Poor Tony Blair wakes up
Title: Message Poor Tony Blair wakes up The prime minister thought he could sagely steer his impetuous American friends away from actions they would later regret. It turns out they were just playing him for a patsy Terry JonesSunday March 16, 2003 It's not easy when you find out that your friends have been using you as a chump. Tony Blair must have been really sick this week when Donald Rumsfeld casually let drop that Mr.Bush and his team couldn't give a toss about Britain sending soldiers to Iraq. Truth is, they'd probably prefer it if we didn't, but our participation at least means they can pretend it's an international force. But I bet Tony feels terribly slighted - after all he's gone through to prove his devotion to the ideals of extremist Republican militarism. He's practically split his party, put his own leadership in jeopardy and made himself look thoroughly ill in the process. And what has he got out of it? A few pats on the back and nice Christmas card from the White House, I expect. I mean it's simply not fair. Here he is - Prime Minister of Great Britain (just) - and he's doing everything he possibly can including leaning over backwards and licking his own bottom. He's spending vast amounts of money he hasn't got on sending men to the Gulf. He's put his entire nation in the front line for terrorist reprisals. He's upset his other admirers in Europe, and - to cap it all - he's put his name to a plan that is not just plain stupid but is actually wicked, and in return? Zilch. All the contracts for reconstructing Iraq are to go to American companies - preferably ones like Haliburton, which remain such good friends with their old boss vice-president Dick Cheney. But not a single British company is to benefit from all the mayhem and destruction that the bombing is going to cause. Poor old Tony doesn't even get a bone. I suppose he should have been more careful about who he was playing with in the first place. But they took him for a sucker. He thought he'd be able to cut a decent figure as the elder statesman, sagely steering his impetuous American friends away from actions they would later regret. And for that he was prepared to subscribe to the most hawkish, aggressive regime that has ever held power in the good ole US of A. A regime whose planners spelled out their schemes for American military world domination in a report for the Project for the New American Century published in September 2000, before the George Bush seized power. (You can look it up on www.newamericancentury.org). Their aim, they say in their report, is "to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests". And they make it quite clear that they envisage achieving those aims not by diplomacy but through military might. For which reason they need "increase defense spending gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross national product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually." At the time they knew there was little hope of the American public buying into such imperialistic dreams. What was needed they said in their pre Sept 11th report was: "some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbour." Well the dreams came true. And now it's quite obvious that instead of Mr Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney listening attentively to Mr Blair's sage advice, they've simply been using him as a patsy - a convenient fig-leaf. Tony Blair has merely been helping to give Mr. Bush's barbaric planners for World domination credibility amongst the American public. The only conceivable hope of stopping their militaristic global ambitions is for the rest of the world to oppose them. There might then be some hope that the American public would wake up to what sort of a government they currently have. The reawakening of American democracy is the only hope for a future world that is not ridden by terrorism and global warfare. · Terry Jones writes regularly for The Observer. To all those readers who have written in to ask if this Terry Jones had anything to do with Monty Python, the answer is yes.
