[Think] Misinformation

[Fen Labalme]

This was sent to me by a friend back in October - well researched rebuttals
to statements all-too-commonly heard from our news and politicians.  -Fen

--- included message follows ---

MISINFORMATION?

In the week of Sept 29 Congressmen Jim McDermott, Mike Bonior and Mike
Thompson visited Iraq to speak personally to Iraqi government officials to
make an assessment of the possibility of resuming inspections as Iraq has
offered to allow.
While there they were interviewed by George Stephanopolous of ABC news on
"This week" Mr. McDermott said that he believed the Bush administration
was willing "to mislead the American People" about whether the war was
needed. When asked to clarify what he had said by Mr. Stephanopolous he
said I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation adding "It
would not surprise me if they came up with some information that is not
provable"
He was immediately criticized by Republican Senator Don Nickles said Mr.
Bonior and Mr. McDermott "both sound somewhat like spokespersons for the
Iraqi government. "

Perhaps some of the statements below that have been repeated often by the
Bush administration are some of the statements to which Mr. McDermott
referred. I put them in quotations because they have been repeated in
similar form so often and to make them stand out from the rest of the
text.

                          - * - * - * - * - * - * -

"Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people. "

Much has been made of the reports of the tragedy at Halabja where Saddam
Hussein is accused of massacring his own citizens with poison gas. It has
been offered as one of the justifications that Saddam is an immediate
threat and consequently the world community must act preemptively to stop
him.

On March 25, 2002 the New Yorker ran a piece by Jeffrey Goldberg that
dealt with this incident. It described with horrific detail the event in
which an alleged hundreds of people died on March 16, 1988. Goldberg
writes: "Saddam Hussein's attacks on his own citizens marks the only time
since the Holocaust that poison gas has been used to exterminate women and
children."  The government had known about the incident since it happened
but the New Yorker Article provided new colorful details. Since the
article was published the administration has referred to it: Vice
President Cheney on meet the press, "It's a devastating article,
specifically it's description of what happened in 1988 when Saddam Hussein
used chemical weapons against some of his own people. It demonstrates
conclusively what a lot of us have said: that this is a man who is a great
danger to that region of the world-especially if he's able to acquire
nuclear weapons." The sentiment was echoed by president Bush, "It details
about his (Saddam's) barbaric behavior toward his own people"

Halabja is located just inside Iraq's border with Iran. During the waning
days of the Iran-Iraq war, two Kurdish groups decided to side against
Iraq. At the same time Iran had decided to mount an offensive in the area.
Halabja was in the middle of the clash and was contested territory. After
the incident Iran brought members of the in the press by helicopter to
present the story that Iraq, it's enemy had just gassed it's own people.
The press eagerly repeated the story.
Reagan immediately denounced the attack, but State Department spokesperson
Charles Redman told the press one week after the attack :"There are
indications that Iran may also have used chemical artillery shells in the
fighting." "We call on Iran and Iraq to desist immediately from the use of
any chemical weapons."

On the same day as his announcement a US government Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) report said "most of the casualties at Halabja were
reportedly caused by cyan(o)gen chloride. This agent has never been used
by Iraq, but Iran has shown interest in it. Mustard Gas casualties in the
town were probably caused by Iraqi weapons because Iran has never been
noted using that agent."
Mustard gas, which causes burns on exposed mucus membranes and sometimes
lungs doesn't commonly cause death and has been described by chemical
weapons experts as more of a nuisance is certainly a much less deadly
agent than cyan(o)gen chloride which prevents the cells from being able to
use oxygen in energy metabolism and causes rapid death.

After the conclusion of the Iran-Iraq war a report was prepared by the US
Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. It is entitled: Marine Corps
Historical Publication 3-203 "Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War"   From
the report: "Blood agents (i.e. cyanogen chloride and a related agent)
were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the
war-the killing of Kurds at Halabja. Since the Iraqis have no history of
using these two agents-and the Iranians do, we conclude that the Iranians
perpetrated the attack. " It can be found on the web at:
(www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/.)
Go to the Appendix on Chemical weapons. page 100.

