Capitol
Hill Update, October 2007
 |
PLENTY
of noise on Capitol Hill
about the looming specter
of another bloody, messy,
foolhardy war -- this time,
on Iran. In this case, the
first time was tragedy;
the second time would be
both tragedy AND farce.
Plenty of folks are also
rushing to do all they can
to prevent any military
action... |
|
|
|
 |
Notes
from the WAND News Bulletin
editor
It
warms our hearts when
the mainstream media suddenly
takes notice of the bloated
and smelly Pentagon budget. |
|
Defense contractors make
more than boatloads of
money: they need aircraft
carriers to contain all
the loot they grab from
taxpayers.
So
two big things this month:
First, the Time
cover story about
the giant fatal budget
suck that is the Osprey
helicopter. Second, a
new
report that says you
don't need things like
the Osprey to keep people
employed; you can spend
money on better things,
and create more and better
jobs.
This
report may spark a real
debate about how these
wacko pork projects keep
getting funded. If it's
pressure from constituents
in the places where they're
being built -- we can
start to frame a good
answer to that concern.
We don't need
to build spinny high tech
helicopters that fall
down; we can pour money
into healthcare and housing
and public transportation
-- and create more jobs.
Let
the debate begin, friends.
Cuz the way we're spending
money now -- on war and
war toys and oil pipelines
-- is the fast way to
death and destruction
for all of us.
|
Cost of the War in Iraq (JavaScript Error)
|
By
the time you're reading
this, it's likely that
W will have wielded his
veto pen once again on
the SCHIP bill. That
would offer healthcare
to children whose parents
earn too much to qualify
for Medicaid but not enough
to afford private insurance
on their own.
How
much would that cost us?
Total funding of $38.4
billion between 2008 to
2012. Compare
that to the number above.
Then call your Members
of Congress. |
|
V-22
Osprey: A Flying Shame
By MARK THOMPSON | September
26, 2007
 |
Now
the aircraft that flies
like an airplane but takes
off and lands like a chopper
is about to make its combat
debut in Iraq. It has been
a long, strange trip: the
V-22 has been 25 years in
development, more than twice
as long as the Apollo program
that put men on the moon.
V-22 crashes have claimed
the lives of 30 men —
10 times the lunar program's
toll — all before
the plane has seen combat.
|
The Pentagon has put
$20 billion into the Osprey
and expects to spend an additional
$35 billion before the program
is finished. In exchange, the
Marines, Navy and Air Force
will get 458 aircraft, averaging
$119 million per copy.
The
saga of the V-22 — the
battles over its future on Capitol
Hill, a performance record that
is spotty at best, a long, determined
quest by the Marines to get
what they wanted — demonstrates
how Washington works (or, rather,
doesn't). It exposes the compromises
that are made when narrow interests
collide with common sense. It
is a tale that shows how the
system fails at its most significant
task, by placing in jeopardy
those we count on to protect
us. For even at a stratospheric
price, the V-22 is going into
combat shorthanded.
|
|
New
study finds money invested in
healthcare creates twice as
many jobs as money spent on
the military
A
new study by economists at the
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
evaluates the impact of tax
cuts and military spending on
job creation in the U.S. economy,
as compared to government expenditure
on public programs such as healthcare,
education, and infrastructure.
The report comes just as President
Bush and Congress face-off over
public spending priorities in
the 2008 budget.
Each
$1 billion of tax revenue allocated
to tax cuts for personal consumption
generates approximately 10,800
jobs. Investing the same amount
in the military creates 8,500
jobs. Investing it in health
care yields 12,900 jobs; in
education, 17,700 jobs; in mass
transit, 19,800 jobs; and in
construction for home weatherization
and infrastructure, 12,800 jobs.
Recent
federal policy has emphasized
tax cuts and military increases
over other federal investments.
Military spending has
risen at an average rate of
10% per year from FY2000-2006,
while the overall U.S. economy
grew at an average annual rate
of 2.7%.
|
Pentagon
Submits Budget, And Services Ask
for More
Air Force Lobbying for C-17s Raises
Questions
By
Josh White | Washington
Post | October 16, 2007
The
Pentagon not only left new C-17
transport planes out of its
budget request this year, it
set aside half a billion dollars
to halt the planes' production.