American Woman Peace Activist Killed by Israeli Army
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/ISRAEL_PALESTINIANS?SITE=FLPETSECTION=HOMETEMPLATE=DEFAULT Mar 16, 3:59 PM EST Israeli Bulldozer Kills U.S. Protester By IBRAHIM BARZAKAssociated Press Writer GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- An American college student in Gaza to protest Israel operations was killed Sunday when she was run over by a bulldozer while trying to block troops from demolishing a Palestinian home. At least one Palestinian also was killed. The killing of the student by the Israelis - the first of a foreign activist in 29 months of fighting - came as Israelis and Palestinians wrangled over the terms of a U.S.-backed plan to end the violence and establish a Palestinian state. Rachel Corrie, 23, of Olympia, Wash., had been with U.S. and British demonstrators in the Rafah refugee camp trying to stop demolitions. She died in the hospital, said Dr. Ali Moussa, a hospital administrator. "This is a regrettable accident," said Capt. Jacob Dallal, an army spokesman. "We are dealing with a group of protesters who were acting very irresponsibly, putting everyone in danger." The army said soldiers were looking for explosives and tunnels used to smuggle weapons. There was no immediate reaction from Washington. Greg Schnabel, 28, of Chicago, said four Americans and four Britons were trying to stop Israeli troops from destroying a building belonging to Dr. Samir Masri. Israel for months has been tearing down houses of Palestinians it suspects in Islamic militant activity, saying such operations deter attacks on Israel such as suicide bombings. "Rachel was alone in front of the house as we were trying to get them to stop," Schnabel said. "She waved for the bulldozer to stop. She fell down and the bulldozer kept going. It had completely run over her and then it reversed and ran back over her." She was wearing a brightly colored jacket when the bulldozer hit her. Several Palestinians gathered at the site, and troops opened fire, killing one Palestinian, witnesses said. The army had no comment on that report. Corrie was the first member of the Palestinian-backed "International Solidarity Movement" to be killed in a conflict that has claimed more than 2,200 Palestinian lives - about three times the toll on the Israeli side. A student at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Corrie would have graduated this year, Schnabel said. Her killing should be a message to President Bush, who is "providing Israel with tanks and bulldozers, and now they killed one of his own people," said Mansour Abed Allah, 29, a Palestinian human rights worker who witnessed Corrie's death. Several other U.S. citizens have been killed in Palestinian-Israeli violence. On March 5, Abigail Litle, 14, was killed in a Palestinian suicide bombing attack on a bus in the northern Israeli city of Haifa. Last July, five Americans died in a bombing at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Bush said Friday that a long-awaited "road map" for peace would be back on the table once Yasser Arafat appointed a prime minister with real power - a process that appeared well under way last week. But on Sunday, Arafat presented legislators with proposed changes to the Palestinian basic law approved last Monday that, according to a diplomatic source, that created the impression that a prime minister was not independent. The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the move could thereby reduce any pressure on Israel to constructively engage the new Palestinian prime minister. The road map worked out by the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia foresees Palestinian statehood by 2005 and an end to Israeli settlement-building in the West Bank and Gaza. Bush has said that first, the Palestinians need to change their leadership, and the road map calls for Arafat to appoint an empowered prime minister. While Arafat bowed to intense international pressure and agreed to share control with a new prime minister, Palestinian legislators said Sunday he was now asking for amendments in the law passed last week. The most significant change was that Arafat wanted the ultimate say in the creation of a new Palestinian Cabinet, suggesting he could have veto power over candidates nominated by the new prime minister. He also asked for the right to chair Cabinet meetings, said legislators. The 88-member Palestinian Legislative Council was to meet Monday to discuss the proposed changes. If agreement is reached, legislators are expected to approve the appointment of Arafat's longtime deputy, Mahmoud Abbas, as premier. Meanwhile, Israel pressed ahead with its proposals over key phrases in the draft "road map." According to the Haaretz newspaper, Israel wants to replace all references to an "independent" Palestinian state with the term "certain attributes of sovereignty," noting that such a state has to be
Saddam Warns of World War if U.S. Strikes