On May 3 1990, Patrick Tyler of the Washington Post reported: "A Defense
Department reconstruction of the final stages of the Iran-Iraq war has
assembled what analysts say is conclusive intelligence that one of the
worst civilian massacres of the war, in the Kurdish city of Halabja was
caused by repeated chemical bombardment by both belligerent armies. " (the
reconstruction) "calls into question the widely reported assertion of
human rights organizations and Kurdish groups that Iraq bore the greatest
responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of Iraqi Kurds. "

According to investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill,
(www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm), In December1983, President
Reagan sent former Defense Secretary and Middle East envoy Donald Rumsfeld
to Iraq where he met with Saddam Hussein. The two "discussed topics of
mutual interest" Rumsfeld said "It struck us as useful to have a
relationship, given that we were interested in solving the mideast
problems."  Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad in March1984. The purpose of his
mission to Baghdad was: "to forge greater ties." On the day of his visit,
March 24 , UPI reported that an UN team had determined that Mustard gas
laced with nerve agent had been used in the previous 43 month-old conflict
with Iran. Rumsfeld met with then Foreign minister Tariq Aziz. There was
no reported criticism at the time of these acts which at the time seemed
to be only directed against Iranians. The New York Times reported from
Baghdad on March 29 "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied
with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal
diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name. "

It was only after the Halabja event that the Reagan administration
denounced it, and only after the press had picked up the story. Rumsfeld's
lack of comment at the time is interesting considering his current
position. After the incident, the US Senate passed unanimous sanctions
that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was
killed by the White House despite Reagan's public statement of
denouncement.

The Halabja event is one of the most often cited incidents upon which the
need for an invasion of Iraq is predicated. Considering that it is an
event which occurred14 years ago, (when the US was supporting Iraq in it's
war with Iran) it hardly demonstrates an immanent threat. It is certainly
immoral for any nation to use or even posses chemical or biological
weapons however, these nations should disarm. However, it seems none too
clear that Iraq bears full responsibility for the deaths at Halabja and
that according to the military experts at the time, the majority of the
deaths were from Iranian weapons.
Much of the information for this section was derived from Roger Trillings
excellent review in the May 7, 2002 Village Voice.
(www.villagevoice.com/issues/0218/trilling.php)

                          - * - * - * - * - * - * -

"The Iraqi military has  taken aggressive action (locked on radar and shot
at) against British and American warplanes patrolling the no-fly zones."

To date no American or British fighter or bomber has been shot down during
the multiple thousands of sorties patrolling and bombing in the northern
and southern zone. The attacks recently destroyed radar installations at
two civilian airports needed for the safety of domestic civilian flights.
The UN resolution upon which the US bases it's authority to conduct these
flights actually calls for humanitarian assistance and aid to the minority
Kurds and others in northern and southern Iraq. It does not specifically
mention overflights by military aircraft or attacks on military or other
targets in the so-called no-fly-zone.

                          - * - * - * - * - * - * -

"Iraq is six months away from developing a nuclear weapon"

On September 7th during a joint news conference during a summit meeting
between British Prime Minister Blair and president Bush both leaders
referred to a document published by the International Atomic Energy Agency
in Vienna. Mr. Bush said: "I would remind you that when the inspectors
first went into Iraq and were denied-finally denied access [in1998], a
report came out of the Atomic-the IAEA that they were six months away from
developing a weapon." " I don't know how much more evidence we need"
Scott McClellan the Deputy Press Secretary said "He's  referring to 1991
there. In '91 there was a report saying that after the war they found out
they were about six months away"

