Joe Wilson, former U.S.
Ambassador to Iraq during the George H. Bush Administration, opposes
Iraq policy of regime change & invasion-
News Conference, 12/12/02
makes a strong case for what he terms "muscular [disarmament]
enforcement," as opposed to invasion and "decapitation" of the Iraqi
regime. Ambassador Wilson dispels much of the Administration rhetoric,
including the notion that the Iraqi people will welcome American
"liberators;" that a post Saddam Iraq will be easy to govern; that
arms inspections will be ineffective unless Iraq "rolls over" to
inspectors/provides full disclosure; and that Saddam is irrational and
therefore impossible to contain. Ambassador Wilson also believes that
an Iraq war will increase, not decrease regional and global terrorism.
Notwithstanding the above, reports are
streaming in around the World that the United States may decide
to invade Iraq in late January or early February- regardless of
opposition from the U.N. security council or UNMOVIC. Whether under
these circumstances, the U.S. will have the support of Great Britain,
Australia, etc. is unclear.
The U.S. Congress is now completely out of the loop due to their
capitulation prior to the 2002 mid-term elections. See:
Byrd Pleads to the American people. Also
tragically, the American people as a whole seem opposed to war,
especially without strong allied support. Even more tragically, the
majority of Americans appear uninformed as to the possible
consequences of war to U.S. troops, regional allies and the people of
My fervent hope is that the above conclusions
are incorrect and that reasonable Iraqi compliance with UNMOVIC
and U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, will head off war. In this
case, the U.S. military buildup in the Gulf will play a positive role
in inducing Saddam Hussein to comply with inspectors and further
disclose WMD. Finally, the definition of reasonable needs to be left
to the body that promulgated 1441- the U.N. Security Council, of which
the United States in one of 15 members. See also:
War Revives Nightmare of Vietnam: Policymakers preferred their wishful
thinking to sound analysis, by Ray McGovern,, Charlotte Observer,
U.S. Decision on Iraq Has a Murky Past: Opponents of War Wonder When,
How Policy Was Set," by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post,
House Budget Office Thwarts EPA Warning on Asbestos-Laced Insulation
"The Environmental Protection Agency was on the
verge of warning millions of Americans that their attics and walls
might contain asbestos-contaminated insulation. But, at the last
minute, the White House intervened, and the warning has never been
The agency's refusal to share its knowledge of what is believed to be
a widespread health risk has been criticized by a former EPA
administrator under two Republican presidents, a Democratic U.S.
senator and physicians and scientists who have treated victims of the
Schneider, St Louis Post-Dispatch
Snooping in All the Wrong Places:
Not only would the Administration's plan to centralize every
American's records destroy privacy, the security payoff would be
"The outrage over
TIA (Total Information
Awareness System) doesn't seem to have reached the President's ear, but it
should. It's not too late for him to realize the folly of such a plan.
Funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the project
would combine every American's bank records, tax filings, driver's license
information, credit-card purchases, medical data, and phone and e-mail
records into one giant centralized database. This would then be combed
through for evidence of suspicious activity. Jane Black, Business Week,
12/18/2002; See also:
Electronic Privacy Information Center, Total Information Awareness (TIA)
Wrecks Cheap Drugs Deal:
Cheney's intervention blocks pact to help poor countries after
pharmaceutical firms lobby White House, by Larry Elliott & Charlotte Denny,
"Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, last night blocked a
global deal to provide cheap drugs to poor countries, following intense
lobbying of the White House by America's pharmaceutical giants.
Faced with furious opposition from all the other 140 members of the World
Trade Organization, the US refused to relax global patent laws which keep
the price of drugs beyond reach of most developing countries.
Talks at the WTO's Geneva headquarters collapsed last night after the White
House ruled out a deal which would have permitted a full range of
life-saving drugs to be imported into Africa, Asia and Latin America at
Falling: Homeland Security Act inoculates drug makers against autism
"When President George W. Bush signed the Homeland
Security Act in the White House on Monday...three thousand miles away,
Portland lawyer Mike Williams of the law firm
Williams Dailey O'Leary Craine & Love
rolled his eyes.
Williams represents hundreds of families who are suing pharmaceutical
companies--in particular, Eli Lilly--over a mercury-based preservative [thimersol]
used in some childhood vaccines. The families contend that the preservative
triggered neurological damage in their children, who have been diagnosed
Last week, Williams was stunned to learn that an unknown lawmaker had
slipped a last-minute rider into the Homeland Security Act, shutting down
the lawsuits in the name of the war on terrorism."
"...Congressional sources say the Republican leadership
must have OKed the rider. Eli Lilly, which made $1.6 million of political
contributions in the last election cycle, has strong ties to the Bush
administration. Bush's budget director, Mitch Daniels, formerly worked at
Lilly; the company's CEO, Sidney Taurel, sits on the Presidential Homeland
Security Council; and the president's father, George Bush, sat on Eli
Lilly's board of directors."
Willamette Week Online, "Mercury
Falling: Homeland Security Act inoculates drug makers against autism
lawsuits," by Chris Lydgate, 11/27/02; See also:
Safe Minds-Sensible Action for Ending
Mercury Induced Neurological Disorders.
Finally Washington columnist
Helen Thomas, in a
1/03/03 article provides a perspective on the Bush Administration's
"compassionate conservatism" in the article, "Whose Side Are You On, Mr.
President?." She writes:
Frist [new Republican Senate Majority Leader] also is the author of a
provision in the Homeland Security bill providing liability relief to the
makers of Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that recently has been
added to various childhood vaccines. The provision is applicable even to
pending cases and is expected to result in the dismissal of numerous ongoing
cases alleging that Thimerosal has caused autism in children.
In Bush's eyes, the bogeymen, of course, are those trial lawyers.
Trial lawyers are used to being demonized and they are a favorite
political target of conservatives
"...The second way to enforce consumer rights is the private lawsuit. Bush's
war on the trial lawyers can only please those from the consumer-be-damned
school of corporate wrongdoing. In President Bush's "compassionate
conservatism," just whom does he feel compassion for?
I fear I know the answer."
Is this how you feel?;
See also: George Bush: What's
"By Remedy an activist who has been sitting 150 feet up an
ancient Redwood in Freshwater, California. She has been in her tree Jerry
for over 8 months as part of a community's protest to save their forests and
watershed. She uses Debian GNU/Linux on her laptop and a 5 mile 802.11b
wireless link to get online."
