The recent unanimous-minus-one vote in the U.S. Congress to give the President of the United States the authority to declare war with only one abstaining vote should remind us that the difference between the political parties is a thin division that melts away when an important vote can determine the future of an office-holder. There was a closing of political ranks with right and left visible symbols of a united front. I am convinced that the response of Albert Gore as President would have been, substantially, the same as that of George Bush.

And where was the platform of people calling for reason, diplomacy and yes, even understanding? It was hidden behind American flags. Those people would, of course, acknowledge the horror and senselessness of recent attacks and express sympathy for the relatives and friends of victims. And there would be more people on that platform than the so-called leaders of this country can imagine. Recent peace vigils held since the attacks have elicited far more favorable responses from cars and pedestrians than responses to previous vigils.

If in-depth interviews could be held with members of Congress, I believe they would reveal that many of them have great reservations about involving the United States in a Third World War, which, indeed, could be the war to end all wars and the world itself. So why would they vote to give the President warpowers? They voted to protect their political futures.

My experience in lobbying against the Viet Nam war provides an example. Late in the war, under the auspices of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, I spent a couple of weeks in Washington calling on about 50 congressmen from the upper midwest. Among other questions, I asked each if he would vote to end all funding for the war if he was assured that he would be reelected. With the exception of about four, all said yes. This told me then that Americans and Vietnamese were dying as the war continued because U.S. congressmen put their reelection above the lives of human beings.

Today with U.S. military intervention imminent, I believe this same reasoning has provided the President with the power to lead the world to destruction. So what can peace people do? They can continue, with renewed fervor, to build a movement based on justice, that becomes so strong that the politician cannot ignore its message.

Some say that, especially, the efforts of women must be intensified. The Japanese organization, Violence Against Women in War Network, have issued a "call for global solidarity against global war" that could provide the mission statement, saying among other things: "This terrorist attack is an international crime, not a war... Violence does not eradicate terrorism. Violence only produces more violence... The victims of this tragedy will be the victims of the mistaken foreign policies of their own governments. The victims will include a number of people from other nations... We appeal to citizens of the world, including U.S. citizens of conscience, to unite and oppose the globalization of war by our "globalization" of solidarity. Our deep belief firmly stands in the philosophy of non-violence that denies all forms of violence. We ask women all over the world to work together to create a 21st century of peace, not to repeat the century of war."

Amen, amen and amen again.