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=FLPETSECTION=HOMETEMPLATE=DEFAULT Mar 16, 3:59 PM EST Saddam Warns of World War if U.S. Strikes By HAMZA HENDAWIAssociated Press Writer BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein warned Sunday that if Iraq is attacked, it will take the war anywhere in the world "wherever there is sky, land or water." President Bush gave the United Nations one more day to find a diplomatic solution to the standoff. Amid fears that war is imminent, U.N. weapons inspectors flew most of their helicopters out of Iraq; Germany advised its citizens to leave the country immediately and said it would shut down its embassy in Baghdad. Residents of the Iraqi capital lined up for gasoline and snapped up canned food and bottled water. People mobbed pharmacies to buy antibiotics and tranquilizers. Workers sandbagged fighting positions outside government buildings. With nearly 300,000 U.S. and British troops in the Persian Gulf ready to strike, Bush and the leaders of Britain and Spain at an emergency summit in the Azores Islands said the United Nations must decide by Monday to support "the immediate and unconditional disarmament" of Iraq. Saddam made his own preparations, sidestepping the military chain of command to place one of his sons and three other trusted aides in charge of the defense of the nation. The decree issued late Saturday placed Iraq on a war footing. In a meeting with military commanders Sunday, the Iraqi leader threatened a broader war if the United States attacks. "When the enemy starts a large-scale battle, he must realize that the battle between us will be open wherever there is sky, land and water in the entire world," Saddam told his commanders, according to the official Iraqi News Agency. Iraqi Vice President Naji Sabri said Iraq has long been preparing "as if war is happening in an hour" "We've been preparing our people for this for more than a year," he told the Arabic satellite channel Al-Arabiya. Asked to comment on the Azores summit - which joined Bush and prime ministers Tony Blair of Britain and Jose Maria Aznar of Spain - Sabri pointed to the stiff opposition at the Security Council to Washington's bid for authorization of military action. "There is a big impasse in which the Bush-Blair policies of war ... have fallen. This impasse is causing embarrassment day after day through widespread rejection of this policy," Sabri said. The United States has sought an ultimatum for Saddam to disarm or face war. France, Russia and Germany have urged the Security Council to set a timeline - but no ultimatum - for Baghdad to fulfill disarmament tasks set by weapons inspectors. French President Jacques Chirac proposed a 30-day time frame, though Germany objected that inspectors should have as long as they want. On Sunday, U.N. weapons inspectors flew five of their eight helicopters to Syria and then on to Cyprus after an insurance company suspended its coverage. Germany issued a new travel warning, urging its citizens to leave Iraq "immediately." Once they left, it said, the embassy would be closed. Other European diplomats, including those from Switzerland and Greece, were due to leave Monday, part of an expected exodus from the country's estimated 60 missions, diplomatic sources said Sunday. Saddam on Sunday also denied Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction, as the United States and Britain claim. "Are weapons of mass destruction a needle that you can conceal in ... the scarf of an old woman that (U.N. weapons) inspectors cannot find?" Saddam asked. His order the previous night elevated his most loyal aides to command the country's four military regions. The move will make it more difficult for generals to defect and take their units with them since command rests in political hands. The decree issued by the Revolutionary Command Council - Iraq's highest executive body - placed Qusai in charge of the regime's heartland - Baghdad and the president's hometown of Tikrit. Qusai has for years been in charge of the elite Republican Guard Corps and his father's own personal security. Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid was put in charge of the key southern sector facing U.S. and British troops massed in Kuwait. Al-Majid - known by his opponents as Chemical Ali - led the 1988 campaign against rebellious Kurds in northern Iraq in which thousands of Kurds died, many in chemical attacks. Saddam's deputy, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, was placed in command of the northern region. An area that includes the Shiite Muslim holy sites of Karbala and Najaf was placed under Mazban Khader Hadi, a member of the ruling Council. Saddam himself retained sole authority to order the use of surface-to-surface missiles and aviation resources, the decree said. Even as it braced for conflict, the government destroyed two more of its banned
The High Price of Bad Diplomacy
Good article. Remarks from Business Week onBush's imperalistic behavior The High Price of Bad DiplomacyMismanaging the runup to war will do more than squander goodwill and damage allianceshttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_12/b3825801.htm
Rumsfeld Urged Clinton to Attack Iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0316-03.htm Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by the Sunday Herald (Scotland) Rumsfeld Urged Clinton to Attack Iraq by Neil Mackay DONALD Rumsfeld, the US defense secretary, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz wrote to President Bill Clinton in 1998 urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a 'hazard' to 'a significant portion of the world's supply of oil'. In the letter, Rumsfeld also calls for America to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations and says the US should not be 'crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council'. Those who signed the letter, dated January 26, 1998, include Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard Armitage, the number two at the State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East and a member of the National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. It reads: ' We urge you to seize [the] opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the US and our friends and allies around the world. 'That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.' ' We can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf war coalition to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades the UN inspections. 'If Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will all be put at hazard.' Bush's current advisers spell out their solution to the Iraqi problem: 'The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. 'We believe the US has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the Security Council.' The letter -- also signed by Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition; ex-director James Woolsey and Robert B Zoelick, the US trade representative -- was written by the signatories on behalf of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a right-wing think-tank, to which they all belong. Other founding members of PNAC include Dick Cheney, the vice-president. ©2002 smg sunday newspapers Ltd
Rewriting History in the Gathering Fog of War
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1c=Articlecid=1035779332852call_page=TS_SundayWorldcall_pageid=1038394944805call_pagepath=News/World Mar. 16, 2003. 01:00AM Rewriting history in the Gathering Fog of War LINDA DIEBELWASHINGTONBeware the Iraqi navy. Watch out for fake U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And take note, the "Mother Of All Bombs" is really a psychological device. The weirdness of war is upon us. Just one harebrained notion after another. We're left shaking our heads. But in the gathering fog of this particular war with Iraq, there's a new twist: flexible history. Recent history is being rewritten on the fly, and with born-again vigour, by White House briefers, Pentagon spin doctors and U.S. military analysts. These novel versions of events are not only irritating, they increasingly challenge our Canadian history on everything from World War II to the 1999 military intervention in Kosovo. "There was never a war more easy to stop," U.S. Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz indignantly told U.S. war veterans Tuesday about World War II. He compared the failure of the world community to stop Germany's Adolf Hitler to today's indifference to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and applauded the American sacrifice. "Many of you served in that terrible war," said Wolfowitz. "You know firsthand what it cost the U.S. in terms of lives and treasure. You saw what it cost the world 40-50 million dead, cities destroyed, great nations laid waste." True. The world did dither through the 1930s. But what Wolfowitz failed to mention was that the United States did not get involved in that war until more than two years after Canada was fighting it, and then only after Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese on Dec. 7, 1941. Washington ignored pleas from its allies, including Canada, as Britain was pulverized by German bombs, beginning in 1939. "Well, we weren't allies then," U.S. security analyst George Friedman told the Star when asked about World War II. The Star brought up the subject because Friedman was lecturing Canada on how to be a good ally. The fog of war is nothing new. In every conflict, one gets hyped "psyop" stories, head-scratchers and fast-breaking scenarios, usually difficult to check and later proving to be false. In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the most infamous example was the story about Iraqi soldiers ripping babies from incubators in Kuwait City hospitals. There were eyewitnesses, including a young woman actually the daughter of the ambassador to the U.S. who broke hearts around the world with her tearful accounts. It took congressional hearings after the war for the story to be proven untrue. This time, we have seen White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer argue that NATO launched military intervention in Kosovo in 1999 in order to oust Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic and effect "regime change." It's clear such rewrites annoy Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. On ABC's This Week Sunday, he dismissed "this notion in the United States that I find a bit surprising" and pointed out that Milosevic's defeat in elections was a later by-product of military intervention. Fleischer compares Security Council inaction on Iraq to its failure to intervene in Rwanda when thousands in the African country were being slaughtered. But he does not mention the widely held view that Madeleine Albright, then U.S. ambassador to the U.N., led the charge for the United Nations to abandon Rwanda, leaning on Security Council members not to use the word "genocide." The problem is that "White House speak" can become conventional wisdom. People have busy lives; they don't always have time to really think about every item in the onslaught of information. Most often, spin can be funny. Last week, for example, the U.S. military tested its new 9,000-kilogram bomb, which White House and Pentagon officials refer to as the "Mother Of All Bombs." In military lingo, it's dubbed MOAB, for "Massive Ordnance Air Burst." "They could have picked a better name," Mayor Dave Sakrison of Moab, Utah told CNN Tuesday. "Everyone around town is pretty much appalled." With a straight face, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tried to convince a Pentagon briefing that the main focus of the biggest conventional bomb in
