Berkeley teach-in demands: U.S. Out of the Middle East!

Scan page 11

in the Middle East!

Bring the Troops Home NOW!

Ron Kovic speaks out at Sept. 14, 1990, Berkeley teach-in SOÇIALIST ACTION OCTOBER 1990 11 On Sept. 14, close to 2000 people participated in a "Teach-In Against U.S. Intervention in the Middle East" at U.C. Berkeley's Zellerbach Auditorium.

The event, organized by the Ad Hoc Committee Against A Vietnam War in the Middle East, sent a powerful signal to the warmakers in Washington that a broad and sizeable opposition already exists and is beginning to mobilize-against U.S. intervention in the Persian Gulf.

Given the national significance of this event, we are devoting four pages of our newspaper to print excerpts from most of the speeches presented to the teach-in.

Other speakers, whose presentations are not included here for reasons of space, are Eric Myer, head of Students for Peace in the Persian Gulf at U.C. Berkeley; Brian Willson, Vietnam antiwar veteran; Nomonde Ngubo, founder of the South African Miners Union; and Jim Ryder, president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Workers Union, Local 6.

Dick Roberts, author of several books on oil and the Middle East, spoke at the Berkeley teach-in. He also gave an expanded version of his talk at a Socialist Action forum in San Francisco on Sept. 15. We are printing major excerpts from his Sept. 15 presentation on the last page of this fourpage section.

• Jeff Mackler, Teach-in coordinator:

The message of the Ad Hoc Committee Against a Vietnam War in the Middle East which organized tonight's teach-in is simple and direct. It is before you now as a slogan which we seek to make a reality: No U.S. intervention in the Middle East! Bring the Troops Home Now!

I have spent the larger portion of my life opposing U.S. interventions into the affairs and lives of other nations—particularly the U.S. war in Vietnam, where 55,000 American men and women-and almost 2 million Vietnamese—were killed when the United States tried to punish a poor people for "invading" the land they were born in.

We have not lost the lessons of Vietnam. We are still afflicted with the disease which worries the State Department no end—the Vietnam Syndrome. This wonderful malady has taught us that we have no right to impose our will on other nations, that we must not take for good coin the war propaganda of the American media.

It reminds us that in Vietnam we-that is, our government—used poison gas and chemicals in a war against a peasant people, that we dropped more bombs on Vietnam than in all the wars combined since the beginning of time-and we lost.

We lost the Vietnam War because we have no right—no moral, legal, or political right—to impose what was then also called the "American Way of Life" on the people of Vietnam.

Never mind the pretexts. They will always be invented, like the fabricated Tonkin Bay incident which opened the Vietnam War. We were told that Vietnamese sampan fired on a U.S. destroyer, and the blood began to flow.

Neither do we seek a "Korean War" solution, where United Nations stickers are affixed to U.S. helmets, with the same result: death and destruction of the poor.

No one has the right to intervene. Neither the United States nor its French and British allies have the right to speak of borders in the Middle East. It was their armies which drew the borders against the wishes of the Arab people. They drew and redrew the borders with each World War, and the process continues.

It was their weapons which installed the monarchs, kings, oligarchs, and dictators. And the weapons were always pointed against the people of the region, who struggled for the simple idea that they had the right to control their own destinies. The borders of the Middle East are not for the U.S. to draw.

Our government's record in the Middle East has been one of plunder. Its aim has been to secure the single resource of the region—oil-for the profit of U.S. corporations at the cheapest price.

Our record in the Middle East has not been to protect the right of nations. To the contrary, we have sought to destroy nations, like the people of Palestine, whose scattered people will never cease their struggle for their homeland.

"How can we just leave Vietnam?" the Congress and generals used to ask. And we answered: "By boat, or plane, or just walk!"

I offer the same formula for the Middle East. We are not there to establish peace and justice. Was it not the United States which supplied the poison gas which Saddam Hussein used on the oppressed Kurdish minority?

Didn't the United States aid and abet the seven-year Iraqi war against Iran, which took the lives of almost 1 million Iranians and Iragis?

"What will happen to the poor people of the region if we just leave?" the warmakers ask.

I respond, with hope and perhaps with some knowledge, that left on their ownwithout our advisers, arms, tanks, and the rape of their resources—the people of the Middle East might just remove their own tyrants and build a society based on the kind of love for humanity which we here struggle for in the United States today. Bring the Troops Home Now!

• Margarita Melville, chair of the Chicano Studies Department at U.C. Berkeley:

We are told we are a democratic nation, but less than 50 percent of our eligible voters actually participate. Does not the Middle East crisis point out the fact that the two-party system is dead, if it ever was alive?

How is it that our government can get away with overthrowing popularly elected governments such as Guatemala (1954), Brazil (1964), Chile (1973) while proclaiming that those fascist governments, like the one presently in El Salvador and Guatemala, are democracies?

National security is defined as the recognition of artificial borders. But most, if not all, so-called national borders are the constructs of conquests of colonialism, including, of course, our own.

Kuwait is an invention of the British colonial office, which like Saudi Arabia was constructed for imperial interests. The Kuwaiti economy was built on the backs of poor Filipinos, Indians, Africans, Palestinians, Egyptians, and so on, overseen by British, French, and American engineers and technicians, inventing a miniscule Arab elite-all this in the service of the industrialized nations, the wealthiest 15 percent of the world's population.

If we want to play a role in making it a better world, we have to create a new political order in this country, a new political culture. It may take 10 years; it may take 50.

All Photos Joseph Ryan/Socialist Action But if we want to be part of the solution we must begin to form a viable political alternative to the inoperable, defunct Democratic and Republican parties.

• Daniel Elisberg, author of the "Pentagon Papers":

Before I was put on trial [for publishing the "Pentagon Papers"], I was in Vietnam. I had been in the Defense Department. I had been in the Rand Corporation-so that's to say that I've been wrong before.

Let me speak very briefly here to and for the people in the American public who are still capable, after all this time, of being fooled by American presidents.

I listened to an American president a couple of weeks ago describe a policy of responding to an aggression—not on this occasion an American aggression, like in Panama, or Libya, or Grenada-but responding to aggression in the company of the United Nations and backed by a U.N.-sponsored economic embargo, boycott, and blockade.

Many Americans who listened to the president's speech said, "This is the first American foreign policy and U.S. intervention I can support in a very, very long time." I was one of those people who said this. Well, fooled again!

I believe that the majority of the American

Scan page 12

...Berkeley teach-in draws 2000 12 SOCIALIST ACTION OCTOBER 1990 people support and applaud this administration's policy. But this majority is deeply misled as to the nature of that policy. They are applauding a policy which is not the policy of the United States right now.

Deterring aggression is not the purpose of the last 100,000 or so American troops that have been deployed, or the next 100,000 that are on their way and will arrive in the next several weeks, thereby building up a posture which is now openly described as an offensive posture.

Saddam Hussein and Kuwait can only be "redeemed" by aims that can only be achieved by war. The ousting of Saddam Hussein and the overthrow of his regime are aims that can only be achieved by the combat use of the forces that are being sent over there.

That war would be catastrophic, tragic in every sense-political and diplomatic. It would preclude both Arab and non-Arab support and would preclude any of the positive aims that some people had hoped for.

Saddam Hussein is a monster, but he is not a fool. There is almost no prospect whatever of expecting him to force the U.S. hand. If there is war it is overwhelmingly likely that it will be a war that the United States has initiated, perhaps by some incident like the one that I experienced in the Pentagon: the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which I exposed in the "Pentagon Papers." That is, a calculated, provoked, or hoaxed up incident that appears to justify going to war.

We have to be clear. Hostage taking by anybody in any circumstance, or the threat of harming hostages, is terrorism no matter who does it, under what circumstances. The current U.S. policy of threatening bombing and preparing to carry it out makes hostages of all the children in Iraq, all the people in Israel, all the people in Saudi Arabia and in the rest of the Arab world If there is a war, if there is a U.S.-initiated war, we will finish it. You and I, and others like us in this country, will have to do that as we finished the Vietnam War.

It would be tragic and catastrophic if it came to that. We must prevent that war. The lesson we must draw from Vietnam is that war must be averted. There must be no Tonkin Gulf, that is, no Persian Gulf incident; no Tonkin Gulf resolution, no Persian Gulf resolution, no blank check from Congress to do that again. There must be no Persian Gulf memorial in Washington, D.C.!

• Daniel Sheehan, chief legal counsel of the Christic Institute:

As someone who has spent over 20 years protecting our Constitution against encroachments by the executive branch, I'd like to state bluntly that what we are being told [about the crisis in the Persian Gulf] does not comport to objective reality.

A more objective perspective would lead one to immediately reflect upon the fact that in 1988 Mikhail Gorbachev unilaterally dismantled the Warsaw Pact, and that in 1989 the United States military-industrial complex was basically suffering from apoplexy and trying to figure out how they could justify a continuing $350-billion-ayear military budget.

A major internal study has been done by Professor Mike Clair from Hampshire College in Massachusetts. He's been analyzing the internal communications between the White House and the Pentagon and has discovered that after the spring of 1990 a major debate broke out within the administration between two basic camps.

The first camp advocated that we go the way of Germany and Japan-that is, that we make dramatic cuts in the military budget, use the federal taxes to invest in the capital infrastructure of the United States, retool our industry, and modernize.

The opponent camp advocated a massive maintenance of military spending to develop a highly mobile tactical Delta force, an improved capacity of "low-intensity" warfare, and a covert operational mobility to neutralize threats.

What Professor Clair has concluded is that by May of 1990—that is, months before the August action by Saddam Hussein-this latter group had achieved ascendancy within the executive branch. They had written White Papers that were going inside the administration advocating a new rationale for a massive U.S. military.

And this rationale, according to one of the White Papers, is to "provide a military shield to protect the Western industrial world's access to strategic raw materials against Third World threats by use of lowintensity' warfare tactics."

And in this White Paper of May 1990, the name of Iraq and Saddam Hussein were set forth as "the optimum contender to replace the Warsaw Pact" as a justification for major military expenditure, and it proposed that Irag be dealt with by "low-intensity" conflict attacks.

• Carlos Muñoz, Professor of Chicano studies at U.C. Berkeley, and author of "Youth Identity and Power: The Chicano I heard President Bush speak to the Congress on Wednesday [Sept. 12]. His message was loud and clear. It was a chilling message of intolerance for the rights of sovereign nations to settle their own disputes, and a frightening message of war.

I awaited with anticipation the response of the Democratic Party loyal opposition. And instead I heard the response of a loyal ally to the Republican Party and to the Bush administration. His name was Richard Gephardt [Democratic Congressman from Missouri], and he said the following, "The President has asked for our support. He has it. We are clear about what's involved. And it's right."

He went on to congratulate the U.S.

troops for "frontline defense against a fanatical regime." Then he went on to say, in conclusion, that if Saddam Hussein starts a war, "Know that we will finish it."

I read with dismay, as I'm sure many of you have, that even liberals in the print media have fallen victim to Bush's message.

New York Times journalist Anthony Lewis said the following just the other day in The New York Times: "President Bush has handled the Iraqi crisis with wisdom, professionalism, and care for long-term interests rare in recent decades of American leadership." My goodness!

Lewis went on to write that he was skeptical of Bush before, but that he has now become an admirer, and he concluded his column with the following words: "Americans can believe in the government's policy and be proud of it!"

Well, I'm not proud of it—not at all! Say no to U.S. intervention in Kuwait! No U.S.

intervention in the Persian Gulf! No U.S.

intervention in Central America! No U.S.

intervention in the barrios, in the ghettoes of this country!

• Ron veteran, July' :

Kovic, disabled Vietnam War author, "Born on the Fourth of I come here tonight to tell you that this fight is just beginning and that if President •Bush goes to war in the Middle East, then , we are going to be back on the streets of this , country, until we finish.

Because we are not going to allow what happened in Vietnam to ever happen again! We will not allow another war in Washington to happen in the names of 50,000 or 100,000 or 150,000 young American boys for a war that is being fought I for corporations, profits, and oil!

Do not underestimate, Mr. Bush, the power of the American people. Do not underestimate the fact that we now understand that your government does not represent the people, but represents greed and selfishness, and profit, and we will not stand for it any longer.

I went to Vietnam for the first time in December of 1965. I grew up in a small town of Long Island called Massapequa. And I remember, as many of you do in this gathering tonight, watching John F. Kennedy on Jan. 20, 1961, in his inaugural address. I felt that I was serving my country and I volunteered with the U.S. Marine Corps. I had grown up with John Wayne movies, much like the Rambo movies that have sent tens of thousands of young American men and women to the Saudi Arabian desert.

