portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

Bill Bradbury has come out AGAINST attacking Iraq

You can read the press release from yesterday for details, but the bottom line is Bradbury does not support attacking Iraq.
Here is part of Bradbury's press release:

A preemptive, go-it-alone approach risks short-circuiting diplomacy and would undermine the very support needed to win the war on terrorism. It would also jeopardize the diplomatic and financial support of our allies--who were critical to our success in the first Gulf War, and are necessary for success in the future.

General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe recently noted, a premature, go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida." Preemptive, unilateral military action could galvanize a new generation of suicide bombers that would threaten the United States and our allies. Further, a preemptive, unilateral invasion of Iraq, without UN support, would set an exceptionally dangerous precedent for the conduct of international affairs in the 21st Century. Any nation could justify attacking its neighbors. India may be emboldened to preemptively strike Pakistan. Mainland China may see a green-light to conquer Taiwan. We should only pursue war after all diplomatic and other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted. In the event that Iraq refuses tough inspections, a broader military campaign may ultimately prove necessary. And I believe without a doubt that Congress would act swiftly to authorize force in such circumstances. But we should undertake war only as a last resort, not a first option.This does not mean giving the U.N. a veto over U.S. actions. It simply means that Saddam is a world problem and should be addressed in the world arena. Congress and the American people deserve to know the real costs and risks of war with Iraq. Oregonians deserve to know what this war will mean in terms of blood and treasure before we put our sons and daughters in harm's way.

homepage: homepage: http://www.bradbury2002.com/press_releases/1009_iraq_statement.html

now ask Furse to reconsider endorsement 10.Oct.2002 14:56

anon


On the other hand... 10.Oct.2002 22:57

Witness

During Bradbury's Environmental Town Hall Meeting he endorsed the following (it was video-taped, so there shouldn't be much controversy about these points):

1) logging old-growth forests 100 acres and smaller

2) logging state forests

3) state chief forester Jim Brown (he waxed poetic about him!)

4) when asked if salmon and dams can co-exist he used the Hanford Reach as an example where dams and salmon co-exist...sadly, that happens to be where there are no dams. I guess the presence of salmon there didn't tip him off.

5) supports dredging of the Columbia

6) admits complete ignorance regarding invasive exotic flora and fauna...perhaps he missed all the english ivy strangling the trees and choking the ground in Salem?


While the Oregonian may have publicly wondered why there was nearly no environmental component to the Bradbury-Smith tilt, it really isn't that surprising after all. Sadly, the green-washing Oregon League of Conservation Voters and the green-washing Sierra Club have endorsed him. C'est la vie.