Officially, the Air Force took
the same view, swearing off
any more C-17s, which cost $250
million apiece.
Behind
the scenes, however, Air Force
officials and Boeing, which
makes the C-17, have been lobbying
Congress to get more of the
planes built, key lawmakers
said. Seven House members have
responded by inserting into
the defense bill one of that
chamber's largest single earmarks
-- a demand that the Air Force
give Boeing $2.42 billion for
new C-17s.
...Congress has often
padded the military's budget with
demands for weaponry that the
Pentagon says it does not need
-- ranging from refueling tankers
to artillery cannons and helicopters.
But the C-17 case illustrates
how individual military services
sometimes lobby quietly to resurrect
pet projects that wound up on
the cutting-room floor in Defense
Department budget deliberations.
"This
has been going on probably since
the Revolutionary War,"
said Dina Rasor, chief investigator
with the Follow the Money Project,
which tracks military spending
on the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq. "There's a wink and
nod here. The Pentagon will
get what they want and the Congress
will get what they want. Earmarking
is a way for them to sneak it
in the budget.
"Everyone
keeps voting the money, and
everyone's happy," Rasor
said. "As a result, the
defense budget is now beyond
comprehension."
|
Obey
Raises the Specter of War Tax
By
Elizabeth Williamson | Washington
Post | October 19, 2007
House
Appropriations Committee Chairman
David R. Obey (D-Wis.) hates
this "misbegotten, stupid,
ill-advised" Iraq war.
He won't even consider President
Bush's latest war funding request
until next year. And he wants
to tax Americans to pay for
it.
...For months, the president has
vowed to veto the 12 appropriations
bills moving through Congress,
in a dispute over domestic spending.
"Without setting priorities,
the temptation is to overspend.
The job of the president is to
make sure that we don't overspend
and at the same time keep taxes
low," Bush said Monday.
Obey
views the $22 billion in extra
domestic spending Democrats
want as a drop in the bucket
compared with the cost of the
war, and a gesture toward the
nation's have-nots. He calls
Bush's philosophy "an obscenity."
"He
is trying to distract attention
from Iraq by having other fights,"
Obey said over hamburgers at
the Democratic Club, whose faux-leather
grandeur recalls the supper
clubs of his home.
"We're
going to have . . . tax cuts
for people making a million
bucks a year while we supposedly
can't afford to improve education
or improve veterans' health
care or do some real science
on climate change. It's all
a political charade."
|
 |
Votes
for Women! WAND
is one of twelve organizations
hoping to win the top
prize of $100,000 in the
Peace Primary. We need
your vote! Please vote
for us today! Thanks!
September
1 - October 31, 2007
| PeacePrimary.org
|
|
2007
WiLL/WAND National Conference
What made it so great?
Our
piece on Women
and Power at the conference
here.
The
biennial WiLL/WAND conference
took place September 30-October
2, 2007. We met movie
stars and Congresswomen, learned
about the media and how to rebuild
our economy so it's not a war
machine, marched up to the halls
of Capitol Hill, and laughed
a lot.
Why
was that conference
so great? Because it
was, seriously. Energy, joy,
outrage, passion, commitment,
integrity -- you could just
feel it in every room. Laughter,
applause, facts and figures,
warm food, serious analysis
-- everyone was concentrating
on the hard work and good times.
It was fun, and it was difficult
-- and somehow totally rewarding.
But
what was the formula? Our
report on what made it great.
Enjoy.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome
to the newest newest woman in
Congress!
2007
Special Elections: WAND PAC
congratulates two women who
just won special elections to
serve in Congress for the first
time! The total of WAND/WiLL
women in the 110th is up to
40.
|
Niki
Tsongas being sworn in
by Speaker Nancy Pelosi
|
On
Oct. 16, Niki
Tsongas became
the first woman since
1982 to represent Massachusetts
in Congress.
