[Peace-discuss] RE: [Peace] P4P: pro-war demo on Prospect this Saturday!!!

[Ricky Baldwin]

I like the first two signs best.

--- Dlind49 at aol.com wrote:
> I agree- We do not want to trigger any type of
> active negative response or 
> confrontation with members of a prowar group. I
> suggest that we need some new 
> big signs to counter them with facts:
> 
> 1. "Danville VA unable to provide medical care for
> Gulf War II casulties per 
> News Gazette editorial- So who will?   
> 
> 2.  "Gas masks are defective so how will  DOD proect
> our troops?
> 
> 3. "Our troops are not prepared for combat per
> government reports and direct 
> observation."
> 
> 
> doug
> 
> Senator Richard Durbin today with 7 other Senators
> has requested that
> Secretary Rumsfield certify that our personnel are
> adequately protected.
> The request is similar to that of Rep. Schakowsky's.
>  Previous demand that is 
> stil unanswered. 
> 
> SCHAKOWSKY SAYS DEFENSE SECRETARY RUMSFELD MUST
> CERTIFY THAT MILITARY 
> PERSONNEL ARE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED AGAINST
> BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL ATTACKS 
>   
> WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Representative Jan
> Schakowsky (D-IL) called on 
> Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to certify that
> U.S. military personnel 
> who may be deployed in Iraq are adequately equipped
> against biological and 
> chemical attacks.   
> Schakowsky, who is a member of the Government Reform
> National Security 
> Subcommittee, wrote in a letter to the Secretary,
> "The (Democratic) caucus 
> was presented with information about various pieces
> of equipment, including 
> 250,000 protective suits that are known to be
> defective and that were 
> delivered to commanders in the field, but that can
> no longer be located or 
> recalled by the Department because of flawed
> inventory controls.  The caucus 
> also received information regarding existing
> shortages in other equipment, as 
> well as questionable levels of training to prepare
> units for possible 
> chemical and biological attacks." 
> 
> Schakowsky called on the Secretary, prior to the
> deployment of U.S. forces, 
> to personally certify to congress "that all United
> States Armed Forces that 
> could be deployed, or are intended to be deployed,
> against Iraq pursuant to 
> the exercise of authority specified in H.J. Res. 114
> have been provided with 
> equipment to protect against chemical and biological
> attacks in quantities 
> sufficient to meet minimum required levels
> previously established by the 
> Department of Defense." 
> 
> Below is the full text of the letter to Secretary
> Rumsfeld: 
>   
>   
> 
> 
> November 27, 2002
> 
> The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld 
> Secretary 
> U.S. Department of Defense 
> The Pentagon 
> Washington, DC  20301 
> 
> Dear Secretary Rumsfeld: 
> 
> I am writing to express my concern that if President
> Bush decides to deploy 
> U.S. military forces against Iraq, the service men
> and women who are sent 
> into battle may not be adequately protected against
> chemical and biological 
> attacks. 
> 
> During a press briefing on October 17, 2002, you
> discussed several issues 
> that you believe should be considered before U.S.
> military force is deployed. 
>  In the context of sending U.S. Armed Forces to
> Iraq, you said:  "If an 
> engagement is worth doing, then we need to recognize
> that ultimately lives 
> could be put at risk."  You also made this comment: 
> 
> When there's a risk of casualties, that risk should
> be acknowledged at the 
> outset, rather than allowing the American people or
> others to think that an 
> engagement can be executed antiseptically. 
> 
> I agree.  I believe the American people have a right
> to know the true risks 
> of any military engagement the President decides to
> undertake.  I am 
> concerned, however, that Pentagon officials may be
> downplaying the actual 
> risks to our service men and women, particularly
> with respect to the 
> preparedness of our forces for chemical and
> biological attacks.  On September 
> 18, 2002, for example, General Myers, the Chairman
> of the Joint Chiefs of 
> Staff, testified before the Armed Services
> Committee.  He was asked whether 
> forces that would be deployed against Iraq are
> prepared to handle potential 
> chemical and biological attacks by Iraqi forces.  In
> response, he made this 
> assertion:  "Obviously our forces prepare for that,
> they train for that, and 
> they would be ready to deal with that type of
> environment." 
> 
> On October 8, 2002, however, the House Democratic
> Caucus received a briefing 
> by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) and was
> provided with testimony 
> from the Defense Department Inspector General (IG)
> regarding this issue.  The 
> caucus was presented with information about various
> pieces of equipment, 
> including 250,000 protective suits that are known to
> be defective and that 
> were delivered to commanders in the field, but that
> can no longer be located 
> or recalled by the Department because of flawed
> inventory controls.  The 
> caucus also received information regarding existing
> shortages in other 
> equipment, as well as questionable levels of
> training to prepare units for 
> possible chemical and biological attacks.  Although
> this unclassified 
> information was extremely troubling, the classified
> information provided by 
> GAO and the IG was even more disturbing, especially
> in light of the Defense 
> Department's previous expressions of confidence on
> this issue. 
> 
> As you know, during the Gulf War, we gained a great
> deal of intelligence 
> about Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological
> capabilities.  His resources, 
> combined with his demonstrated penchant for using
> them, formed the basis for 
> Security Council resolutions that have governed Iraq
> ever since.  Indeed, the 
> threat of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological
> arsenals has been cited as 
> one of the primary and most urgent reasons for
> taking military action against 
> Iraq. 
> 
> Our experience during the Gulf War, however, also
> exposed our own military's 
> limitations in facing this type of threat.  Our
> service members did not have 
> enough protective gear, such as suits and masks. 
> They had inadequate 
> equipment to detect the release of deadly agents. 
> And as thousands of 
> veterans who continue to experience the full range
> of Gulf War Illnesses can 
> attest, our service members were ill-prepared for
> the medical regimens they 
> were rushed to implement.  During the Gulf War, we
> were fortunate that Iraq 
> did not use its chemical or biological arsenals
> because our forces were not 
> ready. 
> 
> According to GAO and the IG, the military's progress
> since the Gulf War in 
> preparing our troops for these threats has not
> occurred as rapidly as 
> necessary.  For this reason, and because this issue
> is critical to hundreds 
> of thousands of service members, their families, and
> the American public, I 
> ask that prior to the deployment of U.S. forces, you
> personally make the 
> following certification to Congress: 
> 
> I, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, certify
> that all United States 
> Armed Forces that could be deployed, or are intended
> to be deployed, against 
> Iraq pursuant to the exercise of authority specified
> in H.J. Res. 114 have 
> been provided with equipment to protect against
> chemical and biological 
> attacks in quantities sufficient to meet minimum
> required levels previously 
> established by the Department of Defense. 
> 
> As you can see, this certification addresses only
> equipment.  It does not 
> deal with training deficiencies or medical concerns
> that conceivably are 
> equally important.  In addition, I recognize the
> obvious concern with 
> revealing to our adversaries potential
> vulnerabilities with specific units or 
> commands, so this certification does not require you
> to reveal any classified 
> information with respect to specific vulnerabilities
> of specific units.  If 
> our forces are in fact "ready to deal with that type
> of environment," as 
> Chairman Myers asserted, you should have no
> difficulty certifying that our 
> troops possess minimum established levels of
> protective equipment. 
> 
> If you cannot in good conscience make this
> certification, however, I believe 
> the American people are entitled to know this
> information, as you explained 
> during the press briefing in October. 
> 
> I respectfully request that you provide a response
> to this request by 
> December 15, 2002, and I appreciate your assistance
> in this matter. 
> 
> Sincerely, 
> 
> Jan Schakowsky 
> Member of Congress
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com