U.S. GREEN PARTY CALLS SENATE HEARINGS ON IRAQ A 'SHAM'
U.S. Green Party Media Team | 10.08.2002 20:13
Greens demand that critics of Bush's intended
invasion be included in hearings, especially UN
weapons inspectors
invasion be included in hearings, especially UN
weapons inspectors
THE GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
MEDIA RELEASE
For immediate release:
Wednesday, August 7, 2002
Contacts:
Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576,
nallen@acadia.net
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624,
scottmclarty@yahoo.com
GREEN PARTY CALLS SENATE HEARINGS ON IRAQ A
'SHAM'
Greens demand that critics of Bush's intended
invasion be included in hearings, especially UN
weapons inspectors
WASHINGTON, DC -- Warning that a U.S. invasion of
Iraq would violate international law, candidates
and other members of the Green Party of the
United States called on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee to reopen hearings on
President Bush's planned war against Iraq.
Greens demanded that the hearings be open to
dissenting voices, including former U.N. weapons
inspectors who could provide an adequate analysis
of the security threat posed by Iraq.
"Sen. Joe Biden [D.-Del., chair of the hearing]
excluded anyone who opposes Bush's policy on
Iraq, or who might have offered a realistic
assessment of Iraq's military and chemical
weapons capability or the human costs of an
invasion," said Holly Hart, Green Party candidate
for Lieutenant Governor of Iowa. "Instead, we
heard Caspar Weinberger, a pardoned criminal,
repeat the Bush line. Americans deserve to hear
a real debate before we sacrifice lives on both
sides in a military venture that could cause a
shock to the U.S. and world economy, destabilize
the region, and flare up into a greater war
involving dozens of nations."
Jennifer Daniels, Green candidate for Lieutenant
Governor of New York, said that "[Bush's]
strategy places the U.S. in the position of
becoming the very threat it opposes. The present
U.S. strategy makes us all less safe."
Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who
spent seven years investigating Iraq's weapons
program before resigning in protest over U.S.-led
economic sanctions, has repeatedly stated that
Iraq neither possesses weapons of mass
destruction nor maintains ties to international
terrorism. NATO asked Ritter (who is Republican)
to testify shortly after Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld asserted that Iraq posed a
security threat. After Ritter's presentation, 16
of the 19 NATO nations wrote letters of complaint
to the U.S. government about Rumsfeld's comments
and about Bush's justification for war.
"We're not only concerned about massive U.S.
casualties in our armed forces, but about the
slaughter of Iraqi civilians," said Rahul
Mahajan, Green candidate for Governor of Texas.
"6,000 Iraqi children a month are already dying
from the economic sanctions, according to the
U.N. Children's Fund. Two years ago the Pentagon
estimated that about 10,000 Iraqi civilians could
be killed in such a war. Destruction of Iraq's
water supplies, medical care, electricity, and
other infrastructure could lead to hundreds of
thousands of additional deaths, especially among
children and the elderly."
"A unilateral invasion would violate
international law and the U.N. charter, as well
as the U.S.'s constitutional limit on the use of
armed forces for defense," said Steve Greenfield,
New York Green candidate for the 22nd
Congressional District. "It has no support among
our European allies. Secretary of State Colin
Powell, CIA chief George Tenet, and numerous
military officials and experts are skeptical.
There's no credible evidence of a threat to
American security. Such a war would further
destabilize the Middle East, could lead to the
overthrow of other governments in the area, and
is unlikely to promote democracy in Iraq or its
neighbors."
"This war is being launched for political
reasons, and without Congress's required
approval," added Margart Lewis, Green candidate
for Congress in the New York's 20th District.
"Only Congress has the constitutional power to
declare war, regardless of earlier 'blank
checks.' Bush is furthermore using the invasion
as an excuse to drill for oil in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. Once a White
House-mandated invasion is justified, all sorts
of destructive policy can and will be enacted,
and with minimal public debate."
Greens note that, if the relatively short Persian
Gulf War cost $80 billion, then the invasion,
extended occupation, and rebuilding of Iraq would
likely cost the U.S. far more, further diverting
taxpayer money from needed domestic investment in
schools, health care, and the environment.
"Our Arab allies, already encountering strong
anti-American sentiment at home because of U.S.
support for Israel, not only fear domestic
rebellions, but will demand huge pay-offs from
the U.S.," explained Tim Harthans, Iowa Green
candidate for the U.S. Senate. "Jordan says that
it wants the U.S. to help make up for the loss it
would suffer if the discount-price oil it gets
from Iraq is cut off. The cost of the Gulf War
and the resulting rise in oil prices led to an
economic recession. An invasion of Iraq will
have even a worse effect on the troubled U.S.
economy."
"The Bush Administration is planning this
invasion with no exit strategy," said Dick
Kaiser, who is seeking a House seat in
Wisconsin's 8th District . "Saddam's successor
is likely to be military strong man with the same
kind of bloody past and disregard for law and
life. We didn't see democracy, human rights, or
equality for women in Kuwait after the Persian
Gulf War, either."
"Even Britain, America's staunchest ally, does
not support war for the sake of 'regime change,'"
said Dr. Jonathan Farley, a Tennessee Green
candidate for Congress currently visiting England
on a Fulbright scholarship. "This war is illegal
and immoral, and I'm against it."
"The Senate needs to protect the interests of the
American people and the world community, not
provide political cover to President Bush," added
Pennsylvania Green activist Carl Romanelli.
"It's not enough to call Saddam Hussein evil
incarnate."
MORE INFORMATION
The Green Party of the United States
http://www.greenpartyus.org
National office: 1314 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202-296-7755, 866-41GREEN
Index of Green Party candidates in 2002
http://www.greens.org/elections
The 2002 Campaign Pledge: A Green Commitment to
America
Signed by Green Congressional candidates
http://www.gpus.org/candidate_pledge.html
- END -
MEDIA RELEASE
For immediate release:
Wednesday, August 7, 2002
Contacts:
Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576,
nallen@acadia.net Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624,
scottmclarty@yahoo.com GREEN PARTY CALLS SENATE HEARINGS ON IRAQ A
'SHAM'
Greens demand that critics of Bush's intended
invasion be included in hearings, especially UN
weapons inspectors
WASHINGTON, DC -- Warning that a U.S. invasion of
Iraq would violate international law, candidates
and other members of the Green Party of the
United States called on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee to reopen hearings on
President Bush's planned war against Iraq.
Greens demanded that the hearings be open to
dissenting voices, including former U.N. weapons
inspectors who could provide an adequate analysis
of the security threat posed by Iraq.
"Sen. Joe Biden [D.-Del., chair of the hearing]
excluded anyone who opposes Bush's policy on
Iraq, or who might have offered a realistic
assessment of Iraq's military and chemical
weapons capability or the human costs of an
invasion," said Holly Hart, Green Party candidate
for Lieutenant Governor of Iowa. "Instead, we
heard Caspar Weinberger, a pardoned criminal,
repeat the Bush line. Americans deserve to hear
a real debate before we sacrifice lives on both
sides in a military venture that could cause a
shock to the U.S. and world economy, destabilize
the region, and flare up into a greater war
involving dozens of nations."
Jennifer Daniels, Green candidate for Lieutenant
Governor of New York, said that "[Bush's]
strategy places the U.S. in the position of
becoming the very threat it opposes. The present
U.S. strategy makes us all less safe."
Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who
spent seven years investigating Iraq's weapons
program before resigning in protest over U.S.-led
economic sanctions, has repeatedly stated that
Iraq neither possesses weapons of mass
destruction nor maintains ties to international
terrorism. NATO asked Ritter (who is Republican)
to testify shortly after Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld asserted that Iraq posed a
security threat. After Ritter's presentation, 16
of the 19 NATO nations wrote letters of complaint
to the U.S. government about Rumsfeld's comments
and about Bush's justification for war.
"We're not only concerned about massive U.S.
casualties in our armed forces, but about the
slaughter of Iraqi civilians," said Rahul
Mahajan, Green candidate for Governor of Texas.
"6,000 Iraqi children a month are already dying
from the economic sanctions, according to the
U.N. Children's Fund. Two years ago the Pentagon
estimated that about 10,000 Iraqi civilians could
be killed in such a war. Destruction of Iraq's
water supplies, medical care, electricity, and
other infrastructure could lead to hundreds of
thousands of additional deaths, especially among
children and the elderly."
"A unilateral invasion would violate
international law and the U.N. charter, as well
as the U.S.'s constitutional limit on the use of
armed forces for defense," said Steve Greenfield,
New York Green candidate for the 22nd
Congressional District. "It has no support among
our European allies. Secretary of State Colin
Powell, CIA chief George Tenet, and numerous
military officials and experts are skeptical.