Last
month, we were delighted
to report that WiLL member
Laura Richardson
(CA) had just won a seat
in Congress. Congratulations
to them, and to everyone
who worked hard on their
campaigns.
|
|
UN
Report: October 2007
 |
by Sayre Sheldon
"A special interest
for me is to follow what is being
done in Congress to revive the
passage of CEDAW — which
just held its 25th anniversary
meeting at the U.N. in N.Y. and
will now move to Geneva. With
over 90% of the world’s
countries members of CEDAW, where
is the U.S.?"
For the full report, click
here. |
Support
Basic Rights for All Women:
Urge the U.S. to Ratify CEDAW
From Amnesty International:
The Treaty for the Rights of
Women, officially known as the
United Nations Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) is the most complete
international agreement on basic
rights for women. As of April
2007, the Treaty has been ratified
by 185 countries.The U.S. played
a role in drafting this treaty
but now is only one in eight
countries that has yet to ratify
it. Take
action here.
|
|
Sayre
Sheldon on the passing of Randy
Forsberg...
 |
In
my book, Her War Story,
I list two women as leading
the antinuclear movement
in the U.S.: Helen Caldicott
and Randall Forsberg.
Randy was essentially
the "mother"
of the nuclear freeze
movement. Everyone knew
it, and her mixture of
expertise and inspiration
was a wonderful combination.
It took her awhile to
realize that women were
her natural constituents,
but when she did, she
enthusiastically endorsed
what WAND was doing. I
agree with what has already
been said: her legacy
is to make us all work
harder to finish what
she began.
|
Many
of us in the WAND family had
the opportunity to know and
work with Randy, and feel great
sadness at the loss of a visionary
leader and a strong woman. Obituary
in the Boston
Globe.
|
 |
We're
reaching out to you for
help! Please
excuse us in the next
couple weeks, as WAND
calls many of our supporters
and members to ask for
a pledge. We're facing
a budget shortfall this
year, and we need
your support. We've done
a lot of great work in
the past year, thanks
to you; we hope to keep
it up! |
Ad
in ND features a woman legislator
attending the conference
UCS ran a paid ad in three North
Dakota papers Sunday, September
30, asking Sen. Dorgan to deny
funding for the Reliable Replacement
Warhead (RRW) program. It
was signed by five North Dakotans,
including State Sen. Carolyn Nelson,
who was at the WAND/WiLL conference
at the time. |
Update
on Bombplex 2030
Atlanta WAND director Bobbie Paul
reports the latest news on the
National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) plan to redesign our nation's
nuclear weapons complex.
|
|
4
Colonels Lose Their Air Force
Commands
By Walter Pincus | Washington
Post | October 20, 2007
Four
Air Force colonels have been relieved
of their commands and more than
65 lower-ranking officers and
airmen have been disciplined over
a series of errors that led to
a B-52 flight in August from North
Dakota to Louisiana with six nuclear-armed
cruise missiles that no one realized
were under the plane's wing...
Tough
Punishment Expected for Warhead
Errors
By Thomas E. Ricks and Joby Warrick
| Washington
Post | October 18, 2007
...The
August event triggered a rare "Bent
Spear" nuclear incident alert
that was sent to Defense Secretary
Robert M. Gates and President Bush.
Although some details are not yet
publicly known, officials familiar
with the investigation say the problem
originated at Minot when a pylon
carrying six nuclear-armed cruise
missiles was mistaken for one carrying
unarmed missiles. Minot had been
in the midst of shipping unarmed
cruise missiles to Barksdale for
decommissioning.
That
initial mistake was followed by
many other failures, ultimately
allowing six nuclear warheads
to slip outside the Air Force's
normal safeguards for more than
36 hours. The warheads were airborne
for more than three hours and
sat for long periods on runways
at both air bases without a special
guard. Air Force officials
say there was little risk that
the warheads could have been detonated,
but the lapses could theoretically
have led to warheads being stolen
or damaged in a way that could
have disseminated toxic nuclear
materials.
|
|
Questions
About the India Deal, Finally
The
New York Times Editorial |
October 6, 2007
The
Bush administration and the American
business community have been hoping
for a swift, rubber-stamp approval
of their ill-conceived nuclear
trade deal with India. Luckily,
some members of Congress, and
some American allies, are finally
asking questions.
