GEORGE W. Bush went on national television this afternoon to announce
"the game is over," meaning that the other UN countries
had to make their decision about whether to resist their own population's
opposition to war, in order to support his planned aggression against
Iraq. Bush's speech was part of a well-choreographed follow-up to
the presentation by Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday before
the United Nations.
Bush is trying to convince the world that war is inevitable in order
to break the will and spirit of the vast multitude around the world
who desire to stop this war. Instead, our movement around the world
will continue to vigorously build mass opposition—the only actual
political obstacle that can stop Bush, Cheney and the Pentagon.
The following is a response released by the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
after Powell's February 5 UN speech:
Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations was an example
of Alice in Wonderland-type propaganda. Reality has been turned upside
down. At the very moment that Iraq, hobbled by 12 years of devastating
sanctions and ongoing US bombing, is surrounded by a heavily-armed
invasion force of more than 100,000 troops, fighter aircraft, warships
and high tech conventional missiles, and is threatened with a nuclear
strike, Powell argued that Iraq poses a great threat to "peace."
The Pentagon has disclosed its plan to maintain peace by carrying
out an opening blitzkrieg on Iraq of more than 3000 bombs and missiles
in the first 48 hours. This plan is titled "Shock and Awe"
by the administration. 300 to 400 Tomahawk cruise missiles will rip
through Iraq on the first day of a US assault, which is more than
the number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first
Gulf War. On the second day, another 300 to 400 cruise missiles will
be sent. "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said
one Pentagon official. "The sheer size of this has never been
seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.
One of the authors of the Shock and Awe plan stated the intent is,
"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear
weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes."
(CBS News January 27, 2003, New York Times, February 2, 2003)
General Powell is routinely referred to in the media as the moderate
or "dove" inside the Bush administration. It is important
to remember that it is the same Colin Powell who, at a press briefing
shortly after the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf War when asked his assessment
of the number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians killed, which had been
put at over 100,000, answered, "It's really not a number I'm
terribly interested in."
Is there justification for war? What Bush's war places in jeopardy
is enormous. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis may be slaughtered. Tens
of thousands of service members will be sent to risk their lives.
The economic cost, estimated between $200 billion to $2 trillion will
loot the US treasury and mortgage future generations, depleting
funds that could provide essential human needs such as education,
healthcare, childcare and jobs.
What circumstances could justify these certain risks and losses?
None that were presented by Powell. Laying out his case, Powell presented
no threat issued by Iraq against the US or anyone else. Powell's
presentation had a two-fold purpose. It was not merely to "make
the case" for war, it was also intended to redirect the attention
of the people of the US away from the Bush administration's real
objectives in recolonizing the Middle East. Using smoke and mirrors
and misdirection, Powell engaged in dramatic fear-mongering, even
going so far as to reference the anthrax attacks that originated in
the US from US stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, to suggest
that bombing Iraq will make the US safer.
During his entire presentation Powell never mentioned the word "oil,"
and yet the whole world knows that Bush and his corporate clients
are already drawing up plans for the seizure of Iraq's oil reserves.
For public consumption the talk is disarmament or democracy, but behind
closed doors, the administration is meeting with oil industry executives
to divide up Iraq's oil fields. (Wall Street Journal, January 16,
2003) Far from democracy, Bush intends to install a US military
dictatorship under General Tommy Franks to rule Iraq. In his column
of February 5th, Thomas Friedman, Iraq invasion cheerleader, approvingly
laid out the future for Iraq, "Iraq will be controlled by the
iron fist of the US Army and its allies, with an Iraqi civilian
'advisory' administration gradually emerging behind this iron fist
to run daily life..."(New York Times, February 5, 2003)
Powell has presented no threat, no plan, no capability. Is there
justification for waging a first strike war of aggression, for bombarding
the people of Iraq with massive firepower? Who really poses the greatest
threat to world peace?
Powell's presentation was much about Iraq's hypothetical and in any
case much diminished weaponry, while the Pentagon is preparing to
launch a devastating attack on Iraq using very real weapons of mass
destruction—possibly including nuclear weapons. On the issue
of weapons of mass destruction, Powell asserts that the Iraqi government
may hope to possess nuclear weapons someday. It has not been lost
on the whole world though that in recent weeks, the Bush administration
has left open the option of actually using nuclear weapons against
Iraq in the coming conflict and reserves for itself the right to carry
out first strike nuclear war against even non-nuclear countries as
part of a new military doctrine recently announced by the Pentagon.
Powell claims that if the UN does not support US military aggression
and conquest of Iraq, in violation of its Charter, that it will lose
its "relevancy." History will remember with great irony
Colin Powell's statement that we must stop the leader who "has
pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East
using the only means he knows, intimidation, coercion and annihilation
of all those who might stand in his way."
The Bush Administration is not racing to deter an imminent danger
posed by Iraq. They are racing to prevent our movement from becoming
an insurmountable obstacle to war. Let's all pledge to intensify our
work in these crucial coming days and weeks.
--------------
