Anti-War
Anyone who doubts former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's recent claims that President Bush mislead the public and secretly planned the Iraq war eight months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 needs to read the two letters sent to then President Bill Clinton in 1998 and Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich by current members of the Bush administration urging Clinton to launch a preemptive strike against Iraq.
Back then, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz and other pro-war hawks lobbied Clinton and Gingrich to remove former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power using military force and indict him as a "war criminal." Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, both of whom were working in the private sector at the time, were affiliated with the right-wing think tank Project for a New American Century, which was founded by Weekly Standard editor William Kristol in 1997 to promote America's foreign and defense policies.
Back then, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz and other pro-war hawks lobbied Clinton and Gingrich to remove former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power using military force and indict him as a "war criminal." Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, both of whom were working in the private sector at the time, were affiliated with the right-wing think tank Project for a New American Century, which was founded by Weekly Standard editor William Kristol in 1997 to promote America's foreign and defense policies.
Dear Friends,
I’ve been thinking a lot about our kids who are in the armed forces serving in Iraq. I’ve received hundreds of letters from our troops in Iraq — and they are telling me something very different from what we are seeing on the evening news.
What they are saying to me, often eloquently and in heart-wrenching words, is that they were lied to — and this war has nothing to do with the security of the United States of America.
I’ve written back and spoken on the phone to many of them and I’ve asked a few of them if it would be OK if I posted their letters on my website and they’ve said yes. They do so at great personal risk (as they may face disciplinary measures for exercising their right to free speech). I thank them for their bravery.
I’ve been thinking a lot about our kids who are in the armed forces serving in Iraq. I’ve received hundreds of letters from our troops in Iraq — and they are telling me something very different from what we are seeing on the evening news.
What they are saying to me, often eloquently and in heart-wrenching words, is that they were lied to — and this war has nothing to do with the security of the United States of America.
I’ve written back and spoken on the phone to many of them and I’ve asked a few of them if it would be OK if I posted their letters on my website and they’ve said yes. They do so at great personal risk (as they may face disciplinary measures for exercising their right to free speech). I thank them for their bravery.
Count our blessings, an act the eternally pessimistic American left usually shuns on the grounds that it might indicate we've made some headway in progress toward the good, the true and the beautiful.
First, let's look back. This year was a pretty good year. Who can complain about a span of time in which both William Bennett and Rush Limbaugh, outed respectively as a compulsive gambler and a drug addict, were installed themselves in the public stocks amid the derision of the citizenry? Some say that they've both winched themselves out of the mud, with Bennett's sessions in Las Vegas and Limbaugh's steady diet of OxyContin already faded in the public mind. I don't think so. There's nothing so enjoyable as the plight of a professional moralizer caught in the wrong part of town.
First, let's look back. This year was a pretty good year. Who can complain about a span of time in which both William Bennett and Rush Limbaugh, outed respectively as a compulsive gambler and a drug addict, were installed themselves in the public stocks amid the derision of the citizenry? Some say that they've both winched themselves out of the mud, with Bennett's sessions in Las Vegas and Limbaugh's steady diet of OxyContin already faded in the public mind. I don't think so. There's nothing so enjoyable as the plight of a professional moralizer caught in the wrong part of town.
In a post today under the above title, David McReynolds of the
Socialist Party writes that we should "continue the fight to close down
the Guantanamo Base entirely, including its return to Cuba". It reminded
me of the last time that was an issue, during the Cuba Missile Crisis of
1962, which younger readers need to learn about. I describe it as
follows in my autobiography:
"American nuclear missiles had been stationed in Turkey, right on the Soviet border, for years. Now, however, American spy planes discovered Soviet missiles in Cuba. President Kennedy announced a naval blockade against Soviet ships en route to that island, a flat violation of freedom of the seas, which is a long-standing, universal principle of international law. Its acceptance would mean Soviet surrender to domination of the world by the United States. Moscow could not accept that. The world was on the verge of nuclear destruction for the first and only time ever.
"American nuclear missiles had been stationed in Turkey, right on the Soviet border, for years. Now, however, American spy planes discovered Soviet missiles in Cuba. President Kennedy announced a naval blockade against Soviet ships en route to that island, a flat violation of freedom of the seas, which is a long-standing, universal principle of international law. Its acceptance would mean Soviet surrender to domination of the world by the United States. Moscow could not accept that. The world was on the verge of nuclear destruction for the first and only time ever.
Halliburton Corp., the oil field
services company once
headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, told the New York City Comptroller’s office Monday that it won’t scale back its business dealings in Iran, despite concerns from the City’s Comptroller William Thompson about “corporate ties to states sponsoring terrorist activity,” which could force the New York City Police and Fire Departments to pull its $23 million investment in the company.
The Comptroller’s office, on behalf of the New York City Police and Fire Department pension funds, in a resolution last March urged the boards of directors of Halliburton and General Electric and ConocoPhillips to set up committees to review its operations in terror-linked countries, specifically Iran. Halliburton helps build drilling rigs in Iran’s southern oil field.
Thompson accused the firms of setting up offshore and United Kingdom subsidiaries to sidestep U.S. laws against doing business with Iran and Syria, countries that Washington says sponsor “terrorism.” Shareholder value is threatened by possible negative publicity, public protests and a loss of consumer confidence, he said.
The Comptroller’s office, on behalf of the New York City Police and Fire Department pension funds, in a resolution last March urged the boards of directors of Halliburton and General Electric and ConocoPhillips to set up committees to review its operations in terror-linked countries, specifically Iran. Halliburton helps build drilling rigs in Iran’s southern oil field.
Thompson accused the firms of setting up offshore and United Kingdom subsidiaries to sidestep U.S. laws against doing business with Iran and Syria, countries that Washington says sponsor “terrorism.” Shareholder value is threatened by possible negative publicity, public protests and a loss of consumer confidence, he said.
Like so many Americans, I do feel frustrated, angry, and disheartened with the current government. Many friends, colleagues, and acquaintances have shared their sense of betrayal by George W. Bush. For the first time, I decided to actually act, to do something. Writing two letters a week to various politicians and companies didn’t seem like enough. I marched on Washington DC with the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition last October 25th.
Having never done this before, I was hesitant and wary. Getting on a bus of complete strangers to protest our military’s occupation of another nation, what am I doing? I could get arrested. My dad’s going to flip! My students could see me on the television. What am I going to pack? I’ll admit, it was a little thrilling. By Friday the 24th, I was telling everybody about it not to sell my beliefs or obtain a reaction, but simply out of anticipation. Reactions were intriguing.
Having never done this before, I was hesitant and wary. Getting on a bus of complete strangers to protest our military’s occupation of another nation, what am I doing? I could get arrested. My dad’s going to flip! My students could see me on the television. What am I going to pack? I’ll admit, it was a little thrilling. By Friday the 24th, I was telling everybody about it not to sell my beliefs or obtain a reaction, but simply out of anticipation. Reactions were intriguing.
While Bush I had problems with the "vision thing," his son does not. The core vision driving Bush II foreign policy is American global domination through economic and military coercion.
The Bush II rationale for global domination is aggressively presented in Project for a New American Century; it and similar scripts were drafted by radical neo-conservatives (neo-cons), many of whom now dictate Bush II militarism. So far, the insatiable Bush II thirst for global power and profits has produced:
. Administration disdain for the United Nations and its often- voiced derision of many of our closest allies;
. The ill-conceived and ill-fated War on Terror;
. Numerous false justifications for the invasion of Iraq;
. Unseemly threats to nations opposed to American militarism;
. Current plans for America assuming the role of the world's chief police power;
. Super-opportunities for Bush-sponsoring war profiteers such as Halliburton and Bechtel.
The Bush II rationale for global domination is aggressively presented in Project for a New American Century; it and similar scripts were drafted by radical neo-conservatives (neo-cons), many of whom now dictate Bush II militarism. So far, the insatiable Bush II thirst for global power and profits has produced:
. Administration disdain for the United Nations and its often- voiced derision of many of our closest allies;
. The ill-conceived and ill-fated War on Terror;
. Numerous false justifications for the invasion of Iraq;
. Unseemly threats to nations opposed to American militarism;
. Current plans for America assuming the role of the world's chief police power;
. Super-opportunities for Bush-sponsoring war profiteers such as Halliburton and Bechtel.
In Washington, DC, it was a highly reenergized Anti-War Movement that rallied on Saturday afternoon, Oct. 25, 2003. Under a blue sky, with temperatures hovering in the mid-60s, they marched by the thousands. They demanded that all U.S. troops get out of Iraq and chanted slogans, like: "No more lies. Bush has got to go. Bring the troops home."
The route took the protesters from the Washington Monument, to north on 17th St., crossing H. St., near fabled Lafayette Square, (which sits in front of the White House), then down 15th Street to Pennsylvania Ave, while passing the Justice Department on their right, and the FBI Building on their left, to finish off on Constitution Ave., in front of "The Ellipse".
The route took the protesters from the Washington Monument, to north on 17th St., crossing H. St., near fabled Lafayette Square, (which sits in front of the White House), then down 15th Street to Pennsylvania Ave, while passing the Justice Department on their right, and the FBI Building on their left, to finish off on Constitution Ave., in front of "The Ellipse".
"It's not about oil. It's not about oil."
But we're taking their oil. And not just to finance reconstruction.
Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of the Iraqi occupation, made that clear back in July when he declared that Iraq needs to accept foreign investment and privatization of its oil before a permanent government is put in charge of the country. In other words, democracy is welcome only after the most important economic decisions for the future of Iraqis have been decided for them.
You’d think that such a blatant rejection of democracy and obvious grab at Iraq’s oil would attract more notice. Bremer made it clear that corporations have priority over people in Iraq, and that the U.S. occupation plans to ensure that.
Our occupation of Iraq has an eerie similarity to another intervention in the Middle East that occurred 50 years ago--the CIA-British coup that ousted Iran’s democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the infamous Shah of Iran.
But we're taking their oil. And not just to finance reconstruction.
Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of the Iraqi occupation, made that clear back in July when he declared that Iraq needs to accept foreign investment and privatization of its oil before a permanent government is put in charge of the country. In other words, democracy is welcome only after the most important economic decisions for the future of Iraqis have been decided for them.
You’d think that such a blatant rejection of democracy and obvious grab at Iraq’s oil would attract more notice. Bremer made it clear that corporations have priority over people in Iraq, and that the U.S. occupation plans to ensure that.
Our occupation of Iraq has an eerie similarity to another intervention in the Middle East that occurred 50 years ago--the CIA-British coup that ousted Iran’s democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the infamous Shah of Iran.
Democrats in Congress have abandoned their efforts to investigate the White House's use of questionable intelligence information about Iraq's alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, saying the issue has been "eclipsed" by President Bush's request for $87 billion from Congress to continue funding the war there.
David Helfert, a spokesman for Congressman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, who criticized the White House for relying too heavily on murky intelligence to get support for the war, said Friday that Congressional Democrats would no longer pursue hearings on the intelligence matter.
"We're past that," Helfert said, referring to the intelligence issue. "Those questions were eclipsed by the supplemental request by President Bush for $87 billion" to fund the Iraq war. "Congress if focusing on asking questions about the $87 billion, what it will be used for and whether it's worth it. It would be a good characterization to say that the intelligence questions on Iraq and how the President came to believe that it had weapons of mass destruction are no longer an issue."
David Helfert, a spokesman for Congressman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, who criticized the White House for relying too heavily on murky intelligence to get support for the war, said Friday that Congressional Democrats would no longer pursue hearings on the intelligence matter.
"We're past that," Helfert said, referring to the intelligence issue. "Those questions were eclipsed by the supplemental request by President Bush for $87 billion" to fund the Iraq war. "Congress if focusing on asking questions about the $87 billion, what it will be used for and whether it's worth it. It would be a good characterization to say that the intelligence questions on Iraq and how the President came to believe that it had weapons of mass destruction are no longer an issue."