Mr. Blair said in the same press conference. "We only need to look at the
report from the International Atomic Energy Agency this morning, showing
what has been going on at a former nuclear weapon site." (from CNN.com)
"He said satellite pictures indicate new construction at 'former nuclear
weapon sites'"
"Later in the day (administration) officials confirmed the IAEA does have
satellite photos which the agencies scientists say show fresh
construction"
The IAEA was contacted by The Washington Times
(www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm) and also CNN.com
(www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/07/bush.blair/) and also issued a press statement.
The spokesperson for the IAEA, Mark Gwozdecky reported Sept 26: "There's
never been a report like that issued from this agency." "We've never put a
time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in
1998." Mr. Gwozdecky also said that his agency said that there was no
report as described by Mr. McClellan. (issued in 1991)
The IAEA previously issued a statement that it had been reviewing
satellite photos for more two years and there are no new photos or
evidence of Iraqi nuclear activity. Mr. Gwozdecky  said, "We issued a
press release last night (Sept 6) saying there's no new information about
any Iraqi nuclear activity, and until we get inspectors on the ground we
can't draw any conclusion whether they're in compliance with the Security
Council resolutions with regard to nuclear activities."
 From Washington Times"
"The IAEA also took issue with a Sept. 9 report by the International
Institute for Strategic Studies-cited by the Bush administration-that
concludes Saddam 'could build a nuclear bomb within months if he wee able
to obtain fissile material' "
"There's no evidence in our view that can be substantiated on Iraq's
nuclear-weapons program. If anybody tells you they know the nuclear
situation in Iraq right now, in the absence of four years of inspections,
I would say they're misleading you, because there isn't solid evidence out
there." Many news agencies reported the remarks as spoken at the time.
It's possible that this claim is true, but the cited source, the IAEA did
not say this.
IAEA website: www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/timeline.html

                          - * - * - * - * - * - * -

"Al-Queda members are now  in Iraq"

The reports that there are al-Queda members who have fled the fighting to
find refuge in Iraq indicate that they are in northern Iraq, within the
region that is patrolled on a daily basis by US and British aircraft
enforcing the no-fly zone. This is an area mostly controlled by the Kurds
who have indeed set up a Kurdish autonomous zone. The Iraqi government has
very little if any control over this area. The Kurds are sworn enemies of
Saddam Hussein.
In general the members of al-Queda as well as bin-Laden despise Saddam
Hussein. As the secular leader of a Muslim country, he is considered by
the Wahabi Islamic sect to which al-Queda and bin-Laden belong to be a
traitor of Islam.

                          - * - * - * - * - * - * -

"Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi official in Prague in April 2001"

Czech Police Chief Jiri Kolar told A BBC reporter on October18, 2001  that
there were indications that Mohammed Atta, who died in the September
suicide attacks had been in the Czech Republic in April of 2001. Also in
October the Foreign Minister Stanislav Gross in a briefing to journalists
said that The Czech counter-intelligence service, the BIS, had evidence of
a meeting in April 2001 between Atta and Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi Embassy
consul. This alleged meeting has been held up by the Bush administration
of a link between Al Queda and The Iraq regime and one of the
justifications for a pre-emptive attackagainst Iraq. In fact it is the
only alleged  link between the two. Interestingly, Gross told Le Monde on
October 9 that he actually could not confirm the meeting between Atta and
al-Ani.

	Al-Ani was subsequently expelled from Czech Republic for "conduct
incompatible with his diplomatic status"  a few weeks after the alleged
meeting. It had nothing to do with the meeting which was only alleged
after September.

On December 18, 2001 the Daily Telegraph newspaper in London again
reported on the alleged meeting. Reporter Peter Green wrote (from the
Telegraph) " Czech Police said yesterday that they had no evidence that
the ringleader of the suicide attacks, Mohammed Atta  met an Iraqi
intelligence agent in Prague earlier this year"  Green went on to write,
"Iyesterday Jiri Kolar, the police chief, said that there were no
documents showing that Atta visited Prague at any time this year, although
he had visited twice in 2000."
SThe Czech President Havel, who has access to papers of the
counter-intelligence service, said earlier this month (December) that it
was only 70% certain that Atta had met the Iraqi  in Prague.
The British Defense Minister Geoff Hoon said in November, while on a visit
to Prague "I must emphasise that we do not have any proof of Baghdad's
participation in the attacks on New York and Washington."

The Associated Press on June 5, 2002 reported that the Czech UN Ambassador
said in a press briefing which included AP and the Prague Post "Atta and
al-Ani met." There was no new information, however, cited in the AP
report. The spokesperson for the Czech Foreign Ministry Ales Pospisil said
"The Ambassador only repeated the position held by the Czech authorities
which is based on analysis available to the interior ministry."

