Thoughts on Iraq
January 31, 2003, 1:00am

Bush’s explanation in his State of the Union speech for why we need to
attack Iraq right now was unconvincing. Here are a couple of questions
that have not been answered:

Where is the link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein? Not only has the
Bush administration given us zero evidence of a connection, but many
experts think that a connection is unlikely given the fact that one
society is secular and the other is fundamentalist… There is no reason
to think that they are on the same side, fighting for the same cause.

Is the fact that Saddam Hussein has violated a United Nations resolution
really a justified reason for going to war? Many countries have
violated specific U.N. resolutions and not provoked war. A prime and
very current example of that is North Korea, which has violated U.N.
resolutions and treaties as they pursue a nuclear arms program, but
which we feel we can contain through diplomacy. Could this be because
they don’t have oil?

Here are some recent articles from prominent foreign policy experts that
explain more about why I am opposed to this war right now:

“Empty Promises” New York Times editorial

Stephen Pelletiere: “A War Crime or an Act of War?” New York Times

“Butler: U.S. Guilty of “Double Standards’ on Iraq”, Rueters

“The True War is with Phantoms”: by Shibley Telhami

“Paying for War” by Bill Moyers

“An Alternative to War” by Jimmy Carter

“Bush Doesn’t Want Good News” by Robert Scheer

“War is Not Yet Necessary” by Jessica Matthews

“The Sketch: Blair Astonishes Onlookers with a Frank Answer to Parliament’s Grey Beards” by Simon Carr