Laden's 'letter to America'
Recently, a letter, purportedly from bin Laden, sought to
answer the questions of why the "Islamic Nation" is fighting and opposing
America and what they are calling America to do, i.e., what they want from
us. One cannot deny that many citizens of the world, rightly or wrongly, see
America as a symbol of oppression, unilateralism and materialism.
However, the answer to oppression cannot, as bin Laden espouses, be
violence. The words and actions of Mahatma
Gandhi serve as a poignant reminder that the courageous application of
compassionate non-violence- is the surest, "most harmless and yet
equally effective" means of attaining justice and peace.
It is not always easy to reconcile Gandhi's views with the notion
of self-defense when the lives of many are at stake and when it
appears that violence, as an act of self defense, is the only means of
preserving the life. For example, it would be difficult to argue that Jewish
uprisings in Nazi concentration camps, however violent, were not morally
justified. It would be difficult to argue, as Gandhi perhaps did, that
non-violent resistance would have been effective against the World War II
Axis powers. The complete loss of human freedom and mass extermination is an
unacceptable price to pay for pursuing a course of non-violence. And yes,
the bombing of Hiroshima, justified at the time because it was thought that
it would ultimately save more lives than it cost, was still an horrific act
of violence and possibly revenge, the morality and necessity of which is debated even today. Use
of weapons of mass destruction by any country or group is
unconscionable- Hiroshima should be considered a lesson and warning,
certainly not a standard to be emulated. Weapons of mass destruction should
be abolished. Their use is too tempting for a human race that is still
psychologically rooted in fear and violence. Mutually Assured Destruction
has the unacceptable risk of success.
I believe the problems of the Palestinians, Israelis, Arab citizens,
Chechens, Afghans and the many poor throughout the world can be solved by
peaceful means. It is incumbent on the United States and other so-called
first world nations to eschew violence and work to promote peace and justice
both in their own countries and throughout the world. In many cases, I
believe the United States has too narrowly defined its national self
interest rather than working for solutions to real problems facing
the citizens of the world. At times the United States has supported regimes
that oppress their own citizens. At times American corporations have shown an ethically unacceptable double standard in the treatment of
their overseas workers and citizens. However, attempting to redress these
wrongs through violence, will only lead to more death, destruction and
degradation; and embolden and broaden support for those that promote
violence as an instrument of foreign and domestic policy. Violence
contravenes an emerging global ethic that seeks to build a world community
of justice. An eye for an eye mentality is no less reprehensible whether
practiced by the oppressed or the oppressor.
The ugly side of religion manifests when it is used to
condemn and unfairly judge. I know of no individual, group or country that
has a monopoly on morality or a shortage of hypocrisy. No man has the
ethical right to judge and condemn another. Human beings must control their
impulse to judge and turn away from the temptation to hate.
According to a recent survey done by Zogby for the
Arab American Institute and
Americans for Peace Now, 85.5% of
Jewish Americans believe that Palestinians have a right to live in a secure
and independent state of their own and 95.4% of Arab Americans believe the
same for Israel. The largest percentage of both groups blame both
Israel and the Palestinians for the breakdown in Middle East peace process.
What this augers for is the basis of consensus and hope, if a path of
non-violence is pursued by both sides. My sense is that people of goodwill
also exist in both Palestine and Israel and are equally desirous of a just
peace that respects the national rights and aspirations of both countries. Violence
however, drowns out their voices and allows extremists to take center stage
in the internal and international debate. My belief and hope is that if the
suicide bombings ended, the clamor for Palestinian statehood would drown out
the voices of extremism and allow both sides to achieve a lasting peace.
However for this peace to occur the United States must reverse its policy,
President Carter wrote of, "Tragically ... abandoning any sponsorship of
substantive negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. Our apparent
policy is to support almost every Israeli action in the occupied territories
and to condemn and isolate the Palestinians as blanket targets of our war on
terrorism, while Israeli settlements expand and Palestinian enclaves
shrink." President Carter is a
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
and was instrumental in forging the Camp David Accords in 1978 between Israel and Egypt.
The International Solidarity
Americans for Peace Now &
B'TSELEM - The Israeli Center
for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
Finally, it may be instructive to hearken back to Gandhi's
writings. Whatever moral ambiguities some may find in his words, they
contain the seed of hope and the possibility of peace. Martin Luther King
believed this and while Blacks in America are still not treated with
justice- significant progress has been made over the last forty years
because men and woman of goodwill fought together- non-violently.
"The accumulated experience of the past thirty years,
fills me with the greatest hope that in the adoption of non-violence lies
the future of India and the world. It is the most harmless and yet
equally effective way of dealing with the political and economic wrongs of
the downtrodden portion of humanity. I have known from early youth
that non-violence is not a cloistered virtue to be practiced by the
individual for his peace and final salvation, but it is a rule of
conduct for society if it is to live consistently with human dignity and
make progress towards the attainment of peace for which it has been yearning
for ages past."
"I am not a visionary. I claim to be
a practical idealist. The religion of non-violence is not meant merely for the rishis and saints. It is meant for the common people as well.
Non-violence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute.
The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of
physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher
law-to the strength of the spirit.
I have therefore ventured to place before India the ancient law of
self-sacrifice. For satyagraha and its off-shoots, non-co-operation and
civil resistance, are nothing but new names for the law of suffering. The
rishis, who discovered the law of non-violence in the midst of violence,
were greater geniuses than Newton. They were themselves greater
warriors than Wellington. Having themselves known the use of arms, they
realized their uselessness and taught a weary world that its salvation lay
not through violence but through non-violence."
"In the past, non-co-operation has been
deliberately expressed in violence to the evil-doer. I am endeavoring to
show to my countrymen that violent non-co-operation only multiplies
evil and that as evil can only be sustained by violence, withdrawal of
support of evil requires complete abstention from violence. Non-violence
implies voluntary submission to the penalty for non-co-operation with evil."
"Non-violence is ‘not a resignation
from all real fighting against wickedness’. On the contrary, the
non-violence of my conception is a more active and real fight against
wickedness than retaliation whose very nature is to increase wickedness.