Congress
was far too uncritical when it
gave preliminary approval to the
agreement in December. As a next
step, Washington must get a change
in rules from the Nuclear Suppliers
Group, the main providers of so-called
civilian nuclear technology around
the world. All nuclear trade with
India has been banned since it
refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty and tested nuclear weapons.
Now some members of Congress are
beginning to raise doubts about
the deal.
|
Nuclear
Deal With India May Be Near Collapse
Premier Cites Internal Opposition
To Agreement Pushed by Bush
By Robin Wright and Rama
Lakshmi | Washington
Post | October 16, 2007
A controversial
nuclear deal between the United
States and India appears close
to collapse after the Indian prime
minister told President Bush yesterday
that "certain difficulties"
will prevent India from moving
forward on the pact for the foreseeable
future.
|
Derailing
a deal
By
Noam Chomsky | 10/08/07 | "Khaleej
Times"
NUCLEAR-armed
states are criminal states. They
have a legal obligation, confirmed
by the World Court, to live up
to Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, which calls on them to
carry out good-faith negotiations
to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely.
None of the nuclear states has
lived up to it.
The
United States is a leading violator,
especially the Bush administration,
which even has stated that it
isn't subject to Article 6.
On
July 27, Washington entered into
an agreement with India that guts
the central part of the NPT, though
there remains substantial opposition
in both countries. India, like
Israel and Pakistan (but unlike
Iran), is not an NPT signatory,
and has developed nuclear weapons
outside the treaty. With
this new agreement, the Bush administration
effectively endorses and facilitates
this outlaw behaviour.
The agreement violates US law,
and bypasses the Nuclear Suppliers
Group, the 45 nations that have
established strict rules to lessen
the danger of proliferation of
nuclear weapons.
Daryl
Kimball, executive director of
the Arms Control Association,
observes that the agreement doesn't
bar further Indian nuclear testing
and, "incredibly, ... commits
Washington to help New Delhi secure
fuel supplies from other countries
even if India resumes testing."
It also permits India to "free
up its limited domestic supplies
for bomb production." All
these steps are in direct violation
of international nonproliferation
agreements. |
The
nuclear culprits
By continuing to thumb its nose
at the comprehensive test-ban
treaty, the Bush administration
is letting other countries off
the hook.
John Gittings | Guardian
Unlimited | September 20,
2007
Can
there possibly be a current global
issue on which the United States
and North Korea, plus Iran and
China and just six other countries,
line up against the rest of the
world? Even professionals in international
affairs might rack their brains,
but the answer can be found this
week at an under-reported conference
in Vienna.
More
than 100 countries are attending
the meeting of the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)
organisation, the fifth held since
it was signed in 1996. They are
trying to persuade 10 countries
whose refusal to sign and/or to
ratify the treaty means that it
cannot take effect.
These
are China, Colombia, Egypt, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North
Korea, Pakistan and the US. The
Bush administration is in company
with one fellow permanent security
council member, four other nuclear
powers, two alleged "rogue
states", and two or three
odd allies, all thumbing their
noses at the 140 countries which
have already ratified the treaty.
The US and North Korea plus India
did not even bother to send a
delegation to Vienna.
|
|
Russia
plans new nuclear weapons
Thu Oct 18, 2007 | By
Dmitry Solovyov | Reuters
MOSCOW
(Reuters) - President Vladimir
Putin said on Thursday that Russia
was working on new types of nuclear
weapons as part of a "grandiose"
plan to boost the country's defenses...
|
A
nuclear-free world
By Ivo Daalder and John Holum |
October 5, 2007 | Boston
Globe
SHOULD
THE United States aim to achieve
a world free of all nuclear weapons?
In one sense, the question is
trivial - nuclear disarmament
has been a stated aim of the United
States since the dawn of the nuclear
age. And the United States also
committed to working toward this
end when it signed the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968....
And
it isn't just presidential candidates
who are talking about a nuclear-free
world. So are former statesmen
like Henry Kissinger, George Shultz,
Bill Perry, and Sam Nunn. Writing
in The Wall Street Journal last
January, they urged that the United
States set the goal of a world
free of nuclear weapons, and proposed
specific actions to that end.
