While we know that US military deaths continue at an alarming rate, items in DailyKos.com and globalsecurity.org show that the number of US soldiers being WOUNDED in Iraq that is now soaring to unprecedented levels. After over 1100 US troops were wounded in August--a monthly wounded level over 200 soldiers higher than any previous month, the projected level of wounded US soldiers in September is running at an estimated level of over 1500. By comparison, only 850 US soldiers TOTAL were wounded in the first three months of Gulf War II, which led up to Bush's declaration of "victory." So by the end of September, over three times more soldiers will have been wounded in the last two months than were wounded in the three months of the "active" war with Iraq.

Washington Post writes "About 1,100 U.S. soldiers and Marines were wounded in Iraq during August, by far the highest combat injury toll for any month since the war began and an indication of the intensity of battles flaring in urban areas... In August, 66 U.S. service personnel were killed in Iraq, according to the Defense Department. The toll was the highest since May, when 80 fatalities were recorded." George Bush lied, our soldiers DIE. Impeach him now.

Excerpt: "The administration must make the UN a full partner responsible for developing Iraq's transition to a new constitution and government...We need more troops and more people who can train Iraqi troops and assist Iraqi police...International acceptance of responsibility for stabilizing Iraq must be matched by international authority for managing the remainder of the Iraqi transition. The UN, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people. The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility. Finally, we must level with our citizens. Increasingly, the American people are confused about our goals in Iraq, particularly why we are going it almost alone."

"An investigative report by Jim Vallette with Steve Kretzmann and Daphne Wysham shines a new spotlight on the incredible revolving door between Bechtel Corporation and the Reagan administration that drove U.S.-Iraq interactions between 1983 and 1985. The men who courted Saddam while he gassed Iranians are now waging war against him, ostensibly because he holds weapons of mass destruction. To a man, they now deny that oil has anything to do with the conflict. Yet during the Reagan administration, and in the years leading up to the present conflict, these men shaped and implemented a strategy that has everything to do with securing Iraqi oil exports."

"Hi, my name is Tony Mastitski. I live in Jupiter, Florida USA. I DON'T WANT THE WORLD WAR 3 BEGIN IN IRAQ! There are about 5,000,000 people in Baghdad. Baghdad is the capital of Iraq. Bush wants to send today 3,000 bombs just to kill Saddam Hussein, and at the same time, he might kill 5,000,000 innocent people! He just wants to kill Saddam and get all the oil in Iraq. He only thinks about money and oil... I want Iraqi people be alive and I want our soldiers come back home from Iraq alive! Kids, if you agree with me, send me your messages and pictures and I will put them on this web site."

AP reports, "Blix whittled down a 173-page dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which he gave to the council earlier this month, to pick a dozen key remaining disarmament tasks... Present any Scud missiles and associated biological and chemical warheads or explain what happened to them; Provide information on SA-2 missile technology and related projects, and present any remaining Fahad missiles; Present all materials related to missiles capable of going beyond the U.N. limit of 93 miles, and their components; Present any remaining chemical and biological munitions, including aerial bombs, rockets or missile warheads, artillery shells, cluster munitions and production equipment, and provide 'credible evidence' about these programs; Provide details of any drones or equipment for them, and present any spray tanks or other devices that could be used for chemical or biological warfare..." Bush issued his ultimatum so the world would never notice these concrete steps to peace.

Former Iraqi nuclear scientist Imad Khadduri writes for YellowTimes.org: "On March 7, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), submitted, in accordance with U.N. Resolution 1441, his third report to the Security Council on Iraq's nuclear non-capability. ElBaradei's report unequivocally disproved most of Colin Powell's alleged 'evidence' of Iraq's continued nuclear weapons program after the end of the 1991 war that Powell so brazenly offered in a theatrical presentation to the same Security Council just a month earlier on February 5, 2003. Powell's pathetic response to ElBaradei's report would be laughable were it not for the moral crime the Bush administration is about to commit in Iraq."

Simon Jenkins writes, "Six thousand years ago, Mesopotamia saw the earliest manifestation of Western culture. It is now to see the latest. An estimated 10,000 archaeological sites remain, most as yet unexcavated. Many will now be excavated for the first and last time... The Art Newspaper has published an awesome list of Iraqi sites near bases, factories and scientific works, some of them damaged by bombing errors in 1991. They include the world's oldest brick arch at Ctesiphon, undermined by an earthquake bomb and now vulnerable to any further shock." The great ziggurat and sacred court of Ur, the 6,000 year old ancient Sumerian city, he tells us, "are now pitted with 400 shells from a misguided strafing and bombing raid by an American jet in 1991. They were intended for the nearby Tallil air-base, which the US afterwards protested should not have been sited so near the monument. Yet the base was put there not by Iraq, but by the British."

AP reports, "Saddam Hussein said Monday that Iraq once had weapons of mass destruction for defense against Iran and Israel but no longer holds them... 'We are not weapons collectors,' Saddam said. 'But we had these weapons for purposes of self-defense when we were at war with Iran for eight years and when the Zionist entity (Israel) was, and it still is, a threat.' Iraq and Iran fought a ruinous 1980-1988 war in which chemical weapons were used. 'When Saddam Hussein says he has no weapons of mass destruction, he means what he says,' Saddam said. He also said his country had fully cooperated with U.N. inspectors seeking to verify that Iraq had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction... 'We have a real desire to rid our region and the whole world of weapons of mass destruction,' Saddam said. He then called on the United States to set an example by destroying its own weapons of mass destruction first."

Robert Parry writes for Consortium News: "George W. Bush orders U.S. forces to unleash his 'shock and awe' onslaught against Iraq without United Nations sanctions, he will be opening American servicemen to a kind of double jeopardy. First, they will be risking their lives in a combat strategy far riskier than is publicly acknowledged. Second, any significant taking of civilian life could leave both officers and enlisted men liable for future war-crimes charges. Bush, who himself avoided military service in Vietnam and appears to have gone AWOL from his Vietnam-era National Guard duty, is putting young American soldiers and their officers in an unprecedented predicament. They are being told to invade and to conquer a country that is in the process of disarming under U.N. supervision."

In December, the Berlin daily Die Tageszeitung published the scrubbed portions of Iraq's WMD report, which identified the US and European companies that supplied Saddam with all of his weapons. Three months later, the NY Times is catching up on the biological weapons that were supplied by American Type Culture Collection of Manassas VA, and the Pasteur Institute in Paris. What excuse do the companies offer? "A.T.C.C. could never have shipped these samples to Iraq without the Department of Commerce's approval for all requests," said VP Nancy J. Wysocki. It's convenient to blame anonymous bureaucrats, but a decision to sell lethal biological weapons to Iraq - at the very time Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran - had to be made at the VERY TOP of the Reagan-Bush administration. We demand an investigation of ALL top Reagan-Bush officials - including Bush Sr., SecDef Dick Cheney, Iraq Special Envoy Donald Rumsfeld, and SecState James Baker!

Roger Morris writes, "Both supporters and critics of US policy on Iraq agree on the origins, at least, of the haunted relations that have brought us to this pass: America's dealings with Saddam Hussein... began some two decades ago with its shadowy, expedient support of his regime in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980's. Both sides are mistaken. Washington's policy traces an even longer, more shrouded and fateful history. Forty years ago, the CIA, under President John F. Kennedy, conducted its own regime change in Baghdad, carried out in collaboration with Saddam Hussein... As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958."

"The main purpose of the war is indeed being left out of the picture and nobody is saying anything about it. It's main purpose is the large-scale real-life testing by the United States of sophisticated models of precision weapons. That is the objective that they place first All the other aims are either incidental, or outright disinformation. For more than 10 years now the United States has conducted exclusively no-contact wars. In May 2001 George Bush Jr., delivering his first presidential speech to students at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, spoke of the need for accelerated preparation of the US Armed Forces for future wars. He emphasized that they should be high-tech Armed Forces capable of conducting hostilities throughout the world by the no-contact method. This task is now being carried out very consistently."

CNN reports, "Iraq on Friday will give the United Nations details about its claims to have destroyed 3.9 tons of VX nerve agent, diplomatic sources said. Iraq is still putting the final touches on the report that is to explain how it disposed of at least 2,245 gallons (8,500 liters) of anthrax. Sources said that report would be delivered in the next few days, but didn't specify when. It was not clear whether the report would be submitted to U.N. inspectors in Baghdad or in New York. Iraq said it destroyed its stockpile of chemical and biological agents after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The VX report is described as 'very technical' with many graphs and charts explaining how much nerve agent it had and how and where it disposed of it." Probably the VX and Anthrax that Reagan-Bush helped Saddam acquire.

"But the grand poobah of Bush backers has to be Bruce Willis, whose latest film, Tears of The Sun, has him playing a loyal veteran officer of an elite Navy S.E.A.L unit. Bruce claims he even asked the resident to dispatch him as a secret weapon to get Saddam Hussein. According to the star, he would've been the first in line if only the army would allow him. 'I thought about signing up,' Bruce said, who never really had the option, 'but my friends told me I was too old...I called the White House, called Resident Bush and asked what I could do.' Instead of getting his orders to deploy, the resident tactfully suggested that the aging actor would be better off adopting some kids instead of leading the siege. The resident has since tapped Bruce to serve as a national spokesperson for children in foster care." Maybe Geraldo can teach Bruce how to quickdraw? Also, check out Van Damme's ignorance, Kid Rock's ignorant bravado, and Rob Lowe - what the hell happened to him?

From the Columbia Journalism Review 1993: "'It is becoming increasingly clear,' said a grave Ted Koppel, 'that George Bush [Sr.], operating largely behind the scenes throughout the '80s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam into the aggressive power that the US ultimately had to destroy.' Is this accurate? Just about every reporter following the story thinks so. Most say that the so-called Iraqgate scandal is far more significant then either Watergate or Iran-contra, both in its scope and its consequences. And all believe that, with investigations continuing, it is bound to get bigger. Why, then, have some of our top papers provided so little coverage? Certainly, if you watched Nightline or read the London Financial Times or the Los Angeles Times, you saw this monster grow. But if you studied the news columns of The Washington Post or, especially, The New York Times, you practically missed the whole thing."

The latest BushBlair UN resolution would rely on 6 "benchmarks" for Iraqi disarmament, with specific mention of Anthrax stocks. Dr. Glen Rangwala, a respected researcher at Cambridge University, gained worldwide fame when he exposed Tony Blair's Iraq dossier as plagiarized. Rangwala maintains a comprehensive Web site with all of the allegations about Iraq's WMD, and the truth as far as can be determined from public records. Claims of Iraq's nuclear program have been publicly discredited by Mohamed ElBaradei, but if you're interested in the details of Iraq's chemical (VX, etc.) and biological (Anthrax, etc.) programs, this is the place to visit. (Note: our $1,000 reward for proof of Iraq's WMD remains unclaimed...)

When will the news media wake up and realize the biggest political scandal since the Nixon days should be the way this administration is giving away Iraqi Oil to select companies including Cheney's old company Halliburton. Halliburton now has the contract to extinguish the Iraqi oil field fires after Bush's W-ar. How could the US be offering bids to property and assets of Iraq without there being a Declaration of War, or at the very least having a cease fire agreement which includes this? Isn't this a little premature? This should be investigated immediately.

Bush's henchmen have dropped Chalabi, the Iraqi opposition leader, upon finding that he hoodwinked them into thinking Iraq will be a walkover. Contrary to what the Busheviks would like to believe, The Iraqis will not fold and join the American cause as we march in. This will be bloody and extended urban warfare.

"A chemical plant which the US says is a key component in Iraq's chemical warfare arsenal was secretly built by Britain in 1985 behind the backs of the Americans, the Guardian can disclose. Documents show British ministers knew at the time that the [UK]$14m plant, called Falluja 2, was likely to be used for mustard and nerve gas production. Senior officials recorded in writing that Saddam Hussein was actively gassing his opponents [Iranian troops in the thousands in the Iran-Iraq war] and that there was a 'strong possibility' that the chlorine plant was intended by the Iraqis to make mustard gas...But ministers in the then Thatcher government none the less secretly gave financial backing to the British company involved, Uhde Ltd, through insurance guarantees. Paul Channon, then trade minister, concealed the existence of the chlorine plant contract from the US administration, which was pressing for controls on such exports." But Reagan-Bush also secretly armed Iraq - also with WMD's!

Bush says we should invade Iraq because they have huge stocks of WMD. But Iraq says all of its WMD have been destroyed. UN inspectors have combed Iraq and can't find any. So where are they? In a BBC interview, Rummy said they are in "the underground systems and the tunneling." Gee, we thought they were in mobile laboratories, or in temporary storage in Syria. This is the entire basis for W-ar, yet Bush refuses to offer a consistent story. Besides, if we know where the stuff is, why don't we send the inspectors to find it? Remember what the inspectors said of the CIA info they've been given: "garbage, garbage, garbage." Once again we ask: "where's the iceberg?" Our $1,000 reward remains unclaimed (http://democrats.com/iceberg)

Robert Parry writes, "Before George W. Bush gives the final order to invade Iraq -- a nation that has not threatened the US -- the American people might want a few facts about the real history of U.S.-Iraq relations... Americans don't have those facts because Bush and his predecessors in the White House have kept this history hidden from the American people. When parts of the story have emerged, administrations of both parties have taken steps to suppress or discredit the disclosures. So instead of knowing the truth, Americans have been fed a steady diet of distortions, simplifications and outright lies. This missing history also is not just about minor details. It goes to the heart of the case against Saddam Hussein, including whether he is an especially 'aggressive' and 'unpredictable' dictator who must be removed from power even at the risk of America's standing in the world and the chance that a war will lead to more terrorism against U.S. targets."

If you go back in time to connect the dots leading to Bush's W-ar on Iraq, a crucial dot is the New Yorker magazine's publication on 3-24-02 of an article by Jeffrey Goldberg titled "The Great Terror." This article was seized upon by the Busheviks as proof of ties between Saddam and Osama. Goldberg's star witness was Mohammed Mansour Shahab, but subsequent interviews by other journalists found Shahab to be a storyteller. On 2-2-03, the New Yorker published another dubious article by Goldberg. Alexander Cockburn writes, "This last piece of Goldberg's was a truly disgraceful piece of flackery (of Rumsfeld, Tenet, et al.), devoid of even the pretensions of independent journalism." Cockburn also points out that Goldberg is a veteran of the Israeli armed forces, which raises the question - is the New Yorker publishing deliberate disinformation planted by Richard Perle's Likud allies?

Reagan-Bush "helped [Saddam] build an agribusiness industry, and [they] sold him arms and equipment for Iraq's war with Iran [They also armed Iran, through Iran-Contra - Bush was 'in the loop' of both of these arms profiteering schemes]. However, in our busy rewrite of history, all that never happened. Only parts of a 1998 Iraqi weapons declaration to the UN were released last December to non-permanent members of the Security Council. The missing data concerned details of the arms trade with Iraq by U.S. government agencies, research labs, and U.S. and foreign private companies. However, Die Tageszeitung, a German daily, published details that had been withheld, including a list of 24 U.S. companies it claims were listed as having supplied Saddam with construction materials for nuclear weapons and rocket programs and with anthrax. The German paper reported that the document had been censored mostly at the urging of the U.S., which is a permanent member of the Security Council."

Last week, Newsweek revealed the 1995 testimony of Gen. Hussein Kamel, who said "All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed." On Democracy Now, Amy Goodman discussed this important revelation with former UN inspector Scott Ritter, his former boss, Rolf Ekeus, and Norman Solomon of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

NY Times opines, "After a weekend of fast-moving events, including the destruction by Iraq of some of its illegal Al Samoud 2 missiles, Mr. Bush needs to take a deep breath. The White House seems increasingly intent on attacking Iraq, whether or not Baghdad disarms and whether or not the Security Council endorses a war. Mr. Bush may soon find himself forced to choose between going ahead with an invasion despite marginal international support, or bowing to demands by many allies to give inspectors more time. We believe more time is warranted to determine whether Iraq's dismantlement of missiles is a signal that Mr. Hussein is reconsidering his stubborn defiance of the UN and to see if a solution short of war is still possible... The threat of force, however, should not give way to the use of force until peaceful paths to Iraqi disarmament have been exhausted and the Security Council gives its assent to war." Tell the Times to oppose w-ar without UN support: letters@nytimes.com

The Angry Liberal writes, "Here is some information from the latest Zogby poll that I found particularly amusing:
'Currently, would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a war against Iraq?'
Support 54%
Oppose 41%
From this general question, the fine folks at Zogby add a bit more information:
'Would you support or oppose a war against Iraq if it included sending in hundreds of thousands of U.S. ground troops?'
Support 47%
Oppose 45%
What you have just witnessed is amazing. By adding a single undisputed fact to the question of war with Iraq, a majority of Americans either oppose or are unsure about a war... We have at least 225,000 troops in the region right now, and that number is increasing. Nevertheless, simply reminding polling respondents of this fact caused 7% of the war supporters to jump ship."

Arab News reports, "Leaders from 22 Arab countries yesterday strongly opposed the planned US-led military attack on Iraq as a threat to Arab national security, and said their countries would not participate in any war. A final communique' issued after the one-day summit here also blasted the 'attempts to impose changes in the region,' in a reference to US demands that Saddam Hussein be removed from power... [A UAE proposal calling on Saddam to leave Iraq was never considered.] The summit's resolution was a compromise to satisfy both Iraq, which is backed by Syria, and the Gulf Arab states such as Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain which are hosting US troops massing for the threatened conflict. Those states, which are bound by defense pacts with Washington, can now argue that, in the event of a war, they are not participating directly and that US forces operating from their soil are doing so under a UN mandate." But what if there is no UN mandate, and Bush invades unilaterally?

Nuclear scientist Imad Khadduri defected from Iraq in 1998. He writes: "Powell only accused but did not provide any evidence that Iraq had tried to get nuclear grade fissile material since 1998... Where is the scientific and engineering staff required for such an enormous effort when almost all of them have been living in abject poverty for the past decade, striving to simply feed their families on $20 a month, their knowledge and expertise rusted and atrophied under heavy psychological pressures? Where is the management that might lead such an enterprise? The previous management team of the nuclear weapon program in the eighties exists only in memories and reports. Its members have retired, secluded themselves, or turned to fending for their livelihood of their families. Where are the buildings and infrastructure to support such a program? The entire nuclear weapon program of the eighties has been either bombed by the Americans during the war or uncovered by the IAEA inspectors."

The intelligence website Stratfor.com says Saddam "has agreed to a proposal by Russian President Vladimir Putin - previously discussed between Russian, French and German leaders - that Baghdad formally invite U.N. peacekeepers within the next 10 days or so to back up weapons inspectors... Hussein has asked Putin to deliver a secret offer to U.S. and British energy giants, inviting them back to Iraq as major industry players roughly 30 years after they were ousted from the country. The companies could return to Iraq immediately if Washington calls off its planned invasion... The Bush administration's reaction at this point is far from clear. The proposal would not achieve Washington's two main goals in Iraq: regime change and a new base for U.S. forces in the Middle East. However, as the costs of war continue to pile up, the Russian proposal could be considered a face-saving exit for Washington." This report is getting a lot of buzz, and might be true.

Six months of Bush's bluffing are coming to a close, as Bush is being forced to reveal his bottom line for Iraq. UN Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously, called only for disarmament; Saddam could stay if he disarmed. But Bush now demands Saddam's departure: "It's disarmament AND regime change," said Ari. This unilateral US demand outraged Canada's Jean Chretien: "If you start changing regimes, where do you stop, this is the problem? Who is next? Give me the list, the priorities." And Bush's never-ending shell game outraged Russia's Igor Ivanov, who declared "Russia has the right to veto." "Russia will not support a resolution or resolutions which directly or indirectly open a way towards a power solution of the Iraqi problem," Mr. Ivanov said.

This article is a must read. It is one of the most in-depth written on the Al Samoud 2 missile and the success of weapons inspections. Obviously, it has been squashed by the "liberal media" because of its positive reflection of Iraqi cooperation with the inspections process. The irony is that the only newspaper we could find that printed it was the Austin-American Statesman, based in Austin, Texas! It states: "U.N. inspectors swarming over Iraq's missile industry found an infraction last week: The short-range Al Samoud 2 sometimes flies a few miles farther than allowed. But the experts have reported no sign of any longer-range missiles that could strike Israel or neighboring oil nations as Washington fears. In fact, after three months' intensive work, the U.N. teams are looking ahead to ending their current investigative phase, and moving on to long-term monitoring via electronic 'eyes and ears.' Such a system could rein in missile development for years, experts say."

MSNBC reports: "U.N. diplomats were waiting and watching to see whether Iraq would keep its promise to begin destroying its Al Samoud 2 missiles Saturday, a pledge that chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix hailed as 'a very significant piece of real disarmament.' [Predictably,] U.S. officials laboring to persuade the United Nations to authorize military action in Iraq dismissed Baghdad's announcement as a trick that fell far short of U.N. demands...The CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll found that if Iraq destroyed the missiles as ordered, support for invading Iraq with ground troops would drop to 33 percent. If Iraq refused, support for military action would swell to 71 percent...Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief U.N. inspector of Iraq's nuclear weapons programs, said Thursday in an interview with Newsweek that 'we haven't seen any area where they have declined to cooperate with us.'"

13Myths.org writes, "At no time in the last 30 years has our government put our troops into the battlefield in the face of such widespread opposition. Therefore, it is appropriate to examine: why are so many countries now opposed to a war in Iraq? Are those opposing war simply apologists for Saddam Hussein? Do the arguments of those advocating unilateral war stand up under scrutiny?" No way - times thirteen! 1: Removing Saddam Will Punish 9/11 Perpetrators; 2: Powell Presented Strong Evidence at UN; 3: Saddam May Soon Threaten US; 4: Experts 'Discover' Prohibited Missile; 5: Bin Laden Tape Proves Iraq Connection; 6: Iraq Still Has Large Nuclear Program; 7: If US Pulls Out Now, It Looks Bad; 8: A Cheap, Easy War; 9: Wartime Press is Free and Unbiased; 10: Goal is to Free Iraqis, Not to Grab Oil; 11: War Solves the Energy Crisis; 12: UN Commitments Don't Really Matter; 13: Protesting a War is Unpatriotic.

Baltimore Sun's Scott Shane reports, "Presidents often present American positions in starkly moral terms, as Bush did in describing Hussein in the SOTU: 'The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages... International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.' But all those evils were well-documented in 1983. At the time of Rumsfeld's visit, Hussein had invaded Iran, was seeking nuclear weapons and had used lethal mustard gas. He had harbored terrorists and had a well-established record of torturing and murdering domestic opponents. The U.S. response? It dropped Iraq from the list of nations sponsoring terror, renewed diplomatic ties, and provided intelligence and aid to Iraq to prevent its defeat by Iran."

MSNBC reports: "Iraq agreed 'in principle' Thursday to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles, as the chief U.N. weapons inspector had ordered, a U.N. diplomat said. The diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Iraqi agreement came in a letter to chief weapons inspector Hans Blix saying that 'in principle they agreed to the destruction of the missiles.' But U.S. officials dismissed the gesture [did you think they would do otherwise?], saying it did not alter their view that Baghdad was not fully meeting its disarmament obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions. A U.N. official said the inspectors weren't sure what to make of Iraq's statement. 'They accept in principle the destruction of the missiles and the facilities, but this has to be clarified,' the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Blix has ordered the Iraqis to begin destroying the missiles by Saturday."

WashPost reports, "The US has promised to prevent Kurds from imposing a federation-style government in postwar Iraq that would ensure their continued autonomy and agreed to allow Turkish troops to enter northern Iraq and observe the disarmament of Kurdish militias once fighting has stopped. The deal, designed to persuade Turkey to allow U.S. troops to use its bases for an attack on Iraq, foresees that Turkish troops will cross the 218-mile Turkish-Iraqi border along with U.S. troops and proceed at least 121/2 miles into the rugged Kurdish-inhabited hills to prevent a flow of refugees into Turkey and maintain stability and security in the region... The plans to allow Turkish forces into Iraq already have provoked anger and concern among the 3.5 million Iraqi Kurds who since the 1991 Persian Gulf War have enjoyed a flourishing self-rule in northern Iraq."

Patrick J Sloyan writes: "Months later, Daniel and the world would learn why the dead had eluded eyewitnesses, cameras and video footage. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers, some of them firing their weapons from first world war-style trenches, had been buried by ploughs mounted on Abrams tanks. The tanks had flanked the lines so that tons of sand from the plough spoil had funneled into the trenches. Just behind the tanks, straddling the trench line, came Bradleys pumping machine-gun bullets into Iraqi troops...[George W.] Bush has already implemented ground rules that require journalists to give up their mobile and satellite phones to military commanders who would control the movements of these so-called pool reporters during Desert Storm II. If the final rules, organised by the Pentagon, are anything like the pool system designed by Bush Sr and Cheney in 1991, the world will be given a cloudy mixture of video footage and misinformation that will fog the reality of war."

"Tony McPeak, a four-star general who headed the U.S. Air Force during Desert Storm, believes that Resident Bush should publicly admit personal failure and restart diplomatic negotiations for a possible war against Iraq. McPeak, who retired to Oregon in 1995, says Bush has botched the crucial process of building a coalition, of enlisting the United Nations and of rebuilding Afghanistan as a model of reconstruction...As chief of staff from 1990 to 1994, McPeak accomplished the biggest reorganization of the Air Force in its history. He believes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should be dramatically transforming the military to confront the new terrorist threat, slashing redundancy and cutting heavy Army divisions in favor of agile special forces...'I regard the nuclear threat [from Saddam] as zero,' he says. 'I regard the connection between Saddam and al-Qaida as less than zero.'"

Newkular Times reports, "The Army's chief of staff said today that several hundred thousand American troops could be required to provide security and public services in Iraq after a war to oust Saddam Hussein and disarm his military. The magnitude of the postwar troop commitment described by the Army's top officer, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, is much larger than what other American officials have outlined. Pentagon officials have said that about 100,000 American troops may be needed in the post-Saddam phase, along with tens of thousands of additional allied forces. 'Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required,' General Shinseki told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee today. 'We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.'"

Imad Khadduri writes: "On February 14, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), submitted, in accordance with U.N. Resolution 1441, his second report to the Security Council on Iraq's nuclear non-capability. Much to the chagrin of Resident Bush and Colin Powell, the nuclear inspection chief's findings not only cleared the smoke from the imagined 'smoking gun,' but also dissipated the smog of misinformation with which the American government, hungry for war, has surrounded this issue...What is not generally known is that when Hans Blix, a month ago, challenged Bush and Blair to put up or shut up, in effect challenging them to produce their 'sensitive' intelligence on suspected sites in order to allow the inspectors to verify the vociferous claims of the likes of White House spokesman Ari Fleischer's 'we know they have it,' a list of 25 sites was quietly provided. The inspectors visited each one of these sites and found nothing."

Joyce Battle of the National Security Archive has published a fantastic compendium of official documents about US policy towards Iraq from 1980-84 - with video of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand. "Realpolitik determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons... Opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing."

MSNBC reports that Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim is the most influential leader among the Shia Muslims who make up 65% of Iraq's people. But al-Hakim "warned the US on Tuesday that its military presence in post-war Iraq would not be welcome, and that any attempt to install a Pentagon general in Baghdad could be met with a 'religious war.'... 'Iraqi opposition forces can form a democracy,' said Hakim. 'But if the US installs an American general, this is against the idea of democracy.... Installing an American general in Baghdad will have very dangerous consequences, and Muslim countries will refuse any foreign administration of Iraq. This could start a religious war in Iraq and neighboring countries. This will open the door to violence and terrorism against the US. This extremism will be very dangerous to Iraq and its neighbors,' he said. 'The Americans will not be able to control the social disorder that will arise after installing an American general in Baghdad.'"

Dan Rather reports, "Saddam also challenged Bush to join him in a live radio and television satellite linkup and debate the need for war before the entire world. 'I am ready,' said the Iraqi president, 'to conduct a direct dialogue with your president [sic]. I will say what I want and he will say what he wants. This will be an opportunity for him, if he's committed to war, this will be an opportunity to convince the world. This is something proposed in earnest,' Saddam said, 'out of my respect for the people of the US and my respect for the people of Iraq and the people of the world. I call for this because war is not a joke.' 'As leaders,' the Iraqi president said to his American counterpart, 'why don't we use this opportunity?' The White House clearly regards the debate offer as a ridiculous stalling attempt by Saddam. Ari Fleischer told CBS News Correspondent Mark Knoller that it's 'not a serious statement.'" Why not? Is W afraid of Saddam? Before kids die, we demand a debate!

"Iraq is providing new information about its weapons and has reported the discovery of two bombs, including one possibly filled with a biological agent - moves that the chief U.N. weapons inspector said Tuesday signal real cooperation... [Blix] said Iraq had provided inspectors with half a dozen letters containing new information on weapons, including two R-400 aerial bombs. Blix said one of the bombs was 'likely to be filled with biological stuff, it's a liquid that appears to be biological.' He gave no other details, but R-400 aerial bombs can be filled with biological or chemical agents. He also said Iraq had also reported finding handwritten documents on the disposal of 'prohibited items in 1991.' 'There are pieces of evidence that are coming forward, but we still have to see this evidence,' he told AP. 'This is cooperation on substance,' Blix told AP. 'Substance is if you find weapons, you can destroy it. If you find documents, it may constitute evidence. That's not process.'"

Stephen Green writes: "It was Rumsfeld himself who, as President Reagan's Middle East Envoy, had traveled to the Region to meet with Saddam Hussein in December 1983 to normalize, particularly, security relations. At the time of the visit, Iraq had already been removed from the State Department's list of terrorist countries in 1982; and in the previous month, November, President Reagan had approved National Security Decision Directive 114, on expansion of U.S.-Iraq relations generally. But it was Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Baghdad which opened of the floodgates during 1985-90 for lucrative U.S. weapons exports--some $1.5 billion worth-- including chemical/biological and nuclear weapons equipment and technology, along with critical components for missile delivery systems for all of the above...There were few if any reservations evident in the range of weapons which President Ronald Reagan, and his successor George W. H. Bush were willing to sell Saddam Hussein."

"On February 13, 2003, teams of artists and activists postered New York City with thousands of copies of snapshots from Baghdad. Quiet and casual, the snapshots show a part of Baghdad we rarely see: the part with people in it. The snapshots were taken by a friend of ours who just got back from Baghdad working with the Iraq Peace Team. Yes, he saw Iraqis suffering and struggling. But he also saw Iraqis dancing and laughing. This moved him because laughing under the weight of the UN sanctions and the threat of an absurd war is no easy task. We were moved because the people in the pictures remind us of our friends & family. View the snapshots of the families children we will kill for oil and empire in a Flash photo sequence."

Newsweek reports, "Hussein Kamel, the highest-ranking Iraqi official ever to defect from Saddam Hussein's inner circle, told CIA and British intelligence officers and U.N. inspectors in the summer of 1995 that after the gulf war, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them... Kamel was Saddam Hussein's son-in-law and had direct knowledge of what he claimed: for 10 years he had run Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs... Kamel's revelations about the destruction of Iraq's WMD stocks were hushed up by the U.N. inspectors, sources say, for two reasons. Saddam did not know how much Kamel had revealed, and the inspectors hoped to bluff Saddam into disclosing still more. And Iraq has never shown the documentation to support Kamel's story. Still, the defector's tale raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist." Bush has LIED to the world - stop the war and impeach Bush now!

"17 British companies who supplied Iraq with nuclear, biological, chemical, rocket and conventional weapons technology are to be investigated and could face prosecution following a Sunday Herald investigation. The companies were named by Iraq in a 12,000 page dossier submitted to the UN in December. The Security Council agreed to US requests to censor 8000 pages -- including sections naming western businesses which aided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme... The Foreign Office said: 'The UK will investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute any UK company found to have been in breach of export control legislation.'... Labour MP Tam Dalyell said: 'What the Sunday Herald has printed is of huge significance. It exposes the hypocrisy of Blair and Bush. The chickenhawks who want war were up to their necks in arms deals. This drives a coach and horses through the moral case for war.'" The same dossier shows 24 US companies armed Iraq - we demand an investigation!

NY Times columnist Bill Keller got 1/2 of a page to make the case for W-ar. Keller's bottom line is we must go to W-ar to preserve Bush's "credibility." But our unelected resident decided to wage his (non-existent) credibility on his own, without consulting the American people. SO why is HIS credibility OUR problem? And how does that possibly justify murder and sacrifice? "The peace camp will dismiss this as schoolyard machismo. But credibility is a great peacekeeper, because enemies who trust your word are less likely to test it... In the short run, war is perilous. In the long run, peace can be a killer, too." Say WHAT? Why didn't Keller simply quote Big Brother's newspeak in Orwell's 1984: "War is Peace."

The NY Times editors have become utterly incapable of making a declarative statement on historic policy issues. After a half-page editorial (1772 words), what is their "bottom line"? "[We] believe this is a war worth waging, but only with broad international support." Waging W-ar without key allies "will send a message that we can do whatever we want. But it is not going to make the rest of the world want to root for us to succeed... We will further split the world into squabbling camps, united only by their jealousy of our power." True, but this argument is morally bankrupt. Either the US is justified in waging W-ar - and murdering innocent civilians and sacrificing US men and women - or it isn't, with or without allies. And Bush has utterly failed to make any case that his W-ar is worth "the last measure of devotion," which is the ultimate cost of W-ar. The Times is also politically bankrupt, because they ignore the 10 million protesters here and abroad who say NO to war.

The polls show that 1/3 of Americans support Bush's W-ar, even if the US has to fight without UN support and even if it costs the lives of thousands of our sons and daughters in battle. But who ARE these W-ar supporters? There are no pro-War organizations leading massive street protests. We've been looking for online petitions, and we finally found one. The Petition to Remove Saddam Hussein by Force has exactly 727 signatures as of 2-23-02. Compare that to 10 million people who went out into the freezing cold to march (or shuffle) for hours. Has there ever been LESS support for a W-ar?

Now that every other argument for W-ar has been exposed as bushit, Bush's final argument is that he is "liberating" Iraq. But the NY Times reports, "The Turkish fear of Kurdish independence is so intense that some analysts here have put forward another possibility: if the Americans get bogged down fighting the Iraqi Army in the north, Turkish troops may try to seize the oil fields near Kirkuk and Mosul, to ensure that they stay out of Kurdish hands. 'The bottom line is that the Turks will do whatever they can to hinder the development of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq,' said Mensur Akgun, director of foreign policy at the Turkish Social and Economic Studies Foundation. 'If worse comes to worse, Turkey would be willing to occupy those areas, at least temporarily'" - yeah, like the next 100 years or so. Impeach Bush Now!

CBS reports, "While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases... The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms." US intelligence garbage included: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites, wild goose chases into Saddam's presidential palaces, and the infamous aluminum tubes. "So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as 'garbage after garbage after garbage.' In fact, correspondent Mark Phillips says the source used another cruder word" - was it "bushit"?

Bush needs 9 votes for a majority in the UN Security Council, and he only has 4, counting Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria. The swing votes are Angola, Guinea, Cameroon, Mexico, Chile and Pakistan. The six countries "are really feeling the heat, and they're going to be feeling even more heat in coming days," said election-stealer-in-chief Karl Rove. But Bush doesn't have a prayer, since Angola, Guinea, and Cameroon endorsed the French position yesterday, and Mexico's Fox brushed off Spain's Aznar today. Bush has only one option - call in Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) to count the UN votes!

The Daily Mirror reports, "One million Iraqi children under the age of five could die from malnutrition if there is a war, warns a confidential United Nations' report. It says that five million Iraqis are vulnerable. Its experts estimate that up to half a million would need medical treatment for injuries. But they think that most deaths would come from disease and starvation not military attack. Around 70% of the population - 18 million - would have no water supply and 8.7 million no sanitation if the country was blitzed. The 27-page dossier has been compiled by the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in New York and has been put on Secretary General Kofi Annan's desk. It warns the UN would not be able to cope with such a humanitarian catastrophe. A senior UN source said: 'If anybody suggests the people of Iraq aren't going to suffer in the event of war, you can tell them they are lying.'"

"Nearly six in 10 Americans, 57%, say the United States should get a second U.N. resolution before attacking Iraq, and about the same number, 58%, say this country does not currently have enough international support for such an attack. These are the findings of a poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Pew Director Andrew Kohut said the most important findings of the poll are that the debate with longtime allies in the United Nations, the report by U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and overseas peace protests "have affected public opinion... The number of people who are basically backing support hasn't changed," Kohut said, "but concerns about the big qualification of international support have."

Reuters reports, "A short war with Iraq could cost the world one percent of its economic output over the next few years and more than $1 trillion by 2010, Australian researchers said in a report Thursday. A long war could more than triple the costs, they said. The compounding effects of rising oil prices, extra budget spending and economic uncertainty could cut $173 billion from the world economy in 2003 alone, said the researchers, Reserve Bank of Australia board member Warwick McKibbin and Center for International Economics executive director Andrew Stoeckel. Basing their projections on two scenarios -- a short war with a year or two of rebuilding or a long war lasting five years with five years of rebuilding -- the researchers said conflict would sideswipe private investment and probably push equity prices even lower. 'Even a short war could cost the world one percent of GDP per year over the next few years.'"

On 2-20-03, "FRONTLINE examines the hidden story of what is really driving the Bush administration to war with Iraq. The investigation asks whether the publicly reported reasons--fear of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction or a desire to insure and protect America's access to oil--are only masking the real reason for the war. Through interviews with well-placed sources in and outside of the administration, FRONTLINE unravels a story known only to the Washington insiders." Let's see whether they penetrate Bush's Iron Curtain of lies...

According to ABC News, "the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia recently transmitted a secret proposal to the Bush administration, using one of his own sons, Prince Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah as an emissary, rather than officials from the Saudi Embassy in Washington... The Saudis are proposing that after Saddam Hussein's fall, Saudi Arabia should lead a coalition of Islamic nations to occupy Iraq while a transitional Iraqi government is established, with Turkey playing the leading role in the Islamic force." Maybe we're being cynical, but it looks like the Saudis want to get their hands on Iraq's oil - before Bush's Texans do!

Every way Bush turns, the door is slamming in his face. Turkey is extorting Bush for $30 billion, a gigantic pretzel that even Bush can't swallow. As for the UN Security Council, "My opposition to war is fundamental," declared Germany's Gerhard Schroeder. "The French are locked in 'Alamo mode,'" said one U.S. official, referring to the 13-day standoff in 1836 between 200 Texas volunteers and a Mexican army of thousands. France now has the support of 52 African nations, including 3 crucial votes on the Security Council - Guinea, Cameroon and Angola. China opposes a W-ar resolution, and the Russians are denouncing the US for pressuring Hans Blix to manufacture a justification for W-ar. Even BushBuddy Silvio Berlusconi of Italy "insisted that military action against Iraq must be carried out under the auspices of the UN." Bush has alienated the entire world, and no one but Tony Blair is willing to sacrifice his career to save him. Will this stop W-ar? Stay tuned...

Peter Beinart writes: "Why don't my fellow hawks ever discuss America's history with Saddam Hussein? Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush armed him. The history is appalling, and it involves key officials shaping Iraq policy today. [Saddam first used chemical weapons in 1983. The Reagan administration wasn't bothered. To the contrary, it sent Middle East envoy Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad. In the spring of 1984, Rumsfeld returned for another visit. During Reagan's presidency, the United States sold Iraq anthrax, bubonic plague, and botulinum toxin. Over congressional opposition, Reagan sold Iraq 'Huey' helicopters, which Saddam used in] chemical attacks on the Kurds. Rumsfeld should have trouble sleeping at night given his role in abetting Saddam's crimes. Instead, last fall on CNN, he insisted that in 1983 he 'cautioned' Saddam about chemical weapons." State Department records show no such thing.

Tom Friedman has fallen out of love with the Busheviks. "The Bush folks are big on attitude, weak on strategy and terrible at diplomacy... [They] think diplomacy is a phone call. They don't like to travel. Seeing senior Bush officials abroad for any length of time has become like rare-bird sightings. It's probably because they spend so much time infighting in Washington over policy, they're each afraid that if they leave town their opponents will change the locks on their office doors... I am also very troubled by the way Bush officials have tried to justify this war on the grounds that Saddam is allied with Osama bin Laden or will be soon. There is simply no proof of that, and every time I hear them repeat it I think of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. You don't take the country to war on the wings of a lie. Tell people the truth. Saddam does not threaten us today. He can be deterred." Exactly! So why do you cling to your delusion the Commander-in-Thief will bring Democracy to Iraq?

Last Friday at the UN, France, Germany, Russia, and China made it abundantly clear they will block any Security Council resolution that could be interpreted as giving a green light for W-ar - including a veto, if they have no other choice. On Saturday, worldwide demonstrations strengthened anti-war governments, while exposing Bush's pro-W-ar allies as completely opposed by their own people. On Monday, the EU adopted a statement on Iraq that refused to set any deadlines for inspectors. Yet in the face of this overwhelming opposition, Bush still thinks he can get some kind of resolution through the UN. What planet is Bush living on? It's time to send the DEA into the White House, because there is no explanation for Bush's delusions about the UN - except drugs.

Robert Scheer writes, "From the beginning of the administration's mockery of fact and logic, our damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't stance toward Iraq has been consistent: If they come forth with weapons we blast them for having them, and if they don't reveal enough we blast them for holding back. Amazingly, the Bush administration seems most alarmed at the prospect that if inspectors were allowed to do their job, they might find that Iraq doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction... Worst of all, we're giving Al Qaeda exactly what it wants: the overthrow of Hussein's government, what Osama bin Laden called in his latest tape an 'infidel regime' run by apostates, and the best recruiting poster he could hope for. Imagine it: a photo of a U.S. general, likely a Christian, who the Bush administration now says will run mostly Muslim Iraq for at least two years. In Arabic, the words are in big, red letters: 'Oust the crusaders.'"

Donald Rumsfeld has been making his list and checking it twice. No, it's not his Christmas list. The list is actually a four or five page document which details the answers to the questions we have been asking for months. What will the final cost of this war be? How long will this war wage on? "Three weeks, three months, three years?" The projected number of American casualties? Nightmare scenarios Saddam may attempt once cornered such as gassing his own people and blaming it on us. Or, as he did in Kuwait, destroying the oil fields which would definitely crimp the administration's style since they planned on using it to pay for this war [wasn't that supposed to be put in trust for the Iraqi people?]. Advance planners have other pressing concerns as well. "We still do not know how U. S. forces will be received," the senior official said. "Will it be cheers, jeers or shots? And the fact is, we won't know until we get there."

According to Colin Powell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the "missing link" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But extensive information gleaned from Shadi Abdullah, a 26-year-old gay Jordanian with close ties to al-Zarqawi, finds no links at all to Iraq, but extensive links to Iran. For example, 40 al Qaeda members fled from Afghanistan into Iran, and then tried to get to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, U.A.E. and Australia - but not Iraq. Al-Zarqawi was in Iran in April 2002, where he plotted terrorist attacks against a Jewish target in Germany. Once again, Powell's "missing link" is simply "misinformation."

Kurdish democracy leader Kanan Makiya writes, "The US is on the verge of committing itself to a post-Saddam plan for a military government in Baghdad with Americans appointed to head Iraqi ministries, and American soldiers to patrol the streets of Iraqi cities. The plan, as dictated to the Iraqi opposition in Ankara last week by a US-led delegation, further envisages the appointment by the US of an unknown number of Iraqi quislings palatable to the Arab countries of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia as a council of advisers to this military government. The plan reverses a decade-long moral and financial commitment by the US to the Iraqi opposition, and is guaranteed to turn that opposition from the close ally it has always been during the 1990s into an opponent of the US on the streets of Baghdad the day after liberation... The government of the United States is about to betray, as it has done so many times in the past, those core human values of self-determination and individual liberty."

After Bushdaddy had his head handed to him by Geraldine Ferraro in the VP debate of 1984, Bush lied, "We kicked a little a**." On Friday, Bushbaby got his own a** kicked by the "little" countries on the UN Security Council - notably Guinea, Chile, and Angola. Bush had personally called the leader of Angola, and thought he had been "persuasive." But Angola's UN ambassador said Blix's report was "a beacon of hope that we can indeed save the world from an imminent conflict." "We were surprised" at Angola's statement, the Busheviks said in the understatement of the year. Even BushBuddy Pakistan said it would "like to see every effort exhausted for a peaceful resolution of this crisis." It looks like all those e-mails and calls to UN Security Council members made a difference!

"Powell's long dossier of Iraq's alleged non-compliance came under withering attack from the chief UN weapons inspectors yesterday. They said they found several elements of his evidence either false or unconvincing. Hans Blix picked on two satellite images of a chemical warfare site, which the US secretary of state told the security council, in his 90-minute presentation last week, proved Iraq was engaged in deception...But Mr Blix made it clear he found the pictures unconvincing. 'The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of an imminent inspection,' he said...Mr Blix also cast doubt on Mr Powell's claims that Iraqi officials had been tapping the inspectors' telephones and hastily moving material from sites shortly before the inspectors arrived. 'In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming,' Mr Blix said."

AP reports, "In a dramatic showdown with the US, major powers in the Security Council rallied around calls for more weapons inspections in Iraq after top U.N. inspectors on Friday failed to give Washington the ammunition it needs to galvanize support for military action. Secretary of State Colin Powell, meeting stiff resistance in the 15-member council, warned that the world should not be taken in by 'tricks that are being played on us.' But only Spain and Britain spoke up for the U.S. position, and even Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw held out hope for a peaceful solution if Iraq dramatically accelerates its cooperation. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin's impassioned speech seeking more time for inspections elicited rare applause from diplomats in the chamber. He told The AP that France would not support a U.N. resolution authorizing war... It [is] highly unlikely that the US could muster the nine votes needed to authorize war now."

Former Iraqi Scientist Imad Khadduri writes for YellowTimes.org: "On the contrary, the few flimsy so-called pieces of evidence that were presented by Powell regarding a supposed continued Iraqi nuclear weapon program serve only to weaken the American and British accusations and reveal their untenable attempt to cover with a fig leaf their thread bare arguments and misinformation campaign. The false and untrue pieces of evidence follow: Powell, in a theatrical query, asked why the Iraqi scientists were asked to sign declarations, with a death penalty if not adhered to, not to reveal their secrets to the IAEA inspection teams. Exactly the opposite is true. The four or five, as I recall such declarations, which I read in detail, held us to the penalty of death in the event that we did not hand in all of the sensitive documents and reports that may still be in our possession!" Read about Powell's other lies!

AP reports, "Strong war opponent Pope John Paul II held a private meeting with a top Iraqi leader Friday, urging the government of Saddam Hussein to commit fully to U.N. weapons inspections in hopes of averting a U.S.-led attack. The pontiff's hopeful words came hours before chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix reported to the Security Council that his team had so far not found weapons of mass destruction. The pope met with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz for about 30 minutes Friday, gripping the Iraqi's hand firmly at the end. 'God bless you. God bless Iraq,' John Paul said." Hey George, is Pope John Paul with us - or against us?

"As an employee of the Hill & Knowlton PR firm, Lauri Fitz-Pegado helped coach Nayirah, the 15-year-old daughter of Kuwait's ambassadors whose false testimony about Iraqi atrocities helped build public support for the first U.S. war in the Persian Gulf. Participating in one of the most scandalous PR scams of the 1990s hasn't hurt her career, though. After Operation Desert Storm, she went to work for Iridium LLC, a satellite phone company that went bankrupt a few years later. She now owns her own PR firm, with clients including the government of Egypt, the Pan African New Agency Press and the American Business Women's Alliance. She's also available as a public speaker through Podium Prose, a speakers' bureau with ties to Monsanto and the libertarian Cato Institute."

Iraq declared almost a year ago that it had tested missiles beyond the range permitted by the UN, a weapons expert said today. Douglas Richardson, editor of Jane's Missiles and Rockets, said the missiles criticised by UN diplomats yesterday appear to have been mentioned in Iraq's March 2002 declaration to UN weapons inspectors. Richardson said Iraq told the UN last March that "a couple of their missiles had been tested beyond that range" to just over 180 km). He said those appeared to be the al-Samoud 2 rockets referred to yesterday, when UN diplomats said experts had concluded that Iraqi missiles in some tests exceeded the maximum range allowed under Security Council resolutions in place since the 1991 Gulf War.

The divide between the United States and Mexico could become greater after the February 14, 2003 meeting of the United Nations Security Council. Mexico is prepared to vote against the United States if a new resolution for war is proposed. Despite all of the bullying, the United States only has five sure votes with Cameroon, Pakistan and Mexico agreeing with France, Russia and China that all means of peaceful resolution have not been exhausted and inspections should continue. "The Mexican constitution expressly forbids the deployment of forces beyond the country's own borders, and pledges that Mexico will not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. If at the end of the day, Mexico has to vote against the United States at the Security Council, we are sure Bush will understand, and will not attempt to punish the Fox government economically or politically, Mexican Ambassador Maria Madero said." Sure ... when pigs fly!

