{"article":{"id":26662,"heading":"GREENS: 'MORAL CLARITY' DEMANDS OPPOSITION TO BUSH'S WAR PLANS","author":"The Green Party","created":"2003-01-19 07:39:38","modified":"2003-01-19 07:39:38","last_modified":"Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:39:38","article":"

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As Bush begins sending

250,000 American troops to the Gulf region,

Greens are challenging the daily deceptions from

the Bush Administration on why it's necessary to

invade Iraq. Greens have accused President Bush

of feeding the American people a massive diet of

misinformation, especially the warning that Iraq

poses an imminent threat to the U.S.

In early January, Bush said \"An attack from

Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein

would cripple our economy.... Our economy is

strong, it's resilient, we've got to continue to

make it strong and resilient. This economy cannot

afford to stand an attack.\" Greens, who are

preparing for this weekend's antiwar rallies in

Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and other

cities, have called such statements a dishonest

appeal to legitimate concerns about security in

the wake of September 11.

\"Americans should be wary that the White House

will concoct a ' Gulf of Tonkin' incident, by

using any new terrorist incident, as a pretext

and justification for an attack on Iraq,\" said

Ben Manski, a Wisconsin Green and member of the

Steering Committee of the Green Party of the

United States. \"The Bush Administration mirrored

Saddam Hussein's own dishonesty when it censored

the parts of the 12,000-page Iraq report that

revealed the Western corporations that supplied

various weapons, especially biochemical

supplies.\"

The White House and the Pentagon have relied on

public relations experts such as Victoria Clarke,

formerly of Hill & Knowlton, and the Rendon Group

to steer public opinion in favor of an invasion.

Greens cite a litany of lies and manipulation

from the Bush Administration on the need for war:

BUSH: Iraq is a threat to the U.S.

Although clearly a dictator who continues to

inflict death and suffering on the people of

Iraq, Saddam Hussein has done nothing to provoke

an invasion, is neither a proven threat to U.S.

security or to the borders of any nation in

Middle East region, and commands a weak military

force. The White House has offered no plausible

evidence that Saddam has any means of delivering

shortrange warheads, nerve gas, and other

biochemical weapons, even if he still possesses

them.

\"The desire to change the regime of another

nation is not a valid justification for invasion

-- there is no right to wage 'preemptive' war,\"

said J. Roy Cannon, chair of the Peace Committee

of the Green Party of Delaware. \"An invasion by

the U.S. would violate international laws, the

U.N. charter, the Monroe Doctrine of U.S.

military action as a defensive last resort, and

the U.S. Constitution's restriction of the use of

U.S. armed forces to the defense of our borders.

It's clear that the U.S. is determined not to

accept the results of the U.N. inspections.\"

BUSH: Saddam Hussein is in league with Al Qaeda.

The White House has never shown credible proof of

any connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda,

despite Bush's constant insistence of evidence

gathered through intelligence.

BUSH: This is not about oil.

The Bush Administration's intention to seize

control of Iraqi oil resources has been

acknowledged by many of supporters of Bush's war

plans. Invasion supporter Sen. Pete Domenici

(Rep.-NM), speaking in a moment of candor, said

\"that the administration's Iraq policies were

based, essentially, on Israel and oil.\" (ABC

News, January 10, 2003). Jack Straw, U.K.

Foreign Secretary, acknowledged in a speech to

British ambassadors that oil is the main

motivation for Blair's support for Bush's war,

much more so than any threat of WMDs; the Blair

government is concerned about global energy

supplies, especially oil imports, during the

coming years.

The most outspoken war-for-oil proponent is

Richard Perle, chair of the Defense Policy Board,

a Pentagon advisory group. Perle's Rand

Corporation report briefing submitted in July,

2002, recommends invading Iraq as a first step in

gaining U.S. control over oil throughout the

Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia (Boston

Globe, September 10, 2002).

Contrary to the White House's claim that oil

revenues from Iraq after the invasion should

benefit the Iraqi people, Newsday reported that

administration officials plan to use oil money to

pay for the expenses of the U.S. postwar

occupation of Iraq, which is expected to cost

from $12 billion to $48 billion a year (January

10, 2003). Iraq has the second largest oil

reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia; other

Arab and Muslim nations would recognize the

appropriated Iraqi oil money as proof of the

U.S.'s colonial motivation for the invasion.

BUSH: Invasion of Iraq is justified by our 'Moral

Clarity' against a member of the 'Axis of Evil.'

The White House's rhetoric about moral clarity is

a mask for the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld doctrine:

preemptive invasion to ensure U.S. interests;

first-strike use of nuclear weapons; unilateral

military action; withdrawal from or rejection of

international treaties and agreements; and

increased surveillance and erosion of

Constitutional rights at home.

\"This is not what a democracy looks like and acts

like,\" said Ben Manski. \"This is how empires

operate.\"

BUSH: We're doing this to help the Iraqi people.

The U.S.'s 'precision' warfare will kill

thousands, possible tens or hundreds of thousands

of Iraqi civilians. Most of the American

casualties in the invasion itself will probably

come from friendly fire. The U.N. predicts a

humanitarian disaster, with up to a half million

injuries during the early stages of the war.

BUSH: We don't want to go to war.

In November, Richard Perle assured British

members of Parliament that the invasion is

inevitable, even if the U.N. inspection team

doesn't find evidence of nuclear and biochemical

weapons. Bush Administration officials favored

an invasion of Iraq even before September 11,

2001, according to policy blueprints such as

\"Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies,

Forces And Resources For A New Century,\" drafted

in September 2000 by the think tank Project for

the New American Century for the future Bush

cabinet.

\"This will not be a simple invasion, regime

change, and occupation,\" said Mark Dunlea, Chair

of the Green Party of New York State. \"Expect

numerous international consequences from the

invasion: strikes from Iraq against Israel, which

possesses nuclear weapons that Sharon might use

in retaliation; regional destabilization could

set off a military exchange between India and

Pakistan; a surge in terrorism against the West.

The consequences of war are always

unpredictable.\"

Greens have called for peace-based measures to

end conflicts in the Middle East: ending the

economic sanctions and help rebuild Iraq's

infrastructure, especially provision of food,

water, and medical supplies; imposing sanctions

against selling weapons to Iraq and all other

belligerent nations, including Israel; ending

Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and

dismantling the settlements.

The U.S., say Greens, must work with other

nations to eliminate all nuclear and biochemical

weapons from the Middle East and to reduce

dependence on fossil fuels drastically; if

apprehension and prosecution of Saddam Hussein is

necessary, in the unlikely event that he launches

a suicidal attack on any nation, they must be

accomplished through international channels, with

full international support.

\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"Waiting for the next 'Gulf of Tonkin': Greens\r\ncall the White House's stated reasons for\r\ninvading Iraq a litany of deception and PR\r\npropaganda\r\n","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2003\/01\/26662.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}