Hi Kat,

   I think this is fanastic - Jimmy Carter was a great President and is a
wonderful human being. I believe he was a man ahead of his time when he was
President with his vision and clarity about peace.

                                           Trisha

> Well, you should be proud of your home state former US President; he's
> just
> won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to bring about peace through
> mediations, etc.  Yep, Jimmy Carter's finally got the recognition he so
> richly deserves.  I think it's fantastic.
>
> Kat
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barber, Kenneth L." <[log in to unmask]>
> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.c-palsy
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 6:43 AM
> Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News (fwd)
>
>
> > Actually I lived here from 1974-1981 and 1991-now. I did get something
> of
> > value from these papers. It was a coupon worth a dollar off of a box of
> > cereal.
> >
> > If you like people like peter singer, you'll really enjoy the atlanta
> rags.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Barber, Kenneth L. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:35 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News (fwd)
> >
> >  if you believe this i'll sell you some ocean front property in new
> mexico.
> > the atlanta urineal and constipation is hardly a good source of
> information.
> > i have lived here for many years.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Magenta Raine
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: 10/10/2002 9:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News (fwd)
> >
> > I just read this article, and it is really scary.  Now this war makes
> > sense,
> > (note I said it makes sense, not that I agree with it. )
> >
> > Please read carefully.
> > Mag
> >
> > > http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html<x-html>
> > >
> > > The President's Real Goal in Iraq
> > > By JAY BOOKMAN
> > > Atlanta Journal-Constitution
> > > 9/29/02
> > >
> > > The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that
> > the
> > > Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has
> > always
> > > seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that
> > smart
> > > people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on
> > such
> > > flimsy evidence.
> > >
> > > The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on;
> > something
> > > was missing.
> > >
> > > In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into
> > place.
> > > As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about
> > weapons of
> > > mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
> > >
> > > This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence
> > of
> > the
> > > United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole
> > responsibility
> > > and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a
> > plan
> > > 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the
> > United
> > > States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it
> > means
> > > becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed
> > we
> > > were.
> > >
> > > Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For
> > example,
> > why
> > > does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from
> > Iraq
> > > once Saddam is toppled?
> > >
> > > Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States
> > will
> > > create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate
> > the
> > > Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
> > >
> > > In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed
> > aside
> > > that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other
> > > nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II
> > > ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the
> > same
> > > in Iraq.
> > >
> > > And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and
> > > deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even
> > if
> > it
> > > worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of
> > > American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did
> > not
> > > stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.
> > >
> > > Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of
> > > brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush
> > > administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what
> > they
> > > call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the
> > > American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.
> > >
> > > Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in
> > > which each administration outlines its approach to defending the
> > country.
> > > The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant
> > > departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes
> > largely to
> > > the attacks of Sept. 11.
> > >
> > > To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a
> > newly
> > > aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack
> > > against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls
> > > "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that
> > > suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the
> > document
> > > asserts.
> > >
> > > It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of
> > > "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign
> > > responsibilities."
> > >
> > > In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and
> > economic
> > > domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international
> > treaty
> > > or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark
> > expansion
> > > of our global military presence.
> > >
> > > "The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond
> > > Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as
> > > temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S.
> > > troops."
> > >
> > > The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however,
> > > because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly
> > not
> > > inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same
> > > language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the
> > New
> > > American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by
> > the
> > > thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a
> > global
> > > empire.
> > >
> > > "At no time in history has the international security order been as
> > > conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated
> > two
> > > years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and
> > enhance
> > > this 'American peace.' "
> > >
> > > Familiar themes
> > >
> > > Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush
> > defense
> > > policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried
> > to
> > > accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of
> > the
> > > anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile
> > defense
> > > system. The administration has taken that course.
> > >
> > > It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce
> > Pax
> > > Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending
> > from
> > 3
> > > percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next
> > year,
> > > the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379
> > billion,
> > > almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.
> > >
> > > It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its
> > expanded
> > > obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense
> > programs
> > > as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being
> > preached
> > > by Rumsfeld and others.
> > >
> > > It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in
> > targeting
> > > the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by
> > many
> > of
> > > our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the
> > > Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust
> > > Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.
> > >
> > > That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly
> > > surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed
> > to
> > > the 2000 report.
> > >
> > > Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is
> > > undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's
> > Office
> > > of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are
> > > members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis
> > Libby
> > > is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is
> > comptroller
> > > for the Defense Department.
> > >
> > > 'Constabulary duties'
> > >
> > > Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of
> > the
> > > project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were
> > in
> > > drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly
> > > identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets,
> > well
> > > before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their
> > report,
> > > they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and
> > Iraq,
> > > "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the
> > force
> > > requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove
> > these
> > > regimes from power."
> > >
> > > To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be
> > required
> > > to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as
> > policeman
> > > of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political
> > > leadership rather than that of the United Nations."
> > >
> > > To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to
> > > challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger
> > military
> > > presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130
> > > nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.
> > >
> > > More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in
> > the
> > > Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast
> > Asia,
> > > where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the
> > > mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush
> > administration
> > > rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well
> > as
> > > our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in
> > > Colombia.
> > >
> > > The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier
> > document,
> > > drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also
> > > envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing
> > its
> > > will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When
> > > leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much
> > criticism
> > > that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President
> > Bush.
> > >
> > > Effect on allies
> > >
> > > The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was
> > drafted
> > > by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.
> > >
> > > The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.
> > >
> > > One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right
> > to
> > act
> > > as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the
> > > background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and
> > > American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their
> > > wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.
> > >
> > > Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an
> > > influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served
> > as
> > > co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that
> > likelihood.
> > >
> > > "If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't
> > stop
> > > that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its
> > unique
> > > position, has no choice but to act anyway.
> > >
> > > "You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."
> > >
> > > Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as
> > a
> > > nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate
> > Bush
> > > certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that
> > he
> > or
> > > others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the
> > > contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly
> > > advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to
> > appeal to
> > > voters leery of military intervention.
> > >
> > > For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as
> > empire,
> > > understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be
> > naive
> > > and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us.
> > Kagan,
> > > for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would
> > > establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.
> > >
> > > "I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a
> > major
> > > concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time.
> > That
> > > will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we
> > have
> > > economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply.
> > If
> > we
> > > have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."
> > >
> > > Costly global commitment
> > >
> > > Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will
> > produce
> > > other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as
> > Iran
> > > and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather
> > > gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations
> > > pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that
> > having
> > > them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not
> > > helpful," he says.
> > >
> > > Kagan is more blunt.
> > >
> > > "People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he
> > notes.
> > > "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we
> > > started blowing things up."
> > >
> > > The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we
> > spent
> > > $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations
> > > combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion.
> > In
> > > other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be
> > more
> > > than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest
> > competitor.
> > >
> > > The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it
> > has
> > > driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end
> > of
> > the
> > > Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire
> > was
> > > essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of
> > some,
> > > we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American
> > people
> > > have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.
> > >
> > > Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those
> > > advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new
> > > president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really
> > debating
> > > the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to
> > come.
> > >
> > > Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and
> > > international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary
> > to
> > > take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global
> > > dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?
> > >
> > > If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision
> > knowingly,
> > as
> > > a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan
> > and
> > > others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.
> > >
> > > That's what this is about.
> > >
> > > and it's based on:
> > >
> > > "Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the
> > New
> > > American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or
> > > contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six
> > who
> > > have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the
> > Bush
> > > administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for
> > Bush's
> > > foreign and defense policy.
> > > http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
> > >
> > > Paul Wolfowitz Political science doctorate from University of Chicago
> > and
> > > dean of the international relations program at Johns Hopkins
> > University
> > > during the 1990s. Served in the Reagan State Department, moved to the
> > > Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of
> > defense
> > > for policy. Sworn in as deputy defense secretary in March 2001.
> > >
> > > John Bolton Yale Law grad who worked in the Reagan administration as
> > an
> > > assistant attorney general. Switched to the State Department in the
> > first
> > > Bush administration as assistant secretary for international
> > organization
> > > affairs. Sworn in as undersecretary of state for arms control and
> > > international security, May 2001.
> > >
> > > Eliot Cohen Harvard doctorate in government who taught at Harvard and
> > at
> > > the Naval War College. Now directs strategic studies at Johns Hopkins
> > and
> > > is the author of several books on military strategy. Was on the
> > Defense
> > > Department's policy planning staff in the first Bush administration
> > and is
> > > now on Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board.
> > >
> > > I. Lewis Libby Law degree from Columbia (Yale undergrad). Held
> > advisory
> > > positions in the Reagan State Department. Was a partner in a
> > Washington
> > law
> > > firm in the late '80s before becoming deputy undersecretary of defense
> > for
> > > policy in the first Bush administration (under Dick Cheney). Now is
> > the
> > > vice president's chief of staff.
> > >
> > > Dov Zakheim Doctorate in economics and politics from Oxford
> > University.
> > > Worked on policy issues in the Reagan Defense Department and went into
> > > private defense consulting during the 1990s. Was foreign policy
> > adviser to
> > > the 2000 Bush campaign. Sworn in as undersecretary of defense
> > (comptroller)
> > > and chief financial officer for the Pentagon, May 2001.
> > >
> > > Stephen Cambone Political science doctorate from Claremont Graduate
> > School.
> > > Was in charge of strategic defense policy at the Defense Department in
> > the
> > > first Bush administration. Now heads the Office of Program, Analysis
> > and
> > > Evaluation at the Defense Department
> > > __
> > >
> > >
> > > **********************************************
> > > This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally
> > privileged.
> > > If you received this message in error or are not the intended
> > recipient,
> > you
> > > should destroy the e-mail message and any attachments or copies, and
> > you
> > are
> > > prohibited from retaining, distributing disclosing or using any
> > information
> > > contained herein.  Please inform us of the erroneous delivery by
> > return
> > > e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.
> > > **********************************************
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > If you use Ebay to shop online, you can shop Ebay from my website!
> > www.itilink.com/traine.iti