For me, it's as if I'm reliving what was happening in the Pentagon in 1964 and 1965. This time, for awhile, it looked like the Democrats were ready to resist another Gulf of Tonkin (1964) resolution -- which got us into Vietnam -- but in the end they caved. So, now we have Tonkin Gulf II, with key phrases like "as the president determines" and "all necessary measures." That's an absolutely blank check, just like the Tonkin Gulf resolution. Only the place names have changed.

The people who voted for President Bush's resolution, especially the Democrats, covered themselves in shame. They voted away their exclusive war powers to a president who this time -- and this is different from 1964 -- they know is going to use the resolution for war. They won't have the excuse this time that they were lied to, like Lyndon Johnson, who promised that he had no intention of going to war without coming back to Congress for a more specific resolution. Senator Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said he has felt ashamed and guilty for 38 years for voting for the Tonkin Gulf resolution.

It was equally shameful that 75 senators went against Byrd and voted to close off the debate on Iraq, even though they know in their hearts that Byrd and (Sen. Edward) Kennedy, D-Mass., and the others who voted against it are right -- that going to war with Iraq increases our risks of terrorism, strengthens al Qaeda's recruiting efforts and reduces the ability of Muslim countries to cooperate with us against al Qaeda, even if they wanted to.

THE REAL MOTIVE FOR WAR

It's not about stopping proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, like the administration claims -- Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld know better than that. The real reason is right there, like the purloined letter, though saying it stamps you as some kind of vulgar radical or cynic. Oil. This war is going to be not just for Iraq's oil but to strengthen our control of Saudi Arabian oil, and eventually Iranian oil and Kuwaiti oil. War for oil is not some radical slogan, it's a simple statement of reality. The administration thinks that kind of control of the world's resources makes war worthwhile, but they're not putting that out to the public.

What they are holding out is an image of empire that in this chaotic world looks rather attractive to a lot of Americans. But the lesson of Sept. 11 is that it's going to be a very bloody business. That's not to say anything in favor of the people or causes behind Sept. 11. But the fact is, killing innocent civilians in a Muslim country is going to lead to reaction that costs American lives as well. It's wrong of us to even think about waging an aggressive war under these conditions.

WHAT CAN BE DONE

If people in the administration and the Pentagon can hear me, indirectly or directly, I urge them to consider that if they know of untruths; if they know of false arguments being made; if they know, from documents passing their hands, that the country is being deceived into a reckless war, then they should considering doing what I wish I had done in 1964 and 1965, rather than waiting till 1969 and 1971: Going to Congress with the documents, and to the press, and telling the truth.

Daniel Ellsberg is a former Pentagon official who in 1971 leaked a 7,000- page study to the press that detailed American involvement in Vietnam. The release of the study, which became known as the Pentagon Papers, set in motion a chain of events that helped lead to the resignation of President Nixon and the end of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg, who lives in Berkeley and Washington, D. C., is the author of the just published Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. He is scheduled to speak tonight at 8 p.m. at UC Berkeley's Zellerbach Auditorium, in a speech co-sponsored by the World Affairs Council of Northern California and the Independent Institute of Oakland.

###