War Without End

Guest

Mainstreaming the Antiwar Movement?

Mainstreaming the Antiwar Movement? (from http://www.thenation.com):
12/10/2002 @ 5:02pm

E-mail this Post
It was at the time of the October 26 antiwar rally in Washington--where tens of thousands of demonstrators heard speakers oppose war against Iraq and demand the destruction of capitalism, the end of Zionism, the liberation of convicted cop-killers Mumia Abu-Jamal and Jamil Al-Amin (a.k.a. H. Rap Brown), and the release of five imprisoned Cuban spies--that longtime nonviolence advocate David Cortright and several other activists decided there was a pressing need to put together what Cortright calls "a broader, more mainstream coalition" to oppose unilateral US military action in Iraq. The October 26 protest--one of the more prominent antiwar actions so far--had been organized by International ANSWER, a group dominated by the Workers World Party, a small revolutionary-socialist outfit with a fancy for North Korea's Kim Jong-Il and the goal of abolishing private property. So it was no surprise that the antiwar message--which, according to polls, resonates with at least one-third of Americans--was accessorized with the demands of the fringe far-left. Nor was it a shocker that many speakers did not adopt a give-inspections-a-chance position. The WWP, which hails world leaders that stand against US hegemony (such as Slobodan Milosevic), opposes weapons inspections in Iraq and has assumed the task of trying to steer the antiwar movement away from endorsing them. ANSWER eschews criticism of Saddam Hussein. Cortright, who was executive director of SANE from 1977 to 1987 (when it was the largest peace organization in the United States) and his colleagues in Washington were looking to assemble an opposition that would possess wider appeal, that would press a message that extends beyond a no-to-war demand and endorses an alternative to military action. In the meantime, television actor Mike Farrell (M*A*S*H and Providence) and longtime movie producer/director Robert Greenwald (Steal This Movie) had weeks earlier begun an effort to round up Hollywood folks for a statement opposing unilateral war against Iraq and supporting the United Nations' weapons-inspection process. "It was just the two of us with two computers," says Greenwald. "We sent out an email to friends, who sent it to their friends. We were surprised the response was so positive so soon. We thought people would be more hesitant." (Greenwald has just finished a movie for CBS on the Enron scandal, in which Farrell plays disgraced Enron chief Kenneth Lay; it is set to air on January 5.) In November, the Washington and Hollywood endeavors converged. And this week, several large organizations of a progressive bent--the NAACP, the National Council of Churches, the National Organization of Women--and 100 or so entertainers are launching the Win Without War coalition, described by its organizers as the "new mainstream coalition to oppose Bush war policy." The leaders of this project don't put down ANSWER, but this clearly is an attempt to recast and reshape the antiwar opposition. In the rollout, Hollywood went first. At a press conference on December 10 attended by actors Tony Shalhoub, David Clennon, Martin Sheen and Farrell, the entertainment crowd unveiled a letter to George W. Bush declaring its support for Win Without War. The short missive has been signed by Gillian Anderson, Kim Basinger, Matt Damon, David Duchovny, Laurence Fishburne, Jeananne Garofalo, Ethan Hawke, Helen Hunt, Samuel L. Jackson, Jessica Lange, the members of REM, Noah Wyle, and dozens more, including two former US ambassadors. Their letter begins: "War talk in Washington is alarming and unnecessary. We are patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. We support rigorous UN weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarmament." But the group argues "a preemptive military invasion of Iraq will harm America's national interests. Such a war will increase human suffering, arouse animosity toward our country, increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks, damage the economy, and undermine our moral standing in the world." The Win Without War artists accept "the valid US and UN objective of disarming Saddam Hussein." They want to achieve that not by "first-strike attacks," but by "legal diplomatic means." At the press conference, retired Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll Jr. reported that he had spoken with retired General Anthony Zinni, former head of US Central Command, and Zinni agreed with the coalition's position. The organizations Cortright recruited for Win Without War--which also includes MoveOn.org and Working Assets--are expected to issue a formal announcement of the coalition's formation on December 11. Earlier in the week, Win Without War organizers noted ithe Sierra Club was considering signing up. No unions are yet participating, but there have been preliminary conversations between Win Without War reps and labor officials. The Win Without War message does differ from the antiwar declarations that only decry oil-greedy US imperialism. "We're trying to spread as wide a net as possible," says Greenwald. "Millions of Americans have doubts about the war. We want to get the word out: you're not alone. And it doesn't do any good to speak to a small group. We've designed this to try to create a broader impact." The coalition acknowledges that Saddam poses a problem--not a direct and immediate threat to the United States, as the White House suggests, but a threat that still needs to be confronted. "This is a different message beyond the traditional antiwar message," Cortright remarks. "We're for a sound, credible security policy that addresses threats. Saddam Hussein and Iraq are a potential threat, due to Iraq's weapons capacity, and there has to be a way to deal with it. Peaceful and diplomatic means have to be pursued. The positioning of this message is extremely important. We have the potential to build broad support." The coalition's central demand is, let the UN and its weapons inspectors do their jobs. But what if Saddam thwarts the inspectors or they find he has ready-to-go weapons of mass destruction? Would Win Without War back a UN-sanctioned military response? Elements of the coalition are pacifists, according to Cortright; most are not: "There might be circumstances where some of our groups would support [military action against Iraq], such as if there were explicit authorization from the UN Security Council." Greenwald notes that the artists' statement "leaves open the possibility of a multilateral attack. We felt it was premature to get into that. The biggest point of agreement among the signers is that the United States should follow the law, follow the Security Council." Cortright concedes that Win Without War got a late start. (Some Washington prognosticators are claiming--more as a hunch than an educated guess--that a US military assault could come as early as January.) "We didn't begin this until the October rally," he notes, "and it takes time to get a national coalition together." He expects the coalition to sponsor advertisements and draw on the membership of its component organizations to mount local actions. "Some of our groups might participate in big marches," he says, "but that's not our focus." The Hollywood contingent wants to deploy its celebs to gain media notice for the antiwar position. "We know we'll be dismissed by some, we will be infantalized," says Greenwald. "We'll have to see how far they go in this." One slogan being used by Win Without War is "Keep America Safe"--a sign its creators are hoping to encourage opposition to a unilateral invasion without bemoaning US interventionism, appearing soft on Saddam or terrorism, or coming across as harsh critics of America at home and abroad. (The latter may not always be easy. In an interview with UPI, actor Ed Asner, a signer of the Win Without War statement, said of the American public, "They're sheep. They like [Bush] enough to credit him with saving the nation after 9/11. Three thousand people get killed, and everybody thinks they're next on the list. The president comes along, and he's got his six-guns strapped on, and people think he's going to save them.") Also, the coalition is not preparing to compete with the WWP-controlled ANSWER and its highly motivated cadre of volunteers in the street-protest category. And its internal cohesion may be tested in the future, if events occur in Iraq that persuade the UN Security Council--or several of its members--that force must be used to deal with Saddam. But until such a development occurs, the main question is, can a self-professed "mainstream" antiwar coalition bearing a nuanced message succeed and attract many more people to the stop-the-war cause? There may not be enough time to derail precipitous US action, but before the antiwar movement even has a shot at preventing or curtailing a US first-strike, it must grow much larger. Bringing tens of thousands of protesters to Washington on a Saturday--or even the 100,000-plus ANSWER claimed for its October 26 event--is not going to impress or worry the decisionmakers of the nation's capital. That's a tiny slice of America. (See Asner's comments above.) The antiwar movement, as Bush might say, has to raise the pie higher--a lot higher. If Win Without War takes off, Americans critical or skeptical of the president's apparent policy will have an outlet for dissent unencumbered by the wackiness of the WWP. And the antiwar movement will benefit from the institutional strengths of the coalition's founding partners. Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney do not yet have to fear that citizen action is going to interfere with their plans. ("Look out, here comes Ed Begley Jr.") But an effective Win Without War coalition could move the antiwar campaign in a direction that causes the White House--or, maybe at best, other politicians and perhaps even the reportedly reluctant military--to take notice.