Nearly
20 years after the Cold War ended,
the time has come to make a concerted
effort to verifiably rid the world
of all nuclear weapons. The
United States must start by recognizing
that the threats it confronts
have changed and so, consequently,
has the role and purpose of our
nuclear weapons...
|
|
Reliable
Replacement Warhead Is a Symptom,
Not the Solution
October 9, 2007 | Strategic
Security Blog
A project of the Federation
of American Scientists
The
report does not say that the RRW
will not work; certainly it does
not say that the warhead is unworkable,
but it does state that more research,
calculation, and experiment need
to be done. The unclassified summary
of the report does not put it
in these terms but it seems clear
to me that the RRW is not yet
ready to pass from the design
phase (called 2a) into the engineering
phase (called phase 3) as DOE
wants.
This
is further support for California’s
Senator Feinstein's bill (S. 1914)
that would put further development
of the RRW on hold until a thorough
reevaluation of U.S. nuclear doctrine
has been completed.
And
this leads to the one question
the DOE did not ask the Jason
committee, because DOE doesn’t
even ask itself, is: why must
the RRW have the characteristics
that it has?
|
|
Portents
of A Nuclear Al-Qaeda
By
David Ignatius | Washington
Post | October 18, 2007
With his shock
of white hair and piercing eyes,
Mowatt-Larssen looks like a man
who has seen a ghost. And when
you listen to a version of the
briefing he has been giving recently
to President Bush and other top
officials, you begin to understand
why. He is convinced that al-Qaeda
is trying to acquire a nuclear
bomb that will leave the ultimate
terrorist signature -- a mushroom
cloud. |
|
The
Day After: Action Following a
Nuclear Blast in a U.S. City
Ashton B. Carter, Michael M. May
and William J. Perry
The
Washington Quarterly | Autumn
2007
...In spite of these successes,
the threat of a nuclear attack
against the United States has
not yet been eradicated, nor has
the spread of weapons of mass
destruction been effectively curtailed.
The serious setbacks to nuclear
terrorism prevention in recent
years are particularly disturbing,
as evidenced by North Korea’s
new nuclear weapons arsenal, Iran’s
unchecked nuclear developments,
continuing political risk in nuclear-armed
Pakistan, and inadequately safeguarded
weapons and fissile materials
still remaining in Russia and
elsewhere...
A
serious risk requires serious
and thoughtful contingency planning,
however small or remote the probability
may seem. Well-considered measures
embedded in serious contingency
plans can save lives and promote
recovery. This contingency planning
therefore deserves sober attention.
The destruction of buildings and
lives in the cities bombed could
be accompanied by a wider destruction
of the sense of safety and well-being
of each and every citizen. Although
thoughtful preparation in advance
will not change a catastrophe
into something less, it will nevertheless
save thousands of lives and billions
of dollars,
prevent unnecessary panic, help
maintain trust in the government,
and help preserve democratic institutions
in a time of emergency.
Carefully
considered action by government
will also help the citizenry avoid
overreaction and panic and allow
them to restore the American way
of life that they have built over
centuries. Terrorists, even if
armed with nuclear weapons, should
never be allowed to take that
away.
|
|
Stark
Differences on Arms Threaten U.S.-Russia
Talks
By THOM SHANKER AND STEVEN LEE
MYERS | The
New York Times | October 10,
2007
...The Bush administration's
approach, part of a legacy of
disdain for formal binding treaties
negotiated over years, gives the
administration what it contends
is greater ability to maneuver
to forward its national security
interests.
Russia has demanded
a legally binding accord to formally
replace verification requirements
in the Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty, or Start, which expires
in 2009.
The
Bush administration is offering
only to preserve some parts of
the nuclear accord to guarantee
inspections and verification of
the nuclear weapons reductions
it set in motion -- but in a still
undermined format far less formal
than a major treaty.
One
senior Bush administration official
referred disdainfully to Start
as a ''telephone-book-size document''
that both sides now considered
outdated. ''It's not surprising
that there are some parts of it
both sides would not like to continue,''
the official said.