UK Independent reports, "Senior democrats have accused the CIA of sabotaging weapons inspections in Iraq by refusing to co-operate fully with the UN and withholding crucial information about Saddam Hussein's arsenal. Led by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), the Democrats accused the CIA of making an assessment that the inspections were unlikely to be a success and then ensuring they would not be. They have accused the CIA director of lying about what information on the suspected location of weapons of mass destruction had been passed on... Mr Levin has raised his concerns with the White House. In a letter to Bush, the senator asked that America provide the inspectors with as much information as available. He wrote: 'The American people want the inspections to proceed, want the United States to share the information we have with the UN inspectors and want us to obtain United Nations support before military action is used against Iraq.'" Bush is violating UN 1441 - Impeach Bush Now!

Former Michigan U. S. Congressman David Bonior disagrees with the idea that Americans who protest the war are not patriotic. He suggests those who place anti-war signs in their front yard should display the American flag as well. Bonior said, 'It's our flag, too.' When asked what Americans can do to oppose this war, Bonior suggested placing 'No War' signs on front lawns and to actively participate in protests. 'He also mentioned voicing support for one of the United States' harshest international critics in regard to the Iraq situation. 'One thing you can do is to e-mail, write or call the French delegation at the United Nations and tell them you support what they're about,' Bonior said.' Maybe he should consider running for a higher office in the near future, like 'Bonior for Prez in '04!'

'Our country has created alienation for half a century in the Middle East,' former Congressman David Bonior said at Wayne State University Tuesday. 'Military solutions only increase alienation.' Bonior's statement was made during a workshop with Reverend Ed Rowe in Detroit. Both Rowe and Bonior have visited the Middle East and witnessed the suffering of the people of Iraq due to what they call a militaristic approach to diplomacy by the United States. Rowe, a Methodist Minister, further said that Bush has governed as a 'fundamentalist Christian' since taking over the residency and was critical of Bush's refusal to meet with United Methodist bishops to discuss his stance on Iraq.

Christian Science Monitor reports, "The head of the US military's Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks, will rule Iraq in the initial aftermath of a US invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein [for at least 2 years!]. Iraqi opposition leaders are already attacking the plan, saying it amounts to a US military rule of Iraq that will favor the existing power structure in the country. Instead of turning Iraq into a beacon of democracy in the Middle East... the US has decided to run the country itself... 'To be kind, it is unworkable. Either reason will prevail, or time will demonstrate to the authors [of the US plan] the error of their ways,' says Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi. 'I really shudder to think.'... Much of Iraq's existing power structure, dominated by Hussein's ruling Baath Party, will maintain its role. 'Power is being handed, essentially on a platter, to the second echelon of the Baath Party and the [Iraqi] Army officer corps,' says Kanan Makiya."

A serious rift has opened up between Prince Charles and the British government because he is seen to be against a war on Iraq and against America. Whitehall also believes the prince is sympathetic to the view of his Arab friends that war on Saddam Hussein is a bid by the US to grab a stake in the Middle East's oil. A Whitehall source said: "Downing Street tries not to involve the prince in anything because they have concerns over how he will react... He has this lunatic view he is the voice of the people."... The prince's views have led to a worrying split with the American leadership. Two months ago, Charles had to abandon an official visit to the US because the White House made it clear he wasn't wanted. The snub, directly from Bush, came after security sources advised that Charles's presence in America would be "very unhelpful".

Pope John Paul II has sent his envoy, retired Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, to Iraq. In one of his messages, the pontiff has requested permission to visit to personally visit Iraq. "I am coming to encourage the Iraqi authorities to cooperate with the United Nations on the basis of international law," the cardinal said. War is the last solution," he said, "and the worst solution." Cardinal Etchegaray will meet with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Azziz, a member of Iraq's Chaldean which has connections to Rome. Azziz will be traveling later this week for a private audience with the Pope in Italy.

All but four of the 15 United Nations Security Council members support prolonging U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq, a senior German government source said on Tuesday. The source denied that Germany was isolated in its desire to intensify weapons inspections in Iraq and noted strong support from Russia. "The German government in no way stands alone in its position," the source said. The countries supporting the U.S. position that "the game is up" for Iraq are Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, the source said. "But the rest of the members of the Security Council support the position of the German government." Hey George - why don't you move to Bulgaria!

The Center for Cooperative Research has built an amazing Web site at cooperativeresearch.org. Volunteer researchers work together to analyze and document key issues affecting the nation. The site is best known for its comprehensive investigation of 9-11, but it has also delved deeply into the alleged justifications for Bush's W-ar in Iraq, including: Iraq's alleged ties to terrorism; Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction or plan to use such weapons against the U.S.; U.S. assertions that Saddam's horrific past justifies a 'regime change' ; Hawks' assertions that no evidence of WMDs or ties to terrorism are necessary to justify Saddam's ousting. If these issues concern you, check out this site.

Bush's W-ar is meeting overwhelming resistance in NATO, at the UN, and in protests around the world. In utter desperation, Colin Powell resorted to outright lies to Congress. AP reports, "Colin Powell told a Senate panel Tuesday that what appears to be a new statement from Osama bin Laden shows why the world needs to be concerned about Iraqi ties to terrorism. Powell said he read a transcript of 'what bin Laden--or who we believe to be bin Laden' will be saying on the Al-Jazeera Arab satellite station later Tuesday, 'where once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq.' 'This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored,' Powell told the Senate Budget Committee. But Al-Jazeera chief editor Ibrahim Hilal told The AP his station has no such tape." Lying to Congress is a crime - Impeach Bush AND Powell!

At last! A major newspaper has reviewed all the arguments offered as justification for W-ar, and found them utterly unpersuasive. "Mr Blair has done little more than produce fanciful evidence to back up his firmly held beliefs. He asks us to trust him. We cannot do so. He has not made a convincing case for war." Naturally, it's a UK newspaper (the Independent), but hey - it's a start. When will ANY US publication reach the inescapable conclusion - that Saddam is firmly locked in a "box", that he poses no realistic threat to his neighbors or the US, and there is therefore no justification for W-ar?

AP reports, "'Iraq sent a letter to U.N. weapons inspectors Monday approving the use of U.S.-made U-2 surveillance planes and pledged to pass legislation next week outlawing the use of weapons of mass destruction, Iraq's ambassador to the UN said. 'The inspectors are now free to use the American U-2s as well as French and Russian planes,' Ambassador Mohamed al-Douri told The AP... Al-Douri said the legislation would be passed next week and that Iraq would continue to encourage scientists to accept private interviews with inspectors seeking information about Iraq's weapons programs... [In addition,] 'Iraq has offered to allow the inspectors to thoroughly investigate and analyze the sites where they claim to have destroyed chemical and biological weapons.'" So how can Bush justify W-ar when Iraq is meeting ALL of the specific terms set by UN inspectors?

Before we invade Iraq over Ansar al-Islam, we should analyze the group's backing. "Human Rights Watch has not investigated the alleged links between the Iraqi government and Ansar al-Islam, and is not aware of any convincing evidence supporting this contention. On the other hand, the location of the group's bases very close to the Iranian border, taken together with credible reports of the return of some Ansar al-Islam fighters to Iraqi Kurdistan through Iran, suggest that these fighters have received at least limited support from some Iranian sources. Villagers living under Ansar al-Islam control, and mainstream Islamists who have visited those areas, reported to Human Rights Watch that Iranian agents had been present on occasion. However, the exact nature of relations between the two sides is unclear: PUK and other sources acknowledged that Iran had played a mediating role aimed at ending the clashes between PUK and Ansar al-Islam forces." So how does this justify invading Iraq?

"The attack happened in the village of Garmashtepe, as veteran Kurdish commander and member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) politburo Shawkat Haji Mushir met three Ansar members. PUK officials said the meeting was supposed to be to negotiate the defection of a number of Ansar members to the PUK. But soon after arriving the visitors opened fire with guns and threw grenades killing Mushir, two PUK security officers and three civilians -- a man, woman and child... Preaching a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war, Ansar's up to 700 fighters control about a dozen villages and a range of peaks pressed between the PUK-controlled Halabja and the jagged ridges of the Iranian border behind them. Kurdish officials say Ansar is directed by around 150 Arabs who fled the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan." The US patrols the skies over this area - so why do we let them murder Kurds?

Here is Colin Powell on Fox News Sunday: "TONY SNOW: Is it your view that Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq is, in fact, busy trying to put together factories for the manufacture of such things? POWELL: We do know that the facility that I described in my presentation on Wednesday has been used to develop poisons, and not just from the picture of that facility but a lot of other source material we have shows that things have come out of that facility and have transited through various parts of Europe and Central Asia, reaching Western Europe." Ansar leaders took journalists to visit the site yesterday, and they reported there was no poison-making capability. When will Powell stop lying to the world?

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) went to the belly of the beast - FOX News Sunday with Tony Snow and Brit Hume - and was asked about the Franco-German peace plan. While the Busheviks have dismissed the plan summarily, Levin said: "It seems to me we ought to be welcoming efforts to forestall war, even if we disagree with those efforts after we read them. We should not treat the U.N. Security Council as some kind of a stumbling block. We ought to look at the Security Council as an asset, a way of either helping us to avert war -- and the world community gathering together is the best way to put pressure on Saddam to avert war -- or, if war is necessary, to avert the risks of war by having the world community authorizing an attack through the U.N." Levin also denounced Bush's non-compliance with UN Resolution 1441: "It's amazing to me that we have not given the inspectors the information that we have... We've only given the inspectors a small percentage of the suspect sites." You go, Carl!

The Observer's Luke Harding writes, "If Colin Powell were to visit the shabby military compound at the foot of a large snow-covered mountain, he might be in for an unpleasant surprise. [Powell] last week confidently described the compound in north-eastern Iraq - run by an Islamic terrorist group Ansar al-Islam - as a 'terrorist chemicals and poisons factory.' Yesterday, however, it emerged that the terrorist factory was nothing of the kind - more a dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy sloping hill. Behind the barbed wire, and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts, are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking. Mohammad Hasan, spokesman for Ansar al-Islam, explained, 'We don't have any drugs for our fighters. We don't even have any aspirin. How can we produce any chemicals or weapons of mass destruction?'"

AP reports, "Hans Blix said Sunday he saw a beginning of Iraqi understanding that it must seriously observe U.N. demands for disarmament and that he believed further U.N. inspections were preferable to a quick U.S.-led military strike. 'I perceive a beginning,' Blix said after two days of talks in Baghdad. 'Breakthrough is a strong word for what we are seeing.' But he added: 'I would much rather see inspections than some other solution,' referring to Washington's threats to [invade]. But Blix said he and U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei did not win immediate agreement on using American U-2 surveillance planes. Blix said he had received assurances that Iraq would expand a commission to search for weapons and weapons programs and 'relevant documents nationwide,' and that he had hopes that Iraq was taking the disarmament issue seriously Asked for comment on Bush's declaration last week that the 'game is over,' Blix replied, 'Well, we are still in the game."

Tom Englehardt writes, "I wrote long ago that the UN inspection teams constituted a potential stumbling block to war, utterly overlooked by our media. It's hard (though not inconceivable) to imagine a war being started with them in place. So the UN has to agree to withdraw them. Now we know that the Germans and French have been quietly planning the opposite -- to triple the size of the teams and possibly insert large numbers of UN peacekeeping troops in Iraq as well, effectively turning the country into a semi-United Nations protectorate. This is the sort of inventive policy-making that we so desperately need right now."

BBC reports, "Russia has said it will support a Franco-German plan aimed at averting war with Iraq. The plan reportedly calls for the tripling of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, banning Iraqi flights anywhere over the country and deploying UN peacekeepers. German Defence Minister Peter Struck said the proposal would be presented to the UN Security Council on Friday - the same day the chief UN weapons inspectors present their second critical report. The plan seems certain to deepen a growing rift between the United States and European countries over how to ensure Iraq disarms. Mr Struck said German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder would discuss the plan with the visiting Russian President, Vladimir Putin, in Berlin on Sunday... Russia's Defence Minister, Sergei Ivanov, said on Sunday that if the plan was presented to the UN, 'I have no doubt that Russia will adhere to it.' Belgium also said it was favourable to the Franco-German plan, according to the French news agency AFP."

Dubya has met his match in Vladimir Putin. Rather than being cowed by Dubya's threats about post-war Iraq, Putin has become a man with a mission. He will begin a whirlwind tour of Europe to gather support against a U.S. led attack upon Iraq. "To succeed, Russian diplomats say, Moscow should keep up a united front with other prominent opponents of the war. President Putin's state visits to Germany and France, on the eve of the crucial meeting of the UN Security Council on 14 February, are aimed at achieving just that. To give diplomacy another chance, Moscow is even prepared to give up its opposition to a new resolution on Iraq provided, as Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said, it strengthens the weapons inspectors' mandate without opening the road to the use of force against Iraq."

"Tony Blair and George Bush are encountering an unexpected obstacle in their campaign for war against Iraq - their own intelligence agencies. Britain and America's spies believe that they are being politicized: that the intelligence they provide is being selectively applied to lead to the opposite conclusion from the one they have drawn, which is that Iraq is much less of a threat than their political masters claim. Worse, when the intelligence agencies fail to do the job, the politicians will not stop at plagiarism to make their case, even 'tweaking' the plagiarized material to ensure a better fit."

Military man that he is (wink-wink), Dubya continues to evade telling the American public what the possible costs of war could be. As he quotes the bible and chants, "God Bless America," he gives the "rah-rah" speech about a quick, just and victorious war. However, as columnist Paul Koring points out in the Toronto Globe and Mail: "Wars, even lopsided ones, rarely go according to plan. The nightmare scenarios if George W. Bush launches an attack to oust Saddam Hussein range from horrific but improbably -- a wider Middle East war that goes nuclear -- to a likely Iraqi scorched-desert retreat that could create huge problems for advancing U. S. troop."

Vatican officials turned a skeptical eye on Colin Powell's evidence against Iraq. Further, they questioned why the evidence the United States possessed was held back and not given to the Security Council until February 5, 2003 - almost a full three months after the new resolution took effect. Such evidence, in their opinion, could have assisted inspectors in their efforts and could avoid war. In another turn of events, Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz, has requested an audience with the Pope which has been accepted. They will meet to discuss the situation in Iraq on February 14, 2003.

Der Spiegel reports that Germany and France are at "work on a plan for the complete disarmament of Iraq. The secret project called 'Mirage' provides for thousands of armed Blue-Helmet troops of the United Nations to enter into Iraq in order to facilitate the work of the inspectors. Under their protection, the inspectors would be able to mount a massive 'house-to-house' search of the whole country. The Blue Helmets would actually assume control of the country for years and guarantee a 'robust disarmament regime'-and this with German participation... The plan is being sounded out at present with several critics of the US strategy, among them the Greek prime minister and present EU-Parliament president Kastas Simits, the Russian president Vladimir Putin, and the Chinese president-elect Hu Jintao."

Reuters reports, "Germany and France are working on a new plan to try to avert war in Iraq that would compel Baghdad to admit thousands of U.N. troops to enforce disarmament and tighter sanctions... Germany's leading news magazine Der Spiegel said the idea had originated in the office of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Berlin and Paris had been working on the details of the initiative in secret talks since the beginning of the year... Initial reactions from Russia, China and European Union president Greece were positive, the magazine said, while Pope John Paul offered German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer support for the initiative at talks in the Vatican on Friday. Germany and France had not consulted Washington or its European allies in London, Madrid and Rome, the magazine said... Germany and France pledged last month to cooperate closely over Iraq in the U.N. Security Council, which is due to hear a new report from arms inspectors on February 14."

After a 2-day delay, NY Times reports, "The British government admitted today that large sections of its most recent report on Iraq, praised by Colin Powell as 'a fine paper' in his speech to the UN on Wednesday, had been lifted from magazines and academic journals. But while acknowledging that the 19-page report was indeed a 'pull-together of a variety of sources,' a spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair defended it as 'solid' and 'accurate.'" This is a joke, since some documents go back to 1991, and none was more recent than November. Amazingly, the document was called "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, DECEPTION and Intimidation" - and yet the document ITSELF was a DECEPTION. How on earth can BushBlair start a war over Saddam's deceptions, when THEY are deceiving?

AP reports, "The State Department advised nonessential U.S. diplomats and family members on Friday to leave Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Private U.S. citizens also were advised to leave those countries and Americans were cautioned not to travel to Israel. At the same time, the department urged Americans to stay away from Iraq and said it was closing the Polish office in Baghdad that provided consular service to Americans in the absence of U.S. relations with Iraq. U.S. citizens in Iraq were urged to leave. 'The Iraq regime's continuing refusal to cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors has lead to mounting tension between Iraq and the international community,' the department said." This is an utter LIE - Iraq has cooperated with virtually every request from U.N. inspectors, and has done NOTHING to increase tensions. All of the tension is coming from George W-armonger Bush. Stop the W-ar - Impeach Bush Now!

CNN reports, "Bush's declaration to Iraq that 'the game is over' has drawn a harsh response from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin... [who] said the Iraq crisis 'is not a game' and it is 'not over.' ... French President Jacques Chirac said on Friday, 'France considers that between the situation of inspections as it is now and war, there are many steps to be taken in order to disarm Iraq, and that we haven't fully explored these possibilities yet,' Chirac said. 'The decision to resort to war can't be taken lightly. War is always an admission of failure and the worst solution. There still exists an alternative to war' ... A senior U.N. official has said that by the time Blix arrives in Baghdad this weekend, he expects three key inspection issues to be resolved, including private interviews with Iraqi scientists, the use of U-2 spy planes, and Iraq's enforcement of legislation prohibiting companies from making weapons of mass destruction."

Adlai Stevenson III wrtes, "Pundits and officials in Washington have dubbed Secretary of State Colin Powell's attempt to make a case for war against Iraq in the United Nations Security Council an 'Adlai Stevenson moment.' I couldn't disagree more. My father was Adlai Stevenson, who in 1962, as President Kennedy's representative to the United Nations, presented the Security Council with incontrovertible proof that the Soviet Union, a nuclear superpower, was installing missiles in Cuba and threatening to upset the world's 'balance of terror.' That 'moment' had an obvious purpose: containing the Soviet Union and maintaining peace. It worked, and eventually the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight. This moment has a different purpose: war. The Bush administration clearly rejects the idea of containing Iraq through committed monitoring by the United Nations, even though this course is the better option."

Reuters reports, "Iraq took journalists to two missile sites on Friday in an attempt to rebut U.S. charges that it was developing long-range missiles in violation of a U.N. ban. Colin Powell on Wednesday produced satellite pictures of what he said were illegal activities. One of the [missile] stands, Powell said, was designed to test engines of missiles with a range of 1,200 km (750 miles). Under U.N. resolutions, Iraq is allowed to have missiles with a maximum range of 150 km (95 miles)... At the Falluja facility, 'The inspectors visited this site and searched it. They found that everything inside falls under permitted activities,' Jassem said... At Al Moatassem, chief engineer Karim Jabbar said Powell's charge was 'a false allegation' and said the facility was producing parts for the short-range Al Fatah missiles. 'We were surprised (by Powell's charge) because there is nothing banned at the factory. It is a declared site...The inspectors have already visited it 10 times.'"

Noam Chomsky says, "The [peace] demonstrations were another indication of a quite remarkable phenomenon. There is around the world and in the United States opposition to the coming war that is at a level that is completely unprecedented in US or European history both in scope and the parts of the population it draws on. There's never been a time that I can think of when there's been such massive opposition to a war before it was even started. And the closer you get to the region, the higher the opposition appears to be... Now there's no objective reason why the US should be more frightened of Saddam than say the Kuwaitis, but there is a reason - namely that since September there's been a drumbeat of propaganda trying to bludgeon people into the belief that not only is Saddam a terrible person but in fact he's going to come after us tomorrow unless we stop him today. And that reaches people."

Nicholas Kristof writes, "Hawks often compare Saddam to Hitler, suggesting that if we don't stand up to him today in Baghdad we'll face him tomorrow in the Mediterranean. The same was said of Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, whom the West saw as the Hitler of the 1950's and 1960's. But as with Nasser the analogy is faulty: Saddam may be as nasty as Hitler, but he is unable to invade his neighbors. His army has degraded even since the days when Iran fought him to a standstill, and he won't be a threat to us tomorrow; more likely, he'll be dead. A better analogy is Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, who used to be denounced as the Hitler of the 1980's... Ronald Reagan wisely chose to contain Libya, not invade it - and this worked. Does anybody think we would be better off today if we had invaded Libya and occupied it, spending the last two decades with our troops being shot at by Bedouins in the desert?"

Bush and Powell have "shown that Iraq is hiding weapons, that Saddam Hussein is a lying scoundrel and that Iraqi officials should be less chatty on the telephone. But they did not demonstrate that the solution is to invade Iraq. If you've seen kids torn apart by machine-gun fire, you know that war should be only a last resort. And we're not there yet. We still have a better option: containment... Hawks often compare Saddam to Hitler [but Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya] used to be denounced as the Hitler of the 1980's. Saddam and Colonel Qaddafi are little changed since those days, but back then we reviled Mr. Qaddafi -- while Don Rumsfeld was charming our man in Baghdad... Ronald Reagan wisely chose to contain Libya, not invade it -- and this worked. Does anybody think we would be better off today if we had invaded Libya and occupied it, spending the last two decades with our troops being shot at by Bedouins in the desert?"

CNN reports, "Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix says he is seeing additional cooperation from Baghdad ahead of a weekend visit to Iraq. Blix said: 'I think it seems ... they are making an effort.' On Thursday, U.N. weapons inspectors were allowed to interview an Iraqi scientist in private for the first time. Inspectors said 'a number of issues were addressed' but no details were released. The interview lasted 3 hours and 32 minutes. Blix and IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief nuclear weapons inspector, are travelling to Baghdad this weekend for a third visit with Iraqi officials in the past two months. 'We will want to see a lot more (cooperation) this weekend,' Blix said. Blix and El Baradei want three key issues involving the weapons inspections solved: Private interviews with Iraqi scientists by weapons inspectors; The use of U-2 spy planes; and Iraq's enforcement of legislation prohibiting companies from making weapons of mass destruction."

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is alleged to be the Al Qaeda operative responsible both for the ricin found in England and the assassination of USAID official Laurence Foley on 10-28-02. Colin Powell cited al-Zarqawi as the "missing link" between Saddam and Al Qaeda. But does al-Zarqawi have ties to Iraq - or Iran? David Corn writes that "In June, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused Iran of offering 'a haven for some terrorists leaving Afghanistan,' and US officials have cited Zarqawi as one of the individuals allowed to stay in Iran." Moreover, al-Zarqawi allegedly set up the Ansar Al Islam camp in northeastern Iraq, which the NY Times says is funded by Iran, in an area patrolled by US planes, not Iraqi forces. The Times says al-Zarqawi received over $1 million from a Qatari Prince. Finally, Corn asks: why doesn't Bush simply bomb the alleged chemical weapons plant, since our spy satellites know exactly where it is? Isn't that the point of our much-revered precision weapons?

BushBlair's "carefully co-ordinated propaganda offensive took an embarrassing hit tonight after Downing Street was accused of plagiarism. The target is an intelligence dossier released on Monday and heralded by none other than Colin Powell at the UN. UK's Channel Four News has learnt that the bulk of the nineteen page document was copied from three different articles - one written by a graduate student... Published on the Number 10 web site, called 'Iraq - Its Infrastructure of Concealment Deception and Intimidation', it outlines the structure of Saddam's intelligence organisations. But it... was copied from an article last September in a small journal (MERIA). It's author, Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student in California... In several places Downing Street edits the originals to make more sinister reading. Number 10 says the Mukhabarat - the main intelligence agency - is 'spying on foreign embassies in Iraq'. The original reads: 'monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq.'"

Geov Parrish writes, "Powell's evidence rests primarily on two assertions: that Iraq's government cooperates with Al Qaeda, and that it has also sought to hide evidence from UN weapons inspectors. Every word could be true. But it is the words still not present that stand out. There is still absolutely no evidence that the Iraqi government, now or at any foreseeable point in the future, poses a security threat even to its immediate neighbors - let alone to the US, halfway around the world. There is no evidence that Iraq, a country whose military is a fifth of its size ten years ago, a country crippled militarily (and in many other ways) by the most rigorous sanctions in world history, a country whose every move is closely monitored, a country which knows that any aggressive twitch would be instantly suicidal, now even possesses the capacity to inflict harm on any other country - let alone is a threat to do so, and let alone that the United States is among those threatened."

William Rivers Pitt writes, "As [Powell] made the case that Iraq has defied and defiled the good will of the international community, I came to realize that I was watching a political performance and not a delineation of solid facts. Powell's presentation most forcefully brought to mind the image of a skilled trial attorney delivering his opening argument to a jury. Opening arguments are never the time to deliver the hard facts of a case; rather, they are meant to set the tone for the coming trial. This was disconcerting, as Powell's appearance was billed as the moment when irrefutable proof of Iraqi chicanery and menace was to be delivered to the world... Pretend I am the opposing counsel for a moment. It is time to cross-examine Colin. "

Mike Hersh writes, "Aside from lust for petroleum, killing Saddam would help the Bush family cover up their deals which sent $6.8 BILLION of US tax money to Saddam in return for favors Bush's father enjoyed. Those $billions which bought Saddam 'dual use' equipment American troops will have to fight against if/when this Bush invades. Powell didn't mention this Bush/Baghdad connection, nor did he recall the $millions of business VP Cheney conducted with Saddam recently. I guess he was too busy proclaiming Saddam the biggest menace the world has ever known to bother explaining why - if that's so - people named Bush and Cheney helped him get that way... Powell is a good soldier whose first important task was helping the government lie to the people about the Mi Lai Massacre. Each time Powell tells us we'd be better off massacring thousands or even millions of innocent Iraqis rather than continuing inspections and destroying any threat from Iraq without killing innocents, he's lying."

The Guardian reports that Hans Blix "yesterday dismissed what has been billed as a central claim of the speech the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, will make today to the UN security council. Hans Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived... Dr Blix said he had already inspected two alleged mobile labs and found nothing: 'Two food-testing trucks have been inspected and nothing has been found.' He also contested the theory that the Iraqis knew in advance what sites were to be inspected. He added that they expected to be bugged 'by several nations' and took great care not to say anything Iraqis could overhear. He said the choice for the UN was between continued containment and invasion. Both strategies had problems, but an invasion required 250,000 troops and over $100 BILLION while for containment the numbers were 250 inspectors and $80 MILLION."

VoteNoWar writes, "Powell's presentation to the UN was an example of Alice in Wonderland-type propaganda. Reality has been turned upside down. At the very moment that Iraq, hobbled by 12 years of devastating sanctions and ongoing U.S. bombing, is surrounded by a heavily-armed invasion force of more than 100,000 troops, fighter aircraft, warships and high tech conventional missiles, and is threatened with a nuclear strike, Powell argued that Iraq poses a great threat to 'peace.' The Pentagon has disclosed its plan to maintain peace by carrying out an opening blitzkrieg on Iraq of more than 3000 bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours. This plan is titled 'Shock and Awe' by the administration. 300 to 400 Tomahawk cruise missiles will rip through Iraq on the first day... One of the authors of the Shock and Awe plan stated the intent is, 'So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes.'"

Jimmy Breslin writes, "The CIA was a floor full of incompetents who did not warn the people of the nation's and the world's most important city that they were going to be hit by an attack on the Trade Center... The CIA, as Tenet's presence said yesterday, now is sure it knows everything, or what passes as everything for them, about Iraq, knows it right down to the 18 trucks that suddenly threaten us and the world. That Powell was down to pointing to 18 trucks as the possible end of the world showed that he was at the UN with a case that would have difficulty in Criminal Court on Queens Boulevard... [As for the intercepted conversations,] it is about small items, one vehicle, ammunition that was still around as of the past two weeks. That is hardly enough reason to blow up the city of Baghdad with its civilians, with its women and its children in school. The only thing as crazed as this was the start of the Vietnam War."

AP reports, "Powell's presentation cited several examples of Iraqi activity he said was suspicious. However, he did not mention that such locations are under regular monitoring by U.N. inspectors. One example was a missile-engine test installation where, U.S. analysts say, a new structure might test engines that break a U.N. limit on missile range... U.N. inspectors visit the facility regularly. Other installations cited as suspicious by Powell but which have been under U.N. scrutiny include the al-Taji munitions storage facility, the Mussayib pharmaceutical complex and the Tariq pesticide plant. Of the Tariq plant... U.N. teams have inspected that complex several times, without reporting finding any such violations. Gen. Amer Al-Saadi described Powell's approach as a 'a deliberate attempt to undermine the credibility and professionalism of the inspection bodies ... by making allegations which directly contradict their assessments or cast doubt on their credibility.'"

Powell "-Asserted that Iraq 'bulldozed and graded to conceal chemical weapons evidence' at the Al Musayyib chemical complex in 2002, and had a series of cargo vehicles and a decontamination vehicle moving around at the site. -Played audios tapes of what Powell said were intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi military officers. One was a purported discussion about hiding prohibited vehicles from weapons inspectors. Another dealt with removing a reference to nerve agents from written instructions. -Cited informants as saying that Iraqis are dispersing rockets armed with biological weapons in western Iraq. -Presented declassified satellite pictures that he said were 15 munitions bunkers. Powell said four of them had active chemical munitions inside. -Said Iraqi informants claim that Iraq has 18 trucks that it uses as mobile biological weapons labs... Powell's remarks did not seem to sway... China, Russia and France - all said the work of the weapons inspectors should continue."

WashPost reports, "Saddam Hussein, insisting he is seeking to avoid war with the United States, today denied he had any connection to the al Qaeda terrorist network or that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction... The videotaped interview... was conducted by Tony Benn, a left-wing British politician... 'Iraq has no interest in war. No Iraqi official or ordinary citizen has expressed a wish to go to war. The question should be directed at the other side. Are they looking for a pretext so they could justify war against Iraq? If the purpose was to make sure that Iraq is free of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, then they can do that. These weapons do not come in small pills that you can hide in your pocket. These are weapons of mass destruction and it is easy to work out if Iraq has them or not...Iraq is free of such weapons'... American hostility to Iraq, he said, is based on the Bush administration's 'wish to control the world and spread its hegemony.'"

"When U.S. and Turkish officials meet this week to discuss Turkey's potential role in any war with Iraq, they will also review an offer of U.S. aid--the price the Bush administration is willing to pay for the use of Turkey's military bases, airfields and ports. The U.S. is offering more than $4 billion in loans and grants, according to a Western diplomat in Istanbul...In the Persian Gulf region alone over the past two years, the United States has sold, lent or given away an estimated $7.5 billion worth of weaponry, other military equipment and training assistance, according to State Department figures. Recipients have included such vital U.S. allies as Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates... 'Who your friends are today may not be your friends tomorrow,' said Rachel Stohl, a senior analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington." Don't forget that Reagan and Bush Sr. arranged loans and weapons sales for Saddam Hussein!

Erich Marquardt writes for YellowTimes.org: "In the next few weeks, the struggling global economy may be put to the test if Washington chooses to invade Iraq. There are many risks involved in bombing Baghdad, the most important being a spike in oil prices. With oil prices already over $30.00 a barrel, increased pressure has been put on the global economy as more money is spent on importing oil. Should the United States attack Iraq, there is a real possibility that Middle East oil shipments will be disrupted. U.S. oil inventories are already running low due to the nearly two-month long PDVSA oil strike in Venezuela. While it takes only one week for Venezuelan oil exports to reach the United States, it takes four to five weeks for them to arrive from the Middle East."

Kurdish members of the fundamentalist Islamic group Ansar al-Islam are waging terrorist war against other Kurds. Ansar al-Islam is backed by Iran, and the group's leader, Mullah Krekar, says, "Our aim has always been the toppling of the Iraqi Baath regime," headed by Saddam Hussein. But Bush insists Ansar al-Islam is backed by Saddam, and represents the strongest link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Mullah Krekar lives free in Norway because the US cannot present credible charges of terrorism against him. "I said to the FBI, 'I can come to America and prove it's not true in your court.'" When will Bush's lies ever stop?

President Jimmy Carter writes, "Despite marshalling powerful armed forces in the Persian Gulf region and a virtual declaration of war in the State of the Union message, our government has not made a case for a preemptive military strike against Iraq, either at home or in Europe... [There is no] real or proximate threat by Iraq to the United States or to our allies. With overwhelming military strength now deployed against him and with intense monitoring from space surveillance and the U.N. inspection team on the ground, any belligerent move by Saddam against a neighbor would be suicidal... The most obvious answer is a sustained and enlarged inspection team, deployed as a permanent entity until the United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council determine that its presence is no longer needed."

NY Times reports the Busheviks "have been trying to keep expectations about Mr. Powell's presentation next week from rising too high... It will not contain any intelligence as definite as the dramatic satellite photographs of Soviet missiles in Cuba that Adlai E. Stevenson presented to the UN in 1962. Instead, officials said today, the intelligence, some of it clearly incriminating, some more circumstantial, will represent the administration's attempt to 'fill in the blanks.'" Item 1: "Iraq maintains mobile labs for producing biological toxins... hidden in one of these many tunnels or underground facilities, or garages." Item 2: "A pattern of buying materials that could be used for manufacturing biological, chemical or nuclear weapons [including aluminum tubs that] could be used for building long-range rockets." Bushit - 81MM rockets have a range of under 10 km. Item 3: "Intelligence tying Al Qaeda to Ansar al-Islam" Bushit - Ansar is backed by IRAN.

The Independent's Simon Carr reports Tony Blair actually told the truth to Parliament last week. "'Is there any link between al Qaeda, Iraq and terrorist groups in Britain?' Blair watchers were astonished when the PM said: 'No'... 'So, the US government knows of no link, either?' Alan Williams went on. Hang on, let's not go that far. There are people in Iraq that have links. Without suggesting there are links with the regime - though there might be - it can't be said there aren't no people without links, the PM told us absolutely bluntly. 'I've said what I've said, and I don't think I can add to it'... Mr Blair failed to carry the committee on his raison d'etre for war - the link between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Certainly, he never made clear how an invasion of Iraq would stop Algerians dropping ricin in Oxford Street." Blair has repeatedly insisted there is no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. So why does Bush keep lying - and why does the media let him?

AP writes, "Former South African President Nelson Mandela delivered a fiery speech denouncing the United States and aiming harsh personal criticism at Bush... 'It is a tragedy, what is happening, what Bush is doing. But Bush is now undermining the United Nations... What I am condemning is that one power, with a resident who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust... Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly? ... All that (Mr. Bush) wants is Iraqi oil.'" Mandela also urged Americans to vote Bush out of office. Remember, just 22 months until the Presidential election!

Reuters reports, "U.N. arms inspectors have concluded that the 122 mm chemical rocket warheads found in an Iraqi bunker earlier this month did not contain any chemical agents. The inspectors had sent one of the warheads that appeared to be filled to a laboratory for tests that turned out negative, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix told U.N. Security Council members, the envoys reported. Iraq said the rocket warheads were overlooked from a 1991 batch of some 2,000 warheads." Will Fox News apologize to its viewers for hundreds of hours of hyperventilation about these warheads? Don't bet the house on it.

WashPost reports, "Key members on the U.N. Security Council said Wednesday that [Bush] had so far failed to convince them that time had run out for a peaceful resolution to the crisis with Iraq. At a crucial council meeting a day after Bush's State of the Union speech, 11 of the 15 members supported giving more time to weapons inspectors to pursue Iraq's peaceful disarmament - France, Russia and China who all have veto power as well as Germany, Mexico, Chile, Guinea, Cameroon, Syria, Angola and Pakistan. Only Bulgaria and Spain backed the United States and Britain in focusing on Iraq's failures rather than continued inspections... Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov said reports that President Vladimir Putin was shifting to a more pro-American stance were misinterpretations. 'We believe that inspections must continue.'"

"Sen. Edward Kennedy said he plans to introduce a resolution calling on Bush to present Congress with 'convincing evidence of an imminent threat before we send troops to war with Iraq... Bush cannot expect the international community to salute America and march with us to war when the administration has provided no convincing case for a war,' complained Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat... Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said he, too, wants to see 'hard evidence' and was disappointed that Bush said he would wait until next week to have Secretary of State Colin Powell present information and intelligence to the U.N... Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said, 'I am hopeful that the administration will continue to work with the United Nations and our allies to strengthen the inspection process by adding more inspectors and more time.'"

David Ruppe writes, "The U.S. Army trained 19 Iraqi military officers in the United States in offensive and defensive chemical, biological and radiological warfare from 1957 to 1967, according to an official Army letter published in the late 1960s. While the training was described as mostly defensive, it also included offensive instruction in such subjects as principles of using chemical, biological and radiological weapons, and calculating chemical munitions requirements, according to a Dec. 12, 1969, letter from then-Army Chief of Legislative Liaison Col. Raymond Reid to then-U.S. Representative Robert Kastenmeier, D-Wis... 'I am disturbed over some of the more specific implications of the facts provided me by the Army, and I question the overall utility of continuing to disseminate offensive expertise in these forms of warfare so widely,' he said on the House floor later that month."

MSNBC reports, "On the eve of Bush's State of the Union address, congressional Democratic leaders challenged Bush to show 'proof to the world' that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. In what was billed as a 'pre-buttal' to Bush's address to Congress and the nation Tuesday at 9 p.m. ET, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the party's leader in the House, sharply criticized Bush for taking what they said was a 'hurry-up approach on Iraq' and charged that he was creating a 'credibility gap' by saying one thing and doing another across a range of issues. 'If we have proof of nuclear and biological weapons, why don't we show that proof to the world - as President Kennedy did 40 years ago when he sent Adlai Stevenson to the United Nations to show the world U.S. photographs of offensive missiles in Cuba,' Daschle said."

"Facing its most chronic shortage in oil stocks for 27 years, the US has this month turned to an unlikely source of help - Iraq. Weeks before a prospective invasion of Iraq, the oil-rich state has doubled its exports of oil to America, helping US refineries cope with a debilitating strike in Venezuela. After the loss of 1.5 million barrels per day of Venezuelan production in December the oil price rocketed, and the scarcity of reserves threatened to do permanent damage to the US oil refinery and transport infrastructure... Oil giants such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell saved the day by doubling imports from Iraq from 0.5m barrels in Nov. to over 1m barrels per day to solve the problem. Essentially, US importers diverted 0.5m barrels of Iraqi oil per day heading for Europe and Asia to save the American oil infrastructure. The trade, though bizarre given current Pentagon plans to launch around 300 cruise missiles a day on Iraq, is legal under the terms of UN's oil for food program."

Bob "anonymous official sources" Woodward writes, "The Bush administration has assembled what it believes to be significant intelligence showing that Iraq has been actively moving and concealing banned weapons systems and related equipment from United Nations inspectors, according to informed sources... The administration believes it shows that senior Iraqi officials and military officers who report to members of Hussein's inner circle have personally directed the movement and camouflage of the weapons or have knowledge of the operations, the sources said." If that's true, then why doesn't Bush give the details to U.N. inspectors - as required under U.N. Resolution 1441 - so they can FIND and DISMANTLE the weapons? Does Bush want disarmament, as he claims - or an unnecessary and murderous W-ar?

"Death, disease and starvation await Iraq's children should war break out, and casualties in the thousands or even in the hundreds of thousands cannot be ruled out, according to a report by... 10 experts from the International Study Team, an independent group of academics, researchers, physicians and child psychologists founded in 1991 to examine the effect of military conflicts on civilians. The report, 'The Impact of a New War on Iraqi Children,' expressed concern not only about casualties among children as a direct result of combat, but more importantly as a result of the results of war - including disruptions of food supplies, lack of medicines, the flight of refugees. Some 500,000 children are already malnourished or underweight, and Iraq currently only has a month's supply of food and three months' supply of medicines. If a war - especially a lengthy one - cuts off supplies or damages Iraq's already decrepit medical infrastructure, then children would see the most suffering."

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the UN Security Council, "Barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is the sustained, proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able in the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program. These few months, in my view, would be a valuable investment in peace because they could help us avoid a war... The U.S. State Department, meanwhile, has begun drafting a second resolution that would authorize military action to force Saddam's regime to disarm, CNN learned. The resolution would be introduced only if the United States thinks it has the support of at least nine of 15 council members for a war. Under U.N. rules, there must be nine votes in favor of a resolution for it to pass, and there cannot be vetoes from any of the five permanent Security Council members."

As Democrats.com first reported on 12-5-02, Bush is violating U.N. Resolution 1441, which requires all nations - including the U.S. - to provide all intelligence information about Iraqi WMD needed by U.N. inspectors. Despite U.S. claims to be providing such info, WashPost reports: "U.S. officials have acknowledged that they are not giving their best intelligence to the inspectors because they fear that sensitive information might be leaked to the Iraqis and that intelligence-gathering sources could be compromised. But U.N. officials who believe that Iraq still has banned weapons have grown increasingly frustrated that the tips they have received are insufficient to find evidence of prohibited arms." Iraq insists it is fully complying with U.N. 1441, while Busheviks admits the U.S. is in violation. When will the corporate media report this?

LA Times opines, "The American people are demanding more than legalisms. They are seeking, and they deserve, a definitive statement from Bush about why now is the time for war. So far, he has failed to meet that high burden of proof. Bush would find more support if Iraq had again invaded another country or been linked to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. On the contrary, it has allowed United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country after an absence of four years to seek biological, chemical and nuclear weapons... Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has repeatedly said the inspections will produce evidence of Iraq's refusal to comply with U.N. Resolution 1441, approved by all 15 Security Council members, demanding disarmament. That implies the United States knows more than it is saying. And that leads Americans to ask what Bush knows that the rest of us do not." The answer, of course, is nothing - we are being fed nothing but lies to justify W-ar.

The invasion of Iraq will most likely commence with a massive aerial campaign in which the U.N. and many military analysts have predicted widespread collateral damage with heavy civilian casualties. One recent UN estimate suggested that the total Iraqi casualty count for the entire operation could exceed 500,000.

Boston Globe reports, "More than a fourth of the House of Representatives, including at least two dozen Democrats who voted to authorize force against Iraq, are petitioning Bush to let the weapons inspection process conclude before launching an attack...''We believe the US should make every attempt to achieve Iraq's disarmament through diplomatic means and with the full support of our allies,' 123 Democratic members of Congress said in a letter authored by Representatives Ron Kind of Wisconsin, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Of the signers, 22 voted for the Iraq resolution... That letter was sent to Bush yesterday. In a separate letter still being circulated among House members who supported the authorization of force in Iraq, Representatives Stephen F. Lynch of Boston and Edward J. Markey of Malden, both of whom voted for the Iraq resolution last October, asked Bush to 'exhaust all diplomatic means, including conducting complete and unrestricted inspections to peacefully disarm Iraq.'"

NY Times opines, "This nation should never begin a fight it is not prepared to carry out to the bitter end, no matter what the cost. That isn't true of this engagement, and the fault lies mainly with Bush himself. Mr. Bush has never been open with the American people about the possible cost of this war. He has not even been clear about exactly why we are preparing to fight. Sometimes his aim appears to be disarming the Iraqis or punishing Baghdad for defying the United Nations; sometimes the goal is nothing short of deposing Mr. Hussein. The first lesson of the Vietnam era was that Americans should not be sent to die for aims the country only vaguely understands and accepts. The second lesson of Vietnam was that the country should never enter into a conflict without a clear exit strategy... Even if Mr. Hussein is easily eliminated, the United States will be left to govern and police Iraq for an extended period."

Like a little boy standing in the cold who has to pee, Bush has been shifting back and forth between two excuses for W-ar: 1) Iraq's possession of WMD and 2) Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda. Bush can't prove EITHER argument, but the media lets him get away with both. On Meet the Press, Chief of Staff Andy Card emphasized the Al Qaeda argument, but adamantly refused to provide the slightest evidence. He also repeated the now-disproved lie that Iraq's aluminum tubes were meant for uranium enrichment. At Davos, Colin Powell used the same argument with the world's business leaders. This is the Perle-Wolfowitz big lie, and it's way past time the media exposed it.

William M. Arkin writes, "One year after President Bush labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea the 'axis of evil,' the U.S. is thinking about the unthinkable: It is preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iraq... The current planning focuses on two possible roles for nuclear weapons: attacking Iraqi facilities located so deep underground that they might be impervious to conventional explosives [and] thwarting Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons have, since they were first created, been part of the arsenal discussed by war planners. But the Bush administration's decision to actively plan for possible preemptive use of such weapons, especially as so-called bunker busters, against Iraq represents a significant lowering of the nuclear threshold. It rewrites the ground rules of nuclear combat in the name of fighting terrorism... If that happens, the world will have become infinitely more dangerous than it was two years ago." Impeach Bush Now!

WashPost reports Bush "will acquiesce to continued U.N. inspections there, at least for the next several weeks... requests from Britain, the need to build more public and political support at home and abroad, and a military schedule that is a month or more away from full deployment have combined to temper thoughts of attempting an earlier inspection cutoff. ... Allowing the inspections to go on does not constitute a policy change, the official said. 'We never said we would cut off inspections on Jan. 27'.... France, whose council veto has made it the most powerful force opposing military action, is the primary target of these efforts. US and Britain hope the French will either become increasingly isolated or, more desirably, will feel that the extra weeks of unsuccessful inspections have sufficiently mollified domestic opposition." WRONG! With massive demonstrations planned for Feb. 15 in Europe (and the U.S.), France will never support W-ar. It's over, George - the world hates you!

AP reports Bush "is weighing the option of extending U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq in an effort to placate European allies and Russia. A decision will be based on whether the inspections are productive, a senior U.S. official said Friday. The inspectors are due to report to the U.N. Security Council Monday on two months of searches. So far, they have turned up few of the thousands of weapons the administration insists President Saddam Hussein has concealed. If the inspectors disclose new evidence on Monday, that would influence a decision to keep hunting for illicit weapons of mass destruction, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. In Vienna, a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency said that director Mohamed elBaradei will give Iraq 'quite satisfactory' grades in the report" - reportedly a "B".

The latest revelation that the aluminum tubes were NOT part of a nuclear program is just the latest in an unending series of LIES by Bush about Iraqi WMD programs. Here is the full list of Iraqi WMD lies collected by Thomas Ball, starting with the alleged 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency claiming Iraq was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon - a report that never existed. Will Bush go so far as to plant WMD "evidence" in Iraq to justify W-ar? Impeach Bush Now!

The Guardian reports, "Bush is determined to go to war with Saddam Hussein in the next few weeks, without UN backing if necessary, according to authoritative sources in Washington and London. Bush is 'to turn up the heat' in his state of the union address on Tuesday. 'The pressure comes from Bush and it is felt all the way down,' a European official said. 'They're talking about weeks, not months. Months is a banned word now.'" Bush wanted to start W-ar right after the State of the Union, even before Blair had a chance to meet with Bush, but Poodle Blair barked as loud as he could. "Britain believes it has won a short reprieve before the US presents its own intelligence evidence against Saddam Hussein, in effect a declaration of war, but only for a fortnight at most... [Bush's State of the Union] will stop short of being a declaration of war. That will await a more detailed presentation of intelligence evidence in the next few weeks, after Mr Blair visits Camp David" on January 31.

WashPost reports, "When Bush traveled to the UN in September to make his case against Iraq, he brought along a rare piece of evidence for what he called Iraq's 'continued appetite' for nuclear bombs. The finding: Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes, which Bush said were 'used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon'... It was by far the most prominent, detailed assertion by the White House of recent Iraqi efforts to acquire nuclear weapons... [But the IAEA says] the tubes were 'not directly suitable' for uranium enrichment but were 'consistent' with making ordinary artillery rockets [as Iraq insisted]... Some weapons experts said the aluminum tubes saga could undermine the credibility of [U.S.] claims about Iraq's arsenal. To date, the Bush administration has declined to release photos or other specific evidence to bolster its contention that Iraq is actively seeking to acquire new biological, chemical and nuclear arms, and the means to deliver them."

Doug Thompson writes, "Capitol Hill Blue has learned the Joint Chiefs of Staff are split over plans to invade Iraq in the coming weeks. They have asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumseld to urge Bush to back down from his hard line stance until United Nations weapons inspectors can finish their jobs and the U.S. can build a stronger coalition in the Middle East... Intelligence sources say some Arab nations have told US diplomats they may side with Iraq if the U.S. attacks without the backing of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues at the Pentagon and has told Bush he may be pursuing a 'dangerous course'... In addition, Capitol Hill Blue has learned that both House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have told the White House that they have 'increasing' numbers of Republicans in both Houses raising doubts about the war." If Bush doesn't change course soon, maybe the REPUBLICANS will impeach him!

"Bush administration officials said today that next week they would confront France, Germany and other skeptics of military action against Iraq by requiring them to agree publicly that Iraq had defied the United Nations Security Council. The officials, expressing exasperation with the refusal of longtime allies to back the United States, said they were vigorously debating whether to seek a second United Nations resolution authorizing force against Iraq. At the least, they said, they will demand that the nations opposed to the American position acknowledge that Iraq has not complied with resolutions on its weapons of mass destruction... 'Our goal is to rub their nose in reality, and then proceed to discuss what we do about it,' an official said, referring to France. 'We want to create a situation where they have to respond to the obvious facts and then explain why they don't want to act on them.'" Obvious facts??? WHAT obvious facts??? All we hear is BUSHIT!

Tom Englehardt writes that the Busheviks "finally trotted out Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state, to make a speech yesterday, released a 32-page pamphlet, 'Apparatus of Lies,' on Iraqi deceit, and announced the establishment of an Office of Global Communications to, as the New York Times put it, 'guide United States government agencies in how to 'disseminate truthful, accurate and effective messages about the American people and their government' to audiences around the world,' and promised us all Paul Wolfowitz later in the week. And last night I listened to a Defense Department official sent onto the Lehrer NewsHour to insist, with a bit of fabulous imperial hubris, that European opinion, European anything - the Brits aside, of course - was of no, repeat no, not a whit, not a jot of importance. And yet, here's the odd thing, this administration has been nothing short of moribund in recent months in making their case." Why? Because American Democracy died on Dec. 12, 2000.

NY Times reports, "In a blunt rejection of American impatience toward Baghdad, the leaders of France and Germany said today that they shared common views on Iraq, and that any Security Council resolution for military action would have to await the report of United Nations weapon inspectors. 'War is always the admission of defeat and is always the worst of solutions,' President Jacques Chirac of France said. 'And hence everything must be done to avoid it.' He added, 'France and Germany have a judgment on this crisis that is the same.' Chancellor Gerhard Schroder of Germany, appearing with Mr. Chirac at a news conference, said, 'We both want a peaceful solution to the crisis in Iraq, and we will work toward that in close cooperation.' On Tuesday, Mr. Schroder expressed his most forceful rejection yet of any war. The two leaders' remarks took on peculiar weight since France and Germany hold the Security Council presidency this month and next."

When Bill Clinton was President, we can't recall the "liberal" NY Times getting on its knees and meekly asking him to "reconsider" a policy they didn't like. No, when Democrats are in power, the Times rages, scorns, and denounces with vehemence and vitriol. But after listing all of the reasons against war with Iraq - needless killing, revolution in Muslim capitals, oil shocks, threats to Israel's security , and the enormous monetary cost - the Times cannot summon a roar, just a squeak. "If Washington is actually planning an early military strike in the weeks just ahead, either on its own or with only British support, it should reconsider. Given the risks of military action and the widespread public opposition in the United States and abroad to acting without Security Council support, Mr. Bush should not be in a rush to go to war." Get off your friggin' knees, Timespersons - Just Say No to W-ar!

Michael T. Klare writes for Foreign Policy in Focus: "In their public pronouncements, President Bush and has associates have advanced three reasons for going to war with Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein: (1) to eliminate Saddam's WMD arsenals; (2) to diminish the threat of international terrorism; and (3) to promote democracy in Iraq and the surrounding areas. These are, indeed, powerful motives for going to war. But are they genuine?"

Robert Fisk writes for the UK Independent: "Even if Donald Rumsfeld's hearty handshake with Saddam Hussein in 1983 - just after the Great Father Figure had started using gas against his opponents - didn't show how little the present master of the Pentagon cares about human rights or crimes against humanity, along comes Joost Hilterman's analysis of what was really going on in the Pentagon back in the late 1980s. Hilterman, who is preparing a devastating book on the US and Iraq, has dug through piles of declassified US government documents - only to discover that after Saddam gassed 6,800 Kurdish Iraqis at Halabja...the Pentagon set out to defend Saddam by partially blaming Iran for the atrocity. A newly declassified State Department document proves that the idea was dreamed up by the Pentagon - who had all along backed Saddam - and states that US diplomats received instructions to push the line of Iran's culpability, but not to discuss details...because the story was a lie."

Patrick Cockburn writes: "It is surprising that one significant act by Saddam Hussein earlier this week passed without notice abroad. Saddam sent a pointed warning to the Kurds of northern Iraq. He did so by the simple device of stopping the flow of heating oil to Kurdistan...the price of heating oil immediately soared as people rushed through the snow to buy up remaining stocks... [The Kurds] also worry that they are taken more seriously in Baghdad than they are in Washington, where it is a priority to avoid angering the Turks, with their traditional fear of all things Kurdish. Bush recently found time to see three Iraqi opposition intellectuals, but not the Kurdish leaders who were in Washington at the same time...Such slights, real or imagined, fuel a suspicion in the minds of the Kurds that the United States is happy to use them as a propaganda symbol but is determined to deny them any real influence before or after an American invasion of Iraq."

With America and the world united against W-ar, Bushit is desperately trying to perpetuate the illusion he will attack Iraq. Here's a "story" written by an anonymous reporter ("The Russian news agency Interfax") citing an anonymous source ("an unnamed, high-ranking source in the Russian general headquarters") claiming authoritative information on top-secret U.S. war plans from a source that isn't even human ("According to the information we have"). Has Rumdexter created a disinformation robot in the bowels of the Pentagon, or do they use monkeys at a typewriter? Which Pentagon DOOD (disinformation-office-of-the-day) created this pathetic hoax, which is is spreading through the media faster than the Klez worm? This is so ludicrous it doesn't even rate a .1 on the 10-point Bushit scale. These guys are beyond desperate, because the Fat Lady is singing, the W-ar game is over, and Exxon-Mobil-Halliburton-Carlyle are going ballistic over lost profits. No More Bushit - Impeach Bush Now!

WashPost reports, "Seven in 10 Americans would give U.N. weapons inspectors months more to pursue their arms search in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll that found growing doubts about an attack on Iraq... In addition a majority of Americans disapproved of Bush's handling of the economy for the first time... The survey found Americans evenly split on whether Bush has presented enough evidence against Hussein. 58% said they would like to see more evidence, and 71% said the United States should make public its own evidence if the U.N. inspectors can't find hard evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. In one clear sign of public caution on Iraq, 43% of respondents said the U.N. inspectors should have as much time as they like to scour Iraq. A quarter said the inspectors should have 'a few months' or more. Another quarter supported a deadline of a few weeks or less for the inspections."

Reuters reports, "France said today that it would seek a united stance against early military action in Iraq at a meeting of European Union nations next week. Rejecting mounting U.S. pressure, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said: 'It is important that Europe speak on this issue with a single voice. We are mobilized, we believe war can be avoided.' He told reporters after talks with his Belgian counterpart, Louis Michel, that a January 27 report to the U.N. Security Council by arms inspectors seeking to eliminate Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction would only be an interim report. France is chairing the Security Council this month. 'We see no justification today for an intervention, since the inspectors are able to do their work. We could not support unilateral action,' de Villepin said. He said he would use a meeting of the 15 EU foreign ministers in Brussels next Monday and Tuesday to seek a united stance on the issue." Give it up George, the world loathes you.

NY Times reports, "In unusually blunt terms aimed at pre-empting the United States, France said today that it would not support any Security Council resolution for military action against Iraq in the coming weeks. France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, accused Washington of 'impatience' in the confrontation with Baghdad over illegal weapons and added, 'We believe that nothing today justifies envisaging military action.' In a highly public rebuff, Mr. de Villepin would not rule out the possibility that France would use its veto power if the United States presses the Council later this month to authorize war against Iraq for failing to disarm... Stark differences with Washington over the pace and effectiveness of the inspections were also expressed today by China, another veto-bearing Council nation, and Germany... Mr. Powell seemed to be caught off guard by the resistance, especially the French broadside."

Here's a great quote: "An Iraqi envoy dismissed the idea Saddam might be persuaded into exile to avert war. 'Who appointed the idiot Bush as the world's police officer?' Ali Hassan al-Majeed said in Beirut. 'This is merely nonsense and one of the tactics of psychological warfare.'" We know EXACTLY who appointed "the idiot Bush" - Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor, also know as the Felonious Five. We should send THEM all into exile with Saddam Hussein!

CNN reports, "Iraq said Monday it was encouraging its scientists to be interviewed privately by U.N. inspectors as part of an effort to do more to help the inspectors verify that Iraq is complying with U.N. disarmament demands. Gen. Amer al-Saadi, a top adviser to President Saddam Hussein, read a 10-point joint statement at a news conference Monday with visiting U.N. inspection chiefs Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei. Iraqi officials vowed to continue and increase their cooperation in the inspections aimed at determining if Iraq has biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction... Al-Saadi said that during his meetings Monday with Blix and ElBaradei he sought to clarify several questions about documents and findings. He called their talks 'very constructive and positive.' 'Access has been obtained to all sites. This will continue.'" Blix's January 27 report to the Security Council will obviously show there is no justification for W-ar.

LA Times reports, "Members of the World War II generation are worried about a possible war in Iraq. Of all the generations studied by pollsters, these Americans -- now in their 70s, 80s and 90s -- are showing the most resistance to an invasion in Iraq in surveys of American opinion... Many are unconvinced that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is harnessing weapons of mass destruction, and they are dubious about invading his country before he has attacked the United States. Others are suspicious that President Bush and his war Cabinet are motivated by a desire to avenge the first President Bush's mistakes or to capture a ready supply of oil... [Bill Berglund, 82] bristles. 'I am dead set against it,' he said. 'It is a needless exercise of power by a certain group of people in Washington.' In a Los Angeles Times Poll last month, support for sending U.S. ground troops to Iraq was 58% among all 1,305 respondents compared with 35% among the World War II generation."

Colin Powell keeps insisting that Bush will make a "persuasive case" of Iraqi violations of Resolution 1441 to the UN on January 27. "But to the administration's rising frustration, many council members have already declared themselves not persuaded. In the 10 weeks since it agreed that Iraqi failure would bring 'serious consequences,' the likelihood that the council will authorize a U.N.-backed invasion anytime soon has steadily receded." Bush doesn't have the votes - the Security Council is now chaired by France, which sees no reason for W-ar. The European seat is now held by Germany, which opposes W-ar. Bush will start threatening foreign leaders ("It will be bilateral, and it will be personal"), but that will only work with losers like Bulgaria. The world thinks Bush should declare victory and leave Iraq, but they "misunderstimate" Bush's ruthless determination to conquer the world. Impeach Bush Now!

Bush's "smoking gun" strategy for launching W-ar against Iraq has utterly failed, because the discovery of 11 empty chemical weapons shells convinced the world that inspections are WORKING. This has made the Busheviks insane: "Some administration officials say they have lost control of the public relations aspects of the inspection process." So Rove has suddenly relocated the goalposts. "[Colin]. Powell and others have begun increasing their emphasis on the need to interview scientists without interference as a major cause for accusing Mr. Hussein of rejecting the disarmament demands in Security Council Resolution 1441." Condi is doing her part: "increasing pressure on the CIA to identify scientists to interview." In reality, that means finding scientists the CIA can intimidate or bribe into LYING. Already, at least three top Iraqi weapons experts had been "subjected to pressures and offered financial incentives." Sorry, Busheviks, the "snitch" strategy won't fool anyone. Game over!

Agence France-Presse reports: "UN inspectors' discovery of empty chemical warheads in Iraq is 'troubling and serious', the White House said, but inspections chief Hans Blix downplayed the find as 'not a big deal'. As world leaders waited for more information on the discovery, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein stepped up his defiant rhetoric, warning the US it faced 'suicide' if it tried to invade his country...Blix said the munitions were 'empty warheads' and would be destroyed after undergoing tests, adding that he was not yet sure whether they had featured in Iraq's weapons declaration to the UN last month."

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei "are scheduled to present to the [UN Security] council on Jan. 27 a major report on Iraq's record of cooperation since U.N. arms experts resumed inspections in November. The report is expected to argue that the Iraqi violations are insufficiently grave to provoke a decision on whether to go to war. It is likely to be cited by many in the council as grounds for continuing the inspections... Blix and ElBaradei traveled to Paris and London today, appealing for more time to complete a search for evidence of Iraq's weapons programs. 'Both Dr. Blix and I will tell the Security Council that we need time for the inspections to take their course,' said ElBaradei, speaking to reporters in Paris, with Blix and French President Jacques Chirac at his side. ElBaradei said 'a few more months' of inspections in Iraq would be 'time well spent' if it helps to avert a war in Iraq." This will create a crisis with Bush, who wants W-ar, not successful disarmament of Iraq.

CNN reports, "More than 5,000 [Gulf War] veterans are plaintiffs in a [$1 billion] lawsuit that accuses companies of helping Iraqi President Saddam Hussein build his chemical warfare arsenal. The plaintiffs are among the tens of thousands who came down with 'Gulf War Illness,' a debilitating series of ailments that can include chronic fatigue, skin rashes, muscle joint pain, memory loss, and brain damage. Now, plaintiffs' attorneys have acquired [a list] of which companies supplied Iraq the chemicals... to produce mustard gas, sarin nerve gas and VX... Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter... acquired the list for the veterans during a meeting last year with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz... 'We have thousands of American veterans who continue to suffer,' Ritter said. I don't give a damn about these companies. If they're innocent, they won't pay a price. If they have done something they need to be ashamed of, then let your shame be public.'" You Go, Scott!

The latest Pew Research Center nationwide survey (Jan 8-12) shows growing opposition to Bush's Iraq W-ar. 25% of Americans are flatly opposed, up from 21% last August. And if the US suffered "thousands of casualties," opposition grows to 48%. Only 26% support unilateral W-ar without allies, and this drops to 21% if it leads to thousands of US casualties.

William Rivers Pitt writes, "Let's be clear. These were not 'chemical warheads.' In the Iraqi arsenal, a warhead is a warhead - an empty ordnance space strapped to a missile... These warheads were stone-cold empty, so by definition they are not 'chemical warheads'... Furthermore, the word 'warhead' is in itself misleading, as these were artillery munitions. Second. Iraq is allowed by UN resolutions to have a variety of weapons, including the Al Samoud missile... We allowed them to keep missiles that fly only a certain distance (150km most often)... Third. Scott Ritter informed me today that these munitions were part of Iraq's declaration last December. I await further confirmation of this, and so should the journalism world. Fourth. This is absolutely a vindication of the inspections regime. They found the stuff, and it will be destroyed, and no American soldiers or Iraqi civilians died in the process. Inspections work."

Bush says the US wants to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. But Bush's words are meaningless, as always. Bush's actual plan for Iraq is US military rule for months and years to come. "U.S. military commanders will likely rule Iraq for at least several months in the aftermath of a U.S.-led ouster of President Saddam Hussein, according to Bush administration blueprints for Iraq's future that outline a broad and protracted American role in managing the reconstruction of the country." This sounds like a 20-year plan - one that will last until the Jenna Bush administration in 2024.

UN Resolution 1284 requires Hans Blix to report to the UN Security Council on March 27 with a list of disarmament obligations Iraq must meet before U.N. sanctions can be suspended. That sounds reasonable, doesn't it? So why is Bush opposed? "We believe that would leave the impression that most of the disarmament tasks had already been accomplished," said John D. Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. What kind of Orwellian statement is that? UN sanctions have starved the Iraqi people for 12 years, killing at least half a million children through malnutrition and preventable disease. What kind of INHUMANITY does it take to say to these starving people, "we refuse to tell you what your government has to do let us lift the sanctions and stop starving you? This isn't "compassionate conservatism" - it's genocide. John Negroponte should be tried for crimes against humanity!

Patricia writes, "Here I sit the morning after my friend told me last night that he has been told he is going to Kuwait. He is in the reserves and had been led to believe he would be kept stateside when he was called. Hell, I've cried till I'm sick. I've cried for my friend, his wife, his children and his grandchildren. He is my friend and he's also a symbol of every man and woman who is being forced away from their lives and their loves to go and participate in a war like this country has, to my knowledge, never entered into before. A war of, in my opinion, greed and deception."

As US and world support for W-ar evaporates, Bush is jumping ahead to his endgame. If Bush cannot get international support to conquer Iraq, then he may have to settle for removing Saddam from power, and hoping to install a pro-Bush replacement. Bush previously encouraged the assassination of Saddam, but apparently no one has volunteered. So now Bush is staking out a bargaining position that Saddam should stand trial for war crimes like Slobodan Milosevic - a proposal to which Saddam will obviously never agree. Meanwhile, Bush is quietly encouraging other Arab leaders to try to persuade Saddam to go into exile, which may be the only workable solution for Bush. Saddam is toying with this notion, but is probably stalling for time, figuring he can outlast Bush, who has to deal with North Korea, a struggling economy and a tax giveaway that is DOA. Stay tuned...

Richard Butler was the UN's chief weapons inspector in the 1990's, holding the job that Hans Blix now holds. And since Bush began mobilizing for W-ar, Butler has been a reliable "hawk." But Phil Donahue had a fascinating show on Monday where Butler was challenged by Scott Ritter, who served as an inspector under Butler but now regards Bush's W-ar as Bushit. Butler firmly believes (without evidence) that Saddam has WMD, but that is NOT sufficient justification for W-ar. Butler: "The problem I have with the pro-war people... is that they think that it will simply solve the problem, just like that. Phil, this is stunning. No one has any idea where that war would lead, the humanitarian catastrophe that would be authored by it, the cost of it, the outcome of it. No one has any idea of what kind of government would be in Iraq... Also, I am dead against this greatest democracy in the world becoming the largest lawbreaker in the world by so violating international law."

Bush and his poodle Blair stand alone among world "leaders" in their desire to conquer Iraq. In a last-ditch effort to overcome the objections of the rest of the world, BushBlair are deploying a massive force to Iraq's borders, calculating that this deployment would cause the rest of the world to throw up their hands and let Bush do what he wants to do. But amazingly, world opinion is galvanizing in exactly the opposite direction - concluding that Bush's plans are dangerous, illegal, and immoral. Bush realizes his strategy is backfiring, so he is backing off from his January 27 deadline. Now that the tide of world opinion has turned against BushBlair, can they turn it back? Our bet says NO.

SF Chronicle reports, "Something is killing the children in Dr. Emad Wisam's hospital ward, and filling it up again and again with more sick and dying kids... After checking 5-year-old Nur Abdullah, who has a tumor in his throat, Wisam turned away with a pained look in his eyes. 'He will die soon,' he said. 'Most of these kids will die. And there's almost nothing we can do.' Iraq has experienced a dramatic increase in child cancers, leukemia and birth defects in recent years. Wisam, Iraqi medical authorities and growing numbers of American activists cast blame on the U.S. weapons containing depleted uranium that were used in the 1991 Gulf War and in the 1998 missile attacks on Baghdad and other major cities. They also assert that such munitions - which were also used by US forces in Bosnia, Kosovo and Serbia in far smaller quantities - may be a cause of Gulf War diseases, elusive maladies that have affected 50,000 to 80,000 U.S. veterans of the 1991 conflict." Where is the outrage???

Apart from Britain, the rest of the UN Security Council sees no justification for immediate W-ar, based on the results of UN inspections. But Bush continues to insist Iraq is hiding WMD. Can they prove it? "Senior administration officials have indicated the United States may try to bring the matter to a head by disclosing intelligence it says proves Hussein is hiding chemical and biological weapons and trying to build a nuclear weapon. Several informed U.S. and diplomatic sources said, however, that the evidence is largely circumstantial or dated and is unlikely to convince reluctant council members." If Bush had a smoking gun, he would have produced it months ago. Bush doesn't have a trump card, he's just bluffing - and the world knows it.

NY Times reports, "President Jacques Chirac of France... returned to his mantra that the Council can only go to war 'once all the other options have been exhausted.' He said France would vigorously resist any move by the United States to lead a war on its own... Le Figaro showed that 77% of those polled were opposed to war in Iraq... Russia... has indicated that it sees no endpoint for the inspections... The German ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, said Jan. 27 would not be an endpoint, but rather the first date when the inspections would finally be fully under way. Although Germany does not hold a veto, it added European support to Britain and France. A majority of Council nations remain unconvinced that President Saddam Hussein is hiding weapons that pose an imminent threat. The chief inspectors said last week that they had found no smoking gun, and the United States has not disclosed any spectacular evidence either to the inspectors or to the Council."

UN inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei say they need "about a year to complete a credible inspection process in Iraq." Richard Perle says UN inspectors will never find anything no matter how long they look. (Maybe because there is nothing to find?) Anonymous sources tell the Washington Post that January 27 will be the "beginning of a final phase" (whatever that anonymous Bushit means, since Bush has been saying "this is Saddam's absolute last chance" since September). But Colin Powell says January 27 should not be regarded as a time of reckoning.

Ever since 9-11, Pentagon officials Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz have tried to manufacture a bogus connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, in order to justify conquering Iraq. The problem is that secularist despot Saddam Hussein and Islamist Al Qaeda are mortal enemies, not allies. Now Perle and Wolfowitz are putting out war propaganda that Ansar al Islam, which includes Al Qaeda officials in its leadership, is gaining military strength against the pro-US Kurds in northern Iraq. But you have to read the fine print at the end of the article to discover that Ansar is armed by IRAN, not IRAQ. In other words, once again front-page NY Times war propaganda is Bushit! Send complaints to letters@nytimes.com

When Congress gave Bush a blank check to invade Iraq, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) explained how the War could be stopped. "The Congress always has the last word in war and peace because we control the purse strings. We could introduce a bill and rush it through that would say no funds appropriated herein may be used to pay for an expedition to [Iraq]. Congress always has the last word because we control the purse strings. But now this resolution we are dealing with today does not declare war. It does not approach war. War may never happen" (p. 128). Yeah, but with 150,000 troops in or en route to Iraq, W-ar will be awfully hard to avoid. So it's time to tell Congress to VOID the Iraq blank check!

MSNBC reports, "As the Pentagon prepares for what could be one of the largest National Guard and reserve call-ups since the Gulf War... nerves are fraying in the 443rd. The Army unit, based in Owings Mills, Md., and trained to set up refugee and prisoner-of-war camps, returned home just three months ago after a year of post-Sept. 11 duty at an Army base in Texas. The long tour slowed careers and turned marriages brittle. Now, the prospect of another deployment - this time the scuttlebutt is Turkey or northern Iraq - is roiling morale and discipline... The 443rd could be called up for another year - or longer. But a few of Capt. Jonathan Bennett's soldiers have told him that if they are called for duty, they are not going this time. And about a dozen soldiers more than normal did not show up Saturday morning when Bennett ordered them to base. So Bennett is preparing AWOL papers - just in case." Bush wasn't punished for going AWOL during Vietnam - so why should his soldiers be punished?

Miami Herald reports, "With U.S. troops heading for the Persian Gulf, Americans say in overwhelming numbers that they oppose unilateral U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, according to a national Knight Ridder poll. A robust majority of Americans - 83% - would support going to war if the United Nations backed the action and it was carried out by a multinational coalition. But without U.N. approval and allies, only [34%] would support a war with Iraq... Among the survey's other findings: Most Americans do not want to rush into war. 68% of the respondents said the United States should continue to work toward achieving its goals in Iraq without war. Only 27% favored quick military action." One striking aspect of this poll is the total brainwashing of Americans by Bush and the media into thinking Iraq had something to do with 9-11 - only 17% accurately said that "none" of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq.

WashPost reports, "On Sept. 17, 2001... Bush signed a 21/2-page document marked 'TOP SECRET' that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan... Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq... Much of this activity -- and these concerns -- were hidden from the public eye... The administration did not publicly tip its hand until Bush made his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2002. Even then, officials did their best to obscure the meaning of Bush's words... Yet, in this period, Bush also secretly signed an intelligence order, expanding on a previous presidential finding, that directed the CIA to undertake a comprehensive, covert program to topple Hussein, including authority to use lethal force to capture the Iraqi president... 'I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go,' Bush hinted to a British reporter [in April]. 'That's about all I'm willing to share with you.'" Impeach Bush Now!

Mark Ash says the motive for Bush's Iraq W-ar is "Oil, money, power beyond comprehension... Plans for an Iraqi regime change, at the behest of Mr. Bush were scripted into the GOP's published platform statement for 2000. Why? There are heavy connections between the Bush Administration and US oil corporations. The interests of those oil giants are the cornerstone of this Administration's policy. Control of Iraqi oil fields would be worth incalculable profits the very corporations whose former executives permeate the ranks of the Bush Administration. Oil is the Bush family business -- politics is the shield that protects it. In addition to the oil, the business of militarism itself promises a mountain of gold for those who promote this act of military aggression. At the center of all spending for the administration's 'war on terrorism' is the Carlyle Group."

US forces "would be well positioned to attack Iraq on Bush's order in mid- to late February, and it could exceed 150,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines... Well under half of that force is in the gulf region now. But three large deployment orders signed by Donald H. Rumsfeld - two in the last 24 hours for a total of 62,000 troops and one on Dec. 24 for about 25,000 - have set in motion crucial reinforcements of troops, armor, warships and combat aircraft. The latest order, sent out [Saturday] night, directs 27,000 additional personnel to the gulf... An order late Friday sent 35,000 troops, half of them marines, to the region." W-ar will immediately follow "the hajj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Two million Muslims are expected to travel for the ceremonies, which culminate in mid-February. Although Mecca is far from any potential war zone, American officials fear a public-relations disaster if the United States began an offensive during the pilgrimage."

Chalmers "Johnson lays out the path from one Iraqi war to another, and explores three explanations for such a war-to-come - the oil connection, the Israeli connection, and the Karl Rove connection - before offering his own. Of the three, by the way, only the Rove connection ('weapons of mass distraction') has been extensively written about in the mainstream press... The intertwining of figures from Ariel Sharon's Likud Party in Israel and the Bush administration is little short of a taboo subject in our media." In the end, Chalmers blames "the inexorable pressures of imperialism and militarism. I agree with Jay Bookman, an editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, when he asks, 'Why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled? Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.'"

Newsday reports, "Using Iraqi oil to fund an occupation would reinforce a prevalent belief in the Mideast that the conflict is all about control of oil, not rooting out weapons of mass destruction, according to Halim Barakat, a recently retired professor of Arab studies at Georgetown University. 'It would mean that the real ... objective of the war is not the democratization of Iraq, not getting rid of Saddam, not to liberate the Iraqi people, but a return to colonialism,' he said. 'That is how they [Mideast nations] would perceive it'... 'It [the oil] is going to fund the U.S. military presence there,' [a Pentagon official said]. '... They're not just going to take the Iraqi oil and use it for Iraq's purpose. They will charge the Iraqis for the U.S. cost of operating in Iraq. I don't think they're planning as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to use it to pay for the occupation.'"

Daily Telegraph reports, "America will not delay a war with Iraq until the autumn and is prepared to launch military action against Saddam Hussein without further UN authorisation... Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board and a hawk whose views carry considerable weight, rejected suggestions from British ministers and senior Foreign Office officials that plans for an early war should be put on hold. Mr Perle, who is close to Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, said he did not expect the UN Security Council to reach agreement on the use of force but had little doubt that George W Bush would press ahead regardless and lead a coalition to victory. 'I'm assuming that we will not get a consensus on the Security Council but it may be possible to get it,' he said. 'It would be a great mistake to become dependent on it and take the view that we can't act separately. 'That would be an abrogation of the president's [sic] responsibility.'" Impeach Bush Now!

Tom Engelhardt writes, "Here's the fascinating thing. Our warhawks have had a far harder time than they ever imagined sending the troops in -- and their schedule has kept slipping and slipping -- and there are signs that it may get harder yet. In just the last few days, the Turkish government has been balking at the stationing of a US invasion force on its soil; the Saudis are whispering again about the need for UN resolutions; even the British representative at the UN, is suddenly mumbling about giving the inspectors 'time,' and of course the UN inspectors have as yet evidently found nothing. Why are governments beginning to hesitate?... Our media offer accounts, however underplayed, of individual demonstrations around the world. But what they don't report, what they don't believe, is that 'the people' are the weight of history. This isn't romantic at all. It's historical reality. If people's war, after buried years, now gives way to people's antiwar that would be something."

Edinburgh News reports, "Tony Blair is urging George W Bush to delay any war against Iraq until the autumn to give UN weapons inspectors more time to obtain clear evidence of Saddam Hussein's secret attempt to build up an illegal arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. [Blair] believes a spring offensive would be premature and would not get the support of the UN Security Council. Mr Blair is stressing to Bush this would leave the UK and United States isolated and could cause him problems with Labour MPs and public opinion at home... It has been expected that if the UK and US do go to war, they would do it in the spring before the heat makes military action impossible. But now Mr Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw are urging Washington to hold off till the autumn... One senior Whitehall source said: 'The Prime Minister has made it clear that unless there is a smoking gun the inspectors have to be given time to keep searching.'" Democracy is working - in Britain, at least!

The Guardian reports that Tony Blair's Labour "government is facing a hardening mood among Labour backbenchers against an attack on Iraq with predictions that up to 100 MPs are preparing to rebel and junior ministers could resign if war starts without UN backing. Labour's chief whip, Hilary Armstrong, has passed on to Tony Blair growing demands for evidence of any weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, and a new UN mandate to justify any attack. MPs are warning that the last time Britain went to war divided - over Suez in 1956 - it ended with disaster and Anthony Eden's fall from power. 'The mood has hardened over Christmas. Labour MPs don't trust George Bush and wonder why Tony is so close to him. And the weapons inspectors haven't found anything. With a new UN resolution it [war] is manageable, but if Tony wants to do anything without UN support there will be serious mega-trouble,' one influential moderate said."

NY Times reports, "The key piece of evidence that Bush has cited as proof that Saddam Hussein has sought to revive his program to make nuclear weapons was challenged today by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In his remarks to the UN General Assembly in September, Bush cited Iraq's attempts to buy special aluminum tubes as proof that Baghdad was seeking to construct a centrifuge network system to enrich uranium for nuclear bombs... But Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the I.A.E.A., offered a sharply different assessment in a report to the UN Security Council today. Dr. ElBaradei said Iraqi officials had claimed that they sought the tubes to make 81-millimeter rockets. Dr. ElBaradei indicated that he thought the Iraqi claim was credible... 'The I.A.E.A.'s analysis to date indicates that the specifications of the aluminum tubes sought by Iraq in 2001 and 2002 appear to be consistent with reverse engineering of rockets." EVERYTHING Bush says about Iraq is Bushit!

The Guardian writes, "Mr Blair now seems to recognise that he has failed to persuade the British public to back the Americans over Iraq. That is a big admission... His big concession was to admit that people want the Americans to listen more to their concerns about the response to terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That is true, but it is not the only thing. They also want to be able to trust the Americans... People here do not have confidence in Mr Bush as a war leader. The US may be a force for good, as Mr Blair still claimed yesterday, but it is Mr Bush and his colleagues who are the problem. It is the way that this administration acts on this issue, in these circumstances, that creates all the mistrust in Whitehall, in Westminster and in the country. It is a problem which Mr Blair fails to address. Until he does, his Iraq problems will not be solved, for Mr Blair will not be trusted on this issue either."

"Tom Flocco of www.tomflocco.com joins me again today to discuss the world situation, 9/11, black boxes, Mexican Consular, corrupt government officials and lots more. Why aren't we hearing about the factory of WMD in Boca Raton, Florida that was supplying WMD to Iraq? Why does the media hide the news from us? We can't blame Bush for everything going on today, a lot of it started during the Reagan-Bush years; how many of our top secrets, equipment, weapons were sold to rogue nations? Who is in control of the black boxes (really orange) of 9/11? Is war a distraction from a REAL commission on 9/11? Our troops will be facing our own weapons with inferior protection in Iraq. Why did Bush Sr. sign a conflict of interest waiver on war-related WMD financial holdings in the lst Gulf war? How much is George Jr. puppeted by his Dad? Why isn't the press covering the fact that 8,000 pages were stricken from the 12,000 page Iraq report?"

Wow! Here's a stunning exchange between Helen Thomas, dean of the Washington press corps, and Ari Lie-sure, mouthpiece of the Bush regime.
"Q My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, the question is how to protect Americans, and our allies and friends --
Q They're not attacking you.
MR. FLEISCHER: -- from a country --
Q Have they laid the glove on you or on the United States, the Iraqis, in 11 years?
MR. FLEISCHER: I guess you have forgotten about the Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as a result of Saddam Hussein's aggression then.
Q Is this revenge, 11 years of revenge?"
Don't miss Thomas's final knockout punch!

Tom Engelhardt brilliantly dissects a front page NY Times article with the heart-warming headline "U.S. Is Completing Plan to Promote a Democratic Iraq." "Our media may largely have avoided the issue of oil and Iraq, it turns out that all those senior officials and officials 'close' to Bush haven't. The 'delicate question' of 'how to deal with Iraq's oil reserves,' also referred to by one senior official as 'the patrimony of the Iraqi people,' turns out to involve grabbing the oil fields before Saddam can torch them, using Iraqi oil to pay for reconstruction (and assumedly the occupation as well), and deciding how, once in control of the oil, to relate to OPEC... The only matter that doesn't get much attention in the piece is the promotion of a 'democratic' Iraq (at least as I might define democracy). Every Iraqi who might play any role in governing as far as I can tell is to be appointed or anointed by the Americans. Why am I not surprised?" Neither are we.

On 1-6-02, Saddam accused UN inspectors of spying rather than looking for WMD. And now the Chicago Tribune has proved him right: "About 100 U.S. Special Forces members and more than 50 CIA officers have been operating in small groups inside Iraq for at least four months, according to intelligence officials and military analysts who have talked with people on the teams. A U.S. intelligence official said the Iraq missions--which also have included British, Jordanian and Australian commandos--are separate from the work of the UN weapons inspectors but that the two operations may be moving in parallel. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some Special Forces members were following suspicious movements around suspected weapons sites and that information could be turned over to the UN teams. The U.S. so far has refused to do so. Iraq has been highly suspicious of the UN inspectors dating to 1998, when it found a few members were with U.S. Special Forces."

Mark Crispin Miller writes, "Last week, a once-notorious Iraqi site made news again. Seeking evidence of biological weapons production, United Nations arms inspectors swooped into the closed industrial facility at Abu Ghreib, outside Baghdad - the same plant that U.S. forces bombed on Jan. 23, 1991. The Iraqis claimed in '91 that the site was a baby milk factory and nothing more, a charge reported by Peter Arnett on CNN and then denied by the U.S. government... 'It was a biological weapons facility, of that we are sure,' repeated Colin Powell later that same day. 'That factory is, in fact, a production facility for biological weapons,' repeated White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater. 'The Iraqis have hidden this facility behind a facade of baby-milk production as a form of disinformation.'" 11 years later, we know that Powell and Fitzwater lied - it WAS just a baby milk factory. The Bush II administration is manufacturing a new set of lies to justify Gulf War II - Final Conquest.

British Journalist Robert Fisk writes, "I think I'm getting the picture. North Korea breaks all its nuclear agreements with the United States, throws out UN inspectors and sets off to make a bomb a year, and Bush says it's 'a diplomatic issue'. Iraq hands over a 12,000-page account of its weapons production and allows UN inspectors to roam all over the country, and - after they've found not a jam-jar of dangerous chemicals in 230 raids - Bush announces that Iraq is a threat to America, has not disarmed and may have to be invaded. So that's it, then. How, readers keep asking me in the most eloquent of letters, does he get away with it?... Why do we tolerate this? Why do Americans?" The answer is simple: Republican Media Propaganda.

Business Leaders for Social Responsibility writes, "A Business Leaders member and Republican Regent (six-figure Party donor) is underwriting a full-page anti-war ad in the Wall Street Journal. To maximize the impact on the Bush Administration, we need more Republicans to add their names. If you are a Registered Republican or have contributed to a Republican candidate or local, state or national party organization, please sign on. The ad, which will run in mid-January, will be the centerpiece of a public relations campaign to show that even those who supported Mr. Bush and the Republican Party question the rush to war. Please respond ASAP by phone 212-243-3416 or fax 212-243-7783." Read the text of this powerful ad.

Here's an e-mail from Iraq war supporters who are - sadly - still fighting the Vietnam War. "US Marine Corps combat veterans of the Vietnam War have initiated an offensive; a war, if you will, against the stance and arrogance of the leftist radical movement. These vile traitors, sympathetic to the enemies of this nation have again, after thirty years, risen their ugly heads, Phoenix-like, to aid and abet our enemies. As before, they are demonstrating, trying to present, with the help of the liberal media, a false impression to the citizens and politicians of America, and the world, of a popular opposition to the United States defending itself and waging war upon those bent upon its destruction. This is YOUR finest hour. Uncle Sam NEEDS you. Your arms are your willingness to help show the world the radical left is not going to be given the sole position of presenting the only voice of the will and wishes of our people; a false and noisy minority is all they are and ever have been."

Tom Friedman writes, "Any war we launch in Iraq will certainly be - in part - about oil. To deny that is laughable." But Friedman thinks a war for oil is perfectly fine, on two conditions: 1. "we accompany it with a real program for energy conservation," and 2. we "pay the full price, in money and manpower, needed to help Iraqis build a more progressive, democratizing Arab state." How can any sane person believe Bush will meet EITHER condition? And how could someone as delusional as Friedman win a Pulitzer Prize? E-mail letters@nytimes.com

"As the United States deploys troops in anticipation of another battle with Iraq, the Pentagon says it still has no answer for an enigma that has confounded experts for more than a decade: What caused all those Gulf veterans' symptoms? The memory lapses, fatigue, joint pains, rashes, headaches, dizzy spells . . . not to mention the cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease and birth defects. Many vets speculated that they were poisoned by a combination of vaccines, pesticides, oil fire pollution and other battlefield toxins, including chemical and biological weapons stockpiled by Saddam Hussein. For years their maladies weren't taken seriously: It's stress, it happens after every war and it's all in your head, the military doctors said. Stutts and his wife, Carol, believed as much. They doubted reports of this so-called Gulf War Syndrome. But by 1996, the doctor himself could no longer work. He suffered limb spasms and seizures that made him fall down stairs."

"'Live from Baghdad' is a dramatization, not a documentary, but it is being presented by HBO as a 'behind-the-scenes true story' of the Gulf War and is being released at a crucial political moment. HBO's version of history never makes clear that the incubator story was fraudulent, and in fact had been managed by an American PR firm, not Iraq. Curiously, however, the truth seems to have been clear to Robert Wiener, the former CNN producer who co-wrote 'Live from Baghdad.' As he explained to CNN's Wolf Blitzer (11/21/02), 'that story turned out to be false because those accusations were made by the daughter of the Kuwaiti minister of information and were never proven.'"

Dilip Hiro writes, "Washington deployed 100,000 troops for more than six years to implement reform in Japan [in 1945]. By contrast, US planners now envisage the stationing of 75,000-100,000 troops at the cost $16 billion a year. This is unrealistic. In Northern Ireland, with a population of 1.7 million, the British government stationed close to 20,000 troops with an equal number of loyal armed policemen and an army reserve of the same size, thus committing 60,000 troops and armed police to tackle about 1,000 members of the IRA, most of them in jail at any one time. In addition, the loyalist Protestant majority outnumbered the rebellious Catholic population by 2 to 1... Iraq is a heterogeneous society. The traditional religious, ethnic and tribal animosities will break out in postwar Iraq once the iron hand of Saddam is removed, with civil conflict erupting along ethnic and sectarian lines, the deadliest one being between Sunnis and Shiites who share the Mesopotamian plain."

NY Times reports, "Representatives of several countries on the Security Council are beginning to make the case that the inspection process in Iraq should be allowed to run its course, and that Washington should be pressed to take the same kind of step-by-step approach with Saddam Hussein that it is taking with Mr. Kim. Mr. Bush's aides say they disagree; they plan to assert that Iraq is a special case, impervious to the kinds of economic pressure that Mr. Bush is trying with North Korea. 'We have basically exhausted diplomacy and containment in Iraq,' one senior administration official said today. 'We haven't in Korea'... 'We will be facing considerable skepticism on the question of how we can justify confrontation with Saddam when he is letting inspectors into the country, and a diplomatic solution with Kim when he's just thrown them out. And we're working on the answer.'" Watch out for a big heap of fresh Bushit!

NY Times reports: "The administration's top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier estimates from White House officials [of $100 to $200 billion]. In a telephone interview today, the official, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the Office of Management and Budget, also said there was likely to be a deficit in the fiscal 2004 budget, though he declined to specify how large it would be...Mr. Daniels's projections place the cost of an Iraq war in line with that of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, which cost more than $60 billion, or about $80 billion in current dollars. But the United States paid for only a small part of that conflict, with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Japan bearing the brunt of the costs. This time, the gulf nations are less supportive of the United States and, diplomats say, Americans are likely to bear most of the cost of a war with Iraq."

"I voted against the Congressional resolution giving the president authority to carry out this war [on Iraq] -- an engagement that would dwarf our military efforts to find Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. But as a combat veteran of the Korean conflict, I believe that if we are going to send our children to war, the governing principle must be that of shared sacrifice...That's why I will ask Congress next week to consider and support legislation I will introduce to resume the military draft...the Congress that voted overwhelmingly to allow the use of force in Iraq includes only one member who has a child in the enlisted ranks of the military -- just a few more have children who are officers. I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve -- and to be placed in harm's way -- there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq."

WashPost reports in the 1980's, Reagan-Bush-Rumsfeld "'actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required...' Reagan-[Bush] effectively turned a blind eye to the export of 'dual use' items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications... The State and Commerce departments PROMOTED trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein [yeah, right!]. When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes." Where is the outrage???

WashPost reports, "On Nov. 1, 1983... Jonathan T. Howe told Sec. of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to 'almost daily use of CW' against the Iranians. But the Reagan[-Bush] administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by [Reagan's] recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald Rumsfeld... As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Dept. terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been 'impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating' to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq - along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen - was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979" under President Carter. Reagan-Bush encouraged Saddam's WMD efforts - where is the outrage???

LA Times reports, "Despite a concerted effort by the Bush administration, more than two-thirds of Americans believe Bush has failed to make the case that a war with Iraq is justified, according to a Los Angeles Times poll. The overwhelming majority of respondents - 90% - said they do not doubt that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. But in the absence of new evidence from U.N. inspectors, 72% of respondents, including 60% of Republicans, said Bush has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war with Iraq... The poll also found that support for a possible war appears to be weakening, with 58% saying they support a ground attack on Iraq. In an August Times poll, 64% said they would support a ground attack. Last January, after Bush first denounced Saddam Hussein in his State of the Union address, the Times and other polls found support for military action greater than 70%."

"The sirens sound most every day, once, twice, sometimes more. They are followed by the sound of jet planes soaring overhead. Then the soft puffs of antiaircraft fire off in the distance. What Nahla Mohammed remembers from that day, however, is not the sirens or the jet planes, but running into her son on the street just after she finished shopping for supper. He asked what she would fix, she recalled. Meat, vegetables and soup, she answered. He headed off, anticipating the family meal. Ten minutes later, according to a cousin who was there, a powerful blast slammed him to the ground as metal shards sliced through his body. Mohammed Sharif Reda, a 23-year-old mechanic married just two months and planning to build a house for his family, was among four people who Iraqi officials said were killed Dec. 1 in what they call an 'undeclared war' being waged here in southern Iraq." So reports the Washington Post.

NY Times reports, "After the weapons inspectors' briefing on Thursday, Russia argued that the Bush administration was out of line in unilaterally saying that there had been a 'material breach.' The Russian ambassador to the United Nations, Sergey Lavrov, insisted that only the Council as a whole was entitled to make such a judgment, and only on the basis of reports from the weapons inspectors, not intelligence from national governments. 'The work of the inspectors is at a very early stage,' Mr. Lavrov said, barely concealing his aggravation. He demanded again that the Bush administration come forward with hard intelligence to prove that President Saddam Hussein of Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction. 'To say, 'We know, but we wouldn't tell you,' is not something that is persuasive, frankly speaking,' Mr. Lavrov said. 'This is not a poker game, when you hold your cards and call others' bluff.'" Memo to the world - don't believe the Bushit from Washington!

Scotland's Sunday Herald reports, "The United States edited out more than 8000 crucial pages of Iraq's 11,800-page dossier on weapons, before passing on a sanitised version to the 10 non-permanent members of the United Nations security council. The full extent of Washington's complete control over who sees what in the crucial Iraqi dossier calls into question the allegations made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell that 'omissions' in the document constituted a 'material breach' of the latest UN resolution on Iraq... Current and former UN diplomats are said to be livid at what some have called the 'theft' of the Iraqi document by the US. Hans von Sponeck, the former assistant general secretary of the UN and the UN's humanitarian co- ordinator in Iraq until 2000, said: 'This is an outrageous attempt by the US to mislead.'" Impeach Bush Now!

"Arms inspectors yesterday criticized the US and its ally Britain for not sharing vital information on Iraq as the two nations prepared for a war in the Gulf. 'If the UK and the US are convinced they have evidence, well then one would expect that they would be able to tell us where is this stuff,' said Hans Blix... Asked if he was getting all the cooperation he wanted from Western intelligence, he told BBC radio: 'Not yet. We get some but we don't get all we need. The most important thing that governments like the UK or the US could give us would be to tell us of sites where they are convinced that they keep some weapons of mass destruction'... Washington stood alone on Friday in saying Iraq had committed a 'material breach' by lying about its weapons programs. Even its closest ally, Britain, stopped short of using the term that could trigger war. 'At the moment we simply don't know whether Iraq will be found in breach of the United Nations resolution,' Blair said."

"Hewlett Packard, Dupont, Honeywell and other major US corporations, as well as governmental agencies... all illegally helped Iraq to build its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs. On December 18, Geneva-based reporter Andreas Zumach broke the story on [Pacifica's] 'Democracy Now!' Zumach's Berlin-based paper Die Tageszeitung plans to publish a full list of companies and nations who have aided Iraq... Zumach obtained top-secret portions of Iraq's 12,000-page weapons declaration that the US had redacted from the version made available to the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council. 'We have 24 major U.S. companies listed in the report who gave very substantial support especially to the biological weapons program but also to the missile and nuclear weapons program. 'Pretty much everything was illegal in the case of nuclear and biological weapons. Every form of cooperation and supplies was outlawed in the 1970s." Is Bush's War just a scrub of these illegal sales?

MSNBC reports: "The United States Thursday declared Iraq in violation of a U.N. resolution demanding that Baghdad reveal its weapons of mass destruction and disarm. The strong statement put the United States one step closer to military action against Baghdad. Secretary of State Colin Powell...said the U.S. deems Iraq in 'material breach' of the tough new U.N. resolution demanding Iraq make a full accounting of its weapons programs. His comments came after chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix criticized the document for inconsistencies... 'There is no question,' said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte [a one-time point-man for Oliver North's Contra Ops in Honduras], 'that Iraq continues its pattern of noncooperation, its pattern of deception, its pattern of dissembling, its pattern of lying, and if that is going to be the way they continue through the weeks ahead, then we're not going to find a peaceful solution to this problem.'"

From ZNet: "Here is a list of US corporations that allegedly supplied Iraq with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to 1991. The list comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the Security Council. This is a big breaking story in Europe - read the clip from this morning's Independent (London) below the list. [A - nuclear K - chemical B - biological R - rockets (missiles)] 1) Honeywell (R,K) 2) Spektra Physics (K) 3) Semetex (R) 4) TI Coating (A,K) 5) UNISYS (A,K) 6) Sperry Corp. (R,K) 7) Tektronix (R,A) 8) Rockwell )(K) 9) Leybold Vacuum Systems (A) 10) Finnigan-MAT-US (A) 11) Hewlett Packard (A.R,K) 12) Dupont (A) 13) Eastman Kodak (R) 14) American Type Culture Collection (B) 15) Alcolac International (C) 16) Consarc (A) 17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K) 18) Cerberus (LTD) (A) 19) Electronic Associates (R) 20) International Computer Systems 21) Bechtel (K) 22) EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R) 23) Canberra Industries Inc. (A) 24) Axel Electronics Inc. (A)"

"War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know," makes a case against unilateral US military action against Iraq. It is an extended interview with former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter that includes historical background on the roots of the current conflict. The bestseller, which is only 95 pages long, had an initial print run of 125,000 copies. It has been translated into more than a dozen languages, and a deal is being negotiated for an Arabic edition.

According to a poll by the Los Angeles Times, 72% of the American people, including 60% of Republicans, believe Bush has not justified starting a W-ar. Americans also recognize the dangerous consequences of a W-ar, with two-thirds saying that war would increase the chance of terrorist attacks in the United States. Hey George - remember when you said you "Trust the People"? Were you sober when you said it, or were you just lying?

CNN reports, "U.S. officials are downplaying a report that indicated Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq with ties to al Qaeda had obtained a deadly poison for possible use in terrorist attacks, senior administration officials tell CNN. No corroboration of this intelligence report from around late October or early November has been found, and neither has any evidence of involvement by the Iraqi government, these officials said. One senior official described a report in The Washington Post on Thursday suggesting al Qaeda or a group closely affiliated with al Qaeda had obtained the nerve agent VX from Iraq as 'far too conclusive sounding,' and said the U.S. government had no hard evidence of such a transaction." Who is leaking all of these lies, and why is the Washington Post treating them as fact? We demand an investigation by WashPost Ombudsman Michael Getler - e-mail ombudsman@washpost.com or call 202-334-7582.

Newsday reports, "Iraq's 12,000-page declaration of its weapons programs lists American companies that provided materials used by Baghdad to develop chemical and biological weapons in the 1980s... The public release of such a list could prove embarrassing for the US and highlight the extent to which the Reagan and first Bush administrations supported Iraq in its eight-year war with neighboring Iran in the 1980s. U.S. military and financial assistance to Iraq continued until Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990... The U.S.-Iraqi relationship flourished from February 1986, when then-Vice President George Bush met with Iraq's ambassador to Washington, Nizar Hamdoon, and assured him that Baghdad would be permitted to receive more sophisticated U.S. technology, until the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Over that four-year period, the Reagan and Bush administrations approved licenses for the export of more than $600 million worth of advanced American technology to Iraq."

"Rumsfeld: Right, okay. I'd be happy to respond to that. In the early 1980s, Iran and Iraq were in a war. President Reagan was president, and I was a private citizen. 241 marines were killed in Beirut, Lebanon, in a terrorist attack. President Reagan and Secretary of State George Shultz asked me if I would take a leave of absence from my business and come in and assist them for a period of months with respect to the problems in the Middle East. I met with Saddam Hussein during that period. And the purpose was to attempt to see if the Iraqi regime could be at all helpful in our efforts in the Middle East with respect to terrorism." But then Reagan, Bush Sr. and Oliver North turned around and SOLD weapons to Iran, despite the US Sec. of State having designated Iran as a sponsor of terrorism. This led to Reagan's team actually negotiating for US hostages with Hezbollah, the same terrorists that had bombed the marine barracks in Beirut. There is something wrong with Rumsfeld's story.

"In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported...:'Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded...Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy ...Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination'... Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department 'evidence.' On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad..., 'American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.'"

Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot write: "The US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas."

Ah, the plot thickens! Now it is revealed that Iraq's report on its weapons capabilities will contain many embarrassing revelations about UN countries wheeling and dealing with Saddam - and guess what country wheeled and dealed the most? The U.S. under Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr. (For more on this, enter 'Iraq' in our search engine).So now it is little wonder that Bush was frantically trying to get hold of an advance copy of the huge document! We're sure he had his white out and shredder at the ready!

From MSNBC: "In the declaration, Iraq asserts that it no longer has weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them. According to the table of contents, some 2,100 pages are devoted to Iraq's nuclear program before 1991, and 300 more pages in Arabic detail current nuclear programs, which Baghdad says are civilian... 'There are lots of pages devoted to procurement information,' said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a Washington research group. 'If they have listed all their suppliers, that is quite important and should be made public,' he said in an interview. 'If you expose this network, it means it is harder for them to continue,' he said... U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said it would take some time to review the declaration, and he called on Washington and others to be patient with inspectors."

According to 60 Minutes, "One example of misinformation, according to physicist and former weapons inspector David Albright, was the Bush administration's leak to the media in September about Iraq's attempt to import aluminum tubes which administration officials claimed were headed for Iraq's nuclear program... The tubes could be possibly used for a nuclear program, but were more suited to conventional weapons production... [60 Minutes] also interviews a former CIA agent who investigated the oft-mentioned report that hijacker Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague several months before the deadly attacks on 9/11. Despite a lack of evidence that the meeting took place, the item was cited by administration officials as high as Vice President Dick Cheney and ended up being reported so widely that two-thirds of Americans polled by the Council on Foreign Relations believe Iraq was behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11."

Bob Fertik writes, "U.N. Resolution 1441 requires 'all Member States' - including the U.S. - 'to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates.' But the NY Times reported on 12-2-02 that 'the administration has held back whatever intelligence it has collected about Iraq's activities.' And on 12-4-02, top U.N. inspector Demetrius Perricos declared 'we are not getting all the intelligence that Bush is getting.' On 12-5-02, Ari Fleischer repeatedly refused to say whether Perricos's charge was true. Bush insists that a 'material breach' of 1441 is grounds for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. But what are the consequences if Bush - not Saddam - is in 'material breach' of 1441? And what obligation does the media have to use as much vigor to investigate alleged US breaches as uses for alleged Iraqi breaches?"

NY Times reports, "Referring to the inspectors and their first visit four years ago, Saddam Hussein said, 'Some might claim that we didn't give them a proper chance to resist, with tangible evidence, the American allegations. We shall provide them with such a chance,' he added at the meeting, marking the first day of a three-day Muslim holiday... Iraq also took the occasion to deny again, in some of the least ambiguous terms it has used, that it possesses any banned nuclear, chemical or biological arms. 'We have no weapons of mass destruction, absolutely no weapons of mass destruction,' Maj. Gen. Hussam Muhammad Amin." And UN inspectors are pleased with the cooperation they are getting. "Demetrius Perricos, head of the team conducting the biological, chemical and missile inspections, was asked whether there were differences between Bush's downbeat assessment and the teams' appraisal of their progress. 'You bet there are differences,' he said."

Susan Thompson of Moveon reports, "We remain on the brink of Gulf War II. As the gap between threat and action continues to close, a much clearer picture of the strategies, tactics, and potential consequences of the war is emerging. Based on current reporting and the statements of US officials, it is even possible to begin to piece together a general idea of what the war could look like, from start to finish. For example, it seems clear now that 200,000 to 260,000 US troops will be involved, including reserve troops; that plans for a post-Hussein regime all seem to include an immediate period of rule by a US military regime, headed by a US general; and that a new Gulf War could potentially kill 500,000 civilians, according to conservative estimates... Now that we are ostensibly in the crucial last days before the war, we believe it is time to examine the war plans being laid in order to stop them. Now more than ever, it's time to work for peace." Read this excellent summary.

UN inspectors returned to Iraq on November 27, and were welcomed with open arms - and weapons facilities. For four straight days, Iraq has given complete cooperation to UN inspectors. This is obviously humiliating Bushfeld & Co., who "bombed an oil company office building in the southern port city of Basra, killing four people and wounding 27 others. An Iraqi military spokesman said two rockets hit the offices of the Southern Oil Co. this morning. The company supervises the country's oil exports under a U.N. program that allows Iraq to sell oil for food and humanitarian supplies... An Iraqi military spokesman said coalition planes staged 62 'armed sorties' over southern Iraq this morning." Impeach Bush Now!

Heather Wokusch writes: "D-Day of December 8th quietly approaches - the day Iraq must provide the UN Security Council with a complete accounting of its weapons programs, plus its civilian chemical/biological/nuclear production and research activities. Even though UN weapons inspectors have criticized the December 8th deadline as unrealizable, the consequences for missing it will be catastrophic: Iraq will be in 'material breach' of UN resolution 1441, and therefore subject to swift and decisive military action. But at this point, UN 1441 seems little more than a whitewash pretext for a US-led attack on Iraq. With US warplanes patrolling Iraq's no-fly zone, bombing raids against Iraq ongoing, multiple aircraft carriers on alert and 60,000 US troops currently in or around the Persian Gulf, it's clear the war has already begun, 'material breach' or not. When it's convenient for the Bush administration, Iraq will be found to have violated some aspect of the UN resolution..."

ChicagoTribune.com reports: "Chicago's top Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious leaders, who once doubted they could ever reach consensus on military action in Iraq, have drafted a rare joint letter to Mr. Bush urging him to avoid war. The document represents the first time the Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago has made a public statement on a national issue since the group formed in 1984. Members did so now, they said, to help [Bush] realize that even 'normally conservative and cautious' American religious leaders from the heartland believe war should be a last resort. 'In the present situation conditions justifying war have not been met,' said the letter, to be released publicly Sunday at St. James Cathedral. 'We still lack compelling evidence that Iraq is planning to launch an attack. . . . We believe that there is ample time and latitude for pursuing alternatives that could avert warfare, saving untold thousands of lives.'"

"Although it is difficult to predict how much Americans would pay for a new war with Iraq, one fact seems indisputable: It will be many times more than the cost of the last war... Informal estimates by congressional staff and Washington think tanks of the costs of an invasion of Iraq and a postwar occupation of the country have been in the range of $100 billion to $200 billion. If the fighting is protracted, and... Saddam Hussein blows up his country's oil fields, most economists believe the indirect costs of the war could be much greater, reverberating through the U.S. economy for many years... 'If we can plan a war, we should also be planning a way to pay for the war,' said Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-SC), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. '...Someone ought to be asking questions about the impact on the budget.'... 'It's a no-brainer that this is going to cost us more than the last time,' said Michael O'Hanlon, a military economist at the Brookings Institution."

Iraq has demanded that journalists from the world's media be allowed to cover the weapons inspections. But Hans Blix and the other UN officials are claiming they can't properly do their jobs with journalists in tow. "UN officials appeared concerned that reporters, lacking the inspectors' technical and scientific expertise, might be too quick to report that no banned materials had been found before the experts had time to draw their own conclusions" reports the Star. Or, put another way, reporters might reveal the truth before Bush-pressured inspectors had a chance to "modify" their results.

"In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that was released Nov. 25, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri complained that U.N. troops on the country's southern border had grossly underreported hostile acts by U.S. and British warplanes, according to Agence France-Presse. Sabri said the U.N. Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM) had reported only 5 percent of the 552 armed violations of Iraq's airspace between Oct. 12 and Nov. 8, 2002. Baghdad does not recognize the northern and southern no-fly zones established by the U.S. and British governments." -Situation Reports (see entry Nov. 25)

"The United States is manipulating 'grief and fear' from 9/11 terrorism to prepare an attack against Iraq, even though it had 'absolutely nothing to do with those atrocities,' says veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk. Saddam Hussein is a 'monstrous leader,' with a hangman on 24-hour duty, says Fisk, but it is false to suggest that Iraq was tied to 'the international crimes against humanity' committed in the U.S....Fisk speculated the war against Iraq would be 'the most frightening attempt to change the map of the Middle East' since Britain and France carved up the area after World War I.... Fisk also warned that the words of Al-Qa'ida leader Osama bin Laden reflect the deepest concerns of many Arabs and Muslims when he denounces U.S.-supported corrupt regimes and calls for an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. 'His words have a special resonance in an Arab world which has for decades felt humiliated by the West.'" -Montreal Gazette

"In a much-publicized CNN interview on September 18, 2002, former President and CIA Director George H.W. Bush declared that he 'hates' Saddam Hussein. This canard-filled propaganda display was designed to cloak the historical fact that the elder Bush 'loved' Saddam Hussein - as a key Middle East ally, a CIA asset, and partner in numerous illegal business partnerships. Indeed, the recalcitrant Saddam Hussein poses a grave threat, i.e., to the secrecy that cloaks the Bush family's involvement in some of the most unsavory episodes in American history." So writes Larry Chin in Part IV of a series.

UK Independent reports that the $50 billion estimated cost of a war in Iraq "does not take into account the costs of a post-war military occupation. Professor Nordhaus estimates anywhere from $75b to $500b, depending on the length and difficulty of the operation or the task of rebuilding the country and nurturing its economic development. To rebuild modestly, bringing Iraq up to the level of Iran or Egypt would cost at least $20b; launching an Iraqi-style Marshall Plan could cost as much as $100b. Professor Nordhaus noted the poor US record in standing by its postwar reconstruction promises. In Afghanistan, for example, it has spent just $10m on economic redevelopment compared with the $13b on the bombings and Special Forces operations. But he also argued that neglect would carry its own price as a furious Middle East vents its anti-Americanism on the occupying army and on US targets around the world." Bush's rich friends won't pay the bill - YOU will.

NY Times reports, "'Hans Blix and I have been saying we are going to use a common-sense approach,' Mohamed ElBaradei said Thursday... When Iraq makes its formal declaration of its secret programs, 'we have to look at the declaration,' Mr. ElBaradei said, adding: 'If there is a minor omission, and this is clearly not intentional, we are not rushing to the Security Council to say, 'This is a material breach.' If we see a pattern of lack of cooperation, then we obviously have to report to the Security Council, and the Security Council will decide if that is a material breach'... Mr. Blix said he would not carry out 'provocative' inspections that would the risk of war. Mr. ElBaradei on Thursday criticized past infiltrations of United Nations inspection work by the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Blix said today, 'We always stress the importance of being proper,' and added: 'That doesn't mean timid - not at all. But yes, they must be respectful in all their work.'"

David Cline of Vietnam Veterans Against The War said: "When going into the military, we did not swear alliance to protect the flag and the reputation of the President. We swore to protect the Constitution." The strongest emotional trigger was a single word, Chickenhawks! These are the men in the White House and the media who chose not to express their patriotism by fighting in Vietnam, but chose instead educational and phony health deferments. Today these men are the hawks pressing to send another generation to another war while their children remain safe and secure, as they were safe and secure during the Vietnam War.

Friday's unanimous vote in the U.N. Security Council supporting the U.S. resolution on weapons inspections in Iraq was a demonstration of Washington's ability to wield its vast political and economic power, say observers. "Only a superpower like the United States could have pulled off a coup like this," an Asian diplomat told IPS. The unanimous 15-0 vote, he said, was obtained through considerable political and diplomatic pressure. The lobbying, he added, was not done at the United Nations, but in various capitals. (Basically, the message to poor nations that got a lot of US Aid was often "vote with us or starve.") "James Abourezk, a former U.S. Senator, said he seriously doubts that any country receiving U.S. government aid could withstand the economic pressure to vote for a U.S. resolution at the Security Council. 'It would be a tragedy,' he told IPS, 'if a war were to be declared based on such pressure.'"

Take a look at the children we are preparing to injure and kill for Bush's oil cartel. Send their picture to your family, friends and legislators who support Bush's illegal and immoral W-ar. If, as the Bible says in Psalms, children are a gift from God, a reward, how will the warmongers justify their actions when they stand before God to be judged? Isn't Bush smart enough, or honorable enough, to find another way to disarm Saddam, if that REALLY was his goal?

From Newsday: "The United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution Friday establishing a tough new inspection regime in Iraq, but Bush made it clear that even full cooperation with those inspections will not be enough....he emphasized that despite agreeing to discuss any breach of the resolution with the Security Council, he had not limited the ability of the United States to decide for itself whether to attack Iraq. Bush not only demanded full Iraqi compliance with the inspections, but said it is time for 'the Iraqi people to escape oppression, find freedom and live in hope.' Senior administration officials said this meant that not only does Iraqi President Saddam Hussein have to give up his weapons of mass destruction, but that he must reform his totalitarian regime. Since Hussein has used terror and intimidation to run his country since consolidating power in the mid-1970s, the administration appeared to be purposely setting the bar too high for Hussein to comply."

The Institute for Public Accuracy offers a detailed analysis of the draft UN Security Council Resolution proposed by the US Government. Among the critique items, as written by James Paul, Executive Director or the Global Policy Forum: "They don't want it to appear that war is 'automatic.' But everyone understands that war is automatic. If it is not so, why are there emergency plans already in full gear to evacuate non-Iraqis from Iraq, to set up refugee camps for those displaced by the fighting, to rush in food to the starving Iraqi population and (most importantly) to seize and administer the Iraqi oil fields under a U.S. military government." It's still about consolidating power over energy resources, isn't it?

The UN Security Council voted 15-0 on Bush's revised Iraq inspection resolution, which "reinforces the idea that the US would return to the Security Council before taking any military action. Although it does not call for a second resolution, it said any failure by Iraq to cooperate 'will be reported to the council [by weapons inspectors] for assessment.' The Bush administration continues to say, however, that although it would consult with the Security Council, it is not required to get U.N. approval for military action... If Iraq were to make false statements to weapons inspectors or interfere with their work, the Security Council would convene immediately 'to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all the relevant council resolutions in order to restore international peace and security.'" But George W-armonger Bush would begin the invasion before that Security Council meeting even began - and who's gonna stop him?

AP writes, "The Baghdad International Trade Fair opened Friday with patriotic songs, praise for Saddam Hussein and condemnation of America. Participation at the two-week fair was at a level not seen since the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam's aides hailed the turnout - nearly 1,200 companies from 49 countries - as a global show of support for Iraq's struggle against Washington's 'aggressive policies.'" 57 Russian Companies are there. 1 British Company is there. We wonder if Cheney's old company, Halliburton is there - after all, they have been trading with Iraq for years.

With the support of the pro-war media, Bush is doing everything possible to coerce the UN Security into giving him a blank check for W-ar. But France continues to insist on a 2-step process, with no vote expected until after Election Day. And there's a very strong chance that the Security Council will simply reject Bush's W-ar demand, allowing Saddam Hussein to prove that he really does not have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

The Gallup poll shows that voters who cited Iraq as their most important issue favored Democrats by a whopping 16 points. A Greenberg McInturff poll for NPR found "voters were six points more likely to vote for a 'Democrat who shows more caution about attacking Iraq' than a 'Republican who supports Bush's Iraq policy'...Two key assumptions have led the commentariat astray. The first is that this campaign is a struggle between 'the economy,' which favors Democrats, and 'national security, which favors Republicans. That's misleading because 'national security' lumps the war on terrorism and the prospective war on Iraq together. And politically, they couldn't be more different...The Democrats' Iraq strategy - raising concerns but ultimately backing the president - may have been intellectually incoherent, but it seems to have helped the party both with hardcore war opponents and nervous war supporters."

Michael Kinsley writes, "Bush's public case for going to war against Iraq is full of logical inconsistencies, exaggerations, and outright lies. It reeks of ex-post-facto: First came the desire, and then came the reasons. [People in Washington] do not think the concern over potential use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons is negligible or insincere, but they do think that 'oil and Israel' is a pretty good summary of what, for...(Mr.) Bush, makes Iraq different from your run-of-the-mill evil dictatorship. Yet this presumption about Bush, and these issues themselves, barely appear in the flood of speculation and argument about Bush War II. 'President Bush' is, of course, a metaphor. Much Washington political commentary and analysis is basically a discussion of what or whom the term 'President Bush' is a metaphor for. Is it Karl Rove? Is it still Karen Hughes, although she has decamped? Even more than most presidents, Bush is regarded as the sum total of his advisers."

James Bamford, author of "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" writes: "As the White House searches for every possible excuse to go to war with Iraq, pressure has been building on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates to fit a political agenda. In this case, the agencies are being pressed to find a casus belli for war, whether or not one exists. 'Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements, and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA,' Vince Cannistraro, the agency's former head of counterterrorism, told The Guardian, a London newspaper....In the case of Iraq, the consequence of a serious manipulation of the truth could be the loss of thousands of American lives." This article includes a list of the "administration's less-than-forthright pronouncements."

Reuters reports, "In a surprise move, French and Russian diplomats distributed rival drafts in what envoys called a negotiating stance to pressure the US to make major changes in its text, which is co-sponsored by Britain. Whether the US has enough support in the 15-member council without further concessions is debatable. But James Cunningham, the U.S. deputy ambassador, said he intended to bring discussions to a close by the end of next week... The Russian draft deletes most of the tough provisions that the US insists are necessary, while France attempts to forge a compromise between Moscow and Washington. But both drafts retain current restrictions on inspectors entering President Saddam Hussein's presidential compounds. French diplomats said they had the support of eight other council members for sections of their text: Russia, China, Mexico, Ireland, Cameroon, Guinea, Mauritius and Syria. The U.S. draft was backed by Britain, Colombia, Bulgaria, Norway and possibly Singapore."

Before the Congressional vote on Iraq, Bush insisted that the threat from Iraq was so urgent that no time could be wasted. But at the UN, Bush has actually BLOCKED the return of UN inspectors for a MONTH! Hans Blix was ready to go under the existing rules, but Bush insisted on imposing a NEW set of rules that would allow the US to start bombing if an Iraqi so much as sneezed on a UN inspector. Powell is now talking of weeks of additional delays. Why the rush in September, and the sudden stop in October? It looks like Karl Rove read the polls and realized most Americans OPPOSE Bush's War, and would vote for Democratic candidates to stop it. Let's turn out in MASSIVE numbers on Saturday in DC, SF, LA, and elsewhere!

While Donald Rumsfeld has a hand-picked team of "intelligence" officers going over info on Iraq AGAIN to see if maybe something worth attacking over was overlooked, London's Evening Standard reports that "The FBI is under pressure from the highest political levels in Washington to investigate suspected links between Iraq and the Oklahoma bombing. Senior aides to US Attorney-General John Ashcroft have been given compelling evidence that former Iraqi soldiers were directly involved in the 1995 bombing that killed 185 people." The info being used is material dismissed by the FBI years ago, and now revived. In addition, the material is based on a report of a Palestinian man - not an Iraqi - seen near the scene of the crime, yet never confirmed. So what's next? Will Bush pressure the FBI to reopen Elvis's death as possible murder by early Al Qaeda terrorists? Or is this all just a pre-election scheme to smear the Democrats (yet another "let's bash Clinton and Reno" scheme)?

NY Times reports, "Making an informal count, administration officials said they were confident of the support of Bulgaria, Colombia, Guinea and Norway and believed they could secure the votes of Singapore and Cameroon. Syria and Mauritius were expected to vote against it. As a result, Ireland and Mexico emerged as pivotal votes... Mexico has very vocally backed France's demand for the two-stage approach... American officials were calculating that if they secured seven votes from nonpermanent members, France would almost certainly acquiesce in the final hour. The last time that France vetoed an American resolution was in 1956." In that case, they're long overdue - Vive la France! Meanwhile, we'll look for those e-mail addresses...

NYTimes warmonger Julia Preston writes, that after running into a brick wall with France and Russia, the US "submitted its draft to all 15 Council nations to show its reluctant allies, France and Russia, that it had sufficient support among the 10 other members. American diplomats calculated, but without any guarantees, that neither France, Russia nor China would veto the latest resolution. [That's a LOSING bet!] 'You're either with us or against us' was the message that Washington was sending to the other permanent members [no persuasion - just BULLYING]... France has favored a two-stage approach, which would leave the authorization of force to a second resolution, a position Russia and China favor... The draft presented today underwent only minor modifcations in negotiations since late Sunday." [Bush's favorite negotiating tactic is to pretend to listen, but then not respond in any way.] The Russian ambassador, Sergey Lavrov was "visibly angry" and did not rule out a veto.

Robert Scheer writes: "What a nuisance! Just as the Bush administration had Saddam Hussein back in the cross hairs as the top target of the...global evil-eradication program comes the news of more urgent threats. And once again, the bad news about Al Qaeda and North Korea could not be logically connected in any way with Iraq. First, CIA Director...Tenet issued a warning that Al Qaeda posed as much of a danger to the US as it did before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. That's a bummer because, if true, it means the much-celebrated regime change in Afghanistan didn't even slow down Osama's gang of psychos. It is then doubly difficult to make the case that a regime change in Iraq would make Americans safer from Al Qaeda terrorism because there is not a shred of reliable evidence linking that to Hussein. Both Tenet and Czech President Vaclav Havel have said there is no evidence a much-publicized Prague meeting between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent ever happened."

WashPost reports, "France and Russia raised fresh objections today to a [new] U.S. draft resolution calling for strengthened U.N. inspections in Iraq, citing concerns that it implicitly authorizes the use of force if Bush [feels like it]. In the latest setback to U.S. efforts to obtain speedy passage of a tough new inspections resolution, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that they did not approve of the U.S. text and that the administration would have to grant further concessions to obtain their support. De Villepin said an agreement with the United States would be impossible without further compromise from Washington... Ivanov said his government also remained dissatisfied with the latest language. 'The American draft resolution submitted yesterday for preliminary discussion so far fails to meet the criteria that we previously set out and that we confirm.'" Memo to Shrub: which part of "NO" don't you understand?

William Safire asked Ariel Sharon: "If war starts, did you promise Bush that Israel would not be provoked by Saddam into responding to his missile attack, thereby troubling whatever Arabs may want to cooperate in his overthrow? 'Israel is not interested in being involved in a campaign against Iraq,' the prime minister replies, having been assured that U.S. forces would first seek to neutralize Iraq's capability to attack Israel. 'We'll support America's decision and will show sensitivity to U.S. needs by exercising maximum restraint....The Syrians, together with the Iranians, are playing a double game, escalating tension on our northern border....the Iranians have supplied those terrorists with 9,000 to 10,000 rockets, maybe including a new one with a 200-mile range. If war comes, we see what Syria-Iran-Hezbollah are preparing: they'll be surrogates for Saddam, opening a second front to help him.'"

William Crowe, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Reagan, and a key player in both the Iraq-Iran War and Desert Storm, leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Although his company BioPort is now pushing for a massive national anthrax vaccination program that will net him BILLIONS, he has never answered how he became a part owner without ever putting any cash up. Nor has he satisfactorily proven that he was not involved in the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus civilian airliner in 1988, a tragedy that killed 290 innocent people, then covering up the deed - charges made by Newsweek and ABC. Yet Bush continues to lavish special favors on BioPort, such as a round-the-clock military protection - a perk not even nuclear plants have received - and a contract that tripled the price per vaccine.

Three weeks ago, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix wanted to travel to Iraq immediately to begin work - but Bush said no, assuming the UN Security Council would rubber-stamp his W-ar, thus making inspections unnecessary. But last week, France and Russia held firm for a 2-step process to give inspections a chance to succeed, dealing a crushing defeat to Bush. So now Bushwell is singing a brand new tune, demanding "aggressive" inspections that include US officials with armed security guards. But the rest of the world regards this approach as meant to provoke war, and will inevitably tell Bushwell to give it up. Hey W - you lost the support of the entire world because of your arrogance and determination to start a W-ar. So what will you do now? Will you tell the world to Drop Dead by invading Iraq? Or will you learn to respect treaties and international law?

Bush's top economic advisors estimate it will cost up to $200 billion to invade Iraq, and that's not even counting the costs of continued occupation. How long will we have to stay there? It's hard to know for sure, but we sent our forces into Korea in the 1950s. We still have troops stationed there. As experts from the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations warn, invading Iraq will not improve our national security. It will not make us any safer. So why all the talk of war? Because Bush's economic policies have already failed. This is because Republican economic policies never work. Republicans hope that you will believe them and not your own eyes when they claim their economic policies are working. "Trust us, we're experts." They don't have much hope of that. So they have another plan. They hope you will let them blame someone else even if you lose your job because of their failed policies. They don't have much hope of that either.

Mohammed Aldouri writes: "After so many years of fear from war, the threat of war and suffering, the people of Iraq and their government in Baghdad are eager for peace. We have no intention of attacking anyone, now or in the future, with weapons of any kind....bear in mind that we have no nuclear or biological or chemical weapons, and we have no intention of acquiring them. We are not asking the people of the US or of any member state of the UN to trust in our word, but to send the weapons inspectors to our country to look wherever they wish unconditionally. This means unconditional access anywhere... For more than 11 years, the people of Iraq have suffered under UN economic sanctions...(which) caused the death of more than 1.7 million of our citizens. The embargo has been so severe that we have been prevented from importing chemicals needed for our sewage, water and sanitation facilities." Should we believe Saddam's man? Not necessarily. Should we inspect before invading? Absolutely.

AP reports, "A new investigative film traces the roots of the Iraq nuclear crisis to links between German industry and Baghdad's bomb builders, and questions the lenient sentence - probation - handed a German engineer for treason in aiding the project. The documentary, 'Stealing the Fire,' also offers a rare close-up look at a 'proliferator,' the engineer Karl-Heinz Schaab, who emerges on film as a bland, gray, fastidious 68-year-old technician who protests he's 'too small to be turned into a scapegoat for the others.' The film, produced and directed by Oscar-winning documentarian John S. Friedman and Eric Nadler, premieres Tuesday at a New York theater. Blueprints and other documents Schaab and associates brought to Iraq in the late 1980s, along with Schaab's own hands-on skills, were a vital boost to Baghdad's development of gas centrifuges - machines whose ultra-fast spinning 'enriches' uranium by separating U-235, the stuff of nuclear bombs, from non-fissionable U-238."

NY Times reports, "The impasse between the US and France over military action in Iraq has deepened in recent days after an effort to reach a compromise stalled, with the French insisting that the Americans must come back to the UN Security Council before they can use force.... Repeated telephone calls from Mr. Bush to presidents of veto-bearing Council nations, including Jacques Chirac of France and Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and almost daily conversations between top diplomats from those countries have produced no significant movement." The Bush regime, along with the warmongers at the NY Times led by Executive Editor Howell Raines, are trying to intimidate Chirac by threatening that France's opposition will "damage" US-French relations. But Chirac refuses to surrender to Bush. Vive Chirac!

Findlaw.com reports: "Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said Monday his country opposed war on Iraq and would not participate in any possible U.S. strike against the kingdom's northern neighbor. Wrapping up a two-day official visit to Algeria dominated by talks on a possible U.S. war against Iraq, al-Faisal appeared to indicate that Saudi Arabia had altered its position toward Washington's drive against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. 'We reject entering into a war against Iraq,...But this resolution would not force every state to participate in the war and open its sky and land for use (in that war),' he added...'We want to protect Iraq from a strike and we are not seeking a balance on the oil market,' he said. He did not elaborate more on the oil subject."

Canada.com reports: "In moves suggesting new Pentagon preparations for war against Iraq, key US Army and Marine Corps battle staffs are being sent to Kuwait and officials said...that Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is likely to order extra germ-warfare protection for hundreds of thousands of troops. Although no final decision has been made, Rumsfeld is expected to give the go-ahead soon for smallpox inoculations, said a senior defence official who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity. Rumsfeld's spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke, said vaccination program is under consideration...If it goes ahead, Clarke said it would reflect Rumsfeld's push to provide every available form of protection for troops who might be exposed to chemical or germ weapons - including those who might fight in Iraq....The Pentagon has taken numerous steps...to position US forces so as to reduce the time required to launch an attack on Iraq, should...George W. Bush decide force is required to disarm Iraq."

Helen Caldicott writes: "As the Bush administration prepares to make war on the Iraqi people--and make no mistake, it is the civilian population of that country and not Saddam Hussein who will bear the brunt of the hostilities--it is important that we recall the medical consequences of the last Gulf War. That conflict was, in effect, a nuclear war. During the 1991 Gulf War, the US deployed hundreds of tons of weapons, many of them anti-tank shells made of depleted uranium 238. This material is 1.7 times more dense than lead, and hence when incorporated into an anti-tank shell and fired, it achieves great momentum, cutting through tank armor like a hot knife through butter....Children are 10 to 20 times more sensitive to the effects of radiation than adults. My fellow pediatricians in the Iraqi town of Basra...are reporting an increase of 6 to 12 times in the incidence of childhood leukemia and cancer...because of the sanctions...they have no access to drugs or...radiation machines..."

US intelligence officials say they are being forced to 'cook the books' to justify Bush's War on Iraq. This evoked chilling memories of two disasters. The first, during the Second World War, was the British attack against the German army at Arnhem. Probably everyone will have seen the account in the film 'A Bridge Too Far.' The second, not glorified or mourned by the cinema, was the abortive American-sponsored attack on Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. What linked these two memories of a now-distant past with Washington today?" So writes William R. Polk.

Minnesota has been home to some pretty gutsy folks - not least of all Sen. Paul Wellstone (D). While other Dems around him were caving in to Bush, Wellstone stood tall and proud. "This resolution authorizes the President [sic] to take unilateral, pre-emptive action whenever he wants, and that's just wrong. It would have been impossible for me to stand in front of the Senate and say something I didn't believe," he said. Unlike most of the other Dems who opposed Bush's W-ar, Wellstone is up for reelection in an extremely close race, and thus risked his political career for his beliefs. After thrashing over the issue with his wife, his three grown children and his aides, he called his Washington staff together last Wednesday. "We'll just let the chips fall where they may." Hey you Dems in MN! Let's get to the polls and make sure those chips fall on the side of RE-ELECTING PAUL WELLSTONE!

House Republicans voted 215-6 for W-ar, while Democrats voted 126-81 against. All Republican leaders, including Dick Armey, voted for W-ar. While Dick Gephardt voted yes, Nancy Pelosi of California, the #2 Democrat (Whip) as well as the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, voted no, saying: "The clear and present danger that our country faces is terrorism. I say flat out that unilateral use of force without first exhausting every diplomatic remedy and other remedies and making a case to the American people will be harmful to our war on terrorism."

"With lawmakers predicting big majorities for the war authorization, the House planned a final vote today. In the Senate, Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) scheduled a critical preliminary vote for today and vowed to overcome any procedural obstacles to passage before the Senate leaves for the weekend. In yesterday's vote, the Senate rejected, 88 to 10, a proposal by intelligence committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-FL) to expand the authorization to include five Middle Eastern terrorist groups. Graham said they posed a far more immediate danger to the US than Iraq does... Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), one of the resolution's fiercest critics, proposed to limit the president's war authority to instances in which there is 'a clear threat of imminent, sudden and direct attack' on the US. Senators said this, too, will fail. Byrd agrees that Bush is almost certain to get what he wants, but says the Senate must debate the issue fully to meet its constitutional obligations." Call 202-224-3121.

Send a free pre-written fax against giving Bush a blank check to invade and conquer Iraq. Time is running out - the House vote will be Wednesday or Thursday. In the Senate, call BOTH of your Senators and urge them to support Senator Byrd's filibuster, or at a minimum to support Senator Carl Levin's alternative resolution which would require UN support before authorizing W-ar, and would require a separate vote on W-ar if Iraq does not disarm and the UN refuses to sanction force. Take action now!!

AP reports, "Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., a fierce opponent of Bush's Iraq war resolution, indicated he would use delaying tactics in an effort to block the measure. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said that could easily put off a final vote until next week... Byrd, who has been criticizing the Iraq war resolution daily since the Senate began its debate on the measure last Thursday, told colleagues at a party luncheon that he planned to make full use of Senate rules to try to derail the legislation, participants said. Byrd, a former majority leader, is widely regarded for his knowledge and skilled use of Senate rules. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., a Democratic sponsor of the resolution, complained about the tactics. 'If Sen. Byrd continues to use all the procedural rules the Senate allows him, there's no way we are going to get anything until next week,' Lieberman told reporters." Call your Senators at 202-224-3121 and tell them to SUPPORT BYRD'S FILIBUSTER!

Bush's War in Iraq hasn't formally begun - but a US soldier is already dead. AP reports, "Two Kuwaiti gunmen in a pickup truck fired on U.S. forces during war games Tuesday on an uninhabited island in the Persian Gulf, killing one Marine and wounding another in what the Kuwaiti government called a 'terrorist act.' The assailants were killed by American troops... The Kuwaiti Interior Ministry condemned the attack and identified the assailants as Anas al-Kandari, born in 1981, and Jassem al-Hajiri, born in 1976[, both] civilians... [and] fundamentalist Muslims... Muslim fundamentalists are politically strong in Kuwait. They want Saddam removed from power, but many believe Bush's real motives for waging war would be to revive the foundering U.S. economy and to weaken Arabs out of support for Israel. Scores of Kuwaitis have fought alongside Muslims in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Bosnia, but they have not attacked Americans in Kuwait." Let's get our soldiers OUT of harm's way!

Bush I, James Baker, Attorney General Richard Thornburg, and possibly Bush II all colluded to make it possible for Saddam to receive cyanide gas precursors (the "do-it-yourself nerve gas kit") and for all parties concerned to be absolved of any culpability. Now Bush wants to send our troops to Baghdad where a cornered Saddam will not hesitate to use his ill-gotten gas against them. How on God's green Earth could Congress consider giving a man whose father was a party to providing Saddam with weapons of terrorism MORE and MORE power? Insanity! Instead, they should be investigating just HOW Saddam became such a threat in the first place.

Bush spoke in Cincinatti to sell his war to a wary public. "White House officials had grown concerned that public support for using force against Hussein has softened despite Bush's growing support in Congress. A Gallup poll released yesterday found a bare majority of Americans - 53% - favored a ground invasion of Iraq, down from 61% in June and 74% last November. An ABC News poll... found that 50% of Americans agreed with the proposition that diplomacy does not work with Iraq and the time for military action is near; 44% favored holding off on military action and pursuing diplomacy... Bush aides interpret the soft poll numbers to mean that Americans are giving Bush the benefit of the doubt but are not convinced about the merits of his argument... The soft support presents a potential problem for the long term. If Americans have doubts about the rationale for the action in the first place, their support could fade if the conflict in Iraq becomes bloody and extended."

That Congress is even considering granting Bush the powers he requests appalls Scott Ritter: "To many Americans, myself included, the granting of such powers represents a breach of constitutional responsibility on the part of Congress, which alone under the constitution of the United States is authorised to declare war." Only Sen. Robt. Byrd, (D-WVA) seems to have the guts to fight this, and may launch a filibuster."Byrd is famous for carrying a copy of the US constitution in his breast pocket, and pulling it out on the floor of the Senate to remind fellow senators what American democracy is founded on. One man fighting in defence of the basic foundation of American society. Where are the large-scale US demonstrations in support of this struggle? Where are the voices of outrage over what amounts to a frontal assault on the constitution of the United States?" It's a'comin', Scott, it's a'comin!

Philadelphia Inquirer reports, "Bush and some of his top aides, including ... Rumsfeld, have exaggerated the degree of allied support for a war in Iraq, according to senior officials... These officials, rankled by what they charge is a tendency by Rumsfeld and others to gloss over unpleasant realities, say few nations in Europe or the Middle East are ready to support an attack against Iraq unless the United Nations Security Council explicitly authorizes the use of force... Turkey said Friday that it would participate in a campaign against Iraq only if the world body blessed it. 'An operation not based on international law cannot be accepted,' a Turkish presidential spokesman said... The backing of Turkey, which borders Iraq's north, is vital because it hosts air bases at Incirlik and elsewhere that would be necessary to conduct a major air campaign against Iraq and protect the ethnic Kurdish population in northern Iraq from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's retaliation."

Scott Ritter writes that despite Saddam's unconditional acceptance of inspectors, "Bush refuses to take 'yes' for an answer. The Bush administration's actions lay bare the mythology that this war is being fought over any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It has made it clear that its objective is the elimination of Saddam Hussein. And this is where I have a fundamental problem. The UN charter prohibits regime removal. The US constitution states that international agreements entered into by the United States carry the force of law. The US has signed the UN charter. Regime removal is not only a violation of international law, it is unconstitutional. There is a way to deal with the need to change a regime deemed to be a risk to international peace and security, and that is through the UN... But seeking judgment through the international court requires a recognition by the US of the primacy of international law, something the Bush administration has been loath to do."

"According to a NY Daily News survey, 10 of the 20 House members from the city and nearby suburbs said they'll vote with Bush. Seven Democrats oppose him, and three House Democrats were undecided. Observers also expected Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, currently undecided, to ultimately back Bush in an overwhelming vote that could see the President win over as many as 80 of the 100 senators." Here is Rep. Gary Ackerman's (D-Queens) sorry statement: "Sit through the hearings and the briefings, and you come to the incontrovertible conclusion that this guy [Saddam] is not just posturing, he's preparing to do something terribly evil." No proof of course. Just terribly evil, because Bush says so. Call Congress EVERY day - 202-224-3121.

Here is more evidence that Americans oppose Bush's rush to w-ar. According to the latest NY Times/CBS poll (Oct 3-5), only 30% say the US should take military action against Iraq fairly soon, while 63% say we should wait and give the UN more time to get weapons inspectors into Iraq. 51% say Congress is not asking enough questions about Bush's Iraq policy, while only 20% say Congress is asking too many questions. 53% say Bush is more interested in ousting Saddam, while 29% say Bush is more interested in removing weapons of mass destruction. Hey Bill O'Reilly - how are you going to spin this?

"There must be thousands of names here... it's a whole page of newsprint!" said national radio host Amy Goodman as she read on-air the New York Times message about Bush's "Weapons of Mass Distraction." At this point about 2,000 Americans have signed it, having grown from the 800 or so who signed an earlier version in the L.A. Times. It has reached millions of readers -- giving them at one page, at least, of relief from the incessant macabre cheerleading of the White House. No special-interest group or political organization is behind this ad. The sponsors are those who have signed it -- individual ordinary Americans. Will you add your name and help get it into other papers? This ad has been sent to every member of Congress. Your Representatives and Senators need to hear from you personally as well.

Weeks ago, the Senate requested info on the CIA's planned role in the Bush War on Iraq. But so far, the Agency has refused to turn over a satisfactory response. Why? Could it be this war is not about oil after all? If it was only about oil, why not just ease relations, as Bush has done with China (which also has WMDs)? Could it be that there are files retained inside Iraq by Saddam that detail Bush I's dealings with the dictator, and possibly many files on illegal US corporate dealings as well - Halliburton, for instance? That would explain Bush's desperation to stage an aggressive invasion; his insistence on wanting weapons inspectors to have access to all palaces (what better place to hide files?); the CIA's secret role (go in and destroy those files boys!); Trent Lott's near hysteria over McDermott's physical presence in Baghdad, and Bush's obsession with finding a reason to invade Iraq even as early as July 2001? All hangs together, eh?

Congressional offices are inundated with anti-war calls from members of Democrats.com and other progressive activist groups. So naturally our Representatives will REPRESENT us and vote against Bush's War, right? WRONG! Since Bush will let NOTHING stop his war, he will go on national TV to urge Republicans to make as many calls as we have. "Bush will give a 'comprehensive' address Monday night from Cincinnati, Ohio to 'talk directly to the American people' about the 'growing threat' posed by Saddam Hussein... [Bush] won't reveal any new evidence about the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and won't unveil any new U.S. policy but will 'urge the American people to make sure they are heard' as the country and the UN debate what to do about Saddam." Call your Representatives EVERY DAY to say NO WAR IN IRAQ - and call the TV networks to demand EQUAL TIME for a prominent opponent of Bush's rush to war like Dennis Kucinich, Al Gore, or Robert Byrd.

Mark Shields writes: "On September 11, 2001, 343 NYC firefighters marched heroically through the Gates of Death into the Fires of Hell - because that is what they had vowed to do to save the lives of strangers whose names they did not know, whose faces they had never seen... Between 1940 and 1973, the US had a military draft and three out of four male college graduates and three out of four male high-school graduates served in some branch of the U.S. military. Why is it, then, that so few of our major elected officials, including the last Democratic president and the entire current Republican House leaders, along with the GOP Senate leader and the vice president, were in the small minority of American males who did not serve?... If invading Iraq were really such a terrific idea, would South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson be the only US senator to have a child (his son Sgt. Brooks Johnson of the Army Airborne) among the 1,055,316 enlisted personnel of the U.S. military?"

Congress is receiving so many calls AGAINST the war in Iraq that the Congressional switchboard (202-224-3121) is shut down. Find your Senator's direct phone line and call EVERY DAY until we stop Bush's War in Iraq. Send a simple message: We demand inspections, not war. No blood for oil in Iraq!

In an historic speech to the Senate, Robert Byrd declared: "The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head." Byrd cast the lone NO vote on consideration of Bush's War resolution.

Michael Hammerschlag writes, "Psychopath Saddam isn't right about many things, but he may be about the primary motivation behind Bush's push for war: vengeance - for Saddam's plot to kill his father in Kuwait in '93. Attempting to murder a President may in fact be justification for removal with extreme prejudice, but the results and reaction to a general attack on the devastated Iraqi people and economy might be far more costly than any temporary increase in security. Punishing one's enemies is a central tenet of the Bush family philosophy - GW's first political job was as an enforcer against administration officials. In his first act, Bush cancelled the Clinton cap on exploding California energy prices - as a result Enron's revenues ballooned from $25 billion in first half 2000 to $100 billion in the same period 2001, with $30-40 billion in criminal windfall profits ripped from the pockets of voters who had given his opponent a 12 point victory and handed to his biggest contributor."

The Independent writes, "America and Britain delayed the early return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq yesterday as the rift with other members of the Security Council widened." Yes, this means we could have had inspectors in Iraq, investigating all of the potential Iraqi weapons, but our fearless leader stopped it. Why are you afraid of inspections, George? Will the inspectors reveal that your "theories" about Iraq's nuclear capabilities are Bushit? And will they also find that there are essentially no other WMDs -- as former UN inspector Scott Ritter has asserted. The problem is that this would undermine your goal of taking Iraq's oil through war.

Ian Bruce writes, "U.S. troops who may be ordered to capture Baghdad are insufficiently trained for the bloody chaos of city street-fighting, or dealing with nerve gas or germ agents, according to Pentagon sources. [Little] training time is spent teaching soldiers and commanders how to operate in the restricted, confusing and inevitably lethal environment of house-to-house combat and it could be 10 years before units are 'up to speed' on urban battle techniques. Says General William Kernan, head of the U.S. joint forces command, 'Fighting in a city is probably the most complex environment for military operations. It has been compared to a knife-fight in a telephone booth. Casualties in the average rifle company can run as high as 30%. Hi-tech superiority counts for little when every house is a potential strongpoint.'" Does Bush give a damn about our troops?

Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan has offered the perfect solution to the Iraqi crisis. "Bush wants to attack the whole of Iraq, the army and the infrastructure," Ramadan said. "The American president should specify a group, and we will specify a group and choose neutral ground, with Kofi Annan as referee, and use one weapon, with a president against a president, a vice president against a vice president, and a minister against a minister in a duel… In this way we are saving the American and the Iraqi people." Was this inspired by Ari Fleischer's 10/1 statement at a White House Press briefing? Fleischer: "Again, the President has not made any decisions about military action or what military option he might pursue. And so I think it's impossible to speculate. I can only say that the cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that. The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less than that."

Are you whirling in reasons not to go to W-ar? Take a look at the comprehensive letter to Bush written anonymously outlining the reasons. It begins: "1 It would be illegal. a The Iraq policy currently advocated by the Bush regime would clearly be in violation of U.S. and international law. i The War Powers Resolution does not authorize the President to take military action against countries not implicated in the terrorist attacks of 9-11. (A) The War Powers Resolution only authorizes the president to use force against those involved in the September 11 attacks. It clearly states, "The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." So far, no evidence has been presented implicating Iraq in the 9-11 attacks..." Read this to refute ANY Rovian War propaganda!

Gail Russell Chaddock writes: "George McGovern may have lost the presidency in 1972 by one of the widest margins in American history, but it hasn't dented his conviction in voicing contrarian viewpoints to a nation on war footing. In 1972 it was Vietnam. Today he says that the United States has no business getting involved in a war in Iraq. 'What have they done to hurt us? Nothing. No attacks on a person or property. No evidence that Iraq is involved in the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Is it against the law to build weapons of mass destruction?... There are nine members of the nuclear club and we don't go to war with them,' says the former senator in a wide-ranging interview in his home in Mitchell, S.D... Today, he wonders why the antiwar movement in Congress appears so feeble. It's a question not so much of parallel situations - thousands of Americans had died in Vietnam by 1970 - as of national memory."

UK Guardian writes, "Washington last night revealed its intention to use UN weapons inspections as a possible first step towards a military occupation of Iraq by sending in troops, sealing off 'exclusion zones' and creating secure corridors throughout the country. In a leaked proposal for a UN resolution drafted by the US with help from British officials, the Bush administration is seeking to transform the inspections process into a coercive operation. The resolution would place a full-scale invasion of Iraq on a hair trigger, authorising UN member states 'to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security' if Iraq does so much as make an omission in the weapons inventories it presents to the security council." The bottom line is clear: Bush wants to do everything he possibly can to PROVOKE war in Iraq.

Robert Fisk writes: "Here is one example of the dishonesty of this 'dossier'. On page 45, we are told - in a long chapter about Saddam's human rights abuses - that 'on March 1st, 1991, in the wake of the Gulf War, riots (sic) broke out in the southern city of Basra, spreading quickly to other cities in Shia-dominated southern Iraq. The regime responded by killing thousands'. What's wrong with this paragraph is the lie is in the use of the word 'riots'. These were not riots. They were part of a mass rebellion specifically called for by Bush Jnr's father and by a CIA radio station in Saudi Arabia. The Shia Muslims of Iraq obeyed Mr Bush Snr's appeal. And were then left to their fate by the Americans and British, who they had been given every reason to believe would come to their help. No wonder they died in their thousands. But that's not what the Blair 'dossier' tells us."

