From the Ventura County Star / September 2, 2005

Eight Steps to Create Sensible Immigration

By David Howard

Today, about 125 million people live outside their countries of origin. Global migration is as much a part of our lives as the air we breathe. People migrate for many reasons -- war, famine, drought and natural disaster. Some are political refugees, but most are economic refugees. Migrants invariably follow the job market. They are here because we value their labor.

Here are eight steps we can take to create a sustainable immigration policy consistent with our sacred traditions of hospitality, our core family values and our respect for human rights.

1. Support the Dream Act. Many children cannot fulfill a dream of higher education because they came to this country as infants or young children without documentation. If apprehended, they are deported, often to countries they have never been in, whose language they do not speak. The Dream Act would let them apply for permanent resident status and eventual citizenship.

2. Support the Immigration Fairness Act. This legislation, proposed by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, offers a path to legalization for working families who have been here five years. The bill also requires fees paid by legalization applicants to be used for creating jobs in communities with high joblessness.

3. Protect our borders. The best way to increase border security is to narrow the gap between rich and poor nations. The more we help the countries from which economic refugees flee, the less reason they have to leave. Wouldn't some of the billions we budget for war be better spent helping our neighbors?

Since 1993 on our southern border, we have had Operation Blockade, Operation Hold-the-Line, Operation Gatekeeper, Operation Safeguard, Operation Rio Grande and Operation Triple Strike; as well as wars on crime, drugs and terror. We have spent billions militarizing the border; incited armed groups even President Bush refers to as "vigilantes"; diverted immigrants from safe crossings and watched aghast while hundreds died in the desert. But we have failed to stop the flow.

Law enforcement plays a key role in immigration. But our immigration policy cannot revolve exclusively around enforcement. We also must consider development, immigrant rights, and economic and environmental interdependence.

4. Watch your language. Avoid pejoratives like "aliens," which evoke images of bad Sigourney Weaver films. It's dehumanizing to refer to immigrants as "illegals." Economic refugee families are not criminals; demonizing them is cruel and divisive.

5. Learn a language. Make your second language Spanish, and your third Vietnamese, Korean, Tagalog or Mixtec, all of which have significant numbers of Ventura County speakers.

6. Support farmworkers. Remember where our food comes from. When you say grace, thank a migrant farmworker.

7. Support the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, which improves judicial review of immigration decisions and prevents unconstitutional detention without charges.

8. Attend the Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions' panel on immigration Sept. 11 from 3-5 p.m. at Foster Library's Topping Room in Ventura. Let's learn together to address immigrant issues with intelligence and compassion.

David Howard, of Ojai, is co-chairman of Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions.

© 2005 Ventura County Star

From the Washington Post / September 11, 2005

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan

By Walter Pincus

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.

The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.

Titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.

A "summary of changes" included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document "revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations."

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.

Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

That and other provisions in the document appear to refer to nuclear initiatives proposed by the administration that Congress has thus far declined to fully support.

Last year, for example, Congress refused to fund research toward development of nuclear weapons that could destroy biological or chemical weapons materials without dispersing them into the atmosphere.

The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for "attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons."

But Congress last year halted funding of a study to determine the viability of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead (RNEP) -- commonly called the bunker buster -- that the Pentagon has said is needed to attack hardened, deeply buried weapons sites.

The Joint Staff draft doctrine explains that despite the end of the Cold War, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction "raises the danger of nuclear weapons use." It says that there are "about thirty nations with WMD programs" along with "nonstate actors [terrorists] either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state."

To meet that situation, the document says that "responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today."

To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them "if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use."

The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary's leadership must "believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective." The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has "repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence."

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee who has been a leading opponent of the bunker-buster program, said yesterday the draft was "apparently a follow-through on their nuclear posture review and they seem to bypass the idea that Congress had doubts about the program." She added that members "certainly don't want the administration to move forward with a [nuclear] preemption policy" without hearings, closed door if necessary.

A spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday the panel has not yet received a copy of the draft.

Hans M. Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, who discovered the document on the Pentagon Web site, said yesterday that it "emphasizes the need for a robust nuclear arsenal ready to strike on short notice including new missions."

Kristensen, who has specialized for more than a decade in nuclear weapons research, said a final version of the doctrine was due in August but has not yet appeared.

"This doctrine does not deliver on the Bush administration pledge of a reduced role for nuclear weapons," Kristensen said. "It provides justification for contentious concepts not proven and implies the need for RNEP."

One reason for the delay may be concern about raising publicly the possibility of preemptive use of nuclear weapons, or concern that it might interfere with attempts to persuade Congress to finance the bunker buster and other specialized nuclear weapons.

In April, Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services panel and asked for the bunker buster study to be funded. He said the money was for research and not to begin production on any particular warhead. "The only thing we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons," Rumsfeld said. "It seems to me studying it [the RNEP] makes all the sense in the world."

From the Ventura County Star / August 8, 2004

Summer Days, Presidential Campaigns and Hiroshima

By Robert Dodge
 
This past Friday, the world quietly observed the 59th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the dawn of the first Nuclear Age.

On this quiet late summer day in a presidential election season, not a word was noted in most of the communities across our land.

In a local barbershop, a conversation was heard that there was hardly a difference in the candidates for this year's presidential election. As I pondered this statement, I realized how remarkable it was in this season of remembrance and reflection. Currently, the world stands at the brink of entering a renewed second nuclear arms race dependent upon U.S. policy.

Members of Congress, at home during their summer recess, will return to debate the president's request for additional funding for new nuclear weapons systems, including the huge "Bunker Buster" and "Usable" mini-nukes. This reflects a mind-set that nuclear weapons are necessary and usable and that nuclear arms treaties constrict us and interfere with our ability to develop these new weapons systems.

These ideas are reflected in the administration's "Nuclear Posture Review," released in March 2002. Remarkably, it also proposes that the United States alone could unleash a pre-emptive nuclear attack on a nation for the suspicion of threat. If no other issue were to be debated this season, this alone stands as the most critical for our future and that of future generations.

Regarding the issues of nuclear security, we need to ask where the candidates stand. We must then decide and vote accordingly. Let's look at three specific areas.

1. Creation of new nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

2. Moratorium on nuclear testing and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

3. The problem of former Soviet nuclear weapons.

The CIA and intelligence communities advise that one of the most significant threats to U.S. security is attack by some terrorist organization using a weapon obtained from former Soviet stockpiles. These weapons are potentially more readily available following the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty, signed by President Bush and Russia's President Vladimir Putin, which aims to store rather than destroy nuclear stockpiles.

On these questions, Bush is pressing Congress for funds to develop new nuclear weapons systems while Sen. John Kerry states he will "stop this administration's program to develop new nuclear weapons. These are systems we don't need." He then questions what the message is that this sends to other countries.

On nuclear testing, the president has asked for funding to prepare the Nevada test site for accelerated testing readiness and has spoken against the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, while Kerry is an outspoken proponent of arms control and nonproliferation. He supports ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Third, on former Soviet nukes, the president has negotiated the SORT treaty, which, as stated, plans to store nuclear stockpiles. Kerry states that SORT "runs the risk of increasing the danger of nuclear theft by stockpiling thousands of warheads." He states that when he is president, he will make securing weapons and materials from the former Soviet Union a priority in relations between the United States and Russia.

Finally, we must ask how other nations of the world and our adversaries will respond to our lip service of ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction, yet unilaterally pursuing the development and potential use of them.

The answers to these questions will determine how we are viewed by the world community and the hope our future will hold.

This 59th anniversary of Hiroshima, we are reminded of the famous Albert Einstein quote at the beginning of the first arms race: "With the unleashed power of the atom, we thus drift towards unparalleled catastrophe unless we change the way we think."

On these lazy days of summer, when politics seems so insignificant and remote, the choice is ours. There really are differences. We must decide. The world is watching.

From the Ventura County Star website / July 4, 2004
http://www.insidevc.com/

Demonstrate Leadership

By Robert Dodge

On this election year July 4th, we have the opportunity to pause and reflect on who we are as a nation and ask what we want for the future.

Suppose you are in charge. Suppose you had $123 million to spend on your community. How would you spend it? What would be your priorities? We must assess our dreams, priorities and aspirations for the future and decide whether to stay the course or to change direction. We have many tough questions before us. These deserve open and frank discussion and demand honest answers.

Questions about the war, the occupation and the exit strategy from Iraq remain central to our daily anxiety. Concerns about energy policy, healthcare, the environment, education costs and access, job and wage security, and the draft are high on people's list.

Issues of nuclear policy, security and threats get less attention but remain part of our fear. Certainly, these issues impact the 48 percent of eligible voters who did not vote in the last presidential election. To quote the old phrase, if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.

Federal spending priorities are being set while cities and towns across the nation face these same difficult budget choices on a daily basis.

Typically, social programs bear the brunt of these cutbacks. However, police and fire, and infrastructure are not spared. Ventura County's budgetary shortfall was $40 million this year. Social programs from mental-health-monitoring programs, to senior ombudsman and child protective services social worker positions saw major cutbacks. Tragically, we also have thousands of citizens under the age of 18 without health insurance. We must ask if this provides for future security.

Incredibly, this occurs at a time when the Bush administration still seems wedded to old Cold War ideas, spending $40 billion on the nuclear weapons industry this current year and asking for additional funding for 2005.

While demanding that nations of the world abandon their nuclear weapons of mass destruction, the president is asking Congress to approve funding to develop a new generation nuclear weapons. A classic example of "Do as I say, not as I do." The U.S. Senate is debating this very issue currently.

As such, we remain on the brink of initiating a new arms race, a race driven by our own fixation on Cold War nuclear weapons for security rather than recognizing the very real insecurity posed by having them. Not surprisingly, the CIA states that the greatest security threat to the United States is the threat of a dirty nuclear bomb attack at one of our largest cities or ports by a terrorist organization obtaining the materials from a former Soviet-era source.

The administration, while giving lip service to arms control, has pushed for new and "usable" nuclear weapons development as it considers the Department of Energy's funding. Said together, "usable" and "nuclear," makes these weapons -- among the most deadly on the planet -- sound benign.

These developments ignore the fact that in a nuclear world, war itself is the enemy. The United States, with the world's largest and most deadly arsenal of weapons, must ask how many more will it take to make us feel secure? How can we ask of others what we are unwilling to do ourselves? We must work to secure the world's nuclear stockpiles and then seek multilateral verifiable destruction of these stores.