Sick Caesar: Remove Bush From Office
http://freepress.org/columns.php?strFunc=displaystrID=321strYear=2003strAuthor=3 Bob FitrakisSick Caesar: Remove Bush from officeMarch 15, 2003Its time for U.S. citizens to demand that President George W. Bushs cabinet invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment and remove him from office. By a majority vote of the cabinet and the Vice President, transmitted in writing to both the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the President may be declared unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Increasingly, journalists are willing to admit that the cognitively-impaired President may indeed be mentally ill. What would drive a President who lost an election by over half a million votes to attack the arch-enemy of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, rather than to pursue the 9-11 terrorists in the Al Qaeda network? What would cause a President to ignore his generals, his own intelligence agencies, the major religious leaders of the world and the vast majority of the worlds people in pursuing an unnecessary and destabilizing war that is likely to plunge the world into chaos for the next hundred years? Perhaps the Madness of King George is best summed up in Will Thomas February 12 article Is Bush Nuts? While theres an emerging concern among some mental health care providers that the President is mentally disturbed, theres no consensus as to his actual illness. Carol Wolman M.D. asked the question, Is the President Nuts? even earlier in the October 2, 2002 counterpunch.org. In an attempt to analyze Bushs bizarre behavior, putting the world on a suicidal path, Wolman suggests the President may be suffering from antisocial personality disorder, as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses, 4th edition. As the manual points out, There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others: 1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; 2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying . . . 5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others. Professor Katherine Van Wormer, the co-author of the authoritative Addiction Treatment, worries about Bushs brain chemistry following some 20 years of alcohol addiction and alleged illicit drug use. Van Wormer notes that George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call the dry drunk. His behavior is consistent with being brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use. Alan Bisbort echoes Van Wormers thought in the American Politics Journal, in an article entitled Dry Drunk Is Bush Making a Cry for Help? The list goes on and on. Some suggest paranoia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, religious delusions and depression. Former National Security Agency employee-turned-investigative-journalist Wayne Madsen noted that the President was slurring his speech during the State of the Union address. Perhaps more shocking is the title of Maureen Dowds March 9 New York Times column, Xanax Cowboy. Dowds lead read: As he rolls up to Americas first pre-emptive invasion, bouncing from motive to motive, Mr. Bush is trying to sound rational, not rash. Determined not to be petulant, he seemed tranquilized. Of course many Americans will reject the notion that the President, with an estimated 91 I.Q. who could not name crucial Middle East leaders during his campaign, could be mentally unstable. Few realize that this has been a common problem with past presidents. Jim Cannon, an aide to incoming Reagan administration Chief of Staff Howard Baker suggested that President Reagan was incapable of performing his duties in March 1987. A March 1987 memo analyzing Reagans behavior found He was lazy; he wasnt interested in the job. They say he wont read the papers they gave him even short position papers and documents. They say he wont come over to work all he wanted to do was watch movies and television at the residence. Cannon recommend we consider invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Reagan. In retrospect, we know that Reagan was in the early stages of Alzheimers; it was apparent to many political scientists and journalists at the time, who frequently commented on Reagans mistaking fictional movies for real historical events. The images of Richard Nixon wandering around the White House drunk, asking a portrait of Abe Lincoln for advice, are forever immortalized in Woodward and Bernsteins The Final Days. Luckily in Nixons case, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and Chief of Staff General Alexander Haig took control to make sure the President would not launch a pre-emptive war or nuclear attack, or order a military coup to stop the impeachment. Since the United States, if it indulges the apparent madness of Bush, will
The Emerging Superpower of Peace