I came back from Vietnam after I was wounded on Jan. 20, 1968, in the demilitarized zone. I was shot with a rifle bullet through my right shoulder. The bullet passed through my right lung and paralyzed me from my mid-chest down. That was after my second tour of duty.

I had volunteered to go back to Vietnam a second time because I still believed they • Pedro Noguera, former President of the Student Body, U.C. Berkeley:

• It's clear from recent history that for the United States to claim moral leadership on the basis that it upholds international law and respects the sovereignty of the poor nations is nothing short of hypocrisy.

What's at stake in the Middle East is not the sovereignty of the kingdom of Kuwait but oil. Just like in Panama the real issue was not whether or not Noriega, who had been a trusted ally of the United States, was involved in drug dealing. The issue was: Who controls the Panama Canal?

This build-up that's taking place in the Persian Gulf, and the potential war that's about to occur, represents the "peace diviwere telling me the truth. I was a very stubborn boy, and it would take getting paralyzed from my mid-chest down, being sent to a rat-infested Veterans Administration hospital in the Bronx.

It would take undercover agents posing as Vietnam veterans against the war, and throwing me out of my wheelchair, kicking me in my stomach, calling me a communist and a traitor for me to begin to wake up, for me to begin to realize that they had been lying to me and to a generation of American boys, that these people who I once respected, these people who I thought to be my leaders wer in fact the real traitors.

And then I began to realize that they had taken our country from us, this country that we were born in, this country that we have been trying to love. They have caused suffering and misery, degradation and disease and death throughout the world in the name of the American people. They have shamed us.

Tonight we will begin a movement for all the people, and not only every American man, woman, and child, but for every human being in every country. We must begin to build a new movement.

Eric Larsen—will you stand up, Eric—is a marine who will not go to war. Eric, I feel confident that I will not let them do that we will not let them do-to Eric what they did to me and a generation of Americans.

We promise you tonight, Eric, that because you've had the courage and the decency to stand up for your beliefs, you will not come home in a wheelchair and your name will not be on a wall in Washington.

Because, Eric, we are all part of the same community, and that community is going to grow. Two thousand people were in Cooper Union in New York last night. Almost 2000 people are here tonight—and Mr. President, we are just beginning!

Scan page 13

SOCIALIST ACTION OCTOBER 1990 13 dend" that some of us hoped would begin a process of rebuilding devastated communities in our country that have been allowed to languish over the last 10 years.

In the midst of the patriotism that has been generated to justify a war that will kill many people in the Middle East, once again issues related to poverty, hunger, homelessness, no support to public education and public health will be back-burner issues. We need a movement that begins to redefine America's priorities.

• Eric Glen Larsen, Lance Corporal, United States Marine Corps (Reserve):

My name is Eric Larsen. I'm a Lance Corporal in the United States Marine Corps. I'm based with the Fourth High Command Aircraft Missile Battalion, Fourth Marine Air Wing, in Hayward, Calif. On April 21, 1986, I joined the Marine Corps to defend the American dream, which attracted my parents to this country in 1958.

I emerged from boot camp three months later, a fully indoctrinated fighting machine, willing to go anywhere in the world to defend the ideals and freedoms stated in the Constitution of the United States of America.

I first became aware of the reality of U.S. foreign policies through student activists in the Bay Area. They introduced me to alternative speakers and books, and exposed me to the writings and teachings of Oscar Romero of El Salvador.

I avidly studied American history and learned about U.S. support and sponsorship of exploitative policies motivated by corporate and personal greed. You can say I had a conversion experience.

How can you not be converted when 70,000 Salvadorans get killed over the last 10 years as a result of U.S. policies? How can you not be converted when the people of the Philippines are fed U.S.-manufactured bullets and starve of malnourishment. How can you not be converted when fragmentation grenades maim innocent people in Angola? There is no justification for war.

I can no longer abide by the orders of my Commander-in-Chief. My actions are accountable ultimately to a higher authority. My ethical and moral convictions have led me to declare my opposition to the escalation of tensions and seemingly inevitable war in the Middle East. It sickens me to hear that 40,000 of my fellow reservists and 80,000 of my active-duty brothers and sisters are going to wage war in the Middle East to protect our American life style.