The
Russians see it differently.
''Unfortunately
we have very serious disagreements,''
Anatoly I. Antonov, an arms-control
official at the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, told the official Russian
Information Agency last month.
''They concern the essence of
the future accord. We have not
agreed yet on the nature of the
accord either. We have not yet
succeeded in convincing the U.S.A.
that the new document must be
legally binding.''
Missile
defense remains the most divisive
issue for the two countries.
High on the agenda of the talks
will be American proposals for
placing 10 antimissile interceptors
in Poland and radar in the Czech
Republic. Although the two systems
are described as a modest hedge
against the risk of a ballistic
missile attack on NATO allies
or the United States by Iran,
the plans have threatened relations
with Moscow.
|
Indo-Pak
nuclear war could cause one billion
starvation deaths
The
Times of India | 4 Oct 2007
LONDON: A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would not only
have catastrophic affects in these
two countries or their neighbours,
but it could cause one billion
people to starve to death across
the world.
Hundreds of millions
of more would die from disease
and conflicts over food in the
aftermath of any such war.
US medical expert
Ira Helfand will on Thursday present
this horrifying scenario in London
during a conference at the Royal
Society of Medicine.
"A limited
nuclear war taking place far away
poses a threat that should concern
everyone on the planet,"
the New Scientist magazine quoted
Helfand as saying. |
|
Notes
from the WAND News Bulletin
editor
An
interesting trend: the people
who had the hard and dirty
work of carrying out the
Iraq war are coming home
-- and speaking out about
what a disaster it is. From
all ranks. Generals, captains,
infantry. |
And
yet, it's still not enough to
convince W and his cronies that
it might be time to change course
over there. What more proof do
we need that he listens only to
the voices in his head/heart?
As
Veterans Day approaches, we should
all listen to these voices. We
should all heed not just what
they have to say about the course
of this war -- but about what
war is. And all of us -- including
the men in the suits in the White
House -- should strive to understand
the reality of war.
Which
means: the horror.
|
| Ex-Commander
In Iraq Faults War Strategy
'No End in Sight,' Says
Retired General Sanchez
By
Josh White | Washington
Post | October 13, 2007
Retired
Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who
led U.S. forces in Iraq for a
year after the March 2003 invasion,
accused the Bush administration
yesterday of going to war with
a "catastrophically flawed"
plan and said the United States
is "living a nightmare with
no end in sight."
Sanchez
also bluntly criticized the current
troop increase in Iraq, describing
it as "a desperate attempt
by the administration that has
not accepted the political and
economic realities of this war."
"The
administration, Congress and the
entire interagency, especially
the State Department, must shoulder
the responsibility for this catastrophic
failure, and the American people
must hold them accountable,"
Sanchez told military reporters
and editors. "There has been
a glaring unfortunate display
of incompetent strategic leadership
within our national leaders."
|
| The
Real Iraq We Saw First Hand
By
12 Former U.S. Army Captains,
The
Washington Post. October 16,
2007
...While
our generals pursue a strategy
dependent on peace breaking out,
the Iraqis prepare for their war
-- and our servicemen and women,
and their families, continue to
suffer.
There
is one way we might be able to
succeed in Iraq. To continue an
operation of this intensity and
duration, we would have to abandon
our volunteer military for compulsory
service. Short of that, our best
option is to leave Iraq immediately.
A scaled withdrawal will not prevent
a civil war, and it will spend
more blood and treasure on a losing
proposition.
America,
it has been five years. It's time
to make a choice.
|
|
Some
talking heads making sense:
The Anti-War
Room
 |
Check
out these regular video releases
from our good friends at Win
Without War. |
|
|
Notes
from the WAND News Bulletin
editor
Can you
believe this? Here we go
again. The administration
is bending over backwards
to justify its ramp up to
war. |
Of
course, it's maddening this time
that Iran's president is a bit,
shall we say, nutty... and has
said some, shall we say, nutty
things... And the thing is, we
should, indeed, be working like
mad to find a way to solve this
problem.