Guest

The Return Of Elliott Abrams
Israel's Likud Scores Big With White House Appointment

Jim Lobe writes for Inter Press Service, an international newswire, and for Foreign Policy in Focus, a joint project of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies and the New Mexico-based Interhemispheric Resource Center.

Neo-conservative hawks in the administration of President George W. Bush have won a major battle against the State Department in the fight for control of United States Mideast policy with the surprise appointment of Iran-Contra figure Elliott Abrams to the region's top policy spot in the National Security Council (NSC).

The appointment, leaked to reporters by the White House, would for the first time place someone in a top Mideast policy spot who has publicly assailed the "land-for-peace" formula that has guided U.S. policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict since the 1967 war.

Abrams, who first came to national prominence as a controversial political appointee in the Reagan administration who later pleaded guilty to lying to Congress regarding the Iran-Contra scandal, has also opposed the Oslo peace process and called for Washington to "stand by Israel," rather than act as a neutral mediator between Israel and the Palestinians.

"Yet another American Likudnik is moving to a position where they control Washington's agenda in the Mideast," said Rashid Khalidi, a Mideast historian at the University of Chicago. "This is a tragedy for the Israeli and American people." Likud is the rightwing Israeli party headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Currently the NSC staff chief for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations, Abrams will become Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the NSC for Southwest Asia, Near East and North African Affairs.

As such, he will be in charge of presenting policy papers and options for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, whose own opinions have proven decisive in cases where the president receives conflicting views from hawks, represented by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, and the more-dovish Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who is often backed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the uniformed military. Rice, a Russia specialist, had no experience with Mideast issues until her current job. Abrams will replace Zalmay Khalilzad, a prominent foreign-policy strategist whose views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are considered much more neutral than Abrams'. Khalilzad succeeded Clinton holdover Bruce Reidel early last year but was quickly consumed with his native-borne Afghanistan after being named special envoy to the interim president, Hamid Karzai. Khalilzad will now become "ambassador-at-large for free Iraqis" and is expected to play a key role in sorting out internal conflicts among the Iraqi opposition.

Beloved by right-wingers who hail him as both a hero for his championship of the Nicaraguan contras during the 1980s, Abrams first gained prominence as a leading neo-conservative when he served as Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights in the early 1980s and then as Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs.

In both positions, he clashed frequently and angrily with mainstream church groups and human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, who often accused him of covering up horrendous abuses committed by U.S.-backed governments, such as El Salvador and Guatemala, and rebel forces, such as the Contras and Angola's Unita, while, at the same time, exaggerating abuses by U.S. foes.

He was indicted by the Iran-Contra special prosecutor for giving false testimony about his role in illicitly raising money for the Contras but pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses of withholding information to Congress in order to avoid a trial and a possible jail term. He was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush along with a number of other Iran-Contra defendants in 1992.

His credibility for truth-telling was so low that at one point he was required to take an oath before testifying before Congressional committees. Most analysts here believe that he was given an NSC post by the new Bush administration because any other position would have required Senate confirmation.

After Reagan left office in 1989, Abrams, like a number of other prominent neo-conservatives, was not invited to serve in the Bush Sr. administration. Instead, he worked for a number of think tanks and eventually became head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) where he wrote widely on foreign-policy issues, including the Middle East, and the threats posed by U.S. secular society to Jewish identity. He also remained an integral part of the tight-knit neo-conservative foreign-policy community in Washington that revolved around one of his early mentors, Richard Perle and former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Then-House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich furthered his public rehabilitation by appointing him to the new U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in 1999 for which he also served as chairman in 2000-01. Muslim groups here have complained about his refusal to criticise Israeli practices in the occupied territories and Jerusalem, such as sealing off Muslim holy sites, as violations of religious freedom.

He is not known as an Arab-Israeli specialist but has long favoured Likud positions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and even assailed former Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for caving into U.S. pressure to respect the Oslo peace process. Shortly after the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifida at the end of September 2000, he criticised mainstream Jewish groups for calling for a resumption of peace talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, as well as a halt to the violence.

Like Perle, as well as Rumsfeld's civilian advisers like Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and Cheney's top deputy, I. Lewis Libby, he has favoured a Mideast strategy based on the overwhelming military power of both the United States and Israel and on a military alliance between Israel and Turkey against hostile Arab states, particularly Syria and Iraq, in order to create a "broader strategic context" that would ensure whatever state might emerge on Palestinian territory would be friendly to United States and Israeli interests and that could force Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. He has long favoured forceful action to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

He has accused Palestinian Authority leader Yassir Arafat of being an untrustworthy partner under the Oslo process and is believed to have used his previous NSC Democracy position to push for his ouster from power as part of a thorough reform process. That view, which was strongly backed by Rumsfeld and Cheney's offices, was eventually accepted by Bush last June, over strenuous objections by the State Department and senior aides for Bush's father, notably his former national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft.

In his new position, according to John Prados, a historian who has written about the National Security Council, Abrams should be in an excellent position to influence U.S. policy on the Mideast, particularly in "delaying and/or halting policy on the 'roadmap'" that is being developed by the "Quartet" -- the United States, European Union, Russia, and the United Nations -- on resuming political negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Indeed, it already appears that British hopes for a major meeting of the Quartet on the roadmap before the end of the year are fading quickly.

Abrams is expected to support Israel's recent requests both to put off discussion of the 'roadmap' until after Israel's elections at the end of next month and for some 14 billion dollars in military aid and loan guarantees to help the country cope with economic hard times.

Abrams' influence on policy is already clear. For the first time ever the Bush administration voted against a U.N. General Assembly resolution last week that called on Israel to repeal the Jerusalem law that declares that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel."

In the past, Washington has abstained on the issue, insisting that the the status of Jerusalem must be determined by negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Abrams has in the past assailed that vote, as well as Washington's refusal to recogize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, on the grounds that that such a position "tantalizes the Palestinians with the prospect of forcing the Jews to abandon Jerusalem."

As you might expect, Arab-Americans responded to the appointment with a mix of resignation and foreboding.

James Zogby, the director of the Arab-American Institute (AAI) here said Abrams' appointment sends "a very dangerous message to the Arab world" and adds to the "lock that the neo-con set now has on all the major instruments of decision-making except for the State Department."

Khalidi also pointed to Abrams' history as being less than forthcoming with information that may contradict his own views. "He will be yet another filter blocking reality from reaching the president," he said.

Guest · Posted: Sat Jan 04, 2003 9:32 pm Post subject:

Saturday, 4 January, 2003, 14:04 GMT
UK troops 'to join Gulf build-up'

An announcement about British troops is expected

Britain is reportedly planning to announce the deployment of thousands of troops to the Gulf to join the build-up of American forces preparing for a possible war on Iraq.
Reports of the move, which could be officially made public next week, come amid contrasting claims that British ministers believe the threat of war has receded since Christmas.

We cannot rule out the possibility of a further statement next week

Ministry of Defence

US President George W Bush has meanwhile issued a rallying call to his troops, telling them that a war in Iraq would be "not to conquer but to liberate".

He urged Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to "end his defiance" of United Nations resolutions and avoid US-led military action.

The Daily Telegraph newspaper says the UK is preparing to send 20,000 regular troops and 7,000 reservists, including a Royal Navy force, to the Gulf.

Further statement

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "We have been making preparations to have credible options available if necessary and we are likely to do more.

"We cannot rule out the possibility of a further statement next week."

It is thought any announcement would be made to the House of Commons on Tuesday, when MPs return from their seasonal break.

President Bush said the US would beat terrorists
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair returned from a 10-day family holiday to Egypt on Saturday.