I contemplate, a mental and therefore a moral opposition to immoralities. I
seek entirely to blunt the edge of the tyrant’s sword, not by putting up
against it a sharper-edged weapon, but by disappointing his expectation that
I would be offering physical resistance. The resistance of the soul that I
should offer would elude him. It would at first dazzle him and at last
compel recognition from him, which recognition would not humiliate him but
would uplift him. It may be urged that this is an ideal state. And so it
(1) Non-violence is the law of the human race
and is infinitely greater than and superior to brute force.
In the last resort it does not avail to those who do not posses a living
faith in the God of Love
Non-violence affords the fullest protection to one’s self-respect and
sense of honor, but not always to possession of land or movable property,
though its habitual practice does prove a better bulwark than the possession
of armed men to defend them. Non-violence in the very nature of things is of
no assistance I the defense of ill-gotten gains and immoral acts.
Individuals and nations who would practice non-violence must be prepared
to sacrifice (nations to the last man) their all except honor. It is
therefore inconsistent with the possession of other people’s countries, i.e.
modern imperialism which is frankly based on force for its defense.
Non-violence is a power which can be wielded equally by all-children,
young men and women or grown up people, provided they have a living faith in
the God of Love and have therefore equal love for all mankind. When
non-violence is accepted as the law of life it must pervade the whole being
and not be applied to isolated acts.
It is a profound error to suppose that whilst the law is good
enough for individuals it is not for masses of mankind.
from Gandhi, from the Gandhian Institute Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal.
Also: Wendell Berry,
"The Failure of
War." & an interview of
Vandana Shiva by
Sarah Ruth van Gelder appearing in Yes! Magazine entitled "Earth Democracy,"
EPA Eases Clean Air Requirements on Power Plants
"The Bush administration on Friday eased clean air rules to allow utilities,
refineries and manufacturers to avoid having to install expensive new
anti-pollution equipment when they modernize their plants.
The long-awaited regulation issued by the Environmental Protection agency
was immediately attacked by environmentalists, state air quality regulators
and attorneys general in several Northeast state who promised a lawsuit to
try to reverse the action."
"...Vickie Patton, an attorney with
Environmental Defense, said the changes amount to "a sweeping and
unprecedented erosion of state and local power to protect the public health
from air pollution" by thousands of power plants, oil refineries and
"They're going to do everything they can not only
to roll these rules back at the federal level but to force states to
dismantle clean air programs that have been in place for years," she
John Heilprin, Washington Post, 11/22/02
Treaty for the Rights of Women (known as CEDAW, the United Nations
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination)
is often described as an international “Bill of Rights” for women.
Many nations have passed laws supporting women’s basic human rights a
result of the Treaty. However the United States is still not a
signatory. After approval by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
for ratification, the Bush administration has asked Attorney General
Ashcroft to review the treaty.
Oppose Demands for Federal Immunity from Laws on Abortion Access!
"On September 25, the House of Representatives
passed legislation, by a vote of 229 to 189, that would allow health
care entities to refuse to provide abortion services or give
information regarding those services."
"This measure is nothing less than a broad and dangerous federal
"refusal clause." Sometimes called "conscience clauses," refusal
clauses permit a person or entity to refuse to provide abortion and
information about abortion services. Although proponents have
misleadingly characterized this bill as a "clarification" of existing
law, it would in fact radically alter existing law by providing broad
license for health care entities -- from hospitals to insurance
companies to HMOs -- to avoid basic legal requirements imposed by all
levels of government." -
Iraq: What is the Debate Truly About?
The Iraq debate has been clouded with glittering
generalities, confusion of fact and opinion, suspect analogies to past
events, poor issue definition, conflicting and shifting positions, political infighting,
The President's position is that if Iraq
possesses WMD, especially nuclear weapons, it will find a way to use
them to further break containment, destabilize the Middle East and
pose a threat to the security of the United States directly or through
terrorist proxies. The Administration believes that the Iraqi
government is capable of great miscalculation and irrational behavior
as demonstrated by its invasion of Iran and Kuwait, attempted
assassination of the elder Bush, etc. The Iraqi regime's abysmal human
rights record is used to further evidence the danger it poses to all
Hussein: Crimes & Human Rights Abuses," by the Foreign &
Commonwealth Office, London. The sum total of the above invites comparisons with Hitler's
and Stalin's governments- both of whom were threats to world peace and
directly responsible for millions of needless deaths and untold human
tragedies. Further, it appears unlikely Saddam's regime can be
overthrown from within.
Given the above, the Administration considers a
conflict with Iraq inevitable and wants to engage now, while Saddam's
WMD capabilities and military are relatively weak. However, the
Administration admits that while a successful U.S. invasion of Iraq
may be swift there is a risk of significant military and civilian
Opposition to the Administration is two-fold. Some agree with the above analysis, but disagree as
to strategy and tactics. Others assert that Iraq's possession of WMD
does not guarantee its use. The former group is encouraging the
Administration to use the UN for (1) building a military
coalition in the event Iraq fails to disarm and (2) constructing a
post Saddam Iraqi regime in the aftermath of war. Those who hold the later view will not back
UN resolutions with military
action, unless Iraq engages in or threatens overt military action. This group
questions whether there are legitimate reasons why Iraq is being singled out and whether it poses an
immediate threat. They emphasize the potential for large civilian
casualties, refugees, displacement and a major humanitarian crisis.
For example, since 1991
as a result of UN economic sanctions, over 500,000 Iraqi children have
died as a result of epidemics and famine. See also:
report: "Collateral Damage, the health and environmental costs of war
on Iraq." &
Voices in the
Wilderness: a campaign to end the economic sanctions against the
people of Iraq."
The later group also questions the motives and timing
of the Bush Administration, especially in light of Administration
statements concerning American supremacy and military preemption.
Regarding human rights, they ask why the United States remained
largely silent when thousands of unarmed Kurds were killed in Halabja
The Administration has not convinced me that
there is not a serious risk of large numbers of civilian and military
casualties. What preparations are being made in the
region to protect our Arab and Israeli allies and the Iraqi people against
Saddam's use of
chemical and biological weapons? How can Saddam's regime be overthrown
without "hand to hand" combat in Baghdad and the potential for
a large number of military and civilian causalities? Is our
military adequately prepared for such combat? Will our allies contribute the military and economic
support essential for the operation's quick success?