But
isn't the whole deal here that
we're saying we're better than
he is...? and isn't part of that
assertion the fact that we don't
just go around bombing innocent
civilians willy nilly whenever
some nutty guy says things we
don't like?
Are
they paying any attention at
all, there in W's oval office?
Ya know, seriously, this country
does have more to offer than night
vision goggles and super bomby
things. That's not working for
us. Helloooooo?
|
|
Retired
generals criticize Iraq policy,
worry over Iran
By:
GIG CONAUGHTON | North
County Times | October 11,
2007
A pair of retired
generals told dozens of Rancho
Bernardo residents Thursday that
President Bush's troop surge strategy
in Iraq was failing and that they're
afraid the president may be goaded
into a "disastrous"
new war against neighboring Iran.
Retired Marine
Corps four-star Gen. Joseph Hoar
and retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert
Gard told a rapt gathering of
the North County World Affairs
Council in a two-hour discussion
Thursday that neo-conservative
groups are pushing to persuade
Bush to fight Iran...
"There have
been reports of certain elements
in the White House urging Bush
to attack before he leaves office,"
Gard said, "because his successor
will not have the fortitude ...
and the supreme confidence in
his own instincts to take care
of Iran. Joe and I happen to be
among the people who believe that
will be a disaster for this country."
|
Bush's
War Rhetoric Reveals the Anxiety
That Iran Commands
By
Peter Baker | Washington
Post | October 19, 2007
When
President Bush this week raised
the specter of World War III if
Iran manages to build nuclear
weapons, he not only roiled the
diplomatic world, he also underscored
how much Iran has come to shadow
the political dialogue both here
in Washington and on the presidential
campaign trail.
While
Iraq has faded from the Beltway
debate for now, Iran has emerged
as the top foreign policy topic
of the moment. Democratic
candidates are arguing about Bush's
efforts against Iran, with underdogs
accusing front-runner Hillary
Rodham Clinton of giving the president
a blank check. Republican candidates,
on the other hand, are vying over
who would be toughest on Iran,
with each vowing to take military
action if necessary.
...For
now, the White House spent yesterday
trying to douse the flames of Bush's
news conference remark. "If
you're interested in avoiding World
War III," he said, "it
seems like you ought to be interested
in preventing them from having the
knowledge necessary to make a nuclear
weapon."
White
House press secretary Dana Perino
said that was "a rhetorical
point," not a threat. "The
president was not making any war
plans, and he wasn't making any
declarations," she said.
"He was making a point, and
the point is that we do not believe
. . . Iran should be allowed to
pursue nuclear weapons."
...Some
Democrats criticized Bush for an
alarmist tone. "He
continues to dial up the fear factor
instead of reaching to bring this
world together, to work together,
to make sure that we can avoid World
War III or any other war, for that
matter, and end the war we're in
that we can't get out of,"
Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) said
on MSNBC. |
Iran's
Nuclear Negotiator Resigns
Ahmadinejad Seen Asserting Control
By Robin Wright | Washington
Post | October 21, 2007
Iran
yesterday announced the resignation
of its chief nuclear negotiator,
Ali Larijani, a move that signals
deepening internal divisions on
the eve of critical international
talks about its nuclear program.
The
announcement may indicate that
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
is trying to gain control of Iran's
nuclear policy and that the country
is preparing to take an even tougher
line in negotiations, according
to analysts and European officials
familiar with the talks...
...But
the differences run deeper, analysts
and European officials said. The
split at the top was evident this
month when Hassan Rohani, Larijani's
predecessor at the National Security
Council, lashed out at Ahmadinejad
for positions that he said had
hurt Iran.
"Today
in the international arena, we
are now more than ever under threat.
A country's diplomacy is successful
when it doesn't allow the enemy
to find more allies against it.
Unfortunately, our enemies are
increasing," Rohani said
in a speech, noting France's new
alliance with the United States
on Iran.
|
Cheney:
U.S., Other Nations Won't Let
Iran Get Nuclear Arms
By
Matthew Barakat | Washington
Post | October 22, 2007
The
United States and other nations
will not allow Iran to obtain
a nuclear weapon, Vice President
Cheney said yesterday.
