Begin forwarded message:
From: "DM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 12:13:10 PM US/Pacific
To: "Ian Andrew Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FW: Fw: Ralph Nader
�
Sent to me by a radio friend this indeed is a well written piece.
�
Subject:Fwd: Fw: Ralph Nader
�
it's a bit ironic, that if Ralph hadn't run for President, Al Gore would
have been elected!
> > By RALPH NADER
> >
> > As this is written, the campaign known as "shock and awe" has begun over
> >
> > Iraq and the five million
> > civilian inhabitants of Baghdad. Bombs indeed shock, but why the word
> > "awe"? This is Defense
> > Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's way of turning the Iraq bombardment against
> > what he knows is a
> > defenseless country, run by a brutal dictator, into a metaphor for the
> > rest of the world. He wants the
> > whole world in "awe" of the mighty military superpower in preparation
> > for the next move against another country in or outside the "axis of
> > evil".
> >
> > This is truly an extraordinary time in American history. A dozen men and
> >
> > one woman are making very
> > risky consequential decisions sealed off from much muted dissent inside
> > the Pentagon, the State
> > Department, the CIA and other agencies that have warned the President
> > and his small band of
> > ideological cohorts to think more deeply before they leap. They are
> > launching our nation into winning a
> > war which generates later battles that may not be winnable -- at least
> > not without great economic and
> > human costs to our country.
> >
> > But let's back up a moment. Our founding fathers most emphatically
> > placed the warmaking power in the hands of Congress. They did not want
> > some arrogant or brooding successor to King George III to plunge the
> > country into war. They wanted a collegial body of many elected
> > representatives to decide openly (Article I, section 8).
> >
> > Last year, Congress, with leaders of both Parties, surrendered their
> > warmaking power to George W.
> > Bush. This itself is unlawful. But unfortunately, there is no judicial
> > remedy for any citizen to challenge
> > assigning the warmaking power to the President. Senator Robert Byrd
> > (D--West Virginia) eloquently and repeatedly objected to this
> > constitutional abdication. The large majority of Congress just shrugged.
> >
> > They knew that there was no punishment for this institutional crime.
> >
> > Mr. Bush, on the other hand, was only too eager to strip the Congress of
> >
> > such authority, just as the
> > Attorney General, both by action and by demanding and receiving such
> > crushers of civil liberties as the
> > so--called U.S. Patriot Act, was eager to diminish the role of the
> > judiciary. Having turned our federal
> > system of separation of powers between three branches into a one--branch
> >
> > hegemony, Mr. Bush
> > proceeded to flout the U.N. Charter, which the U.S. mostly drafted and
> > signed on to in 1945.
> >
> > His preemptive war -- the first in U.S. history -- against a nation that
> >
> > has neither attacked nor threatened our country cannot be construed as
> > self--defense and therefore violates international law. Washington would
> >
> > certainly make exactly this point were another nation in the world to
> > attack a country it finds noxious.
> >
> > Then how do the arguments for going to war that Bush has made endlessly
> > on the mass media for a
> > year, without a steady rebuttal by the cowering Democratic Party, stand
> > up? Bush's assertion that Iraq
> > is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program is based on evidence that
> > Congressman Henry Waxman
> > called a "hoax." In a blistering letter to the President on March 17th,
> > Congressman Waxman all but
> > called Bush's assertion that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger a lie,
> > citing both the CIA and the
> > International Atomic Energy Agency as his authorities. Neither agency
> > has evidence of a rebuilding
> > nuclear weapons program.
> >
> > President Bush has repeatedly tried to tie Iraq with Al--Qaeda. There is
> >
> > no evidence to support these
> > allegations. The two are mortal enemies -- one secular and the other
> > fundamentalist. The CIA informed Congress that confronting a U.S.
> > overthrow attack, our former, supplied ally, Saddam Hussein "probably
> > would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." Even
> > then, analysts have published articles casting doubt on the efficacy of
> > whatever mass destruction weapons he may have against a modern air and
> > missile attack followed by spread--out armored vehicles racing toward a
> > surrendering army.
> >
> > The UN inspectors found nothing in their forays inside Iraq before Bush
> > stopped their increasing
> > penetration of that regime.
> >
> > On March 18th, the Washington Post, which avidly favors the war, felt
> > obliged to publish a story by two of its leading reporters titled, "Bush
> >
> > Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq." The article questioned a
> > "number of allegations" that the Bush administration is making against
> > Iraq that "have been challenged -- and in some cases disproved -- by the
> >
> > United Nations, European governments and even U.S.intelligence reports."
> >
> > Now that the "short" war has begun, it is hoped that there will be
> > minimum casualties on both sides. But after the U.S. military prevails,
> > the longer battles during occupation begin. They are fires, disease,
> > hunger, plunder and looting by desperate people and roving gangs, and
> > bloodletting between major
> > religious and ethnic factions.
> >
> > U.S. intelligence agencies say the Iraq war will likely increase global
> > terrorism including inside this
> > country. Respected retired military generals and admirals, such as
> > Marine General Anthony Zinni,
> > believe it will destabilize the Middle East region, undermine the war on
> >
> > terrorism and distract from the
> > Israeli--Palestinian conflict. "King George" is not listening to them or
> >
> > to other prominent former leaders in the State Department, Pentagon or
> > the major intelligence agencies, including his father's own National
> > Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft.
> >
> > This must be the only war in our history promoted by chickenhawks --
> > former belligerent draft dodgers -- and opposed by so many of those
> > inside and outside of government who served in the armed forces.
> >
> > Still the Messianic militarist in the White House refuses to even listen
> >
> > -- either to opposing viewpoints
> > held by tens of millions of Americans or to viewpoints counseling other
> > non--war ways to achieve the
> > objectives in Iraq. Indeed, he has refused to meet with any domestic
> > antiwar delegation. Groups
> > representing veterans, labor, business, elected city officials, women,
> > clergy, physicians and academics
> > with intelligence experience have written requesting an audience (see
> > www.essentialaction.org).
> >
> > Michael Kinsley is a sober, bright columnist who said that "in terms of
> > the power he now claims, George W. Bush is now the closest thing in a
> > long time to dictator of the world." One might also use a Canadian
> > phrase -- an elected dictator. Correction -- a judicially--selected
> > dictator.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
�
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