Ultimately, we must demand a shift in our national behavior, demonstrating that "the means are the ends in the making," not that as long as things turn out all right, it doesn't really matter how we get there.

In doing so, we can once again demonstrate to ourselves and to the world the cooperative leadership role the United States can play.

That $123 million? That is Ventura County's share of the 2004 U.S. nuclear weapons industry. Is that your priority? Are we really getting our money's worth? On this Independence Day 2004, we must decide. That was the intent of our Founding Fathers: an informed citizenry able to make decisions regarding their destiny.

We must seek the participation of those most affected and least represented by today's decisions. We must listen to and seek the concerns of the younger "Generation Y" and minority voices. It is our responsibility. We must all respond.

It is time to reaffirm our nation's founding values and develop a vision of a renewed democracy. As the world's oldest democracy, it is time to restore the government of the people, for the people and by the people. We owe it to ourselves and to our children. The world is watching for our example.

Published on August 6, 2003 in the VENTURA COUNTY STAR

The choice is ours

By Robert Dodge
August 6, 2003

Today marks the 58th anniversary of the Aug. 6, 1945, atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the dawn of the nuclear age. That day, like few others in history, marks a critical turning point in man's evolution and legacy to future generations. The force unleashed that day haunts us and robs our human family to this day.

The nuclear arms race has consumed $5 trillion of American treasure since 1945. Imagine for a moment the human cost in depriving ourselves of this bounty.

The U.S. nuclear arsenal of 7,500 nuclear weapons with a firepower of 80,000 Hiroshimas, combined with that of the former Soviet states, retains the ability to destroy life as we know it on this planet many times over. Yet, we contemplate starting the arms race again to develop even more nuclear weapons.

The current war effort in Iraq was justified in part to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction of which nuclear weapons remain the most deadly. While publicly expressing a desire to eliminate these weapons, our current administration seeks to reverse nuclear disarmament policies sought by every president since President Kennedy to reduce our nuclear stockpiles and reliance, instead seeking to develop an entirely new generation of "usable nuclear weapons."

These weapons by their very name are weapons that are considered for use, thus lowering the threshold for nuclear war and fueling a renewed nuclear arms race. Military historians will confirm that there has never been a weapons system that was not duplicated by adversarial powers. This is a road we must not travel.

Today's funding of nuclear weapons continues to deprive our society of precious limited resources, thus taking a terrific toll in human costs. Every day, our elected officials deal with the financial crisis of the current economy. They are entrusted by us to put our dollars to the best possible use, from a national economy with massive deficits reeling with the loss of a million jobs in the last three months to a state economy bordering on bankruptcy. We have more than 40 million Americans without health insurance with 20 percent children. California alone has 6.2 million without health insurance.

In Ventura County, officials grapple with budget decisions and cutbacks on a daily basis. We face cutbacks of 16 Senior Nutrition Centers serving hundreds of our elderly at $1.5 million annually, after-school Library Homework Centers at $7,000. per year, two homeless social workers lost at $51,000. annually. Ventura Unified School District will see cutbacks of $7 million, or approximately $100 per student, for the 2004 school year. These are but a partial listing of local cutbacks.

What does this have to do with nuclear weapons funding? Unbelievably, Ventura County alone will contribute $116,119,202.84 to the U.S. nuclear weapons programs in 2003. This incredible figure is a fraction of our local annual total Department of Defense expenditure and does not include our cost of the Iraq war effort.

The questions remain, do these weapons really make us secure and how many more will it take to make us feel safe? We are reminded of the prophetic words of Albert Einstein in 1946 when he said, "The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe."

As we reflect on Hiroshima Day and contemplate the future we must realize that the choice is ours. There is the saying that "ultimately we will be judged by how we take care of our children, our elderly and our sick who are the least able to take care of themselves." It is fitting to quote one of our greatest military generals, President Eisenhower. He stated: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies ... a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed."

-- Robert F. Dodge, M.D., of Ventura, is co-chairman of Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions and president of Ventura County Physicians for Social Responsibility

Published on Friday, July 4, 2003 in the VENTURA COUNTY STAR

U.S. is at a Neonuclear Crossroads

by Robert F. Dodge

On this Fourth of July, we find ourselves again at a historic crossroads. We have an opportunity to reflect on who we are as a nation and ask what our role is and what we stand for in a post-Cold War world. We have many tough questions before us. They deserve open discussions and demand honest answers. They include questions regarding war in Iraq, development of new and "usable" nuclear weapons and, most importantly, our vision and behavior as a truly democratic nation. This was the intent of our Founding Fathers: an informed citizenry able to make decisions regarding its destiny.

Now that the United States is occupying Iraq and the war is transitioning to a messy protracted guerrilla war, questions are arising regarding the prewar buildup and the actual reasons given for war. While the administration seeks to clarify and redefine these issues to thwart any questions, we find our collective psyche being pulled in many directions.

No one denies that the world is better off without Saddam. Everyone loves to be on a winning team. There were never doubts about the ability to overthrow the Iraq regime.

Now we are reminded of the saying, "Win the war, lose the peace." No one appreciates being manipulated. We were told of the known weapons of mass destruction and their whereabouts and the imminent threat to the United States by the regime playing into our fear in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world. In fact, many of the documents were known to be fraudulent or, at best, exaggerated from the start.

Whether or not weapons of mass destruction are ever found, ultimately the war was not about them, imminent threat or liberation of Iraq. It was about the role of the neoconservative agenda of the Project for the New American Century, whose principles were authored by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in the early 1990s. This post-Cold War doctrine, which has become the Bush administration's template of American foreign policy, called for significant increases in U.S. defense expenditures and militarism throughout the world, establishment of a U.S. presence in the oil-rich Islamic Middle East with Iraq the likely target, and the concept of pre-emptive war. Simply stated, the real reason for the war in Iraq was because we could.

Sadly, we seem ready to repeat many of our mistakes from the past. Today, we find ourselves ready to arm any nation willing to support our war on terrorism. Despite their atrocious records on human rights and treatment of their own people, countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Oman, Pakistan, Tajikistan and scores of others stand ready to receive American arms. We thus plant the seeds of tomorrow's terrorists and guarantee the risk to future generations of American soldiers.

Today, we stand at the brink of initiating a new arms race. The administration, while giving lip service to arms control, will ask Congress in the next few days to appropriate funds for new and "usable" nuclear weapons development as it considers the Department of Energy's funding. Said together, "usable and nuclear," makes these weapons, among the most deadly on the planet, sound benign. Not surprisingly, we are informed in next month's Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists that Russia will soon begin development of its own new nuclear arsenal. These developments ignore the fact that in a nuclear world, war itself is the enemy. The United States, with the world's largest and most deadly arsenal of weapons, must ask: "How many more will it take to make us feel secure?"

Ultimately the question is, do the ends justify the means? If that is indeed the case, what does that tell us about ourselves? What does it tell our children, and what does it say to the rest of the world? How do we feel, and what is our response to being manipulated by our own government?

In this era of corporate greed, power brokering and scandal, the Enrons, Bechtels and Halliburtons, with their close ties to the Bush administration, are plundering our fiscal resources. We see our democracy placed in escrow, sold to the highest bidder, becoming a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

On this July 4, the time has come. It is our responsibility. We must respond. It is time to reaffirm our nation's founding values and develop a vision of a renewed democracy. It is time to restore government of the people, for the people and by the people. It is time for America to take a leadership role in cooperation with the international community. The world awaits our answer and will respond accordingly.

-- Robert F. Dodge, of Ventura, is co-chairman of Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions and president of Ventura County Physicians for Social Responsibility

Arise, then, women of this day!
Arise all women who have hearts,
whether our baptism be that of water
or of tears.

Say firmly: 'We will not have great questions
decided by irrelevant agencies.
Our husbands shall not come to us,
reeking with carnage,
for caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us
to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them
of charity, mercy and patience.

We women of one country
will be too tender of those of another country
to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.
From the bosom of the devastated earth
a voice goes up with our own. It says
"Disarm, Disarm! The Sword of Murder
is not the balance of Justice."
Blood does not wipe our dishonor
nor violence indicate possession.

As men have often forsaken
the plow and the anvil at the summons of war,
let women now leave all that may be left of home
for a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women,
to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them then solemnly take counsel with each other
as to the means whereby the great human family
can live in peace, each bearing after their own time
the sacred impress, not of Caesar, but of God.

In the name of womanhood and of humanity,
I earnestly ask that a general congress of women
without limit of nationality may be appointed and held
at some place deemed most convenient
and at the earliest period consistent with its objects,
to promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
the amicable settlement of international questions,
the great and general interests of peace.

Julia Ward Howe, Boston 1870.

Published on Friday, February 28, 2003 by NOW with Bill Moyers

Patriotism and the Flag

by Bill Moyers

 
I put the flag in my lapel tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans. Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose ideals inspired me; I offered my heart's affections in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15.

So what's this flag doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo - the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. And during the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration's patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's Little Red Book on every official's desk, omnipresent and unread.

But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapels while writing books and running Web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting. They're in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks even as they call for more spending on war.

So I put this on as a modest riposte to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don't have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the coalition of the willing (after they first stash the cash). I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to the government. And it reminds me that it's not un-American to think that war -- except in self-defense -- is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve, and diplomatic skill. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country.

What do you think?

On Heroes

Every generation, every era in history, has a need for heros, a longing for men and women whose selfless courage reinvigorates our own sense of purpose and commitment to action. In recent months and years, we have found our heros in the police and firefighters of New York City, the Columbia astronauts, and many more. CPR would like to offer a new name to be added to that exalted roster: John Brady Kiesling, whose heroic act of moral courage was recently documented in his letter of resignation from the U.S. Foreign Service. That letter is excerpted below.

February 27, 2003
To: Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.
From: John Brady Kiesling, Political Counselor, U.S. Embassy, Athens

[Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan]

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States . . . I do so with a heavy heart . . . Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job . . . [for which] my faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

. . . Until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

. . . We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool.

. . . We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners . . . Have we indeed become blind . . . to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism?

. . . Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies . . .?

. . . When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

. . . I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

complete text

Excerpts of Comments before the U.S. Senate,  February 12, 2003

Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences

Senator Robert Byrd
 
As this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.  Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. 
. . .

This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. . . . The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense.  It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. . . .There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation.
. . .

This Administration has split  traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO.  This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper.  This Administration has turned  the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.  
. . .

Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?  

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years . . . to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet.  Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous.  There is no other word.  Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent.

