to email newsletter
Election Day - Tuesday, November 5
|
Vote Your Hopes ... Not Your Fears
Vote for Patrick West for US Congress District 2 Colorado's new choice for leadership |
|
to email newsletter
Election Day - Tuesday, November 5 |
United Statements by Colorado Candidates
COLORADO CANDIDATES SPEAK OUT AT STATE CAPITOL ON IRAQ WAR; FREE SPEECH CONTROVERSY DATE: Thursday, August 22, 2002 TIME: 11:00 AM LOCATION: State Capitol Building, Denver - West Stairway (outside) Statements to the Press: 1. The threatened U.S. attack on Iraq 2. The campaign against free speech by State Senator John Andrews and the Rocky Mountain News. By these political candidates: * Ron Forthofer, candidate for Governor, Colo. Green Party * Dan Winters, candidate for Lt. Governor, Colo. Green Party * Ken Seaman, candidate for US Congress, CD1, Colo. Green Party * Patrick West, candidate for US Congress, CD2, Natural Law Party We are gathered here today to discuss two topics: a threatened U.S. attack on Iraq, and the issue of restrictions on free speech as espoused by State Senator John Andrews and the Rocky Mountain News. In regards to Iraq: As candidates running for office within Colorado in 2002, as well as sensible Colorado citizens, we feel it is wrong for the United States to be planning an attack on Iraq. This is a war which the Bush administration has virtually guaranteed will happen, and it would have a direct impact on the people of Colorado. We have military personnel serving at Fort Carson as well as reserves in many statewide communities who would be strongly affected. We are speaking out on Iraq today because Congress, and in particular the Senate, as well as the Washington press corps, have failed to challenge the White House on the wisdom and morality of an unprovoked U.S. attack. We have a news flash for the resident in the White House: that brutal dictator and thug, Saddam Hussein, is not the only person living in Iraq. There are over 22 million innocent civilians who have paid, and are continuing to pay, a high price resulting from U.S. policies and Saddam's callousness towards his own people during the past 12 years. Senator Biden recently convened the Foreign Relations Committee for hearings on Iraq, but he did not invite any real critics of an attack on Iraq. Instead, it was a photo-op, and a chance to appear tough. The session focused on the "how" and "when" of an attack on Iraq, not on the merits of an unprovoked attack. Scott Ritter, the former tough UN weapons inspector, as well as former UN officials Dennis Halladay and Hans von Sponek, who headed the UN humanitarian programs in Iraq, could also have provided valuable insights. But Biden, to his discredit, omitted these informed and powerful critics of an attack. Scott Ritter maintains that UNSCOM did its job very well, accounting for and destroying Iraq's nuclear and almost all of the chemical and biological weapons. Even Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, among the earliest voices to question Bush's approach to Iraq, said that the Central Intelligence Agency had "absolutely no evidence" that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons." There is also no evidence that Iraq is about to attack the U.S., nor evidence of any Iraqi link to international terrorism against the U.S. Relations between Iraq and the other Arab nations have basically been restored and none of the Arab states express concern about any possible attack on them from Iraq. Even the most powerful Kurdish chieftain in northern Iraq, Massoud Barzani, refused to meet with Bush to support an attack on Iraq. One of the obvious questions that should have been asked is how an unprovoked attack would affect U.S. interests. First, such an attack would violate international law. It would forever tarnish the U.S. reputation as a law-abiding nation. We could never again speak from the moral high ground against other countries pursuing illegal actions. Bush will have succeeded in isolating the U.S. from most of the rest of the world except for his lapdog, Tony Blair of Britain. An attack would convince the Arab and Muslim world that the U.S. is biased against it. This perception would harm U.S. business interests around the world. In addition, we would hardly be safer after an attack on Iraq. Instead, we would become even more of a target for terrorists. An attack would almost certainly disrupt the flow of oil, pushing the U.S. economy deeper into recession. If the U.S. economy were to falter even more, there is the risk of a worldwide recession, if not depression. One of the Republican party's most respected foreign policy gurus, Brent Scowcroft, appealed for President Bush to halt his plans to invade Iraq, warning of "an Armageddon in the Middle East." His statement is consistent with U.S. intelligence's assessment - if Iraq strikes at Israel with non-conventional weapons, causing massive casualties among the civilian population, Israel could respond with a nuclear retaliation that would eradicate Iraq as a country. Scowcroft also wrote: "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken." Thousands of innocent Iraqis would be killed and possibly hundreds of U.S. forces in a ground war. The war and long-term occupation of Iraq, an occupation necessary to support a replacement regime we would put in place, would likely cost tens of billions of dollars. We don't have enough money to provide drug benefits for Medicare recipients, and we can't allocate money for affordable housing, but we can spend huge amounts to attack Iraq. Where are our priorities? These are but a few of the many obvious reasons that an attack against Iraq is against U.S. interests. Most certainly, Saddam is a brutal dictator, but he is not about to sign his own death warrant by attacking another country now. It appears that the junior Bush's threat of an attack boils down to a desire to finish a job that senior Bush failed to do, i.e., to remove Saddam and to gain control of Iraqi oil. House majority leader Dick Armey (R-TX) recently said: "I don't believe that America will justifiably make an unprovoked attack on another nation. It would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation. ... As long as he [Saddam] behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him." We wish we had as much confidence as Armey in our so-called leaders. The purpose of this press meeting is to draw attention to this looming crisis of enormous scale, and to ask the people of Colorado to petition their elected officials to resist an unwarranted attack upon the people of Iraq. In regards to free speech: Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, a noted and well respected Palestinian professor, former Palestinian cabinet member and founder of a global dialogue group for peace, is scheduled to speak in Denver and Colorado Springs in September. One of the venues will be Colorado College (CC) in Colorado Springs, where she has been invited to give one of the keynote presentations at a symposium, "September 11: One Year Later." Colorado State Senator John Andrews is leading an effort pressuring CC to withdraw the invitation to Dr. Ashrawi. Andrews has called her role at the event "grotesque." The Rocky Mountain News is also challenging the appropriateness of inviting Dr. Ashrawi as a keynote speaker. Its editorial on August 13, "A propagandist comes to Colorado College", reminds one of the McCarthy era when smear campaigns were all too often used to silence dissent. Rabbi Bruce Dollin, head of the Rocky Mountain Rabinical Council, is the latest to join this offensive campaign. It appears that these critics are outraged because a Palestinian advocate for a just peace is having an opportunity to speak in Colorado at an important event. It does not seem to matter to these critics that an Israeli is also giving one of the keynote addresses. What are these critics afraid of? How can we understand problems and work toward solutions if only one side is allowed to speak? We are terribly disappointed that some 'leaders' in Colorado are conducting this awful smear campaign against Dr. Ashwari and CC. We are standing together for free speech and an airing of all sides. We applaud the courage and wisdom shown by CC in inviting Dr. Hanan Ashwari and Israeli professor Dr. Gideon Doron to be keynote speakers. We believe that the CC community and the greater Colorado Springs community will all benefit from hearing these presenters. (Bio for Dr. Hanan Ashwari at: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/Elberg/Ashrawi/Ashrawi.html) |
|
West for Congress, 680 Nickel Street, Broomfield, CO 80020
720-566-0214 - patrick@WestForCongress.org comments, questions, suggestions regarding this webpage, contact webmaster@westforcongress.org |
|