Oil imports could be cut in half if a sound energy policy focusing on renewable resources and conservation was in effect. Now what is it that our "environmental" president proposes? He proposes that we keep our tires inflated and drive the speed limit. Well bull We are wasting over $30 million a day in Saudi Arabia while our inner-city school systems are in shambles, while homeless people still walk the streets, while S&L criminals are still on the loose.

In the words of U.S. General Smedley Butler, a two-time recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor: "War is a racket. It brings in profits for the oil companies and Wall Street flagwavers while its cost of operation is always transferred to the people who do not profit."

Let's take the dollar signs out of the flag and send the troops home. I say we should send the troops home!

I was listening to a lot of lic radio and TV and they share my same concern: The use of chemical and tactical nuclear weapons is a possibility in the event that war does occur. Nuclear and chemical materials have been loaded onto ships at the Concord Naval Weapons Station. The suggestion that nuclear weapons can be used in addition to chemical weapons is scaring the hell out of me.

The use of chemical and biological agents and nuclear arms is completely unjustifiable. Eight years ago, the Reagan-Bush administration encouraged the sale of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. Bush said nothing at the time about human rights when Hussein used weapons on his own people. Now Bush wants us to forget that he turned his eyes while innocent men, women, and children were being gassed.

He wants us, the American public, to turn our eyes and forget about humanity as he prepares to use me and others in the service as fodder for his cannon. Now I've spent three long months in boot camp to learn to view human beings as targets, as rag-heads, as gooks. It has taken me almost three long years to begin to see people as human beings once again, and I'll be damned if I can be part of this racist, militaristic frenzy. I will campaign to send the troops home!

I refuse orders to activate me into the regular Marines. I will refuse orders to ship me to Saudi Arabia to defend our polluting lifestyle. I will refuse to face another human being with a gas mask covering my face, an M-16 drawn. I am no longer a Marine. I am a Conscientious Objector to war.

No War for Big Oil! Send the Troops Home!

Now it's time to educate, to organize, and mobilize. I call on you to get into the streets and protest on Oct. 20, when we will have a National Day of Protest in San Francisco, Seattle, Atlanta, Miami, and New York. Be there out in the streets with us!

• Dianne Wang, member Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union Local 1-326 in Rodeo, Calif., and a leader of the S.F. Bay Area movement against U.S. intervention in the Middle East:

We are being sent into a war of plunder, and this is a war that working people will pay for dearly.

In the early stage of this war, the United States sent over some of the troops on Eastern Airlines despite the fact that the International Association of Machinists has been carrying out a hard-fought 18-month strike against Eastern Airlines.

This was a crude slap in the face of organized labor that should wake them up. Our unions need to take a stand against the war and be a part of the opposition to stop the Working people are going to pay for this war in at least five ways that I can think of. First of all, it's going to cost $2.5 billion just to conduct the war until the end of this month [September 1990]. And this isn't going to be some short invasion, like Grenada and Panama. This is going to take years and cost billions of dollars. That money is going to come from our economy, and it's going to be money that would be better spent on health, on housing, on childcare.

As the economic crisis that will be unleashed by this war effort gets under way, it is the underdeveloped countries that are going to pay the deepest. And that means that more banks are going to go under because it's not just a few greedy crooks like Neil Bush who are responsible for the banking crisis and the S&L bailouts; it's the entire international banking system that makes its money off the backs of working people and peasants and sucks their blood around the world.

And when the banking crisis hits and the banks go under, we're going to have to pick up that tab, too.

Third, and speaking as someone who refines oil for an oil company, I can assure you that the oil companies are going to take advantage of this situation to jack up oil prices, seize the shores for drilling, gut the environmental laws, and attack workers' safety on the job.

The small hike in gas prices the day after the war began was small change to them. This is an industry in which there is one refinery fire after another: Philips, Texaco, Chevron. It's an industry that my union, the O.C.A. W., says is out of control and is going to get worse. We're going to pay that way.

Fourth, divisions among working people are going to increase. If you listen to the radio stations, the rock stations at least, you hear the anti-Arab jokes already. There is going to be more racism, more anti-immigrant sentiment. They can't wage this war without it.

And all our efforts for women's equalitysuch as education, and non-traditional jobs for women (like I have)—are going to be buried under all this talk of the need for war.

