Various Leaders and Military Families Deliver Remarks at the National Press Club

FDCH Political Transcripts
January 15, 2003 Wednesday

VARIOUS LEADERS AND MILITARY FAMILIES DELIVER

REMARKS AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

LENGTH: 9176 words

SPEAKER:
VARIOUS LEADERS, VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE

 
VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE AND MILITARY FAMILIES SPEAK OUT
HOLD A NEWS CONFERENCE ON U.S. MILITARY BUILD-UP IN THE GULF
 
JANUARY 15, 2003

SPEAKERS: ERIK GUSTAFSON
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE

CHARLES SHEEHAN-MILES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE
 
NANCY LESSIN
CO-FOUNDER
MILITARY FAMILIES SPEAK OUT
 
CHARLEY RICHARDSON
CO-FOUNDER
MILITARY FAMILIES SPEAK OUT
 
JEFFREY MCKENZIE
CO-FOUNDER
MILITARY FAMILIES SPEAK OUT
 
STEVE ROBINSON
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL GULF WAR RESOURCE CENTER
 
 

GUSTAFSON: Good morning. My name is Erik Gustafson. I serve on the board of directors for Veterans for Common Sense. I served in the 1991 Gulf War as a specialist with the 864th Engineer Battalion.

Our press conference today marks the first time families with deployed service members and Gulf War veterans are joining forces to raise legitimate questions about our administration's headlong rush to war.

Twelve years ago, on January 17, 1991, hundreds of U.S. planes began bombing Iraq. Nearly 700,000 U.S. troops participated in the Gulf War and the liberation of Kuwait.

In 2003, the U.S. may deploy up to 350,000 troops to the Persian Gulf region. The Bush administration appears prepared to launch a first strike attack against Iraq and start a major U.S. war in a volatile region.

But there are sharp differences between 1991 and 2003. In 1991, Iraq had invaded Kuwait. The United Nations spoke clearly, with detailed resolutions: Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait or face the consequences, including military action.

In 1991, the U.S. had more than 30 allies. In contrast, in 2003 the U.S. has only one ally, the United Kingdom, which appears to be backing out.

In 1991, the U.S. had the support of the United Nations. In contrast, today the United Nations has not given backing to a first strike attack on Iraq. In fact, like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, such action would be in breach of the U.N. Charter and the very principles the United Nations was founded upon.

As a result of these sharp and significant differences, as well as the tremendous risks involved, Veterans for Common Sense and Military Families Speak Out join forces to highly critical questions the Bush administration has failed to address regarding Iraq.

Veterans for Common Sense and Military Families Speak Out are new organizations. Veterans for Common Sense was organized in August, 2002 by and for Gulf War veterans to bring common sense to the debate about Iraq.

Military Families Speak Out was formed last year by family members of service men and women deployed and about to deploy to fight possibly another major Gulf war. Military Families Speak Out opposes a unilateral U.S. attack against Iraq. It calls on the U.S. administration to work with the United Nations and our allies. We must live in the world, not regardless of it.

More information about our two organizations can be found on our web sites. The Veterans for Common Sense web site is frequently updated with information that's often not available here in the states from reports overseas.

GUSTAFSON: It's at veteransforcommonsense.org.

Speakers at our joint press conference today include decorated Desert Storm combat veterans who know war and its consequences firsthand. Also with us are family members of service men and women who recently deployed to the Persian Gulf. Their loved ones could be involved in combat any day. Because of this, their sense of urgency in demanding answers is serious and significant.

Veterans for Common Sense and Military Families Speak Out ask President George W. Bush to reassure them and an increasingly alarmed American public that his administration is not hell-bent on war, that he is not hell-bent on a military conflict that does not have the support of our allies or the United Nations.

Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, says there's no smoking gun. Experts agree Iraq isn't a clear and present danger. As one United Nations' inspector recently said, quote, "If we were to publish a report now, we would have zilch to put in it." Hardly, it sounds, that there are grounds for war. Respected conservative military analyst, Anthony Cordesman says, It's just not true that war is inevitable. It's never been true throughout political and military history."

Despite the lack of a threat, U.S. preparations for a second major war against Iraq continue. Those of us gathered here today strongly believe the president has failed to justify a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Veterans for Common Sense and Military Families Speak Out believe war against Iraq is neither necessary nor inevitable. Veterans and Military Families encourage the president to win without war by adhering to the U.N. process.

This is our message today: We are nonpartisan, we are Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

GUSTAFSON: We are strongly patriotic. And we are not hawks, nor are we doves, we believe in protecting democracy and American values.

Veterans for Common Sense and Military Families Speak Out, join forces to ask the president to slow the reckless rush to war. We make 10 key points. Each of the speakers from Veterans for Common Sense and Military Families Speak Out will highlight and expand on many of these themes.

One, we believe the U.S. can win without war. Winning without war means a diplomatic solution, working with the U.N. and allies. Winning without war means war should be a last resort, not a first option. Veterans and Military Families ask, why the rush to war, Mr. President?

Two, veterans and military families want the president to follow the United Nations lead. Following the U.N.'s lead means not launching an unprovoked, unilateral attack, invasion and occupation that would further devastate Iraq and perhaps jeopardize our own security.

U.N. weapons inspectors who are making significant progress require months to complete their investigation. Veterans and military families ask, Mr. President, why are you not allowing the inspections to work? Why is the U.S. ignoring the United Nations?

Three, from the FBI to the CIA there's no evidence of an operational link between Al Qaida and the Iraqi regime. Experts warn, however, that a U.S. war on Iraq could reverse the progress we are making against terrorism.

As Edward H. Hamm (ph), a six-figure donor to the Republican Party put it in Monday's Wall Street Journal, quote, "a billion bitter enemies will rise out of this war." Unforeseen consequences could impact the international standing and safety of all Americans. Veterans and military families ask, is the U.S. prepared to assume all the risks and costs involved with invading and occupying Iraq, a nation of 27 million without the support of our allies?

GUSTAFSON: Veterans and military families want the president — and this is the fourth point — to secure broad support from our allies. Broad support means more than just the support of one leader in one country, the United Kingdom.

In 1991, more than 30 nations combined efforts. Now, the U.S. appears to be going it alone, without the support of our allies. We ask: Why is the U.S. ignoring our allies?

Five, veterans and military families want the president to provide genuine evidence that Iraq poses a clear and immediate threat to the United States. To date, the president has not made a case for war. We ask: Mr. President, where is the evidence against Iraq?

Six, veterans and military families understand the enormous risk of war. We take war very seriously. It is our loved ones and fellow veterans who would risk injury and death in another Gulf war. Given the risks, both known and unknown, the U.S. could suffer casualties the U.S. has not seen since Vietnam. We ask: Mr. President, how many U.S. soldiers, Iraqi civilians and unwilling conscripts will be sacrificed in this war?

Seven, Yale economist William Nordhaus estimates that a war with Iraq over the next decade could cost as much as $1.9 trillion. How will we pay for this war? To make matters worse, our economy will likely take a $391 billion hit over the next two years. If federal dollars go toward this war, what will happen to state and city governments in need? According to the National Governor's Association, states are in the worst fiscal crisis since World War II. We ask: Mr. President, how badly will war harm our economy?

Eight, veterans and military families want the best military equipment for our soldiers. According to the General Accounting Office and the Army Audit (ph), chemical protection suits, gas masks and chemical detection alarms don't work. Without adequate protection and detection equipment, another generation of veterans remains vulnerable to the illnesses and disabilities suffered by tens of thousands of Desert Storm Veterans. Veterans and military families ask: Mr. President, why are U.S. soldiers still vulnerable?

GUSTAFSON: Nine. We insist that when our soldiers return from any conflict, regardless of the outcome, that they receive the best medical care possible. They earned it. President Abraham Lincoln had said, "Care for those who have borne the burden of battle and their widows and orphans."

We know there are chemical weapons and depleted uranium on the battlefields of today. Veterans of military families ask, "Mr. President, is the Department of Veteran Affairs fully funded and prepared to handle heavy causalities from urban combat, casualties from chemical exposures, and causalities from the use of radioactive, depleted uranium?"

And finally, ten, most importantly, war is not inevitable. We have not passed the point of no return. It is the president who would launch a unilateral first strike against Iraq. We ask: Mr. President, why the rush to war without all the facts, with the support of our allies and without the support of the United Nations. Gulf War veterans and military families require answers now

That concludes our joint comments. Please allow me to introduce the speakers today. Each will give a brief statement, and we will follow that with questions and answers. Again, my name is Erik Gustafson. I also serve as the executive director of the Education for Peace In Iraq Center, that's epic-usa.org (ph), a Washington-based human rights organization that focuses on improving humanitarian conditions and the human rights situation in Iraq. I've been working on that since 1997.

With me are also Nancy Lessin and Charley Richardson, co-founders of Military Families Speak Out. Charley directs the labor extension program at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell. Nancy works for the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. They, by the way, are both from Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts.

GUSTAFSON: Charley and Nancy's son, Joe, is a Marine who already deployed to the Persian Gulf. Joe serves as an Arab language specialist.

Next, Steve Robinson will speak. He's the executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center. Prior to retiring as a sergeant first class from the Army, Robinson worked with the Pentagon's Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses. During the Gulf War, he served with the first 10th Special Forces in northern Iraq. Steve is an expert on issues related to Gulf War illnesses, including chemical warfare agents, the anthrax vaccine and depleted uranium.

Next, Jeffrey McKenzie is also a co-founder of Military Families Speak Out. His son, Army Captain Jeremy McKenzie, is currently being deployed to Kuwait as a MedEvac pilot. His daughter-in-law, Nicole, is in the National Guard.

And the final speaker will be Charles Sheehan-Miles. He also serves on the board of directors for Veterans for Common Sense. Charles is a decorated Gulf War combat veteran. He served as a tank crewman with the Army's 24th Infantry Division. He is the former president of the National Gulf War Resource Center where he worked to secure health care and disability benefits for Gulf War veterans.

Allow me to close by stating that today also marks the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King. Dr. King is an American hero. He was one of our first national leaders to promote nonviolent solutions to national conflicts and to oppose the Vietnam War.

Please join us in a moment of silence for Dr. King and all those killed, injured and suffering from the first Gulf War, Americans and Iraqis. Let us hope that we have learned a lesson. Let us not repeat the mistakes of 1991.

(MOMENT OF SILENCE)

GUSTAFSON: With that, I'd like to have Nancy start.

LESSIN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters.

Charley and I are here today to speak out against war in Iraq. Speaking out against war is not new for us. What is new is the very personal stake we have in this current conflict. My step-son, Charley's son Joe, is 25 years old and in the Marines.

LESSIN: I helped to raise this extraordinary young man since he was 5 years old. He shipped out at the end of August 2002. He is now in the Persian Gulf being prepared for battle.

As military families, we have both a special voice and a special need to speak out against the rush to war. For this reason, Charley and I were co-founders of Military Families Speak Out, an organization of people who are opposed to war in Iraq who have loved ones in the military.

