ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n394

Internet Message Format | 2000-10-22 | 43KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #394
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest     Monday, October 23 2000     Volume 01 : Number 394




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:47:27 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Nuclear Power is Sustainable, says Clinton

 Clinton Administration's Reliance on Nuclear Energy Becomes More
Apparent

Nuclear Energy Institute

October 10, 2000-The Clinton Administration's reliance on nuclear
energy as a tool to combat the threat of global warming became
clearer in recent days.

"Nuclear energy is clean and should be part of the country' s
energy mix to combat global climate change," Energy Secretary
Bill Richardson said October 4 at the National Press Club in
Washington, D.C.

Meanwhile, McGraw-Hill reported in the trade publication
Nucleonics Week that the U.S. government will prevent nuclear
power from being excluded from projects qualifying for carbon
emissions reduction credit under the Kyoto Protocol.  U.S.
officials told the publication that the State Department "will
make sure" that efforts by the majority of members in the
European Union (EU) and some developing countries to exclude
nuclear power from qualifying for the protocol' s Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) will fail.  The United States is
strongly supported by Canada, China, and Japan, Nucleonics Week
said.

The 167 million metric tons of carbon emissions avoided by
nuclear energy in 1999 was equivalent to removing 97 million cars
and trucks from America's highways.  The Council of Economics
Advisors estimated that if the United States relied on
international emissions trading for compliance with the Kyoto
Protocol, the cost for carbon would range from $14 to $25 per
metric ton.  At $25 per ton, the carbon emissions avoided in 1999
alone would have been worth $3.5 billion.

At least some renewable energy advocates concur with the
Administration' s view of nuclear energy.  Solar Industries
Association Executive Director Scott Sklar said in a presentation
at NEI last week that nuclear energy and solar energy are
complementary because they are not in direct competition for
customers choosing emission-free electricity. He raised the
possibility that greater synergies can be developed between solar
and nuclear energy.  Specifically, Sklar cited the large land
areas around nuclear plant sites and suggested that companies
could use solar units to power non-plant facilities like visitor
centers.

Nuclear energy, undoubtedly, will be among the topics discussed
during final negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol's Clean
Development Mechanism rules to be held in The Hague, Netherlands,
in late November.

Copyright c 2000 Nuclear Energy Institute. All rights reserved.
****

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:03:21 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: [manhattangreens] Hitler or Mussolini -- The Lesser of 2 Evils is Still Evil

