Re: [CTRL] Letter to John Kerry

[Eric Hoffsten]

>I will explain:
>
>First, you are right. Iraq was not a threat. The problem was that Iraq's
>government was. The insinuation that Saddam Hussein was not a threat is
>absurd. If Saddam Hussein was so non-threatening, the why did the UN
>feel the need to pass 71 (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html)
>resolutions to condemn and contain, and control him and his cronies,
>including resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein give up his WMD
>programs?

So I assume you're prepared to claim the UN is de facto correct in every one of its decisions? If so, then please explain why you would support the Bush administration's unwillingness to allow the UN inspectors to continue their work last winter, despite the UN's own insistence that they were making positive headway (including the agreed-upon destruction of the Al Samoud missiles by Iraq).

Saddam Hussein was/is no saint, but to claim he was/is a threat to anyone beyond his own citizens strains the credulity of any thinking individual.

>Second, the very same US military personnel and Iraqi civilians you are
>so eager to defend were already suffering. Yes, no US military personnel
>died as a result of combat during the containment, however dozens of
>them died preparing for and supporting that mission and dozens more died
>as a result of terrorism directly linked to our presence there. And, it
>was just a matter of time before there were combat deaths. Never mind
>the hardships endured by the personnel that were deployed over there for
>six, twelve, even 24 months at a time supporting containment.

On this point with you I'm wholly in agreement. I'd long supported an end to the sanctions and the US-imposed no-fly zones (which resulted in weekly bombings). Food for Oil only lined Saddam's pockets, and the sanctions -- which prevented, for example, the importation of chlorine, necessary for clean drinking water -- hurt the civilians of Iraq rather than the "leadership." This does not, however, justify the Bush administration's disregard for international law.

>During that same period, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians were
>murdered by their own government at the rate of as many as 30,000 a year
>conservatively. Tens of thousands more died as a direct result of the
>UN's policy of containment.

Yes, the UN's (and US's) "containment" policies resulted in the deaths of not tens, but HUNDREDS of thousands of Iraqi civilians for over ten years.

>My question is: how was our toppling of Saddam Hussein the wrong thing
>to do?

And my answer is: Because of the way we went about it. Plain and simple. The Bush administration lied about the offensive capabilities of Iraq, presented its case for war in a disingenuous manner, ignored the will of not only its own citizens but the entirety of the rest of the world (who were wise enough to see Iraq as the non-threat that it was), and ultimately, because of the enormous scale of its actions, has run its own economy into the ground, leaving little in the way of federal funds for much-needed social programs at home and -- to take a federalist view -- underfunding the states themselves.

>My next question is: are you afraid? If so, why are you doing nothing
>about it?

Personally? No. I realize that the "terrorist threat" to the US is almost nonexistent. 9-11 was an anomoly (and I won't go into the machinations of that here, but let's just say I'm rather skeptical of the Official Story). But you better believe I'm doing *everything* that I can to replace this dangerous, psychotic, paranoid administration currently in power.

Actually, in all fairness, I'm a little bit afraid, but only of the Bush cartel seizing power for another four years. If that happens, I'm afraid that the country that I grew up to love and believe in will be gone, with the Constitution shredded and a police state installed, and the gap between the super-rich and everyday working people like myself widening to point that we live in what is in effect a feudalist society.

>It strikes me as absurd that anyone would claim that Americans are
>afraid or intimidated of anything. We have a well-established track
>record of taking matters into our own hands when we think our government
>is treating us wrongly from our own Revolution, to the Civil War, to the
>Equal Rights movement. Modern times would be no acceptation.

Yeah, you'd think that, wouldn't you? I sure would. But here we are. Americans continually cite "Terrorism/National Security" as one of their top concerns, though recently "Jobs & the Economy" seems to be surpassing that category. That's a good sign. And I hope you're right about that whole "taking matters into our own hands" bit... the first step will be throwing out the madmen in Washington right now.

>And what terror? Where is it? What is it? How is it being done without a
>nationalist outcry to end it?

Hmmm... depends on where you want to look. Abroad? Rather than going after bin Laden as a massive criminal operation, he visited terror upon the already spectacularly devasted people of Afghanistan by massively bombing their already massively bombed country. Rather than continuing to go after bin Laden, he chose -- again, for any number of reasons -- to bomb Iraq, depose its leader, and take over the country (at a cost to the US which I won't revisit again in this post), knowing full well that America's safety and interests were in no way at risk.

At home, he's got John Ashcroft as his attack dog, who famously threatened any senator or congressman wavering on passing the PATRIOT Act with "giving comfort to the enemy." He's got Dick Cheney on TV claiming ties to Al Qaeda despite the fact that NOTHING points to that link. He's got Tom Ridge upping his little color-coded chart every time something untoward comes out about the administration. He's got a State of Union in which he claims that the hope of the "danger" of "terrorism" being behind us is "understandable, comforting -- and false."

