In case the Bush Administration really does unleash the US military on the people of Iraq, an emergency response plan for citizen action has been prepared by representatives of the No War Against Iraq Coalition, Church Council of Greater Seattle, Not In Our Name coalition, Green Party, and Sound Nonviolent Opponents of War.

"The trigger for the emergency response will be one of the following: a declaration or announcement of war, Intensified bombing, or US troop forces deployed into Iraq."

Groups and individuals will gather at the Federal Building in downtown Seattle at 5PM on the "day of" US military action. A march to Westlake Center will commence at 7 PM.

Also, the No War Against Iraq Coalition will begin a 7-day vigil at the federal building. The Buddhist Peace Fellowship will hold a "silent interfaith vigil," in conjunction "for people of all beliefs to come together for strength and hope, to center themselves, and to BE peace."

The following day, (the "day after") actions include a gathering at Westlake at 4:30PM, with many groups arriving via feeder marches from the UW, Seattle Central Community College, the Labor Temple, etc. For more information: www.snowcoalition.org or www.bpf-seattle.org --ETS! News Services

Aiming at an audience beyond the "Choir," who already know where to look for their alternative realities, the Emergency Broadcast Affinity Cluster is looking for help to expand its broadcasts of a non-violent alternative," one neighborhood at a time. EBAC suggests that you "scan your radio dial. If there are no voices for peace on the air, PLEASE CONTACT US IMMEDIATELY, before the bombs begin dropping. Together, we can build a mosaic of tiny transmitters broadcasting the truth about peace up and down the sound." A small inexpensive transmitter and an internet connection are all that's necessary to become part of the grassroots alternative to Big, Pro-War Radio. Ballard and Rainier Valley are already on the air. Find out more at www.microradio.net--ETS! News Services

Medically accurate sex education in public schools? Affordable prescription drugs? Slashing health care for the uninsured... while the White House terrorizes the planet, state legislatures are wrestling with budgets deficits, conservative assaults and occasional progressive proposals. In Washington State, we're lucky to have an easy way to monitor and contact the current legislative session: Policy Watch is compiled weekly by Nancy Amadei, professor of Social Work at the University of Washington. It's too easy to ignore state politics in the flood of bad news from DC, but state governments control what's left of public health funding, education etc. Nancy's weekly reports make it easy to speak up on these crucial issues. My senator (Adam Kline, South Seattle) thanked me for writing - and said the legislature really needs to hear from residents of rural, primarily conservative, districts. Washington State residents can call their reps toll free or get information on the status of any bill at 800-562-6000; for now, no one needs to choose between a life-saving prescription, and a phone call to urge funding for affordable life-saving prescriptions. But conservative legislators need to hear progressive voices! Help spread the word beyond the usual suspects in Seattle - send them to Policy Watch, at http://depts.washington.edu/sswweb/ Click on COMMUNITY AND RESEARCH, then POLICY WATCH. --Valerie Rose

Catching Bush and crew in bald-faced lies is so easy it's become routine, and (let's face it), boring. But catching them telling the truth, now, that's a fun game indeed! A few examples, to illustrate just how much fun you can have with this great new game...

Award-winning journalist Laurie Garrett was granted access to hob-nob with the rich and powerful at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. In a private e-mail to friends which has been leaked to the Internet at-large, she gives some impressions of the world's leaders' impressions of the "state of the world". Overall, she encountered largely unbridled pessimism regarding the world economy, and not a small amount of antipathy regarding U.S. hegemony. Perhaps the most revealing direct quote in her account comes from unnamed "American security and military speakers" who acknowledged that, "Iraq is just one piece of a campaign that will last years, taking out states, cleansing the planet." (See http://tinyurl.com/5pb4.)

A few weeks back, on the Tim Russert program, Richard Perle announced that "democracies do not wage aggressive wars."

Paul Wolfowitz, in arguing the case for war, recently asserted that, as the U.S. occupation of Iraq will mean that U.S. troops won't need to be stationed in "the holy land of Saudi Arabia", then "Osama bin Laden's principal recruiting device, even more than the other grievances he cites," will have been eliminated. This may be the first time that a member of the Bush Administration has acknowledged the existence of grievances -- all the more revealing in that he implies that the grievances are legitimate. Granted, the logic is beyond the pale (not least because the second-most frequently cited grievance is the decimation of Iraqi culture). But, baby steps here, folks. Baby steps. (Alas, Dubya himself apparently didn't receive the memo, repeating at last week's news conference the Administration mantra that, "We did nothing to provoke that terrorist attack. It came upon us because there is an enemy which hates America. They hate what we stand for. We love freedom, and we're not changing.")