Downing Street said he would be working at Number 10 over the weekend.

The US already has about 60,000 troops stationed in the Gulf with more on the way.

It was confirmed on Friday that units of the 45,000-strong US 1st Marine Expeditionary Force are being ordered to the region.

At the same time Mr Bush was telling cheering soldiers based at Fort Hood in Texas - the largest US Army base - that the world had already spoken with one voice on Iraq.

But, he went on, Saddam had "chosen the path of defiance" and was a threat to America and its friends

"Should Saddam seal his fate by refusing to disarm, by ignoring the opinion of the world, you will be fighting not to conquer anybody but to liberate people," Mr Bush said.

He also took the opportunity to say America was winning its war on terror around the world.

Saddam disarmed

Meanwhile, Downing Street has refused to comment on reports in UK newspapers that ministers believe a war on Iraq can be avoided, and that the odds are now 60-40 against action, compared to 60-40 in favour before Christmas.

The Times newspaper said that cabinet sources believed war could be avoided if Saddam Hussein disarmed or stood down under pressure from other Arab leaders.

Mr Blair - who has held talks with Middle East leaders during his trip to Egypt - and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw are determined to keep open the prospect of a diplomatic solution to the crisis, it is claimed.

And they are keen to play down suggestions that a progress report from the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, due on 27 January, will provide a trigger for war.

Credible threat

A Downing Street spokesman said: "War is not inevitable.

"We want a peaceful solution, but Iraq will not comply without a credible threat of military action. Ultimately the choice is Saddam's."

Meanwhile, Turkey's foreign minister has said his government supported US pressure on Iraq, but warned that the Turkish people opposed American forces being based in their country.

If Washington was allowed to deploy large numbers of troops in Turkey it could attack Iraq from the south and north.

Guest · Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2003 4:31 am Post subject: 'DON'T DIE FOR ISRAEL'

> A Review by Dr. Susan Huck of "ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL," by Andrew
> Hurley
>
> Editor comments: Thank you Dr. Susan Huck.
>
> The following powerful one-page review of ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL by
> career journalist and book author Dr. Susan Huck is the most incisive
> review yet. It again reminds your Editor that this book was Andrew
> Hurley's life literary work, resulting from 20 years of careful data
> collection and writing.
>
> Hurley chose, because of the nature of his business relationships, to
> wait until his retirement to publish ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL. Each
> paragraph and every word was mulled over time and time again before
> it was finally printed. Only the clearest facts and conclusions
> survived. The result was this impeccable book.
>
> It was my honor to know Jim Hurley before his death last year, and to
> hear of the many antidotes he did not include, and some he could not
> include. Andrew J. Hurley (Jim) lived an abundant and adventurous
> life that would seem enviable to most of us. However It is my belief
> that he will someday be remembered, not for his business successes,
> but for this, his one and only book.
>
> ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL is the one book we know of that has yet to be
> seriously challenged on any material fact, and nary a detail has been
> upended since WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS published it as our first book.
> Hurley wrote ONUI believing that millions of live were at risk, and
> that he could make a difference.
>
> Thanks to Jim Hurley; we will do our best to help the world remember
> and honor him - Editor.
>
> DON'T DIE FOR ISRAEL
>
> A Review by Dr. Susan Huck of ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL, by Andrew
> Hurley
>
> The original title of this 1990 book, "Holocaust II? Saving
> Israel from Suicide", perhaps more accurately reflected the author's
> concern that aggressive Israeli policies might ultimately lead to
> disaster for Israel. However, the current title very accurately
> reflects the current American, as distinct from the Israeli problem.
> It details, as truthfully as any source I have seen, the manner in
> which Uncle Sam is converted into Uncle Schlemiel, Israel's 900-pound
> gorilla.
>
> The theme of suicidal Jewish zealotry is outlined in Hurley's
> first chapter, which draws upon A History of the Jews, by Dr. Abram
> Sachar, once president of Brandeis University. Far from the tale of
> continual undeserved victimhood constantly served to the public,
> Sachar demonstrates how, from a thousand years before the birth of
> Christ, Jewish tribes and states kept getting into needless
> difficulties with both friend and foe.
>
> Ah, but such a perspective does not serve current
> purposes. "We" non-Jews must be kept guilt-ridden and "obliged" to
> grovel, pay, and otherwise sacrifice ourselves for Jews. An Anti-
> Defamation League catalogue of "educational" material emphasizes the
> theme of victimhood and martyrdom at the hands of Christians, as in
> The Longest Hatred -- "from the Cross to the Swastika." The ADL's
> concept of a "good Christian" is one who sacrifices himself for the
> Jews. It is sad to see the American armed forces being set up to
> serve as "good Christians" for Israel.
>
> Hurley's book was originally published in 1990, before "Gulf
> War I," the Bush 41 war. The re-titled but not revised edition was
> published in 1999, apparently missing by just a few years "Gulf War
> II," or the Bush 43 war scheduled for 2003. Nothing, it seems, will
> deter President George Bush from initiating the all-out war on Iraq
> being pressed by a Jewish cabal within his administration. Jewish
> enthusiasts look forward to it as the beginning of "World War IV" to
> forcibly "re-educate" all Moslems everywhere, beginning with Israel's
> closest foes.
>
> As the preface to ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL explains, lawyer
> and historian Andrew Hurley does much more than examine Jewish
> history. He explains -- at length and with "documentation," the
> methods by which the Jewish lobby in the United States controls "our"
> federal government. The carrot is money, the stick is public
> smearing, followed if necessary by deprivation of livelihood.
>
> American and Israeli Jews collaborate seamlessly to bulldoze
> Congress and the entire executive branch into sending an
> uninterrupted stream of money, military hardware, and whatever else
> is wanted to Israel. Congressman Larry McDonald, who was on the
> research and development subcommittee of the House Armed Services
> Committee, once told me that "we wouldn't even have an R & D program
> if Israel didn't want us to," because the fruits of taxpayer-funded R
> & D, he knew, were funneled straight to Israel.
>
> The Israelis then feel free to market it, by the way. Hurley
> explains this in great detail. No cabinet member, not to mention mere
> bureaucrat, can stand in the way of this continual transfer of
> wealth, because the Jews can "go over the head" of anyone of any
> rank.
>
> Hurley, writing in 1990, could not have known that George
> Bush's father, Bush 41, would "learn" that he lost his 1992 re-
> election campaign because he merely delayed a "loan guarantee" to
> Israel. (That is, he delayed guaranteeing that if Israel
> defaulted, "our" government would pay. In any event, our annual multi-
> billion dollar gifts to Israel easily cover Israel's debts.) Young
> Bush 43 has been keenly monitored ever since he loomed on the horizon
> as a candidate. The ADL boasts of this.
>
> In short, Hurley's book is a manual of "how they do it,"
> filled with examples as of 1990. In 2003, "how they do it" has simply
> become more blatant, as Jewish "neocons" -- so-called neo-
> conservatives -- pack the administration with armchair warhawks and
> are apparently capable of employing the American armed forces as
> their own.
>
> By employing mere name-calling as a first-line weapon, the
> goyim are reduced to jellyfish. Why does anyone respond to
> accusations of "anti-Semitism" with other than a patient smile and
> the comment, "That won't work, either"?
>
> If the silly goyim ever wake up and do that, the United
> States might cease to be ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL. -end
>
> (Reviewer, Dr. Susan Huck's latest book "WHY DO WE AMERICAN SUBMIT TO
> THIS" By Newcomb Publisher's Inc., is now available from We Hold
> These Truths, $20.00)
>
> To Buy ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL, 345 page soft cover, $17.50; 2 for
> $35.00; 10 for $128.00. (http://www.whtt.org/bookstor.htm)
>
> We Hold These Truths
> P.O. Box 14491
> Scottsdale, AZ 85254
> 480-947-3329
>
> To subscribe, type "Subscribe" in the SUBJECT LINE.
> To unsubscribe, type "Remove" in the SUBJECT LINE.
>
>

