[Peace] Call Rep. Johnson on AM 580 tomorrow

[C. G. Estabrook]

Tim Johnson, member of the US House of Representatives from the 15th
Illinois Congressional District, is to be on the WILL-AM 580 program
"Focus 580" tomorrow (Friday 9/19) at 11AM.

Last October, after refusing to take a position during the election
campaign, Congressman Johnson voted in favor of the resolution that is
supposed to be the sole constitutional basis for President Bush's invasion
of Iraq and the present occupation.  At the time, he said that he did so
because of "classified briefings" that his election opponents (from the
Green party and the Democrats) "haven't been privy to."

Seymour Hersh subsequently wrote in the New Yorker that the administration
used the forged Niger documents in "classified briefings" to elicit
Congressional support -- suggesting that nuclear weapons were at stake.
Asked about that by Philip Bloomer of the News-Gazette (7/30/2003),
Johnson said, "There was never any discussion at any meeting I was
involved in where the uranium was discussed."  But he did not say what
those briefings did contain that convinced him to vote for this war.

Now that the invasion has taken place and thousands and thousands of
people have been killed, Johnson owes us as his constituents an
explanation, because he -- and by extension we -- are in part responsible
for all those deaths.  Any reason for secrecy -- except concealing from us
the inadequacy of his reasons -- has passed.

Johnson like the administration has shifted his ground substantially since
last October on the justification for the invasion.  In the interview with
Bloomer six weeks ago, he said, "The net result of our involvement in Iraq
is to remove somebody from power who committed crimes against humanity
that are almost unparalleled.  We've brought democracy and stabilized the
region" [sic].

That of course is nonsense.  More importantly, Johnson knows that, at the
Azores summit just before launching the attack, the Bush administration
announced that even if Saddam Hussein and his family left Iraq, the
invasion would go ahead.  So removing the evil dictator was not the reason
for the war.  How does Johnson explain the blood on his hands?

Here's the "explanation" that he gave in a television appearance (WILL
10/24/200) with his Green party and Democratic opponents during the
election campaign.  The moderator said, "Mr. Johnson you voted to support
the president on this resolution?"  Johnson replied,

"I did and I do.  It was the most difficult issue that I've had to face in
my first two years in Congress.  As a matter of fact, a number of us on
both sides of the aisle held out for a good long time with the hopes and
the expectation -- and the fulfilled expectation -- that the resolution
that passed would be very narrow, and we did succeed in narrowing the
resolution substantially from what was introduced originally.  A very
difficult vote -- but a bipartisan coalition: Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lott, Mr.
Gephardt, Speaker Hastert and others agreed to give the president an
option -- give the president an option that I believe will result in
greatly enhanced opportunities for peace.  Nobody's suggesting -- nor did
this resolution provide for -- an invasion of Iraq [sic].  They give the
president -- as Condoleeza Rice says -- an option to deal with people who
understand in some cases only one thing.  What my opponents don't
understand -- and I understand that they wouldn't because they haven't
been privy to that -- are a number of classified briefings in which we
were made privy to information that would lead any reasonable person to
conclude that the possession of or potential use of weapons of mass
destruction -- biological, chemical, nuclear and otherwise -- in the
Middle East constitutes a threat not only to the Middle East but to our
interests all around the world."

It was outrageous to say last fall that "nobody's suggesting an invasion
or Iraq."  Even more so to say that the resolution he voted for did not
"provide for an invasion of Iraq."  He said that the administration gave
him information that would convince "any reasonable person" to vote for
that resolution.  I'd like to ask him on the radio tomorrow what that
information was, but I'm concerned that the question will sound
disingenuous, coming from me as the former Green party candidate.  Maybe
somebody else on this list would be willing to ask him.

Regards, Carl

  =========================
  Carl Estabrook
  2002 Green Party Candidate for
  US House of Representatives
  15th Illinois Congressional District
  <www.carlforcongress.org>
  =========================