On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent.  On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent . . .We are truly "sleepwalking through history."  In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.  

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card.  And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice.  I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unpr ovoked  military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country".  This war is not necessary at this time.  Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq.  Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly.  Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making.  Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

complete text

From the Ventura County Star website / February 11, 2003
http://www.insidevc.com/

Move Back from the Brink

By Robert Dodge

What are the reasons a nation might be justified in contemplating and going to war? A response to attack in self-defense? A direct, clear, present and imminent threat to a nation? We now must pause at the brink of war and ask ourselves, have these reasons been met?

These questions must be addressed by all, and not left to the proverbial "they," as in they know what is best. In a democracy, they work for the people and carry out the work of the people. We must decide and be clear in our own minds.

In today's world, armed with all forms of weapons of mass destruction provided by the superpowers, where the potential escalation of any conflict can occur, there no longer exists the concept of individual national security. Rather, common security is now the reality. We are only as secure as our adversaries are. We each are threatened by our mutual distrust.

Therefore, any contemplation of war must only occur in the collective and with broad international support. Failing that support, we run the risk of further inflaming the very causes used as justification by our adversaries, thus escalating the process.

In the past two weeks, we have heard the United Nations weapons inspectors state that although the Iraqis have been less cooperative than desired, the Iraq inspections coupled with intelligence data have thus far turned up no weapons.

President Bush continued his push for war in the State of the Union address, ultimately culminating the week advising the world community that "you are either with us or irrelevant." This statement effectively undermines and dismisses international law, the United Nations and NATO and insults the democratic process.

Finally, Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the case for the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the possible al-Qaida connection, identifying a possible cell in northwestern Iraq. Of note, northern Iraq is patrolled by U.S./British aircraft in the no-fly zone and certainly not in the control of Baghdad. Indeed, the CIA and FBI have contended that an Iraq/al-Qaida association is a stretch at best.

Conversely, our continued insistence to vilify and associate these two may do more to unite them against us as a common enemy. Unfortunately, conquering Iraq in a war will not end the threat of terrorism and is more likely to nurture its development. Again, the CIA has stated that the risk of U.S. terrorist attacks is surely to increase with war in Iraq.

Perhaps the greatest irony has been the accidental loss of the Columbia with its seven international and American faces. This has struck a chord in the world human family that is indeed eerie as we simultaneously contemplate the intentional infliction of massive military action against Iraq with its potential for untold human suffering.

Have the reasons for war been met? Is war unavoidable? Some would argue that the United States is two countries with two worldviews. One inside the Washington Beltway that sees war as a given and one outside the Beltway remaining unconvinced and voicing growing opposition to this war.

Virtually all news media and analysts have presented this as a fait accompli with war indeed being inevitable. This despite growing national and international opposition, including members of all political parties, business leaders, religious leaders and the medical and scientific communities.

This past week, 41 American Nobel Laureates joined Nobel Peace Prize recipients and business leaders in speaking out against preventative or pre-emptive war in Iraq. Their statement notes: "Military operations against Iraq may indeed lead to a relatively swift victory in the short term. But war is characterized by surprise, human loss, and unintended consequences. Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, moral, spiritual, political and legal consequences of an American preventative attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world."

The United Nations and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War predict that up to 100,000 Iraq casualties will occur in this war and up to 500,000 individuals will require significant medical care, including untold numbers of American soldiers. Are we truly ready to take on this responsibility?

The answer must be no. Perceived danger and fear are not justifiable reasons for war. It is also not the reason to define a new doctrine of pre-emptive or preventative war. At what point then would pre-empting the pre-emption be justified? Where would it stop? As the leader of the Free World and therefore an example to nations of the world, how could we respond to others following our lead?

China dealing with Taiwan, Russia dealing with its former states, North Korea and South Korea and, finally, India and Pakistan seeming on the brink of nuclear exchange? Perceived danger is a reason for us to keep our defenses up as we work within the world community to end the hatred and root causes of terrorism.

Is war justified? The answer is no. We are not convinced. We do not want our brave military personnel to be in harm's way and to become victims to the euphemisms of sanitized war including smart bombs, collateral damage and friendly fire. We must implore President Bush to hear our voices and move back from the brink of war. We say no to war in our name. We give you permission not to go to war and to now apply the same resolve you have shown to finding a peaceful resolution.

"The undersigned oppose a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support.  Military operations against Iraq may indeed lead to a relatively swift victory in the short term. But war is characterized by surprise, human loss, and unintended consequences.  Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political, and legal consequences of an American preventive attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world".

       (Ph)-Physics
       (Ch)-Chemistry
       (M)-Physiology or medicine
       (P)-peace
       (E)-economics
       *Recipients of the National Medal of Science
       1 Director, Theory Division, WWII Manhattan Project
       2 Former Director of Research, DOD Institute for Defense Analysis and
          Former Member of President's Science Advisory Council

The following organizations support the Nobel Laureates' position:

Physicians for Social Responsibility (US affiliate of the IPPNW) (P)

True Majority, including, present or former CEOs of:
       Bell Industries
       Eastman Kodak
       Goldman Sachs 
       Hasbro
       Men's Warehouse
       Phillips
       Van Heusen

Military leaders:
       Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan
       Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense [under President Reagan]
       Admiral  Stansfield Turner (USM, ret.) former CIA Director
       Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll (USN, ret.)