Will they militarily and economically assist in building a post
I believe the American people's support for an
operation will be weak if it proves lengthy and/or costly in lives
and dollars. The ramifications of an aborted
operation are almost too frightening to contemplate. All of these considerations bode
for caution and use of a variety of economic, diplomatic and
as a last resort, military
means, to achieve the objective of Iraqi disarmament.
Finally, while Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld's analogy between the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Iraqi
situation is weak, it should be pointed out that US intelligence never
located the nuclear warheads for the Soviet missiles in Cuba during
the crisis. Only 33 of what photography later showed was a total of 42
medium-range ballistic missiles were photographed by U.S. intelligence
officials at the time. Further diplomacy, a U.S. pledge not to
invade Cuba and a quid pro quo in
Turkey, not military action are what averted nuclear
National Security Archive: Havana Conference on Cuban Missile Crisis,
"Projection on Fall Of Hussein Disputed," by Thomas E. Ricks,
Washington Post, 12/18/02
Pleads to American People
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be
brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works
the same in any country."
Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va.
quote from Hermann Goering, Nazi wartime criminal and second man in
the Third Reich, following the October 10th defeat of his Senate
battle against the resolution handing President Bush unprecedented
powers to declare pre-emptive war and invade Iraq.
U.S. Foreign Policy and Iraq- The Congressional Draft Resolution
After weeks of debate, the Bush administration has
failed to adequately and coherently address significant questions
regarding a U.S. led military operation against Iraq, see:
"U.S. Foreign Policy and Iraq- Commentary."
The administration appears disunited, with key
military leaders arguing against the administration's policy and key
Bush administration civilian decision makers underestimating the military,
political and economic risks/demands of an operation and subsequent
nation building effort. One key unanswered question is why the
administration didn't make its' case before the United Nations, six
months or even a year ago, given the President's oft mentioned comment
that "time is ticking" on a UN inspections/sanction resolution. Further the administration has politicized the
issue, perhaps hoping that if the Democratic Senate resists the
resolution, it will be their undoing- in effect putting the same type
of time squeeze on the U.S. Congress that the administration has placed on
the United Nations.
Therefore I have concluded that at this
time it is unwise for the Congress to grant the Executive branch any
authority tantamount to a declaration of war against Iraq.
The Congress should draft a resolution that strongly supports Iraqi
disarmament and unconditional arms inspections under the auspices of
the United Nations. It should provide a reasonable timetable for Iraqi
compliance with current and/or new UN WMD resolutions. If Iraq fails
to fully comply with these resolutions, then the administration should
be required to report back to Congress and perhaps then make a case
for additional military action/economic sanctions. Further, the
administration should be strongly encouraged to garner broad regional
and international support for the enforcement of any new or current UN
resolutions pertaining to Iraq.
Finally, the debate over preemption has been so
muddied by the administration that it has even alarmed our allies and
former American Presidents and Secretaries of State. Therefore it is
incumbent on the administration to clarify its position and the
Senate's responsibility to understand and critique what is
perceived as a major doctrinal shift in American foreign policy.
The Troubling New Face of America
Quoting from a
September 5, 2002 Washington
Post article, former President Jimmy Carter, Chairman of the
Carter Center and a
Nobel Prize Laureate in Peace writes:
"Fundamental changes are taking place in the historical policies
of the United States with regard to human rights, our role in the
community of nations and the Middle East peace process --
largely without definitive debates (except, at times, within the
"Formerly admired almost universally as the preeminent champion of
human rights, our country has become the foremost target of
respected international organizations concerned about these basic
principles of democratic life."
"While the president has reserved judgment, the American people
are inundated almost daily with claims from the vice president and
other top officials that we face a devastating threat from Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction, and with pledges to remove Saddam
Hussein from office, with or without support from any allies."
"We have thrown down counterproductive
gauntlets to the rest of the world, disavowing U.S. commitments to
laboriously negotiated international accords."
"Peremptory rejections of nuclear arms agreements, the biological
weapons convention, environmental protection, anti-torture
proposals, and punishment of war criminals have sometimes been
combined with economic threats against those who might disagree
with us. These unilateral acts and assertions increasingly
isolate the United States from the very nations needed to join in
"Tragically, our government is abandoning any sponsorship of
substantive negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis.
Our apparent policy is to support almost every Israeli action in
the occupied territories and to condemn and isolate the
Palestinians as blanket targets of our war on terrorism, while
Israeli settlements expand and Palestinian enclaves shrink."
"There still seems to be a struggle within the administration over
defining a comprehensible Middle East policy. The president's
clear commitments to honor key U.N. resolutions and to support the
establishment of a Palestinian state have been substantially
negated by statements of the defense secretary that in his
lifetime "there will be some sort of an entity that will be
established" and his reference to the "so-called occupation."
This indicates a radical departure from policies of every
administration since 1967, always based on the withdrawal of
Israel from occupied territories and a genuine peace between
Israelis and their neighbors."
"Belligerent and divisive voices now seem to be dominant in
Washington, but they do not yet reflect final decisions of the
president, Congress or the courts. It is crucial that the
historical and well-founded American commitments prevail: to
peace, justice, human rights, the environment and international
Bold and underline are my own.
Whatever the merits of former President Carter's
views (and I believe they have a basis (see:
"U.S. Foreign Policy
and Iraq Commentary,"
"September 11th and its Aftermath/Civil Liberties at Stake,"
"The Middle East: U.S. Foreign Policy at
Administration: Lowering the Nuclear Threshold,"
"Global Warming" and
Weakens Clean Air Act")), what can the U.S.
expect from world opinion if a former American President
has such strong foreign policy, ethical and moral
concerns? Can U.S. foreign policy be effective without
support, at the very minimum, from our traditional allies in Europe,
the Americas, the Middle East, Africa and Asia? See: Pew Research
What the World Thinks in 2002: How Global Publics View: Their Lives,
Their Countries, The World, America
U.S. Foreign Policy and Iraq- Commentary
The foreign policy debate over Iraq brings into sharp focus
the need for more discussion at home and abroad that centers on
What is the true nature and extent of Iraq's WMD (Weapons of Mass
even have, or is it seeking to re-acquire WMD?