We notice that those who say we got to go to war aren't going anywhere, nor are their loved ones. It's other people's children who are being sent, our loved ones.

We invite others across the country in a similar position to contact us, to help build the voice of military families against this war. Together we will not feel so alone. Collectively we can make a difference. Visit our web site at or call us at 617-522-9323.

We worry about Joe. We don't want him to be wounded or die. We don't want him to be forced to wound or kill innocent Iraqis. That would kill a part of him and a part of us.

We are not pacifists. As Joe's grandfather, a World War II veteran said when talking about his own opposition to this war: War is never a good thing, although sometimes it is necessary. This is not one of those times.

Those who say war in Iraq is necessary as defense of the U.S. is a blow against terrorism need to look harder at the facts and think again. The cost will be high. Despite the talk of drones and smart bombs, there will be men, women and children dying. If the United States engages in a unilateral war on Iraq or war with a few arm- twisted allies, the Marines, including Joe, will not be defending this country.

They tell us that war is about making the world safe from terrorism. What we know is that if tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are killed or injured, we will not be safer. If the U.S. leads the way into Iraq, we will be more, not less of a target.

Some say that opposing the war is unpatriotic and unsupportive of Joe and the others who are preparing for battle. But we know that the epithets "unpatriotic" and "unsupportive" are being used to silence voices of protests, and our voice will not be silenced.

We know that the most loving and supportive thing we can do for Joe is to keep writing him, keep sending him cookies and brownies, and fighting to stop this war from ever happening, to keep yet another generation from being put in harm's way for the wrong reasons.

LESSIN: So we will continue to protest. And we will love Joe and hold him close in our hearts and anxiously await the day when we can hold him close in our arms.

GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Nancy.

Next, Steve will speak on behalf of the National Gulf War Resource Center.

ROBINSON: My name is Steve Robinson. I'm the executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center.

The resource center was formed shortly after the first Gulf War because veterans returned home and began to ask questions of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs about what were the true exposures that occurred in 1991.

As of January 2002, more than 307,000 out of 567,000 eligible veterans who served in the first Gulf War have sought treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs; that's roughly 54 percent.

As of January 2002, more than 198,000 out of 567,000 veterans have filed claims for disability as a result of illnesses that they believe are connected to exposures that occurred during the first Gulf War; that's roughly 35 percent.

According to DOD's own admissions, as well as the investigations by Congress over the last 11 years, DOD has failed Gulf War veterans miserably. Here's how: Poor medical record keeping before, during and after the war; lack of unit location; lack of accurate chemical and biological detection monitoring systems; lack of predictive analysis for the direction of downwind hazards as a result of bombing storage facilities; lack of knowledge on the use of investigational new drugs and vaccines that our soldiers will also be faced with today; poor enforcement and adherence to pesticide use during the war; and lack of training on the exposures and dangers with the use of depleted uranium.

The mistakes of 1991 are present today. Recently, when asked about U.S. preparedness and war-fighting capability on a chemical and biological battlefield, the deputy secretary for chemical and biological defense, Secretary Anna Winegar, stated: "Are we fully equipped and prepared? No. Are we better off than we were a number of years ago? Yes."

Well, I'd like to take issue with that. Let's examine the facts as we know them today.

Recently, Christopher Shays has held several hearings in his committee that explored two basic areas of chemical and biological defense preparedness. Number one was, whether or not the protective gear was durable as advertised and whether or not it was available for the troops that might possibly use it.

The evidence is that there's a shortage of shelters that can be driven to the front to provide protection for troops. The current shelters are unserviceable and may cause veterans to have to — if they have to be exposed to chemical and biological agents — exchange their MOPP suits in an environment in which they'll be further exposed.

In a closed session of the Shays committee, conclusions of a classified inspector general report that talked about the protective equipment that was in use currently for the military was discussed. This briefing was classified and was not made public.

But in a related story, a journalist from Deseret News, a correspondent uncovered a FOIA — and this is the FOIA right here and some of you will have a copy of it in your packet — a FOIA in which an Army report claims that up to 62 percent of the Army's gas masks and 90 percent of the detectors it uses to alert troops to invisible chemical attacks may be defective.

Another report, by the General Accounting Office, found that the Pentagon has lost track of up to 250,000 defective chemical suits, somewhere lost in the Army inventory.

ROBINSON: These problems and many other mistakes have not been corrected, and they create a real concern for everyone, and it seems that everyone is ignoring them.

Now, it is obvious when a soldier steps on a land mine what kind of injury he has received and what kind of treatment should be given to him. However, the Gulf War veteran of 1991 is living proof that chemical and biological weapons injuries are harder to see.

Yet, because there is no legislation or directive covering this area, the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs can and most likely will deny the claims of the next generation of Gulf War veterans, much like they have done for the 1991 Gulf War veteran.

As a result of lessons learned from 1991, the Department of Defense and others developed what was called the Gulf War — as a result of Gulf War Illness Syndrome, the Department of Defense and others developed a plan called Force Self-Protection (ph). This was a policy that was actually written into law by Congress and the public law was PL 105-85, subsection 762 through 767.

And what it says is that there is a certain amount of things that have to be done before, during and after war to protect soldiers. The department is failing to enact this policy. It is important to protect the soldiers who are out there currently that this policy be enacted. I encourage you all to look at that public law.