Heads of major religious denominations representing 30 million Americans, including:
       the  Presbyterians
       the Methodists and
       the National Baptists

The Social Venture Network including:
       Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc.
       Brown and Company
       Calvert Group
       Christian Brothers Investment Group
       Episcopal Church Foundation
       Fores Trade Inc.
       Hall Financial Group
       Investors Circle
       KDPaine & Partners
       Market Street Research Inc
       New Capitalist
       Placeware, Inc
       Rochefeller & Company
       Salomon, Smith Barney,
       Stonyfield Farm Inc, Tom's of Maine)

Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy, John Hagelin

The following religious leaders support the Nobel Laureates' position:

       Gordon D. Kaufman, Professor of Divinity, Emeritus, Harvard University
       Robert V. Thompson, Council For A Parliament of the World's Religions.

1.       As European church leaders, in consultation with councils of churches in the USA and the Middle East, we remain extremely concerned with the continued calls for military action against Iraq by the US and some European governments. As people of faith, our love of neighbour compels us to oppose war and to seek peaceful resolution of conflicts. As churches we pray for peace and freedom, justice and safety for the people of Iraq and in the Middle East as a whole. Such prayer obliges us to be instruments of peace.

2.       We deplore the fact that the most powerful nations of this world again regard war as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy. This creates an international culture of fear, threat and insecurity.

3.       We cannot accept the stated objectives of a war against Iraq, as laid out by these governments, in particular the US. Pre-emptive military strike and war as a means to change the regime of a sovereign state are immoral and in violation of the UN Charter. We appeal to the Security Council to uphold the principles of the UN Charter, which strictly limit the legitimate use of military force, and to refrain from creating negative precedence and lowering the threshold for using violent means to solve international conflicts.

4.       We believe that military force is an inappropriate means to achieve disarmament of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. We insist that the carefully designed mechanisms of the UN weapons inspections be given the time needed to complete their work.

5.       All UN member states have to comply with binding UN resolutions and resolve conflicts by peaceful means. Iraq can be no exception. We call on the Government of Iraq to destroy any weapons of mass destruction and
related research and production facilities. Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors, and guarantee full respect of the civil and political, economic, social and cultural human rights for all its citizens. The people in Iraq must be given hope that there are alternatives to both dictatorship and war.

6.       A war would have unacceptable humanitarian consequences, including large-scale displacement of people, the breakdown of state functions, the possibility of civil war and major unrest in the whole region. The plight of Iraqi children and the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis over the past 12 years of sanctions regime weighs heavily on our hearts. In the present situation, we strongly affirm long-standing humanitarian principles of unconditional access to people in need.

7.       We further caution against the potential social, cultural, and religious as well as diplomatic long-term consequences of such a war. Further fueling the fires of violence that are already consuming the region will only exacerbate intense hatred strengthening extremist ideologies and breeding further global instability and insecurity. As church leaders in Europe we have a moral and pastoral responsibility to challenge xenophobia in our own countries as well as allay the fears of many in the Muslim world that the so-called Western Christianity is against their culture, religion and values. We should seek co-operation for peace, justice and human dignity.

8.       All governments, in particular the members of the Security Council have the responsibility to consider the whole complexity of this issue. All peaceful and diplomatic means to compel Iraq to comply with UN Security Council resolutions have not been exhausted.

9.       For us it is a spiritual obligation, grounded in God's love for all humanity, to speak out against war in Iraq. Through this message we send a strong sign of solidarity and support, to churches in Iraq, the Middle East and in the USA. We pray that God will guide those responsible to take decisions based on careful reflections, moral principles and high legal standards. We invite all churches to join us in this act of witness and to pray for and encourage participation of all people in the struggle for a peaceful resolution of this conflict.

Invited Church Leaders:
Präses Manfred Kock, President of the Council of the Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (EKD)
Archbishop Jukka Parma, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland
Archbishop Feofan, Russian Orthodox Church, Archbishop of  Berlin and Germany
Bishop Dr. Walter Klaiber, Head of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Christlicher
Kirchen in Deutschland (ACK) and Evangelical-Methodist Church (Germany)
Bishop Athanasius of Achaja, Church of Greece
Bishop Mag. Herwig Sturm, Evangelical Church of the Augsburg and Helvetic Confessions in Austria
Bishop Jonas Jonson, Bishop of the Church of  Sweden
Bishop Karsten Nissen, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Denmark
Rev. Canon Dr Trond Bakkevig, Church of Norway
Dr. Alison Elliot, Church of Scotland and Churches Together in Scotland (ACTS)
Rev Arie W. van der Plas, Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and United Protestant Churches, Netherlands
Rev. Dr Jean-Arnold de Clermont, President of the Protestant Federation of France
Rev. Thomas Wipf, President of the Federation of  Swiss Protestant Churches
Rev. Dr Konrad Raiser, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches
Rev. Dr Keith Clements, General Secretary of the Council of European Churches
Rev. Dr. Nuhad Daoud Tomeh, representing the General Secretariat of the Middle East Council of Churches
Dr. Bob Edgar, General Secretary, National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA

Other Participants:
James Winkler, General Secretary, General Board of Church and Society of the
United Methodist Church, USA
Rev. Dr Rebecca Larson, Executive Director, Division for Church and Society,
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, USA
Rev. Kjell Jonasson, Church of Sweden

WCC staff:
Mr Peter Weiderud, Director WCC Commission of the Churches on International Affairs
Mr. Thor-Arne Pröis, Director of Action by Churches Together (ACT) International, Geneva

EKD Secretariat:
Bishop Dr Rolf Koppe
Rev. Dr Christa Grengel
Rev. Dr Dagmar Heller

Apologies:
Church of England
Ecumenical Patriarchate
Evangelical Church of Spain

From the Ventura County Star website / December 22, 2002
http://www.insidevc.com/

U.S. must work within framework of international law

By Robert Dodge

This December, the world watches, holding its breath, wondering whether the traditional "season of peace" will be shattered with war.

