Time to Impeach

While doing some research on another matter, I coincidentally came upon this piece, which I had written Oct. 2002 during the run-up to the war in Iraq. That whole year, beginning with Bush's "axis of evil" speech in Jan/Feb and his CONTINUAL, PRE-DETERMINED DECISION to go to war in Iraq, I was aghast at the dis-information, whether deliberate (I truly believe it was) or not. I felt compelled with all the light given me to do what I could to prevent this atrocious injustice--done with my tax dollars and by the corrupted government of the country I love. I also joined the local peace movement and helped organize and lead the anti-war rally that fall.

My totally serendipitous discovery of my article, which I was not aware the Kentucky Post even ran, confirms for me the path we must now take as a country, as unpopular as this will seem to many of you. Of course, the hindrance to doing this (see below) is the still deep national division about the rightness of this war. It is similar to Vietnam, wherein many Americans still believe we should have been there, and the only mistake was not nuking them. The very fact that this position is not "correct" as history and reason has conclusively proven, is similarly applicable to the current mess in Iraq.

The war, so obviously wrong before we waged it, remains so. The question of what to do vexes us. Do we "cut and run?" Do we wait on adequate Iraqi security capabilities? The key point is that THIS ADMINISTRATION is utterly incapable of any just, effective solution, as they will continue to make all decisions based on their warped view of the "rightness" of their war.

I pondered whether I should parrot the existing cries for impeachment. After all, with the House and Senate in Republican hands it looks like an exercise in futility, so all I'd be accomplishing is further alienating those friends on my "conservative" list. Yet in my heart and soul I believe that only with NEW leadership can a credible and just corrective plan materialize. Thus, I believe a re-call of this president is necessary and the only way Constitutionally to accomplish this is through the impeachment process.

Personally, I've discovered meditation and through it a better sense of peace. I fret and fume less and am starting to have more clarity. So it is with love and compassion for all concerned, and a desire to see the most good for the most people, that I be true to soul and reason in recommending this course.

Respectfully, Richard
------------------------------------


PEACEFUL RESOLUTION IS RIGHT, JUST RESPONSE TO IRAQ.(Editorial)(Column)Source: The Kentucky Post (Covington, KY)Date: 10/30/2002

Byline: Richard F. Dawahare

Deep in our souls we know. Stripped of the paralyzing fear that smothers our minds and dulls our hearts we know that war in Iraq would be an immoral obscenity, a terrible wrong that would only exacerbate our problems instead of solving them.

Quite naturally, the 9/11 attacks exponentially increased our fear of vulnerability. When combined with the continuous demonization of Saddam Hussein we feel an impending doom if we do not attack. I, too, admit to these feelings.

Yet all that frightens is not fearsome. That is, there is just too much credible information that refutes the danger that Iraq is made to pose. A calm review of all the relevant information will show that Saddam Hussein, appalling tyrant that he is, does not present the clear and present threat requiring war.

First, the world community, including Iraq's own neighbors, oppose war and regime change.
Second, our own former lead weapons inspector has courageously challenged the threat Iraq is alleged to present. Scott Ritter, who spent 7 years in Iraq as the United Nation's lead weapons inspector, calls the Bush Administration's push for war "a tragic joke perpetrated on the American public and the world."

He says the inspectors had destroyed 95 percent of Iraq's weapons as well as their capacity to build them. While Ritter is certain that Iraq is nowhere close to nuclear capability, he believes inspectors must go back to continue the job.

Ritter has no motive to lie. A Republican, he says his Marine code of honor requires him to tell the truth. He concludes that an America that pushes for war and regime change under these circumstances, especially when there are other alternatives available, "is not the country I want to be a part of."

To further enhance our fear and justify attack the hawks keep telling us how Hussein gassed his own people. This refers to the old charge that he gassed the Kurds in 1988. Forget for a second that we have already punished him for this atrocity. The bigger news is that it may not have happened the way we have heard it.

A Pentagon report by Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II and Leif R. Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College concluded "we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used against the Kurds."

Further, regarding charges that Iraq used chemical weapons at Halabjah in March, 1988 the same report concluded that Iran, not Iraq was likely responsible. It concludes, "Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information." (Not that it matters but we were Saddam Hussein's ally in Iraq's war against Iran.)

This is not to say that Saddam Hussein is not a dangerous guy. I believe that he is. But there are other methods short of war - such as inspections and containment - that will more effectively secure peace.

Our fear is also amplified by Hussein's portrayal as a psychotic madman. This may well be as he no doubt has performed heinous acts of brutality. But at crucial times he also has acted rationally. For example, during the Gulf War he did not use the chemical or biological weapons that we claim he had - not against Israel, not against us, not against his own citizens.

This can only mean that a) he did not have them, or b) he had them but knew that to use them would invite a devastating retaliation on his country. This is the kind of sane, rational thinking that spared the world a nuclear holocaust throughout the cold war as each side feared mutually assured destruction.

We also fear that Hussein could provide biological or germ weapons to terrorists. Yet there is no evidence he has done so. In fact, he historically has considered Islamic radicals as an enemy to his regime. Indeed, he fought Iran to prevent Khomeini's fundamentalist revolution from overtaking Iraq.

Unfortunately, there are many enemies who might be inclined to help terrorists. How futile to believe we can war our way to safety when the only way to ensure a just and lasting peace is through dialogue and diplomacy. As even Iraq's own neighbors have suggested, war will only inflame hostilities and increase terrorism, not reduce it.

The Bush Administration has backed off its claim that Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack. Regardless, the hawks use the appeasement argument to justify an attack. That is, a refusal to attack Hussein now will lead to future catastrophe similar to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.

The much more relevant history, however, is Vietnam where we did follow the appeasement lesson by going to war to "stop the spread of Communism." Our fear then turned out to be a tragic mistake that killed 57,000 Americans, 3 million of "them" and created a truly unfortunate class of veterans.

I was 8 when the trumped up Gulf of Tonkin resolution led to full-scale war in Vietnam. Huckleberry Hound, Pleasant Valley Sundays, the Beatles, and the many hundreds of fun things the '60s offered us boomers took precedent over a war fought ostensibly to protect our ability to live the American Dream.

The protestors were "pinko drug-loving hippies." The establishment did all it could to discredit them. But the voice of truth was too powerful and the American middle class, after eight years of horrific tragedy, demanded peace, albeit "with honor."

If our leaders then had studied the history of the Vietnamese and their suffering under domination from the French and Japanese, they would have realized that all they ever wanted was to be free of the yoke of colonialism - they had no intention of world wide revolution.
(In an eerily similar coincidence, America was actually allied with Ho Chi Minh during World War II against Japan as we were with Saddam Hussein in Iraq's war with Iran.)

I have often wondered what I would have done in 1964 had I been an adult with this understanding. Would I have acquiesced to the pro-establishment, "support the president" position I knew inside to be wrong, but popular. Or would I have stayed true to my knowledge of a higher truth and joined the protestors?

Because there are workable alternatives to war - inspections, the lifting of sanctions and the re-incorporation of the Iraqi people into the international community - that would create a more permanent and just solution today's decision is easy.
Deep inside I know. We all do.

Richard F. Dawahare is an attorney and businessman from Lexington.