What are the political, legal, military, economic and social
regional/international repercussions of
actions to remove Saddam Hussein from power? Is US active support for a
regime change in contravention of
international law? What is the level
of support in Iraq for a regime change? What groups or parties are likely
to replace the Bath? Will the replacement regime be better for Iraq
and the region and have the support of the Iraqi people? Will the end
result be a fragmenting of the country or a the emergence of a new
state built on a federalist model?
How embittered are the Iraqi people from over a decade of economic
sanctions and how would this effect the stability of a post Saddam regime?
How effective will Iraq's response to
US/Israeli military action be? Does it now possess WMD, including nuclear
weapons, that can be effectively
deployed in the region or even internationally in response to a
military threat? See:
"Saddam Hussein's Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction;" The
Iraq Dossier from 10 Downing Street
Presentation by Dr. Khidir Hamza, Author of "Saddam's Bombmaker," with
Jeff Stein. What are the implications of military action against
Iraq on the Arab-Israeli conflict/peace process and the possibility of
a regional conflagration? What are the world economic
repercussions of an invasion of Iraq?
How will the peoples and governments of the world
and the region perceive and react (short and long term) to US
unilateral (versus international multilateral) preemptive military action against
Iraq? What effects will military action against
Iraq have on the "war on terrorism," particularly the level of
intelligence cooperation from regional and international partners
and/or allies that may be opposed to unilateral US action? Is Iraq in
fact a terrorist threat? See: the section from the Whitehouse report,
A Decade of Deception and Defiance entitled
"Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism,"
versus the perspective from Scott Ritter's speech to the Iraqi
weapons inspector addresses Iraqi parliament, urges inspectors'
What are the foreign policy implications of an
invasion of Iraq? Is it the
aim of US foreign policy to invade and topple any government that opposes its
policies, is geopolitically significant, militarily vulnerable,
represses its own people and may possess and/or is in the process of developing WMD?
Does the United States have the
legal justification, let alone the
military/economic means and political will to affect such a policy?
President Bush has defined Iraq, Iran and North Korea as part of the
"Axis of Evil," drawing an analogy with the Axis powers during WWII.
Are Iran and North Korea next in the US plans? Are the threats to be
addressed concurrently? Does lumping them together in this way
suggest that the method of dealing with these nations will be similar?
Besides these three nations, what other nations and groups pose
significant threats, now and in the near to mid-term? What, for
example, would be the US response if Musharraf's government in
Pakistan was overthrown by an extremist group? See Newsweek 8/19
article by Roy Gutman and John Berry,
Expanding Target List- Washington looks at overhauling the Islamic and
Given the current heat of US foreign policy discussion is it realistic
to assume that Iraq will allow renewed and effective weapons
inspections and destruction of existing stockpiles? Is this even a
current aim of US foreign policy? What assurance would Iraq
receive that unconditional inspections will not be used as a
cover for intelligence gathering and military action by the US and its
allies, as was alleged in 1998? Could an honest broker,
outside observer who monitors the work of the weapons inspectors and
Iraq in fulfillment of the Security Council's disarmament mandate
without interfering in the conduct of such work," perhaps
outside of the UN, achieve the desired goal- verifying whether Iraq
has and/or is re-acquiring WMD?
Realistically, what additional Iraqi government actions, short of a regime change, are
required to lift economic sanctions?
None of the above issues have been
effectively addressed by the Bush administration. Statements such as
that the "absence of knowledge of a threat does not mean that there is
no threat," are nothing more than sophistry. Characterizing the Iraq
"issue" as part of the larger context of how to construct foreign
policy in an "Age of WMD," is disingenuous. Sporadic leaks to the
press of information (sometimes inaccurate) that would suggest that Iraq possess WMD do
little to build a consistent and clear case for military action (see
9/7/02 MSNBC article,
Bush misstated report on Iraq.") Axis
of Evil speeches are derided by many allies and are perceived as saber
rattling by our "enemies." Name calling with words such as "appeaser,"
do nothing more than to confuse words with reality and obscure a true
examination of the threat.
Notwithstanding the above, Iraqi (outside of the no-fly zone) is ruled
by a hideous regime and leader. Its actions can only be ignored at the
world's peril. The Iraqi regime, must fully, unconditionally and
without delay comply with UN resolutions that prohibit it from
possessing and developing WMD. I know of no individual or nation that
disagrees with this. The question is how best to bring it about.
Earth Summit 2002
Quoting from a document on the Earth Summit web site
Summit 2002 Explained."
"Time is short. As individuals, we each have a
right, a role and a responsibility to contribute to sustainable
development. Clearly the more people and organizations who are willing
to contribute to the Earth Summit process, and willing to encourage
others to do so, the more likely that the process will begin to build
momentum and that the summit can be a starting point for a new level
of implementation. Before Rio it was said that; "while the Earth
Summit will constitute a test of nations willingness to institute
fundamental changes in economic behavior, the challenges ahead will be
far more daunting. Change is seldom easy."
"Sustainable development is a
dynamic process, and it's one that will continue to evolve and grow as
lessons are learnt and ideas re-examined. By reinvigorating the spirit
of Rio we can begin to move to a deeper and broader level of
Yet was the 2002 Earth Summit in Johannesburg a
failure? See the,
fails: Greenpeace's report card on the Summit," and
Greenpeace's Earth Summit web site.
Hunger Strike for Bhopal
on 2nd/3rd December 1984, deadly toxins at a badly-run Union Carbide
(now wholly owned by Dow Chemicals) plant in Bhopal burst into the
atmosphere, engulfing half a million of India’s poor in the world’s
worst ever industrial disaster. In hours a historic city became a gas
chamber. As dawn broke, some 8,000 dead were strewn across the city’s
streets in postures of agony. They had died in terror, choking, their
eyes, throats and lungs on fire. As they fled in blind panic from the
factory, urine and feces ran down their legs. The gases stripped the
linings from their lungs and they drowned in their own fluids.
That was 18 years ago. You’d think that by now the survivors would
have received proper medical care, that they’d have been adequately
compensated for their loss and their suffering, that somebody would
have had to answer in court for what was done to them.
On all counts, you’d be wrong."
'Asian Brown Cloud' poses global threat
"In the biggest-ever study of the phenomenon, 200
scientists warned that the cloud, estimated to be two miles (three
kilometers) thick, is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths
a year from respiratory disease."-
CNN News 8/12/2002
"EPA Mulls New Water Cleanup Rule," Michael Grunwald, Washington
"The Bush administration is considering a plan to reduce federal
oversight of a key Clean Water Act anti-pollution program and instead
"trust states" to clean up more than 20,000 dirty rivers, lakes and
estuaries, internal Environmental Protection Agency documents show."