DOD should not be allowed to withhold information from veterans and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Over the last 11 years — 12 years now — veterans groups through Congress in oversight hearings have called for the elimination of the culture of delay, denial and obstruction for the types of exposures that occurred in 1991. And you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the past 50 years of less than honesty when soldiers are injured on battlefields or in experimental testing.

So let's fast forward to today. The eyes of the presidency are squarely on Iraq. The Joint Chiefs are revising battle plans to invade. They've begun the process of moving troops and equipment.

For those who lived it, the situation is exactly the same as 12 years ago: Military service members faced toward Southwest Asia and they prepared for battle. Commanders readied their troops. Intelligence reports briefed to soldiers told them to expect 60 percent casualties. It was going to be a tank war, and it was going to be very serious.

So, soldiers were sent to war with the best equipment and the best training, or so they said in 1990. But those comments have not stood the test of time. We all know that military service is inherently dangerous and that war compounds the danger factor significantly. It's a risk soldiers understand.

So over the last 11 years, DOD has basically obfuscated the facts of what happened in 1991, and here we are hurtling headlong into another Gulf War.

But science and credible studies have now caught up and eclipsed the denials of DOD, and recently very strong movements have been made forward to research Gulf War Illness issues.

I'd like to talk a lot more, but we can't put 11 years of the Gulf War into seven minutes, so I'm going to switch all the way now to the end of the conclusions.

In order to understand what veterans of today might face, we have to rethink our beliefs. Lessons learned from 1991 must be considered before we fight another toxic war. We will all be forced to wait and see what happens to the next generation of Gulf War veterans, but today I want you to consider three questions.

Number one, do we know what we're asking our solders to do, based on our equipment and the soldiers' ability to use it? This report says we're not ready. It's from the military.

ROBINSON: Is it worth the risk and the cost of war before, during and after, and who is going to be the mayor of Baghdad for the next 25 years?

And the third question is, is it in our national interest at this moment in time to take this action?

If we can't answer "yes" to all these questions, then we either need to fix the deficiencies or develop a new plan that can meet the requirements of the questions asked.

For further information about Gulf War veterans and Gulf War veterans' illnesses please refer to .

And thank you for coming here.

GUSTAFSON: Next, Jeff with Military Families Speak Out.

MCKENZIE: Good morning.

I wrote this after I found out my son was deployed or being deployed.

"As we enter a new year, a major storm is brewing outside. The howling winds are picking up out of the West and dark ominous clouds are piling up on the horizon. The high seas are turbulent and the mighty waves are crashing on shore.

"People are preparing for what seems to be the inevitable and the unpredictable. They are stockpiling supplies, battening down the hatches and spending time with loved ones. Those that are far away and their loved ones are reflecting on memories of the times past, thoughts of present and the uncertainty of the future.

"The forecasters are projecting when and where the storm will hit or if it will blow over. The experts are predicting the damage to property and the number of casualties. Planners are making educated guesses of what will be needed as the storm gains strength and the amount of havoc it will raise and if it strikes land. Officials are posturing, spewing propaganda, preparing the masses, not trying to alarm but reassure. Yet uncertainty abounds.

"What will become of this fierce storm? Will it spawn other storms or will it fizzle out?"

The storm I am describing is the looming war in Iraq and the rumors of other wars around the globe, not to mention a couple dozen wars already raging around the planet.

Too often we only look at war in this abstract way. We ignore the human element, especially when war is thousands of miles away and our lives remain relatively unchanged.

But those massing on the battlefield, those awaiting orders to deploy and those with members of their own family in harm's way know the realities of warfare or are about to, whether they want to or not.

My son, Jeremy, has received his orders to deploy to Kuwait sometime in the next two weeks, along with his entire unit. Jeremy and my daughter-in-law, Nicole, are two of the millions of young men and women proudly serving their country in uniform. These young men and women have much in common with others who serve their country; they stand by the ideals of their country and have chosen to defend their country from enemy attack, laying their lives on the line if need be.

Jeremy is a captain in the U.S. Army, a command helicopter pilot in his medical company. Nicole is presently in the National Guard after having completed her enlistment in the regular Army last year. Nicole is also deployable. Jeremy's working on his master's degree and Nicole is part way through her nursing program. They would like to start thinking about having a family, but uncertainty hangs in the air. Nicole will sign up for classes next semester, but any plans for a family have been put on hold.

The passing and approaching storms have swept me into action. While I love the U.S. and everyone knows I love Jeremy and Nicole, I am strongly opposed to a war with Iraq and the Bush administration's policies. A war in Iraq has nothing to do with defending our shores; it has everything to do with settling an old grudge, with the interest of major corporations in controlling Iraq's oil reserves.

MCKENZIE: The Bush administration and its policies are moving us into a dangerous new game of brinkmanship. President Bush has put the whole world on notice that either you are with us or against us. He has also singled out several countries as being part of the so-called axis of evil. Our policy of defending our soil is being scraped and replaced by a policy of aggression. The U.S. is flagrantly ignoring international law and arm-twisting allies and enemies alike to gain support while openly saying it will go it alone if it has to.

In response, I've joined millions around the world who are patriots for peace, and our ranks continue to grow. Last year, while attending SUNY Brockport, I was a founding member of Brockport's Students Against War. This past November, I decided to reach out to military families that oppose a war in Iraq. We have formed Military Families Speak Out.

If you or someone you know is in the military and questioning the current tide, have them contact us. We must hold President Bush, Congress and those individuals rushing toward war accountable. I will not accept an attack on Iraq or the deaths of U.S. service members, like my son and those Iraqis defending their country. I will not accept the loss of more innocent children, women or men. I call upon the U.S., Britain and the U.N. to lift the non-military sanctions already in place against Iraq because they impact the most vulnerable.

Since 1991, sanctions have contributed to the deaths of over half a million innocent children in Iraq. Understand, we are all part of the same human family. We share the same planet, we breath the same air and we drink the same water, and what we eat comes from the same ground. War is devastating to all of us. It contaminates our water, the air and the soil that we all need to survive. War kills and maims.

So as a father, I get there and I have really torn emotions. I love my son, who in many ways is like my best friend. And as he goes to war or off to Kuwait, I will let him know I love him. I will tell him I am proud of him and what he does, because his task is to fly a medical ambulance to pick up the wounded no matter what side they serve on.

MCKENZIE: But I cannot tell him I agree with his deployment, or the orders of his commander-in-chief. I do not, and I strongly oppose both.

So I ask that you pray with me for peace, work for peace, and love those around you. Please join with me and the millions of others saying no to war Iraq. It is time we taught our children not to wage war, but to make peace.

GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Jeff.

And the final statement will come from Charles Sheehan-Miles, who is also a board member of Veterans for Common Sense.

SHEEHAN-MILES: Hi, my name is Charles Sheehan-Miles. I'm going to talk very briefly about why I'm involved with Veterans for Common Sense, and what some of our concerns are.

In 1941, my grandfather was captured by the Japanese, and he spent the war as a POW. In 1967, my father went to Vietnam, and he served his year there in the Marine Corps. And so in 1990, it wasn't probably that big of a surprise that I got sent off to the gulf. I served there as a tank crewman on the front lines with the 24th Infantry Division. I killed a lot of Iraqis. Twelve members of my division were killed in action.

And so, the point I want to make today, and I think the core point that we're all saying is that war should be the last resort. Inherently, war is about death, it's about chaos, it's about destruction. You can't predict what is going to happen in a war. You can't sit down in a nice little strategy room in the White House and say here's how it's going to go, all nice and neat. That's what happened before Vietnam. That's what world leaders did before World War I. They thought it was going to be over in a few weeks.

Some of the complications that we are facing in this war that are different than 1991. In 1991, we fought in the open desert. Students of military history will see that desert warfare tends to be typically lopsided. Lots of prisoners, battles are over quickly, and the victor typically doesn't suffer that many causalities. It's just the nature of desert warfare.

This isn't going to be desert warfare, because we're not talking about fighting the Iraqi army out in the open in the middle of the desert. We're talking about invasion, we're talking about urban fighting, and we're talking about a long-term occupation.

And let's think about what some of those things involve. The Israelis right now know what it's like to occupy another country long term. OK. The United States learned that lesson in Vietnam. When you've got a hostile population, when you're try to occupy someone else's country, the inherent result is going to be casualties. The inherent result is going to be people who will be angry with America.

Urban warfare. Everyone's seen "Black Hawk Down," but that's just one of many, many, many examples when in urban conflict all of our technological advantages are wiped out. One of the only urban engagements we had in '91, at the Battle of Kofghi (ph), the United States took many casualties. OK. And that wasn't anything like Baghdad. That was a small town on the border of Saudi Arabia.

We've already talked about — Steve mentioned the fact that the Army itself has investigated the fact that their suits don't work. The masks don't work. This is very serious. The Pentagon wrote 140,000 Gulf War veterans and said: You may have been exposed to sarin, cyclosarin and mustard during a demolition shortly after the cease-fire; but don't worry, it won't hurt you, you're OK.

SHEEHAN-MILES: But the fact is is that the Department of Veterans Affairs has run analyses on those very veterans who were written by the Pentagon, and what they found is those people are more likely to be disabled today.

Now, let's think about the implications of that. The '91 Gulf War was lauded as virtually casualtyless. We lost just over 100 men and women in combat.

But the fact is is that today we're paying $2 billion a year in disability benefits to Gulf War veterans. Over their lifetime that's going to be, what, $100 billion?

These are costs that the Congressional Budget Office, when they did their analysis of how much this war was going to cost, they just simply excluded the cost of casualties.

So right there you might have an extra $100 billion, $200 billion maybe added to the cost of this war. Not to mention the impact on the lives of those hundreds of thousands who may be injured, who may be sick, who will have their lives impacted.

So my point here is that you don't just go off to war willy- nilly. You take it very seriously. War must be the last resort.

So the question is is has the Bush administration taken all of the steps necessary to make sure that this is the last resort?

Before we put our troops in harm's way, before we go out there and kill innocent Americans, before we go out there and kill innocent civilians in Iraq, we'd better be sure we're doing absolutely the right thing.

So what's going to be the impact of this war? Well, most experts agree that occupying an Arab country for five years, 10 years, however long it takes, is more likely to increase the risk of terror attacks against Americans. Is that what we want? Is this going to make us safer? I don't think so.

Invading Iraq distracts us from the war against terrorism. Even now we're deploying the 3rd Infantry Division out of Fort Stewart, Georgia, to Kuwait. They're talking about numbers in excess of 130,000 troops, or 150,000 troops, in and around Iraq by next month. These are all troops who aren't going to be looking for terrorists, because they're preparing for war against Iraq.

The troops are unprepared, they're untrained for dealing with things like depleted uranium poisoning. And this is a very big issue, and recent research shows that in animal studies, if you get exposed to the very same exposures the Gulf War veterans were exposed to, they'll get cancer, they'll get sick.

Invading Iraq is going to fuel more Mideast hatred against the United States, and it's going to destabilize the Middle East. A lot of experts in this have talked about the risk of seeing the governments of Jordan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan destabilized by a unilateral American invasion of Iraq. Do we want to embroil that whole region in another war? I don't think so.

You can see some numbers over here on this sign.

SHEEHAN-MILES: I want to just raise attention to them. Steve went over some of these numbers; 207,000 Gulf War Veterans filed disability claims, and 159,000 were granted. These are people who went to the VA and a medical doctor established a connection between their service in the gulf and their disabilities and illnesses today.

You know, this isn't Gulf War veterans self-reporting their illnesses. This isn't people saying, "Oh, we think we're sick." The government has actually gone through the full process and established that these people are sick, and they're paying out disability, medical care to all of these veterans.

That's the impact of our first war. And it wasn't as clean and as pretty as people think. And this number, this $1.8 billion doesn't even cover the cost of medical care. It doesn't cover the cost of readjustment. It doesn't cover any of the costs except for straight cash payments.

So again, for us to be going into this war right now, we must be sure we're doing absolutely the right thing. And I'm not convinced. And I think many of my fellow Americans are not convinced that it's the right thing today to send our troops into harm's way.

Thank you.

GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Charles.

For all of you who have a press packet, there is a yellow sheet that has the same figures that you just saw, as well as report from Anthony Cordesman regarding the tremendous risks involved with an invasion and occupation of Kuwait. He is with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

I'd like to just open it up to questions. But before I do so, I want to introduce some of the other veterans and family members who are standing with us.

Also with us, Dr. Steve Cleghorn (ph), whose stepson is a major in the U.S. Army, 5th Corps headquarters, presently deployed to Kuwait. Steve (ph) works on homeless issues here in Washington, D.C.

We have James Landrith (ph), who is with Veterans Against An Iraq War, another organization. And there are so many organizations that have started. It's really important. And I know that this has been a story that has been picked up and it's appreciated. But it's extremely important to understand that we do not live in the 1960s anymore, and so many Americans are becoming involved in so many different ways. Veterans Against An Iraq War is yet one example of thousands.

He is a Marine veteran who served in the Gulf War from December 1990 to May 1991 with the 2nd Force Service Support Group.

Also with us is Brig Sekens, is with Maine Veterans For Peace. He served during Operation Desert Storm with the 3rd Armored Division.

And to my left, Lieutenant Colonel Joe Mayer (ph), retired, is a Vietnam Veteran who opposes President Bush's intention to unilaterally begin a preemptive war on Iraq. Joe (ph) is an attorney in Washington, D.C., and currently runs a major trade association.

And there are others in the audience with us. I see a couple other Gulf War veterans with us. And there might be other families that have joined us but are not standing at the front.

With that, I do want to open it up to questions. And with each question, please let me know who you are directing it to, so that we can facilitate this period as much as possible.

QUESTION: A question for the people from Military Families Speak Out. I wonder if you can give us a sense of how big your organization is; and also whether you've had any kind of reaction from family members who are in the armed services.

GUSTAFSON: Charley?

RICHARDSON: Military Families Speak Out is a new organization just started in November. We are growing, but at this point we're fairly small.

What we found as we go around and talk to people is that there are a lot of people who are against this war who have relatives in the military who are frankly afraid to speak out against the war. They're afraid that both that there will be repercussions on the people in the military, and also they're afraid that people will feel unsupported by their speaking out.

Now, we've decided that it's important to speak out, that the way we can best support or son and other people in the military is to speak out and stop this war before it even begins.

The second part of your question?

QUESTION: Whether you've had any reaction from — any of you have had any reaction from (OFF-MIKE).

RICHARDSON: My son Joe knows exactly what we're doing. We let him know what we're doing. We keep in touch with him. We don't want to do anything that gets him trouble or causes him problems. He knows what we're doing, and he accepts it, and tells us how much he loves us.

GUSTAFSON: It's important also — I mean, Military Families Speak Out is an organization that Veterans for Common Sense only just recently learned about. And one of the services that they've been able to provide that's so vitally important for the other military families that are facing the prospect of their loved ones going into war is providing a discussion list, an e-mail discussion list. There's so much that is happening on the Internet, much of it below radar.

And for those military families that, you know, learn about this organization, I hope that they will visit the web site, mfso.org, and perhaps subscribe to this discussion list so that they can share concerns with other military families facing the same issues.

Next question?

QUESTION: You've talked about chemical weapons and chemical materials that were used the first Gulf War. Obviously there have been a lot of reports about this. Can you tell us from your point of view as veterans who actually did take part in that war, who used those chemicals (OFF-MIKE) the Iraqis or the allies?

GUSTAFSON: You ask a very good question, because I think that's where there is some confusion. And I'd like to briefly answer it, but then I'd like to pass it on to my colleagues who are far more experts on this.

According to the Department of Defense, I was possibly exposed to chemical warfare agents when U.S. forces that were occupying southern Iraq unknowingly blew up an Iraqi chemical weapons ammunition dump. This was in March 1991. It was the Khamisiyah incident. My entire unit was exposed.

I have a friend who suffers from seizures. His family has no history of seizures.

Sarin was one of the chemical agents that was known to be in that ammunition dump. And sarin is where there has been a tremendous amount of peer-reviewed medical research to discover all kinds of health effects as a result of exposure to sarin, even low-level exposures from that chemical weapons fallout that happened during the war.

So I'd like to pass it on to others to answer your question, too.

(UNKNOWN): There were several main exposures we're talking about. Of course, the Khamisiyah incident is one of the best known ones. That was, you know, 140,000 troops were exposed to three chemicals. It was sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.

(UNKNOWN): They were all in very low concentrations. And one of the points I want to make here is that to date the U.S. government has not service-connected veterans for that exposure. That's one of the things that the Gulf War Resource Center is working on. And the reason why is because even just recently, as recently as last week, new research has come out showing that exposure — sub-acute exposures, where you don't see initial symptoms, can cause long-term problems, including nerve damage, brain damage and reproductive issues.

Some of the other exposures that are of concern were depleted uranium. We used some 300 tons of depleted uranium ammunition in the Gulf. One of the properties of those DU rounds is that they become aerosolized into tiny, tiny breathable fragments. And so the vehicles that they had are contaminated and are dangerous, less from a radiological standpoint, than from a chemical standpoint.

And immediately after the cease-fire, you know, the troops were bused up to the front line and they climbed on top of all these contaminated vehicles and got their pictures taken. And then, subsequently, civilians in the area did the same — scavengers, people who took stuff off of the equipment. So there was vast exposures to this depleted uranium.

Some of the other exposures that we're concerned about were experimental drugs, including an anthrax vaccine, which has had tremendous controversy surrounding it. And also, a nerve gas pre- treatment drug called pyridostigmine bromide, which is also been implicated in some problems. So this kind of quick survey of what some of the main ones were.

GUSTAFSON: I also wanted to give Steve an opportunity. And I also want to emphasize, again, in your packets there's fact sheets on a lot of what was just talked about: the anthrax vaccine, the PB pills, low-level exposure to chemical agents. But I think Steve can directly answer your question best.

ROBINSON: The question I heard you ask was, who? And the Department of Defense admitted that, to the best of their knowledge, Iraq did not use chemical or biological weapons offensively during the first Gulf War. The incident at Khamisiyah was what individuals from the 82nd Airborne, in the conduct of a demolition operation, inadvertently exposed themselves to sarin and cyclo-sarin when they destroyed 122 millimeter rockets with sarin. I think that answers your question.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) 10 reasons why you don't think the U.S. should go to war against Iraq. And one of them is the threat of chemical and biological weapons (OFF-MIKE) the Iraqis might have. Now, is that a recognition of the Bush administration's premise that the Iraqis do have chemical and biological weapons?

GUSTAFSON: It's not a recognition in terms of the threat or the inflation of the threat that the administration has put out there. It's not supported by even the most well-known and respected arms control experts.

And with inspections proceeding right now — and I mean, this is a story that I think is really critical and more and more Americans are learning about, and they do want to see inspections work — they now have helicopters. They're soon going to have unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct surveillance.

GUSTAFSON: They have over 100 inspectors on the ground now. They just set up an office not only in Baghdad, but also in Mosul. I mean, this is an extremely aggressive inspection regime.

In all the work that I have done, I do believe that Iraq might still be concealing some vestiges of its previous program, these 1980 stocks, much of which is outdated and militarily insignificant. Or it might be trying to still conceal the ability to restart those programs.

However, that is the work — that is part of the work that the inspectors are there to do, not just to inspect and verify whether or not Iraq is being — is providing full disclosure in its declaration. But also to disarm Iraq. And that clearly is something that we support, and we want to see proceed, and is a far more effective, including cost-effective, means of disarming Iraq.

And just one final point. If Iraq still possesses, like, mustard agencies, canisters with mustard agents or shells, that might be something that can still — that has a longer shelf life. So there is that threat that if the United States is involved in an end-game that involves invading Baghdad to overthrow the government, then there's no longer anything that prevents the regime from using whatever weapons it has against us.

And that's where we have a tremendous concern, especially given the vulnerability of our U.S. soldiers to that kind of attack. Not to mention the fact that any Iraqi civilians — and over 5 million live in Baghdad — they will have no protection against the fallout as well.

QUESTION: How large is the veterans (OFF-MIKE) the question was about the military families speak out, the earlier one. I want to know how many members do you have in the veteran (OFF-MIKE) and apart from that, what's your sense of how the majority of veterans feel about the prospect of war with Iraq?

GUSTAFSON: I think this is a good question for Charles.

RICHARDSON (ph): I manage the web site, so I could probably give you a good answer. We are not a formally organized organization yet. We are just getting started. So we don't have dues and we don't have signed-up members.

We have thus far had some 400 veterans sign on to our statement, and hundreds of other people. I get, you know, several thousand people coming to our web site every day. So it's tough to say how many with a solid number. But that 400 veterans signing our statement was probably your best count.

GUSTAFSON: And you also wanted that question directed to the Military Families Speak Out?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

GUSTAFSON: OK, that's fine.

QUESTION: Yes, I'd just like to ask the question to anyone who would like to answer. You've all stated your opposition to unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq, maybe with a handful of allies. I'd like to ask any of you, would you support in the next few months, if the U.N. Security Council finds Iraq in breach of the various resolutions and gives its general authorization for a U.S.-led attack, where you have the U.N. authorization but U.S. forces would probably be bearing the front of the fight; in that situation, would any of you support military action?

GUSTAFSON: I think it would — you described something I would be quite extraordinary and a reverse of where the Security Council stands right now. There was unanimous consent to see the inspections proceed. And the inspectors, the experts on the job, are clearly stating that this is a process that will take many months.

So the time line of one month or two months just because the weather is good and we have to launch an invasion as soon as possible, that does not fit with the time line that the Security Council had in mind when it unanimously adopted U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.

And secondly, just from a military standpoint, you know, the policeman is on the beat.

GUSTAFSON: The inspectors are on the ground. There is no way that Iraq can conceal a restart of its weapons of mass destruction programs. And given that, we do have the time to continue to proceed.

A finding of material breach, what that requires as stated by the Security Council resolution, is not just whether or not Iraq gives full disclosure. And I think that there's shortcomings there, and even Hans Blix has stated so. But Iraq would also have to stop cooperating with the weapons inspection process, and that has not occurred.

If anyone else has anything to add?

MAYER (ph): Yes, I would add something.

GUSTAFSON: This is Lieutenant Colonel Joe Mayer (ph).

MAYER (ph): This is speculative, of course, but if the Iraqis began to behave as the North Koreans are currently behaving, it might give us some pause and we would have to review our position.

ROBINSON: And I'd like to say for our organization, the National Gulf War Resource Center, we are not trying to prevent a war. What we're trying to do is present to you the effects of war, relating it to the experiences of the 1991 Gulf War veterans who are still suffering from the effects of chemical weapons exposure at Khamisiyah, the effects of depleted uranium, the anthrax vaccine and other environmental factors that occurred.

The costs of war are greater than have been presented to the average American, and those are the issues, I think. And so to answer the question, soldiers know that war happens, soldiers know that wars sometimes are inevitable.

I would refer back to what we said at the beginning. I don't think the case has been made that this is that time. Question three that I brought up was, is it in the national interest at this time to take this action based on what we currently know?

And imagine that you see a smooth pond and you take a rock and you throw it in the middle of that pond, there's going to be a ripple effect that goes out 360 degrees. That is the unintended consequence of throwing that rock into that pond.

The same thing will happen if we fight a war with Iraq and we don't have the support of the world. There's going to be unintended consequences that ripple out 360 degrees.

QUESTION: Is there any evidence of people actively serving in the military sharing your concerns, and perhaps being reluctant to deploy in the Gulf? And are you going to encourage or support such actions?

GUSTAFSON: You speak of evidence, and I mean I can tell you from experience, and I think the other veterans that are here can speak of the experience, that when you go into battle, when you are sent to war, you're really thinking about the guy to your right and left. That's your focus. You're there to do a mission, and you're not there making the policy.

That's what happens here in Washington, and that's one of the reasons why we're holding this press conference today is we want to see the administration stop the continued deployments to the Gulf, stop the military build-up and adhere to the U.N. process.

That's a policy change that we hope will happen so that a whole another generation of veterans won't experience what our generation of veterans have been experiencing because of being ill-prepared and making the same mistakes as in 1991, as well as going — fighting an unnecessary war, a war that can be avoided.

(UNKNOWN): I just want to address that for one moment. It's — you know, when you're a private in the Army it doesn't matter whether you approve of the war or not. You're going.

And in many ways that's exactly correct; that's the way it should be.

(UNKNOWN): Because it's the job of our military to carry out those policies that our government has set.

Many of us are here today because we see it as our responsibility as citizens to make sure that those people aren't put in harm's way unnecessarily. And that's really what this comes down to is is this the best thing for America. I believe this is bad for America. And that's why I am here.

GUSTAFSON: I also know that there is some evidence out there. If you do go against orders, if you refuse to deploy, then you're in the brig. You know, you are often processed out dishonorable discharge. I know that already there is reports of soldiers that are being sent to Leavenworth and other disciplinary action's being taken.

And I also know that it's not just resistance to going to war, but also resistance to taking the same steps that the previous generation of Gulf War veterans had to take. Men and women who are refusing to take the anthrax vaccine, those that are on a ship, they're in the brig right now as we speak, and they will be there for the duration of their deployment.

I'd like to have Briggs (ph) speak.

BRIGGS (ph): I can speak to that a little bit. I did not support the Gulf War I participated in particularly. I mean, it was a real — I was a 20 year old, not very educated on world events. But my general sense was that it seemed quite a bit like this one, although people have said we had the U.N. along, so a more justified cause. But I wouldn't have in any circumstances considered outright refusal.

I was an infantryman. I carried a saw gun. There was a squad of guys that needed me to have the saw gun to lay down fire. And I just wouldn't have considered doing it.

But I feel that I did put my life on the line one time at a young age, something that most of the administration can't say…

(END OF AUDIO FEED)

END

ORGANIZATION:  NATIONAL PRESS CLUB  (90%); NATIONAL PRESS CLUB (84%); UNITED NATIONS  (54%); UNITED NATIONS (54%); 

COUNTRY:  UNITED STATES (99%); IRAQ (94%); KUWAIT (94%); GULF STATES (79%); UNITED KINGDOM (79%); 

COMPANY:  NATIONAL PRESS (73%);   NATIONAL PRESS CLUB  (90%); NATIONAL PRESS CLUB (84%); UNITED NATIONS  (54%); UNITED NATIONS (54%); 

SUBJECT: MILITARY; FAMILIES; NPC  PRESS CONFERENCES (90%); MILITARY DEPENDENTS (90%); BOARDS OF DIRECTORS (90%); VETERANS (90%); MILITARY OPERATIONS (90%); WAR & CONFLICT (90%); FAMILY (90%); ARMED FORCES (90%); US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (89%); UNITED NATIONS INSTITUTIONS (86%); 

PERSON:  GEORGE W BUSH (59%); ERIK GUSTAFSON (58%); 

LOAD-DATE: January 16, 2003

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

TYPE: NEWS CONFERENCE

NOTES:
[????] – Indicates Speaker Unknown
   [–] – Indicates could not make out what was being said.[off mike] – Indicates could not make out what was being said.
Copyright 2003 FDCHeMedia, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.