the agency has no evidence that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons (...) If Iraq thwarts the resumption of effective inspections, the CIA report also makes obvious that continued airstrikes targeting suspected armaments facilities would make far more sense than a costly, risky full-fledged invasion. (...) In truth, the invasion is required not to meet a pressing threat to our
security but rather to meet the threat to GOP control of Congress posed by a sagging U.S. economy and a stock market that has wiped out the savings of many Americans. That and the pent-up desire of frustrated wannabe imperialists among top Bush advisors to find a way to use our high-tech weaponry to micromanage the world. The CIA report makes it clear there is no plausible national security reason for pushing for war with Iraq at this time, other than the ill-advised imperial goal of directly controlling the world's oil supplies. That's why the president in his speech Monday was reduced to scaring Americans with more tales of Hussein the Boogeyman.

14 Palestinians Killed in Gaza Raid

Americans Say Butter Not Guns; Scott Ritter Turns Up the Volume; Not On Your TV: Bush's Iraq Speech
All from http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/

Kennedy | The Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emption

Rarely in the history of the Senate has a member so bluntly criticized the White House and his own party colleagues on a question of warmaking.


From: "Wayne Umbertis" <wayne@greenkeepers.com>
Subject: Make your voice heard - FOR ALL US CITIZENS
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002

Please call your senators, don't write, call them on the phone and tell them not to proceed with this war on Iraq. Please overload the system before the speech tonight. Hundreds of thousands will die, we will become a military state and all hopes of global balance will be set back for decades...maybe forever. All this to get one man? Is that sanity? If one trained marksman can paralyze Baltimore, what do you think hundreds of millions of angry muslims will to do our economy, our way of life and the lives of our children. This is absolute insanity and very serious stuff. Please make your voice heard.

Much love,

Wayne Umbertis

You can find their numbers and addresses at http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/


Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002
From: David Creighton <dcr8on@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Nafeez Ahmed's "The War on Freedom" surpasses expectations

Even as Bush and company rush toward war on the eve of an election, and having failed yet again to pin 9/11 on the Iraqis, the truth appears to be catching up with them!

I'll be heading soon to the UN with many complimentary copies of this extraordinarily well documented and virtual indictment against the administration...

Let your representatives and the White House know that a war with Iraq will not distract you from our shared goal of a full accounting and revelation of the whole truth behind 9/11! If we ever want to be secure again in this country we must demand nothing less! We all must be heros doing our own small part...carpe diem...if not now, when?

Kyle F. Hence

October 1, 2002 Thomas Fasi, Italian publisher of The War on Freedom wrote [emphasis mine]:

Dear Kyle,

Hope everything is going well. Just writing to let you guys know that "War on Freedom" is having a success beyond any expectations here in Italy! We have already sold out two editions of the book, for a total of 10.000 copies, and are currently printing a third edition of another 10.000 copies . considering that our beloved prime minister is actually managing to suck up to Bush even more than the ever-faithful Tony Blair - they're like two girls fighting over the sexiest boy in school! - it is quite an extraordinary achievement. also, Gore Vidal a couple of days ago published a full-page article in the best-selling national daily overe here, La Repubblica, praising over and over again the book and basically basing his whole analysis on Nafeez Ahmed's. initially the paper tried to censor the article (the official explanation was that it was "too long") but giving that who wrote it is one of the greatest living american writers in the end they were forced to print it in full! it's the first time we see "why didn't Bush give the orders to mobilize the military aircrafts straight away?" and "four aircrafts changed their route under the eye of the radar" written in font size 20 in a best-selling national paper. :) that's bound to get someone wondering... I hope this inspires all you guys and gals overseas! things are moving...


Thomas Fazi


Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002
From: Jim Matus <JMatus@paranoise.com>


We play original arrangements of traditional Middle Eastern music. We pay tribute to the beautiful rich culture of this area of the world that was the cradle of civilization. The imperialist coup that has stolen our presidency is ready to murder not only Saddam Hussein, but with him thousands of innocent people in its quest for control of the world’s oil reserves. To go to war now at this critical point in history when the focus of the world should be on finding renewable energy solutions is insane. The bush monkey and his manipulators have chosen a path that we believe will set us on an irreversible course of disastrous consequences. We play our music in an attempt to somehow stop this suicidal and criminal government from violating international law, from violating every law of nature.

We need a regime change in the United States.

-Jim Matus, Hartford, CT


From: Ed Elkin <jorelly1@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002
Subject: FWD Anti-war Ad campaign

The following advertisement against war in Iraq was published in the Los Angeles Times and the San Fernado Valley Chronicle last September 20, 2002. Members in the Northridge, California chapter are initiators in this effort. The idea of it is that individuals contribute money for the ad and their names are attached to it (if they want), thereby demonstrating in the press the mass volume of opposition to the war. They have chosen to avoid using any organizational affiliation so as to emphasize the citizen-based character of signers to the ad. They hope that this model for expressing popular opposition to war in Iraq catches fire across the nation. For more information or to join the effort, contact the L.A. group, at aawwi@hotmail.com


Why is the Bush administration pushing war with Iraq?


1. We'll get rid of Saddam Hussein.
2. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
3. We can liberate the Iraqi people.
4. Our allies oppose it, but we can go it alone without substantial loss of American lives.
5. Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.


1. Saddam is another brutal dictator but we don't know how to get him any more than we know how to get Osama Bin Laden.
2. Chief U.N. Arms Inspector Scott Ritter says there is no evidence of such weapons.
3. Bombing Baghdad, a city of 5 million people, will not liberate them. It will murder them.
4. Without allies it will take a half million of our military to occupy Iraq. Major American casualties are inevitable.
5. There is not one shred of evidence of any 9/11 involvement.


War will take your mind off the bad economy
Distract you from the health care meltdown
You won't care about attacks on the environment
You'll forget about the corporate scandals
You'll stop asking who's running the country
You won't notice the erosion of your liberties
And wartime presidents get re-elected


This ad was paid for by the people who signed it.



Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002
From: Alexander Winchester <bestprop02@yahoo.com>
Subject: Preventing World War 3

Dear Earth Citizen,

I forward this short article to you, out of the spiritual and social need of humanity.

After reading it I'm sure you'll agree that it needs to be forwarded to as many people as possible, and in the shortest period of time. The truth it contains is rarely spoken, for it takes courage to do so in the face of tyranny. But I've chosen you to do this, because of the concern you have evidenced in the betterment of humanity.

Let this new United Nations resolution be posted on every street corner, in every city of the world...

Yours truly,

A concerned global citizen


Regime Change: What the United Nations Must Do

Rather than adopting the suggested regime change in Iraq through military force, the United Natioins must instead consider an entirely different course of action. This new course is based upon the facts alone, rather than political pressure. A regime change is indeed necessary, but not in Iraq. The primary regime which needs to be changed, is the one found in Washington DC. The greatest tyrant and true threat to world peace who needs to be ousted, is George W. Bush. The facts which clearly show the need for such a resolution against the U.S. are self evident...they demonstrate a "clear and present danger" to the world community. America is clearly a nation which aspires to global domination, through the use of the most expensive and high tech military the world has ever known. In demonstration of the above assertions, let us be very clear about Americas" 300+ billion dollar a year expense, for weapons of mass destruction. These include

1) Atomic and hydrogen bombs.

2) The "Star Wars" weaponry of space satellites, and laser devices.

3) A host of biological weapons including anthrax, which it has used on its own citizenry and manufactured in its own laboratories.

4) Guided missile cruisers, Stealth bombers and aircraft carriers conveying the most advanced air-based offensives, ever to be used in the history of mankind.

5) Depleted uranium munitions, used repeatedly upon countries such as Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, causing birth defects and lingering mutilation of civilian populations.

6) The use of spies, covert CIA operatives and other agents, as well as a barrage of propaganda, which seeks to weaken, overthrow and exploit the sovereign nations of the world, primarily for the sake of installing pro-U.S.-corporate puppets who will do Washingtons' bidding. [The fact that it has staged countless internal rebellions and coups within dozens of countries in the last five decades, is well documented and known. The U.S. constantly interferes with, and attempts to coerce, the mandates of foreign governments for the sake of its own special interests, and in the name of "democracy". The real reason for this behavior is, of course, unfair economic advantage and bottomless greed.]

7) Nerve gas, tear gas, blistering agents, neurotoxins and poisonous compounds of all kinds.

8) "Smart" bombs", "Bunker Buster" bombs, "Daisy Cutter" bombs, mines and laser or satellite guided munitions.

9) Teams of special forces troops, whose missions are designed for assassination, covert mass-murder and maximized destruction.

The United States possesses, and has openly discussed using, such weapons of mass destruction upon a great number of other nations. Among these nations are those listed in George Bushs' so-called "axis of evil" list, as well as many others which it says, "harbor terrorists". The so-called "War on Terror" targets Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Columbia, Nicaragua and many others. Upon these nations the U.S. has repeatedly issued a series of very aggressive and threatening statements to the effect of; "You are either with us or against us", implying dire consequences of economic, diplomatic and military measures in the case of non-compliance. It has openly discussed the possibility of a "first strike" use of conventional nuclear warheads, and "tactical nukes" on the battlefield. Its' military policy of, "win no matter what the cost of truth or human lives", as a surrogate for sane foreign relations, has earned the wrath of the world. U.S. belligerency has been a major contributor to international hostilities, instability, war and the creation of reactionary terrorist groups, as well as the oppression of peoples worldwide. Its irrational posture threatens to catapult the world into another, and probably final, world war.

The United States has repeatedly shown its willingness to target civilian populations with weapons of mass destruction, especially via the carpet-bombing of cities and infrastructures. It is the only nation to have ever used nuclear devices in war, and upon civilian targets. Among the structures bombed have been desalinization plants, water treatment facilities, police stations, electrical substations and generators, radar and communications stations, hospitals, highway, railway and other transportation facilities, factories for the manufacture of metal, plastic and wood products, and numerous other civilian centers. Countless examples of this behavior have been witnessed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The result has been millions of Iraqi and Afghan children dying of unnecessary diseases and malnutrition, due to a severe lack of food and safe drinking water. U.S. allies such as Israel, (whose military it literally makes possible) have also exhibited such behavior, as has Great Britain, through constant urging toward mindless, mutually accomplished war frenzies.

A primary export of the United States is weaponry of mass destruction, including so-called "conventional" weapons such as guided missile cruisers, bombers, small arms, mortars, rockets, tactical advisors, self guided missiles, attack helicopters, high tech surveilance and imaging systems, tanks, explosives and various other tools desigen primarily for the sake of destroying human life. Added to this list of exports are multi-lingual propaganda, biological agents, tear and nerve gas, atomic weapons and their constituents, as well as technical advice regarding their construction, maintenance and use. The U.S. has frequently urged countries to use these weapons against each other so long as it benefitted its political interests, while simultaneously criticizing those who use them without American sanction.

The U.S. has repeatedly told its own citizenry to expect involvement in what amounts to a PERMANENT STATE OF WAR, due to the "War on Terror". A large and increasing number of foreign nationals are being held in American prisons unlawfully, often without charges, legal due process or access to legal counsel. These persons are often subjected to psychological and physical torture due to their nationality or religious beliefs. Its' Afghan prisoners of war in Cuba are treated without dignity, in violation of the Geneva Convention. At the same time, the U.S. has insisted that its military personnel must be held exempt from war crimes charges by the international community, regardless of their actions.

The United States repeatedly defies the resolutions and authority of the United Nations, making is clear that it views this body as merely a tool which can be occasionally used to achieve its special interests, rather than those of humanity in general. America has also made it quite clear that if its desires are not met by the international community/United Nations, that it will act on its own regardless of their wishes, and in whatever manner it sees fit. This includes pre-emptive military invasion of any country which dares to oppose its policies, and for whatever flimsy, baseless justification it gives to the world as an excuse for such actions.

The international community must seriously ask itself, "Who's next?" in this series of American invasions of sovereign lands. "Who will die next...by the thousands, tens of thousands or millions..." at the bloody hands of American imperialism?

FOR THESE REASONS and others, it is hereby proposed that a United Nations resolution be created for the purpose of dis-arming and otherwise rendering harmless, the major threat to world peace which the United States has become. Toward this end the necessity of ousting its current dictator, George W. Bush, and the legislative bodies of that government which currently parrot him without serious debate, is self evident.

The functional means necessary to achieve this goal are hereby suggested. They include;

1) Economic sanctions and trade tarriffs, aimed at undermining the U.S. economy, thereby depriving its monstrous military apparatus of the necessary life blood to function.

2) The insistence of a complete withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from wherever they may be stationed around the world. This includes U.S. occupation forces already in conquered countries, (such as Afghanistan).

3) The elimination of world petroleum exports to the United States, as well as the necessary raw materials which make it's industrial-military apparatus possible.

4) The withdrawal of foreign investment in U.S. companies, and their various enterprises. This includes the canceling of existing contracts with U.S. companies, especially those involved with the extraction of petroleum, the mining of precious metals, deforestation, sweat shop industries of clothing, plastics, electronics and other manufacture, as well as other vital resources from lands not within their territorial domain.

5) That U.S. military and civil leaders, especially George W. Bush and his entire cabinet, be brought to justice for their heinous participations in war crimes and crimes against humanity the world over, by the international courts. World leaders must understand that no one country can both make the rules and break them, when it comes to international justice.

6) The use of joint military force if necessary, to curb, restrict and otherwise prevent the American advance toward world domination. America must be deprived of what it most desires, which are the resources of others to fuel an extravagant lifestyle, and the support of bribed or bullied foreign leaders to accomplish a singularly selfish, unilateral agenda.

In effect, the United States must feel the full pressure of international sovereignty, as it expresses its supreme dissatisfaction with the US imperialism around the globe.

The United States must also understand that its anti-humanitarian, corporate-minded, industrial-military schemes for global dominance are nothing short of those employed by Hitler, and other fascist dictators and governments, throughout the course of history. [Constantly declaring war and occupying one country after the next demonstrates this.] The international community, and indeed the peoples of the entire world, find this American attitude and behavior unacceptable. They will no longer be coerced or made to feel insecure in their own places of residence and worship, at the behest of American whims.


People of the free world

Forward this to your governments, United Nations representatives and friends worldwide. Encourage others to do the same.


From: http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05A.byrd.rush.htm

Address by Senator Robert C. Byrd

Rush to War Ignores U.S. Constitution

Thursday, 3 October, 2002

"The great Roman historian, Titus Livius, said, " All things will be clear and distinct to the man who does not hurry; haste is blind and improvident."

"Blind and improvident," Mr. President. "Blind and improvident." Congress would be wise to heed those words today, for as sure as the sun rises in the east, we are embarking on a course of action with regard to Iraq that, in its haste, is both blind and improvident. We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert conflict.

The newly bellicose mood that permeates this White House is unfortunate, all the moreso because it is clearly motivated by campaign politics. Republicans are already running attack ads against Democrats on Iraq. Democrats favor fast approval of a resolution so they can change the subject to domestic economic problems. (NY Times 9/20/2002)

Before risking the lives of American troops, all members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- must overcome the siren song of political polls and focus strictly on the merits, not the politics, of this most serious issue.

The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.


If he could speak to us today, what would Lincoln say of the Bush doctrine concerning preemptive strikes?

In a September 18 report, the Congressional Research Service had this to say about the preemptive use of military force:

The historical record indicates that the United States has never, to date, engaged in a "preemptive" military attack against another nation. Nor has the United States ever attacked another nation militarily prior to its first having been attacked or prior to U.S. citizens or interests first having been attacked, with the singular exception of the Spanish-American War. The Spanish-American War is unique in that the principal goal of United States military action was to compel Spain to grant Cuba its political independence.

The Congressional Research Service also noted that the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 "represents a threat situation which some may argue had elements more parallel to those presented by Iraq today -- but it was resolved without a "preemptive" military attack by the United States."

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war and to call forth the militia "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that the President has the authority to call forth the militia to preempt a perceived threat. And yet, the resolution before the Senate avers that the President "has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Miliary Force" following the September 11 terrorist attack. What a cynical twisting of words! The reality is that Congress, exercising the authority granted to it under the Constitution, granted the President specific and limited authority to use force against the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. Nowhere was there an implied recognition of inherent authority under the Constitution to "deter and prevent" future acts of terrorism.

Think for a moment of the precedent that this resolution will set, not just for this President but for future Presidents. From this day forward, American Presidents will be able to invoke Senate Joint Resolution 46 as justification for launching preemptive military strikes against any sovereign nations that they perceive to be a threat. Other nations will be able to hold up the United States as the model to justify their military adventures. Do you not think that India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia are closely watching the outcome of this debate? Do you not think that future adversaries will look to this moment to rationalize the use of military force to achieve who knows what ends?

Perhaps a case can be made that Iraq poses such a clear and immediate danger to the United States that preemptive military action is the only way to deal with the threat. To be sure, weapons of mass destruction are a 20th century horror that the Framers of the Constitution had no way of foreseeing. But they did foresee the frailty of human nature and the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one individual. That is why the Framers bestowed on Congress, not the President, the power to declare war.

As James Madison wrote in 1793, "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man...."

Congress has a responsibility to exercise with extreme care the power to declare war. There is no weightier matter to be considered. A war against Iraq will affect thousands if not tens of thousands of lives, and perhaps alter the course of history. It will surely affect the balance of power in the Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste, under the glare of election year politics and the pressure of artificial deadlines. And yet any observer can see that that is exactly what the Senate is proposing to do.

The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?


In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of Administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would preclude the Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue.

The President is using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit to sound the call to arms, but it is from Capitol Hill that such orders must flow. The people, through their elected representatives, must make that decision. It is here that debate must take place and where the full spectrum of the public's desires, concerns, and misgivings must be heard. We should not allow ourselves to be pushed into one course or another in the face of a full court publicity press from the White House. We have, rather, a duty to the nation and her sons and daughters to carefully examine all possible courses of action and to consider the long term consequences of any decision to act.


The Congressional Budget Office has already made some estimations regarding the cost of a possible war with Iraq. In a September 30 report, CBO estimates that the incremental costs -- the costs that would be incurred above those budgeted for routine operations -- would be between $9 billion to $13 billion a month, depending on the actual force size deployed. Prosecuting a war would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month. Since the length of the war cannot be predicted, CBO could give no total battle estimate. After hostilities end, the cost to return U.S. forces to their home bases would range between $5 billion and $7 billion, according to CBO. And the incremental cost of an occupation following combat operations varies from about $1 billion to $4 billion a month. This estimate does not include any cost of rebuilding or humanitarian assistance. That is a steep price to pay in dollars, but dollars are only a part of the equation.

CLIP - To read the entire unabridged speech, go at http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05A.byrd.rush.htm


The "Pre-emptive Strike" Vote

Let's exercise the democratic process! Let's take a vote.

After reading the two statements below, please indicate "yes" (I agree to all) or "no" (I don't agree with all) of those statements, and then explain why, if you wish.

Statement #1
It is "evil, unacceptable and criminal" to KNOWINGLY GIVE MONEY to fund a terrorist group, which kills thousands of innocent people in unprovoked attacks.

Statement #2;
It is "good, expected and patriotic" to KNOWINGLY PAY TAXES to fund your military, which kills millions of innocent people in unprovoked attacks.



COMMENTS; (optional)

Replies may be sent to: Loveaerobics2000@yahoo.com

Sent by Matthew Webb <catalyst@harborside.com>