President Bush's 6/25/02 Rose Garden Speech on Palestinian Statehood
The President underscored his vision for "two
states [Israel and Palestine] living side by side, in peace and
security." He outlined reforms in the Palestinian Authority that he
deemed essential for reaching the goal of full statehood within 3
years. In other respects the speech was short on specifics. The
Palestinian National Authority has already indicated that such reforms
are underway and that elections will be held soon.
My guess is that the 74 year old Arafat would
resign if he felt that by so doing the peace process would move
forward. The real impediments to peace appear to be the current
Israeli government and the Islamic extremist terrorist groups in the
region. Both seem to believe that the only way to end violence is
through more violence. However, recent reports of Arafat paying
off the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an
offshoot of his Fatah faction that claimed responsibility for one of
the two suicide attacks last week that killed 26 Israelis, raises
serious questions about his integrity and commitment to a peace
process as well. See
Washington Post, 6/26/02 article by Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus,
"Bombing Link Swayed Bush: Reported Arafat Payment to Terror Group
While the speech may express a combination of the
President's vision and carefully hammered out compromises with his
chief foreign policy advisors, it seems to ignore the pressing
realities of the current crisis. Put simply, for peace to have a
chance, not only should there by Palestinian leadership changes and
governmental reforms, but Israel must renounce violence in the region
and carefully target its military against specific terrorist
groups, not the Palestinian people as a whole. Israel and the
Palestinian Authority must combine their intelligence and security
efforts against the terrorist groups directly responsible for the
Are there PLO leaders that support
terrorism as a means of "self defense" and defiance? -perhaps. Are
there Israeli leaders who have dehumanized Palestinians and fail to
recognize their legitimate rights and freedoms? -perhaps. However,
there are many Israelis and Palestinians wanting to work together
towards peace- let us pray their voices are heard.
EPA Proposes To Ease Rules On Clean Air
"The Bush administration announced yesterday a major
relaxation of clean air enforcement rules governing older coal-fired
power plants and refineries that would effectively preclude future
government legal action in all but the most flagrant cases of
"..This is the most sweeping and radical assault on a Clean Air
program and environmental law enforcement since the inception of the
EPA," said John Walke, an air quality expert with the
Natural Resources Defense Council." -
Eric Pianin, Washington Post, 6/14/02; See Also:
Bush White House
Weakens Clean Air Act.
Former Rite Aid Officials Indicted:
U.S. Says Executives Inflated Profits, Diverted Funds
See also: The Enron Scandal: A National
Debacle that Reflects Systemic Problems in Our Political-Economic
Arthur Andersen Found Guilty of Obstructing Justice, 6/15/02
India and Pakistan- Moving
To many questions remained unanswered as two
nuclear powers- India and Pakistan- move closer to war. Why hasn't
world diplomacy focused over the last 20 years on a collective
denuclearization/security agreement between India and Pakistan,
given both nations historically volatile relationship? What actions
can the United States and other nations take to not only avert an impending
war, but bring long term peace and stability? What is the
connection between the war in Afghanistan and the apparent escalation
in this regional conflict? Are the nuclear weapons and materials
of both countries secure from terrorist threat? Will they
remain secure in the event of limited or full scale war? What must be
done to ensure that the Kashmiris political and economic rights
are respected by all parties?
What responsible actions need to be taken by
parties now to prevent a war that could potentially escalate
into a regional chemical/biological/nuclear exchange- resulting in
many millions of civilian and military causalities and devastating
each country's infrastructure? See Also:
Justice, a 7/1/02 article by Patrick Augustine appearing in Kashmir
Climate Action Report 2002:
The United States of America's Third National Communication Under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
"Philip Clapp, president of the Washington, DC
based group National Environmental
Trust, said today this study "undercuts everything President Bush
has said about global warming since he took office. He has denied
global warming exists, claiming scientific uncertainty justified doing
nothing to stop the problem. Now a report from his own administration
says global warming is real and will have real impacts on America." -
Environment News Service, 6/3/02. Yet despite the recognized
threat- the administration will not embrace Kyoto and is failing to
take substantive and decisive action. This represents public policy at its absolute
Remarks by the President at 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United
States Military Academy
West Point, New York , 6/1/02
Tzu (The Art of War) states that:
"Strategy is important to the nation- it is the ground of death
and life, the path of survival and destruction, so it is
imperative to examine it. There is a way of survival, which helps
strengthen you; there is a way of destruction, which pushes you
In a world replete with weapons of mass
destruction, this aphorism clearly suggests that great nations with
poorly conceived global economic, political, social and military
strategies will doom not only themselves, but the world.
The words of the President of the United States are closely
scrutinized by other world leaders. According to a 6/2/02 Washington
Post article entitled,
Bush: U.S. Will Strike First at Enemies: In West Point Speech,
President Lays Out Broader U.S. Policy," President
Bush's speech to graduating cadets represents a foreign policy shift
by the United States. Therefore, it fair to analyze the strategic
implications of the speech, especially given the high stakes to world
peace. See also 6/10/02 Washington Post article by Thomas E. Ricks and
"Bush Developing Military Policy Of Striking First: New Doctrine
Excerpting from the 52 minute West Point speech:
"We will defend the peace against threats from
terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good
relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by
encouraging free and open societies on every continent."
Commentary: Alliances with strong
countries are essential and should be zealously maintained and
"Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the
language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances
require different methods, but not different moralities. Moral truth
is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every
place. Targeting innocent civilians for murder is always and
everywhere wrong. Brutality against women is always and everywhere
wrong. There can be no neutrality between justice and cruelty, between
the innocent and the guilty. We are in a conflict between good and
evil, and America will call evil by its name. By confronting evil and
lawless regimes, we do not create a problem, we reveal a problem. And
we will lead the world in opposing it."
Commentary: Understanding (knowing)
one's adversary requires that one understand their culture, religion,
history, politics, economic circumstances and social mores. While few
can argue that killing innocent people is right, nations have done so
thorough out history in the name of religion, morality and good versus
evil. Perhaps as a rallying cry, albeit dangerous, convincing the
nation that it is on the side of good brings about unity and
alignment, but as the basis for foreign policy, it introduces
miscalculation and may cloud the assessment of harm versus benefit.