>>To: [e-mail]
>From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>
>Check out this absolutely right-on article, from the San Francisco
>Examiner, Tuesday, October 17, 2000
>
>Lesser Of 2 Evils Is Still Evil
>by Harley Sorensen
>
>If Benito Mussolini were a Democrat running for president of the United
>States against Adolf  Hitler, a Republican, who would you vote for...
>assuming that Ralph Nader was the Green Party candidate?
>
>Easy choice, according to Examiner columnist Stephanie Salter and her
>joined-at-the-hip buddy, Bernie Ward, of KGO Talk Radio. You'd hold your
>nose and vote for Mussolini, the lesser of the two major-party evils.
>
>That's peculiar, because anyone with a scintilla of intelligence knows that
>Ralph Nader, a true patriot who has already done more to serve his country
>than perhaps any person alive today, is the only candidate even remotely
>capable of leading us out of the undemocratic morass that Washington has
>become. You would think a man like that would be a shoo-in.
>
>You'd think that freedom-loving liberals and conservatives alike would rush
>to the Nader camp. Given the choices we have, you'd think that even the
>sappiest of all political thinkers, the Libertarians, would be campaigning
>for Nader and dying to vote for him.
>
>You'd think on Nov. 7 it'd be Nader by a landslide, leaving those tired old
>machine politicians so far in the dust they'd be invisible to the naked
>eye.
>
>But Nader doesn't stand a chance, they say. Of course he's the best, but we
>have to be practical, they say. A vote for Nader, say the liberals, is a
>vote for George W. Bush. Although Mussolini/Gore would be bad for the
>country, they say, Hitler/Bush would be disastrous.
>
>One wonders: If Mussolini and Hitler were the major party candidates, and
>God were the Green Party guy, would folks like Salter and Ward still urge
>you to vote for Mussolini/Gore... because God is down in the polls?
>
>Psst! Hey, Buddy! Don't vote for that God guy. Seriously.
>
>He doesn't stand a chance. You've seen the polls; he's out of it. Vote for
>Mr. Mussolini. Sure, he's not great, but he's better than that Hitler guy.
>And he'll make the trains run on time. He promised.
>
>We are being urged by the leaders of both parties, but particularly the
>Democrats, to put our principles aside and cast our vote for expediency.
>
>There isn't one Democrat in 50 who really likes Albert Gore Jr. We tend to
>forget how he got where he is. If you remember 1992, Gore was defeated in
>the primaries by Bill Clinton, then picked from the dung heap by Clinton to
>join a winning team.
>
>Nothing that has happened in the last eight years makes Gore any more
>attractive than he was when he got beat in 1992. He was nominated by the
>Democrats this year only out of some distorted sense of courtesy. Lacking a
>royal family, we Americans have taken to creating our own royalty, the sons
>of successful people, or hangers-on like Al Gore.
>
>I've defended Gore in this space against the spurious attacks leveled
>against him by Republicans, but, charming as he may be in private, he's a
>pandering fool in public. Why he talks in public like an oversized
>ventroliquist's dummy is anybody's guess, but his is not the sort of
>conduct that inspires my confidence.
>
>George W. Bush, on the other hand, brings to the table these fine
>qualities: He's no longer a drunk, he's no longer a cokehead, he doesn't
>chase women any more, he's got a lot of money and his father is a bitter
>failed president who eagerly seeks "revenge" against Bill Clinton.
>
>Bush has an advantage over Gore in that he's a tough guy, willing to fight
>any man who dares tread on him or his. Mind you, Bush would do the tough
>talking and hire someone else to do the actual fighting, but you get the
>point. Talk like a tough guy and you'll win the support of 90 per cent of
>the Joe Six-Packs in America.
>
>Voting for either of these buffoons when Ralph Nader is running is an act
>of immorality for most of us. If you're a millionaire looking for a tax
>break, then of course George W. Bush is your man. If you're a Democratic
>Party hack looking for advancement, then of course Al Gore is your man.
>
>But if you're an honest, decent, loyal American who believes in the
>principles of democracy, you have no moral choice: you must vote for Ralph
>Nader.
>
>You must vote for the one person dedicated to destroying, not preserving,
>the stranglehold monied interests have over the rest of us.
>
>Our cable television bills are too high. Our cellular phone bills are way
>too high. Our Internet access charges are too high. Our utility bills are
>too high. We pay too much for sugar. We pay too much for milk. We pay too
>much to go to the movies. We certainly pay too much for housing,
>spectacularly so in the Bay Area. You and I pay way too much for too many
>products that should be relatively cheap.
>
>What that means is that we have to work too many hours for the stuff we
>need or want. We are, in a sense, held in economic slavery.
>
>Why is that? What is there in the Constitution that says you and I have to
>work a little harder and make do with a little less so that guys like Bill
>Gates and Larry Ellison can become mega-billionaires?
>
>The Democrat Party, under Bill Clinton, has done nothing to correct the
>inequities in our economic system. Those inequities have grown over the
>past eight years and will continue to grow under Al Gore.
>
>If George W. Bush becomes our next president, it's Katie bar the door! The
>gentle push the Democrats have given us toward economic perdition will
>become a nosedive.
>
>If democracy is ever to be restored to our country through the ballot, we
>must make our voices heard. If we consistently vote for more of the same,
>we will continue to get more of the same. We can cry and whine all we want,
>but nothing will change unless we show character and determination at the
>ballot box.
>
>Voting for the lesser evil is, by definition, voting for evil.
>
>
>-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
>eGroups eLerts
>It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/5/_/421112/_/972071484/
>---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
>
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
>[e-mail]
>

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:03:02 -0400
From: "david rush" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Kakwort virus

The kakwort virus was on my machine, and it came from an abolition caucus
message .
A fix is available at

http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/wscript.kakworm.fix.html


David Rush




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:51:35 -0700
From: Joan Russow <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Canadian Election Peace Issues

Dear Peace Groups

A Canadian election was called today and will take place November 27th.

As the federal leader of the Green Party of Canada, I will be advocating
the following issues:

1. Nato - Canada's withdrawal

2. Nato - Disbanding

3. Ending the circulation and berthing of nuclear powered and enabled vessels

4. the closing of Nanoose Test Range on Vancouver Island

5. the phasing out of civil nuclear energy, coupled with a fair and just
time-bound transition plan for affected workers and communities

6. the prohibition of the transfer of plutonium in the form of MOX from the
US and Russia for use in Candu reactors,

7. to ban the sale of Candu reactors

8. to link civil nuclear energy with the development of nuclear arms

9. to support the abolition 2000 initiative

10. to work to recognize the Security Council as an affirmative action
program for nuclear powers and to transfer its powers to the General Assembly

11.  to reduce the Canadian Defence budget by 50% and transfer the savings
to health and the environment

12.  to work towards a culture of peace and away from the "cult of war"

13. the banning of uranium mining

Incidentally, we are still looking for candidates for the Green Party in
some ridings.

Joan Russow.


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 06:28:03 -0400
From: "Ellen.Thomas" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews 00/10/23 -  Daybook; Presidential Candidates; Activist Announcements (radwaste; analysis Gore/Lieberman)

Washington Times Daybook, October 23, 2000, Agence France Presse=20
http://www.washtimes.com/national/daybook-20001023212342.htm

      8 a.m. =97 Nuclear Regulatory Commission holds the 28th Water Reactor
Safety meeting. Location: Bethesda Marriott Hotel, 5151 Pooks Hill Road,
Bethesda. Contact: 301/415-6437.

      10 a.m. =97 Environmental Protection Agency holds a meeting of the=
 national
advisory committee for acute exposure guideline levels for hazardous
substances. Location: Rooms 6332-6336, Nassif Building, Transportation
Department Headquarters, 400 Seventh St. SW. Contact: 202/554-1404.

      1:30 p.m. =97 Energy Department holds a meeting of the federal energy
management advisory committee. Location: Loews L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480
L'Enfant Plaza SW. Contact: 202/586-3507.

      Media freedom briefing =97 8:30 a.m. =97 Radio Free Europe/ Radio=
 Liberty
holds a briefing on "Media Freedom under Putin." The speaker is Sergei
Grigoriants, Glasnost Public Foundation and director of the Glasnost-North
Caucasus Information Center. Location: 1201 Connecticut Ave. NW. Contact:
202/457-6949.

      Ecuador discussion =97 9 a.m. =97 The National Press Club holds a=
 Morning
Newsmaker news conference featuring a discussion on "Ecuador's National
Security and Implications of Plan Colombia." The speaker is Heinz Moeller,
foreign minister of Ecuador. Location: National Press Club, 14th and F=
 streets
NW. Contact: 202/662-7593.

      Colombia discussion =97 12:30 p.m. =97 The Johns Hopkins University=
 Paul H.
Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) holds a discussion on
"Colombia's Communities of Peace: Non-Violent Resistance in the Midst of=
 War."
The speaker is Andrew Miller, Amnesty International's acting advocacy=
 director
for Latin America and the Caribbean. Location: Room 417, Nitze Building,=
 SAIS,
1740 Massachusetts Ave. NW. Contact: 202/663-5626.

- -- PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

- - George W. Bush -=20
http://www.GeorgeWBush.com - http://64.92.133.170/Calendar.asp
This week Bush travels to nine states in 17 cities which have a combined 140
electoral votes. His trip will cover 6,153 miles. Monday: Kansas City,
Missouri, Des Moines, Iowa, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Tuesday: Illinois,
Tennessee, and Florida. Wednesday: Florida.  Thursday: Pennsylvania and
Michigan. Friday: he visits several Michigan cities via bus.

- - Al Gore - New Orleans LA
http://www.algore2000.com/

- - Ralph Nader -=20
http://www.votenader.org/campaignevents.html
Monday, October 23, Palo Alto, CA
7:00pm - 10:00pm - Speech, Memorial Stadium, Stanford University

- -- ANNOUNCEMENTS --

- - Public Comment Sought:=20
Radioactive Soil from Nuclear Plants May be Sold to Homes, Farms
October 19, 2000 (ENS) - A controversial plan that would allow nuclear power
plant operators to market their radiologically contaminated soils to
construction companies, farmers, golf courses and other commercial entities=
 is
moving closer to reality.
        After a 14 month literature search, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has selected 56 documents with which to define "realistic
reuse scenarios" for the many tons of contaminated soils currently piled up=
 at
nation's nuclear power plants.
        According to the NRC, the nuclear power industry's stockpile of low
level contaminated soils could be safely used for a number of private and
public endeavors, such as home landscaping projects, athletic fields, and
playgrounds.
        The 56 documents selected in the literature search, which were=
 culled
from a collection of some two million scientific articles, academic
publications and industry reports, will be used to characterize the impacts
that the recycled contaminated soils would have on public health and the
environment.
        Specifically, the NRC hopes to use the documents to analyze the
"exposure pathways" that will result from each soil reuse scenario. For
example, the NRC will use the documents to analyze the exposure pathways in=
 a
"suburban scenario," where recycled nuclear power plant soils are used as
backfill around a domestic residence.
        The exposure pathways resulting from any given soil reuse scenario
would
vary according to the activities of the people living area, the NRC notes.=
=20
        For example, if people within a suburban reuse scenario engaged in
gardening activities, the exposure pathways could include inhalation,=
 ingestion
of vegetables or fruits, inadvertent ingestion of soil, and external=
 exposure,
the NRC points out.
        In order to evaluate the potential overall impact of reusing the=
 power
plant soils, the NRC will analyze several scenarios to determine a "critical
group." The NRC defines a critical group as a group of individuals=
 reasonably
expected to receive the greatest exposure to residual radioactivity for any
applicable set of circumstances.
        The dose of radiation received by the average member of the critical
group will then be used to determine whether limitations are required so=
 that
soil reuse will be controlled in a way that is protective of public health=
 and
the environment, according to the NRC.
        The 56 documents that were culled from more than two million during=
 the
literature search will provide valuable information in setting those
parameters, the NRC maintains. Some of the document titles selected include:
* "Hazardous soils to be used in paving mix."=20
* "Large scale adobe brick manufacturing in New Mexico."=20
* "Methodology to estimate the amount and particle size of soil ingested by
children: implications for exposure assessment at waste sites."=20
* "Ash: A valuable resource."=20
* "Building with adobe brick."=20
* "Probabilistic prediction of exposures to arsenic contaminated residential
soil."=20
* "Technical basis for establishing environmentally acceptable endpoints in
contaminated soils."=20
* "We're in the soils business, remember!"
        A key element of the project was to have a team of outside experts
review the results of the literature search, the NRC emphasized. According=
 to
the NRC, the role of the outside experts was to alert the agency to concepts=
 or
information overlooked in the literature search.
        One of the independent reviewers, Carlo Long Casler, did make such=
 an
alert to the NRC. Casler, who is affiliated with the Arid Lands Information
Center at the University of Arizona, asked the NRC to review Russian=
 documents
pertaining to the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986.=
 Casler
also suggested that the NRC analyze Japanese documents pertaining to the=
 long
term health effects of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki some 55 years ago.
        The NCR, in a report released earlier this summer, concluded that=
 the
environmental and health impacts of those cases were not relevant to the
question of reusing radiologically contaminated soil from U.S. nuclear power
plants.
        "The unintentional exposure hazard from the high-level radiation=
 that
occurred in the cases Ms. Casler mentioned is significantly different from=
 the
anticipated exposure derived from soils intentionally released from
NRC-regulated locations," the NRC stated in its report.
        That's not good enough for Diane D'Arrigo of Nuclear Information and
Resource Service, a watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. D'Arrigo, like
many environmentalists, takes issue with the NRC's plan to release low level
radioactive materials from regulatory standards.
        "The goal should be to isolate radioactive materials and prevent
exposures, not to deliberately expose people by allowing radioactive=
 materials
into regular daily commerce, D'Arrigo said. "If it's contaminated from=
 nuclear
power and the fuel chain, then it should be treated as a waste and=
 isolated."
        The NRC has already set radiation benchmarks that nuclear power=
 plants
must meet before they can be decommissioned. Now, the NRC is trying to set
standards that would allow individual aspects of the plants to be released=
 from
regulatory control prior to a shutdown. In addition to contaminated soils,
these standards would apply to metals, concrete and equipment used at=
 nuclear
power plants.
        Like many environmentalists, D'Arrigo is not convinced that the=
 NRC's
standards will be protective.
        "When the whole motivation behind it is to allow radioactive=
 materials
to be released from regulatory control, we can't have a lot of hope that=
 these
are really going to be objective or comprehensive or realistic," she said.
        The NRC will take public comments on its report on human interaction
with reused soils until November 17. The document can be viewed on line at:
[26]http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1725/index.html
Comments can be submitted by email to: [27] [e-mail], or by fax to:
301-415-5385.

- - Quick on the Trigger=20
Are you prepared for Gore's foreign policy?
By William D. Hartung - November 2000, The Progressive
 Liberal columnists such as Anthony Lewis of The New York Times, E.J. Dionne=
 of
The Washington Post, and Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker have done
contortions to demonstrate that yes, Virginia, there are significant
differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties. They then argue=
 that
Ralph Nader, honorable man though he may be, should put aside his quixotic
quest for the Presidency before he risks throwing the election to George W.
Bush.=20

 But in the field that I know best--U.S. foreign and military policy--it's=
 no
easy matter to make a "lesser of two evils" argument for the Gore-Lieberman
ticket.

 On many of the issues that progressives care about most--curbing=
 pro-corporate
trade agreements, stopping the flow of U.S. arms and training to corrupt and
abusive regimes in Colombia and Indonesia, ending the deadly civilian=
 sanctions
against Iraq, reducing the nation's grotesque $311 billion military=
 budget--the
differences between the standard-bearers of the two major parties range from
subtle to nonexistent.

 Peace Action, the nation's largest grassroots peace group, highlights six
issues in its latest Presidential voter guide. On five of these, Gore and=
 Bush
agree: "Increase Pentagon spending" (Yes), "Spend $60 billion or more on=
 'Star
Wars' anti-missile system" (Yes), "Give aid to Colombian army guilty of=
 human
rights violations" (Yes), "End sanctions on food and medicine to civilians=
 in
Iraq" (No), and "Require labor rights and environmental protections in all
trade agreements" (No). Gore's stances are decidedly against the positions=
 of
most progressive organizations and activists. On only one issue, "Support
treaty to ban nuclear testing," is Gore in favor and Bush opposed. By=
 contrast,
Green Party candidate Ralph Nader supports the progressive position on all=
 six
of the issues identified by Peace Action.

 On missile defense, there may be another important difference emerging. The
Clinton-Gore Administration's recent decision to put its provocative=
 National
Missile Defense program on hold--enunciated by the President in a September=
 1
address to incoming students at Georgetown University and heartily seconded=
 by
Vice President Gore--opens at least the possibility that a Gore-Lieberman
Administration could get back on track toward implementing additional=
 post-Cold
War nuclear arms reductions. Compared with George W. Bush's pledge to move=
 full
speed ahead with a multitiered, open-ended missile defense plan that could=
 be
even more costly and provocative than Ronald Reagan's original Star Wars
vision,
 Gore's position looks pretty damned good.

 For some, this may be enough to cast their lot with the Democratic ticket.=
 But
the rest of us may want to take a closer look at the records of Al Gore and
Joseph Lieberman before we make up our minds.

 The Presidential ticket of Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman represents the
ascendancy of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a conservative=
 current
within the Democratic Party that helped catapult Bill Clinton and Al Gore=
 onto
the national scene with a corporate-friendly, pro-military, fiscally
conservative agenda that was designed to put the party's allegedly
ultra-liberal, "McGovernite" past behind it (see John Nichols's story,=
 "Behind
the DLC Takeover," in the October issue of The Progressive). While the DLC
virtually gave birth to Al Gore as a Presidential candidate, it has also=
 been
central to the rise of Lieberman, who has served as the organization's=
 chairman
for the past five years.

 It was Al Gore who first tested the DLC's pro-military themes in his=
 hapless
Presidential campaign of 1988, when he was one of a cast of relatively=
 unknown
and inexperienced Democratic Presidential contenders referred to derisively=
 by
some commentators as the "seven dwarfs." I remember scratching my head when=
 I
attended the Presidential debate held at Manhattan's Javits Convention=
 Center
in the spring of that year and learned that one of Gore's distinguishing
characteristics was that he was the only Democratic candidate who had=
 endorsed
Ronald Reagan's 1983 invasion of Grenada--that great and glorious victory in
which it was decisively proven that U.S. Marines in helicopter gunships are
mightier than Cuban construction workers armed with shovels.

 While the Grenada case was an extreme example of Gore's eagerness to=
 endorse
the use of military force as a way of demonstrating that he was a "different
kind of Democrat," it is consistent with many of the positions he has taken
since that time. In an April 1988 speech to the New York Democratic=
 Committee,
Gore suggested that "because of their dovish foreign policy views, the
nomination of Massachusetts Governor Michael S. Dukakis or the Reverend=
 Jesse
Jackson would gravely jeopardize Democratic chances of regaining the White
House," according to Robert Shogan of the Los Angeles Times. Among the=
 issues
Gore chastised his Democratic rivals for were their failure to endorse Jimmy
Carter's decision to put nuclear-armed Pershing missiles in Germany to=
 reduce
our mythical "window of vulnerability" to nuclear attack by Moscow and their
unwillingness to support Ronald Reagan's decision to provide U.S. military
escorts to Kuwaiti tankers moving through the Persian Gulf.

 Gore was an early and consistent supporter of using force in the Persian=
 Gulf.
In 1991, he and Lieberman were two of only ten Democrats in the Senate to=
 vote
for the resolution authorizing the air war against Iraq. Lieberman also=
 called
for the use of U.S. ground troops to drive Saddam Hussein from power,=
 despite
the fact that such a move would have violated the U.N. resolution that had
authorized U.S. intervention in the conflict.

 Lest we think his views have mellowed with age and experience, Gore has a
section on his campaign web site entitled "Gore Backed Use of Military Force
When Necessary to Protect U.S. Interests and Values," in which he proudly
proclaims that he "argued strongly for punitive air strikes against the=
 Serbs,"
"supported air strikes and continuous patrolling of the no-fly zone to=
 contain
Saddam Hussein," and "supported military retaliation against Osama Bin Laden
for terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies in East Africa." (This=
 retaliation
included the bombing of a building in the Sudan that was later determined to=
 be
a pharmaceutical factory with no documented connection to Bin Laden.)=20

 Look for a Gore and Lieberman Administration to be quick on the trigger=
 when
it comes to launching air strikes on Washington's designated enemies of the
moment. In this, they would continue the tradition of William Jefferson
Clinton, who has used force overseas more often than any U.S. President of=
 the
past two decades, including Ronald Reagan.

 And if you are hoping that Gore and Lieberman might deliver a peace=
 dividend,
think again. During the Presidential debate in Boston on October 3, Gore
proudly proclaimed that his ten-year Pentagon budget has "set aside more=
 than
twice as much" as George W.'s for upgrading the military. Sadly for
progressives, Gore's boast is true: He proposes to add $10 billion per year=
 to
the Pentagon budget over the next decade, while Bush plans an increase of
"only" $4.5 billion per year. Gore also went out of his way to criticize=
 Bush
for "skipping the next generation of weapons," he said. "I think that's a=
 big
mistake because I think we have to stay at the cutting edge." That means=
 Gore
is in favor of funding costly, multibillion dollar weapons systems (for
example, the F-22 or the Joint Strike Fighter) to replace current systems=
 that
are already perfectly capable of defending the United States under all
imaginable circumstances. It looks like the Pentagon and the weapons makers=
 can
break out the champagne regardless of who wins in November.

 The people of Iraq, however, would have nothing to celebrate. Gore and
Lieberman are not likely to have much sympathy for calls to end civilian
sanctions on Iraq, despite strong evidence that ten years of sanctions have
contributed to the unnecessary deaths of one million Iraqi civilians,=
 including
the deaths of 4,500 children per month. Apparently, Gore and Lieberman's
concern about the negative impact of the violent words and images visited=
 upon
American children by the entertainment industry does not translate into
sympathy for the deadly impact U.S.-led sanctions have had on Iraqi=
 children.
In Al and Joe's moral universe, all children are decidedly not created=
 equal.

 The Clinton-Gore policy "does not aim to find an alternative to Hussein or=
 to
arouse a democratic fervor in the people, but rather to continue the status
quo, and in the process, test a few weapons to see how well they work, so=
 they
can be marketed to other countries," says Representative Cynthia McKinney,
Democrat of Georgia. "Unfortunately, innocent women and children are being
killed along the way."

 On the issue of U.S.-Israeli relations, Al Gore is likely to be extremely
reluctant to press Tel Aviv to rein in its military and police forces or to
compromise on sensitive issues such as the status of Jerusalem. Gore's=
 longtime
foreign policy adviser, Leon Fuerth, is the ultimate hardliner on Mideast
affairs. When Gore ran for President in 1988, it was Fuerth who convinced=
 him
to criticize Ronald Reagan from the right, slamming the Republican
Administration for pressing then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to=
 trade
land for peace. To make matters worse, one of Gore's current confidants on
Mideast policy is New Republic editor-in-chief Martin Peretz. As Edward W.=
 Said
has aptly noted of Peretz, "No one in American journalism is a more=
 unabashed
hater and despiser of Arabs and Muslims, none more insulting, none more
disparaging, none more reckless and ignorant."

 Gore and Lieberman can also be expected to block efforts at lifting the
forty-year-old economic embargo against Cuba. As Vice President, Al Gore has
carefully distanced himself from the Clinton Administration's modest steps
toward relaxing economic and travel restrictions between the United States=
 and
Cuba. On October 4, The New York Times asked Gore, "Would you press for the
lifting of sanctions?" Gore answered: "No, no, I'm a hardliner on Castro."=
 He
made that clear when he contradicted the U.S. Justice Department's position
that Elian Gonzalez's father--not the rightwing Cuban American National
Foundation and not the child's Miami-based cousins--should decide where the=
 boy
would live. There is no rational explanation for Gore's embarrassing views=
 on
Cuba other than his desire to pander to conservative Cuban exiles in Miami=
 in
the hopes of stealing a few critical votes from the Republicans in Florida=
 come
November.

 Meanwhile, Gore's running mate has an unblemished record of support for
sustaining a tough embargo on Cuba. Lieberman's conservative stance on this
issue dates back to his decision to embrace the Cuban American National
Foundation and its late founder, Jorge Mas Canosa, during his first run for=
 the
Senate against Republican moderate Lowell Weicker in 1988. In fact,=
 Republican
Vice Presidential candidate Dick Cheney has a far more progressive stance on
the Cuba embargo than Lieberman does. During an appearance on Meet the Press
earlier this year, Cheney criticized the Helms-Burton Act. "Unilateral
sanctions almost never work," Cheney said. "They are usually politically
motivated, responding to a domestic constituency."=20

 Both Gore and Lieberman are major league practitioners of the art of pork
barrel politics, which they have pursued with special zeal in order to=
 protect
the interests of major weapons contractors.

 Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. companies have seized a dominant=
 position
in the global arms market, controlling anywhere from one-third to one-half=
 of
all international arms sales in any given year. In 1999, the last year for
which full statistics are available, the Congressional Research Service
estimates that the United States accounted for 54 percent of global weapons
deliveries, more than all the other suppliers in the world combined. Clinton
and Gore have helped promote the U.S. weapons industry at every turn,=
 following
the credo enunciated by the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown at the 1993=
 Paris
Air Show that "not only will we help you promote your products in the world
market, but we will help you close the deal."

 Gore has actively involved himself in jawboning Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates to buy American weaponry. He has paid special attention to
helping Lockheed Martin "close the deal" on multibillion dollar sales of=
 eighty
top-of-the-line F-16 fighter planes to the United Arab Emirates that will
contain more advanced radar systems than those utilized on the U.S. Air=
 Force's
own versions of the aircraft. Clinton and Gore's service to the arms=
 industry
has not gone unrewarded: Bernard Schwartz, a former Lockheed Martin board
member and the head of Loral Space and Communications, gave $601,000 in soft
money to Democratic committees in the run-up to the 1996 Presidential=
 election,
and he has nearly doubled that sum this time around, with $1.1 million in
contributions to Democratic committees in the 1997-2000 time frame.

 As for Lieberman, he has done what every Connecticut Senator worth his salt
has done for at least two generations: gone to bat for the state's arms
manufacturers at every opportunity. He has resisted efforts by his=
 Democratic
colleagues to cut funds for Lockheed Martin's F-22 combat aircraft, which at
$200 million per copy is the most expensive fighter plane ever built. The
engines for the aircraft are made in Hartford by the Pratt & Whitney=
 division
of United Technologies. And he joined his home state colleague Christopher=
 Dodd
in a shameless effort to get more Blackhawk helicopters--built in=
 Connecticut
by United Technologies' Sikorsky unit--included in the Clinton=
 Administration's
$1.3 billion aid package for Colombia instead of the cheaper Huey II, built=
 in
Texas by Textron Bell. In a June 21 speech on the floor of the Senate,
Lieberman openly shilled for Sikorsky, arguing that "the Blackhawks are=
 fast,
they have tremendous capacity, and they are well suited for long-range
operations. . . . While the Huey II is an improvement over the 1960s, it=
 does
not have the same performance capabilities, including range, speed, lift, or
survivability, at any altitude as does the Blackhawk."

 According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Lieberman received $33,000=
 in
campaign contributions from United Technologies and its employees in the=
 most
recent election cycle.

 The one area where the subtle rhetorical differences between Gore and Bush
could develop into strong, clear policy differences is in nuclear arms=
 control.
In a statement supporting Clinton's decision to put missile defense on hold,
Gore asserted: "As President, I would oppose the kinds of missile defenses=
 that
would unnecessarily upset strategic stability and threaten to open the gates
for a renewed arms race with Russia and a new arms race with China,=
 including
both offensive and defensive weapons." But in typical Clinton fashion, Gore
left open the prospect for deploying some kind of system.

 Still, Gore's recognition that pushing full speed ahead on National Missile
Defense could spark a new nuclear arms race indicates that his thinking is
light years ahead of Bush's on this issue (although it must be noted that
Lieberman was one of a handful of early Democratic supporters of Mississippi
Republican Thad Cochran's "Defend America Act," a jingoistic, pro-National
Missile Defense proposal). To their credit, both Gore and Lieberman support=
 the
Comprehensive Test Ban, an important next step in the global nuclear arms
control regime, while Bush is adamantly opposed to any such agreement.

 The Clinton-Gore Administration is the only Administration since the
Eisenhower era that has not negotiated a single significant nuclear arms
control agreement. Indeed, virtually all of the progress in nuclear arms
reductions achieved during the 1990s was pursuant to agreements reached=
 under
the Administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Gore deserves some=
 credit
for working closely with Russia to implement the reductions in nuclear=
 arsenals
that were agreed to under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and more
importantly, for persuading Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to abandon=
 their
holdings of nuclear weapons after the break-up of the Soviet Union. And the
Clinton-Gore Administration's on-again, off-again negotiations with North=
 Korea
over capping its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs are starting=
 to
bear fruit.

 But before we get too carried away with the superiority of the probable
Gore-Lieberman positions on nuclear weapons issues, it should be noted that=
 the
Clinton-Gore vision of a "limited" National Missile Defense system is
inherently flawed in its own right. Thanks to intrepid investigative=
 research
by The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, we now know that Clinton's foreign
policymakers tried to reassure their Russian counterparts that a limited
missile defense system wouldn't threaten Moscow's nuclear deterrent by=
 telling
the Russians simply to keep 1,000 or 2,000 nuclear warheads operative and on
high-alert status at all times. That shows how far Clinton and Gore are from
taking a step toward getting rid of nuclear weapons once and for all. Their
missile defense plan--which is still a very real possibility, pending=
 Russian
approval--would simply reinforce the notion that the two erstwhile Cold War
adversaries should maintain large arsenals of nuclear overkill indefinitely.
And by retaining hair-trigger alert status, Clinton and Gore increase the=
 risk
of a rash decision that leads to nuclear war or an accidental launch based=
 on a
computer foul-up or human error.=20

 Whether Gore builds on the positive elements of his record on arms control=
 or
falls back into playing politics with nuclear issues in an effort to show=
 he's
"tougher" than Republicans will depend on how much pressure a Gore-Lieberman
Administration receives from the public and arms control advocates in=
 Congress.


 At least as important as what happens in the voting booth in November will=
 be
what progressives and liberals do in the event that Gore and Lieberman get
elected. Will the Democratic base give them the benefit of the doubt, as
happened for much of the Clinton-Gore term, or will progressives join with
sympathetic members of Congress to vigorously and publicly oppose the most
noxious elements of the Gore-Lieberman foreign policy agenda?=20

 Most important of all will be the question of whether independent movements
for peace and social justice, such as the growing coalition against
pro-corporate globalization schemes, can alter the political climate of the
country to the point where the two major parties will have no choice but to
address the deeper issues that are largely being ignored in the current
Presidential campaign.

 As you may recall, Clinton and Gore's unofficial theme song was Fleetwood
Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." This time around, a far better
theme song for progressives would be The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again."

[William D. Hartung is the President's Fellow at the World Policy Institute=
 at
the New School of Social Research and the military affairs adviser to=
 Foreign
Policy in Focus, a joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and
the Institute for Policy Studies.]

     ___________________________________________________

Today's News and Archives: http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm
Submit URL/Article: mailto:[e-mail]
OneList Archives: http://www.onelist.com/archive/NucNews (subscribe online)
Other Excellent News-Collecting Sites -
DOE Watch - http://www.egroups.com/group/doewatch
Downwinders - http://www.egroups.com/group/downwinders

Quick Route to U.S. Congress:
http://www.senate.gov/senators/index.cfm (Senators' Websites)
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html (Representatives' Websites)
http://thomas.loc.gov/ (Pending Legislation - Search)

Online Petition to Abolish Nuclear Weapons -
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/prop1/petition.html

Subscribe to NucNews Briefs:  mailto:[e-mail]

   Distributed without payment for research and educational=20
purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #394
***********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.