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WORDS are Stronger than SWORDS! ~ Spread the words to the Wilderness!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
eFreePalestine is America's Secular WILDERNESS VOICE for PALESTINE!*
www.FreePalestine.com No Peace Without Occupation Free PALESTINE!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
Blessed are the Peacemakers NOT the Warmongers!
Chronic INJUSTICE is the ROOT of TERRORISM!
Fighting TERRORISM while AIDING OCCUPATION is Moronic!
END TERRORISM by ENDING Israeli OCCUPATION Stupid!
SHARON NOW = MILOSEVIC Then = HITLER IN 1942!
Peace Only in a Legislatively DEzIONIZED Secular State!
Aiding Israeli OCCUPATION = Aiding TERRORISM!
Where Does Our Simplistic Absolutist President Stand?!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
www.Badil.org The RIGHT of RETURN!
www.IndictSharon.net Indict the BUTCHER!
www.PMWatch.org PALESTINE MEDIA WATCH!
www.PalestineRemembered.com PALESTINE for DUMMIES!
www.FreePalestineCampaign.org Be a Peacemaker in PALESTINE!
www.InternationalAnswer.org Act Now to STOP WAR and End RACISM
www.capwiz.com/ADC/home/ Tell Congress to Stop Aid to Israel!
www.Al-Awda.org/petition.htm END zIONIST Profit from OCCUPATION!
www.RamallahOnline.com Our Occupied Home in Ramallah PALESTINE!
www.groups.Yahoo.com/group/eFreePalestine/messages ARCHIVES!
www.PalestineChronicle.com News and Views from PALESTINE!
www.DocumentaryPhotographs.com Pictures from PALESTINE!
www.PalestineMonitor.org Monitor PALESTINE!
www.WRMEA.com zIONIST-Free MEDIA!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
eFreePalestine-subscribe@YahooGroups.com SUBSCRIBE NOW Smile

eFreePalestine-unsubscribe@YahooGroups.com Unsubscribe Sad

eFreePalestine@YahooGroups.com Speak up on eFreePalestine!
eFreePalestine-owner@YahooGroups.com Questions/Comments!
Views expressed are the author's only*
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Alpha

Subj: Iraq: 'Devastating' War Planned by Warmongering Bush & Blair
Date: 1/8/03 3:35:17 PM Pacific Standard Time

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Jan. 8) - Coalition warplanes struck air defense targets in southern Iraq on Wednesday for the second time this week, and a key Iraqi official said the United States and Britain were bent on war with Baghdad to subjugate the Middle East.

In Moscow, meanwhile, Iraq's ambassador to Russia dismissed rumors Saddam Hussein might go into exile to avoid war and said the Iraqi leader would ''fight to the last drop of blood'' to defend his country.

Concerns war is imminent have mounted, with the United States and Britain announcing the dispatch of thousands more troops and weapons to the Persian Gulf region because of misgivings about Iraq's commitment to abandon weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq insists it has no such weapons and maintains that claims to the contrary by Washington and London are simply a pretext for war.

''The aggressors in Washington and London are preparing for a devastating aggression against ... the people of Iraq, and they would like once again to destroy the City of Peace (Baghdad) as they did in 1991,'' Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told a visiting South African delegation Wednesday.

Aziz said U.N. arms inspectors, who returned to Iraq in November after a four-year hiatus, had strayed beyond the search for weapons of mass destruction.

''They are searching for other information about Iraq's conventional military capabilities, the Iraqi scientific and industrial capability in the civilian area, and also espionage questions,'' Aziz said.

U.N. spokesman Hiro Ueki denied those allegations and said U.N. officials had received no formal complaint from Iraqi authorities about alleged espionage.

The United States has accused Saddam of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and says it will use force if necessary to disarm him. Iraq insists it has destroyed its biological and chemical weapons and halted its nuclear program and the making of banned missiles. There have been no known instances of serious problems encountered by the inspectors since they began work Nov. 27.

Nevertheless, the pace of the U.S.-British buildup has accelerated. The American battle staff that would run a military campaign against Iraq is beginning to assemble at a command post in the small gulf state of Qatar, U.S. officials said.

Tens of thousands more combat forces are scheduled to flow into the region over the next few weeks. Some U.S. soldiers landed Wednesday in neighboring Kuwait, but U.S. officials refused to say how many or identify their units.

Among the other forces expected to deploy from U.S. bases in the next several days are F-15E and F-15C fighters and B-1B bombers. Still, U.S. and British officials insist war is neither imminent nor inevitable.

As the buildup continues, U.S. warplanes struck Wednesday against air defense communication sites between the cities of Al Kut and An Nasiriyah. The U.S. Central Command said the attacks occurred after Iraqi air defense forces fired anti-aircraft artillery at U.S. planes patrolling the southern ''no fly'' zone and Iraqi military aircraft entered the zone.

On Monday, U.S. planes targeted two Iraqi military radars near the city of Al Amarah. Iraqi officials said two people were killed and 13 were injured in Monday's attacks.

Meanwhile, the official Iraqi News Agency said Saddam held a third day of meetings Wednesday with military and militia commanders, encouraging them not to fear a technologically superior foe.

''In aerial combat, there is a disparity in weapons, but on the ground, men fight with their guns and it's enough for the men to have bombs, bullets, a loaf of bread, water and a gun,'' Saddam was quoted as saying. As long as Iraqi forces receive the support of the people, ''the enemy will be defeated,'' Saddam added.

With tensions rising, Philippine Foreign Minister Blas Ople said Arab governments were trying to convince Saddam to step down and go into exile. Ople, speaking to reporters in Manila, said he learned of those efforts by Arab ambassadors whom he refused to identify.

The German newspaper Tageszeitung said Russian officials had been in Baghdad since November evaluating chances of Saddam stepping down. In a report for publication Thursday, the newspaper said Russian President Vladimir Putin would send a special envoy to Baghdad to finalize details if Saddam appeared willing to accept the Russian offer of exile.

Russia's ITAR-Tass news agency quoted an unidentified ''high-ranking Russian official'' as denying that Moscow was working toward Saddam's departure, saying there were ''no grounds for the Iraqi leader to request political asylum anywhere, including in Russia.''

Iraq's ambassador to Russia, Abbas Khalaf, told the Interfax news agency that Saddam will not leave his country and will ''fight to the last drop of blood.''

Khalaf called reports that Saddam might leave the country ''absolute nonsense'' and ''part of Washington and London's psychological war against Iraq,'' Interfax said.

AP-NY-01-08-03 1508EST

Alpha

Iraq war must have UN backing, Labour MPs tell Blair:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=367582

Alpha

Americans are against unilateral war in Iraq

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/4925312.htm (access this URL to see the actual poll numbers in graphic form):

Americans are against unilateral war in Iraq

A Knight Ridder poll suggests that 83% of the country supports war - as long as it is backed by the U.N.
By Martin Merzer
Knight Ridder News Service

With U.S. troops heading for the Persian Gulf, Americans say in overwhelming numbers that they oppose unilateral U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, according to a national Knight Ridder poll.

A robust majority of Americans - 83 percent - would support going to war if the United Nations backed the action and it was carried out by a multinational coalition. But without U.N. approval and allies, only about a third of the public would support a war with Iraq.

"This... is a worldwide effort to eradicate terrorism," said Robert Black, 57, a firefighter from Easton, Pa. "It should not be the United States going it alone and picking and choosing what country we want to take care of this week or this month."

The poll highlights the Bush administration's political and diplomatic quandary.

Unambiguous evidence that Iraq has nuclear, biological or chemical weapons is a key requirement for the broad international support that Americans crave. Yet a majority of poll respondents, while convinced that Iraq harbors such weapons, said they doubted that U.N. inspectors would find them.

Many said President Bush had not effectively explained why military action might be required. Nearly one in five said they still did not believe Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States.

"We have been given no compelling reasons for going to war," said Bill Quarton, 52, of Ann Arbor, Mich., who was among the respondents who said they were opposed to unilateral U.S. action against Iraq.

"Our government acts as if it knows something terribly important and we should go ahead with this, but we haven't seen anything to substantiate it," he said. "The whole scenario makes me very uncomfortable."

The survey, conducted Jan. 3 to Jan. 6 by Princeton Survey Research Associates, questioned 1,204 adults, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Most Americans do not want to rush into war, the poll found. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said the United States should continue to work toward achieving its goals in Iraq without war. Only 27 percent favored quick military action.

Still, more than 60 percent of those surveyed would support an eventual war if it were the only way to topple Hussein or end the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Arguments against war are much less compelling to Americans than arguments in favor of military action. In particular, the arguments that war with Iraq will hurt the economy, damage relations with our allies, or divert attention and resources from the goal of tracking down those responsible for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, don't carry much weight, the poll found.

Two-thirds of the respondents said they thought they had a good grasp of the issues surrounding the Iraqi crisis, but closer questioning revealed large gaps in that knowledge. For instance, half of those surveyed said one or more of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. In fact, none were.

The informed public is considerably less hawkish than the public as a whole, the poll found. Those who show themselves to be most knowledgeable about the Iraqi situation are significantly less likely to support military action, either to remove Hussein or to disarm Iraq.

Asked to rank the threats facing the United States, more than twice as many respondents (49 percent of the total) chose al-Qaeda as the greatest peril as chose Iraq.

With war looming and another crisis brewing with North Korea, the survey found Americans exhibiting considerable uncertainty and ambivalence.

Among other things, they are evenly divided about Bush's effectiveness in explaining what is at stake in Iraq and why U.S. military force might be employed. Forty-eight percent said he had not clearly laid out his rationale for a war against Iraq; 46 percent said he had.

The result shows some slippage for the President since September, when other polls asked a similar question. Then, 52 percent thought the President had clearly explained his position; 37 percent disagreed.

"He's the best," said Jose Velez, 25, of Lehighton, Pa., near Allentown. "After Sept. 11, President Bush didn't take any chances, and this is part of that."

Dan Yeager, 24, of Grand Ledge, Mich., saw it differently.

"I think going after Iraq is just for Bush's own popularity and to finish off his father's work," Yeager said. "He's not clear about why he wants to go to war. I think he just wants to do it and he's just saying, 'Back me.' "

Yeager and many other Americans remain worried about the economy.

As a group, respondents were evenly split when asked whether foreign threats or the economy should be the administration's top priority.

"We're going to spend a lot of money sending all these troops to Iraq and right now we have a problem of our own with the economy," said Lydia Sepulveda, 41, of Weston, Fla. "A lot of people are without work."

Still, the 27 percent who think Iraq should be the administration's top foreign-policy priority are more likely than others to want the White House to devote most of its time to an overseas crisis rather than the economy. Fifty-two percent of those people feel that way. Only 42 percent of those who think that al-Qaeda or North Korea should be the top priority want the White House to place that issue ahead of the economy.

When it comes to North Korea, a majority think the United States is imperiled by that hard-line regime and should maintain or enhance its military presence in South Korea.

But there is little support for military action against North Korea. Seventy-nine percent of those surveyed said the crisis should be dealt with by diplomacy; only 15 percent said the United States should prepare to take immediate military action.

"It should be resolved diplomatically, absolutely," said James Webb, 45, an unemployed shipping clerk from Philadelphia. "It boils down to something my grandmother told me: They're making war because they have too many people to take care of... . So we need to deal with that."

Returning to the Iraqi crisis, a commanding 91 percent of those surveyed believe that Hussein was concealing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Sixty-five percent said U.N. inspectors aren't likely to find those weapons.

If war proves necessary, Americans seem willing to tolerate a long military presence in Iraq. Sixty-six percent of those surveyed said they would support eventual military action even if it required U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for five years.

The survey also demonstrated that many remained altruistic and idealistic. They worry that the Iraqi crisis could mark a fundamental shift in American attitudes toward war.

Two-thirds of the respondents said Hussein's record of using chemical or biological weapons against his own people provided a good reason for going to war, the same number who cited American self-defense against a terrorist attack.

Forty-six percent of those surveyed said the possibility of a high casualty rate among Iraqi civilians was a good reason not to go to war.

The nation is evenly divided over the Bush administration's advocacy of preemptive strikes, launched before an enemy attacks U.S. interests at home or abroad.

Forty-three percent say the policy violates American ideals and could establish a dangerous precedent.

"We should be the country that sets the standards," Quarton said. "This amounts to punishing the criminal before the crime is committed."

Darius Transky, 65, is part of the 45 percent who could not disagree more. The retired Trenton high school teacher faulted Americans for failing to take quicker action throughout history.

"It's not in the American tradition, but it should've been. Americans always react after we get attacked," he said. "It's good to be preemptive: better to get them before they get us."

As one might expect, support for war among Democrats and independents was much more conditional than support among Republicans.

While Republicans widely endorse the policy of preemptive strikes and would support a war with less than the full support of U.S. allies, Democrats and independents tend to see preemptive strikes as bad policy and make their support for war contingent on U.N. backing.