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not
be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." - Luke 6:37.
"America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge
- thereby, making the destabilizing arms races of other eras
pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of
Commentary: Advantage is critical and it
is always best to win without fighting. What discourages opponents
from attacking (in part) is the prospect of harm.
"For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold
War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those
strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking.
Deterrence - the promise of massive retaliation against nations -
means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or
citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced
dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons
on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.
We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We
cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign
non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we
wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.
Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security,
and they're essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror
will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the
enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they
emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the
path of action. And this nation will act."
Commentary: These words speak of actions. They speak of not escaping
conflict (until such time when one is at a
strategic disadvantage), but confronting enemies (militarily
and otherwise) through
preparation, adaptability, surprise and decisive action. However,
what is also required is foresight- brilliance- the ability to
cope not only with present difficulties, but ones that are likely to
arise in the future and forestall them. Without foresight and
excellent knowledge of the enemy (intelligence), disaster will ensue.
For example, isolated
military incursions without careful thought to their long term
strategic implications and true understanding of the threat can lead to
unpredictable and disastrous results.
"And finally, America stands for more than the absence of war. We have
a great opportunity to extend a just peace, by replacing poverty,
repression, and resentment around the world with hope of a better day.
Through most of history, poverty was persistent, inescapable, and
almost universal. In the last few decades, we've seen nations from
Chile to South Korea build modern economies and freer societies,
lifting millions of people out of despair and want. And there's no
mystery to this achievement."
Commentary: In a world where a terrorist
can strike devastatingly anytime, anyplace and anywhere- addressing
the root cause of the threat is as or more important than addressing
the threat itself. We have seen in the Middle East that the well
spring of terror endures even when the groups responsible are
punished. The roots of terrorism are nourished by generations of
poverty, hatred and lost hope. These are the true enemies. Imagine
what might occur if the full force of strategy was used against
these enemies. But of course the issues are deeper, the actions
requiring subordination of short term gain, and the level of
leadership required such as the world has rarely seen- but most
desperately needs. "But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend,
hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall
be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and
to the evil."- Luke 6: 35 and, "Give, and it shall be given unto you;
good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over,
shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete
withal it shall be measured to you again."- Luke 6: 38.
Bush-Putin Treaty Will Prolong Nuclear Standoff
"President Bush's claim that this agreement will
'liquidate the nuclear legacy of the Cold War' is self-serving
political hype," said Thomas Cochran, director of NRDC's
[Natural Resources Defense Council] Nuclear Program. "The proposed
treaty imposes no additional permanent limits on either side's nuclear
forces, and does not require the destruction of a single nuclear
warhead, missile, silo, bomber or submarine. This treaty is a sham,
and will do nothing to make Americans or Russians more secure."
NRDC Senior Policy Analyst Christopher Paine called the treaty
"political theater." "This administration clearly regards nuclear arms
control as just another venue for political theater, designed to
grease the skids of Russia's integration into the U.S.-led free market
system," he said. "But arms control should be more than fostering
the illusion that you're doing something."-
Resources Defense Council 5/20/02 press release; See Also:
Administration, Lowering the Nuclear Threshold."
Before Sept. 11, Unshared Clues and Unshaped Policy
Papers Show That Enron Manipulated Calif. Crisis, Contributing to:
45 blackout days, 38 energy emergencies, a tenfold surge in power prices, utility
bankruptcies, lost jobs, billions of dollars in excess electricity
charges and massive California budget deficits. See also:
The Enron Scandal: A National
Debacle that Reflects Systemic Problems in Our Political-Economic
the Loser by Opposing International Criminal Court
The Middle East : U.S. Foreign
Policy at its Worst
"The Bush Administration's Mid-East policy has
consisted of stop and go/contradictory measures that have contributed
to regional instability...
The Administration's infighting and public ineptness, emboldens
extremists on both sides of the conflict."
Bush Energy Policy
"On March 25, 2002, under order from a federal
judge, the U.S. Department of Energy released to NRDC (National
Resources Defense Council) roughly 11,000 pages relating to previously
secret proceedings of the Bush administration's energy task force.
President Bush formed the task force in early 2001 to develop a
national energy policy, and put Vice President Cheney at its helm. The
government removed enormous amounts of information from the documents
before supplying them on March 25.
their scrubbed form, however, the documents reveal that Bush
administration officials sought extensive advice from utility
companies and the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy industries, and
incorporated their recommendations, often word for word, into the
energy plan." -
review of the work of the Cheney Energy Task Force.
Environment Resources for Children
Over the next few months, a new web site,
Kidsearth.org, will be launched to help
children better understand the importance of conservation.
"In the end we will conserve only what
We will love only what we understand.
We will understand only what we are taught."
-Baba Dioum, Senegalese ecologist
Alabama State Bill SB 113: Update on Nick's Crusade to extend home
care in Alabama for Medicaid EPSDT recipients after the age of 21.
The Maryland House of Delegates took a first step yesterday toward
legalizing the use of marijuana by patients suffering the ravages of
cancer, AIDS and other diseases.
Coalition Seeks to Curb Drug Patent Extensions
Federal law grants patent extensions each time a manufacturer claims
generic approval would infringe on its patent, lists a new use of a
drug, a new chemical property or new drug packaging. Consumers
ultimately pay the bill.
Medical Privacy Changes Proposed:
Bush Plan Would Lessen Patients' Say on Records
Bias Case Decree May Be Lifted: Adam's Mark Hotel Chain Sought
Justice Dept. Review
"Lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case said Kummer
[President of Adam's Mark Hotels] had boasted about his ties to [US
Attorney General] Ashcroft, saying that he expected better treatment
from a department run by Ashcroft than one managed by Janet Reno,
who was the attorney general under President Bill Clinton," from
3/21/02 Washington Post article by Thomas Edsall and Ellen
"Bias Case Decree May Be Lifted: Adam's Mark Hotel Chain Sought
Justice Department Review."
Though the hotel chain made substantial soft and hard money
contributions to Ashcroft's Senate campaigns, Ashcroft has not
recused himself from the case.
