|
An Annotated Critique of President George
W. Bush's March 17 Address Preparing the Nation for War --Stephen Zunes
Below is a transcript of President George W. Bush's address to the nation
on Monday, March 17, announcing his readiness to order a U.S. invasion
of Iraq followed by an analysis highlighting some of the lies and misleading
statements in the speech. Such an overview is necessary since the Democratic
Party leadership in Congress, which has pledged to support the president
in the event of war, declined to take their traditional opportunity
to offer a formal response. The Green Party, which opposes the war,
was not given the opportunity by the networks to respond.
----------
"My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final
days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other
nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi
regime without war."
This is patently false. In 1998, President Bill Clinton successfully
pressured UNSCOM director Richard Butler to withdraw inspectors without
authorization from the Secretary General or the Security Council before
their mission was complete in order to engage in a heavy four-day bombing
campaign against Iraq. As predicted at the time, this illegal use of
military force - combined with revelations that the United States had
abused the inspections process for espionage purposes - resulted in
the Iraqi government barring the inspectors' return until a reorganized
inspections commission known as UNMOVIC commenced inspections last year.
UNMOVIC chairman Hans Blix and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan explicitly
called upon the United States and the international community to give
the inspectors more time to do their job, noting that it would take
a number of months before their mission could be completed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of
mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991."
Iraq was presented with this demand as part of UN Security Council resolution
687, which mandated Iraqi disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction
and related delivery systems. This was a unilateral decree from the
Security Council which - while nominally part of the cease fire agreement
- was void of any explicit threat to continue prosecuting the war if
Iraq did not agree to the disarmament provisions. It is noteworthy that
the demand for Iraqi disarmament in the resolution was put forward within
the context of a call for regional disarmament. The United States has
refused to encourage any regional disarmament initiative, however, and
remains a strong supporter of the Israeli and Pakistani governments,
which have advanced nuclear arsenals among other weapons of mass destruction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We
have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security
Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the
disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. The Iraqi
regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has
uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament."
Iraq's cooperation has indeed been less than total, but most independent
reports - even during UNSCOM's inspections regime between 1991 and 1998
- was close to 90%. According to UNMOVIC, Iraq's cooperation since inspections
resumed last year has been far better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by
Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived."
This was not an uncommon practice during the UNSCOM era, but there have
been no reports from UNMOVIC of such harassment subsequently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again
and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men."
Peaceful efforts at disarming Iraq have succeeded in eliminating somewhere
between 95% and 100% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related
materiel and delivery systems as a result of UN Security Council resolution
687 and subsequent resolutions. The determination to go to war despite
such success raises serious questions as to whether the United States
is governed by peaceful men.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no
doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of
the most lethal weapons ever devised."
If the United States really has evidence that the Iraqi government continues
to possess and conceal weapons of mass destruction, why has the Bush
Administration refused to make such evidence public or pass such intelligence
on to United Nations inspectors, who have the authority to destroy them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against
Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people."
Iraq did use chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians
back in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein's regime was being supported by
the United States. The Reagan Administration covered up for the Halabja
massacre and similar attacks against Kurdish civilians by falsely claiming
that it was the Iranians - then the preferred enemy - who were responsible.
In addition, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency provided Iraq with
U.S. satellite data to help Saddam Hussein's forces locate Iranian troop
concentrations in the full knowledge that they were using chemical weapons.
Many of the key components of Iraq's chemical weapons program came from
the United States, ostensibly for pesticides as part of a taxpayer-funded
agricultural subsidies, despite evidence that these U.S.-manufactured
chemicals were probably being diverted for use in illegal chemical weapons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle
East".
This is true, though Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 was quietly supported
by the U.S. government and ambivalent signals by the U.S. ambassador
to Iraq immediately prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait may have emboldened
Saddam Hussein to conquer the sheikdom in 1990. Now, with Iraq's offensive
military capability just a fraction of what it was during that period
and an unambiguous resolve by the international community to thwart
such future aggression, there is little chance of Iraq invading another
country again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It has a deep hatred of America and our friends."
Iraq willingly accepted U.S. support during the 1980s. This more belligerent
posture of more recent years is largely a result of the U.S. destruction
of much of the country's military and civilian infrastructure in the
1991 Gulf War, which was supported by a number of other Middle Eastern
states with which Iraq had also once collaborated and been on friendly
terms. Subsequent U.S.-led sanctions, periodic bombing raids and threats
of an invasion have resulted in widespread suffering of the population
that has intensified anti-American sentiment. Had the United States
adopted a more enlightened policy, such deep hatred would likely have
not developed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including
operatives of al Qaeda."