While Presidents Saddam Hussein and George Bush posture and trade their rhetorical salvos, the world waits. Will Saddam come clean with a true report of any remaining weapons capacity, providing for their removal? Will the United States provide the evidence it has for the existence of weapons of mass destruction and why this has reached a crisis at this time? Will Bush allow the weapons inspectors to continue their work, dispelling the concerns of skeptics that built-in "hidden triggers" will make war inevitable?

Fortunately, Bush has not unleashed our full military might, thus allowing for a glimmer of hope at this fragile potential flashpoint in the world.

By waiting and allowing the United Nations-sanctioned inspectors to do their job, the United Nations will be empowered in its mission to resolve global conflict and indeed assume its necessary role in the war on terrorism.

Bush skillfully assembled a coalition of nations against terrorism following Sept. 11. However, these very nations have provided arms and technologies that allowed these terrorist states and warlords of the world to exist. It is with a solemn voice and heavy heart that they must acknowledge their role in the current world crisis and seek resolution to this conflict and the larger war on terrorism.

They must agree to immediately cease further arming of these states while working together toward their disarmament. This must be the lesson of Sept. 11.

The United States and indeed the world changed forever, just as it changed in the aftermath of World War II's nuclear explosions in Japan. We now recognize that everyone is vulnerable. Our future depends on the world coming together to address the root causes of terrorism: poverty, despair, religious fanaticism and alienation from the global community.

The natural response of massive military expenditures, new weapons systems, missile defenses and the unilateral breaking of treaties cannot provide security.

No nation, however strong, is without its Achilles' heel. In a world where one half of its population lives on less than $2 a day, basic human needs of health, education, housing and environmental protection become the innocent victims of these misplaced attempts of security.

Only through multinational organizations such as the United Nations can a true resolution be achieved. Failure to act through the international body threatens to destroy the coalition of nations and further undermine the international rule of law. This may be our last best hope.

Everyone knows the potential horror of unleashing the war machine on Iraq. In addition to the potential for extensive military casualties to both sides, "collateral damage" has been estimated by the Nobel Prize-winning international physicians group, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, to be the loss of 50,000 to 250,000 Iraqi civilians in a conventional war lasting three months.

A war in Iraq will most certainly not be an ending war, but rather a beginning of what might become a perpetual war. The CIA and FBI predict much greater terrorist actions against our nation that would be extremely difficult to prevent in the aftermath of such a war. Some say the United States would become another Israel, facing ongoing acts of violence, as anti-American sentiment would surely grow.

As the citizens of the world look to our leaders, we recognize that Saddam and Bush hold the keys to peace this season. Only by working within the world community and within the framework of international law will peace be realized for tomorrow. In so doing, the traditional seasonal message of "peace on Earth, good will toward men" will have its true meaning.

Broadcast on Friday, November 8, 2002 on NOW with Bill Moyers

Election 2002
by Bill Moyers

Way back in the 1950's when I first tasted politics and journalism, Republicans briefly controlled the White House and Congress. With the exception of Joseph McCarthy and his vicious ilk, they were a reasonable lot, presided over by that giant war hero, Dwight Eisenhower, who was conservative by temperament and moderate in the use of power.

That brand of Republican is gone. And for the first time in the memory of anyone alive, the entire federal government - the Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary - is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate.

That mandate includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives.

It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich.

It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable.

And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine. Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you liked the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming.

And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture. These folks don't even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God. Why else would the new House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical worldview' in American politics?

So it is a heady time in Washington - a heady time for piety, profits, and military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money.

Don't forget the money. It came pouring into this election, to both parties, from corporate America and others who expect the payback. Republicans outraised democrats by $184 million dollars. And came up with the big prize - monopoly control of the American government, and the power of the state to turn their ideology into the law of the land. Quite a bargain at any price.

That's it for this week.

For NOW, I'm Bill Moyers.

From the Ventura County Star website / November 8, 2002
http://www.insidevc.com/

War is failure of diplomacy, policy
By Robert Dodge

Fifty-seven, 79, 86. No, this is not a play call from St. Louis Rams quarterback Kurt Warner. These numbers represent the percentages of the women, Latino and black caucuses voting against the Iraq war resolution in the House of Representatives. President Bush claimed a political victory having waged a 22-month public relations campaign. His myriad excuses to justify the need to attack Iraq propelled congressional representatives to go against the voices of their constituents and their own purported sentiments to support the president's personal vendetta.

We, the people, do not condone a war with Iraq. Most poignantly, the caucuses voting against the resolution are speaking the voices of those who will most likely be sent to the front lines.