"I don't want... a resolution which is weaker than that which was passed out of the Congress in 1998," Bush said on 10-1-02. But WashPost reports, "The White House appears to be combining its preferred parts of two Iraq-related congressional resolutions from 1998, adopted several months apart. The first, which was limited to Iraqi violation of U.N. disarmament demands, urged the president to take unspecified 'appropriate action,' in accordance with U.S. law, 'to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' on such weapons. The later Iraq Liberation Act, which authorized U.S. support for Iraqi opposition forces trying to overthrow Hussein, referred to the entire range of U.N. resolutions. It specifically ruled out U.S. military action for such regime change." These 1998 resolutions were NOT a declaration of war! Just like the Energizer Bunny, Bush just lies ... and lies ... and lies ...

"By October 1989, when all international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush (I) signed National Security Directive (NSD) 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. These guarantees freed for Iraq hard cash to continue to buy and develop WMDs, and are suspended only on 2 August 1990, the same day that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Richard Haass, then a National Security Council official, and Robert Kimmitt, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, also told the Commerce Department (CD) not to single Iraq out for dual-use technology restrictions. When one American firm twice contacted the CD with concerns that their product could be used for nuclear weapons (NW) and ballistic missiles, the CD simply requested Iraqi written guarantees about civilian use, said that a license and review was unnecessary, and convinced the company that shipment was acceptable." So writes Nathaniel Hurd.

Iraq agreed to all of the conditions demanded by UN inspector Hans Blix, which in turn solidified the opposition of Russia, France, and China to Bush's plan to invade Iraq. Now Bush will have to decide whether to support UN inspections and give peace a chance, or whether to defy the UN and the entire world and start a murderous war. Soon the inspection question will be exposed for the charade that it is - if Bush really wanted to DISARM Iraq, he would accept the inspections. But Bush does not want to disarm Iraq, he wants to use Iraq's arms as an excuse to INVADE Iraq and steal its oil for ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and the rest of the Bush Oil Cartel. Note this: "U.S. officials are convinced that with enough pressure, both France and Russia will eventually agree to accept a U.S. military strike, if only to participate in the riches of a post-Hussein Iraq." Can Bush bribe France and Russia into supporting his war? Or will they stand up for the UN Charter and the Rule of Law?

The latest Zogby America Poll was conducted September 25-27 of 1,028 likely voters nationwide. The poll has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.2%.
45% Support / 46% oppose sending son or daughter to war to remove Saddam Hussein
41% Support / 50% oppose a war against Iraq if there were hundreds of American casualties?
39% Support /50% oppose a war against Iraq if there were thousands of American casualties
38% Support / 51% oppose a war against Iraq if it meant thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties?
45% Support / 46% oppose a war against Iraq if it included sending in hundreds of thousands of U.S. ground troops?
36% Support / 52% oppose a war against Iraq if it were only comprised of bombing the country?
40% Support / 52% oppose a war against Iraq if the U.S. waged it without UN or international support?
Hey Bill O'Reilly, are you too chicken to debate?

Detailed reports just released from the Centers for Disease Control reveal that Saddam Hussein was supplied with a veritable "shopping list" of biological weapons ingredients by the Reagan-Bush administration. Among the "presents" to Saddam: anthrax, botulism toxin, West Nile virus, and gas gangrene pathogens. Does anyone in their right mind believe these horrible agents of destruction were supplied for "legitimate" research? When Senator Byrd confronted Rumsfeld, the "Snowflake King" blustered like a two-bit gangster put on the stand without warning: "I have never heard anything like what you've read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it." He vowed to have the DOD folks search for any evidence of transfers. Just minutes later, Rummy's memos were falling on the DOD like snowflakes, likely ordering: "Get those shredders geared up and ready to go!!!"

British support for a war on Iraq is waning, despite Blair's flouting of his bogus "dossier." An ICM poll for the Guardian taken over the weekend showed 33% were in favour of military action against Iraq compared with 37% a week ago (4% drop in one week). Meanwhile, the posturing of Bush and Blair and their constant parade of phony "coincidental" evidence has obviously served to sow more doubt than conviction: The biggest shift of all (percentage wise) was the number of people who are unsure what course of action would be best - a jump of 6% within a week to 24%.

Talk show host Doug Basham has tough words for his conservative audience: "When you elected a Republican administration, and especially after 9-11, didn't you think the secret would be to do the damn job they're supposed to do, as opposed to just running out the clock, so they didn't have to address the domestic problems their country and our country faces? And WHY can they get away with this kind of crap? As long as you line up like faithful little robots and keep chanting the Love Theme from the Iraqi Godfather...and as long as you don't hold them accountable for pulling the same kind of crap you'd never let the DEMOCRATIC party get away with it, why SHOULD they change? Sometimes, even when something's broken... as long as it still works... why fix it. And what 's broken quite frankly... is YOU."

"The United States and a number of Arab countries have drawn up plans for the exile of Saddam Hussein to a neutral country to avoid an invasion that could lead to massive number of civilian deaths. Planners in the...US State Department have looked at various scenarios under which the Iraqi president would cede power to a democratic government and then leave the country. President Saddam has angrily dismissed such suggestions -- made to him by third parties. 'We have to look at all scenarios,' a senior State Department official told The Independent on Sunday. 'We are still trying to sort it out.' The official said US policy calls for President Saddam to be 'brought to justice'. But he added that if the exile option could be shown to prevent a massive loss of civilian life as the result of a military operation, and that power was ceded to a truly alternative government, it would be considered. 'There would have to be real change. He could not simply hand over to his son."

"While the French, the Russians and the Chinese all seemed determined to give UN weapons inspections a real chance before giving the green light to a US invasion, the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, said: 'I hope the Security Council will be strong enough and fair enough to resist American pressure. But I am not confident about the capability of the UN to resist American pressure and American manipulation.'...A fatalistic Mr Aziz accused the Americans of doing everything to prevent the weapons inspectors from returning to Iraq to maximise the justification for war. 'If the inspectors declare that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction, which is the case, and we are sure of that, what is George Bush going to do?' he asked."

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Ground Zero, NY) writes, "It was my hope that by working with Congressional leaders, the Administration would come to accept this position as the more prudent course. Unfortunately, that now seems not to be the case. Therefore, I will do everything possible, publicly and privately, to work with my colleagues in Congress to deflect the Administration from the dangerous direction in which it appears to be heading."

Usually curmudgeonly, usually conservative longtime Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Dick Feagler has joined the chorus of those questioning the wisdom of invading Iraq. He says, "But Iraq doesn't play. The administration has supplied no proof that Iraq had a hand in what happened on 9/11. And the people behind 9/11 are the people we want to kick in the pants. The Iraq war plans baffle many of us. Suppose, after Pearl harbor, FDR had said that, having been suddenly and treacherously attacked by the empire of Japan, we were going to go to war against Peru? Huh? That's what a lot of us are thinking now: Huh?"

When Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) traveled to Iraq to confront the issue of Saddam Hussein face to face, he was simply doing what the Resident SHOULD have done long ago but refused to do. Trent Lott's thuggish response to McDermott - "He should come home and keep his mouth shut" - smacked more of a crime boss goon than elected representative of the people. But thanks, Trent - you made McDermott and the Dems look just that much better by contrast!

It's amazing that Condi "I had an oil tanker named after me" Rice can continue to perpetuate the Al Qaeda-Saddam connection Big Lie in the media with a straight face. Of course, she never offers any proof, as details are always "to come later". This is because people who actually KNOW the Middle East say the possibility of any Al Qaeda-Saddam collaboration is slim to none. "There's not a scintilla of any evidence of any Iraqi involvement with al-Qaida or with Sept. 11," said history Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan. Rather, Saddam Hussein's Baath political party "is the deadliest enemy to religious fundamentalism you can find," Cole told a policy forum at Case Western Reserve University. The Iraqi dictator has "persecuted and killed both Sunni and Shiite fundamentalists in great number," he said. Bush's justifications for W-ar are all Bushit!

Bush keeps yammering about how evil Saddam is for using chem/bio weapons on his own people, but guess where Bush's latest bogeyman got those weapons? The good Senator Byrd from West Virginia revealed lists from the Commerce Department and Centers for Disease Control showing that, during the Reagan/Bush years, the US shipped a "witches brew" of nasty stuff, including anthrax, West Nile, and gangrene to Saddam to use against Iran. And if Bush has his way, American soldiers could face the disastrous results -- talk about blowback!! Now that Saddam is Bush's bogeyman of the day, which future enemy do you think he's arming to the teeth THIS time?? Bush men never seem to learn their lessons.

UK Independent reports, "Oil companies from around the world are manoeuvring for the multibillion-dollar bonanza that would follow the ousting of Saddam Hussein. Russia is so concerned that it has been holding secretive talks with the Iraqi opposition to shore up its economic interests in the country which still owes Moscow $7 billion from Soviet times. With the second-biggest reserves in the world, Iraq's underdeveloped oilfields have become a key negotiating chip and a backdrop to talks between the US and the other permanent members of the UN Security Council - all of which have major economic stakes in regime change in Iraq. It has also given fuel to critics of America's war plans who say the desire for regime change is at least partly driven by economics... The importance of Iraqi oil is also to be discussed [this] week at a US-Russian energy summit in Houston at which more than 100 US and Russian energy companies are expected to be represented."

"Despite... Bush's predictions of unity on Iraq, members of Congress voiced sharply divergent views Sunday on military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Two Democratic congressmen, speaking from Baghdad, said Iraqi officials have assured them that they will allow weapons inspectors unfettered access. The lawmakers accused Bush of wrongly pushing the United States toward war. 'They said they would allow us to go look anywhere we wanted,' said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-WA, on ABC's 'This Week.' 'Let the U.N. inspectors do their job,' added Rep. David Bonior, D-MI. He said that Iraqi officials told them that they would allow 'unrestricted, unfettered' access, though they do want 'their sovereignty respected'... On a fact-finding trip to Baghdad, Bonior and McDermott said there is no reason to consider military action until Iraq fails to live up to its word. For now, McDermott said, there is no need for resolutions by Congress or the U.N. Security Council authorizing force."

The WashPost reports that at a Republican fundraiser, "Bush dropped the formality and called Hussein 'a guy that tried to kill my dad'... The raw comment about his father [is] evidence that the administration's march toward war with Iraq is motivated at least partly by a family grudge match... The White House press office has a stock response when Bush's remarks rankle one group or another: 'Bush is a plain-spoken man'... Others view Bush's unceremonious moments as simply clumsy. [Bush's unscripted remarks betray a shaky grasp of issues. Two senior officials] cringed in January as Bush ad-libbed a vow to accept a tax increase 'over my dead body,' because it revived memories of the 'read my lips' line that hurt President George H.W. Bush's reelection."

The Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon writes that the claims of Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney that Iraq might join with terrorists are far-fetched. It cannot be fully dismissed as a possibility, but it appears to be remote at worst. "Consider the record. Mr. Hussein has not used weapons of mass destruction since the 1980s -- a time when he knew the United States would turn a blind eye to any such action [When Reagan-Bush helped him attain that weaponry]. During Desert Storm and at all times since, he has rightly recognized that to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States, his neighbors, or even his own minority populations would almost surely lead to his own destruction. Mr. Hussein's other behavior is also consistent with the picture of a tyrant who values his own life more than the pursuit of adventure or aggrandizement... Even Mr. Hussein's ruthless and risky behavior since 1991 is consistent with a deterrable enemy."

MSNBC.com reports: "The widespread assumption in Washington is that Bush has masterfully cornered the Democrats with national security, pumping the bellows of war in a classic wedge-issue move that is dividing the opposition and changing the central topic of the election from the economy and health care (the Democrats' strongest suit) to the one that highlights Bush's popular role as commander in chief. 'We had the chance to clobber the Republicans this November on corporate scandals and the economy,' one Democratic senator lamented. 'That's gone.' But the world outside the Beltway is not a channel changed by remote. Impugning the patriotism of foes is dangerous. And it's possible that all the talk of war with Iraq could end up hurting the Republicans if it pushes the stock markets and the global economy into panic."

Rev. Moon's Washington Times writes, "The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was 'six months away' from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist. 'There's never been a report like that issued from this agency,' Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman. The White House says Mr. Bush was referring to an earlier IAEA report. 'He's referring to 1991 there,' said Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan. 'In '91, there was a report saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away.' Gwozdecky said no such report was ever issued by the IAEA in 1991.' This means the Bush administration is trying to start a war, risking American lives with a fabricated lie. Where is the independent counsel on this LIE? George, you said you would bring honor and integrity to this office. That was the Biggest Lie of all!

Michael Kinsley writes, "Add it up. You may not agree that the Bush family actually stole the presidency for George W, but you cannot deny that the other guy got more votes. Once installed as resident, Bush asserted (as they all do) the right to start any war he wants... You may not agree that this is flagrantly unconstitutional, but you cannot deny that this makes any discussion of the pros and cons outside of the White House largely pointless... But let's pretend we actually do have some role in deciding whether our nation goes to war... Based on information we do have and issues we are capable of judging, should we trust the leaders who are urging war upon us?.. The arguments have been so phony and so fleeting that it's hard to know what Bush's real motive is... You would think that if honest and persuasive arguments were available, the administration would offer them. But maybe not."

Time.com reports: "The Bush Administration will likely find plenty of support for an invasion of Iraq but only if such an action is approved by the United Nations Security Council....But there are downsides to working through the UN for a Bush Administration pumped up for war with Iraq. The first is that the issue for UN is disarmament rather than regime change, and while Washington dismisses Saddam's latest promises to comply as simply a tactical ploy, almost everyone else on the Security Council wants to test his intentions by actually sending the inspectors back into Iraq. That's an eventuality Administration hawks had hoped to avoid out of the conviction that inspections give Saddam wiggle room, are an insufficient guarantee of disarmament and will only slow the momentum toward war. The second...is that...the UN is a lot less likely than, say, the US Congress, to give...Bush proxy authority to make the judgment call."

"The national news radio show Democracy Now! conducted an informal survey on Thursday of 70 Republican and Democratic Senate offices. Of the 26 offices which responded to our inquiries, 22 reported an overwhelming majority - in some cases up to 99 percent -- of constituents opposed war in Iraq; three said the response was split and just one office reported a majority called backing the war." Just WHO do our waffling Congressional "representatives" think they are representing, anyway? Americans in some parallel universe?

On 9-20-02, George W. Bush formally asked Congress to adopt a resolution that amounts to a declaration of War against Iraq - and everyone else in "the region," whatever that means. It reads: "SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. The President [sic] is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."

The following letter was originally authored by faculty members at the University of Minnestota: "We the undersigned members of the academic community are opposed to an invasion of Iraq by the United States. The decision to start a war is perhaps the most significant decision the leaders of a democracy can make. It requires ordering fellow citizens to kill and be killed in the name of the entire nation, in our names and in yours. For this decision to be just and legitimate, the reasons offered for war must be principled and arrived at through public debate. To date, the justifications offered by Resident Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Rice, their subordinates, or an array of commentators in the media do not justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq. We oppose a U.S. invasion of Iraq for these reasons." 3,751 faculty members have signed so far!

In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN) points out that Trent Lott's Republican Senate took 5 months to authorize a resolution against Iraq requested by Bill Clinton in 1998. And in 1990, the Senate debated the Iraq War for 5 months. "Yet now Congress is being rushed to pre-approve whatever...Bush decides to do, which includes something no president has done before: start a war. According to researchers at the Library of Congress, the United States has never in its 213-year history launched a preemptive attack against another country. Never. During the past 50 years, our leaders have confronted dangerous dictators who possessed weapons of mass destruction. Yet they protected our country and the planet by preventing war, not by starting one. Some members of Congress and the administration are now demanding that we rush to vote so that we can rush to war. Such haste is unnecessary, reckless and foolish." You go, Mark!

George F. Kennan is the chief architect of the containment and deterrence policies that shaped America foreign policy during the Cold War. In this interview with the editor of The Hill, he analyzes the Bush Doctrine and Bush's plans invade Iraq, and declares them a recipe for disaster. He affirms that only Congress, not the Executive Branch, has the Constitutional authority to decide whether to go to war --and he takes Congress to task for not exercising its responsibility to oppose Bush's warmongering.

The Chickenhawk in Chief, in his never-ending battle to create a "casuistry belli" for invading Iraq, said that a 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency report shows Iraq is a mere 6 months away from having nuclear weapons. But the International Atomic Energy Agency says there's no such report. So White House spokesman Scott McClellan claimed Bush was talking about a 1991 report. And the International Atomic Energy Agency said they didn't issue a report in 1991, either. Bush lies, and when caught out, he lies again. Gosh. What a surprise.

The Detroit Free Press reports, "Skeptical of claims that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States, disturbed by George W. Bush's seeming willingness to buck international law and opinion, and fearful of the human and economic costs of war, peace activists are surfacing." The peace activists are using the Internet (thanks, Al Gore!) to rally people to the cause. Antiwar efforts include a plan to flood the White House with antiwar postcards (www.nonviolence.org) and a list of the top 10 ways to take action (www.globalexchange.org).

Austin American-Statesman reports that Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin) "is emerging as a leader of a loose-knit group of legislators struggling to convince fellow Democrats, and any Republican who will listen, that opposing a popular president on Iraq would not be political suicide. 'No doubt it's an uphill climb,' Doggett said. 'But the more time we have, the more questions arise as to why launching a war against Iraq is in our best interests'... Doggett estimated he has met with 100 lawmakers to press his message: 'If this administration has any evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the events of 9/11, or if they have evidence that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to Americans today, or if they can show that Saddam Hussein has become significantly more dangerous since 9/11, they haven't shared it with us,' he said. 'Before we shoot at Iraq, the administration needs to shoot straight with Americans,' Doggett said."

On September 16th, the Iraqi government accepted the return of UN Weapons Inspectors to Iraq without conditions. In the two weeks that have passed, the UN Security Council circulated a draft schedule showing preliminary talks ending Monday, with Iraq delivering the backlog of its semi-annual reports. An accompanying UNMOVIC (successor to UNSCOM) statement reads: "National legislation by Iraq prohibiting WMD activities, as called for in the monitoring plan approved by Security Council resolution 715 of 1991, will be considered by Iraq on the basis of models to be provided shortly by UNMOVIC." So, let's see: the UN timetable indicates Iraq will be in full compliance in four months, along with a prohibition against WMD. So what's the rush into W-ar? Could it be to distract Americans from Bush's faltering economic agenda? Could it be a ploy to frighten Americans into voting for Republicans? Or could it be Bush's last best chance to deliver Iraqi oil to his oil buddies? You decide!

The Senate's greatest orator, Ted Kennedy, put his powerful voice behind the opposition to Bush's rush to war in Iraq. Kennedy insisted that Al Qaeda is the primary threat to America, and a unilateral invasion of Iraq will undermine our fight against Al Qaeda. Kennedy, a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, outlined the concerns of top generals about the costs and consequences of Bush's War. Amazingly, Kennedy's speech was carried live on all 3 cable news networks - thanks no doubt to the efforts of Democrats.com activists, who called the networks after they ignored Al Gore on Monday. Congratulations!!

USAToday.com reports: "African-Americans in Congress are emerging as a key center of opposition to Bush's push for war with Iraq. Although it cannot stop congressional approval of a resolution paving the way for war, the 38-member Congressional Black Caucus issued a joint statement... cautioning against what many members see as a headlong rush into the use of military force... The caucus statement opposed any unilateral U.S. first strike 'without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the United States.' It said no military move should be contemplated until every diplomatic option is exhausted. One caucus member, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said she could not vote for a resolution that would grant Bush authority to use 'all means he determines to be appropriate' against Saddam. 'The case has simply not been made to justify an unprecedented preemptive military strike,' she said."

Thanks to Senator Daschle's tough stance on Bush's politicization of his planned invasion of Iraq, Congress is making significant changes to Bush's war resolution. Nevertheless, "Many Democrats believe Congress is moving too fast and the current resolution still gives Bush too much authority to use force without exhausting diplomatic efforts and international support. 'This proposal is unacceptable. The administration has been talking about war in Iraq for quite some time now,' said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI. 'Surely they had the time to draft a more careful, thoughtful proposal than the irresponsibly broad and sweeping language that they sent to Congress.' Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) will make a powerful speech on Friday, and Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) will try to offer alternative resolutions. But the White House says the current language is "take it or leave it." The crucial debate begins next week. Call your Representatives (202-224-3121) EVERY DAY and tell them No War in Iraq!

Jeffrey J. Mariotte writes: "We're engaged in what seems to be a headlong rush to war, a war that has at least the potential to destabilize an already shaky situation in the Middle East, and perhaps to hurl us into nuclear conflict and world war. The cost to the United States, in dollars and lives, could be enormous. The aftermath of action in Iraq-even if things go well-is years of occupation, 'peacekeeping' forces, the kind of nation-building that candidate Bush told us he was opposed to. And the whole adventure means undoing our long-standing policy of avoiding pre-emptive war. In other words, we go into the history books as the aggressors, the ones who started the shooting. As Americans, we should know going in that the people leading us to war are at least doing so for honest reasons, telling us the truth about the whys and wherefores. But George W. Bush hasn't made his case in an honest way, hasn't given us any reason to believe that he's telling the truth now."

Saddam Hussein stopped allowing weapons inspectors in because, he claimed, the US was using them to spy on him. His allegations were given credence when, in 1999, three major papers - the Washington Post, NY Times and Boston Globe - ran an expose revealing that the CIA had indeed used weapons inspectors as spies in Iraq. Not only that, but they used the information gained this way to pick bombing targets in 1998. At first the CIA denied the charges, then "took the Fifth." Now that the Bush needs to fabricate pretexts for his warmongering, the media toads are putting their transparent, flimsy wagons in a circle and feigning amnesia. They are now presenting the spying allegations as mere "vague allegations" by Saddam - while making nary a reference to the 1999 stories.

"Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov dismissed on Wednesday the 'propaganda furore' surrounding Britain's dossier on Iraq, saying the return of weapons inspectors to Baghdad was the main priority. The British dossier, issued by Prime Minister Tony Blair on Tuesday, said Iraq could launch a chemical or biological warhead at 45 minutes' notice and produce nuclear weapons in one to two years if it obtained essential components from abroad. But Ivanov told reporters: 'I believe that only specialists and experts can judge whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. We have therefore sought the fastest possible return to Iraq of inspectors. 'It therefore seems to us that it is not worth creating a great propaganda furore around this report. We should wait for the conclusions of the experts.'"

Robert Novak writes: "Sen. Robert Byrd, a master at hectoring executive branch witnesses, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a provocative question last week: Did the United States help Saddam Hussein produce weapons of biological warfare? Rumsfeld brushed off the Senate's 84-year-old president pro tem like a Pentagon reporter. But a paper trail indicates Rumsfeld should have answered yes. An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran."

Australian legislators of various political views as well as military commanders joined together to oppose American unilateral action against Iraq. "We either represented opposing sides of politics or were appointed to our positions by governments of differing persuasions. We would hold varying views on many issues in the public arena but we join in writing this letter because we share a deeply held conviction on a matter which we believe is of the most profound importance. We put this conviction directly and unequivocally: it would constitute a failure of the duty of government to protect the integrity and ensure the security of our nation to commit any Australian forces in support of a United States military offensive against Iraq without the backing of a specific United Nations Security Council resolution."

From the London Times: "The dossier released by the Government yesterday noted in passing that Baghdad had recently tried to acquire 'significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' But what it left out was evidence supplied to the Cabinet Office's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) showing that Saddam's agents have secretly visited a number of African countries, 13 of which have uranium as a natural resource. Uranium, once enriched, could form the core of a nuclear bomb, but there is no evidence yet that Saddam has succeeded it acquiring it. 'If Iraq had succeeded in buying uranium from Africa, the dossier would have said so,' one Whitehall source said." And, if he didn't succeed, that means he hasn't built a bomb yet. It's that simple.

WP.com reports: "Dozens of congressional Democrats are frustrated with their leadership for rushing to embrace...Bush's Iraqi war resolution and fostering an impression the party overwhelmingly backs a unilateral strike against Hussein. Some are now looking to former president Jimmy Carter and former vice president Al Gore to help generate significant public opposition to unilateral action in Iraq, which they concede is an uphill and likely unwinnable battle. They also are drafting alternative congressional resolutions that would require Bush to win United Nations approval before attempting to oust the Iraqi leader...."The more time passes, the more apparent it becomes there is not a justification for war at this time," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX). He said a number of opponents are reluctant to go public with their concerns, fearing a backlash from leadership and voters back home." Call your legislators at 202-224-2131 and tell them to speak from their conscience, not their fear!

ABCNews.com filed an exclusive report: "Qatar spent more than $1 billion of its own money building the Al-Udeid Air Base with the needs of the U.S. military in mind. Located just 700 miles from Baghdad, the base has the longest runway in the Gulf and can handle 120 planes. Two dozen U.S. planes are already based here, refuelers for U.S. air operations over Afghanistan.... But conditions are harsh here. Temperatures reach 120 degrees on the ground; 140 inside the airplanes.... When the United States moves a new, mobile command center here in November, Al-Udeid will have all the capabilities of the Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia, with just about equal flying time to Baghdad. And unlike Saudi Arabia, Qatar has placed no significant restrictions on the U.S. military's use of the base.... In November, the Pentagon will move 600 officers from Central Command headquarters in Florida to Al-Udeid for a war simulation."

Kenneth Davidson writes, "All five permanent members of the Security Council - the US, Britain, France, Russia and China - have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad. It is clear the real issue here is who controls Iraqi oil.... The debate about how the US should go about getting control of Iraqi oil has been blunt and to the point. The new regime that the US intends to impose on Iraq will not honour any of the agreements made between the old regime and oil companies around the world.... Iraq's oil fields are second only to Saudi Arabia, controlled by the US through the House of Saud, which the US has guaranteed to protect against external or internal threats. According to the US Department of Energy: Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven reserves along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq's true resource potential may be far greater than this."

CBS News reports, "Americans want the U.S. to wait and build an international coalition, and follow the recommendations of the UN, even though they are not sure the U.N. can make a difference. They want the Congress to ask even more questions about military actions - and most now say it's okay to criticize the president's military decisions. And, contrary to the Administration's arguments, many feel that a new war with Iraq would not lessen the threat of terrorism against the U.S. - if anything, it might increase that threat. There is broad public support for getting Congress involved in the current debate about how to deal with Iraq. Twice as many Americans think members of Congress haven't asked enough questions about Bush's policy towards Iraq as think they've asked too many. Many Americans want Congress to take its time on this issue: just over half think Congress should wait until the UN has acted, rather than rush to judgment." Once again, most Americans support GORE.

Jack Kemp writes, "Based upon the hard evidence I have seen, I do not believe the administration has yet made a compelling case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind we could win such a war and dispose of Saddam Hussein. The question that continues to nag, however, is 'what then?'" When a rightwinger like Jack Kemp writes an essay that spells out why invading Iraq is a lousy idea, and a rightwing site like Townhall.com publishes the essay, it's obvious that there is NO support for Bush's W-armongering - except among his fellow chickenhawks in the White House.

Here's what folks around the world think about Tony Blair's "amazing" evidence that Iraq is loaded with weapons of mass destruction and an itchy finger on the trigger (we say amazing because the serendipitous convenience of its timing is way, way, outside the bounds of statistical coincidence). On Tuesday, the letters in this collection were running about 10 skeptics to 1 person buying the bill of goods (the freepers hadn't discovered it yet).. Sample line: "If having WMD and being violent to people in your country or nearby are reasons then why aren't we planning on attacking Israel or North Korea? It's not so much why attack Iraq as why single out Iraq?"."The dossier seems to be all conjecture and relies on mainly circumstantial evidence. There is no 'killer fact' warning of an imminent threat, certainly not convincing enough to justify the invasion of a sovereign state."

Scotsman.com reports that although Ayatollah Sayed Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim hates Saddam Hussein and has been imprisoned and tortured by Hussein, had family members murdered, and seen his lands ruined by the despot, he will not help the U.S. now. Why? "We get no support from America. Neither in the past nor nowadays," the white-robed 63-year-old cleric based in Iran. "If the US offered help, we would refuse it." Hakim still recalls how the same people in the present Bush regime backed Iraq in the 8-year Iran-Iraq conflict. He remembers how Bush I stood by and did nothing as Saddam crushed a rebellion after the 1991 Gulf War. He is deeply disturbed that G. W. Bush condemned Iran as part of an "axis of evil." "The Americans have only worked against us in the past," Mr Hakim said.

Nicholas Kristof writes from Najaf Iraq, "In one Shiite city after another, expect battles between rebels and army units, periodic calls for an Iranian-style theocracy, and perhaps a drift toward civil war. For the last few days, I've been traveling in these Shiite cities - Karbala, Najaf and Basra - and the tension in the bazaars is thicker than the dust behind the donkey carts. So before we rush into Iraq, we need to think through what we will do the morning after Saddam is toppled. Do we send in troops to try to seize the mortars and machine guns from the warring factions? Or do we run from civil war, and risk letting Iran cultivate its own puppet regime? In the north, do we suppress the Kurds if they take advantage of the chaos to seek independence? Do we fight off the Turkish Army if it intervenes in Kurdistan? Unless we're prepared for the consequences of our invasion, we have no business invading at all." Hey George, does ANYTHING penetrate your empty skull?

Buffalo News reports, "American research companies, with the approval of two previous presidential administrations, provided Iraq biological cultures that could be used for biological weapons, according to testimony to a U.S. Senate committee eight years ago. West Nile Virus, E. coli, anthrax and botulism were among the potentially fatal biological cultures that a U.S. company sent under U.S. Commerce Department licenses after 1985, [under Reagan-Bush]... The Commerce Department under the first Bush administration also authorized eight shipments of cultures that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention later classified as having 'biological warfare significance.' Between 1985 and 1989, the Senate testimony shows, Iraq received at least 72 U.S. shipments of clones, germs and chemicals ranging from substances that could destroy wheat crops, give children and animals the bone-deforming disease rickets, to a nerve gas rated a million times more lethal than Sarin."

NYTimes: "Three retired four-star American generals said that attacking Iraq without a UN resolution supporting military action could limit aid from allies, energize recruiting for Al Qaeda and undermine America's long-term diplomatic and economic interests. 'We must continue to persuade the other members of the Security Council of the correctness of our position, and we must not be too quick to take no for an answer,' Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee... 'What's the sense of urgency here, and how soon would we need to act unilaterally?' said General [Wesley] Clark, an Army officer who commanded allied forces in the 1999 Kosovo air war. 'So far as any of the information has been presented, there is nothing that indicates that in the immediate, next hours, next days, that there's going to be nuclear-tipped missiles put on launch pads to go against our forces or our allies in the region.'"

Poor little Georgie. Every time he trots out more "evidence" that Iraq poses a serious threat to our nation and therefore we must start a war without delay, the people who actually know something show exactly how he's lying. His accusation that aluminum tubes shipped to Iraq are going to be used in nuclear weapons is the latest "casuistry belli" to go down the tubes.

Bush I scammed Saddam Hussein into providing a pretext, then used an illegal propaganda campaign to drum up support for his Gulf War. Now we're seeing the Busheviks using the same tactics of provocations and false claims so Bush II can have a war, just like Daddy. Unlike Dubya, we know how the old saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." We won't get fooled again. Tell your members of Congress NOW to vote against giving Bush a blank check to feed his bloodlust - call 202-224-3121.

The Moonie Times reports, "A group of 19 House Democrats yesterday pledged to build a congressional coalition to oppose a U.S. military attack on Iraq. 'Unilateral military action by the US against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal,' said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, who predicted 'dozens' more Democrats would join their group in coming days to oppose the Bush administration's plan for an attack. 'The administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent or immediate threat to the US.' Mr. Kucinich (D-OH) has been leading the anti-war effort. He said there is no credible evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 terrorist attacks or to the al Qaeda network. Mr. Kucinich also said there is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction." Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) "said she would introduce a resolution yesterday emphasizing the importance of working through the UN to ensure Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions. The measure has 20 co-sponsors."

Barry Crimins writes, "There are spoiled brats and then there is Court-appointed Bush, a child of privilege so spoiled he's rancid. As such, he'll go to any measure to get what he wants. After all, once you've been allowed to be president without benefit of election, why shouldn't you expect your every whim to be fulfilled?... What follows is a summary of the arguments our office-taker-in-chief has proffered in his preemptive assault on anything remotely resembling a thoughtful foreign policy: (1) I wanna invade Iraq. I WANNA! I WANNA ! I WANNA ! I WANNA ! I WANNA INVADE IRAQ!!"

How many times have we heard Bush & Co. declare that Saddam had to be replaced because "he used chemical weapons on his own people" - namely the Kurds. So who would Bush choose to replace Hussein? There has been NO discussion of this crucial question in the US media. But the Sunday Herald of Glasgow, Scotland has unveiled some of the top candidates. The top name is General Nizar Al-Khazraji, "the field commander who LED the 48-hour chemical weapons attack which poisoned and burned 5000 Kurdish civilians in the northern town of Halabja in March 1988. [Read that again, in case you missed the point. And this was when US Companies, under the auspices of Reagan-Bush, were providing chemical agents to Iraq.] He also, alleges one credible eyewitness who testified in video-taped evidence earlier this year, kicked a little Kurdish child to death after his forces entered a village during the height of the Iraqi repression in 1988." Just Say No to Bush's War!

The Washington Post reports that constituent calls, letters, and e-mails are overwhelmingly OPPOSED to Bush's war. Yet the NY Times completely ignores the will of the American people, and says Congress will vote overwhelmingly to give Bush a blank check for W-ar. They brush aside a clear statement from Senate Armed Services chair Carl Levin (D-MI), who told FOX that Bush's resolution "is much too broad. There's no limit at all on presidential powers. It's not even limited to Iraq." Call your Representatives (202-224-3121) and say No War in Iraq - and write letters@nytimes.com and tell them to report on the overwhelming opposition to Bush's War, including grassroots organizing to stop the war by groups like Democrats.com.

WashPost reports, "Judging by tallies offered by aides to a dozen other House and Senate members - including Republicans and Democrats from areas that are normally hawkish as well as dovish - a reluctance to embark on unilateral military action is also the dominant theme of phone calls, letters and e-mail messages that have been pouring in to Capitol Hill in recent weeks. Most said constituents' communications were running overwhelmingly against war, especially if the United States has to fight without strong allied support. Aides to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) counted 5,614 phone calls over the past six weeks, only 136 of which indicated support for unilateral military action, with letters reflecting about the same division. Phone calls to the office of Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) were running 8 to 1 against war, a Frist aide said." We are WINNING this battle - let's KEEP CALLING CONGRESS! (202-224-3121)

Do we live in a democracy - or a military dictatorship? Congress has not declared war on Iraq, yet the Pentagon has its hands around Iraq's throat. For all we know, CIA agents and Special Forces are already on the ground in Iraq, killing Iraqis. Whether or not those US forces are wearing uniforms, any US forces who are killing Iraqis are engaged in W-ar - violating the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention, and the US Constitution. Call Congress (202-224-3121) and tell them No War in Iraq - Impeach Bush Now!

"The chief staff executive of the United Methodist Church's advocacy and action agency is calling on the White House not to attack Iraq but to seek a peaceful solution through the United Nations. 'The Bush administration has declared its intent to launch a war against Iraq, ignoring the advice of its allies, many members of Congress, key experts and millions of U.S. citizens,' said Jim Winkler... 'We recognize the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among nations... United Methodists have a particular duty to speak out against an unprovoked attack,' Winkler said. 'Bush and... Cheney are members of our denomination. Our silence now could be interpreted as tacit approval of war. I beseech the president and vice president to provide leadership into a new era of Christian discipleship,' he said."

Joseph Cirincione writes: "Many well-meaning political figures have made the mistake that Senator James Inhofe made on Meet the Press on August 18: 'Our intelligence system has said that we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction -- I believe including nuclear. There's not one person on this panel who would tell you unequivocally that he doesn't have the missile means now, or is nearly getting the missile means to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. And I for one am not willing to wait for that to happen.' In fact, U.S. intelligence agencies do not believe that Iraq has a nuclear weapon, or that the country is near developing either a nuclear weapon or a long-range missile. Effective policy must be governed by facts, not fears. Step one is to disaggregate the now over-used catch phrase 'weapons of mass destruction' that includes nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. All are not equal in threat."

Ya gotta love the Rumsfeld logic. He thinks because Bush hung a sign on him that reads "Secretary of Defense" that no one will question anything he says - no matter how illogical, self-serving, and insulting even to the intelligence of a garden slug. Now we're supposed to imagine a "gentler, kinder war" in which we can bomb the hell out of Iraq, mobilize its more vicious defenders to desperate extremes, and destroy what's left of the nation's infrastructure Afghanistan-style, yet not disturb the Iraqi people - just their leaders. Yeah, right - and if you believe that, you probably believe the tooth fairy plans to leave these magnificent war plans under Rumsfeld's pillow.

When Bush gave his UN speech on 9-12, he expected the UN to get on its knees and bow down in worship to His Heinous. But members of the Arab League, led by Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan, put the heat on Iraq and convinced Saddam Hussein to declare his willingness to accept UN inspectors. Also, Security Council permanent members France and Russia - which can veto any US-backed resolutions - refused to knuckle under to The Knucklehead. The more the world wants peace, the more Bush wants war. Can the world stop Bush from blowing up the world? Stay tuned...

WashPost reports, "A consensus has begun to emerge among Pentagon war planners that the United States should conduct a narrowly focused but extremely intense attack that will be radically different from the 1991 Persian Gulf War... The start of a new Iraq air campaign is likely to be far more intense than either the bombing of Yugoslavia or the opening salvo of the Gulf War... [It] would begin with hundreds of bombers, cruise missiles and fighter aircraft executing a series of airstrikes with a barrage of firepower only hinted at in other recent U.S. air campaigns. Their warheads would rain down on antiaircraft systems and missiles and aircraft that could deliver chemical or biological weapons. Then the campaign would concentrate on 'regime targets' - presidential palaces, Hussein's bodyguards, military communications systems, secret police facilities, and the bases of the elite Republican Guard and other diehard supporters."

Norman Solomon writes, "When Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz described the box that Washington has meticulously constructed for Iraq, he put it this way: 'Doomed if you do, doomed if you don't'... The Democratic Party's 'leadership' in the Senate, pursuing some sort of craven political calculus, is lining up to put vast quantities of blood on its hands... Now we're hearing about a resolution that - unless people across the United States mobilize in opposition - will sail through the House and Senate to authorize a massive U.S. military attack on Iraq. I can hear the raspy and prophetic voice of Sen. Wayne Morse, who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, roaring 38 years ago: 'I don't know why we think, just because we're mighty, that we have the right to try to substitute might for right.' 'And henceforth,' Albert Camus wrote, 'the only honorable course will be to stake everything on a formidable gamble: that words are more powerful than munitions.'"

The BBC Reports "International Development Secretary Clare Short is set to declare she cannot support an all-out war against Iraq. In a television interview to be broadcast on Sunday, the minister says there must not be another war in which innocent Iraqis are killed. Ms Short is the second minister to express her concern after the Leader of the Commons, Robin Cook, indicated he could not support military action which was not authorised by the United Nations."

Molly Ivins writes "Don't you just hate it when the bad guys agree to do what we want them to? If that's not a good reason to go in and take out Saddam, name one. But our Fearless Leader, not one to be deterred from war merely by getting what he wants, promptly moved the goalposts and issued a new list of demands Iraq must meet... This is not a debate, it's Bush in his 'You're either with us or against us' mode - [and] there's no evidence the administration has thought past Step One... The most unpleasant and unhelpful aspect of this 'debate' is the implication that anyone who expresses serious doubts about this venture is unpatriotic - and it often comes from the same people who spent eight years eaten alive with Clinton hatred. Being patriotic doesn't mean agreeing with the government. The most fundamental American right is to not agree with the government and to raise hell about it."

"IRAQ. It's in the news, on TV and in the newspapers. But are you getting the full story? Thinking of holding a campus or community teach-in on the US policies toward Iraq? The Iraq Speakers Bureau provides direct access to policy experts, diplomats, former UN officials, human rights activists and public health researchers who are committed to taking you beyond the headlines. Speakers share critical insight and compassionate stories that illuminate the big picture of U.S. policy toward Iraq. And the Iraq Speakers Bureau supports your speaking event with valuable time-saving resources for publicity to help you maximize your event turnout, media coverage, fund-raising and organizing."

Steven Lesar writes: "As I evaluate our reasons, what we have to gain and what we have to lose by attacking Iraq now to initiate a regime change, I am struck by all of the dangers and liabilities and how little there really is to gain...This upcoming war is ill-conceived, based on false and/or flawed assumptions, dangerous to Middle Eastern regional and global peace, will be so costly in terms of currency and lives that it pains one to consider and is being championed by perhaps the most ignorant individual, regarding history, foreign affairs and welt-politic, to ever occupy the White House." Discuss this essay with Steven Lesar in our community.

NY Times reports, "Senior Republican Party officials say the prospect of at least two more weeks of Congressional debate on Iraq is allowing their party to run out the clock on the fall election, blocking Democrats as they try to seize on the faltering economy and other domestic concerns as campaign issues... Scott Reed, a Republican consultant, said: 'The secret to the election now is to beat the clock. Every week, you can hear the ripping noise of another page of the calendar coming off the wall. Another week has gone by. And there's only six more to go'... The significance of the war debate, Republicans say, is that, by crowding out the issues Democrats wanted to talk about, it changed a race that had appeared to be shifting toward the Democrats in midsummer... 'Obviously the Republican strategy is to prevent campaigns from ever getting back to a domestic message,' said James M. Jordan, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee." Defeat ALL Republicans!

NY Times reports, "In a city where the talk is of when, not if, there will be war with Iraq, a small group of Democratic die-hards in the House is trying to rally opposition to military action. Two dozen or so mainly liberal lawmakers say they view the current moves toward war through the prism of their memories of Vietnam... 'I am very skeptical of this whole operation and have the feeling that it has much more to do with oil than anything else,' said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), who added that his experiences as a Navy psychiatrist treating Vietnam veterans remained fresh in his mind. Mr. McDermott and 18 fellow House members... proclaimed their opposition to what they view as a potential unprovoked assault on Iraq, without evidence that the nation poses a dire threat. The session seemed reminiscent of past antiwar rallies, with the speakers warning of young Americans being sent to die on foreign soil and urging that the country 'give peace a chance.'" Tell your Reps to join them!

Bruce Ackerman writes that Bush "would have us believe that international law contains only ambiguous or advisory requirements. In fact, the UN Charter was ratified as a treaty by the Senate after World War II, and the Constitution explicitly makes all treaties 'the supreme law of the land.'... [Bush's] resolution does not assert that Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but claims an 'inherent right' to act in self-defense against risks that do not pose a direct and immediate threat of armed attack. This is nothing less than the repudiation of the UN Charter's effort to restrict unilateral uses of force to extreme cases, and to make collective, multinational security measures the norm. This is not the time for Congress to eliminate these long-standing restrictions on unilateralism. Its war resolution should permit the use of military force only after authorization by the Security Council." Impeach Bush Now!

"In an interview with CNN's Paula Zahn, former president George Bush spoke recently of his 'hatred' of Saddam Hussein. 'I hate Saddam Hussein,' said Bush. 'I don't hate a lot of people. I don't hate easily, but I think he's, as I say, his word is no good and he's a brute. He's used poison gas on his own people. So, there's nothing redeeming about this man'... The Bush interview, obviously, is good for Zahn's floundering career. As such, we shouldn't expect Zahn to push Bush Senior on the particulars of his hatred. Not these days, anyway, when the corporate media essentially plays second fiddle for the government... It is fair to conclude Bush has not always hated Saddam. Or if he has hated Saddam all these years, he put that hatred aside in the name of statecraft. Reagan, Bush, the Iraqi dictator, and American corporations have worked together over the years. War and death make for good business. It also makes for lies and deception--and possibly for less than truthful interviews."

One by one, David Corn reviews - and demolishes - the "whereas" clauses in Bush's proposed Declaration of War. Iraq's willingness to attack the US? Bushit! Al Qaeda plotting terrorist attacks from Iraq? Bushit! Iraq's desire to launch a surprise attack against the US? Bushit! Iraq's desire to provide WMD to terrorists? Bushit! Iraq close to building nukes? Bushit! Bush has told nothing but Big Lies about the threat from Iraq from the beginning - often resorting to a new lie each day after the previous day's lie was exposed. This is not a Democracy - it's a Dictatorship. Congress must Stop Bush's War!

Jessica Mathews of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace writes: "With rising emphasis in recent months, [Bush] has made clear that the US' number one concern in Iraq is its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). No link has yet been found between Baghdad's assertively secular regime and radical Islamist terrorists. There is much else about the Iraqi government that is fiercely objectionable but nothing that presents an imminent threat to the region, the US, or the world. Thus, the US' primary goal is... to deal with the WMD threat.... This paper proposes a third approach, a middle ground between an unacceptable status quo that allows Iraqi WMD programs to continue and the enormous costs and risks of an invasion. It proposes a new regime of coercive international inspections. A powerful, multinational military force, created by the UN Security Council, would enable UN and IAEA inspection teams to carry out 'comply or else' inspections." Why does Bush reject this?

Texas Republican/Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul read the following to the House of Representatives on September 10, 2002. "Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war: 1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? 2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate -- which just confirms that there is no real threat? 3. Is it not true that there are those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, and at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections? 4. Is it not true that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?" Where are the rest of the Republicans?

UK Guardian reports, "The odd thing here is that the more overwhelming the evidence is that Saddam has usable weapons of mass destruction, the less of a case there is for going to war, because even the the fiercest hawks would presumably agree that nothing would be worth the damage their use would cause. War becomes possible, but less justifiable in strict terms, the less likely it is that he has such weapons or could acquire them in a very short time. The illogicality of the debate on 'evidence' is that wholly convincing data would rule out war, while merely indicative evidence that Saddam is struggling to maintain or restore his weapons programmes is determined in advance to be insufficient by many critics of American policy. It is precisely because he is not now a real threat to the US, nor a real ally of al-Qaida, and nor, probably, in possession of usable weapons, that war is feasible."

CNN reports, "Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), called it a 'non-starter' and an 'affront to the Constitution.' 'This proposal is a case of the administration telling Congress to stop asking questions and literally 'leaves it all to us.' To endorse such language would be irresponsible,' said Feingold. The language could lead to a 'miniature Armageddon' or 'potential World War III,' said Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), who said he will write an alternative resolution with fellow liberal Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), that would place more pre-conditions on Bush before he could use force in Iraq. 'Nothing in our intelligence suggests that Iraq is ready to attack Washington or Fort Lauderdale,' Hastings said. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) agreed. 'There is no question that Saddam Hussein is not a nice person or that he's broken the resolutions of the UN, but that does not give us the power to pre-emptively strike a country,' he said. 'Once you start down that road, where do you stop?'" Stop Bush's War!

NYTimes.com reports: "Saddam Hussein... accused the Bush administration today of seeking to 'destroy Iraq in order to control the Middle East oil' and asserted that Mr. Bush had made 'distortions' to lead Americans to think Iraq had a role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks... Mr. Hussein declared that Iraq is 'clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons'... Mr. Hussein made a general offer to 'any scientific experts accompanied by politicians you choose to represent any one of your countries' to come to Iraq to look for weapons. He said Iraq would provide those foreign experts 'all the facilities they need to achieve their objective'... Mr. Hussein said the Bush administration was planning an attack against Iraq in order to 'control the politics as well as the oil and economic policies of the whole world. If it succeeded in that, God forbid...it would dictate on you what each country needs for its economic development' by controlling the price and distribution of oil."

Robert Scheer writes "Now we know just how vicious Saddam Hussein can be. Agreeing to unconditional United Nations inspections at a time when our president had his heart set on war is just the sort of mean-spirited treachery that one can expect from this modern-day Hitler. The only greater betrayal will be if it turns out, upon inspection, that Iraq is not still building weapons of mass destruction and has no nuclear capability after all." Betrayal is what Bush is about. Betrayal of Democracy by stealing elections; betrayal of the truth by his Orwellian torture of the language; and betrayal of America's armed forces, by sending them into harms way for corrupt political purposes. Say no to Bush's war -- Impeach Bush now!

When Nelson Mandela "criticises US foreign policy in terms every bit as harsh as those he used to condemn apartheid, you know something is up. In the past few weeks, he has issued a 'strong condemnation' of the US's attitude towards Iraq, lambasted vice-president Dick Cheney for being a 'dinosaur' and accused the US of being 'a threat to world peace'. Coming from other quarters, such criticisms would have been dismissed by both the White House and Downing Street as the words of appeasement, anti-Americanism or leftwing extremism. But Mandela is not just anyone. Towering like a moral colossus over the late 20th century, his voice carries an ethical weight like no other." So writes Gary Younge in the Guardian.