It appears that according to the officials involved the story ranges
between:  No evidence that the meeting occurred ( The Police Chief,
British Defense Secretary) There is a 70% chance it did (Havel) or
officials changed their position to: It happened, but offered no new
evidence (Czech UN ambassador) The only thing I can glean from these
varying reports is that there is uncertainty and no clear evidence of a
meeting. I would hope that before using this as justification for
declaring war that there was more evidence and at least that this evidence
was clearer. It is often cited in Network and Cable media and the
administration as unqualified, incontrovertible evidence. This may be
another example of the "deception" that Congressman referred to on Sept
30.

                          - * - * - * - * - * - * -

"Iraq kicked the Weapons Inspectors out"

On Sept. 18 During an address to the House Armed Services Committee, War
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was interrupted by Medea Benjamin and two other
members of Global Exchange.  They stood up and  asked " How many Iraqi
civilians are you willing to kill?. How many US service people are you
willing to kill, How are you going to protect us from the backlash?  Don't
we have a better use for 100 billion dollars? and why are you obstructing
arms inspections?"
Then started chanting "UN inspections Not US war! "
After the protesters were removed by police  Rumsfeld said "As I listen to
those comments it struck me what a wonderful thing free speech is.  And of
course the country that threw the inspectors out was not the United
States, It was not the United Nations, It was Iraq that threw the
inspectors out. But of course people like that are not able to go into
Iraq and make demonstrations like that because they don't have free
speech."

Actually, The US withdrew the inspectors on  December 16th 1998 a few
hours before a four day bombing campaign "Operation Desert Fox" That
included the use of 1100 bombs or rockets. The team cited resistance by
the government of Iraq in their inspections as the reason for the
withdrawal. They cited 5 specific attempted inspections. In the previous
month the team had made 423 inspections. Inspections which were cited as
being obstructed:

1. Inspectors requested to interview every undergraduate student in the
science department of an Iraqi University. Iraq resisted
2. There was a half hour delay at another site.
3. Inspectors requested to inspect Ba'ath Party headquarters at 5:05 PM,
five minutes after the building was closed for the day. The only person at
the site, the janitor said he would need to make a phone call to see if it
was allowed. 5 minutes later permission was granted but the inspectors had
left.
4 and 5: On two occasions inspectors requested to enter a mosque on
Friday, after the beginning of the Holy day observance, after the start of
the prayers. This request was granted on the condition that  the team was
accompanied by an Iraqi official. This was considered unacceptable
obstruction.

On January 7, 1999 The New York Times reported the following: "United
States officials  said today that America Spies had worked undercover on
teams of United Nations arms inspectors ferreting out secret Iraqi weapons
programs." In October 1997 Iraq stated that the inspectors were used by
American intelligence and that it would not cooperate with the inspections
in the future, stating that the teams were filled with "American spies and
agents." The Washington Post reported the same day, that UNSCOM had worked
with American spy agencies to gain intelligence used to undermine Saddam
Hussein. The Times reported:  "United States officials and American
intelligence agencies provided information and technology to the United
Nations Special Commission known as UNSCOM. In turn, they said, the United
States and other nations received information on Iraqi weapons programs
from the inspectors."  On January 8 the Times reported  "The United States
for nearly three years intermittently monitored the coded radio
communications on Saddam Hussein's innermost security forces using
equipment secretly installed in Iraq by UN weapons inspectors." According
to UN and US officials "the Iraqi communications were captured by
off-the-shelf commercial equipment carried by inspectors from the
organization known as UNSCOM then hand-delivered to analysis centers in
Britain, Israel and the (US)."

The Times reported that Scott Ritter, a former United States Marines
intelligence officer, said that in March 1998 his team had developed
"methodologies": that helped them to understand how Iraqi security
services concealed their arms programs. He stated, "In April, the US went
to Butler and wanted to take over certain portions of the system of how we
track these weapons." "I wanted to make sure it was only used for tracking
weapons, but the US wanted to cut me out." "I could no longer guarantee
that the methodology would be used" ( for weapons inspections alone and
not to benefit United States military and intelligence agencies.) "Butler
will have to convince people that what the US did  was for UNSCOM"
Mr. Ritter resigned from UNSCOM in August saying that the US and UN had
undermined the inspectors.

