James A. Andrews
An Open Letter to Senator Tom Daschle:
Thu Sep 26 18:12:44 2002
208.152.73.191

From 1925 to 2002 - Dear Senator Daschle:
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:05:38 +0300
From: "James A. Andrews" james44a@hotmail.com
To: apfn@apfn.org



Subject: From 1925 to 2002

An Open Letter to Senator Tom Daschle:

Good for you for talking back. I think this was very patriotic of you,
and the essence of democracy. Maybe on November 5, the voters will express
the same sentiments, the same way they did to Mr. Gingrich the last time.

Everybody keeps saying that it was the Saudis who did 9/11, and so we keep
asking, why are we now going after the Iraqis instead of the Saudis?

Even more to the point, how could Bush, Jr. possibly have invited that
robed monster, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah into his house in Texas? There
are many, many older Americans who would quickly compare this with Franklin
Roosevelt somehow inviting Emperor Hirohito into the Oval Office after the
beginning of World War II.

How can something like this happen?

Some commentators even say that, as a consequence of 9/11, there is now an
ongoing, long-range action plan to use conquered Iraq and Afghanistan as a
vise against either side of Iran. Then, after the next squeeze, the way
would then become clear for reaching the vast, newly discovered oil
treasures of the North Caspian Sea; and then, an alternative route, besides
Russia, would be opened. Under this theory, North Korea was added as the
third member of the Axis of Evil list in order to make this long-range
action plan less obvious.

So, is it supposed to be nothing more than a most remarkable coincidence
that Iraq, Afghanistan, and especially Iran lie next to each other, and also
on the Caspian Sea? If this is supposed to be a threat to national
security, then where is the serious, non-election campaign effort to build a
bilateral understanding? Is this national security or vehicle sales
security? Is this the national interest or special oil interests?

Back in 1925, the British army fought and died, in effect, for the
Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, up and down the Arabian peninsula. Are
we still the kind of people who keep doing these things?

To conclude, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, American troops bombing
their way in here, there, everywhere, by now you absolutely have to wonder,
who is next on this long-range action plan hit list?

An APFN reader
======================================================================
Bush's war plans are a cover-up, Byrd says

Saturday September 21, 2002

By Paul J. Nyden
STAFF WRITER

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said President Bush’s plans
to invade Iraq are a conscious effort to distract public attention
from growing problems at home.

“This administration, all of a sudden, wants to go to war with Iraq,” Byrd said. “The
[political] polls are dropping, the domestic situation has
problems.... So all of a sudden we have this war talk, war fervor,
the bugles of war, drums of war, clouds of war.

“Don’t tell me that things suddenly went wrong. Back in August,
the president had no plans.... Then all of a sudden this country is
going to war,” Byrd told the Senate on Friday.

“Are politicians talking about the domestic situation, the stock
market, weaknesses in the economy, jobs that are being lost,
housing problems? No.”

Byrd warned of another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Passed on
Aug. 7, 1964, that resolution handed President Lyndon Johnson
broad powers to escalate the war in Vietnam, a conflict that cost
58,202 American lives and millions of Asian lives.

“Congress will be putting itself on the sidelines,” Byrd told the
Senate. “Nothing would please this president more than having
such a blank check handed to him.”

Byrd said his belief in the Constitution will prevent him from
voting for Bush’s war resolution. “But I am finding that the
Constitution is irrelevant to people of this administration.”

Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., both
praised Byrd after he spoke.

“It is the height of patriotism to ask such hard questions,” Clinton
said. “No one exemplifies that more than the senior senator from
West Virginia.”

Byrd said, “Before the nation is committed to war, before we send
our sons and daughters to battle in faraway lands, there are critical
questions that must be asked. To date, the answers from the
administration have been less than satisfying.”

Byrd repeatedly said Bush has failed to give members of Congress
any evidence about any immediate danger from Iraq. Byrd also
criticized his speech to the United Nations.

“Instead of offering compelling evidence that the Iraqi regime had
taken steps to advance its weapons program, the president offered
the U.N. more of a warning than an appeal for support.

“Instead of using the forum of the U.N. General Assembly to offer
evidence and proof of his claims, the president basically told the
nations of the world that you are either with me, or against me,”
Byrd said.

“We must not be hell-bent on an invasion until we have exhausted
every other possible option to assess and eliminate Iraq’s supposed
weapons of mass destruction program. We must not act alone. We
must have the support of the world.”

Byrd said Congress needs solid evidence and answers to several
specific questions, including:

Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the U.S.?
Should the United States act alone?
What would be the repercussions in the Middle East and around
the globe?
How many civilians would die in Iraq?
How many American forces would be involved?
How do we afford this war?
Will the U.S. respond with nuclear weapons if Saddam Hussein
uses chemical or biological weapons against U.S. soldiers?
Does the U.S. have enough military and intelligence resources to
fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while mobilizing resources to
prevent attacks on our own shores?

Byrd said the proposed resolution Bush sent Congress on
Thursday would be the “broadest possible grant of war powers to
any president in the history of our Republic. The resolution is a
direct insult and an affront to the powers given to Congress.”

Byrd also criticized Bush’s request for power to carry out
“pre-emptive attacks” and send troops to Iraq, Iran, Syria,
Lebanon, Yemen, the West Bank and anywhere else in the Middle
East.

“I cannot believe the gall and the arrogance of the White House in
requesting such a broad grant of war powers,” Byrd said. “This is
the worst kind of election-year politics.”

To contact staff writer Paul J. Nyden, use e-mail or call 348-5164.

• Daschle: "This has to end, Mr. President" (Full text) — TRUTHOUT, Thu Sep 26 19:20