Americans are divided on the use of nuclear weapons. Forty-six percent would approve of a nuclear response if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons; 45 percent would not.

Asked if Israel would be justified in responding with nuclear devices to an Iraqi chemical or biological attack, 60 percent said yes; 30 percent said no.

"It would be a grave error," Quarton said about the use of nuclear devices under any circumstances. "Two wrongs do not make a right. It would poison a large part of the world. It would create hatreds that might take centuries to resolve."

The survey also suggested that the factual underpinnings of many respondents' opinions were shaky.

Nearly one in four respondents said the Bush administration had publicly released evidence tying Iraq to the planning and funding of the Sept. 11 attacks, and more than one in three respondents did not know or refused to answer.

No such evidence has been released.

http://www.philly.com

Guest

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12526511&method=full&siteid=50143

SHORT WARNS BLAIR ON IRAQ WAR PLAN

By Paul Gilfeather, Whitehall Editor

CABINET rebel Clare Short urged Tony Blair yesterday to prevent war with Iraq.

She said the Premier had a "duty" to stop US President George Bush sliding into battle without United Nations backing.

Asked on TV if that meant Britain should avoid going along with unilateral military action by America she added: "That is the logic of the position."

DUTY: Short

The International Development Secretary spoke as a poll showed opposition to war hardening. And her remarks raised fresh fears within Downing Street that she could quit the Cabinet over Britain's role in any future military action.

Mr Blair, who will face a stormy meeting of Labour MPs on Wednesday, is said to be increasingly worried that the number opposing war could top 100.

The outspoken International Development Secretary broke ranks as Washington unveiled plans to send 62,000 more troops to the Gulf.

She spoke out as a new poll showed 58 per cent of voters are not convinced that Saddam Hussein is dangerous enough to warrant a repeat of the 1991 Gulf War.

Ms Short said: "I think all the people of Britain have a duty to keep our country firmly on the UN route, so that we stop the US going to war too early and keep the world united."

Asked if that meant Britain should not go along with unilateral military action by America, she added: "That is the logic of the position."

The outburst raised fears Ms Short may quit the Cabinet over any future action in Iraq.

Last night Pentagon officials said the United States would be ready for war with a 150,000-strong force in place by mid to late February.

As the Prime Minister prepared to justify his position on Iraq in a televised press conference today, a YouGov poll for ITN revealed just 13 per cent of voters would support a war without UN backing.

About 30 per cent of those questioned also believed Britain and America's motives for wanting to topple Saddam were to seize control of Iraq's oil supplies.

Opposition was also growing among Labour backbenchers who are set to ambush Mr Blair at a parliamentary party meeting on Wednesday. Mr Blair will attempt to quell their anger by talking of "liberating" Iraq rather than invading it.

Ms Short is the most prominent "dove" in the Cabinet. Others include Commons Leader Robin Cook, Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong and Scottish Secretary Helen Liddell.

They have warned Mr Blair, who will meet UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix on Friday, that war with Iraq could trigger the biggest revolt of Labour MPs since 1997.

Former minister Kate Hoey warned Mr Blair of the strength of feeling on the backbenches over military action without UN backing.

She said: "If it does go ahead without the backing, there are going to be quite severe repercussions."

Former Labour minister Tony Benn said Mr Blair could lose his job if he continued to ignore MPs' views.

He said: "MPs have not been asked their opinion and I gather there are serious fears among the Cabinet that they are not being listened to.

"Tony Blair is in a unique position in that he has the power to veto President Bush's plans to invade Iraq.

"America knows it needs the political cover of Britain's support and that it would be foolish to try and continue without our backing."

Labour MP Donald Anderson, chairman of the Commons' foreign affairs select committee also warned of a backbench rebellion.

He said: "In a democracy, one needs public backing for any war, and the reality is that the public is still unconvinced. Parliamentary opinion needs facts and needs to be convinced that action is in accordance with international law which means, a second UN Security Council resolution."

But Labour party chairman John Reid made it clear the Government was not ruling out taking part in military action without UN backing.

He said: "We would all much prefer that this is solved diplomatically. If it is not, we would all much prefer that the United Nations then faces up to their own responsibilities with a second resolution - which would be my preference on this.

"But no one on this position would give solace to Saddam Hussein or to those who seek to give him succour by ruling out any option."

Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell yesterday hailed Ms Short's courage in speaking out and added: "It is inconceivable that the Government could commit forces to military action without the support of the public. It is overwhelmingly clear that this support depends on a Security Council mandate."

Meanwhile Saddam warned war could only be avoided by Iraq's neighbours. He told Turkish premier Kursad Tuzmen: "Inspection teams are here and our co-operation with them is continuing, but if America wants to look for a pretext for the aggression, only the countries of the region can prevent it.

"With clarity, seriousness and brotherly dialogue we can reach the best solutions in the field of bi- lateral co-operation which would lead to many achievements and a high degree of stability in the region."

But Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah insisted there would be no war and said Arab states were considering a proposal from his kingdom which would "solve many problems".

Mr Blair is expected to travel to Washington for a "war summit" with President Bush later this month.

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

BRITS PULL SUPPORT FOR IRAQ INVASION TO THWART ZIONISTS - page 5