The Women Legislators’ Lobby
A Link from your State Capitol to the Nation's Capitol
WiLL Home
A b o u t
B e n e f i t s
J o i n!
A c t i o n
C o n t a c t

WiLL Action

WiLL MEMBER TALKING POINTS
ON WAR AGAINST IRAQ

"As members of Women's Action for New Directions and the Women's Legislators' Lobby, we urge our Congressional delegation to oppose any resolution concerning Iraq that does not require arms inspections and all other possible diplomatic solutions. We hope that Congress will give only limited authority to the president to wage war on Iraq. We cannot sacrifice common sense in order to be thought of as patriotic."
-Massachusetts WiLL members, printed in the Boston Globe, 10/8/02.
Click here for full text.

THE VOICE OF STATE LEGISLATORS
IS CRITICAL:

  • It is our responsibility to speak because the states are charged with providing for the basic needs of our constituents. To do so, we have to consider the cost of this war and the implications of a $100 billion + war for state budgets.

  • The states are already strapped from two decades of federal cuts and rising costs and the war may cost your state billions. (For exact figures, see The National Priorities Project: www.nationalpriorities.org/iraq.pdf)


THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS WARY OF A WAR WITH IRAQ:

  • 63% of Americans believe the U.S. should wait and give the United Nations more time to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq (CBS News/New York Times poll. Latest: Oct. 27-31, 2002).

  • 69% of Americans realize if the United States takes military action against Iraq, the threat of terrorism against the United States will increase (CBS News/New York Times poll. Latest: Oct. 27-31, 2002).

  • 84% of Americans believe it is important that Bush first secure the support of the United Nations before taking military action against Iraq (Newsweek poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Latest: Oct. 24-25, 2002).

  • 49% believe the war will be too long and costly (CBS News, September 2002).

More information information on the cost and underlying reasoning for the war:


I. COST OF THE WAR

  • United Nations inspections do not cost American taxpayers one single dollar.

  • Our country cannot afford this war.

  • The Bush administration has provided no a fiscal accounting for how this very expensive war will be paid for.

  • Projected costs of a U.S. war on Iraq:

    • $9 billion to $13 billion for deploying the military to the Persian Gulf
    • $6 billion to $9 billion a month for prosecuting a war
    • $5 billion to $7 billion for returning American forces to their home bases after the completion of the conflict
    • $1 billion to $4 billion a month for an occupation force in Iraq
    • The study did not attempt to estimate costs of rebuilding Iraq.
      (source: Congressional Budget Office study - 9/30/02)

  • Projection by Lawrence Lindsey = $100 to $200 billion
    Background: In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence Lindsey, the president's chief economic policy adviser, said that the cost of war with Iraq could be $100 billion to $200 billion. He dismissed the economic consequences, saying that the price tag for war would not seriously affect interest rates or add much to the $3.6 trillion federal debt, and amounted to "nothing" in terms of its impact on the economy. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil echoed Mr. Lindsey saying, "Whatever it is that's finally decided to be done, we will succeed and we can afford it."

  • The National Priorities Project (NPP) provides a state-by-state breakdown of the cost of the war. Go to: www.nationalpriorities.org to find out what this war will cost your state.

  • We certainly cannot afford a further increase in the already exorbitant Pentagon budget - almost $400 billion for the new fiscal year. (President Bush's proposed military budget, which includes the Department of Defense and Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs, is $396 billion. $396 Billion = more than the combined defense budgets of the next 25 biggest military spenders.)

    II. THE US ECONOMY IS CRUMBLING

  • After four years of surpluses, the federal government will run a $157 billion deficit this year
    (Congressional Budget Office-September 2002 report).

  • We have the worst revenue decline since World War II
    (Kaiser Commission, September 2002 report).

  • Social Security and Medicare surpluses are being raided to pay for other things.

  • President Bush is demanding tight budget constraints on non-defense discretionary spending, which is forcing cuts in human needs programs, including the education programs that were central to his own "Leave No Child Behind" initiative.

    III. STATE BUDGETS ARE UNDER SEVERE STRAIN

  • The National Governors Association said in July, 2002 that 45 states have reported revenue shortfalls over the last year, totaling $50 billion, caused by a drop in sales, capital gains and corporate and personal income taxes.

  • Economic troubles began before September 11th, but the terrorist attacks exacerbated state budget problems.

  • States have not been reimbursed for massive overtime costs post September 11, and are using available funds from the federal government to make up for these costs (National Governors Association).

  • The main costs for the homeland security has been borne on state governments (National Governors Association)

  • The amount of money spent by states on Medicaid has increased this year by 13 percent, following an 11 percent increase in 2001, driven up by increases in prescription drug prices, demands by providers for higher payments, and growth in the eligible population. States, forced to cut back on Medicaid services, are appealing to Congress for help. Yet Medicaid will receive more major cuts in 2003. (National Governors Association)

  • The governors have asked Congress to pass pending legislation that would provide states with $8.9 billion in relief over the next 18 months, with half aimed at Medicaid. However, governors acknowledge that it is unlikely that they will get much help from Washington.

  • State legislatures, in the flush years of the latter half of the 1990's, boosted reserve accounts (rainy-day funds) to historic levels. Governors reported in their July, 2002 meeting that they had nearly depleted these rainy day funds.

    IV. WHAT IS THIS WAR REALLY ABOUT?

  • U.S. war on Iraq is about this administration's aspirations to global dominance.

    Background: On Friday, September 20, President Bush released his 33-page National Security Strategy (a policy summation that every president must submit to Congress), which he instructed staff to write in plain English so "the boys in Lubbock" could read it. While offering enlightened points on addressing disease and poverty worldwide, the Bush strategy is an alarming declaration of U.S. power over the rest of the world, including unchallenged military supremacy and freedom to strike at will with unilateral, pre-emptive military action. It declares that the strategies of containment and deterrence are all but dead. It dismisses for the most part reliance on international treaties. New York Times editors note that "the paper sounds more like a pronounce- ment that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced."
    (NYT, 9/22/02, wk.12)

  • In a September 2002 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article (9/29/02), editorial writer Jay Bookman links the Bush administration's National Security Strategy with its determination to launch a war on Iraq:
    This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination.

    For complete text: membership@wand.org,
    or: http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

    WAND's Position on a Possible U.S. Attack on Iraq
    (Issued 10/5/02)

    • WAND believes U.S. war on Iraq is immoral, unaffordable, and counter-productive.

    • WAND believes attacking Iraq will incite terrorism and make us less secure.

    • WAND believes that peace and public participation are patriotic.

    • WAND supports multi-lateral, non-violent means of identifying and eliminating weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    • WAND opposes any pre-emptive attack or any unilateral military action against Iraq.

    • Download talking points as Word 2000 file (44 KB)
             (Right-click link and choose "Save Target As...")

    Sample op ed on Iraq
    WAND Home