[Peace-discuss] Fw: WILL commentary submission

[Randall Cotton]

FYI,

This is what I submitted to WILL as a proposed audio commentary. We should
hear back from them this week. Thanks to Al for his feedback on the text,
also Carl and David for volunteering in this working group as well and to
Lisa for first exploring this idea with WILL.

R

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall Cotton" <recotton at earthlink.net>
To: <jhpearce at uiuc.edu>
Cc: "Lisa Chason" <chason at shout.net>; "david green" <davegreen48 at yahoo.com>;
"Alfred Kagan" <akagan at uiuc.edu>; "Carl Estabrook" <cge at shout.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:09 PM
Subject: WILL commentary submission


: Hi,
:
: Below is a submission for audio commentary on WILL as Lisa Chason has
: discussed with you. We understand that this may not be considered until
next
: Monday, but we hope to hear from you shortly afterward. I'm the author and
: I've test-read this at 3 minutes.
:
: Thanks =8-)
: Randall Cotton
: AWARE member
:
: ------
:
: Do you remember the old justifications for invading Iraq? The claim that
: Iraq had a nuclear weapons program? The claim that Saddam Hussein had
: stockpiled weapons of mass destruction? The claim that Saddam was working
: with Al Qaeda? The oft-repeated insinuation that Iraq had something to do
: with 9/11?  Now, President Bush has finally abandoned them. Most folks
: listening to *this* broadcast have probably learned by now that these
claims
: are increasingly seen as fraudulent and that even the Administration can
see
: they are crumbling away.
:
: So as belief that the war in Iraq was justified erodes in America and the
: body count rises daily, our President now claims his purpose was a
: humanitarian one - to save the world from Saddam Hussein, who, as he
: tirelessly points out, killed countless Iraqis, invaded other countries
and
: used chemical weapons on his own people. This is all true, but Saddam did
: nearly all his killing, invading and gassing more than ten years ago when
: conditions were very different - in particular, the U.S. supported him
: politically and financially, helping enable Saddam to accomplish his worst
: atrocities. The administration always conveniently ignores the fact that
: since the first Gulf War in 1991, conditions changed dramatically. Saddam
no
: longer enjoyed the political and financial support of the U.S. or any
other
: country and in 2003 before the war, even Saddam knew that any such
: misbehavior on his part would likely seal his own doom. At that time,
there
: was no discernable prospect of Saddam committing mass atrocities or
invading
: anyone. Although Saddam's regime was always brutally repressive, by the
time
: the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam's most horrible atrocities and his foreign
: invasions were historical data points far more than contemporary dangers.
A
: Human Rights Watch report released last month addressed this by saying
"The
: Bush administration cannot justify the war in Iraq as a humanitarian
: intervention... Saddam Hussein's atrocities should certainly be punished,
: and his worst atrocities, such as the 1988 genocide against the Kurds,
would
: have justified humanitarian intervention then. But such interventions
should
: be reserved for stopping an imminent or ongoing slaughter. They should not
: be used belatedly to address atrocities that were ignored in the past."
:
: Meanwhile, the most reliable estimates of innocent civilians killed in
this
: war range above 10,000. And now, media reports say the country may be
edging
: toward civil war. Perhaps the administration could point to some
individuals
: in Iraq that they saved from the hands of Saddam, but given the damage
we've
: done, any claim that the people of Iraq as a whole will ultimately be
better
: off is, at best, conjecture. A guess. A hunch. An increasingly implausible
: hunch. And you cannot justify starting a war that kills thousands of
: innocents based on a hunch. What if your hunch is wrong?
: