(Fwd) Go Vermont!

[Ivo Skoric]

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent:      	Sat, 19 Oct 2002 07:30:46 -0400
To:             	CERJ at igc.org
From:           	CERJ at igc.org
Subject:        	October 9, 2002 Statement of Congressman Sanders

'Why I am Voting "NO" on the Iraqi War Resolution'

A Statement of Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders (Independent) on the 
Floor of the U.S. House of Representatives -- October 9, 2002

I don't think any member of this body disagrees that Saddam Hussein is a 
tyrant, a murderer and a man who has started two wars that have resulted in 
the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.  He is clearly a man who can 
not be trusted or believed.

The question is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not.  The question is 
whether he represents an imminent threat to the American people, and 
whether a unilateral American invasion of Iraq will do more harm than good.

If you read the front page of the Washington Post today, what you would 
have seen is that all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies say -- despite 
what we have heard from the White House -- is that "Saddam Hussein is 
unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United 
States".  Even more importantly, our intelligence agencies say that should 
Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he 
might launch a chemical or biological counterattack.  In other words, there 
is more danger of an attack on the United States if we launch a precipitous 
invasion.

I do not know why the President feels, despite what our intelligence 
agencies are saying, that it is so important to pass a resolution of this 
magnitude this week, and why it is necessary to go forward without the 
support of the United Nations and our major allies -- including those who 
are fighting side-by-side with us in the war on terrorism.  But I do fear 
that as a part of this process the President is ignoring some of the most 
pressing economic issues affecting the well-being of ordinary Americans.

There has been virtually no public discussion about the stock market's loss 
of trillions of dollars over the last few years, and that millions of 
Americans have seen the retirement benefits for which they have worked 
their entire lives disappear.  When are we going to address that issue?

This country today has a $340 billion trade deficit, and we have lost 10% 
of our manufacturing jobs in the last four years -- that's two million 
decent paying jobs gone.  The average American worker today is working 
longer hours for lower wages than 25 years ago.  When are we going to 
address that issue?

In Vermont and throughout this country the cost of health insurance is 
spiraling out of control, and more and more working people are unable to 
afford it.  The pharmaceutical industry continues to charge Americans by 
far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.  When are we 
going to resolve the health care crisis?

Poverty in the United States is increasing and median family income is 
declining.  Throughout this country family farmers are being driven off the 
land because of low commodity prices.  And veterans, the people who have 
put their lives on the line to defend this country, are unable to get the 
health care and other benefits they were promised because of government 
under-funding.  When are we going to tackle these issues of such deep 
concern to Americans?

Let me give you five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a 
blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq, and why 
I will vote against this resolution.

(1)  I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and 
women might die in such a war, or how many tens of thousands of women and 
children in Iraq might also be killed.  As a caring nation, we should do 
everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will 
cause.  War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the 
first.

(2)  I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion 
of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the 
United Nations.  If President Bush believes that the United States can go 
to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could 
our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?  In an 
extremely tense and uncertain world, with eight countries possessing 
nuclear weapons, a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq could create even more 
global instability.

(3)  The United States is now involved in a very difficult war against 
international terrorism, as we learned tragically on September 11th.  We 
are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to 
engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before.  I agree 
with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for 
President George Bush, Sr. who stated, "An attack on Iraq at this time 
would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist 
campaign we have undertaken."

(4)  At a time when this country has a six trillion-dollar national debt 
and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term 
American occupation of Iraq could be an extremely expensive 
proposition.  Unlike the cost of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which was 
shared among the international community, the U.S. will have to pick up the 
entire cost, which could run into hundreds of billions of dollars.

(5)  I am concerned about the problem of so-called "unintended 
consequences".  Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed, and 
what role will the U.S. play in an ensuing civil war that could develop in 
that country?  Will moderate governments in the region who have large 
Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by 
extremists?  Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian 
Authority be exacerbated?  And these are just a few of the questions that 
remain unanswered.

If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach, what 
should we do?  In my view, the U.S. must work with the United Nations to 
make certain -- within clearly defined time-lines -- that the U.N. 
inspectors are allowed to do their jobs.  These inspectors should undertake 
an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and destroy them 
when found, pursuant to past U.N. resolutions.  If Iraq resists inspection 
and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should stand ready to assist the 
United Nations in forcing compliance.

==================================
CERJ at igc.org            wilmerding at earthlink.net
-------------------------------------------
John Wilmerding, Convener and List Manager
Coalition for Equity-Restorative Justice (CERJ)
1 Chestnut Hill, Brattleboro, VT, ZIP: 05301-6073
Phone: 1-802-254-2826 | 1-802-380-0664 (cellular)
CERJ was founded in New York in May, 1997.
-------------------------------------------
"Work together to reinvent justice using methods
that are fair; that conserve, restore, and even
create harmony, equity and good will in society."
-------------------------------------------
To join (or leave) the CERJ email list, kindly send
me an email message at wilmerding at earthlink.net
or at cerj at igc.org.  I'll need your first & last name,
your email address, and your state, province or
country of residence.  Thank you!  -- John W.
==================================