Action Alert #3

January 30, 2003

IN THIS ISSUE:

INFO ON FEB.15-16 PEACE DEMOS

MAKE YOUR CASE FOR PEACE

SAMPLE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

The following is an appeal for letters to the editor to flood newspaper offices around the country, making the case for peace. The appeal, from Moveon.org, also includes three sample letters to make it even easier to let your opinion be known.

BE SURE TO MENTION THE FEBRUARY 15 PEACE MARCH IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE ONE IN SAN FRANCISCO FEB. 16 (note the change in date here).

Include a local phone number for information on buses, meetings, etc. Please go to www.unitedforpeace.org to sign up your local coalition with United for Peace and Justice and post on the website local events as well as to check the website for updates on logistics on the Feb. 15 event. The UFPJ office number (646) 473-8935 or (646) 473-8934.

FROM WWW.MOVEON.ORG

On Tuesday, President Bush tried again to the make the case for war with Iraq. Most observers expect a bump in support for war, but we've been surprised and pleased to see that even many pundits are not buying the administration's case anymore. Your message has gotten through, and the ultra-hawks in the Bush administration are becoming more and more isolated. Our nation's allies around the world have come to view the administration's stance as, at best, a strange and dangerous obsession.

This view, along with the clear skepticism of the American public, is starting to filter into our media in a major way. Please help reinforce this growing conventional wisdom by writing a letter-to-the-editor today. With attention shifting to the United Nations next week, now is the perfect time. The key talking points we want to get across are:

A war with Iraq will make America less safe and less secure.

The inspections are working.

The President simply has not made the case for war.

We provide example letters below. Feel free to mine them for good points or to follow the general arguments of the letters, but we strongly recommend that you use your own words. Make sure you include your name and telephone contact information on the e-mail to your local paper. They won't publish the phone number, but may want to call you to confirm that the letter has been submitted by a local reader.

Please let us know about your letter-to-the-editor at www.moveon.org/ltecopy.html. We'd like to keep a count and we'd love a copy of your letter. To get a sense for how opinion is running against the administration, even on the day after the State of the Union address, here is an excerpt from yesterday's Washington Post, highlighting General Norman Schwarzkopf's concerns about war in Iraq:” The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq. And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."

And here's an excerpt from columnist Nicholas Kristof's piece yesterday, reflecting a new skepticism in the media:" As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace put it in a new report on Iraq, the U.S. goal of preventing any attack by Iraq has already been achieved. 'Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression,' the report noted. 'Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in [weapons of mass destruction] capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people.' ... Will an invasion make us safer? That's the central question, and while none of us know the answer, there is clearly a significant risk that it will do just the opposite."

Let's keep the pressure on.

EXAMPLE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

To review an impressive group of letters, drafted by MoveOn volunteer David Keppel, go to: http://www.moveon.org/iraqletters.html David even includes references to back these letters up. This work is fantastic, but don't be intimidated. A few words from the heart will do the job.

Here are some brief examples drawn from David's work:

1. To the Editor: President Bush wants an early end to inspections - when they have just begun. The teams have only recently reached full staff and acquired high-technology support and intelligence cooperation from the United States. Unlike the previous round of inspections, they have gained prompt access to sites. Even the earlier inspections succeeded in disabling Iraq's nuclear program and destroying 95% of its chemical and biological weapons. It is much too early to dismiss new, tougher inspections even if Iraqi cooperation is grudging.

Mohamed Elbaradei told the Security Council that he has seen no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program, and he explicitly asked for several months, which he called a "valuable investment" that "could help us avoid war."

Hans Blix has said that his inspections of biological and chemical weapons disarmament should take a year. Iraq poses no threat while inspections are underway. Wouldn't it be wiser to give inspectors a chance to find and destroy any weapons than to rush into a war in which Saddam might use them - potentially prompting the US or Israel to launch a nuclear strike?

Sincerely,

2. To the Editor: For months, the Administration has been embarrassed by the weakness of its case for war. Inspectors have just begun their work. The previous round of inspections -- with less strength than this one - destroyed more Iraqi weapons than we destroyed in the 1991 war. Wouldn't it be better to let inspectors destroy any possible weapons than to risk having them used against our troops or civilians? The weakest link in the war case has been any alleged connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The CIA has repeatedly said they share only distrust: Al Qaeda scorns Saddam's secularism, while Saddam stresses tight control by the state and would transfer weapons only under attack. Now the Bush Administration plans to release "new evidence" of an Al Qaeda link.

A longtime senior member of the House Intelligence Committee who now serves on the 9-11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, says the Bush Administration "will look for any kind of evidence to support their premise; I think we have to be skeptical about it.” I agree.

Sincerely,

3. To the Editor: Though UN weapons inspectors have found no clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Bush Administration may attack anyway, claiming that Saddam Hussein is hiding them.

But while President Bush cites the uncertainties of inspections, has he considered the uncertainties of war? What will be the cost in human life?

Unlike the 1991 war, this war would be fought in Iraq's densely populated cities. If Saddam Hussein does have weapons of mass destruction, he will have every incentive to use them, as CIA Director George Tenet warned Congress.

President Bush has threatened to retaliate to Iraqi chemical or biological weapons use with a nuclear strike on Iraq. Israel also has 200 nuclear weapons. A nuclear war would bring the deaths into the millions.

It would also create an explosion of shock and hate that would recruit a new generation of anti-American terrorists. And by breaking the post-Hiroshima taboo on nuclear attack, it would encourage other nuclear wars, such as one between India and Pakistan.

What would be the future of Iraq and its neighbors? No one knows whether Iraq would descend into civil war, with Kurds, Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and numerous tribes fighting along religious and ethnic lines. Such chaos would make occupation a nightmare for U.S. forces, not to mention Iraqis. Before taking the risks of war, we must let the inspections work.

Sincerely,

END OF ACTION ALERT