In an interview on Democracy NOW in August with Amy Goodman Mr. Ritter
amplified this:
"But let's remember who Butler's deputy was, Charles Dolfor, who will also
be giving testimony.(before Senator Biden' Committee) Dolfor was in AMSRAM
implementing American policy objectives which had nothing to do with
disarmament, and everything to do with the destabilization  and overthrow
of Saddam Hussain.  And while Butler was doing this, and while Dolfor was
doing this, the man overseeing this was Sandy Berger, the National
Security Advisor under president Clinton.  And I am personal witness to
Sandy Berger picking up the phone and intervening on numerous occasions,
directly interceding with the executive chairman or his deputy, violating
the chain of command of the Security Council, violating the secretary
generals purview over this. "

The Times article, referring to Mr. Ritter's comments in 1998 stated,
"American officials also said today (Jan.7) that a former United Nations
Weapons inspector was misinformed when he said the United States had taken
over a United Nations intelligence operation in Iraq"

While it is true that Iraq did state that the inspectors could not return,
specifically stating that they could not return unless the Special
Commission was restructured and Mr. Butler replaced. It seems that from
their point of view, substantiated by Scott Ritter that they have reason
for this. It is, however established fact that the Weapons Inspectors were
not kicked out of Iraq by Saddam's government as Mr. Rumsfeld has repeated
but withdrawn by the US hours before the start of Operation Desert Fox.

                          - * - * - * - * - * - * -

"Saddam has rebuilt his biological weapons factories destroyed during the
Gulf war"

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's address and the 50 page report upon
which it was based alleges that biological weapons facilities that were
destroyed in the Gulf War have been rebuilt. The report lists three
locations as "facilities of concern"

1.	The Castor Oil Production Plant at Fallujah: this was damaged in
UK/US air attacks in 1998 (Operation Desert Fox) but has been rebuilt
2.	the Al-Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Institute: which
involved in biological agent production and research before the Gulf War.
3.	the Amariyah Sera and Vaccine plant at Abu Ghraib


From1998 to 2000 Hans Von Sponeck was the UN Humanitarian Aid Coordinator.
He served the UN for a total of 32 years and resigned in Feb. 2002 in
protest over sanctions against Iraq. This is from a speech he gave in
Madison WI in July.

"I'm not a Scott Ritter. I'm not am arms expert, but during my last trip
to Iraq, I had a very unusual opportunity. With me was the official German
television, and I asked the Iraqi leadership to allow me to go to sites
that were alleged by intelligence agencies and by western media as having
produced again weapons of mass destruction and I went. It was my choice to
go to al-Dawra. It was my choice to go to Al Fallujah., two sites that
have been identified. And what did I see?, I saw al-Dawra in a totally
destroyed state. This was a facility that produced vaccines for foot and
mouth disease, and then biological weapons material.  In 1999 I visited
that facility. It was destroyed... nothing!  And a week ago, ten days ago
it was in the same destroyed status that I had seen it before. Now don't
tell me I have to be an arms expert in order to come to the conclusion
that there is nothing one should worry about as far as that facility is
concerned. The other one was in the western desert, (Fallujah) west of
Baghdad, the same picture. It was producing, or alleged to have been
producing chemical weapons material.( Mr von Sponeck may have been
describing the Fallujah 2 Chlorine plant which the British report also
lists as currently SsuspectS) and I saw only destroyed facilities and I
saw storage facilities where pigeons were nesting. Totally harmless...
They wouldn't choose toxic sites, I don't think, but the fact is, the site
was not producing and was defunct. "

There may very well be plants that the British Government lists as suspect
or having actually been rebuilt in-fact are, but the al-Dawra plant and
the facility in Fallujah, which Mt Von Sponeck visited are not at this
time producing anything useful in warfare.

IUm not sure which statements that Congressman McDermott was referring to
in his statement that were or will be intended to be misinformation but it
seems that many of the statements made by president Bush and his
administration are not precisely correct as stated. Perhaps this
imprecision is not intentional, but they continue to be repeated, most
recently in Bush's speech on October 7. I present them as documented
clarifications.

                          - * - * - * - * - * - * -

OIL

One possible benefit of a regime change in Iraq would be improved access
to Iraqi oil which has been estimated to be 10% of the world total supply.

In May 2001 The National Energy Policy Report, dubbed The Cheney Report
after it's principal author was released. It documented that over half of
the US oil supply came from foreign suppliers in 2000, and that it will
increase to two-thirds by 2020. It is clear that most of the US future oil
supply will come from foreign oils sources, the largest of which are
located in the middle east. Indeed the largest known supply in the world
is in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia's current situation is far from Stable.
There is increasing suspicion that extremists were involved in the attacks
of September 11. This has prompted US strategists to consider alternate
sources> The Caspian Sea countries of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan have
projected total supplies of 15 billion barrels.  Russia has projected
supplies of 49 billion. Iraq as the country with the second largest known
supply of oil has PROVEN reserves of 112 billion barrels. While Saudi
Arabia's oils supplies are nearly completely explored, and claimed.  The
norm in Iraq has been a state of nearly continuous from the time of the
Iran/Iraq war, through the Gulf War and on into weekly, sometimes daily
bombing from Coalition forces in the no fly zones. As a result, Iraq has
large areas that have not been explored but have the potential to contain
reserves greater than even Saudi Arabia.

Saddam  Hussein is well aware of this and being aware of the growing
threat to his regime from the US Iraq has reached agreements with several
countries to develop promising fields, explore promising regions or
refurbish proven fields. This is according to the International Energy
Agency's World Energy Outlook for 2001. Since 1991, Companies from
countries such as France, Italy, Russia, China, Vietnam, India and Algeria
all have contracts with  Iraq for field with estimated potential oil
reserves of 44 billion barrels. (At current prices of $25.00  per barrel
that equals $1.1 trillion) In fact all five permanent members of the UN
security council have international oil companies with major interest in a
potential regime change in Iraq. All of these deals are on hold until UN
sanctions are lifted.
As reported in the Washington Post on Sept 12, Former CIA director R.
James Woolsey, one of the leading advocates of regime change in Iraq, said
"It's pretty straightforward. France and Russia have oil companies and
interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in
moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure
that the new government and American companies work closely with them."

Russia, for example, has a huge economic interest in Iraq, which owes
Russia $7-8 Million from prior to the gulf war. In 1997 Lukoil negotiated
a $4 billion deal to develop the West Qurna field in southern Iraq
estimated to hold 15 billion barrels in reserve. The Russian oil services
company Slaavneft has a $52 million to drill in the Tuba Field also in
southern Iraq.  The French company Total Fina Elf negotiated the rights to
develop the 30 billion barrel Majnoon field.
The umbrella group of Iraqi dissidents, the Iraqi National Congress (INC)
have made it clear that they will not be bound by these previously made
agreements. "We will review all these agreements, definitely." Faisal
Qaragholi, the director of the London INC office, a petroleum engineer
said: "Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected
by the people." The INC leader Ahmed Chalabi indicated that he is open to
US oil companies leading a consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields.
"American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil. "

It seems clear that Iraq's oil, if under US control could supply the US
for decades to come without continuing to be beholden to Saudi Arabia, and
without the troublesome control of oil prices by OPEC.

Mo Mowlam, member of Prime Minister Blair's cabinet from 1997 until 2001,
wrote in The Guardian on Thursday September 5, 2002: "This whole affair
has nothing to do with a threat from Iraq-there isn't one. It has nothing
to do with the war against terrorism or with morality. Saddam Hussein is
obviously an evil man, but when we were selling arms to him to keep the
Iranians in check he was the same evil man he is today. He was a pawn then
and is a pawn now. In the same way he served western interests then, he is
now the distraction for the sleight of hand to protect the west's supply
of oil. And where does this leave the British government? Are they in on
the plan or just part of the smokescreen? The government speaks of
morality and the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, but can they
really believe it? "

                          - * - * - * - * - * - * -

REASONS NOT TO ATTACK IRAQ

1.It has been estimated to cost 100-200 billion dollars.

2.International law:
The charter of the United Nations and until last week US Policy forbids
countries who have not been attacked or who are not clearly in immanent
danger of being attacked from attacking other countries. "President" Bush
has asserted that the impetus for attacking Iraq is to enforce the
relevant UN resolution 687, which specifically details the methods to be
used and forms the basis for the inspection process. The resolution,
however does not specify any military enforcement mechanism. Legally, the
dispute about access of weapons inspectors into Iraq is between Iraq and
he UN.
According to Articles  41 and 42 of the Charter of the UN, no member state
has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the Security
Council determines that has been a material breach of it's resolution,
decides that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted and
specifically authorizes the use of military force. Any enforcement
decision is properly the decision of the Security council as a whole not a
particular member.

3. There is no evidence Iraq has nuclear weapons. The IAEA believes that
there was no capacity to produce such weapons at the time of Operation
Desert Fox in 1998. They believe there is no evidence to support his
having capacity to produce them at this time.

4. If he does have non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction and
is attacked, he may use them in response or give them to
others. The CIA issued a report on October 9 signed by deputy director
John McLaughlan on behalf of George Tenet. It stated: "Should Saddam
conclude that a US led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably
would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action" It noted
that Saddam could use conventional terrorism or chemical or biological
weapons if he has them as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a
large number of victims with him."

5. Other Countries maybe drawn into a regional war. Israel, as Jordan
fears could forcibly expel Palestinians under the cover of a regional war
or If there is a sympathetic uprising by Palestinians.

Israel would respond if attacked. Prime Minister Sharon has already stated
he would not hesitate as in the Gulf War. If attacked with
non-conventional weapons it could respond with it's own.

Nuclear war could erupt between India and Pakistan if Pro-Islamic
militants attempt to wrest power from pro-west Musharraf.

6. A doctrine of preemptive attack based on a potential threat may
embolden other countries to act similarly taking the example of the nation
which considered to be setting the moral example.

7. The Power to declare war is explicitly given in the constitution to the
Congress. There is no language in the constitution that gives authority to
Congress to give this power to the President.

8. Many People will be killed. If an invasion has started Saddam would
likely withdraw his troops to the large cities such as Basra and Baghdad
thus drawing large numbers of civilians into the conflict many hundreds if
not thousands would be killed. , Many could die if the massive aerial
bombing that was used in the first gulf war is used in areas of high
population density.

It's been estimated that over 3,000 civilians died in the bombing and
other fighting in Afghanistan

If there is a wider war even more people could be killed perhaps tens or
hundreds of thousands or more

                          - * - * - * - * - * - * -

Make no mistake. I believe that Saddam Hussein is a malevolent killer. He
has certainly been responsible for killing thousands in Iran and in his
country. He has not since 1991 shown any inclination to attempt to extend
his power beyond the borders of Iraq. The risk he poses to the region and
the world is not sufficiently imminent to justify sacrificing the
principles we as a country have held out as examples to the rest of the
world: compassion promotion of Liberty and Justice and the Rule of Law.

 Given the potential loss of thousands of  American and Iraqi lives, the
$100-200 billion cost, the risk of angering even moderate secular Islamic
states, let alone Islamist controlled countries, the dangerous precedent
that a strike-first policy will set for the world  and the risk of overall
conflagration in the entire region made even worse by the risk that an
attack will result in Saddam using weapons of mass destruction if he has
them. These factors leads me  to say and I quote "It's not worth the risk"

                          - * - * - * - * - * - * -

WHAT TO DO:

Become better informed.  Listen to Pacifica radio news. Pacifica radio
carries "Democracy NOW" It is a source of information that is not being
carried on AOL-Time Warner, GE, Sony, Disney, Murdock or Vivendi controlled
media. Watch C-SPAN. See what our members of Congress and others are actually
saying without editing.  Some alternative news sources include:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
http://www.fas.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://www.indymedia.org/
http://www.moveon.org/

And hang on to your hat!