Reflecting on the weeks leading up to the war resolution, and the days since, the country has been barraged by the drums of war and the politicization of the process echoing the president's rhetoric that you're either with us or you're with the terrorists! From presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer, espousing the virtue of assassination of Saddam Hussein, to the congressional vote itself with all of its doublespeak, one must ask, is this representative democracy?

Immediately on the heels of this action, the Defense Department budget was passed at $355 billion, a $34 billion, or 11 percent, increase from last year, representing the largest defense budget increase since World War II. Then, sneaking in under the radar was the acknowledgement by the Defense Department that the United States, like certain axis-of-evil nations, had actually tested chemical and biological warfare agents, i.e., weapons of mass destruction, over populated areas of the United States in the 1960s to study the dispersion effects. Rest assured, these were not large quantities.

Finally, we are advised that North Korea also either has or is developing nuclear weapons. We are told that the administration had known of this for two weeks before releasing the information (couldn't have had anything to do with the war resolution vote), and that the administration wishes to seek a diplomatic peaceful resolution to this problem. Would the response have been the same if North Korea had oil?

The attention and politicizing of this process has certainly diverted our attention from the ongoing corporate CEOgate, the economy, energy policy and the latest figures showing 41 million Americans without health insurance, not to mention the millions with wholly inadequate coverage.

What are the costs of the proposed war? The immense financial costs are estimated to run as high as $100 billion to $200 billion, potentially shouldered by the United States. The nonfinancial costs may include the war on terrorism itself and its international coalition. The coalition is likely to be a casualty as the world community divides on its response to an Iraq war.

The increased likelihood for the use of weapons of mass destruction per the CIA is a major downside as is the tremendous potential for loss of human life by all sides.

Finally, diverting these funds and energy takes them away from more pressing needs facing the world today.

Ultimately, Congress and the president must acknowledge that war equates to the failure of all diplomacy and policy. Our elected leaders, in particular those voting in favor of the war resolution, must answer when we ask, when will the United States stop arming tomorrow's terrorists and what do they plan to do today to make this a reality?

It is a monumental humanitarian tragedy that the United States leads the world in the sales of weapons and that in the last six conflicts U.S. soldiers have been sent to fight, they have been attacked with U.S. weapons.

It is time for Congress to fulfill its role as a representative democracy and to speak out and provide real leadership on these issues.

______________________

Robert Dodge, M.D., of Ventura,
formed Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions
and serves as president of
Physicians for Social Responsibility of Ventura County.

from the Associated Press / Thursday, November 14, 2002

Former Weapons Inspector Says War with Iraq Inevitable

PASADENA, California - Former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter says the U.N. resolution on disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction makes war inevitable.

"We're going to war, and there's not a damn thing the inspectors can do to stop it, and that's a shame. Inspections worked once and they can work again," Ritter said Wednesday night during a speech at the California Institute for Technology.

The wording of the U.N. resolution will allow the United States to attack by mid-December, said Ritter, who was chief weapons inspector for the U.N. Special Commission in Iraq from 1991 to 1998.

He resigned in 1998, in part because weapons inspectors were being used to justify the Desert Fox bombing campaign against Iraq, Ritter said. Although he's a Republican who voted for President Goerge W. Bush, Ritter spent much of his speech criticizing the administration.

"The U.S. has a policy regarding Iraq of regime removal. The last thing Bush wants is a weapons inspection regime that works. That would mean lifting economic sanctions and Iraq coming back into the fold with Saddam Hussein still at the helm," Ritter said.

He said the U.N. resolution carries a hidden trigger allowing Bush to attack after the Dec. 8 deadline for a weapons declaration from Iraq, and noted that there will be four U.S. aircraft carriers in the region in December.

If Iraq does not declare any weapons on Dec. 8, it will constitute the false declaration described in the resolution. Ritter said this would trigger a Security Council meeting to consider serious consequences.

Under the resolution, however, false statements or omissions alone would not constitute a new "material breach" for the council to consider. During negotiations, France, Russia and others demanded that an Iraqi failure to cooperate also be required for a new "material breach."

The resolution adopted unanimously last Friday says "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq ... and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in, the implementation of this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment."

During his years as a weapons inspector specializing in forensic archaeology, Ritter said the Iraqis lied at every turn, leading inspectors to dig up demolished ballistic missiles and track the serial numbers to their Russian manufacturer for confirmation that all existing missiles were destroyed.

With such detective work, inspectors confirmed at least 95 percent of all weapons were destroyed by 1996.

September 29, 2002
to: Congresswoman Lois Capps (D, California)

Dear Congresswoman Capps,

We are Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions.  We are a concerned group of your constituents.  We are concerned about the direction our country is taking on the debate about Iraq and national security.

We are opposed to the rush to military action against Iraq and certainly to any preemptive action.

We encourage the US to work with the international community and specifically the UN in developing it's resolution to resume effective inspections in Iraq.

We urge a delay in military action until the UN Security Council decides how to enforce Iraq's compliance with existing UN resolutions.

We urge that all peaceful resolutions be identified and fulfilled before any military action.

Any military action considered, must be carried out only in the setting of international cooperation and agreement, not unilaterally, and only to enforce disarmament or to prevent renewed Iraqi aggression.  Such force should be authorized by the UN Security Council.

We implore you to speak up courageously on these issues and fully support you in this action.

Thank You,

Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions