I don't generally like to quote something written by someone else wholesale, but these are some very important questions that Rep. Ron Paul (Texas, 14th District) put together last September (which I just discovered tonight), and I think they should be more widely circulated:

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked.  Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?
   
   
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
   
   
3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?
   
   
4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?
   
   
5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
   
   
6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?
   
   
7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?
   
   
8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?
   
   
9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?
   
   
10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?
    
    
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States - and who may again attack the United States - and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?
    
    
12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?
    
    
13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?
    
    
14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?
    
    
15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?
    
    
16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?
    
    
17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?
    
    
18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?
    
    
19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
    
    
20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?
    
    
21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?
    
    
22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?
    
    
23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?
    
    
24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 - including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?
    
    
25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?
    
    
26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?
    
    
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
    
    
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?
    
    
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
    
    
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
    
    
31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
    
    
32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?
    
    
33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and - not coincidentally - we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?
    
    
34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?
    
    
35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

[ Side note: While doing a bit of research on Rep. Paul, I also found that there is a movement afoot to draft him as a Presidential candidate in 2004.  If you would like more information on this, you can find it at: http://www.paul2004.com/index.html ]

Colleen Rowley, the FBI agent who blew the whistle on the FBI's lack of follow-through on clues prior to 9-11 that might have helped prevent the attack, has written a second letter, airing her concerns about how the FBI has handled their role in preparation for the war on Iraq and terrorism prevention in the United States.  Near the end of her letter, she draws an comparison between how the FBI mishandled the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and how the US is handling the situation with Iraq. 

Law enforcement authorities were certain Koresh had accumulated a formidable arsenal of weapons and ammunition at his compound and may have been planning on using them someday. The FBI also had evidence that he was sexually abusing young girls in the cult. After the first law enforcement assault failed, after losing the element of surprise, the Branch Davidian compound was contained and steadily increasing pressure was applied for weeks. But then the FBI decided it could wait no longer and mounted the second assault—with disastrous consequences. The children we sought to liberate all died when Koresh and his followers set fires leading to their mass death and destruction.

The FBI, of course, cannot be blamed for what Koresh set in motion. Nevertheless, we learned some lessons from this unfortunate episode and quickly explored better ways to deal with such challenges. As a direct result of that exploration, many subsequent criminal/terrorist “standoffs” in which the FBI has been involved have been resolved peacefully and effectively. I would suggest that present circumstances vis-a-vis Iraq are very analagous, and that you consider sharing with senior administration officials the important lessons learned by the FBI at Waco.

I can only hope that this time, someone will listen.

The President held a press conference tonight, talking once again about how Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a "direct threat" to the US and that his job is to protect Americans, and that he's going to do so.

I still have to wonder, though, how he is protecting us when the CIA, the FBI and the Homeland Security Agency have all said that attacking Iraq will not make us less vulnerable to terrorism, but more.  Attacking Iraq will serve to anger Islamic extremists and be used as an excuse for them to strike us again in our homeland. 

"Remember 9-11" has become something of a rallying cry for those who support the war with Iraq.  I wonder if they can appreciate the tragic irony that in "remembering" 9/11 by attacking Iraq, we will are putting ourselves at an even greater risk of suffering even more such attacks?  I also have to wonder if they can appreciate the irony that Osama bin Laden has said he wants to see Saddam Hussein removed from office - though he'd undoubtedly prefer that it be the Iraqi people who do it and not the Americans.  If we go through with this war, we'll be helping bin Laden achieve one of his goals.

And here I thought the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of what is or isn't Constitutional:

Congress could remove federal courts' jurisdiction to rule on the Pledge of Allegiance if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn an appeals court decision that bars children from reciting the Pledge in school, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday.

[...] Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio Republican and chairman of the Constitution subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, said he thinks the Supreme Court will overturn the appeals court's decision and make congressional action unnecessary.     

But he said if that doesn't happen, the two options open to Congress are a statutory change to limit jurisdiction, as Mr. DeLay laid out, or amend the Constitution to protect the Pledge.

Personally, I would prefer to see the Constitution protected rather than the Pledge, but that seems to be a rather unpopular opinion in some quarters....

UPDATE:  Also on the subject of the "under God" phrase, Roger Ebert has an excellent editorial on why the ban on it should be upheld, which includes this observation:

Because our enemies are for the most part more enthusiastic about horizontal prayer than we are, and see absolutely no difference between church and state--indeed, want to make them the same--it is alarming to reflect that they may be having more success bringing us around to their point of view than we are at sticking to our own traditional American beliefs about freedom of religion. When Ashcroft and his enemies both begin their days with displays of their godliness, do we feel safer after they rise from their devotions?

Note: Ebert describes two kinds of prayer - vertical prayer and horizontal prayer, which he defines this way:

Vertical prayer is private, directed upward toward heaven. It need not be spoken aloud, because God is a spirit and has no ears. Horizontal prayer must always be audible, because its purpose is not to be heard by God, but to be heard by fellow men standing within earshot.

According to an article, from January 1, 2003, the Crossroads Mall (where the men were arrested for wearing pro-peace t-shirts) already had a history of removing pro-peace demonstrators from the mall (link found courtesy of Hesiod at Counterspin Central):

Peace activists ask Crossgates to explain their ouster

By SARA FOSS
Published: Wednesday January 1, 2003
Gazette Reporter

GUILDERLAND - A group of people who walked around Crossgates Mall at the height of the Christmas season with antiwar statements displayed on their shirts said they want to know why mall security forced them to leave the premises.

Several members of Upper Hudson Peace Action said they were not creating a disturbance or demonstrating, but simply wearing shirts that expressed messages of peace, such as "Don't invade Iraq" and "Peace on Earth."

On the afternoon of Dec. 21, between 20 and 24 members of Upper Hudson Peace Action wandered around the mall in groups of two or three, said. Some had antiwar messages written on their shirts, while others had pieces of paper containing antiwar statements taped to their shirts, she said.

Members of the group had arranged to meet at the Crossgates food court around 5 p.m. When they did, security escorted them out of the mall, and drove them to their cars in security vehicles, said Pat Beetle, a coordinator for the group.

Hesiod also had a link to this comment in the discussion forum of the Time Union:

Arn Gunnutes - 02:53pm Mar 5, 2003 EST (#7 of 136)

As a shopper at Crossgates (not anymore!), when I visit New York, I can tell you that not so long ago, I saw at least one person with a shirt on that said "Nuke Iraq, Kill Saddam Hussein", and other such vitriol walking in the mall last week for at least 45 minutes.

No one ever approached THEM telling them that they were wearing unacceptable clothing or "might cause a disturbance".

I have a feeling this mall is going to be under close scruitiny from civil libertarians for quite some time....

Here's a bit of good news - both that the mall is dropping the charges, and that there were a good number of people willing to go out and not only show their opposition to the war, but also their support of the ability for citizens to express their opinions.

GUILDERLAND, N.Y., March 5 - The management at Crossgates Mall Wednesday asked the Guilderland Police Department to drop the trespassing charges against a Selkirk man. This came after about 100 protestors descended on Crossgates Mall that afternoon. Their "Mall Walk for Peace" protested the arrest of 60-year-old Stephen Downs, who was charged with trespassing Monday night when he wouldn't leave the mall after he refused to remove his T-shirt bearing a peace message.

On the not-so-good side of things, at least one person who showed up to protest the anti-war protseters (would that make him an anti-anti-war protester?) decided he need to push some people around, literally - which tends to support my earlier thought that the concern about anti-war sentiment isn't so much thinking there's something wrong with anti-war sentiment but concern that those who are upset with anti-war protesters will potentially cause a disturbance or other problems.

When a few protestors decided to get a little more vocal, a 55-year-old veteran carrying a sign reading "Remember 9-11" confronted them.   The veteran yelled at the protestors and then went so far as to push some of the men.

I've seen and heard of several incidents where people who are in support of the war are making comments about how we should "Remember 9-11" - which is something that shouldn't be forgotten, but which also is irrelevent to the issue at hand.  There is no evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9-11 attacks, and no one known to be connected to the attacks (planners or perpetrators) is Iraqi. 

Wouldn't we serve the memory of those killed on September 11th by going after those who actually killed them, and not some guy we can conveniently demonize, but who - as far as anyone has been able to show - had nothing to do with their deaths?

Catnmus notes that the Smoking Gun has copies of the police reports from the incident yesterday where two men were arrested for wearing t-shirts with pro-peace slogans on them. 

Reading through the reports is kind of interesting.  In the supporting depositions, the store detective at Macy's (Katie Light) notes that a customer came in concerned about a 'verbal dispute' between the guys in the anti-war t-shirts and other customers, but there is no indication as to whether the customer reported who initiated the dispute.

The other one (from Robert Williams, apparently one of the store security guards) reports that the men were stopping customers to talk to them (but not chanting anything).  Now, Light's deposition says that she was informed of the 'verbal dispute' and contacted mall security to check it out.  Williams' says he was responding to 'the complaint' - which logically would have to be the complaint the original customer made to Light.  Williams' deposition, however, doesn't say where the information about the stopping customers came from - whether someone else reported it, or if he observed it or what. 

The other thing, though, is that when the guys talked to the media (specifically MSNBC, the source for the story I quoted from in my comments on the incident), the guys specifically said that they were just walking around and were not handing out leaflets or talking to anyone. 

In any event, if, in fact, they were stopping cusomters to talk to them about why they are against the war, I can see the mall asking them to stop doing that - and that should have been the end of the matter.  By doing that, they would have been addressing the actual behaviour that was, according to their reports, causing the problem.  Asking them to remove the shirts was out of bounds, and should not have been a part of the issue.