A Democrats.com member writes: "This attack on Iraq has been planned since the late 1990's. It is about control of the Middle East. It is about oil and war profiteers. It is about religious zealots end-time beliefs. It is about politics. It is about the United States as the world's bully. It is about death, to our sons and daughters and to the Iraqis. It is about blood on the hands of those supporting it. It is about the Republican election game plan. It is not about supposed "weapons of mass destruction". It is not about failure to obey UN resolutions. It is not about "saving" the world from tyrants. Bush is proving daily that he thinks that everyone but himself is irrelevant; the UN, the courts, the Congress, and the American people. It is time for you to stand up to this psychotic, ignorant, arrogant, dangerous despot and his cabal that has taken over this government. Humanity's future is at stake. Stand up for the Constitution. Exercise your power." Call 202-224-3121.

"Thank God for the rock-ribbed conservatives who have spoken out about being more sensible concerning Iraq, so in this moment of righteous rage-interruptus maybe there's still time for the media to actually do its job and for the US public to hear a few facts. Especially since in this past week it was reported that George Bush II made the decision last October to prosecute this war with Iraq - with no fresh facts, no new evidence linking Iraq to 9/11, this decision was reportedly arrived at by 'a kind of osmosis.' That was also about the time that Bush decided he 'had been chosen by God.' When you just lay out the simple facts in order, it presents a pretty curious spectacle, doesn't it? And, just for the record, all of this has NOTHING to do with the mid-term elections..." so writes Kent Southard

In an excerpt from "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know" by William Rivers Pitt (Context Books, October 2002), former UN inspector Scott Ritter explains exactly why we should not believe George Bush's insistence that Iraq is harboring dangerous weapons. "Since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories."

George W. Bush claims to be a Methodist. So why isn't he listening to the leaders of his church? Jim Winkler, staff executive of the United Methodist Church's advocacy and action agency, calls Bush's warmongering "unprecedented disregard for democratic ideals" and says that there is "an astonishing lack of evidence justifying such a pre-emptive attack". He calls on all United Methodists to speak out against an unprovoked attack. The Methodist and Catholic Churches are now on record against Bush's War - where are the rest of America's religious leaders? Call your ministers, priests, rabbis, and imams!

USA Today reports that Bush "is expanding on and in some cases contradicting U.S. intelligence reports in making the case for an invasion of Iraq, interviews with administration and intelligence officials indicate. Administration officials accuse Iraq of having ties to al-Qaeda terrorists and of amassing weapons of mass destruction despite uncertain and sometimes contrary intelligence on these issues, according to officials. In some cases, top administration officials disagree outright with what the CIA and other intelligence agencies report. For example, they repeat accounts of al-Qaeda members seeking refuge in Iraq and of terrorist operatives meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials, even though U.S. intelligence reports raise doubts about such links. On Iraqi weapons programs, administration officials draw the most pessimistic conclusions from ambiguous evidence." No wonder Bush missed all the warnings about 9-11!

CNN reports, "The Bush administration Thursday will give Congress a proposed resolution that explicitly authorizes the use of military force if Bush concludes diplomacy will fail to get Iraq to keep its commitments to the United Nations." Read it carefully - Bush wants a BLANK CHECK to drop bombs any time he pleases, regardless of whether inspectors complete their job. Call Congress (202-224-3121) and demand Inspection, not War - No Blank Check for Bush!

After George Bush's speech to the United Nations, some nations signalled that they might consider military action under the auspices of the United Nations. But as soon as Iraq announced it would admit weapons inspectors, without conditions, those nations distanced themselves from Bush's warmongering. Can anyone in the White House get a clue from the fact that the more they insist on war, the less support they have from the rest of the world?

"In the face of recent threats against Iraq, Voices in the Wilderness has initiated an 'Iraq Peace Team' plan. The announcement envisions sending seasoned nonviolent activists to take up residence in Iraq, before and during a US attack, should such an assault occur. The Government of Iraq has agreed to the proposal in principle. It remains for us to now undertake numerous tasks needed to make this plan a reality, if needed, while at the same time working to prevent a US attack. On this website, you will find regularly updated analysis and reports regarding relations between Iraq and the United States. You will also find updates about national anti-war organizing news and strategies. In the event of a US attack, this website will become a multimedia resource site for news from the team on the ground in Iraq as well as well as a clearinghouse for anti-war news and strategies here at home... Your voice is needed to say 'No!' to a US attack on Iraq."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), chair of the House Progressive Caucus, is holding an hour-long Teach-in on Iraq on C-Span NOW (6:30 pm EST). If you miss it live, check www.c-span.org for rebroadcasts.

"Congress must authorize the use of military force against Iraq before the U.N. Security Council votes on the issue... Rumsfeld told Congress Wednesday.... 'The goal isn't inspections, the goal is disarmament,' Rumsfeld said. 'That is what Iraq agreed to do'... In an Oval Office meeting with congressional leaders, Bush thanked Democrats and Republicans alike for their commitment to vote on a congressional resolution on Iraq before November's elections. 'I think it's an important signal for the world to see that this country is united in its resolve,' (Bush) said. Rumsfeld said that message must be given before further U.N. action on Iraq. 'Only certainty of U.S. and U.N. purposefulness can have even the prospect of affecting the Iraqi regime,' Rumsfeld said. 'It is important that Congress send that message as soon as possible - before the U.N. Security Council votes'... On Friday, Bush had mocked Democrats for wanting to wait for a congressional vote until after the U.N. had acted."

Poppy Bush wrote, "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed [and] there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles... Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the UN's mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the US could conceivably still be an occupying power in bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome." (p. 489). So what's different now?

CNN.com reports: "But Senate Democrat Richard Durbin of Illinois said Washington should pay heed to Iraq's overtures, which he termed 'a dramatic mark of progress.' 'Wouldn't we want to give the U.N. the ability to start inspections, and if they fail we can consider a lot of options?' he asked. 'Wouldn't we want to pursue a course of action short of war?' House Republican Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, who has raised questions about going to war with Iraq, also counseled a slower approach. 'I think it was Ronald Reagan who said, 'Trust but verify.' This is a great opportunity to practice that option,' he said." What is behind Bush's mad blind rush to W-ar? Is it oil - or election 2002?

Tom Friedman writes, "Don't believe the polls that a majority of Americans favor a military strike against Iraq. It's just not true... most Americans are perplexed. The most oft-asked question I heard was some variation of: 'How come all of a sudden we have to launch a war against Saddam? I realize that he's thumbed his nose at the U.N., and he has dangerous weapons, but he's never threatened us, and, if he does, couldn't we just vaporize him? What worries me are Osama and the terrorists still out there.' That's where I think most Americans are at. Deep down they believe that Saddam is 'deterrable' ... What worries them are the 'undeterrables' - the kind of young Arab-Muslim men who hit us on 9/11, and are still lurking. Americans would pay virtually any price to eliminate the threat from the undeterrables - the terrorists who hate us more than they love their own lives, and therefore cannot be deterred."

The 1990-91 Gulf War, short as it was, toppled the U.S. into a severe recession that took years to recover from. Now even Bush-minion Lawrence Lindsey is admitting that the cost of a war will be $100-200 BILLION - a hit the U.S. cannot afford, despite the blatherings of rightwing wacko Paul O'Neill. Economic experts overseas say the current war is a far bigger risk to the US and global economy than 1991. The Fed now has less room for manuvering, while the objective of the war - a total regime change in Iraq - has the potential for unforetold disasters. In short, this war will cost Americans dearly, and not just in lives. "Taking everything into account war with Iraq would almost inevitably mean a double-dip recession for the US," says Stephen Roach, economist at Morgan Stanley. "The question is whether this is a price the US is willing to pay for its strategic objectives."

Bush and Blair must swap tips on how to railroad their governments into war when they get together for their cozy little schmooze sessions. Just as Bush is treating Congress as if it either did not exist or was a small swarm of mosquitoes to be swatted away, Blair is now predicted to prevent a parliamentary vote that would show a LACK of support for his war plans. Says George Galloway, one of Blair's own Labor Party leaders, "Blair is not going to allow the parliament to vote, precisely because he knows that so many members of the British parliament are against an attack upon Iraq." Galloways says about 161 members of parliament had already signed up against a war with Iraq. So where are their Democratic counterparts here in the U.S.?

Excerpt: "I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions. The Government of the Republic of Iraq has responded, by this decision, to your appeal, to the appeal of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, as well as those of Arab, Islamic and other friendly countries. The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction."

It was all phony: the consultations with allies (ten-minute phone calls), the speech before the UN (a masterpiece of creative progaganda composed by a 10 expert spin doctors, not Bush himself), the exhortation to allow weapons inspections (Bush never intended to accept such an offer anyway), and the "secret briefings" with key Congressfolk (less was revealed than by the pages of the NY Times). Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. have simply been preparing for war on their own schedule without any pause, as if none of these things had occurred. In fact, they have been planning the takeover of the Middle East, starting with oil-rich Iraq, since at least 1997 (see earlier stories). They don't care what Congress thinks (not that anyone there has opposed them), what our allies think, what the American people think, or even what history will think. They want power and oil and they want it now - in time to retire on the payoff.

"After Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments... Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of 'dual use' equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for 'video surveillance applications'; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of 'bacteria/fungi/protozoa' to the IAEC [which] could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax... The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds."

Following a week-long fast by Catholic activists in Cleveland, the US Catholic Bishops declared their opposition to Bush's invasion of Iraq. Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., president of the U.S. bishops' conference said the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" limits the just-war criterion of "just cause" to "cases in which the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations is lasting, grave and certain." He said the moral credibility of force depends on legitimate authority and, as such, "decisions of such gravity require compliance with U.S. constitutional imperatives, broad consensus within our own nation, and some form of international sanction, preferably by the U.N. Security Council." We congratulate the Bishops for taking a stand on the most important moral issue facing the nation this fall. Now where are all the "pro-life" Catholics like Henry Hyde and Rick Santorum?

USA Today reports, "The Bush administration is expanding on and in some cases contradicting U.S. intelligence reports in making the case for an invasion of Iraq, interviews with administration and intelligence officials indicate." When confronted with the evidence that their "evidence" for war is bogus, the Busheviks claim everybody else is wrong but them. Would you buy a used war from this gang?

AP reports: "Former South African President Nelson Mandela on Tuesday said the United States should not dismiss Iraq's acceptance of new U.N. weapons inspectors. 'What right has (Bush) to come and say that that offer is not genuine. We must condemn that very strongly. That is why I criticize most leaders, all over the world, for keeping quiet when one country wants to bully the whole world,' Mandela told reporters at a news conference at his house.... Mandela, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, has been outspoken in his criticism of the United States' treatment of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. Mandela has insisted the United States work through the United Nations and called the Bush administration 'a threat to world peace... On this question of Iraq they're absolutely wrong,' he said. 'That is a matter for the United Nations...They think that they are the only power in the world. They are not. They are following a dangerous policy,' Mandela said."

ABCNews.com reports: "In Iraq's first public comments since agreeing to allow the unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors, Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz questioned whether that retreat would end the crisis. 'The issue does not end with Iraq's acceptance of the return of the inspectors,' Aziz said at the opening of a 'solidarity conference' in Baghdad attended by lawmakers and other delegates from around the world. 'The aim of the American policies is the oil in the Gulf,' Aziz added in his brief remarks. 'They were shocked with this courageous and balanced decision (to accept the return of inspectors) and then they turned to talk about tactics and maneuvers,' Aziz said Tuesday. 'Washington's pretext for launching war against Iraq has been foiled with Iraq's acceptance of the U.N. inspectors'... 'They will strike us, they already said they question our acceptance,' said 48-year-old bookseller Ahmed Noori, adding 'They are after the region's oil, not weapons.'"

Andrew Card recently said: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," explaining why the Administration waited until after Labor Day to launch its campaign to convince the American public that military action against Iraq is necessary. Now UK's TimesOnLine.com reports that "The Bush Administration is to launch a multimillion-dollar PR blitz against Saddam Hussein, using advertising techniques to persuade crucial target groups that the Iraqi leader must be ousted... The campaign, which will initially receive over $200 million, will be overseen by the Office of Global Communications, whose existence will not be formally announced until next month." Bush is so hell bent on sending courageous Americans into battle regardless of the certainty of maiming and killing Iraqi civilians that they are marketing W-ar to us, using our own dollars while slashing social programs. Impeach Bush Now!

Matthew Miller writes: "A cynic might imagine a different scenario - one that should at least be on the table as events unfold. In this Stage Manage Events For Political Purposes Scenario, we'd see Bush and the GOP ride the benefit of today's calculated Iraq focus between now and November. Then, in a show of eminent reasonableness, Bush would agree to work first through the United Nations, which would authorize a resumption of inspections. Bush would allow these inspections a year to see whether they work, as any patient global statesman would. Then, just as the presidential campaign heats up in 2004, something will happen, and Bush will say that time has run out, that inspections have proven fruitless, that the danger is even closer than we thought, and the nation cannot wait. Another 'positive issue environment,' in other words, that would shift attention from the administration's budget deficits, economic mismanagement and bankrupt domestic agenda."

Within hours of Iraq recommitting to a comprehensive, no holds-barred inspection program, a top Bush administration official renewed the call for a "regime change." "Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on Tuesday said Iraq's President Saddam Hussein was a 'proven liar' who must be removed from office despite his offer to allow unconditional entry to U.N. arms inspectors. 'Saddam Hussein has got to go. There's got to be a regime change' O'Neill told CNBC... O'Neill said the U.S. economy was strong enough to bear the cost... The Treasury Secretary is in New York to mark the first anniversary of the reopening of the New York Stock Exchange following the Sept. 11 attacks... He expressed confidence the corporate accounting scandals that have disrupted investor confidence and hurt financial markets are over. 'I do believe it is behind us. When we add up the numbers, it will be 20 companies or something that damaged the integrity of U.S. business,' he said."

In March 1991, David Albright and Mark Hibbs wrote, "The prominence Bush gave to Iraq's nuclear 'potential' repeated a theme that the administration began pushing vigorously last November as a rationale for the use of military force against that country. But after a months-long investigation of the requirements any country would need to build nuclear weapons, and an assessment of Iraq's ability to meet those requirements, we conclude that Saddam Hussein was many years away from developing usable nuclear weapons. Indeed, the Iraqi nuclear bomb-making capability was so primitive that the international sanctions put in place after the August 2 invasion may have had more substantive effect than the tons of bombs dropped by U.S. and allied planes five months later. 'There may be good reasons to go to war with Iraq,' one U.S. government official said before January 16, 'but Iraq's nuclear program isn't one of them.'"

If anyone knows nukes, its the folks at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - an outfit founded by Albert Einstein. And they say that the evidence Bush is using to "prove" Saddam is near nukes actually proves just the opposite. The whole leaky case, they point out, is based on the alleged interception of a shipment of aluminum tubes to Iraq, a possible nuke component. The BOAS drily cautions, "Just a little tip for those assigned to leak additional new 'evidence' of a stepped-up Iraqi nuclear threat: The tubing in centrifuges is not nearly as hard to acquire or assemble as the mechanisms that allow them to spin at rapid speeds; getting that stuff right, and getting thousands of centrifuges working in concert, is really hard."

AP reports, "The White House dismissed Iraq's offer Monday to let weapons inspectors return there unconditionally... 'This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions,' said Bushman Scott McClellan. The administration seeks three things in a new U.N. resolution: a list of Iraqi violations of previous resolutions; steps Iraq needs to take to comply; and consequences Iraq will face if it does not comply. The new Iraqi offer meets none of the administration's demands, and U.S. officials see no reason to budge from its position, this official said. A second senior official described White House's attitude toward the letter as 'very, very dismissive.'"

Mike Hersh writes: "There is no longer any pretext for a(n)... attack on Iraq. Our treaty obligations, the United States Constitution, and international law require reliance on renewed weapons inspections. The international community supports our efforts to render Iraq harmless short of unprovoked and now clearly unnecessary, invasion. US policies have already achieved every legitimate, logical objective in this matter... There is only one way Bush and his people can assure American voters that this (isn't) a cynical effort to manipulate upcoming elections. Bush should embrace this victory as an opportunity to win the war without having to fight the battle. The Bush Administration is at a crossroads. Either they can accept this triumph -- forcing Iraq to back down without US invasion -- to address our legitimate national security and profound domestic needs. Or else they can remain fixated on aggressive, highly risky and unwarranted militarist 'solutions' in search of a problem."

Scott Ritter, Marine and former chief UN Weapons Inspector, read the text of his speech to the Iraqi Parliament on C-SPAN Monday night and took viewer calls afterward. If you watched, you know this Republican spoke his conscience, talking truth to power. Now you can read the text of his speech to the Iraqi National Assembly. "My country seems on the verge of making a historical mistake, one that will forever change the political dynamic which has governed the world since the end of the Second World War; namely, the foundation of international law as set forth in the United Nations Charter, which calls for the peaceful resolution of problems between nations. My government has set forth on a policy of unilateral intervention that runs contrary to the letter and intent of the United Nations Charter."

UK's Sunday Herald reports that Blair "is thus deliberately fudging the central issue of the need for the kind of incontrovertible UN mandate that governed the Gulf war in 1991. Then, the aims and parameters of the campaign were defined in a UN resolution, which provided the basis for the 35-member coalition that ejected Saddam from Kuwait. This coalition encompassed Western, Muslim and Arab nations... This shows what is wrong with the Bush/Blair approach. Would Arab countries, if they were strong enough, be entitled to seize back Palestinian lands by force because Israel was in violation of UN resolutions? Or would Pakistan be entitled to attack India to enforce UN resolutions on Kashmir? Obviously not. But that is exactly the chaos that will reign if other strong countries take upon themselves the authority to unilaterally enforce UN resolutions, an authority that properly belongs to the UN itself."

I hope this is more of a warning than a eulogy. Consider the politics driving Bush's imminent invasion of Iraq. Team Bush is using 9/11 as their fight song and campaign slogan. They are manipulating our fear, anger and pride to fuel their propaganda machine for narrow partisan advantage. This will increase through Election Day. A military expert familiar with the Bush administration says, "We are watching pre-invasion propaganda" as opposed to any kind of discussion or debate. Bush's pretense of considering inspections is nothing more than a stalling tactic; a way to quiet complaints and mop up any remaining opposition. He adds, "The Iraq War is already underway. It began last July. The CIA and Special Operations Forces are in Iraq." This violates the US Constitution and the War Powers Act.

Michelle Goldberg writes: "Support for the war from the leaders of a traditionally Democratic bloc creates a potentially perilous situation for any Democrat tempted to oppose the administration's Iraq plans. [A 1996 paper for the Israeli right wing by a group including Richard Perle argued] that Israel should scrap the peace process, work to subdue its neighbors by force, and overthrow the Iraqi government in order to reshape the region's dynamics. [This] almost guarantees broad Jewish support for Bush's military initiatives... It's crucial to note that there is principled Jewish support of a war with Iraq that's based on more than just slavish devotion to the Likud line. American Jews have been paying close attention to Saddam Hussein's atrocities for a long time, and thus some liberal Jews see the conflict in terms starkly different from their gentile brethren, many of whom have just tuned in to the story." But don't forget that Reagan-Bush armed and financed Hussein's military.

Mary McGrory writes: "Consult with the United Nations? George W Bush's speech sounded more like a pistol-whipping. Either the wimpy, no-account folks [at the UN get with his Iraq program or else. The] real audience for the tough talk was Congress, which Bush is trying to muscle into support for war with Iraq before the November elections... Resisters will be accused of 'politicizing' the great regime-changing efforts of a son who is trying to complete his father's unfinished business. The elections will be transformed into a referendum on the commander in chief, which is what Bush has always sought. It will be uphill work to keep voters focused on prescription drugs, the economy and the environment when our uniformed men and women are in peril... We have a president who recoils from the idea of nation-building in Afghanistan, which needs everything, and embarks without inhibition on a course that some say will require a decade of occupation and reform in Baghdad."

"In Iraq, infant and child mortality has doubled in the past 12 years - 1 in 5 children in south and central Iraq are chronically malnourished - Iraqi hospitals in areas heavily bombed by US and UK planes during the Gulf War are full of children dying from a cancer - epidemic and many babies are born with congenital malformations. The Iraqi national literacy rate has dropped 22% over the past 12 years There continues to be regular bombing of Iraq by the US and UK - wounding and killing Iraqi citizens. We campaign as a women-only group in order to create a space in which women, from all nationalities, feel comfortable expressing themselves and acting together. The economic sanctions which affect ordinary Iraqis must be separated from diplomatic and military sanctions against the regime. War is not the way to fight terrorism on a global scale, nor is it the way to improve the plight of the Iraqi people. Opposing sanctions is not the same as supporting the Iraqi regime."

"Remember Vietnam? Remember the Gulf War? Beware what you're told on Iraq, writes Kenneth Davidson. Before Australians get sucked into the Bush's war with Iraq on what appears the flimsiest excuses, they should remember the excuses Americans offered the world to justify their involvement in the Vietnam and Gulf Wars... So why did Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait? Before the invasion, the US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, said the US would not interfere. It was a reasonable expectation. Saddam was a US ally against Iran... According to Saddam, Kuwait had been exceeding its OPEC oil production quota and this was depressing the price of oil and Iraq's revenue, which was needed to pay for its war with Iran... This week's report... has been used by the hawks in Whitehall and Washington as 'proof' that Saddam is close to having a WMD capability, yet it contains no factual information that undermines informed opinion that Iraq is far weaker in WMD than it was before the Gulf War."

RadioLeft.com reports on why Bush lusts for war in Iraq: "1. Push up the price of oil. 2. Create defense industry jobs. 3. Divert attention from economic problems at home. 4. Divert attention from environmental issues. 5. Good excuse to cut spending on social services to pay for the war. 6. Good excuse to further limit civil rights. 7. Good excuse to drill in the ANWR. 8. Start drilling in national forests and national parks. 9. To get people investing during a time of national panic, reduce the capital gains tax. 10. To continue to keep Reagan and Bush administration papers secret that will implicate daddy Bush in Iran-Contra schemes. 11. Halliburton sold more to Iraq during the 1990's than any other company in the world. Now let's bomb it and let Halliburton sell it to them again. 12. Give Pakistan justification to use nukes on India. 13. Give India justification to retaliate. 14. Give the Palestinians justification to attack Israel. 15. Give Israel justification to retaliate."

An anonymous Gulf War veteran writes: "With all the war fever about re-invading Iraq, the press and politicians are ignoring the opinion of the veterans of our last war in the Gulf. But we veterans were there, and we have unique and critical first-hand knowledge of the course and consequences of warfare in Iraq. Our opinions should be solicited and heard before troops deploy for battle, not after they have returned wounded, ill or in body bags. Another invasion of Iraq in 2002 will be very different from the invasion of 1991. The war's mission has changed in the intervening years, from removing Iraq from Kuwait to removing the entire Iraqi government and military establishment from power. Because the goal of the U.S. military has changed, the Iraqi army may retreat to the cities, where they may face better odds than in the desert...in the urban warfare scenario of 2002, pitched infantry skirmishes and ambushes in cities may present a more level battlefield for Iraqi troops..."

WashPost reports, "A US-led ouster of... Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets... Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia. The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the UN Security Council and Western allies for... Bush's call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council...have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad." No War for Oil - Impeach Bush Now!

Joe Citizen writes, "George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz have all said that we must launch a preemptive attack on Iraq. Andrew Card will try to make a potential invasion look good to both public and (p)resident. He is lost without Karen Hughes... Karl Rove, Mark Racicot and Mitt Romney will want to make 'GOP patriotism', even more of a campaign issue than it was before. Newt Gingrich and Gary Bauer will help mobilize the right flank of their party. Ted Olson and Ken Starr will investigate and litigate, if there are any legal or constitutional issues. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas will agree to hear their cases. Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, Trent Lott, Phil Gramm, Mitch McConnell and Don Nickles will bring up bills in Congress in an attempt to appease the so-called opposition and convince the American public about the urgent need to invade... All want war - none served in the military."

Time reporter Nina Burleigh was among the first American journalists to enter Iraq after the Gulf War, and she has nothing but contempt for recent "reporting" from Iraq. "Anyone who spends a little time in Baghdad knows there is one thing the dwindling, beaten-down middle class of that country fears more than the hideous regime of Saddam Hussein: an Islamic uprising. The Iraqis sent millions of young men to their deaths in the 1980s fighting exactly the kind of fundamentalist Islamic mentality that we so dread now. As much as they hate their dictator, Iraqis hate the Islamists even more...As in the 1980s, this creepy strongman is standing between Iraqis and the jihad... Maybe [US journalists will visit] when the bombing begins, and report from the Rasheed Hotel at the point when informing Americans will mean snagging footage of dead civilians -- instead of asking Cheney why isn't he more worried about nukes in Pakistan -- where the jihadis are actually in the army and intelligence?"

David Corn writes that Bush's "obsessive focus on Saddam Hussein, transformed the 9/11 recall-a-thon into a prep session for war. They have exploited a terrible event for their next crusade. And on their watch, the horror of that day has been used not to lessen the distance between America and the rest of the world but to increase it, as other nations recoil from and fear Bush's march to war. [A friend in Europe wrote]: "One year ago, everybody here was with the American people, suffering and sympathizing [with them]... Can the Bush administration be for one minute aware of the solidarity and sympathy capital it has wasted?...People here are more afraid of George Bush than of Saddam Hussein." Euro-hyperbole? Perhaps. But on the same day, Joseph Wilson... the last US official to meet with Saddam, also sent me an email and observed, 'It is criminal that the world now fears American jingoism more than Saddam.' Bush has tainted a tragedy."

Frank Rich writes, "Anyone who believes that Mr. Bush might turn back now has not been following the path of a resident who, by his own account, never second-guesses a decision... It might be best to focus less on procedural debates, such as the timing and wording of whatever rubber-stamp approval Congress will deliver, and more on the tougher questions the administration would prefer to ignore. What happens if Al Qaeda attacks the U.S., or if Afghanistan or Pakistan falls while we're at war in Iraq? Can we continue to meet all our commitments with an all-volunteer army? As budget deficits spiral into the foreseeable future, where will we get the tens of billions of dollars we need to support the post-Saddam Iraq that we will surely inherit? Is Saddam our new focus because he's the most catastrophic threat or is there another agenda that should be spelled out, whether it involves oil or unfinished Bush family business?"

Dr. Lev Grinberg writes, "If the Iraqi people suffer serious damage from the U.S., the majority of Arab nations will largely view using unconventional warfare on Israel as legitimate. There is also no doubt that if Israel were to be attacked by chemical or biological missiles, the majority of the Israeli public will support a nuclear strike on Iraq. Sharon will certainly take the chance to mass-deport Palestinians into Jordan, a move that the current IDF chief of staff recently hinted at when he defined the Palestinians as a 'cancer,' offering 'amputation' as a possible solution.The consequences of an American strike on Iraq would undoubtedly be a disaster to the entire Middle East... But we are stuck in the same 35-year-old problem: our government is run by messianic-nationalists and a war-craving military elite, who get support and encouragement from the extremist conservatives of the Bush administration. We are captives of the U.S., unable to say No."

In naming Scott Ritter its 'Person of the Week," Time writes: "The unkindest challenge to Bush's plans to take out Saddam Hussein this week came from erstwhile true-blue American hero Scott Ritter. Familiar to Americans as the rock-jawed Marine intelligence officer who stood up to Saddam's bullies in 1998 while serving with the UN inspection team... Ritter was back on America's TV screens this week, but with a dramatically different message: Bush had no proof of any new weapons of mass destruction threat emanating from Iraq, Ritter says, and he was lying to the American people to get them to go to war. Once a favorite guest of hawkish Republicans who regularly invited him to testify at congressional committees about the dangers of turning a blind eye to Iraq's weapons programs, this week Ritter was instead addressing the Iraqi legislature, decrying his own country's claims - and warning that readmitting inspectors was the only way to avoid a war."

Washington Post reports: "'Democrats waiting for the U.N. to act?' Bush asked with chuckle. 'I can't imagine an elected... member of the United States Senate or House of Representatives saying 'I think I'm going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision'.' Bush added, 'It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States.' Democratic leaders said the administration must provide lawmakers with more information on the threats posed by Saddam and U.S. plans for military strikes to remove the Iraqi president. They say that must take place before Congress considers a resolution in support of military action.' Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Friday, 'This is very serious business. Let's slow it down a bit.'" Bush's case is awfully weak when he contrives a taunt to pressure congressional deliberations!

Antonia Zerbisias writes that Scott Ritter "has been very vocal about what really led to UNSCOM's failure to complete its mission - a failure Ritter largely blames on Washington - and how weapons' inspectors must be allowed back in to avert what will certainly be a brutal, bloody war. He insists that, if the Bush administration has evidence showing that Saddam is building nukes, then the American people have a right to see it before they sacrifice their lives... 'As an American citizen, I have an obligation to speak out when I feel my government is acting in a manner which is inconsistent with the - with the principles of our founding fathers,' said Ritter. 'It's the most patriotic thing I can do... 'You show me where Saddam Hussein can be substantiated as a threat against the United States and I'll go to war again... No one has made a case based upon facts that Saddam Hussein or his government is a threat to the United States worthy of war.'"

On MSNBC's Phil Donahue show, former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark called Bush's UN speech "another step in the most dangerous course that our government has pursued in my lifetime. Dangerous and foolish and needless. And lawless... We hit that country with 110,000 aero sorties, 88,500 tons of bombs. We killed a couple hundred-thousand people...We killed more people every day for 42 days than died here on 9/11... with the sanctions, we killed a million and a half. Four to six times more each month for more than 10 years, died in Iraq as a direct result of US enforced sanctions on Iraq. Killing babies and children and elderly... UN inspectors were in there for eight and a half years. They claimed at the time that they found 90% of any remaining materials that could possibly be used in any weapons of mass destruction. In the bombing... we claimed to have destroyed 80%. So if you take 90% of the 20% that was remaining, you have 2% left."

Bush and his immoral war are bringing out the "best" in everyone. This week, the vultures are flapping around His Heinous as he desperately seeks to build a coalition that is beginning to look more like Saruman and the Orcs than respectable "allies." Chirac, who only won his recent election to keep a worse evil at bay, will pledge support in exchange for first crack at Iraqi oil. China wants Bush to add select dissidents to his "evildoer" fair game list, and Russia wants over 10 billion (U.S.) dollars and the right to persecute Georgian rebels in true Putin (remember Chechnya and Afghanistan?) style. What's next? Offering an "ally" first crack at the Iraqi "white slave" trade?

NY Times reports, "While the Bush administration has yet to decide whether to attack Iraq, rival ethnic groups in the north of that country are already squabbling over the spoils of any future war. Their focus is Kirkuk, a city with vast reserves of high-quality oil so close to the surface that in one area natural gas escaping from the ground has been on fire since antiquity. Iraq's Arabs control the city, but both ethnic Kurds and the Turkmen minority claim it as their own and all three groups want power over it and its oil if Saddam Hussein falls... The brewing battle suggests that any fighting inside Iraq will not end with Mr. Hussein's ouster and that the US may be drawn into mediating Iraqi factional disputes or risk unleashing a blood bath if it succeeds in unseating the current government. The dispute also puts the Bush administration between rival groups on whom it would have to depend in any war." Bush's Iraq war would be a farce - if thousands of lives were not at stake.

Bruce S. Ticker writes: "A confusing aspect of George W. Bush's crusade for war in Iraq is the timetable for congressional approval. The media reported that [Bush] wants Congress to vote for war authorization by Oct. 4, before the congressional recess begins and prior to the Nov. 5 midterm elections. How convenient. By the time the next Congress convenes in January, no matter which party is in control, the new Congress could be stuck with such a huge mess of a war it cannot reverse. Here's a better idea: Let Congress engage in a lengthy, substantive debate and follow this up with a non-binding referendum vote on Nov.5 open to all registered voters. We would not decide, but we would have a clear say. The vote need not be a simple 'yes' or 'no.' It could include a couple of options such as supporting an immediate war, attempting a diplomatic solution, a simple 'not sure' and other possible actions."

Nicholas Kristof writes, "For months there have been hints about intelligence that the administration supposedly has gathered about an imminent Iraqi threat and about links to terrorism. So it was deflating to hear again that Saddam is a monster whose regime tortures children in front of parents. All true - as it was a decade ago. Contrast Mr. Bush's appearance with a legendary moment at the UN. On Oct. 25, 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis, Ambassador Adlai Stevenson denounced the new Russian missile sites in Cuba. The Russians and Cubans scoffed that it was all a lie, so Stevenson brought in an easel and blown-up photos of the Cuban sites. Where is the comparable evidence of urgency today? ... Kennedy used the U.N. spotlight to offer specific, incontrovertible evidence of an urgent new threat - and then he opted not for an invasion of Cuba but for an internationally supported naval quarantine." So what's the difference between JFK and Bush? With Bush, all you ever get is Bushit.

Tom Gorman writes in Counterpunch, "Bush spoke to the UN General Assembly on Thursday, September 12 about the supposedly urgent need to attack Iraq. The following is a list of statements made by him that are either illogical, half-truths, or outright falsehoods, with responses to each."

The Times of London reports, "As Bush demanded action from the United Nations against Iraq, a US emissary was lobbying for support in Russia, the one member of the UN Security Council that might block approval for the use of force. John Bolton, the Undersecretary of State, was officially in Moscow to discuss non-proliferation, but officials said privately that Iraq was at the top of his agenda. A Russian veto would force the United States and Britain to reconsider their plans to oust President Saddam Hussein or to wage a lone military campaign against Iraq...Economic factors [BRIBES] will be a key argument, with a promise that Russia will be offered big contracts in the rebuilding of a postwar Iraq at the top of the list of incentives. The Soviet Union was largely responsible for the development of Iraq's military and industrial infrastructure and Russian firms would be well placed to help to modernise it once Saddam has gone."

James Ridgeway writes: "Behind the memorial candles and commercial remembrances lies one of the most astute marketing campaigns in American political history. This week, as the nation marks the first anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, the Bush administration will twist voters' outpouring of raw emotion and patriotic fervor into a launching pad for the inevitable invasion of Iraq. In a September 12 speech to the United Nations... Bush will further showcase his arguments for knocking off Saddam Hussein. Behind the scenes, his advisers have been torquing the arms of European leaders, who rightly have withheld approval. The White House is making a very bold gamble, one that has most of the world scared to death. Last week the U.S. stepped up its air attacks, sending 100 warplanes to bomb Iraq, which has been under intermittent siege since the end of Desert Storm in 1991. The Pentagon has continued to move ships, planes, and troops into the region."

David Corn writes that the Bushies say August "is an awful time to 'introduce new products'--such as a war. So [they] waited until back-to-school week to add the latest lyrics to its beating of the war drums... This whole operation has a fake air to it, for Bush and Dick Cheney have already talked themselves into a corner... With such rhetoric, the Bush administration has left itself with no option other than a military strike against Saddam... Bush may have one more chance with his UN speech... This is Texas-sized chutzpah. The Bush administration has repeatedly told the UN to get lost [and the] Bush gang has displayed little respect for the UN. Often when the UN has declared a priority, the Bush administration has dismissed the body's concern. [All this makes Bush's UN trip] something of a high-risk but mandatory charade."

Milton Viorst writes: "During the cold war, the futurists who studied world conflict had devised a clever name for such an event: the 'worst-case scenario.' Implied in this phrase, however, was the sense that the event was unlikely to happen... Forthrightness now demands that we gird not for some tepid end to our conflicts but for catastrophes hitherto unimaginable... Bush urges us to overlook that lesson...(he) is clearly choosing not to consider the worst-case scenario at all... Saddam Hussein blew up almost all of Kuwait's oil wells; in the next he could blow up Saudi Arabian wells, with significant repercussions for the international economy... All our presidents, Republican and Democratic alike, accepted the principle of avoiding a war that might wreck the planet. Mr. Bush is the first to question this principle, and his resolve is bolstered by... Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, both of whom close their eyes to the potential ramifications of a war with Iraq."

"Mr. Bush, let me quote some words of your own. These are not words from a distant past, or even before 9-11. These are the words you spoke just last night, looking straight into the camera, speaking to the people of America and the world, pretending to tell the truth: 'Our deepest national conviction is that every life is precious, because every life is the gift of a creator who intended us to live in liberty and equality. More than anything else, this separates us from the enemy we fight. We value every life; our enemies value none - not even the innocent; not even their own.' Mr. Bush, we know you did not write those words. But you read them. And their meaning is so utterly clear that even you can understand what they mean: Mr. Bush, your words mean killing is wrong. And since war is nothing but organized killing, war is wrong." So declared Bob Fertik in his speech at the United Nations on September 12.

Washington Post reports: "UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned today that launching a military campaign against Iraq without the support of the UN would be a grave mistake and a blow to international law, striking a defiant pose against the Bush administration on the eve of Bush's address to the UN General Assembly Bush plans to call for international action to topple Hussein, but US officials have made clear that the US is prepared to fight the Iraqi resident on its own. In his remarks, scheduled to be delivered shortly before Bush speaks, Annan is unequivocal that he -- along with a majority of UN member states -- favors a multilateral solution. 'Even the most powerful countries know that they need to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims. Every government that is committed to the rule of law at home must be committed also to the rule of law abroad. No country should reject cooperation as a simple matter of political convenience.'"

NY Daily News reports: "Donald Rumsfeld said that the US could fight - and win - multiple wars at the same time. Amid criticism that an Iraq invasion would leave American forces overextended, Rumsfeld said the US could handle Saddam Hussein, a deployment in Afghanistan and other threats. Responding to a hypothetical scenario, Rumsfeld said the US would have the firepower to respond even if China decided a US military strike against Iraq created an opportunity to invade Taiwan. 'We will have, and do have, a capability in the United States to provide for homeland defense, to undertake a major regional conflict and win decisively - including occupying a country and changing the regime if necessary - and simultaneously swiftly defeat another aggressor in another theater,' Rumsfeld told CBS's 'Face the Nation.' If the US attacked Iraq, Cheney said, he didn't think it would a tough fight, though it would be 'very costly' and would require a long-term commitment by US troops."

In an interview with Newsweek, Nelson Mandela offered to mediate the US-Iraq conflict. "The most catastrophic action of the United States was to sabotage the decision that was painstakingly stitched together by the United Nations regarding the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what [America] is saying is that if [they] are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, [they] can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms. And you will notice that France, Germany Russia, China are against this decision. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W. Bush's desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America."

William Rivers Pitt writes, "If Bush is pressed into a conflict with Iraq by the hawkish, neo-conservative platoon of Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney, America will once again suffer a catastrophic terrorist attack. The result will be the complete militarization of America, complete with martial law and the suspension of all basic civil rights... In the aftermath, the Bush administration will assuredly push for that region-wide regime change in the Middle East, but will be unable to do so without forced conscriptions, because the military is currently stretched too thin. Thus, the draft. Farfetched? Hardly. In fact, there is presently in Congress a bill pending that would require military conscription. H.R. 3598, entitled 'Universal Military and Training Act of 2001,' was introduced into the House of Representatives on Dec. 20th, 2001 by Republican Rep. Nick Smith of Michigan. It calls for the drafting of all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 22 for military service."

An anonymous Gulf War combat veteran writes, "With all the war fever about re-invading Iraq, the press and politicians are ignoring the opinion of the veterans of our last war in the Gulf. But we veterans were there, and we have unique and critical first-hand knowledge of the course and consequences of warfare in Iraq... Since 1990, more than 400 U.S. soldiers have died in the Gulf War theater of operations. Untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, both soldiers and civilians, also died. A second invasion of Iraq for one man is not worth one more life; let's use common sense and avert a second Gulf War."

WashPost reports, "Congressional Democrats said yesterday that classified briefings by Bush's top advisers have failed to make a compelling case for quick military action against Iraq, and several leaders said Congress should wait until after the November elections before voting to authorize a strike against Saddam Hussein's regime. 'I know of no information that the threat is so imminent from Iraq' that Congress cannot wait until January to vote on a resolution, said Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi (CA), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee. 'I did not hear anything today that was different about [Hussein's] capabilities,' save a few 'embellishments' ... Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) said: 'It would be a severe mistake for us to vote on Iraq with as little information as we have. This would be a rash and hasty decision' ... Because Democrats narrowly control the Senate, they could keep an Iraq resolution from reaching a vote this fall." Just Say No to Bush's Iraq War!

Only Tony Blair, Ariel Sharon and Kuwait's Sheikh Saad al-Abdulla al-Sab are supporting Bush in his war on Iraq. England is too far away to offer air bases, and the British public is overwhelmingly against the war. Sharon is now offering bases, but is so hated by the Arab world his involvement will fuel help to Iraq. Kuwait is offering its bases, but anti-Americanism is so rampant right now that there are regular protests in the streets. Worse yet, a new study shows that nearly 75% of the people - in the same country Bush Sr. "freed" from Saddam Hussein - view Osama Bin Laden as a "hero." Sounds like a great way to run a war, eh? Here's the solution: let's airdrop Bush, Blair, Sharon and Sab into Baghdad and let them take on Saddam, mano a mano!

It will be interesting to see if Bush "forgets" his promise to abide by the UN's decision on the Iraq issue. Remember that statement a week or two back? Because now, the UN's chief weapons inspector Hans Bix has determined there is no evidence from aerial photos or any other sources that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction or is trying to build them. Bix recommends the resumption of inspections - something Iraq offered recently and Bush rejected out of hand. Bush says the reason he rejected the inspections is because they won't prove anything. We suspect the real reason he rejected them is that they WILL prove something - ie., that Bush's claims about the weapons programs in Iraq are total fabrications.

Former TV anchor Walter Cronkite took the Defense Department to task Monday for pushing for a war with Iraq without providing the public with adequate evidence that the Iraqi regime is actually building weapons of mass destruction. Appearing on CNN's Larry King Live, Cronkite was asked how he would balance the government's need for security and the press's right to know. He replied: 'I don't balance it at all. I'd say the press has a right to know. The people have a right to know. Period.'" You go, Walter!

Jon Carroll writes: "So this is interesting, living in a nation governed by an oligarchy of men whose supreme self-confidence seems to be based entirely on self-delusion and, perhaps, morally questionable behavior in their previous jobs. They will do 'the right thing,' and they have an absolute monopoly on being able to discern and define 'the right thing.' Unlike the rest of us poor mortals, they know no doubt. Compared with the star chamber that runs our country now, the Inquisition was positively wishy-washy. One thing they will not be is 'swayed.' God forbid they should be 'swayed.' They have swayed themselves so many times in the past 12 months it makes an observer dizzy, but we're not supposed to notice that. Was it only 11 months ago that we were going to free Afghanistan from the grip of the Taliban and restore that nation to peace and prosperity? Taliban out of power, check; peace and prosperity, not really. Uneasy truce and grinding poverty would be closer to the mark."

The TimesofIndia.com reports: "Mohammed Atta consulted Saddam Hussein prior to leading the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, according to Richard Perle, an advisor to the US defense secretary. 'Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that, and we are sure he wasn't just there for a holiday' Perle told Italy's business daily Il Sole 24 Ore. 'The meeting is one of the motives for an American attack on Iraq,' added Perle, who is chairman of the Defense Policy Board and consultant to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a leading advocate of an attack on Iraq. 'The main objective of the American administration is to avoid weapons of mass destruction falling into the wrong hands,' said Perle." As Tom Tomorrow asks: "The administration has proof that the 9/11 hijackers met with Saddam and they're not shouting it out from the highest rooftop? Instead a surrogate just happens to mention it casually in an interview?" Bushit!

"As it makes its case against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration has for now dropped what had been one of the central arguments presented by supporters of a military campaign against Baghdad: Iraq's links to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Although administration officials say they are still trying to develop a strong case tying Hussein to global terrorism, the CIA has yet to find convincing evidence despite having combed its files and redoubled its efforts to collect and analyze information related to Iraq... [Analysts] cannot validate two prominent allegations made by high-ranking administration officials: links between Hussein and al Qaeda members who have taken refuge in northern Iraq and an April 2001 meeting in Prague between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent." In other words, it was all Bushit.

P.M. Carpenter writes "Throughout August we, the people, called for a national debate over invading, warring, and occupying. Last Wednesday the president seemed to finally agree: "We look forward to an open dialogue with Congress and the American people," he told reporters after briefing congressional leaders. The next day, however, he let it be known that "one thing is for certain. I'm not going to change my view." So much for debate. In the administration's thinking, "open dialogue" is a rhetorical plaything at best, a nuisance to be tolerated at worst. The rest of the universe may think debate and dialogue mean deliberation; Bush II sees them as so much rubbish to be exploited at its convenience."

While Team Bush claims a united front against Iraq, "U.S. Middle East envoy retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni urged caution on Sunday in dealing with Iraq, saying the potential impact of military action on Israel, relationships with key allies and the war on terrorism had to be carefully weighed... Zinni said that while he believed Iraq Resident Saddam Hussein was a 'cancer' in the region, the case had yet to be made that the time was right to remove him. 'We have a number of issues on the table that we have to deal with. I'm fond of a phrase that says 'Always shoot the wolf on the sled first',' Zinni said, adding his voice to those of U.S. lawmakers and world leaders who have demanded evidence that Iraq poses an immediate threat. 'We've got enough wolves on the sled to shoot; let's not be popping some off in the woodline if we don't need to, unless we're absolutely sure it's necessary... Politicians make mistakes, soldiers pay for those mistakes with their blood,' Zinni added."

Peace Action writes, "As we prepare to honor the victims of September 11, our government prepares for a war on Iraq that will make us less safe, not more. The Bush administration and Congress are anticipating an attack on Iraq, even though Iraq has not attacked us, and we have no evidence that the Iraqi government plans do so. American intelligence agencies have confirmed that there is no evidence that Iraq or Saddam Hussein were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks on the US. On the days preceding the anniversary of the horrific September 11 attacks, we must put forward a call to Congress: no more innocent victims - whether they be American, Afghan, Iraqi or any nationality. Tell your Representative and Senators: an attack on Iraq will not make Americans safer. It will de-stabilize the Middle East and increase anti-American sentiments. We need a foreign policy based on the force of law, not the law of force. Call 202-224-3121.

On 8-27-02, Amy Goodman hosted a debate on Democracy Now, where the Pentagon was actually challenged about its official lies. Here's an excerpt. Pentagon: "The United States did not agree at the end of the Gulf War to comply to UN Security Council resolutions."—spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel David Lapan. Ramsey Clark (to Pentagon): "You don't care about these dead people. You didn't hit Saddam Hussein, you hit Iraqi people. They hadn't hurt anybody. They hadn't done anything. You've done it time and time again and you know it."

As the days go on, we are learning more and more that it was America's Favorite Right-Wing Hero, Ronald Reagan, who removed Saddam Hussein from the terrorist list, and sold him billions of dollars worth of biological and chemical weapons, even knowing that he was using them on the Kurds and Iran. Now we find that AFTER THE GULF WAR, Britain sold Iraq pralidoxine, a drug which can be turned into nerve gas. Once again the Bush crew made large sums of money making the enemy, and are clearly profiting from destroying the enemy, while endangering every American. Where is the outrage?

Rick Fulton writes, "Let us look to those who would be our leaders in the year and more after the attack, and require them to clearly and plainly state their views regarding how to meet another such event, before they get our vote. That is not happening. Instead of localizing the threat we get empire building, and we find there are blustering bullies out in the schoolhouse play yard who want to change the rules of the game. What we need are candidates wanting to be State Governors and State Legislators, and Members of Congress, who will cut to the chase, and tell us what they truly think about the way things are, and about what needs to be done. That is what we need -- some honest dialogue about a very grave situation -- and what was lacking in the primary just past. And most of all, in the future, we need political leadership that doesn't need to reach for a dictionary when it comes to the kind of words we all want to describe our country and our government."

Detroit Free Press reports, "Senior U.S. officials with access to top secret intelligence about Iraq said they have detected no alarming increase in the threat posed to U.S. security and regional stability by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein... There are no indications that Iraq has obtained the plutonium or enriched uranium needed for a nuclear bomb. Nor [is] Iraq poised to unleash chemical or biological weapons against Israel or other countries in the region... The officials insisted on anonymity because of ... an apparent desire not to be seen as disputing administration policy. None of the officials said they were critical of the Bush administration's stance... Evidence actually suggests that Hussein has been careful to keep Al Qaeda at arm's length to avoid giving Bush an excuse to invade Iraq... Hussein is more concerned with eliminating any domestic threat to his grip on power and ensuring that he is succeeded by one of his two sons, Uday and Qusai."