There's no credible evidence of a threat to
American security. Such a war would further
destabilize the Middle East, could lead to the
overthrow of other governments in the area, and
is unlikely to promote democracy in Iraq or its
neighbors."
"This war is being launched for political
reasons, and without Congress's required
approval," added Margart Lewis, Green candidate
for Congress in the New York's 20th District.
"Only Congress has the constitutional power to
declare war, regardless of earlier 'blank
checks.' Bush is furthermore using the invasion
as an excuse to drill for oil in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. Once a White
House-mandated invasion is justified, all sorts
of destructive policy can and will be enacted,
and with minimal public debate."
Greens note that, if the relatively short Persian
Gulf War cost $80 billion, then the invasion,
extended occupation, and rebuilding of Iraq would
likely cost the U.S. far more, further diverting
taxpayer money from needed domestic investment in
schools, health care, and the environment.
"Our Arab allies, already encountering strong
anti-American sentiment at home because of U.S.
support for Israel, not only fear domestic
rebellions, but will demand huge pay-offs from
the U.S.," explained Tim Harthans, Iowa Green
candidate for the U.S. Senate. "Jordan says that
it wants the U.S. to help make up for the loss it
would suffer if the discount-price oil it gets
from Iraq is cut off. The cost of the Gulf War
and the resulting rise in oil prices led to an
economic recession. An invasion of Iraq will
have even a worse effect on the troubled U.S.
economy."
"The Bush Administration is planning this
invasion with no exit strategy," said Dick
Kaiser, who is seeking a House seat in
Wisconsin's 8th District . "Saddam's successor
is likely to be military strong man with the same
kind of bloody past and disregard for law and
life. We didn't see democracy, human rights, or
equality for women in Kuwait after the Persian
Gulf War, either."
"Even Britain, America's staunchest ally, does
not support war for the sake of 'regime change,'"
said Dr. Jonathan Farley, a Tennessee Green
candidate for Congress currently visiting England
on a Fulbright scholarship. "This war is illegal
and immoral, and I'm against it."
"The Senate needs to protect the interests of the
American people and the world community, not
provide political cover to President Bush," added
Pennsylvania Green activist Carl Romanelli.
"It's not enough to call Saddam Hussein evil
incarnate."
MORE INFORMATION
The Green Party of the United States
http://www.greenpartyus.org National office: 1314 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202-296-7755, 866-41GREEN
Index of Green Party candidates in 2002
http://www.greens.org/elections The 2002 Campaign Pledge: A Green Commitment to
America
Signed by Green Congressional candidates
http://www.gpus.org/candidate_pledge.html - END -
U.S. Green Party Media Team
Homepage:
http://www.gp-us.org
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
The green game of war
10.08.2002 23:26
But, for you, the green party (of europe) that openly targeted the world trade center for years (and still are planning on hitting the world bank) here are the facts of what is going on.
1. When America goes to war we don't consult anyone or fiddle around--we start blowing up property. What is happening now is that America threatens Iraq with a pummeling, Blair goes in and tells the Iraqis that Great Britain wil side with the US AS A LAST RESORT, and both will use that leverage to get Sadam to open his secret little stash of poison gas and nifty little rockets.
Great Britain has no intention of going to war unless provoked, Bush is tied up with 30,000 men in Korea and 10,000 more all around the globe so he's actually busy--and europeans are asseholes who can't be counted on. Therefore, a game is necessary. And,
It is a game, at least right now. The game is simple: Threaten to go to war so that YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO.
It's a diplomatic dance which Britain and the US have done on MOST everyone in the world at one time or another--everyone--from Russia to China has had months of war threats. They know the dance. Thus, if you want to stay out of a war you make a united front of things and hope someone gets to a table.
And, this was working pretty well until Herr Shroeder showed up and decided that he needed to win an election by stabbing his other allies in the back with disunity. Not a problem, Great Britain and the US have never relied on Germany in a crunch and would never be stupid enough to in the future.
Nonetheless--NOW Sadam is bolder because he knows that europe is really terrified of it's muslim fringes and he also knows that because europe is folding on the rhetoric; so he can just stand back and kick sand in the face of anyone who wants to know if he's going to gas his own people AGAIN anythime in the near future.
This presents the usual problems...BECAUSE
2. America knows that europeans aren't afraid of being attacked with gas or rogue nuclear weapons because europeans have a very large muslim population and this gives europe the right to sit back and watch the US get hit with biochemical or nuclear weapons because the muslims won't attack their strongest backers. (We get no credit for financially supporting 9 muslim countries financially; BECAUSE WE ALSO DON'T KISS THEIR ASSES.)
3. Great Britain knows that america knows the USA is largely facing this threat ALONE and, WORSE--THE US KNOWS IT THUS the UK desperately wants to avoid an attack on america for what it would mean for nato, british interests, and the stability of the entire world order.
Great Britain and America say, behind the backs of the Europeans--that nato is needed NOT TO STOP AN INVASION OF EUROPE but rather to KEEP THE EUROPEANS FROM BLOWING THEMSELVES UP IN A REGIONAL WAR the way that they have done twice in this century.
In the UK, if europe destabilizes AGAIN the very first people the europeans will call is the fine, highly trained British army which, if america gets attacked, (And thus gets pissed off and leaves nato) that MEANS GREAT BRITAIN WILL HAVE TO FIGHT ON BEHALF OF EUROPE LARGELY ALONE.
Considering the fact the British army could possibly take ALL OF EUROPE IN 3 DAYS with it's rather small, but highly skilled army--the notion of the europeans sitting back and letting briish soldiers get killed while europe wrings it's hands IS MORE THAN JUST 99 A PERCENT PROBABILITY.
So Blair will play the game as Bush plays it. Most Brits who've met americans and know we're basically an isolationist country, and that WE'VE NEVER REALLY LIKED OR TRUSTED EUROPEANS all that much and that what is going on is that
if AMERICA HAD REALLY WANTED TO GO KILL IRAQIS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF KILLING--we would have done it immediately after Sept 11th as a part of the package.
Understandable, if America is staying in nato after the Russians gave up--it's a bet the Us has VERY LITTLE hope in europeans living in peace with each other if we pull out.
Mr. Blair's thinking can't be all that different given european history of conflict.
Mr. Blair also has to know that if he doesn't stand by the US and try to wrench an agreement from Iraq--and the US gets hit IT WILL PRETTY MUCH BE GREAT BRITAIN TRYING TO BABYSIT europe militarily for the next 160 years. "Got some cash do ya?"
In america the odds on favorite bet is that it will, most likely take a total of 2 weeks of this before London sticks the eiffel tower up someone's rectal cavity in europe.
So you see, little miss green who targeted the world trade center for 10 years--it's all very simple on Iraq.
If europe fails america--america walks and Great Britain gets europe. Blair isn't sucking up to Bush and if Bush wants a war he will have one precisely because the anti-americanism of europe has now reached america and we KNOW that we will be hit sooner or later. What is sad about this entire thing is that to get reelected Blair is showing he doesn't have the balls for the saber rattling dance that keeps the world order--that SAME saber rattling dance THAT WE LEARNED FROM THE BRITISH a long time ago.
What is ALSO sad is that--BECAUSE AMERICA NOW OPENLY HAS ALLIES THAT ARE USELESS BASTARDS...
WAR IS now MORE LIKELY THAN IT WAS A FEW MONTHS AGO.
Therefore, to you "greens" who say war is now imminent--you're probably right. But, not because Bush didn't try many months to avoid it--but rather because Blair is too weak a political figure to have played the game TO INSURE it wasn't possible AT THE EXACT MOMENT america needed an impossiblity. (You Brits used to be so good at those. What happened?)
So! Will Blair stand up to Shroeder? Or will Blair go Chamberlain and choose his political career?
Oh well, europe will be the prize of Britain when the US leaves. Of course there will be a war in the Balkans and the Germans on their own will terrify the Balkans and the Russians, but HEY--the green party of the US two guys from Jersey and a dog...ARE ON THE CASE!
jay
Get a clue
11.08.2002 13:40
Bush did not try to prevent war. Why would he do so? It is precisely in the interests of Washington to have a war at this juncture, and it is not in the nature of the State Department to go against what is in the interests of American power.
I've met plenty of Americans who have no particular problem with Europeans and don't support US foreign policy. But if you're isolationists, then you surely oughtn't support your government sending out troops and airplanes at a cost of billions of dollars to blow up these far away countries.
lenin