Near to the conclusion of the aforementioned Presidential pow-wow, The Superbrain was asked the following question:

Mr. President, if you decide to go ahead with military action, there are inspectors on the ground in Baghdad. Will you give them time to leave the country, or the humanitarian workers on the ground, or the journalists?

To which he replied:

Of course, we will give people a chance to leave. And we don't want anybody in harm's way who shouldn't be in harm's way. The journalists who are there should leave. If you're going and we start action, leave. The inspectors -- we don't want people in harm's way.

He then talked about not wanting to hurt anybody except "Saddam and his group of killers". But if all white people are being instructed to leave, does this not suggest that anybody remaining in the country will be in "harm's way" -- including the 20-million-plus Iraqis who are not "Saddam and his group of killers"? And that, if these 20-million-plus will not be spirited away before the onslaught begins, that they're among those who "should" be in "harm's way"?

And if this statement can be given without anybody even noticing (indeed, if the question can be framed in such a manner as to presuppose that the Iraqi civilians will not be escorted to safety, but left in "harm's way"), then, what are we to make of Western culture and society?--Eddie Tews

In case you've not heard, there's a movement afoot to convince the Pope to take up residence in Baghdad on the assumption that the U.S. would not bomb so long as he is there. Check out http://tinyurl.com/734d to e-mail your appeal directly to the Vatican.--ET

The state Senate in Olympia is considering a bill that would create a new crime of "disruption of traffic by pedestrians," a gross misdemeanor carrying a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $5,000 fine. The bill was sponsored by Bill Finkbeiner (R.) of Kirkland, who was pissed off when a group of about a dozen anti-war protesters stopped traffic on the 520 bridge. Originally, Finkbeiner tried to make the crime a felony, but the transportation committee modified the bill before it passed out of committee. Current law provides a penalty of 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine for charges of disorderly conduct, public nuisance, and criminal trespass, although in practice most protesters are released without charges. This makes Finkbeiner so angry that he's unable to use logic in his arguments to support this idiotic bill: "We don't have the right to assemble on somebody else's property ... We don't have free-speech rights to yell 'fire!' in a crowded room." Excuse me, but the 520 bridge is a public space, not private property--and certainly not Finkbeiner's private property, regardless of his position on the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee (has he forgotten he's supposed to be a public servant?). For another, the "fire!" analogy is nonsensical, given the dire circumstances that would arise from a war with Iraq. Call your local state senator and tell her or him not to vote for SB5953, which would crowd our jails with nonviolent protesters and tie up our courts with cases challenging the constitutionality of this stupid bill. Call the legislature's toll-free hotline at 1-800-562-6000 (TTY: 1-800-635-9993) and give them your message and your zip code. They'll deliver the message to your representative.--Maria Tomchick

The US military base at Guantanamo is opening a mental health clinic for the estimated 650 detainees captured during the Afghanistan war. About 16 of the prisoners have tried to kill themselves--one man has tried 3 times, and another was almost successful in strangling himself. He now has irreversible brain damage, and has lost his ability to function without medical support. About 70 of the Guantanamo prisoners are currently receiving mental health treatment, through a combination of counseling and drugs. Depression is a common side effect of being locked in prison, but the conditions at Guantanamo are particularly inhumane. The prisoners are being held indefinitely, and none have access to lawyers, friends, or family members. They are not allowed to speak to one another, are being held in tiny 8-foot by 7-foot cells, and have nowhere to take outside exercise. Currently they receive as little as one 15-minute recreation period per week. In addition, Amnesty International has concerns about the interrogation methods used on the detainees, and no human rights groups or outside monitors have been allowed to view any of the interrogation sessions or review the list of drugs being used on these prisoners. More than a year after their capture, any information they once possessed is surely out of date by now. The fact that the US continues to hold these men is a likely sign that our government is afraid of what these men will say about their detention once they've been released.--M.T.

It's bases, not just "regime change" and/or oil: The US is being denied the use of its military bases in Turkey to support a war in Iraq. The Saudis would be happy if Americans would find somewhere else for the US Air Force troops now stationed on its soil and "endangering" the morals of Saudi women seeing their American counterparts going around unveiled.

So, the US needs another place where it can launch its troops for future attempts to play world-sheriff, Texas-style. If an ally doesn't want us, then why not conquer a country, occupy it, and put our bases there? The US did this in Germany and Japan after World War II; now it can do so in Iraq, which is very conveniently located near opportunities for future adventures. The Germans and Japanese don't seem to want us on their soil, either, but we can't re-conquer them, and they are no longer so well-located. So, on to Iraq. --Win Hutton