And fifth, most serious for many of us, is that we are going to pay with our children and with the next generation, who will be sent off to die. That's why we must oppose this war now!

And it's not just self-interest, a question of adding up what it will cost us. It is wrong for us to participate in the plunder of the oilfields and the plunder of the rest of the world.

• Khalil Barhoum, Professor at Stanford University and a leader of the ArabAmerican Anti-Discrimination League:

In the public opinion polls taken on the Gulf crisis, 25 percent of the American population is demanding a peaceful resolution to the conflict and calling for an end to American military intervention there.

Unfortunately, however, just by watching the coverage on national TV you will not be able to tell that one-fourth of the American population is opposed to the U.S. moves toward war in the Middle East. As a matter of fact, if you happened to be a first-time visitor to this country, you would probably think that the TV networks are all state-owned.

Initially, we were told that we were going to Saudi Arabia to protect the Saudis against an impending Iraqi attack. Then we were told that we were there to insure the withdrawal of the Iraqi troops from Kuwait, and now we are being told by people in the government and the media that nothing short of a full-scale war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is acceptable.

The question is, where were these characters when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982? And where have they been for the past 23 years while Israeli occupation has continued to devastate the Palestinian land and people?

Or are we to believe that not all occupations are equal? It's time for us to expose the American government's hypocrisy and double standard for what they are.

The social, economic, and political concerns of the Arab people in the Arab world have no military solutions. Military intervention is not the answer. We believe that the United States is better off cultivating the friendship and trust of the Arab people through cooperation, not confrontation; through diplomacy, not gunboat policy; and through negotiations, not military intervention.

Brian Willson • Excerpts from a statement by Corporal Jeff Patterson, a 22-year-old Marine stationed in Honolulu, Hawaii, who announced on Aug. 16 that he would refuse to ship out with his unit to Saudi Arabia. The statement, dated Sept. 10, was sent to the teach-in by the Jeff Patterson Defense Committee in Honolulu:

Since making my stand around the war in the Middle East public, I have experienced the repressive arm of the U.S. government first hand. I have been punished for thinking and for speaking. Immediately after filing my Conscientious Objector application, I was confined to barracks.

The military has recommended that my C.O. application be denied, even though finding that I was sincere. They forced me to disobey their orders by volunteering me to be among the first in my battalion to board the plane for Saudi Arabia. They chose to confine me in the brig prior to my courtmartial even though they conceded that I was a danger to no one and was not a flight risk.

They have alleged that I am a threat to "the effectiveness, morale, discipline, and readiness of the command and the national security of the United States" — just because I have exercised my constitutional right to free speech. Consequently, they intend to hold me in the brig until my courtmartial on a yet unknown date.

They are denying me access to all media and have made it extremely difficult to have any contact with my support group. They are attempting to isolate and silence me.

The events of the past weeks, both around perience with the repressive apparatus of the state, have only served to reinforce my beliefs around the correctness of my stand.

As a U.S. Marine, I will refuse to fight a war for profit and oil in the Middle East. As a resident of the United States and citizen of the world, I will continue to expose and struggle against all U.S. interventionist war and repressive domestic policies. I will not be silenced.

• Letter to teach-in from Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop of Detroit:

Dear Jeff, I commend you for organizing so quickly to take a stand against the U.S. government's position in the Gulf. I wish I could make it to Berkeley on Sept. 14 for the National Teach-In because I strongly support what you are doing. Unfortunately, I cannot arrange my schedule to be with you except in spirit.

Let me, then, unite with the common voice you will raise to let it be known that we cannot sit idly while our government (1) deploys military force solely to guarantee the free flow of oil to the United States, (2) introduces in the area offensive military weapons which are capable of launching attacks against Iraq, and (3) blockades food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid, thus using innocent civilians as pawns.

We cannot allow the winds of war ominously stirring in our land to silence the voice of moral responsibility required of peoples who pride themselves on the rights of citizen participation.

I hope you will fill the university's auditorium with a concerned audience that will leave even more convinced that the United States has no right to continue on the course it has taken so far in this crisis.

Sincerely, Thomas J. Gumbleton Auxiliary Bishop of Detroit

----- pull-quotes -----

NO U FIRST NAI

carvention DONE EAST TEACE Y

the continued escalation of war preparations in the Middle East and my own personal ex-