Drilling in Detroit:
"The fuel economy of today's cars and light
trucks is at its lowest point in 20 years. A combination of federal
inaction on fuel economy policy and the increased marketing of sport
utility vehicles (SUVs) and minivans as substitutes for passenger
cars have led to this point." - From the
Union of Concerned
"Drilling in Detroit."
Yet despite this, the Senate resoundingly defeated, by a vote of
62-38, raising CAFE standards from 24 mpg to 36 mpg by 2015. See:
Washington Post 3/13/02 article,
"Senate Opts Against Setting New Fuel Standards."
Administration: Lowering the Nuclear Threshold
EU Environment Ministers to move ahead with the ratification of the
"After President Bush slammed the door on the
Kyoto Protocol in March 2001, and the very bad joke of the launch of
Bush-Exxon climate plan last month, it is now time for the USA
to come back to the Kyoto Protocol framework," said Michael Raquet,
Greenpeace Climate Advisor. Greenpeace, 3/3/02 press release,
"An Historic Moment for Climate." See also:
Washington Post, 2/15/02, "Bush Unveils Global Warming Plan:
President's Approach Focuses on New Technology, Incentives for
Secretary of State Colin Powell commented before the House
Appropriations Committee on 3/6/2002 that:
"Prime Minister Sharon has to take a hard look at his policies
to see whether they will work. If you declare war against the
Palestinians thinking that you can solve the problem by seeing how
many Palestinians can be killed, I don't think that leads us
Later in the House
hearing, Powell indicated that despite, house arrest/confinement
to Ramallah, Yasser Arafat, "has to do more, can
do more and must do more," to quell violence. He said this even as
an Israeli helicopter fired a
missile at Araft's headquarters! Further, according to a
3/7/02 Washington Times article by Andrew Borowiec entitled,
"Palestinian groups plan in secret to succeed
"Radical Palestinian groups, fearful that
Israel will succeed in its effort to undermine Palestinian
Authority chief Yasser Arafat, have begun clandestine efforts to
establish an alternative organization to replace him."
this article is correct, then Israel's harsh treatment of the PLO
may not only "lead nowhere," but may contribute to further
radicalization and violence in the region. Hence a more centrist
successor to Arafat may become less, not more likely.
Powell has been ineffective in quelling violence
in the region- an apparent prerequisite to peace
negotiations. Powell should reexamine whether the Administration's
foreign policy is truly evenhanded and is contributing to
peace. See also:
Herald Tribune Op-Ed: Palestinian Violence Can End if Israel
Resumes Negotiation, by Henry Siegman, April 11, 2001;
Americans for Peace Now;
B'TSELEM - The Israeli Center
for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
Washington Post, 3/31/02 article by Alan Sipress : "A Grudging
U.S. Policy: Reluctance Has Resulted in Sporadic, Superficial
Bush White House Weakening Clean Air Rules
The Enron Scandal: A National Debacle that Reflects Systemic
Problems in Our Political-Economic System
and Its' Aftermath
Kids Were Used as Guinea Pigs'
Lead Paint Study Adds To Debate on Research
Would the Kennedy Krieger Institute
researchers have acted differently if it was their
children in their homes that were experimented on?
Bill Moyer's PBS
Documentary: "EARTH ON
Two-hour documentary aired on PBS on Tuesday,
June 19 at 8 pm, which coincided with the launch of the
Assessment, the first report on the earth’s ability to sustain
human life. Revealing alarming scientific evidence that we are
approaching a key environmental threshold, EARTH ON EDGE
most important question of the century: what is happening to earth’s
capacity to support us – nature and civilization? While showcasing new
data depicting the true scale of human impact on the planet’s
life-support systems, Moyers and his team also took us on a journey of
hope to meet people from the Midwest to Mongolia who are pioneering
sustainable ecological solutions for the Third Millennium.
The locations featured in the broadcast are:
1. South Africa - Moyers visited Working for
Water, an innovative government program that has trained 40,000 unemployed people to cut down
thousands of invasive trees and restore the precious water that flows
from the mountains to the rivers.
2. Vancouver, British Columbia - Moyers’ team told the story of an
experimental collaboration with one of Canada’s biggest timber
companies. Viewers joined loggers as they flew in and out of the forest by
helicopter to harvest trees in a way that mimiced the natural process and
allows the ancient rainforests and the wildlife they support to survive.
3. In Mongolia, where the size of the herd determines wealth, Moyers
spotlighted the need to train new herders in the ancient techniques of
migration to restore the overgrazed and parched landscape.
4. From the coral reefs and mangroves of Brazil, the program
$4 million government project to close off some areas of an endangered
reef in hopes that the coral and marine life will recover and allow
fishermen and tourists to use and enjoy the coast in a sustainable way.
5. And, finally, the program returned to
the Kansas prairies where one farmer
is bucking the tide against excessive herbicides, pesticides and
fertilizers that are sapping the soil of nutrients and polluting
Healing the Children
The plea below is from the Healing
the Children Web Site. Healing the Children provides medical
care to children around the world, who would otherwise needlessly
suffer or even die . They seek volunteers and donors to help further
their compassionate work. Another very worthy organization with
similar goals is Operation
|Give because of
those beautiful faces.
Give because these children are so brave.
Give because they touch your heart.
Give because they have mothers and fathers who love them.
Give because you'll help a child to walk.
Give because you'll help a child to see.
Give because you'll help a child to hear.
Give because you'll help to heal the scars.
Give because you'll mend a heart.
Give because of the look in their eyes.
Give because it sets your spirit free.
Give because it sets them free.
Give because they have so much to lose, and everything to give.
Give because you can.
Give because you must.
Give because you will - you truly will -
change the world, one child at a
The Campaign to Label
Genetically Engineered Foods
"To create a national grassroots consumer
campaign for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass legislation that
will require the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States."
See also: Genetically
Modified Organism (GMO) News.
Monsanto is a leader in herbicide, GMO and hormone products. This is
the same company that unabashedly polluted the community of
According to a 1/1/02 Washington Post article by Michael Grunwald:
"For nearly 40 years, while producing
the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory,
Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston
creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit
landfills. And thousands of
pages of Monsanto documents -- many emblazoned with warnings such as
"CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy" -- show that for decades, the
corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew."
Do you trust them now with your health?;
See also: The Research Foundation
for Science,Technology & Ecology