Can you honestly claim that he's *not* trying to keep people scared? That fear is how he has and continues to govern; those who are willing to actually vote for him do so in large part because of their own fears, having neglected to pay attention to his actually policies -- which, inarguably, do spectacular damage to our environment, the rights of working people, social justice in the broad context, and our very Constitution.

And "how is it being done without a nationalist outcry to end it?" Well, that outcry exists, but since the corporate media has long pledged its fealty -- and is loathe to present dissent to the American public -- it gets scant coverage. But that outcry exists, and if you bothered to read those outlets not known as FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc., you'd have heard it. In fact, I have to ask: Do you even bother to read the posts to this listserv? The outcry is deafening.

>Please back up your statements with facts.

Which citations would you prefer? David Kay's report that Saddam, you know, really had nothing all along? The death tolls of Afghan civilians? Iraqi civilians? The deleterious effects of using depleted uranium ammunition? Bush's record of job losses since taking office? Treaties thrown out or otherwise disregarded? The widening gap between the rich and middle/working class? Just let me know which "statements" you want backed up; I'd be happy to provide you with the URLs.

>History is a very fickle beast to be predicting what it will and will
>not do. You will not look kindly on this chapter in our history, I am
>sure, but we will no know history's take until it is written. Based upon
>what I have read so far, the split is 50-50.

You're absolutely right, but 50-50 may be a bit generous to the Bush/neocon perspective.

>And how is this and unending situation? We've been in Iraq less than a
>year. What makes that unending? Again, facts please.

Okay, okay... "unending" may be a bit hyperbolic, but conservative projections have us there for the next ten years, and if this administration's record on underestimating costs is any indication (cf. Medicare overhaul, Iraq, job losses, tax cuts for working people, Education, etc.), this might be enough to, as Grover Nordquist says, starve government to the point where you can "drown it in the bathtub." In short, it doesn't look good, and if the wisdom of the neo-con "leadership" is any indication (and these are the people that labelled Iraq a "cakewalk," and insisted we'd be greeted as liberators), this whole "democracy" thing ain't exactly a sure bet.

>Then I must be buddies with the president as well as everyone I deployed
>with, because we were all volunteers who went knowing the potential
>before we went. In fact, about 3 million of us must be buddies with the
>president because we do not see mass desertions from our military as a
>result of our actions in Iraq. In fact, the president enjoys popular
>support among the members of the US military.

Your personal relationship with the POTUS is none of my business, but I find it hard to believe, given the recent military stop-loss order, the high suicide rate, and the non-re-enrollment among the National Guard, that Dubya enjoys "popular support." I think our troops feel duped, are royally pissed off, and want to come home to their families. And those who are paying attention are seeing how Bush isn't exactly "support[ing] our troops."

>As for deliberate misuse, how is our current president's use any better
>or worse than any other presidents? Where you opposed to Bosnia and
>Kosovo? Where you opposed to Somolia? If these actions are impeachable,
>then practically every president we have ever had should be impeached
>for misusing the military.

A) This is not a contest, and past presidents are not the issue here. B) Yes, I was opposed to Clinton's unilateral action in Kosovo, and C) the hideously misguided actions in Somolia.

And yes, you're right -- pretty much every president we've ever had (at least in recent memory) *should* have been impeached, with the possible exception of Carter. And maybe Ford, but he was such a buffoon that it really didn't matter.

But Dubya's actions are so outrageous, so egregious, so at odds with what America is about and what it should stand for, and Dubya himself is so intertwined with corporate interests that he should not only be impeached, but he should be doing hard time.

>The bottom line is that protecting the interests of our nation is always
>the right thing to do. That is why we have a nation as strong and as
>free as the one we have now. And those of us who understand such things
>will keep on protecting those interests as long as we can.

Well, I'm not so sure that I agree w/ your first statement here, particularly when that "protection" is so shamelessly self-serving, and with so little regard for human life or the planet upon which we all live, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as to it being "the right thing to do." Problem is, our "interests" weren't served by invading Iraq; Halliburton's interests were served. As were Bechtel's. As were any number of defense contractors. As were those of the Republican National Committee, who rakes in the dough from the very same corporations who're benefitting so handsomely from this criminal war.

As for your whole "strong and free" bit, well, we're getting less and less "free" with each passing day that this administration is in power. Questions? Take it up w/ John Ashcroft.

The interests of the American people were maliciously trampled by this administration's actions in Iraq, and continue to be so. In the end, we all lose.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." --Benjamin Franklin

--eh