"Scott Ritter, a former U.N. arms inspector who rejects U.S. charges that Baghdad is developing weapons of mass destruction, said in Baghdad Sunday it would be a 'historical mistake' for Washington to attack Iraq. [Ritter] defied his government to substantiate its claim that Baghdad was producing prohibited weapons and posed a threat to its neighbors. Ritter, who for seven years was a member of the U.N. body in charge of dismantling Iraq's weapons, urged Baghdad to let U.N. weapons inspectors return without conditions. 'My country seems to be on the verge of making a historical mistake,' Ritter told Iraq's parliament, in reference to a possible U.S. attack on Iraq... 'The rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my government has not, to date, been backed by hard facts that substantiate any allegations that Iraq is today in possession of weapons of mass destruction or has links to terror groups responsible for September 11 attacks on the United States,' Ritter said."

Andrew Rawnsley writes in the Sunday Observer, "The 'blood price' is... one of those vivid phrases by which leaders define themselves. Should the bill for a war against Saddam Hussein prove to be extremely bloody indeed that quote will haunt Tony Blair for the rest of his days. It is already being turned against him by those who remind the Prime Minister that it won't be his red corpuscles staining the sand; the blood will be paid by Iraqi civilians and British troops. How much more indelible will be the blood on his lips in the event of a disastrous outcome in the desert... Harold Wilson resisted a great deal of bullying by LBJ and refused to send British troops to fight the Vietcong. By vigorously assenting to the phrase in the context of war against Iraq, Mr Blair takes ownership of the idea, along with responsibility for it."

ABCNews.com theorizes:
"1. The military stuff is ready to go, and the White House wants the flexibility to attack this year, and they realized that Congress is leaving town at some point.
2. The White House thinks the pressure of the upcoming election will make the vote more likely to go their way.
3. The administration believes that doing it now will help Republicans in the election.
4. They felt they were losing the debate, leaving the field to Hagel, Scowcroft, et al, and they figured that if they ever were going to start making the case, now was the time to also get Congress on board.
5. Leveraging off of the looming September 11 anniversary makes the vote more likely to go their way, with Bush getting the UN stage.
6. Assuming (Bush) hasn't actually made up his mind, the administration can ask for a vaguely worded resolution, which will be easier to pass than an authorization specifically calling for military action."

Dear Senator Kerry: There comes a time when the stakes are too high to let mere civility and trust decide. In the case of Iraq and war, we have come to one of those times. For months the Bush administration has been planning and preparing for war. They are so certain that they will be able to make war on Iraq that they have made many force deployments from which it will be hard to step back. They have even stepped up the low-level state of war that has existed with Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. They have already ignored and bypassed Congress. For months the Bush administration has been trying to make the case for war. For months they have been searching for any evidence that can be offered that shows that war is justified. In spite of the monumental immorality of doing so without justification, they continue to bluster for war—and take those concrete first steps that are in fact the opening of a state of war.

Mark Shields says, "the Administration made a serious strategic mistake and has made [it throughout this campaign. Bush talked tough] before he enlisted any support on Capitol Hill or any support in the country for his policies. So now he is backing up. [These] people are the American people. It isn't a group, the Council of Foreign Relations. [In August our elected representatives heard] more and more questions, nervousness, anxiety, are we going to go alone? [Americans have lost] enthusiasm for this. Yes they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Right. How about if it means going alone, how about if it means x casualties, how about if it means the United States not only does all the fighting and the suffering, picks up the entire cost and the United States is there for the rebuilding? Where are our allies in this? I mean when -- support erodes... when the prospect of the United States doing this as the Lone Ranger starts to emerge."

This summer US armed forces rehearsed for an invasion of Iraq. "Officially, America won and a rogue state was liberated... What really happened is quite another story, one that has set [off alarm bells] and raised questions over the US military's readiness for an Iraqi invasion. In fact, this war game was won by Saddam Hussein... In the first few days of the exercise, using surprise and unorthodox tactics, the [Saddam team sank most of the US fleet, and brought the assault to a halt.] Faced with an abrupt and embarrassing end to the most expensive and sophisticated military exercise in US history, the Pentagon... ordered their dead troops back to life and 'refloated' the sunken fleet. Then they instructed the enemy forces to look the other way as their marines performed amphibious landings. [Van Riper's driving concern] is that when the real fighting starts, American troops will be sent into battle with a set of half-baked tactics that have not been put to the test."

Mark Steel writes, "So they've got the evidence, about the weapons of mass destruction, but we can't see it just yet. Is it still at the printers? Is it being held up by a row about how you spell 'aflatoxin'? Perhaps there's a problem with the plot, and the scriptwriters are refusing to let it go. [It could be] because the warmongers are failing to win public opinion, they're suddenly cobbling together 'evidence'. And there will be piles of it. Just like the stories of Germans raping nuns in 1914 and Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators in 1990, admitted as lies once those wars were over. There will be grainy film of Saddam chucking kittens in canals and crackly tape of him threatening to ruin David Beckham's hair."

Scott Peterson writes: "When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf…part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia. Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier. But when the St. Petersburg Times… acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area... no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert. "It was a pretty serious fib," says Jean Heller, the Times journalist who broke the story. The White House is now making its case to Congress and the public for another invasion of Iraq… But past cases of bad intelligence or outright disinformation used to justify war are making experts wary. The questions they are raising… highlight the importance of accurate information when a democracy considers military action."

"The [Australian] Government has accused Brisbane Lord Mayor Jim Soorley of trivialising the 'Iraqi issue' in an anti-war website that lampoons George W. Bush as a gung-ho sheriff happy to take Australian lives. The controversial website was launched by Cr Soorley yesterday in front of images of Resident Bush interposed with pictures of chimpanzees. It attacks the 'self-anointed' leader of the free world for running rough-shod over international law and morality in his pursuit of Saddam Hussein. It also accuses the Federal Government of being sycophantic in its 'blind support' of the US. Cr Soorley said the website was created to give Australians opposed to the looming war in the Middle East a voice. It was not funded by Brisbane ratepayers. Asked if the website defamed (Bush), Cr Soorley said he hoped Mr Bush sued. 'George Bush defames himself every time he opens his mouth. He does not need my web page,' he said."

Wayne Saunders writes: "For starters we must go offshore... to a piece entitled, 'Iraq: In all but name, the war's on,' by Marc Erikson in the Asia Times, published August 17. He notes that back in January, when Bush began talking about 'regime change' in Iraq, he signed an intelligence order directing the CIA to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. (As a footnote, this violates U.S. law, but as expected there was very little ballyhoo about that.)... So the war is on, begun in cloaked fashion... during the dog days of summer... Historically, 'The Guns of August' is not exactly an original, and yet in the age of instant global communication, one marvels at the truly Orwellian performance. It advances under a barrage of distortions, half-truths, and outright lies unleashed daily in order to justify blatant aggression. The White House knows there is no proof linking Iraq to the events of September 11, and they know the anthrax attacks were, mysteriously, domestic."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein writes, "I just returned from a trip to Europe... I was shocked at how dramatically perceptions in Europe have shifted since September 11 toward our country. All of the sympathy and concern we received in the wake of the terrorist attacks has apparently vanished, replaced by the sense that the US is becoming an arrogant and aggressive power, a nation that simply gives orders, a nation that neither listens nor hears... Much attention was given to the absence of Presidential participation at the Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. And this, on top of our rejection of the Kyoto treaty, our casting of aspersions on international accords such as the International Criminal Court, the Anti-Ballistic Missile and Landmine treaties, has led to a growing belief... that the US is using its power in an increasingly unilateral and somewhat arrogant manner. Above all, there is our approach to Iraq and our perceived readiness to invade that nation unilaterally."

"President Bill Clinton urged the Bush administration Thursday to finish the job with Osama bin Laden before taking on Iraq. 'Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on Sept. 11,' Clinton said. 'Osama bin Laden did, and as far as we know he's still alive.'...Clinton...said news reports citing American officials say the al-Qaida network remained a threat. 'I also believe we might do more good for American security in the short run at far less cost by beefing up our efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere to flesh out the entire network,' Clinton said. He told people the real concern in Iraq was Hussein's possible use of stockpiled chemical and biological weapons. The former president reminded the audience of Hussein's propensity to use the weapons in the past, citing an attack on the Kurds and the Iran-Iraq war. 'He has maximum incentive not to use this stuff,' Clinton said. 'If we go, he has maximum incentive to use it because he knows he's going to lose.'"

Former UK Cabinet Minister Mo Mowlam writes, "Since September 11, however, it has become increasingly apparent to the US administration that the Saudi regime is vulnerable. Both on the streets and in the leading families, including the royal family, there are increasingly anti-western voices. Osama bin Laden is just one prominent example...The possibility of the world's largest oil reserves falling into the hands of an anti-American, militant Islamist government is becoming ever more likely - and this is unacceptable. The Americans know they cannot stop such a revolution. They must therefore hope that they can control the Saudi oil fields, if not the government. And what better way to do that than to have a large military force in the field at the time of such disruption. In the name of saving the west, these vital assets could be seized and controlled. No longer would the US have to depend on a corrupt and unpopular royal family to keep it supplied with cheap oil."

Even as Bush was on TV promising to consult Congress before invading Iraq, "About 100 American and British aircraft took part in an attack on Iraq's major western air defence installation yesterday in the biggest single operation over the country for four years. The raid appeared to be a prelude to the type of special forces operations that would have to begin weeks before a possible American-led war. It was launched two days before a war summit between George W Bush and Tony Blair in America. [Blair] promised that Britain would be alongside the Americans 'when the shooting starts'. The raid seemed designed to destroy air defences to allow easy access for special forces helicopters to fly into Iraq via Jordan or Saudi Arabia to hunt down Scud missiles before a possible war within the next few months... In a further sign that America was preparing for war, a Pentagon official confirmed that heavy armour, ammunition and other equipment had been moved to Kuwait from huge stores in Qatar."

CNN reports: "A U.S. war against Iraq would 'open the gates of hell' in the Middle East, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said on Thursday. Speaking at the end of an Arab League foreign ministers' meeting in Cairo, Moussa urged Iraq to allow U.N. weapons inspections to resume in a bid to head off a U.S. attack. But he warned, 'No Arab country will accept any strike on any other Arab country.' The statement comes a day after...George W. Bush met senior members of Congress to discuss possible U.S. action against Iraq. The United States accuses Iraq of trying to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions dating back to the 1991 Persian Gulf War."

Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-IL) writes, "Even if we launch a pre-emptive attack and succeed in a regime change, ending the Iraqi threats, and even impeding terrorism, will it be worth the cost and proportionate? What will it cost in American lives and treasure? In innocent Iraqi lives, including women and children? In potentially destabilizing the region? In reconstructing Iraq? Will there be an American presence in Iraq for 10, 20, or 30 years trying to reconcile the Kurds in the North, the Shiites in the South, and the Sunnis in central Iraq? And if we choose to 'go it alone,' what will be the cost of lost U.S. respect and influence in the world for failing to have a decent respect for the opinion of mankind? Finally, would our 'recovering' economy be able to withstand the likely spike in oil prices and resulting negative economic impact at home as a result of such an invasion - such as even higher budget deficits, slower growth, and higher unemployment for a longer period of time?"

"CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks... With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted 'best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.' – meaning Saddam Hussein – 'at same time. Not only UBL' – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden. Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld. 'Go massive,' the notes quote him as saying. 'Sweep it all up. Things related and not.'"

Nelson "Mandela, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who spent more than two decades in prison, said Bush was not available when the former South African president called to discuss the Bush administration's threats to mount a unilateral invasion of Iraq... Blowing off Mandela is just the latest example of George W. Bush's unwillingness – or inability – to engage the rest of the world in a discussion about his administration's international agenda... More than a year and a half into his presidency, Bush seems less -- not more -- engaged about the domestic and international issues pressing in upon the country. One of the few recent interviews in which he seems to have cared about the topic under discussion was his commentary about his exercise regimen with a running magazine." So writes ConsortiumNews.com

Northwestern political science professor Karen J. Alter writes: "Ten years from now, will we be looking back asking: 'How could the U.S. have thought that an unprovoked preventative war on Iraq could succeed? The signs of danger were so clear and ominous. How could America's leadership not have seen that the impossibility of accomplishing the mission through air power would lead to levels of American casualties not seen since the Vietnam War? How could our leaders have failed to anticipate that an oil shock and deficit spending for war would plunge the U.S. and world economies into a major recession? How could the Bush administration be so focused on getting rid of Saddam Hussein that it failed to create a workable policy to shape a post-Hussein Iraq?' The most compelling way to answer these questions will be to apply the late Irving Janis' insights on 'groupthink.'"

Stanley Hoffmann writes "The coherence and consistency that the war [on terror] was supposed to lend U.S. foreign policy have not materialized. The attempts to link Saddam Hussein's Regime to 9-11 and other terrorist plots have failed; a rationale for attacking him had to be sought elsewhere. The administration is still looking for a convincing one... Deterrence worked well against the Soviet Union, a much more potent and, at one point, malevolent adversary. If applied consistently, energetically and with the support of allies, deterrence could still work against Iraq. Replacing deterrence and collective humanitarian efforts with unilateral, preemptive intervention is a license for chaos. [Bush's multiple, half-baked rationales for action against Iraq have alienated allies and inflamed adversaries. Imperial hubris further isolates] the United States just when it needs allies most."

William Galston writes "The Bush administration's goal of regime change is the equivalent of our World War II aim of unconditional surrender, and it would have similar postwar consequences... This would require an occupation measured in years or even decades. Whatever our intentions, nations in the region (and elsewhere) would view our continuing presence through the historical prism of colonialism. [The Bushies argue that overthrowing Saddam will shift the political balance in our favor throughout the Middle East -- Palestinians included. But our intelligence services do not inspire optimism. If Islamic radicals take over Pakistan we exchange] a dangerous regime seeking nuclear weapons for an even more dangerous regime that possesses them... Even a relatively short war would likely produce an oil-price spike that could tip the fragile global economy into recession. [The cost will be] $60 billion for the war and $15 billion to $20 billion per year for the occupation."

The people of Iraq do not want the Bush invasion to bomb and destroy Iraq and kill thousands of innocent civilians. The people of the United States do not want to send their sons and daughters to Iraq to kill thousands of innocent civilians. How can we use the Internet to stop Bush's War against Iraq? This forum is an experiment in direct people-to-people communications, as an alternative to government-vs-government war. The future of humanity may depend upon the success of efforts like this. We invite Iraqi citizens to participate! (This is an Open Forum - registration is not required).

James Webb asks do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years? Richard Armitage "brought a conciliatory gesture from [Bush that was an 'astonishing' bit of appeasement. One day later] the Chinese government sent its own political signal by 'test-firing' a [missile] designed to attack U.S. military bases on Guam. The implied disrespect of this incident did not occur in a vacuum... As our country remains obsessed with Saddam Hussein, other nations [are positioning for Bush's war and its aftermath.] America's best military leaders know that they are accountable to history not only for how they fight wars, but also for how they prevent them. [With Iraq, two realities have been lost in the debate about Saddam. The first] is that wars often have unintended consequences... The second is that a long-term occupation of Iraq would beyond doubt require an adjustment of force levels elsewhere, and could eventually diminish American influence in other parts of the world."

Marc Cooper writes that on the eve of the Gulf War, it was hard to "think that anyone would rise to defend Saddam or his wretched regime. And yet... I couldn't think of one single justification for waging war against this nation or its people. And now, as Bush the Second noisily threatens to finish the job that Poppy pooped out on, I find even less justification, if that's possible... We can be chums with the nuclear-armed Chinese Stalinists who hold public executions of petty criminals... We contained the Soviets and their arsenal for 50 years, but we can't figure out a way to deal with Saddam short of invasion? When it becomes so patently obvious that the administration's warmongering stems not at all from any authentic security concerns but rather from cold and cynical domestic political calculation, why is there no clear and steadfast anti-war opposition? [A poll shows that] by a 52-37 margin, ordinary Dems don't think removing Saddam is worth the trouble."

George Hesselberg of Wisconsin State Journal writes, "Isn't it odd that government leadership is so rabidly intent on invading Iraq that it appears more attention is being paid to overthrowing a nation's psyche (our own) by zealous public relations than accumulating any solid evidence such an invasion is necessary? ... We wait and wait for someone in charge to ask: Invade Iraq? Are you nuts? We wait and wait for the media to stop showing deference and start showing some defiance. ... Is it a measure of cynicism if we think that this is an attempt to take everyone's attention away from endemic regulator-ignored corporate criminality? Or to keep people from noticing that a human-rights-stomping religious fanatic may be running the Justice Department?"

Brendan O'Neill writes that Alex Standish, editor of Jane's Intelligence Digest "thinks US intelligence officials are making 'a big mistake' on Iraq... 'You can think whatever you like about Saddam', says Standish, 'but he's not so foolish that he would threaten his own region's stability by financing the extreme and violent likes of al Qaeda. Yet in the face of a complete absence of serious evidence, intelligence officials are suggesting that Saddam might one day provide al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction'... According to Standish, the desire for regime change could backfire in the end. 'In Iraq there is no guarantee that if we topple Saddam we will get the regime we want. There is likely to be great instability - and possibly even an Iranian-style revolution in Iraq, which would have unquantifiable consequences.'"

Former Iraq weapons inspector (and Marine) Scott Ritter writes, "There is an increasing consensus that if there exists a case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration has, to date, failed to make it. Speculation... does not suffice as evidence worthy of military intervention. The consequences of war with Iraq are far-reaching and potentially disastrous... If a case cannot be made on national security grounds, then one must consider the real possibility that the administration's drive for war with Iraq is being pursued in support of a domestic political agenda, something that should concern all Americans, regardless of political affiliation. The brave men and women in our armed forces have demonstrated their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice so that our democracy can be preserved. To ask them to do so in support of politically driven motives would not only disrespect those to whom we look for protection, but also dishonor American democracy."

Karen Alter writes, "Drawing on psychological studies of [groupthink -- group decision-making] -- the pressures of like-minded people deciding as a group lead to a deterioration of mental reasoning, reality testing and moral judgment. In short, groupthink leads to a complete breakdown of critical thinking. The Bush administration's foreign policy team manifests all the symptoms of groupthink: *illusions of invulnerability leading to the taking of extreme risks; *collective efforts to rationalize... *stereotyped views of enemy leaders... *an unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality... *self-appointed mind guards emerging to protect the group from advice... *self-censorship by people with views deviating from the apparent group consensus, creating an illusion of unanimity." Good Morning, Viet Nam!

Frank Rich writes that George W Bush is in a box of his own making. If he doesn't attack now, "he will destroy his own credibility and hurt the country's. But if he does, he is in another bind. [He] needs the support of the American people unless he wants to mimic another hubristic Texan president who took a backdoor [to] pre-emptive warfare. 'An all-out attack on Iraq will entail a level of risk and sacrifice that the U.S. has not assumed since Vietnam,' wrote the author of 'Black Hawk Down.' [Support for war is falling -- from 70% to 51%. Only 40% approve] significant American casualties. But let's posit that the Iraq drumbeating is not a cynical effort to distract the country -- [Why dither, allowing Saddam to lay his traps?] Is it that Mr Bush doesn't trust the evidence against Saddam, or is it that he doesn't trust us? [The war cannot be done on the cheap. Does Bush -- who] has asked us for no larger sacrifice than longer waits at the airport have the guts to tell us this?"

Dispatch from Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark's Peace Delegation in Iraq: "A U.S. anti-war delegation traveling through Iraq has visited areas that have been targeted by this week's U.S. bombing campaign. The delegation -- stationed at Baghdad's Al-Rasheed hotel until the end of the week -- was in Basra on Tuesday. Basra is Iraq's second largest city and suffered a major bomb attack on Sunday morning August 25th. Eight people died and many civilians were injured, some seriously...Ramsey Clark issued the following statement: '...People in the United States must recognize that the war against Iraq goes on every day as the Bush administration prepares for a major land and ground war.'"

Bill Davis writes: "According to Thomas Merton, they want it. They want war. It's not that they want peace and a better way of life for the Iraqi people blah, blah. It's not that they want security and freedom for us. They want the war. As if they have a chip, not on their shoulder but in their brains and it is programmed for war... War is not, as Rumsfeld told a sea of soldiers in camouflage, a difficult means to a positive end... for the likes of Rumsfeld, war is the end. It is their moment to do the irresistible. They have strong-armed their way to the top and now they can have what they want even as they say they wish they didn't have to want it. Yes - those of us who are more suspicious of their stated motives can say it's about oil and neo-colonialism. [But the intoxicating pull of war is what drives the Bushies]. Like drunkards - war is the apple of their bloodshot eyes."

John Tirman writes that Bush Jr. long ago set his sites on Saddam to avenge Bush Sr's failure. "But it is inconceivable that a war against Iraq today could have been mounted willy-nilly without the pretext of fighting terrorism. The so-called Bush Doctrine holds that the United States [can attack a country if it harbors terrorists or even thinks about terrorist acts]. Bush bootlickers in the press have tried to make the case that al-Qaeda has clear operational links to Saddam, but that is dismissed by serious analysts (and the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board)... How to deal with this menace without a catastrophic war is for another time, but we can easily draw two immediate conclusions: (1) a war on Iraq would inflame Islamic and Arab radicalism, possibly bringing down regimes from Amman to Cairo; and (2) war talk would not be occurring without the emotional facade of the 'war on terrorism' and the daily drumbeat of threats to which we are now subjected."

Dilip Hiro reports: "It is suddenly de rigueur for US officials to say, 'Saddam Hussein gassed his own people.' They are evidently referring to the Iraqi military's use of chemical weapons [against the Iraqi Kurds.] Since Baghdad's deployment of chemical arms in war as well as peace was known at the time, the question is: What did the US government do about it then? Nothing. Worse, so strong was the hold of the pro-Iraq lobby on the Republican administration of President Ronald Reagan, it succeeded in getting the White House to frustrate the Senate's attempt to penalize Baghdad for violating the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons, which it had signed. This led Saddam to believe that Washington was firmly on his side--a conclusion that paved the way for his invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War, the full consequences of which have yet to play themselves out."

CNN.com reports: "Former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton urged the Bush administration to use caution before any military action against Iraq...'I have personal faces I can put on this debate, and I want to be sure that [Bush] comes with his arguments and information and evidence and that we debate it, and then as a nation we'll stand behind the decision,' she said while attending a state fair in upstate New York...The former president said the U.S. military could easily win an attack on Iraq and displace its leader, Saddam Hussein, but he questioned whether it should be done. .. 'You don't do things just because you can.'" But an oil man who stands to profit by an enriched inheritance from his father's Carlyle Group War profiteering and cronies' corporate seizure of rich oil fields by military plundering might!

David Corn writes: "With all this war-talk, Bush is placing himself in a corner, where the only option can be war... It didn't have to be this way. No one forced Bush to extend his war on terrorism to a crusade against a global axis of evil and a campaign targeting a dictator so far unconnected to the 9/11 attacks... He has unwisely put his credibility at stake. This is reminiscent of the situation in which the United States found itself during Vietnam. [In the Nixon era], Henry Kissinger argued that Washington had to hang tough in 'Nam to preserve Washington's credibility... But with the risks being so high, Bush has proceeded recklessly by foreclosing all options but war... Bush and Cheney are practicing no-way-out geopolitics. He's not patient. He's eager. His words and those of his underlings -- even if confusing at moments -- have set the course for war."

This week, Dick Cheney exploited the patriotism of veterans to promote the Bush's administration's plans to invade Iraq. We have heard from a number of Democrats.com members who are opposed to Bush's Iraq War, and who resent Cheney's appearances before groups of veterans - especially since Cheney had "better things to do" when young men his age were fighting and dying in Vietnam. If you are involved with veterans and would like to organize public opposition to Bush's war, we encourage you to post your thoughts here.

"Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark urged the United Nations on Thursday to act to prevent an assault on Iraq, saying that a military attack on Baghdad could breed more violence. Clark, who said earlier that a strike against Iraq would be a 'massive crime against all international law,' served as attorney general under President Lyndon Johnson at the height of the Vietnam War. 'The United Nations must act to prevent an attack by the United States against Iraq,' Clark told a news conference in Baghdad. 'A U.S. assault on Iraq will cause more and greater violence,' he said, calling for urgent action. If the U.N. is unable to restrain the U.S. it should at least express publicly opposition to any attack or an attempt to overthrow the Iraqi government, he said. Clark has been a vocal opponent of U.S. policy on Iraq and the U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. He arrived in Baghdad earlier this week 'out of concern' over a possible attack."

"Bush should ask Congress for authorization before launching an attack against Iraq, two Democrats said Thursday as the administration struggled in its push for international backing. 'The administration should not expect to commit American troops to war with a wink and a nod to Congress,' said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'There should be a full debate and a vote. That is what the Constitution prescribes, and that is what the American people expect.' And Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said nothing short of formal approval would be acceptable. 'The Constitution says that Congress has the sole power to declare war," Feingold said in an interview. Not doing so, he said, "is an affront to Congress and to the American people.' The Bush administration takes the position it needs nothing beyond the consent Congress gave for the 1990-1991 war on Iraq to liberate Kuwait."

Boston Globe's James Carroll writes, "The nation is beholding something that can only be called weird... In the beginning, the justification for 'regime change' in Baghdad was entirely a matter of the threat Hussein represents but no more. Now the justification includes protecting the integrity of threat. We have to go to war now because we said we would. Language is no longer an expression of purpose but the shaper of purpose. The United States, in fact, is in a crisis of language. This is what it means to have a [faux] president who, proudly inarticulate, has no real understanding of the relationship between words and acts, between rhetoric and intention... As a candidate, Bush openly displayed his willful illiteracy. At a loss for words, and proud of it. Many voters were charmed. Others were appalled. Few understood, however, that this abdication of leadership by the intelligent use of language would be dangerous to democracy at home, a grievous threat to peace abroad."

Rev. Moon's UPI reports: "The United States, faced with a survey by diplomats showing widespread foreign skepticism about their motives, is planning a public relations offensive to build international support among foreign opinion leaders for a war against Iraq. The Iraq Public Diplomacy Group, a U.S. interagency task force...includes representatives from the CIA, National Security Council, Pentagon, State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development,...The survey (reveals)...that a full 68 percent of newspaper editorials in NATO countries and Australia analyzed oppose military action against Iraq. In the analysis of Western European editorials, the report says, 'Many sources worried that a military campaign to oust Hussein would trigger a storm of indignation in the Middle East.'...The Bureau of Intelligence and Research's Media Reaction Branch analyzed 211 editorials and op-ed pieces from 163 overseas media in 56 countries..."

"In a further blow to Washington's effort to get global support for a possible war on Iraq, Beijing has indicated it is against the use of force to resolve Baghdad's differences with the West. Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan told visiting Iraqi counterpart Naji Sabri on Tuesday that using force or threats of force could not solve the Iraqi problem and 'would only cause regional tension and instability.' The official China News Service on Wednesday quoted Tang as saying questions about Iraq should only be resolved within United Nations mechanisms, and 'only political and diplomatic methods should be used.' Tang added Beijing was concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people who had lived under conditions of Western embargoes for a long time. However, Tang also asked Sabri to cooperate with UN-arranged inspections of weapons development programs in Iraq."

Check out the body language in the photo at this link. Who is in the dominant position, with the firm hands of an adult wanting answers? Whose hands and facial expression suggest he is a pleading little boy? "With tensions high over a possible U.S. attack on Iraq,...Bush conferred for a little over an hour Tuesday with Saudi Arabia's ambassador at his Texas ranch...Ari Fleischer told reporters Bush 'made very clear again' to envoy Prince Bandar bin Sultan that he thinks Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is 'a menace to world peace.' Bush stressed that he has not yet made any decision on whether to order an attack...The ranch invitation was a conciliatory gesture that follows a series of flare-ups in U.S.-Saudi relations, including a recommendation from a private defense analyst to a Pentagon advisory board that the Arab ally be given an ultimatum to stop supporting terrorism or face retaliation." (Btw, through Bandar, Saudi Arabia gave $32 million towards the Reagan-Bush illegal Contra War.)

When public opinion is against G.W. Bush does he 1. Listen receptively to the will of the people? 2. Consult open-mindedly with representatives from Congress, other nations, and citizens groups? 3. Enter into intensive diplomatic negotiations with Iraq? Or 4. Teach Iraqi provocateurs how to lie, cheat and spin? If you guessed LIE, CHEAT AND SPIN you'd be right! This week, instead of even thinking about 1 through 3, Bush is bringing 17 Iraqi "dissidents" (ex CIA-trained provocateurs, perhaps?) to Washington for propaganda lessons - all at taxpayer expense, of course. More laughable still is the fact that the Bush folks are spinning their spin, by calling their propaganda classes lessons "in the art of spin," which is merely "part of a broader public diplomacy effort to influence decision-makers around the globe." Once Bush has been impeached, he has a bright future in multilevel marketing scams...or perhaps used car sales.

"Lawyers for pResident Bush have concluded he can launch an attack on Iraq without new approval from Congress, in part because they say that permission remains in force from the 1991 resolution giving Bush's father authority to wage war in the Persian Gulf...Critics of [Bush's] expansive view of presidential power include some leading conservatives. 'George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt never claimed war powers close to what Bush is claiming,' said Bruce Fein, a constitutional scholar...Michael J. Glennon, an international law professor at Tufts..., specifically questioned the administration's reliance on the Gulf War resolution. He said that authority 'was narrowly circumscribed and was directed at reversing the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.' Glennon said the authority apparently ended on April 6, 1991, when Iraq formalized a cease-fire with...the U.N...'Once extinguished, the authority did not revive when Iraq failed to comply with its obligations.'"

Molly Ivins writes, "Under the new Bush doctrine of 'unilaterally determined pre-emptive self-defense,' we get to go around attacking anyone we want without provocation. Not so much as a 'Remember the Maine!' or a Tonkin Gulf resolution. [Everyone thinks getting rid of Saddam is a good idea, but what happens then? Given our experience with George W, that's a particularly relevant question]. As governor, Bush inherited a surplus, pushed through two big tax cuts and left [us broke, and in the hole. Bush has] a habit of coming up with not-very-bright ideas and then wandering off to leave someone else to clean up the mess... anti-Americanism thrives on the perception that we don't give a rat's behind how the rest of the world feels about anything. That's the famous 'arrogance' for which we get criticized. On that count, a war with Iraq could play right into terrorist hands."

Mark Shields writes: "Welcome to George W Bush's ouchless, painless war against Saddam Hussein... This [but not our]President asks us at home to pay no price, to bear no burden, to accept no hardship other than - in the noble spirit of high national purpose - to accept tax cuts... Armies, the people of this country so painfully learned from the tragedy that was Vietnam, don't fight wars. Countries fight wars. If the country is not willing to shoulder the sacrifice, then we should never send an army. [This is 'patriotism-lite.' Put flags on your SUV and your lapel. Obey Bush, and support more and deeper tax cuts. In the US military today, only] Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of Sen. Tim and Barbara Johnson, D-SD - is the child or brother or sister of any United States senator... Bush has to understand that war is and cannot be a spectator sport, where the nation's privileged elites [look on while fellow citizens] - do the fighting and the dying."

David Peterson of Swan writes, "Although the U.S. government openly plans a war against Iraq, U.N. officials and representatives have neither spoken out in opposition nor taken any actions that might prevent the United States from embarking on this violent course. The United Nations was created explicitly to 'save succeeding generations from the scourge of war' and 'to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace...' The U.N. Charter condemns unilateral attacks across borders when not justified by self-defense, referring to the need to fend off an ongoing or clearly imminent attack. Otherwise, it is obligatory to obtain Security Council sanction for any such military action... We urge the UN Secretary-General and U.N. members to act now or stand condemned as accomplices of aggression, in defiance of both the clear language of the U.N. Charter and the desires of the vast majority of the world's people." Sign the letter!

Bill Burkett, with Mike Hersh, writes: "As the Bush Administration rushes headlong into war, we should pause and consider the law. International law doesn't support an attack on Iraq, but I am concerned with an even more basic law: Isaac Newton's laws of physics, specifically the one stating: 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.' I have argued with the senior members of the Bush team since 1996, insisting that preventive war was not an option for the United States. The Preventive War concept is a WARHAWK product which, in my opinion, is totally foreign to the principles the Founding Fathers established for the USA. This concept is based upon a posture of unchecked power and paranoia which violates 225 years of American principles and traditions."

Pat Buchanan writes: "the GOP establishment is beginning to split over the issue of war on Iraq. Majority Leader Dick Armey was the first to speak out against it, followed by Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Bush I. An attack on Iraq now, says Scowcroft, would 'jeopardize, if not destroy (our) global counter-terrorist campaign.' It could cause Saddam to launch weapons of mass destruction at Israel, provoking Israeli nuclear retaliation, igniting Armageddon. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf concurs...When Bush returns from Crawford, Texas, in September, he is going to face a hellish situation. With Armey, Scowcroft, and now ex-Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger, Sen. Chuck Hagel and Jack Kemp deserting the War Party, Democrats have all the political cover needed to oppose the president's pre-emptive war...If the president [sic] and War Cabinet are still committed to pre-emptive war, they will have to make a far more compelling case to the country and Congress."

David Corn writes: "Rumsfeld has estimated that al Qaeda has a presence in 60 or so countries. Do these nations deserve to be threatened with invasion? The point is not to suggest that Iraq is al Qaeda-free or that Saddam would never join with the enemy of an enemy. But Rumsfeld should not be able to get away with substituting assertion for argument. Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq? It could matter much. It could matter not at all. It depends on the details. Yet Rumsfeld, in transmitting administration views to the world, skips over the specifics. This is in keeping with the desperate efforts of administration officials (and their supporters) to find some dots -- any dots -- connecting Saddam to Sept. 11... All of this loose talk amounts to a pretty damn ugly attempt to drive the nation to war via underhanded means."

Madeleine Albright asks the question: is our number one priority a war against Iraq, or is it fighting terrorism, which is what Bush has "been saying to us up until now. And it would seem to me that we would be sacrificing a lot of the cooperation that we're getting in the fight against terrorism for what is unclear as a goal in Iraq... the truly important thing is to try to figure out what our top priorities are. Are they not fighting terrorism, are they not also trying to develop some kind of a peace process or to get back to a peace process in the Middle East?... Maybe we should talk about a free Iraq, rather than regime change. [What are our priorities? Bush says] we need to fight terrorism. I'm willing to agree with that. Is it worth sacrificing the huge alliance that we have for pursuing the fight against terrorism for this?"

Marty Jezer writes: "Maybe it will work. Pow! Bam! We take out Saddam. Oh you feint hearts! Why not? [Here's a scenario that] could happen: Saddam's missiles, the few that he has, are trip-wired to go off at the first sign of attack. The first SCUD that lands on Israel, no matter what its payload, causes Israel to launch a massive retaliatory strike. This leads to an uprising all over the Middle East. Our embassies are sacked; oil wells blown up. Our bombs [and leaders] prove not to be as smart as we thought... What odds would Las Vegas bookmakers give on a quick and easy victory in an Iraqi War? The more the Administration talks about its plans, the more opposition it inspires."

"On August 2, 1990, Iraqi troops led by dictator Saddam Hussein invaded the oil-producing nation of Kuwait. Like Noriega in Panama, Hussein had been a US ally for nearly a decade. From 1980 to 1988, he had killed about 150,000 Iranians, in addition to at least 13,000 of his own citizens. Despite complaints from international human rights group, however, the Reagan and Bush administrations had treated Hussein as a valuable ally in the US confrontation with Iran. [Ambassador April] Glaspie's ill-chosen [unless Bush actually did want to give the greenlight] comments may have helped convince the dictator that Washington would look the other way if he 'annexed' a neighboring kingdom. The invasion of Kuwait, however, crossed a line that the Bush Administration could not tolerate. This time Hussein's crime was far more serious than simply gassing to death another brood of Kurdish refugees. This time, oil was at stake."

Gene Lyons writes, "The most crucial question facing Americans this election year is whether an unelected president will drag us into an undeclared war in Iraq. Most Democrats, however, don't want to talk about it... Fortunately, brutal internal strife has broken out among Republicans. For now, Democrats appear willing to let GOP factions fight it out. [The Bush chickenhawks most eager to invade Iraq avoided Vietnam, but are keen on] schemes requiring the sacrifice of other people's children. If you think this too harsh, consider the bitter exchange last week between Richard Perle, a Bush Pentagon appointee, and Sen. Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran. [Sen. Hagel said] 'Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad'... But unless they start producing 'Meet the Press' on location from the Baghdad Hilton, that won't happen."

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) says the CIA doesn't have a shred of evidence justifying an invasion of Iraq. So Perle-Wolfowitz mouthpiece William Safire is concocting conspiracy theories in a desperate effort to link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9-11. Safire's latest effort focuses on "Abu Zubair's" "Supporters of Islam" organization, allegedly "sent by Saddam into the portion of northern Iraq under U.S. aerial protection to assassinate the democratic Kurdish leadership and to establish crude chemical warfare facilities in remote villages near the Iranian border." One facility allegedly "produces a form of cyanide cream that kills on contact." Safire admits, "the chemicals are not weapons of mass destruction" - and the US controls Iraqi Kurdistan, not Saddam. So why doesn't Bush just bomb the factories? There can be only one explanation - Bush wants to keep them active to justify his invasion. Which makes us wonder - did Bush's CIA secretly BUILD these factories to justify the invasion?

Rev. Moon's Washington Times reports, "The Iraq Public Diplomacy Group, a U.S. interagency task force on countering negative foreign press about U.S. policy on Iraq, will begin a widespread public relations campaign this fall, targeting newspaper editors and foreign policy analysts in Western Europe and the Middle East. The task force... plans on publishing a brochure documenting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's ability to threaten Iraqis and other peoples in the region... [A government survey found] 68 percent of analyzed newspaper editorials in NATO countries and Australia opposed military action against Iraq." Hey George - the whole WORLD opposes your invasion of Iraq, because they know you just want to take Iraq's oil and give it to your Texas buddies.

We all know how Bush and Cheney manipulated US policies to benefit Enron and Halliburton. But what about Condi and Chevron? Sean Gonsalves writes, "U.S. and UK companies had a 3/4 share in Iraq's oil production before the 1972 nationalization of the Iraq Petroleum Co., when the Iraqi government began to make steps to gain greater control of its oil resources. In a 1998 speech... Chevron CEO Kenneth Derr candidly remarked: 'Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas -- reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to'... Condoleezza Rice, perhaps the president's most influential national security adviser, was a board member of Chevron before going to work in the White House. Chevron even named one of its supertankers in her honor... Given all these corporate scandals and the close ties that the Bush administration has with big oil, don't you think we owe it to ourselves, and especially to the young men and women in our armed services, to thoroughly investigate this stuff?"

"At least a handful of ranking members of al Qaeda have taken refuge in Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials said yesterday. Their presence would complicate U.S. efforts against the terrorist network's leadership but also would give the Bush...another rationale for possible military action against the Iraqi government...Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, said in an interview with CBS News...that members of al Qaeda are operating in Iraq, but in the northern part of the country under the control of Kurdish opposition leader Jallal Tallabani, 'an ally of Mr. Rumsfeld.' 'It is not under the control of the government,' Aziz said. The Bush administration has been working with Tallabani and the leaders of other Iraqi opposition groups to build a united front against Hussein. Qubad Talabany, Washington representative of the Kurdish Patriotic Union of Kurdistan...said a group of about 120 Arabs with some links to al Qaeda did arrive in the eastern town of Biyara last September."

Richard Norton-Taylor writes: "Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the past is repeatedly cited by the US and British governments as justification for his removal from power now. But just what was their response to his use of poison gas against Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s? Far from condemning his actions, they stepped up their support for Baghdad. One of the most damning revelations... into the arms-to-Iraq affair was the British government's secret decision to supply Saddam with even more weapons-related equipment after he shelled the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988 with gas bombs, killing an estimated 5,000 civilians and maiming thousands more."

Thomas Oliphant writes: "If the ghosts of national security advisers past are what President [sic] Bush has to worry about as he stumbles toward a decision about Iraq, then he has nothing to worry about. Through a combination of press oversimplification and partisan spin from opponents (and, ironically, proponents) of war, the impression has been created of widespread disagreement with the administration on the part of Republican and Democratic predecessors, including senior policy makers in the administration of Bush's father. Nothing could be further from the truth."

NY Times opines, "The Bush administration has floated a succession of possible justifications for war with Iraq — Saddam Hussein's purported links with international terrorism, Baghdad's membership in a worldwide 'axis of evil,' Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Few firm facts have been offered in support of any of these claims, but there have been frequent allusions to secret intelligence information that officials are unwilling to make public. This is a troubling pattern, especially now that President [sic] Bush has said he will base his decisions about Iraq on the latest intelligence reports. Intelligence findings should guide presidential policy. That is their principal purpose. But the country ought not to be led into war on the basis of information the American people are not allowed to share. That is not how our democracy works." Unfortunately the Times let Bush steal the White House and kill American democracy, which set the stage for everything that has followed...

Stephen Zunes writes in Foreign Policy in Focus "1. A War Against Iraq Would Be Illegal -- 2. Regional Allies Widely Oppose a U.S. Attack -- 3. There Is No Evidence of Iraqi Links to Al Qaeda or Other Anti-American Terrorists -- 4. There Is No Proof that Iraq Is Developing Weapons of Mass Destruction -- 5. Iraq Is No Longer a Significant Military Threat to Its Neighbors -- 6. There Are Still Nonmilitary Options Available -- 7. Defeating Iraq Would Be Militarily Difficult -- Conclusion: The most effective antidote to [Bush's] arrogance of power is democracy. Unfortunately, in times of international crisis, many Americans are wary of exercising their democratic rights and are reluctant to oppose a president's foreign policy. Yet, seldom in U.S. history has it been so important for Americans to raise their concerns publicly and challenge their elected representatives to honor their legal and moral obligations."

Warren Strobel reports: "Aides to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have created a special Iraq planning unit, composed largely of civilians, to oversee a military campaign against Saddam Hussein, the latest sign that Bush is methodically preparing an invasion to oust the Iraqi leader. The existence of the planning operation in the defense secretary's office, confirmed by two individuals, comes as the Bush administration has toughened its anti-Saddam rhetoric and launched new efforts to unify the ever-fractious Iraqi opposition. In the field, the U.S. Air Force is nearing completion of a state-of-the-art airbase in the tiny Persian Gulf nation of Qatar that could be used to run an air war over Iraq if Saudi Arabia denied the use of its soil… In perhaps the most telling sign of Bush's intentions, top U.S. officials and members of the Iraqi opposition are plotting the details of post-Saddam government in Iraq, right down to the number of seats in a future parliament." Stop Bush's War!

"As George W. Bush continues to rattle his saber at Iraq, here are some historical reminders as to who helped build Saddam Hussein's power -- former President George H. W. Bush, with the assistance of Secretary of State James Baker. Also included is information about Dick Cheney and George W.'s business dealings in the Gulf region...Prior to the invasion, Kuwait had been slant drilling at the Iraq-Kuwait border into Iraq's oil, with equipment from National Security Advisor BRENT SCOWCROFT'S former company...In a Spy Magazine article...investigative journalist John Connolly exposed that the Wackenhut Corporation had been involved in the Iraqgate scheme'...after a six-month investigation, in the course of which we spoke to more than 300 people, we believe we know what the [Wackenhut] truck did contain-equipment necessary for the manufacture of chemical weapons-and where it was headed [in the Winter of 1990]: to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.'" So writes Democrats.com's Editor Ted Kahl.

"American military concentrations are already unobtrusively present in northern and southern Iraq. The US campaign to oust Saddam is therefore unfolding already, albeit in salami-fashion, slice by slice, under clouds of disinformation and diversionary ruses…by...Bush (No date set yet for the offensive) and British premier Tony Blair (Plenty of time before the war begins), or the grave reservations issuing from the Russian, French and German leaders...the Americans threw a ring of bases using existing facilities and adding new ones around Iraq. They have since been pouring into those bases US armored ground units, tanks, air, navy and missile forces...combat medical units and special contingents for anti-nuclear, biological and chemical warfare...(On 8/6,) US and British air bombers went into action and destroyed the Iraqi air command and control center at al-Nukhaib in the desert between Iraq and Saudi Arabia...waves of US warplanes (then) flew over the Iraqi capital."

Bush's top justification for invading Iraq is Saddam's past use of chemical weapons. Now the NY Times reports that the Reagan-Bush administration was working hand-in-glove with Saddam when he was gassing Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq War. "A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war," BIG DEFLECTION: "Former Secretary of State Shultz and Vice President Bush tried to stanch the flow of chemical precursors to Iraq and spoke out against Iraq's use of chemical arms, but Mr. Shultz, in his memoir, also alluded to the struggle in the administration." (Enter 'iraqgate' in our .Compass search engine to learn the real history about Bush Sr. and Wackenhut's delivery of ingredients for chemical agents to Iraq).

CNN.com reports: "Russia and Iraq are preparing to sign a $40 billion economic co-operation plan, the Iraqi ambassador to Moscow said Saturday...The five-year agreement envisions new co-operation in the fields of oil, irrigation, agriculture, railroads, other transportation sectors and electrical energy...The announcement came as Washington struggles to rally international support for a possible invasion of Iraq...Russia, a longtime ally of Iraq, has forcefully warned against a U.S. invasion. Moscow has also has supported lifting United Nations sanctions imposed after Baghdad's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Moscow hopes lifting sanctions would allow Baghdad to start paying off its $7 billion Soviet-era debt and help expand trade...In the current standoff with the United States, Iraq is counting on Russia to use its leverage in the U.N. Security Council and other diplomatic channels to deprive Washington of international support for a military operation, (Iraqi Ambassador) Khalaf said."

"What makes the morning-after outrage of the nation's commentariat seem a bit over the top is that the preordained hollowness of the Waco show is not news. This is how this administration always governs. Mr. Bush has two inviolate, one-size-fits-all policies (if obsessions can be called policies): the tax cut (for domestic affairs) and "regime change" in Iraq (foreign affairs). Everything else is a great show designed to provide the illusion of administration activity when it has no plan. The show takes the form [of the Orwellian slogans -- "Small Investors/Retirement Security" -- and] bogus announcements of muscular action. [Though Bush's harshest critics think he's stupid,] the real problem is that he thinks we are stupid. He never doubts that his show will distract us from bad news... Next stop: Iraq. [While some call for debate,] Mr Bush is no sooner going to abandon his pursuit of Saddam than his crusade to eliminate the estate tax. These are his only core beliefs."

"A top aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday that Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Ha'aretz reported in its print edition Friday that Israel is pressing the U.S. not to defer action aimed at toppling the regime in Iraq. Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons [this sounds like total propaganda BS -- it is contrary to what former Iraq Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter asserts], said Sharon aide Ra'anan Gissin. 'Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose,' Gissin told The Associated Press. 'It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction.'"

On 8-15-02, Bush I's National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft warned Bush II that an invasion of Iraq risks "unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East." Now YOU can help stop it, thanks to the outstanding work of Moveon.org. "We're happy to announce that you can register now online to participate in a meeting with your Senator (or his or her staff) about the war on Iraq. Thousands of us across the country will personally tell our Senators how deeply concerned we are about the Bush White House's headlong rush to war. Please join the effort." Click the map to sign up for the time and place in your state. Tell everyone Democrats.com sent you - and collect e-mails for local organizing!

"In today's Wall Street Journal, Brent Scowcroft, the retired Air Force general who was national security adviser to Bush's father, urged caution. Under the headline, 'Don't Attack Saddam,' Scowcroft argued that allied opposition would required 'a virtual go-it-alone strategy' that risks 'unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East' and would 'seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign.' He argued that Saddam is not directly targeting the US with terrorism, seeking instead domination in the region and control over oil supplies." Hey, Scowcroft wouldn't be publicly speaking against what frontman Dumbya (and CEO BushDaddy and COO Cheney) want, because of the embarrassing leaks about the next stop on the warpath being Saudi Arabia? You know BushDaddy is jonesing to take out Hussein – to save his pathetic "legacy." So are Scowcroft and other Bushies now feigning this otherwise inexplicable dovishness for damage control -- to calm down p'od Saudis?

Just a week ago, Rumsfeld was making yet another pitch for shifting military contracts into the private sector, farming out the big bucks to the administration's corporate cronies, while funneling the same dollars away from men and women on active duty and veterans who have already served their country. So now the other Gucci shoe has fallen and it has been revealed that one reason the administration is drooling over Iraq is because they can't wait to try out their new high-tech war toys, like the top-scret microwave system for knocking out enemy electronics. Why, I bet Rummy and pals can just see those dollar signs now as a whole new arsenal of military toys - and billion-dollar contracts - are unveiled.