http://freepress.org/columns.php?strFunc=displaystrID=320strYear=2003strAuthor=7 Harvey WassermanThe emerging superpower of peaceMarch 15, 2003Amidst the agonizing crisis over Iraq, the violent contortions of the world's only military superpower have given birth to a transcendental force: the global Superpower of Peace. That George W. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein has become a global issue at all is perhaps the most tangible proof of this new superpower's potential clout. Only one thing has slowed (or stopped) Bush from launching this attack: the economic, political, moral and spiritual power of an intangible human network determined to stop this war. Bush has amassed the most powerful killing machine humankind has ever created. He's set its fuse on the borders of an impoverished desert nation with no credible ability to protect itself from this unprecedented attack. His military henchmen believe the conquest of this small country can be done quickly, with relatively few casualties on the the attacking side (though many civilians would die on the Iraqi side, as they did in the 1991 Gulf War I). The potential prizes are enormous: · Outright control of the world's second-largest oil reserve; · Removal of Bush's hated personal rival, a US Frankenstein gone bad; · A pivotal military base in the heart of the Middle East; · Hugely lucrative contracts for both the destroyers and the rebuilders of Iraq;· The ability to test a new generation of ultra high-tech weaponry; · The chance to display the awesome killing power of that weaponry;· The chance to demonstrate a willingness to use that power; · The fulfillment of Biblical prophesy as seen through the eyes of religious fanatics. But after months of preparation, the world's only military superpower has hesitated. Instead of obliterating Baghdad---as it physically could at any time---the Bush cabal has flinched. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he needs no military allies. But he's desperately courting them. Bush says he doesn't need UN approval. But he's desperately sought it. Why? One could argue the US has been marking time because it's not quite ready, with deployments and other technical needs not yet met. But all that is now far more difficult with an astounding rejection by Turkey, which shares a strategic border with Iraq. Turkish opposition to war is running a fierce 80-90%. Major arm-twisting (and a $26 billion bribe) has not bought permission to use Turkish land and air space. Meanwhile, the "no" votes of China, Russia, France and Germany represent the official opinion of some 2 billion people. They are irrelevant to the mechanics of armed conquest. But the four nay-sayers represent enormous political and economic power. So do scores of other nations whose nervous millions now march for peace. "Never before in the history of the world has there been a global, visible, public, viable, open dialogue and conversation about the very legitimacy of war," says Robert Muller, a long-time UN guiding light who views this global resistance as virtually miraculous. To all this has been added the opposition of the Pope. The Bush cabal may be asking that infamous question: "How many divisions does the Pope have?" But about a quarter of the US---and its armed forces---are Catholics. They may soon be forced to choose between the opinion of their infallible spiritual leader and that of their unelected president. The Pope has already been asked to put himself between the people of Baghdad and a US attack. He could also speak "ex cathedra," banning Catholic participation in the war. Meanwhile the spiritual opposition has been joined by a wide spectrum of religious organizations, including Bush's own church. Though constantly speaking in religious terms, Bush has refused to meet with the broad range of clerics who oppose his war. Meanwhile, worldwide demonstrations are growing bigger and more focused. In Britain one wonders if the next march might shut down London or the entire country. Massive civil disobedience is inevitable at dozens of US embassies. Consumer boycotts are likely to erupt with staggering force. Within the US, the fiercest opposition may well be coming from Wall Street. Specific corporations such as Dick Cheney's Halliburton and Richard Perle's consulting firm stand to make a fortune from Gulf War II. But mainstream financial and commercial institutions are understandably terrified. The American economy is already staggering under deep recession. Bush's tax cuts will yield stratospheric deficits for decades to come. The US economy now bears the sickly pallor of a collapsing empire. With war, a depressed stock market that hates instability could well plunge another 25-50%. Next would come the worldwide boycott of American products. China counts a billion-plus citizens and a rapidly emerging economic powerhouse. France and Germany dominate the European Union, which will
A Warmonger explains war to a Peacenik
A Warmonger explains war to a Peacenik PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroomcloud over NY.PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses hisenemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tapecalling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership betweenal-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.PN: He did?WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?WM: And a British intelligence report...PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.PN: So what is the point?WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevantdebating society.PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.PN: And what if it does rule against us?WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?WM: Yes.PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That'sthe bottom line.PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?WM: I never said that.PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.PN: You know this? How?WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are