"Our
country, and the entire international
community, cannot stand by as
a terror-supporting state fulfills
its grandest ambitions,"
Cheney said in a speech at a Washington
think tank's conference, meeting
at the Lansdowne Resort in Leesburg.
...If
Iran continues on its course, Cheney
said, the United States and other
nations are "prepared to impose
serious consequences." He made
no specific reference to military
action.
"We
will not allow Iran to have a
nuclear weapon," he said.
Cheney's
words, delivered at the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy's
Weinberg Founders Conference,
seemed to continue an escalation
of U.S. rhetoric against Iran
over the past several days, including
President Bush's warning Wednesday
that a nuclear Iran could lead
to "World War III."
|
Divisions
in Europe May Thwart U.S. Objectives
on Iran
By Robin Wright | Washington
Post | October 18, 2007
European
governments are deeply divided
over how far and how fast to go
in imposing new sanctions against
Iran, in what could undermine
a new U.S. effort to mobilize
allies to act outside of the United
Nations, according to European
officials.
At
a meeting in Brussels on Monday,
European Union foreign ministers
agreed to consider modest steps
but not necessarily the kind of
dramatic moves that Washington
is now considering, the officials
said. The session over what Europe
should do to pressure Iran was
described by officials as "fractious,"
"intense" and with "a
bit of blood left on the carpet"
from the debate. |
 |
Preventive
war? Preventive
action.
The
time to stop the next war is now.
While
Congress wrangles over funding
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
many believe that the administration
is considering undertaking yet
another military action on foreign
shores -- this time, in Iran.
This, despite the fact that the
situation in Iraq has clearly
shown that using force before
we have exhausted every other
alternative is foolish, deadly,
and counterproductive. |
 |
Actions
Against the Iraq War
October 27, 2007
Regional
actions across the country: Seattle
| San Francisco | Los Angeles
| Salt Lake City | New Orleans
| Chicago | Boston| New York |
Philadelphia | Jonesboro, TN |
Orlando
Keep
up with nationwide
actions against the Iraq war. |
IDEAS,
VISIONS, RESOURCES FOR
A BETTER WORLD |
 |
The
History Channel has developed
Take
A Veteran to School Day, and
is encouraging educators to organize
events leading up to November
12th (Veterans Day).
Here
is the story of soldier Matt McCue,
and his healing journey from Iraq
to Africa: "I witnessed many
unforgettable things in Iraq but
the aspect that changed my life
more than any other was the way
the farmers kept working and selling
their produce through the chaos
of a regime change." After
his tour, Matt became a Peace
Corp volunteer in Africa, and
signed on to Farms Not Arms. Matt
took a More
Than Warmth quilt back
to Nigeria to give to a child
or school in need. Read
more of Matthew's story of healing
after war.
|
  |
When
you buy on amazon.com
- Use our link.
WAND gets a little cut every time
you buy through our link to amazon.
It doesn't cost you a penny, but
it brings one to us. And we count
our pennies... |
 |
Be
part of a powerful community
of women and men leading our
country to a secure future!
*
To
join using a credit
card online,
click
here.
|
Don't
worry, we just moved it to a separate
page.
Click
here and you'll find out
more.
Don't
worry, we just moved it to a separate
page.
Click
here and you'll find
out all about what our chapters
and partners are planning for this
month.
WAND
is turning 25! It's a great time
to be celebrating Women
| Power | Peace!
Please
join the celebration: Click
here for more information. Thanks!
The
WAND Bulletin Board is an announcement
service of WAND. The purpose of the
WAND Bulletin is to share news and ideas,
and to offer the support of a national
network of active WAND, WiLL and STAND
members and partner organizations.
WAND
/ STAND chapters and partner organizations
are encouraged to submit news for the
Bulletin Board. Please send text in
a form that is ready to be published
without further editing. Email submissions
to: bulletin@wand.org.
Statements
posted on WAND’s Bulletin Board
do not necessarily reflect the position
of WAND.
To
join WAND, go to www.wand.org.
Your membership makes this work possible.
Thank
you for your support!
©
2007 WAND. |
