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

[Dlind49 at aol.com]

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