Every independent investigation of every Bush Administration claim of
a connection between the secular Iraqi government and the Islamist Al-Qaeda
network has found no evidence of any Iraqi aid, training or harboring
of Al-Qaeda terrorists. According to both published U.S. government
reports and independent analyses, Iraq's support for international terrorism
- which has always been restricted to secular nationalists like the
radical Palestinian Abu Nidal faction - peaked in the 1980s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day,
nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could
fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands
of innocent people in our country, or any other. The United States and
other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will
do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy,
we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come,
before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed."
The Bush Administration has failed to present any evidence that Iraq
has the intention to pass on weapons of mass destruction to terrorists,
an act that would inevitably lead to a U.S.-led invasion, only in this
case with the support of the international community. This is the essence
of deterrence, which protected the United States and its allies from
Josef Stalin, Mao Zedung and other leaders as tyrannical and far more
powerful militarily than Saddam Hussein. And no country has the right
to invade another on some far-fetched scenario that they might do something
someday. Ironically, as the CIA has noted in a report released this
past October, Saddam Hussein would not likely use WMDs as a first strike,
but in the case of a U.S. invasion - with nothing to lose and the logic
of deterrence no longer in effect - would be far more likely to use
whatever WMDs he may possess. In other words, a U.S. invasion, rather
than prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction, would be the most
likely - and the only realistic - scenario that such horrible weapons
would be utilized.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use
force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me,
as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will
keep."
The oath of office also demands that the president uphold and defend
the Constitution of the United States, which forbids such an illegal
use of force. Virtually no international legal authority recognizes
such an invasion as an act of assuring legitimate national security
interests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress
voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq."
The U.S. Congress - with the support of both the Republican and Democratic
leadership - did authorize the use of force against Iraq. However, the
resolution violates Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which
does not allow Congress to grant such open-ended war-making authority
to the president for an offensive military action. Only a formal declaration
of war in such a situation can be considered legitimate. Furthermore,
Article VI of the Constitution declares that international treaties
to which the United States is a party are to be treated as supreme law,
thereby proscribing Congress from passing any resolution that violates
the UN Charter, such as supporting an invasion of a sovereign nation.
As a result, this resolution is unconstitutional and thereby invalid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"America tried to work with the United Nations to address this
threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe
in the mission of the United Nations."
Then why is the United States violating the UN Charter which forbids
the use of military force unless a country finds itself under armed
attack or it is explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council? The
mission of the United Nations is to preserve international peace and
security, not to approve the invasion of one country by another.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was
to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can
attack the innocent and destroy the peace."
The United States refused to confront Saddam Hussein active and early
when he was committing acts of aggression against Iranians and Kurds
and opposed decisive action by the United Nations. Iraq's ability to
attack the innocent and destroy the peace has already been reduced dramatically
through a series of actions by the United Nations, including authorizing
the use of force to rid Iraqi occupation forces from Kuwait, placing
strict military sanctions against the dictatorship, and overseeing the
most aggressive unilateral disarmament effort and inspections regime
in history.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early
1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the
United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding
Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority,
it is a question of will."
The assertion that resolutions 678 and 687 give the United States the
right to invade Iraq is patently false. Resolution 678 authorized the
use of force to enforce prior UN Security Council resolutions demanding
that Iraq remove its occupation forces from Kuwait. Once that was accomplished
in late February 1991, the resolution became moot. Resolution 687 called
for Iraqi disarmament of weapons of mass destruction and related delivery
systems, but - even though it was the most detailed resolution in the
history of the United Nations - no enforcement mechanism was specified.
According to United Nations Charter, such resolutions can be enforced
militarily only if the Security Council as a whole recognizes that a
country is in material breach, determines that all non-military means
have been exhausted, and specifically authorizes the use of force. The
Security Council has not done so subsequent to the passage of resolution
678 in late November 1990.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged
the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On
November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441,
finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious
consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm."
True, but it did not authorize the use of force. Article 14 of that
resolution specifically noted that the Security Council would "remain
[apprised] of the matter," reiterating that only the Security Council
as a whole - not any one member state - has the power to determine whether
military force can be legitimately utilized to enforce its resolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed."
There actually are some nations that believe that Iraq has disarmed
under the resolutions. Though this is not likely the case, the Bush
Administration has been unable to present clear evidence to the contrary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power."
This is sheer speculation. As a dictator who has proven his desire to
ruthlessly hold on to power at all costs, he very well could disarm
to save his regime. However, the Bush Administration has made clear
its intention to invade anyway, thereby providing little incentive for
Saddam Hussein to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our
allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's
long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council
have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the
disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger,
but not our resolve to meet it."
Actually, most Security Council members do not believe that Iraq is
the imminent threat that the United States claims it to be, though,
if convincing evidence was presented that Iraq indeed posed a threat
to international peace and security, a clear majority of the Security
Council - including France - have indicated their willingness to authorize
the use of force. A veto of the proposed U.S.-sponsored resolution by
France, Russia and China would probably have not been necessary since
the United States was unable - despite enormous pressure, including
promises of increased foreign aid, trade preferences and other incentives
- to convince a simple majority of nations on the Council that it was
necessary to take the unprecedented step of authorizing the United States
to invade Iraq, overthrow the government and replace it with one more
to its liking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act
against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering
to enforce the just demands of the world."
There is nothing close to the broad coalition such as that which joined
the United States in ridding Iraqi occupation forces from Kuwait in
1991, when Iraq clearly did constitute a threat to peace. As of this
writing, only one major power (Great Britain) and two minor powers (Spain
and Australia) have offered to send troops. All three of these governments
are doing so contrary to the sentiments of the vast majority of their
population and their combined participation still leaves the United
States contributing at least 85% of combat forces. As columnist Maureen
Dowd noted, since the Bush Administration has driven virtually everyone
from the schoolyard, they now have to rely on imaginary friends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities,
so we will rise to ours."
In reality, the United Nations Security Council has gone to extraordinary
efforts to minimize any threat to peace from Iraq, including authorizing
the use of force in 1990 to enforce resolutions requiring an Iraqi withdrawal
from occupied Kuwait, the imposition of strict sanctions against the
Iraq, and creating an inspections regime which has been largely - if
not 100% - effective. By contrast, it is not the responsibility of the
United States or any country to invade a sovereign nation when it feels
like it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been
doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging
the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully.
He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have
now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within
48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced
at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals
-- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately."
President Bush has no authorization to demand that United Nations inspectors
of foreign nationals leave Iraq. Nor does he have the right to demand
that Saddam Hussein and his sons leave their country. No Security Council
resolutions require that Saddam Hussein resign or that he and any other
member of his family go into exile. And neither the United States nor
any other country has the right to commence an invasion of another country
at the time of its choosing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast,
and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign,
it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and
not against you."
It is highly unlikely that a major U.S. military campaign - particularly
one with such a heavy reliance on air power and the determination to
seize by force a capital city of over five million people - will not
result in the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As our coalition takes away their power, we will
deliver the food and medicine you need."
In large part as a result of the U.S.-led sanctions, there is already
severe shortages of food and medicines in Iraq. Strict and mostly equitable
rationing have left few Iraqi families with more than a couple of days'
worth of food in storage. It is unlikely that the United States will
be able to supply most Iraqis with the food and medicine they need in
any timely manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you
to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there
will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison
factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers
and rape rooms."
The fact that the United States has supported scores of regimes - including
a number in the Middle East - that have tortured, raped and murdered
dissidents raises serious questions as to whether the Bush Administration
really supports a free Iraq. The Bush Administration's ongoing support
of Moroccan occupation forces in Western Sahara, Turkish occupation
forces in northern Cyprus, and Israeli occupation forces in the West
Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights raises serious questions
as to whether the United States is actually bothered by countries that
commit acts of aggression against neighbors. The United States also
supports a number of Middle Eastern countries that are believed to have
developed chemical weapons, similarly raising questions as to whether
the Bush Administration is really worried about "poison factories."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."
While most Iraqis would certainly welcome the end of Saddam Hussein's
regime, it is highly questionable whether a Western nation that has
already wrought enormous suffering upon the Iraqi people, invades the
country and installs one of its own generals as a provisional military
governor will be seen as an act of liberation or a foreign occupation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not
too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country
by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons
of mass destruction."
First of all, it is hard to imagine any national army - even under the
most ruthless of dictators - that would not resist a foreign invasion.
Secondly, if the United States knows where these alleged weapons of
mass destruction are located, why haven't they informed UNMOVIC inspectors,
who have the authority to destroy them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions
on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge
every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war
comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.
And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully
to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action.
Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi
people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against
anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War
criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I
was just following orders."
The United States has actively undermined and refused to participate
in the International Criminal Court, which was designed to try and punish
war criminals like Saddam Hussein. As a result, any such trials will
likely be under the tutelage of an occupying American army, which will
be seen by the vast majority of the international community as illegitimate.
For a foreign occupation army to try and punish leaders of an internationally-recognized
government - however reprehensible they may be - is in itself a war
crime and would make these thugs martyrs in the eyes of much of the
world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people
can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure
will be taken to win it."
Refusing an illegitimate order by a foreign government to surrender
power is not choosing confrontation. And, clearly, the Bush Administration
has not taken "every measure to avoid war."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid
them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.
Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply
the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do
so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly
foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try
to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our
friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible."
Then why prosecute an unnecessary and illegal war?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under
the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world
will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."
According to the CIA and other estimates, Iraq has not engaged in any
anti-American terrorism since the alleged 1993 assassination attempt
against former President George Bush and has already dramatically reduced
his support for international terrorism since the 1980s, when the United
States was supporting his government. By contrast, most intelligence
analyses predict an increase in the terrorist threat to America and
its allies should the United States invade Iraq.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers.
Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further
actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities
have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi
intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional
security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major
seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with
the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities
across America. Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting
to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In
this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake
the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not
a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers.
If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them,
will face fearful consequences."
The chances of the United States being attacked will be greatly increased
if the U.S. attacks first. Indeed, if there was any logic behind the
madness of 9/11, it was Osama bin Laden's hope that the United States
will react in such a way that will only increase the popularity of anti-American
extremists. History has shown that the more the United States has militarized
the Middle East, the less secure we have become.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far
greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm
on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these
capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the
moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet
that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our
skies and cities."
Iraq has never threatened to attack the United States nor does it have
the ability to attack the United States. They became a formidable military
threat back in the 1980s as a result of support from industrialized
nations like the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia. With
a strict military embargo imposed upon the country since 1990, it will
be extremely difficult for Iraq to become a military threat to the United
States or any other country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new
and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease
murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide
and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological
and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction
of a kind never before seen on this earth."
The analogy with Hitler's Germany and other Axis powers is spurious.
Germany was the most powerful industrialized country in the world in
the 1930s. Iraq, by contrast, is a poor Third World country that has
had most of its military infrastructure destroyed and has been under
the strictest military and economic sanctions in world history. The
current UN policy of inspections, sanctions and the threat of UN-sanctioned
war if Iraq again threatens its neighbors can hardly be considered "appeasement."
None of the Axis powers of the 1930s were ever subjected to such international
pressure until they had invaded and occupied dozens of nations in Europe,
Asia, and Africa. Iraq has not invaded and occupied any countries since
its six-month occupation of Kuwait in 1990-91.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with
fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies
only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide.
The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now."
Essentially, President Bush is saying that a country has the right to
invade and occupy another country without any evidence that the targeted
country has the intention, willingness or ability to strike first. This
would give virtually any country the right to invade any other. Most
of Iraq's neighbors do not consider Iraq to be a threat, either now
or in the perceivable future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor
the deepest commitments of our country."
Violating the Constitution and international legal covenants to which
the U.S. government is legally bound is, in reality, a dishonor to the
deepest commitments of the United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving
and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they
can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and
self-governing nation."
If the United States really believes the Iraqi people are deserving
and capable of human liberty, then why did the U.S. support Saddam Hussein
during the height of his terror? And why do the leading candidates the
United States hopes to install in Baghdad to replace the current dictatorship
not have anything remotely resembling democratic credentials?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The United States, with other countries, will work to advance
liberty and peace in that region."
Then why does the United States support dictatorships in Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and other autocratic regimes?
And why does the United States support Moroccan, Israeli and Turkish
occupation forces? Such policies belies any claim to support liberty
and peace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over
time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and
every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred
and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits
of peace."
To unleash bombs and missiles on cities, to engage in warmongering,
and to lie to the American people and the world in order to rationalize
for such an invasion is itself a form of hatred and violence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend
our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done
before, America and our allies accept that responsibility. Good night,
and may God continue to bless America."
And may God forgive President Bush and the Congressional leaders of
both parties who are responsible for unleashing such horrific violence
against the people of Iraq.
=================
Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the
Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.
He is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project (www.fpif.org)
and author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of
Terrorism (www.commoncouragepress.com).
|