Antiwar activist Fran Shor writes, "The war on Iraq is under way. Despite Bush's denials that no decision has been made to go to war, tactical maneuvers over the last week in Iraq and troop movements over the next few weeks underscore that military intervention in Iraq is proceeding. In the absence of any real Congressional debate... the war mongers are preparing all the logistics for an eventual all-out attack on Iraqi population centers. Since March US Special Forces have been active in the Kurdish sanctuaries of northern Iraq, training local militias and expanding facilities for Pentagon deliveries of more men and material... 5000 Turkish troops joined US Special Forces in an August 8th assault on the Hurriyet airfield in Northern Iraq near the [oil fields of Mosul and Kirkuk -- both coveted by the US and Turkey. Kirkuk is near the northern no-fly zone, an is connected by] oil pipeline with Turkey." Chevron and Exxon-Mobil have been purchasing oil from Kirkuk through Russia.

"Instead of going to war against bozo third-world dictatorships which pose no threat to America, instead of fighting, killing, and dying for GW Bush's father's honor, America could 'support the troops' by risking their lives only when it serves American interests in some clear, well-defined, and morally unambiguous manner.What a complete about-face this would be from the present American policy of sacrificing US soldiers like so many penny-ante poker chips. The American dead (very few) will die for a lie, like the Iraqi dead (who will number tens of thousands, or easily hundreds of thousands). Saddam Hussein may or may not be deposed. Whatever regime follows may or may not be more amiable to American interests... The nonsense wars will continue." So writes Helen Highwater of Unknown News.

Buzzflash writes, "If and when the Bush Administration sends America's sons and daughters into combat against Iraq, BuzzFlash suspects that there won't be too many sons and daughters -- if any -- of the Bush administration among them... In all the news accounts we have read since Bush took office, we have not come across any reference to a close relative of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle or Wolfowitz currently serving in the military. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't any in the service, but don't you think Karl Rove would have hauled them out for a photo-op with Bush by now if they were in uniform? ... Message to the White House: We would welcome a list of sons, daughters, nieces or nephews -- of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, or any member of the Bush cabinet -- who are currently on active military duty and are in units that might be in active combat against Iraq."

Right-wing columnist Robert Novak is no dove, but even he opposes Bush's plan to invade Iraq, along with a growing number of Republicans: Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Jack Kemp, Brent Scowcroft, Dick Armey, Chuck Hagel and Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts. Once again, where are the Democrats?

"To fend off the threat of peace, determination is necessary. Elected officials and high-level appointees must work effectively with reporters and pundits. Guarding against the danger of peace, the Bush administration has moved the goal posts, quickly pounding them into the ground. Oh sure, here at home, there are always some people eager to unleash the dogs of peace. Not content to pray, they actually believe: Blessed be the peacemakers. They don't defer to the machinery of war that grinds human beings as if they were mere sausage. They don't make peace with how determined the Executive Branch must be -- and how sheepish and even cowardly the members of Congress must be -- so that the bombs can fall in all their glory." So writes Norman Solomon.

The Observer UK writes: "Bush will soon make a decision on whether to declare war on Iraq and attempt to topple Saddam Hussein. The markets are left asking whether the stuttering US economy is playing any part in the decision. Although launching 'Gulf War II' has been high up the White House agenda, worries over corporate accounting and volatile stock markets have focused attention on the domestic economy... with a double dip recession on the cards and accounting concerns still strong, could Bush risk the sucker punch of a rocketing oil price?.. 'For democracies, the lessons of history are clear: war does not pay. The economic costs of war are always likely to outweigh the benefits'."

Andrew Greeley offers some words of warning for "all the civilian war hawks in the Defense Department and for the pResident who wants to clear his father's honor by going to war in Iraq: Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy... The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. [That] was written by Winston Churchill in 1930. [Experts have warned the chicken hawks, but they are so arrogantly confident] in American power and so impressed by the pResident's popularity ratings that they do not hear the warnings."

Rick Mercier writes: "The Imperial presidency is back, and it looks like we may have a good, old-fashioned war with Iraq to show for it. [What matters is that Bush and his chicken hawks want a war -- and maybe more than just one. The shoddy work of stenographers masquerading as journalists has gone a long way toward making war seem inevitable.] It may be too late to change Bush's mind about this war. His so-called 'moral clarity' seems more and more like a fool's -- or scoundrel's -- imperviousness to the facts... On the other hand, Bush isn't impervious to the polls. And, in the end, the decision whether to invade Iraq will be 'poll-driven'... 'If it's [politically] risky, they won't do it.'"

The Independent UK writes: "Britain has strongly advised the United States against attacking Iraq, warning that it risked intensifying the conflicts in Afghanistan, Israel and Kashmir, senior defense diplomatic sources say. In a sign of deepening discord between the two allies, [British officials] believe that a new war would 'contaminate' the other crises. 'These are issues the Americans appear not to have considered,' said one official. They also have grave reservations about [Dictator] George Bush's demand for a 'regime change' in Baghdad because, London believes, no alternative regime has been identified for such a change to take place. [While Saddam probably has acquired some chemical and biological weapons capacity since] weapons inspectors were expelled from Iraq, ministers have seen no evidence that he can use them in any meaningful way against the West." The AP recently reported that Britons oppose a war on Iraq by 52% to 34%.

Norman Solomon writes: "To fend off the threat of peace, determination is necessary. Elected officials and high-level appointees must work effectively with reporters and pundits. This is no time for the U.S. government to risk taking 'yes' for an answer from Iraq. Guarding against the danger of peace, the Bush administration has moved the goal posts, quickly pounding them into the ground."

"TomPaine.com: "We're being told that the U.S. must go to war pre-emptively against Iraq because Baghdad might some day soon succeed in building dangerous weapons and give that weapon to either an anti-American terrorist group, or even use that weapon against the U.S. or American interests abroad. What's wrong with this analysis? Phyllis Bennis: Pretty much everything is wrong with this analysis. Number one, no country in the world, not even the strongest power in the world, like the U.S. is today, has the right to attack a country that has not attacked it. Pre-emptive strikes are illegal -- period." And that's just the first thing wrong with it!

David Corn writes: "If George W Bush bothered to turn on C-SPAN and watch the recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Iraq, he might have learned he has a problem -- not with Senate Democrats, but with Senate Republicans... This was a piece of Washington theater, with influential senators publicly laying down a marker -- and trying to box Bush in. [But the] hearings posed another challenge for Bush, for the testimony of the witnesses did little to clarify how much of a threat (if any) Saddam represents or what the United States should do about him... Bush's approach to Iraq has been threaten to shoot first, ask questions later. Call it the 'Shrub Doctrine.' But despite White House wishes, the questions -- and there are many questions -- already are on the loose. As those questions draw wider public notice and discussion, the shoot-first piece of his equation looks less appealing."

Despite weeks of pro-war propaganda from Bush and Rumsfeld, the American people are not buying the Bushit. Americans do not perceive Iraq as a real threat to the US: "Does threat from Iraq require US action even without allied support?" Yes 24% No 68%. "Does U.S. have right to overthrow governments that are unfriendly to U.S.?" Yes 31% No 55%. "Should pResident get Congressional approval?" Yes 71% No 27% "Is removing Saddam Hussein from power worth the cost?" Yes 46% No 43%. Bush can only get public support by lying about the threat posed by Iraq, and by lying about the costs of an invasion.

House Majority Leader, Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), warned that an unprovoked attack against Iraq would violate international law and undermine world support for Bush's goal of ousting Saddam Hussein... "If we try to act against Saddam Hussein, as obnoxious as he is, without proper provocation, we will not have the support of other nation states who might do so. I don't believe that America will justifiably make an unprovoked attack on another nation," he said. "It would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation." In response to a reporter's question, he said: "My own view would be to let him bluster, let him rant and rave all he wants and let that be a matter between he and his own country. As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him." We agree - so why are all the Democrats silent? Call your Senators and Reps at 202-224-3121 and say, "Dick Armey is right on Iraq."

Moveon.org is "setting up meetings between all 100 Senators and constituents who are concerned about the war juggernaut. The meetings will take place during the last week of August. They'll only last about half an hour, but such meetings can have a major impact on a Senator's policy outlook." This is a crucial opportunity to stop Bush's War on Iraq - sign up now!!!

Spinsanity's Brian Keefer writes, "With the invasion of Iraq under discussion, several commentators have made troubling first attempts to define opposition to a war as subversive and dangerous. The strategy directly echoes attacks on dissent in the wake of Sept. 11, questioning the patriotism and good faith of those who raise legitimate -- and important -- issues. Leading the charge are two highly influential pundits: Andrew Sullivan and Rush Limbaugh. Last week, Sullivan vaguely suggested that articles in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times on the growing debate over invading Iraq and congressional hearings on the subject are part of a 'campaign to protect Saddam's weaponry.' He also suggested that such arguments opposing the war constitute 'appeasement' of Saddam." Also joining the thuggery are Frank Gaffney and the Rob Long. "Attacking the patriotism and motivations of those who question aspects of the war on terrorism has been an all too common tactic since Sept. 11."

Michael Brown writes that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Sir Edward Heath expressed his view "that diplomatic as well as military solutions should always be investigated. He was roundly castigated for his views that were interpreted as being akin to the appeasement of Hitler. Sir Edward has always rejected comparisons between Saddam, before the Gulf War, and Hitler. Firstly, Saddam had neither Hitler's industrial power nor his military capability. Secondly, the entire international community was united against him and could act decisively against him, so we were negotiating from a position of strength. Above all, negotiation is not appeasement. Appeasement involves a sacrifice of a moral principle in order to avert aggression. Negotiation requires some change of the status quo in order to make progress without giving up any basic point of principle."

The Guardian reports: "General Tommy Franks, who would lead a US military action in Iraq, [presented the latest refinements of a plan for attack] and its potential consequences to the White House on Monday. 'This is deadly serious stuff,' [said Scott Ritter.] 'He is not briefing about a cricket match. He is briefing about war options.' Mr Ritter, a Marine Corps veteran and Republican, said he was in no doubt that the Bush administration was committed to military action. 'I keep hearing from people that they are bluffing. They are not bluffing. The Bush administration is going to go to war come hell or high water. The decision has been made.' Mr Ritter...said that military units were being mobilized, actions that had not been taken since the Gulf war. Gen Franks was not presenting a plan, as was being reported, but 'refinements' to the existing plan."

Robert Scheer writes, "What the heck, let's bomb Baghdad. Sure, it's one of the more historically important cities in the world, and many of its more than 3 million inhabitants will probably end up as 'collateral damage,' but if George the Younger is determined to avenge his father and keep his standings in the polls, that's the price to be paid. [W] will stop at nothing in his drive to win foreign victories that distract from his startling domestic failures. If nothing else, a nightly CNN fireworks display will take our minds off pervasive corporate corruption and the Incredible Shrinking Stock Market. Unfortunately for those determined to wage war in Iraq, there is no logical connection between Saddam Hussein and the big political problems facing George W. domestically. In a very real way, Bush's key corporate contributors, beginning with Enron's likable 'Kenny Boy' Lay, have savaged the US economy--and even Teflon politicians pay during recessions."

Jason Vest writes: "While the newspapers chew over the various 'options' before Bush... active duty and retired officers are shooting every one of them down. In the last week of July, one retired Marine officer sent around an e-mail titled 'Why invasion of Iraq is both dumb and undoable'... What's desperately needed, says one veteran CIA official, is a Democratic opposition intent on bringing the Iraq plans before Congress: 'The Democrats have been afraid not just of making the case for not attacking Iraq, but of simply talking about it - which is just about as insane and irresponsible as some of what the Bush people are proposing,' the former official insists. 'They have to get over their fear of 'taking on a wartime president'... Is it really worth the casualties? Is it worth the alienation and antagonism it will beget in the region and elsewhere? Can the administration actually make a case? [And] is Congress going to cede its constitutional responsibility to" the Commander-in-Thief?

Mike Hersh writes, "Scott Ritter says the man he voted for is planning to invade Iraq to improve his party's chances at the polls this November. So? Who is Ritter and why should we listen to him? Because he is a former Marine Intelligence officer. Also, because he is an expert on the Iraqi military. Ritter wrote the book Endgame, Solving the Iraq Problem -- Once and for All... Other experts on Iraq confirm Ritter's understanding that Iraq poses no clear and present danger to American security. Among them Admiral Brent Scowcroft - a former U.S. National Security Adviser, and the Honorable Edward Peck - the former Ambassador to Iraq; Erik Gustafson - a Gulf War Veteran, and an expert on Iraq working with the EPIC organization, and Issam Shukri - an Iraqi Dissident and an Iraqi Gulf War Combat Veteran. These experts agree we can contain the Saddam threat without resort to invasion. If so, then why is Bush beating the drums of war?" Because Bush is wagging the dog!

The Boston Globe's Glen Johnson writes that Jim Jordan, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, "fears the Bush administration may launch a new attack on terrorists in an effort to boost Republican prospects in the midterm elections... One reporter asked Jordan if the current war on terrorism might affect this year's voting. Jordan quipped, 'You mean when General Rove calls in the airstrikes in October?' He was referring to Karl Rove, pResident Bush's top political strategist. When Jordan was asked if he truly was concerned about a so-called October Surprise, he replied, 'Of course. I hope I'm wrong. Certainly none of us want to think that the administration, for domestic political reasons, would use the war. I think the temptation will be strong'... The term 'October Surprise' goes back to the allegation that in 1980 the GOP sabotaged efforts by then-President Jimmy Carter to win the release of the 52 US hostages in Iran" - an effort led by George Bush Sr.

AP reports, "More than half of Britons say they do not want their military involved if the United States goes to war with Iraq, according to a poll released Friday." How do Americans feel about sending our young men and women to kill and be killed in Iraq - so Bush can boost his approval ratings and keep Republicans in control of Congress? Don't expect to see any accurate US polls, because Karl Rove won't allow the truth to be told - that Americans do NOT want an invasion of Iraq that would take American lives and put the struggling economy into a Depression.

Jeremy Scahill reports in Counterpunch, "In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the UN: 'Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq... The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers'... Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department 'evidence.' On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, 'American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.'"

The Seattle Times reports that the American invasion of Iraq could be as close as two months away. War planning within the Pentagon is well on the way, according to the report, although the rationale for the attacks may well be the Administration's need to protect against the potential loss of control of the House of Representatives rather than any threats Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses to U.S. security.

The Observer's Peter Beaumont writes, "This is the summer of the phony war against Iraq; expect much smoke but very little fire. But come the autumn, expect it to get real. [Bush administration officials] have huffed and puffed about the 'leaks', to the amusement of the intelligence and military professionals.[Deception is one of the oldest of the military's black arts, and not all of it is deception.] There have been other signs and indicators suggestive of the timing of a campaign against Iraq... The question now appears to be not whether there will be a war, but when. The answer is that in war, as other matters, timing is all. For President George W Bush that timing will be dictated by the demands of a domestic political agenda. [Current thinking is that Bush will not want to wait until next year, as that would bring him too close to] his campaign for re-election. That leaves this winter."

The Guardian reports, "Bush will announce within weeks that he intends to depose Iraq's ruler, Saddam Hussein, by force, setting the stage for a war in the Gulf this winter. Amid signs of active preparations for a war within six months, senior officials on both sides of the Atlantic have said that war against Iraq is now inevitable... 'Bush will make a final decision on the timing of a war over the course of August. That would be followed by British-led efforts to get a mandate for action at the UN, either under existing resolutions or a new UN resolution'... The escalation of US military efforts comes amid signs of the first serious split between the White House and Britain over the relentless march to war... That split emerged yesterday after John Bolton, US Under Secretary for Arms Control, admitted that the aim in Washington was to topple Saddam regardless of whether or not he allowed UN inspectors back in to complete the disarmament process." Stop Bush's invasion of Iraq!

Alan Bisbort writes: "We are currently employing Vietnam-like strategies in Afghanistan (bomb the hell out of an area, sort through the dead, tally how many were actually combatants) and are on the brink of going to war in Iraq, where an unimaginable scenario involving biological, chemical and nuclear weapons is entirely possible…Vietnam: it was a horrible, tragic, terrible, godawful mistake that was begun on a fake pretext… Among those who are rattling their sabers for war… most if not all were of age during the Vietnam War (but) "had other priorities." In addition to… Cheney, these hypocrites include Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Dick Armey, Phil Gramm, Andrew Card, Don Evans, Harvey Pitt, Paul Wolfowitz, Antonin Scalia, Bob Barr, Ken Starr, Jeb Bush, Pat Buchanan, Spencer Abraham, Rudy Guiliani, Mitch McConnell, Dennis Hastert, Don Nickles, Rush Limbaugh (he got out due to "anal cysts"), Marc Racicot ("psoriasis"), Tommy Thompson, Brit Hume and Dan Quayle." Plus AWOL Bush!

Norman Solomon writes, "Three and a half years ago, some key information about U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq briefly surfaced on the front pages of American newspapers -- and promptly vanished. Now, with righteous war drums beating loudly in Washington, let's reach deep down in the news media's Orwellian memory hole and retrieve the story. 'U.S. Spied on Iraq Under U.N. Cover, Officials Now Say,' a front-page New York Times headline announced... A followup Times story pointed out: 'Reports that the United States used the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq as cover for spying on Saddam Hussein are dimming any chances that the inspection system will survive'... But such facts don't assist the conditioned media reflex of blaming everything on Saddam Hussein. No matter how hard you search major American media databases of the last couple of years for mention of the spy caper, you'll come up nearly empty. George Orwell would have understood."

Gwynne Dyer writes, "The New York Times received a five-inch-thick dossier on Pentagon plans for an invasion of Iraq that would involve a three-month buildup and 250,000 American troops -- 'son of Desert Storm,' in the jargon. The leakers were clearly military, and equally clearly thought that the plan was the stupidest idea since Winston Churchill's plan for the Gallipoli campaign. [Another leak outlined a blitzkrieg involving a thousand bombers] and a first-day aerial descent on Baghdad by thousands of U.S. troops... Does anybody imagine that the leakers thought this was a good idea?... When one branch of the system gets a really dumb idea, the other branches respond and try to damp out the aberration. They may not succeed -- the executive branch has enormously greater power in today's America than the framers of the constitution intended -- but they continue to fight their corners."

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) dismissed a flood of requests to invite Scott Ritter and other expert critics to testify at his hearings on Bush's planned invasion of Iraq. Even so, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard powerful doubts. "'I think it is incredibly dangerous to be dismissive' of the Iraqi military, said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official... 'To be careless about this war, to me, would be a disaster.'... Joseph P. Hoar, a retired Marine Corps general who was commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf after the 1991 war, was particularly skeptical of an invasion, calling it 'risky' and perhaps unnecessary... Morton H. Halperin, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations [said] 'Especially if there is no progress on the Palestinian issue, it is likely that an American military conquest of Iraq will lead many more people in the Arab and Muslim world to choose the path of terror.'" Call your Senators (202-224-3121) to say No Invasion of Iraq!

President Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger writes, "We need an honest discussion with the American people about what's involved. Our pride in what our Armed Forces can do must not blind us to the dangers of war in Iraq. This would be a challenging, costly mission, with possible urban combat, chemical weapons attacks, Hussein's use of civilian shields, and a long-term American military presence in Iraq when we succeed. It's time to start asking and answering the hard questions: ... What impact will our action have on governments such as Jordan, Pakistan and Turkey? How will we keep post-Hussein Iraq together and avoid a Balkanized outcome? ... What kind of U.S. assistance -- economic, political and military -- can a new Iraqi government expect? ... Who will pay for Iraq's recovery -- with current estimates ranging from $50 to $150 billion?... If we don't do this operation right, we could end up with something worse" than Saddam Hussein.

Right-wing pundit Larry Kudlow claims to have kicked his cocaine habit. Well, he must have switched to LSD. He writes: "Could it be that a lack of decisive follow-through in the global war on terrorism is the single biggest problem facing the stock market and the nation today? I believe it is." So what is his solution? "The shock therapy of decisive war will elevate the stock market by a couple-thousand points. We will know that our businesses will stay open, that our families will be safe, and that our future will be unlimited. The world will be righted in this life-and-death struggle to preserve our values and our civilization. But to do all this, we must act."

"Growing concern among senior members of the armed forces about the wisdom of invading Iraq was echoed yesterday by General Sir Michael Rose, a former head of the SAS and of UN forces in Bosnia. In an article in London's Evening Standard under the heading: 'The madness of going to war with Iraq', he said: 'There are huge political and military risks associated with launching largescale ground forces into Iraq.' A former chief of defence staff, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, warned in a letter to the Times that an invasion of Iraq would pour 'petrol rather than water' on the flames and provide al-Qaida with more recruits... Retired top military personnel frequently express the opinions of serving senior officers. These misgivings about an Iraqi military adventure echo apprehension among senior uniformed officers on the other side of the Atlantic, clear splits have emerged between America's professional soldiers and the gung ho civilian leaders in the White House and the Pentagon."

Scott Ritter is not the only former weapons inspector who believes the US tried to use the "inspections" to provoke Iraq into a war, or to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The Financial Times reports, "Rolf Ekeus, head of United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq from 1991-97, has accused the US and other Security Council members of manipulating the United Nations inspections teams for their own political ends." "They, [Security Council members] pressed the inspection leadership to carry out inspections which were controversial from the Iraqis' view, and thereby created a blockage that could be used as a justification for a direct military action," he said.

Larry Kudlow's advocacy of war for the stock market leaves us speechless. But not Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com, who answers it brilliantly. "The Kudlow Doctrine – better living through mass murder – is, by far, the worst product of the conservative movement's degeneration into little more than a pack of bloodthirsty monsters. Kudlow wins the Bloodlust Award hands down. His scheme is far uglier, morally, than anything Max Boot has come up with. Beside Kudlow's 'let's kill our way out of the recession' scenario, National Review editor Rich Lowry's proposal to 'nuke Mecca' seems innocently schoolboyish. [Even if] war did bring us prosperity... one could argue that the crime would be even greater, insofar as the motive was purely mercenary. By this standard, what Kudlow is proposing amounts to an expression of pure evil. The moral meaning of the Kudlow Doctrine is all too plain: these guys will stoop to anything in order to drag us into a permanent war on a global scale."

Writes Jack Shafer for Slate: "Three times in the last month, the New York Times has excerpted secret Pentagon plans to invade Iraq and crush Saddam Hussein on Page One. All of these stories have given rise to charges of reckless reporting and treason from the conservative press and military analysts…The first question to ask about these stories is whether Rumsfeld is right: Are the leaks—and their publication by the Times and other papers—endangering American lives? But beyond that issue, readers must be wondering why these conflicting plans—which would appear to tip our hand to the enemy—keep showing up in the damn newspaper. Do these stories simply reflect the conflicting preferences of different military officials? Or is the Pentagon using the Times to confuse the Iraqis about the impending attack as part of an 'information operation' (formerly 'disinformation') campaign? More sinisterly, is the Times partnering with the Pentagon to bamboozle the Iraqis?"

Donald Rumsfeld's contempt for the American people is breathtaking - and limitless. With Bush's planned invasion of Iraq running into controversy and the beginning of an opposition movement, Rumsfeld is resorting to utter Bushit. "They have chemical weapons and biological weapons, and they have an appetite for nuclear weapons and have been working on them for a good many years, and there's an awful lot we don't know about their programs," Rumsfeld said on 7-30-02. Hey Don - you said all the same things about Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but after we scoured the country we didn't find a single drop of chemical or biological weapons. Quit feeding us Bushit and show us some real evidence. Put up - or SHUT up!

Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein (CA) and Patrick Leahy (VT) introduced a resolution that opposes the use of force against Iraq without congressional authorization or a declaration of war. "This is not a question ... whether or not Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator -- he most certainly is," Feinstein said. "The question is what (is) the best policy for the United States to address these issues and, if we are to use force, that we do so only after full debate and consideration of the options and with a united government and the specific statutory authorization of Congress." Call your Senators (202-224-3121) and tell them to support the Feinstein-Leahy Resolution on Iraq!

When young Americans are sent overseas to fight and die for their country, Americans should know exactly why. But here, in one sentence, is the reason the ChickenHawk Bush Administration is willing to send YOUR children to their death, according to James R. Schlesinger, a member of the Defense Policy Board. "My view is that given all we have said as a leading world power about the necessity of regime change in Iraq, means that our credibility would be badly damaged if that regime change did not take place." Let's be truthful, James - it's BUSH's credibility that's on the line, not America's. The American people never told Bush to shoot off his ignorant mouth about an imaginary "Axis of Evil" - so OUR children should not be sent to their deaths to fight for Bush's stupidly. This is EXACTLY the kind of non-thinking that produced the Vietnam War. We repeat our demands: No Conquest of Iraq, and Impeach Bush Now!

NY Times reports, "An American attack on Iraq could profoundly affect the American economy, because the US would have to pay most of the cost and bear the brunt of any oil price shock or other market disruptions... The Persian Gulf war... cost the US and its allies $60 billion and helped set off an economic recession caused in part by a spike in oil prices... Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Japan divided the cost of the 1991 war with the US, but today none has offered to assist with financing a new military campaign... [Rep. John] Spratt (D-SC) said, 'Since there is no surplus in the budget from which the cost could be paid, there will be trade-offs, making initiatives like Medicare drug coverage harder to do, and there almost certainly will be deeper deficits and more debt'... 'When weapons start going off in the Middle East, markets generally go down, gold prices go up, and oil prices shoot to the moon,'"John Placke said.

Nick Cohen writes, "Although everyone is lining up for or against a war on Iraq, few are asking what the war would be for. We know it would be against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. But what will the Americans and their British sidekicks be fighting to replace the tyrant with? It's impossible to say with certainty, but most reports from Washington suggest that Bush wants another tyrant and Blair will concur. The alternative is the Iraqi National Congress, a loose and fractious coalition, but one which, for all its faults, is committed to democracy. The CIA and State Department hate it and the bad example a liberated Iraq would give to the repressed people of Saudi Arabia."

Mike Hersh writes, "Please join thousands of people across the country in demanding fair hearings by ensuring a balanced range of experts including the following witnesses who would provide critical perspectives: Adm. Brent Scowcroft - Former U.S. Nat'l Security Adviser ; Col. Scott Ritter - Intelligence Officer, Weapons Inspector; Hon. Edward Peck - Former Ambassador to Iraq; Tun Myat - Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq ; Hans Von Sponeck - Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator; Denis Halliday - Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator ; Dr. Richard Falk - Princeton Professor of International Law; Laith Kubba - Iraqi member National Endowment for Democracy; Dr. Louis Fisher, PhD - Author and War Powers Expert. Call Congress toll-free: 1-800-839-5276 Recommendations for witnesses should be sent directly to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The telephone number is 202-224-4651. The fax number is 202-228-1612."

Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay write that some civilian aides to Donald Rumsfeld are pushing for a quick and risky attack "in an attempt to catch Saddam off guard. That strategy would involve roughly 80,000 troops and could be in place by this fall. 'If it happened in October, I wouldn't be completely surprised,' said one official involved in the planning... Large numbers of Americans and Iraqis could be killed and wounded, especially if there was fighting in Baghdad and other major cities... the White House has not yet begun a concerted effort to convince the U.S. public, Congress or American allies of the need to pre-emptively strike Iraq. [The Bush administration has not] sketched out a vision of a post-Saddam regime that could hold together the unruly nation of 23 million... Despite these unanswered questions, the United States appears to be creeping toward war. Some officials worry that Bush may have backed himself into a corner with his bellicose rhetoric."

William Rivers Pitt writes that Scott Ritter had come to Boston denounce "the coming American war in Iraq. According to Ritter, this coming war is about nothing more or less than domestic American politics, based upon speculation and rhetoric entirely divorced from fact. According to Ritter, that war is just over the horizon. 'The Third Marine Expeditionary Force in California is preparing to have 20,000 Marines deployed in the (Iraq) region for ground combat operations by mid-October,' he said. 'The Air Force used the vast majority of its precision-guided munitions blowing up caves in Afghanistan. Congress just passed emergency appropriations money and told Boeing company to accelerate their production of [GPS satellite bombs] by September 30, 2002. Why? Because the Air Force has been told to have three air expeditionary wings ready for combat operations in Iraq by mid-October... You got 20,000 Marines forward deployed in October -- you better expect war in October."

Bridget Gibson writes: "Running the country like Enron must be obliterated from the conscience of the voting public before the first week of November and the best way to do that is to embroil our service men and women in a deadly conflict. Nothing gets the public stirred into support like the strong threat of the death of Americans…. The three-pronged attack on the nemesis of George Herbert Walker Bush must be put into action! The evil Saddam must be toppled before the truth comes out that the coming war is a farce. A political game of chess is being played with the lives of our fellow Americans. The votes must be counted before they are cast… If the current administration's reason for pounding the war drums is to distract the public from the greed and corruption of the highest officials, it should not be heeded. Questions should be raised and answers must be demanded."

"The Federal Government has warned Australians in Iraq to leave the country as soon as possible. A spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs and Trade also urged Australians to avoid visiting Iraq as the US prepares to widen its war on terrorism to the region. The official warning comes just weeks after the Australian Government indicated it would support a US-led attack on Iraq."

Anayat Durrani reports in Al-Ahram, the oldest newspaper in the Arab and Third world: "'A new war would be disastrous for the Iraqi people,' said Richard Becker, the western region co-director of the International Action Center (IAC)...Becker was co-leader of the third Iraq Sanctions Challenge that delivered more than $2 million worth of medicine to Iraq. 'A new massive bombing and ground war against Iraq would cause a humanitarian catastrophe -- Iraq's infrastructure is already in a state of near collapse,' said Becker...'Bombing Iraq would not be a solution to terrorism. This is the propaganda line of the administration,' says Becker. 'Their real objective is a continuation of a central goal of US policy in the Middle East since World War II: to secure control of the vast oil resources of the region. The aim in Iraq is, as official US policy puts it, 'regime change' -- that is, obtaining a new government in Baghdad that will bow to the dictates of Washington and Big Oil.'"

William Rivers Pitt writes about a recent speech by Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector in Iraq and a tall "lantern-jawed" ex-Marine. "The Third Marine Expeditionary Force in California is preparing to have 20,000 Marines deployed in the (Iraq) region for ground combat operations by mid-October," Ritter said. "The Air Force has been told to have three air expeditionary wings ready for combat operations in Iraq by mid-October"... When asked pointedly what the mid-October scheduling of this conflict has to do with the midterm Congressional elections that will follow a few weeks later, he replied, simply, "Everything." We demand that Ritter be invited to testify before Sen. Joe Biden's committee!

Randolph Holhut writes, "Once the bombs are falling on Baghdad, all talk about 'corporate responsibility' and 'cleaning up Wall Street,' not to mention calls to take a closer look at Bush and Cheney's own shady business deals, will instantly vanish. The 'war on terrorism' will be back on the front burner, providing the smokescreen that will protect the Bush administration from criticism on the domestic front. [Bush] wants you to pay no mind to the fact that Iraq had no involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks, that its much ballyhooed 'weapons of mass destruction' may not even exist in a deployable state or that the 23 million citizens of Iraq have been held hostage to an U.S.-led embargo that has contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents by starvation and disease [or] that Iraq is the world's second largest source of oil and that the global energy conglomerates are salivating over the chance to have greater access to its oil in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq."

Hans von Sponeck, UN humanitarian aid coordinator for Iraq from 1998-2000, writes after just returning from a two-week stay in Iraq: "During the 17 months of the Bush administration just about everything has gone wrong for the US government in preparing the public for military strikes against Iraq. Convincing friendly governments and allies has not fared much better. Acts of terrorism against US facilities overseas and the anthrax menace at home could not be linked to Iraq. Evidence of al-Qaida/lraq collaboration does not exist, neither in the training of operatives nor in support to Ansar-al-Islam, a small fundamentalist group which allegedly harbours al-Qaida elements and is trying to destabilise lraqi Kurdistan...An entire region is being destabilised to suit American preferences for political change in Iraq. Concurrently, a systematic dis- and mis-information campaign, one of the biggest ever undertaken by the US authorities, is intensifying."

William Mann of the AP reports "A proven link between Iraq and the al-Qaida terror network would give President [sic] Bush authority to remove Saddam Hussein by force, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday. Such a connection, Sen. Joseph Biden said, would satisfy requirements of September's legislation that authorized all force necessary to retaliate against al-Qaida and any of its sponsors."

Ha'aretz reports "The U.S. operation to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein will take place in the coming months, even before November's Congressional elections, according to high-level sources in the French government... Frequent media reports about difficulties in deploying American troops and completing preparations for the operation are meant, according to French government experts, as disinformation to achieve tactical surprise with regard to the timing, place and method of the assault. This will partly make up for the lack of strategic surprise given Bush's declared policy and Saddam's preparations to absorb an attack."

Mikhail Gorbachev "branded George Bush and Tony Blair a threat to world peace. The former Russian president said US and British plans to attack Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein would wreck the international coalition against terrorism... 'I strongly hope the US and Britain will not be fighting a war in the Middle East. They should be using political means not military'... On US plans for a large-scale military invasion of Iraq, Mr Gorbachev said: 'I believe very strongly such plans should not be made. We have a full set of political, economic and diplomatic methods that should be used... America must not ignore the UN Security Council. Important and serious political decisions should not be taken unilaterally... Allies of the US should be saying 'don't launch a new arms race.' I am concerned at growing military budgets. The US and the Soviet Union each spent the equivalent of 10 trillion dollars on the arms race. Now hundreds of billions will be needed to destroy these weapons."

Michael Kinsley writes, "Who really wants this war? Polls show that a modest and shrinking majority of Americans will choose military action to remove Saddam Hussein when someone holding a clipboard confronts them with a list of options... Abroad, nearly all of America's major allies are against it... Even the Kurdish opposition within Iraq apparently thinks that being liberated by Superpower America, while nice, would be more trouble than it's worth... The eerie non-debate we're having as vast preparations for battle are made before our eyes is a consequence of a long-running constitutional scandal: the withering away of the requirement of a congressional Declaration of War… There is an old-fashioned quality to our confrontation with Iraq. It is about an imperial power demanding acquiescence from a rogue state. It does mean that events are proceeding in a deliberate, slow-motion way that leaves plenty of time for citizens to debate and decide—if that's the way we want to do it."

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden (D-DE) plans to hold hearings on "how the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power might be accomplished... Relating a recent conversation with President [sic] Bush, Mr. Biden said: "He always kids me, he says: 'Well you agree with me on Saddam, why don't you agree with my methods?' I always kid him and say: 'Mr. President [sic], there's a reason why your father stopped and didn't go to Baghdad. He didn't want to stay five years.'" Hey Joe - how about asking the Commander-in-Thief how many Americans and Iraqis will be killed, and why they should die to enrich Bush's greedy oil buddies?

NY Times reports that Iraq's Kurds "say flatly that they would be reluctant to join American military operations that put Kurds at risk of an onslaught by Iraqi troops of the kind they suffered after the Persian Gulf war in 1991. A Kurdish uprising then that was encouraged by the first President Bush was brutally suppressed by Mr. Hussein, and American forces failed to intervene as thousands of Kurds were killed... Kurds referred bitterly to events in 1975, when [Gerald Ford] encouraged Iraqi Kurds to ally themselves with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran in a territorial dispute with Iraq, only to back a reconciliation between Iran and Iraq that left the Kurds exposed to a military crackdown by Baghdad... [And] the first President Bush encouraged Kurds in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south to 'take matters into their own hands.' He then withheld American military support when their uprisings drew savage retribution from Baghdad." Hey - would YOU trust Bush with YOUR life?

The Smirking Chimp thought he was oh-so-clever when he declared that a plan to invade Iraq was "not on my desk." Sorry, Smirky, when you steal the President's desk, you're responsible for every document on every government desk. That's what Harry Truman meant when he said "the buck stops here." The NY Times obtained a copy of a recent draft of the Iraq war plan, which goes into considerable detail about the deployment of up to 250,000 troops - most of which will be deployed from 100% oil-owned "countries" like Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain. Of course, the report does not describe how many innocent Iraqis - or US troops - will be killed in order to "get" Saddam Hussein. Nor does the report acknowledge that it is the responsibility of CONGRESS - not the Commander-in-Thief - to declare war.

Veteran West Virginia Democratic Senator Robert Byrd is pecking away at Bush's supposedly iron-clad armor, taking the administration to task for plotting to wage war on Iraq without consulting Congress. "As we learned all too well in Korea, Vietnam and Somalia, it is dangerous to present Congress and the American people with a fait accompli on important matters of foreign affairs... I have not seen such executive arrogance and secrecy since the Nixon administration, and we all know what happened to that group." Amen, Senator Byrd! We can only hope the same fate that fell Nixon also takes Bush down... once the Democrats take control of Congress in the fall!

From a CNN Moneyline transcript, Steve Forbes gives the naked and unadorned reason for pumping an Iraq invasion. Boosting the stock market: STEVE FORBES, EDITOR OF FORBES: "I think that's generally right. I think the market is reaching a bottom. I think the more pessimism there is, the quicker this thing is going to turn around. But one of the things I think that's weighing on the market, it's not the spate of scandals about corporations, but a sense that perhaps we're not waging this war on terror as vigorously as we should. I think if we went after Iraq and seized those oil fields, I think you'd see the market really move up."

Michael Jansen of the Jordan Times writes, "George Bush's plan to initiate a covert campaign to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has already run into trouble. His scheme, leaked to the press last weekend, involves providing the exiled Iraqi opposition with funding, training, weapons and intelligence; expanding intelligence-gathering inside Iraq; and deploying of CIA and Special Forces teams to kill the Iraqi leader on the pretext of acting in 'self-defence'. Although CIA Director George Tenet warned Bush that covert action had only a 10-20 per cent chance of success, an examination of the following factors suggests that even Tenet's lower figure is highly optimistic." CIA forces are already overstretched; the Kurds in northern Iraq won't cooperate, thanks to Bush's declaration of Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil;" Shiites in the south won't help; the US has not penetrated the Iraqi military; and the US-backed Iraqi National Congress is too corrupt to lead the opposition.

"As of this past weekend, we are at war with Iraq. There has been no declaration of war, nor have troops clashed, but this is beside the point. To declare that one's spy service (the CIA) is actively pursuing the overthrow of another regime 'by any means necessary' is an act of war under any relevant definition of the word... The reasons this now is the season to prepare for war, are three fold: pure political economics, evasion of responsibility, and demographics." So writes Stirling S Newberry.

As conservatives slobber all over themselves in glee to wage war on Iraq, it helps to remember how they felt about a war with Iraq when Clinton was President, just to expose their shameful hypocrisy on the subject. Remember all the accusations of "wagging the dog" and using Iraq to deflect attention away from the Lewinsky issue? If not, this old right-wing website will remind you. Notice, too, that the same people who want to blame Clinton for 9/11 intelligence failures also accused him of "wagging the dog" when he went after bin Laden in the Sudan and Afghanistan!

"Bush administration officials have met with Iraqi opposition leaders on how best to mobilize against President Saddam Hussein and prepare for a new Iraqi government after Hussein leaves power, the State Department said yesterday...Dept. spokesman Richard Boucher said the administration offered the INC $8 million. A source close to the opposition group said the offer was unacceptably small and carried too many restrictions…He added that the common theme of the discussions is how Iraq should be organized in the post-Hussein era. Bush administration officials have warned of preemptive U.S. military action against Iraq because, they say, Hussein continues to pursue development of weapons of mass destruction in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions." Bush is changing America's foreign policy to allow for preemptive strikes contradicts the Constitution, which authorizes (only) Congress to declare war. His threat to terrorize the world this way exposes his meglomanic despotism.

Chris Floyd writes, "The charge that Hussein 'gassed his own people' has been the bloody shirt repeatedly waved by George W. Bush in his frantic bid to build support for an invasion of Iraq. Such an action, we are told, puts a nation beyond the pale of civilization and sends it hurtling into the abyss of ultimate evil. Any state that would 'gas its own people' is, we're told, a rogue state, a terrorist state. What then to make of the revelations last week that the United States 'gassed its own people' during the Vietnam War? The Defense Department has admitted that the Pentagon sprayed more than 4,000 U.S. sailors with various substances, including the deadly nerve gas sarin and a gruesome biological toxin, in a four-year operation (1964-68) called Project SHAD, The New York Times reports."

Remember "Black Hawk Down"? The Joint Chiefs of Staff think a war in Iraq would make Somalia look like a walk in the park. The Guardian's Matthew Engel reports, "One of the factors most alarming the generals is the possibility that their troops could be drawn into street fighting in Baghdad, without support from the local population, leading to heavy US casualties. This ties in with longstanding fears that Saddam might use such a moment to unleash biological or chemical weapons. Their instinctive caution has been strengthened by Operation Prominent Hammer, a highly secret war game recently played by senior officials, details of which have begun to leak out. It revealed that shortages of equipment could seriously hamper the operation and endanger the lives of Americans and Iraqi civilians."

Mary McGrory writes, "Something else was eating George Bush when he chewed out David Gregory [in Paris]. And it was probably a demonstration at, of all places, the Pentagon. It was a demonstration of cold feet on the part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who leaked to Post Pentagon correspondent Thomas E. Ricks that they, just like the rabble in the streets of Europe, thought that invading Iraq was a chancy affair that would involve a large commitment of troops and casualties. And victory would bring only the unappetizing prospect of occupying Baghdad for an extended period… Retired rear admiral Gene Carroll was pleased but not surprised by the bombshell from the Pentagon. Despite the drumbeat from the right, he says uniformed men like to plan precisely for situations where men will be fighting. "Amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics," he says. It was evident that "we wouldn't have the allies, supplies and bases that were available to us in the Gulf War."

"What exactly is the legal basis for a war with Iraq? President [sic] Bush has tried to connect Iraq with the terrorists who attacked New York City and the Pentagon. The administration has admitted recently that there is no such connection. A massive investigation by the government failed to imply Saddam Hussein much to the dismay of the government…[Former Arms Inspector Scott Ritter] wrote in the Boston Globe on March 9, 2000, that, 'from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has in fact been disarmed. ... The chemical, biological, nuclear, and long-ranged missile programs that were a real threat in 1991, had by 1998 been destroyed or rendered harmless'…Saudi Arabia, our staunchest ally among the Arab nations, mainly because of our oil dependency, happened to be the spawning point of a majority of the Hijackers of 9/11; Osama bin Laden is also a Saudi. Saudis fought with the Taliban against Russia." (Keiler Hook, the Yellow Times).

Robert Scheer writes: "With its admission that an alleged link between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks doesn't exist, the Bush administration has lost its most compelling argument for invading Iraq. For eight months, the most intensive international investigation in history attempted to pin the massacre at the World Trade Center, the Pennsylvania plane crash and the attack on the Pentagon on the leader the U.S. most wants to topple. Last week, in response to a Newsweek report, senior administration officials conceded they had no evidence to support that theory… How annoying that the main achievement of our president's [sic] father--President George H.W. Bush--was the Gulf War, which saved Saudi royalty from Hussein's wrath… Clearly, Bush's preoccupation with Iraq has permitted the tail to wag the dog."

According to the UK Guardian, "Tony Blair has privately reassured his Labour Party critics that Britain will not back US military action against Iraq unless it wins the backing of the United Nations Security Council." Why on earth does Blair think Bush will wait for the UN before he starts dropping daisy cutters on Baghdad? Bush has abrogated EVERY treaty he doesn't like, showing complete and total contempt for the UN and all other cooperative international efforts. Hey Tony, if you think invading Iraq is wrong - as many in your Labour Party do - then you must tell your buddy Bush loud and clear NOT to invade Iraq.

The Bush administration continues to lie about its role in engineering the failed coup d'etat in Venezuela, and the media continues to participate in the cover-up. But here, in the NY Times, is a description of the secret planning by the Bush administration to engineer a coup d'etat in Iraq. We would no doubt be at war in Iraq today, except the imperialists on Team Bush can't find a competent figurehead. Imperialist Richard Perle has a simple plan - bomb Iraq into rubble now, and deal with the "collateral damage" later. Folks, Bush is planning MASS MURDER with OUR tax dollars! When are we Congress, the Media, and the American people going to demand a public debate - and a constitutionally-required Congressional declaration of war???

When Democrats like Cynthia McKinney ask questions about 911, we are accused of being "conspiracy nuts." But here's a full-blown conspiracy theory on the op-ed page of the NY Times from right-wing propagandist William Safire. Safire thinks the CIA is hiding the truth about an alleged meeting in April 2001 between 911 terrorist Mohamed Atta and Iraq's alleged "espionage chief in the Iraqi Embassy - Ahmed al-Ani." Safire has no doubts the meeting took place, and believes the meeting - whatever it was about - establishes a connection "between Al Qaeda's murder of 3,000 Americans and Iraq's Saddam. That would clearly be a casus belli, calling for our immediate military response." In other words, we should immediately bomb Iraq to smithereens simply because Safire believes a meeting took place. Hey Bill - if you believe the CIA is hiding the truth, why don't you join us in calling for a Blue Ribbon Commission to get to the bottom of 911 so we can find out EXACTLY what led to the attack?

Fran Shor writes in CommonDreams, "Over the last several months news reports of Bush Administration plans concerning the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein have [suggested that the] target date has been postponed until next year. In light of some recent circumstantial evidence and on-going signals from the White House [this] now seems like a case of Pentagon disinformation. The invasion of Iraq may be sooner than we are being led to believe by the propaganda machine. Among the more telling signals not discussed yet in the mainstream media is the revelation that a number of MASH units are being called up to report for duty in July... Added to this is the increasing reserve call-up of troops and the deployment of more warships to the region, including war games in the coming weeks with India. Further evidence of a push for a late summer/early fall invasion is the churning out of weapons, including the so-called 'low-yield' nuclear bunker buster bomb."

Robert Scheer writes in the LA Times, "Bush's preoccupation with Iraq has permitted the tail to wag the dog. Yet without the link to Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, there is little excuse for what would prove to be a very costly war, rejected by almost all of our allies as an irrational response to what remains of the Iraqi military threat. Bush's foreign policy is based on a fairy tale, the persistent if childish hope that all of our problems can be solved by one solid blow to the latest Evil Empire, now found in Baghdad. Someone needs to read the president [sic] a better bedtime story."

Soon, "the U.S. will probably be at war with Iraq. But why are we headed to war in the Mideast? Not because Iraq is engaged in terrorism. According to the CIA, it isn't. Not because Iraqi arms threaten our security. According to most arms inspectors, Iraq is essentially disarmed. No, it will happen because more than a decade ago a small cabal of political heavyweights in the administration of George Bush I, who now also run the foreign and defense policy of George Bush II, sat down and drew up a blueprint to rule the world. X-Files fantasies? Their names should be familiar: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff. Their goal is to 'shape' the world to 'preclude the rise of another global rival for the indefinite future,' in the words of one of the group's leading thinkers, Zalmay Khalizad (now special envoy to Afghanistan)." So writes Conn Hallinan.

"Two weeks ago, the US ambassador to the United Nations in Vienna failed, for the first time, to attend a meeting of the comprehensive test ban treaty...A week ago, the Washington Post revealed that the Pentagon had told the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, in the hope of undermining his credibility...On Friday, the US government succeeded in dislodging Robert Watson, the chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr Watson had been pressing member nations to take the threat of global warming seriously, to the annoyance of the oil company ExxonMobil. [Now], after a week of arm-twisting and secret meetings, the US government forced the departure of Jose Bustani, director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons…The tactics the US has deployed in the past few days to oust Bustani offer a fascinating insight into the way its diplomacy works." (George Monbiot, Guardian)

Well, the Bush machine will have to scramble around some more in search of a good excuse to attack Iraq. Their best bet so far was an obviously manufactured link between suicide hijacker Mohammed Atta and "Iraqi operatives." On 5/1 the Washington Post reports: "There is no evidence that the alleged leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Mohamed Atta, met in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, a finding that eliminates a once-suggested link between the terrorist attacks and the government of President Saddam Hussein, according to a senior administration official." Czech investigators, and FBI and CIA analysts who went over thousands of travel records, could find no evidence of the supposed link between Atta and Iraqi agents. One can only wonder: What other phony "evidence" and leads has this administration manufactured?

In an important interview with Salon, Scott Ritter, "the controversial former chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq says Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are largely disarmed, the 'Iraqi threat' is built on a framework of lies and President [sic] Bush has betrayed the American people... Ritter, a Republican who appears regularly on TV, is carrying on with his crusade to warn America against what he describes as a dangerous hard-line obsession with removing what he sees as a defanged old dictator... [Ritter says the] 'American people won't buy this charade that is going on right now. Bush will be voted out in the next term. On Iraq, where is the threat? I challenge Perle, Butler, Wolfowitz or anyone to a debate about Iraq's weapons programs. When you deal with facts, this kind of rhetoric no longer flies. This entire 'Iraqi threat' is built on a framework of lies -- a house of cards.'" No war for oil in Iraq!

"The CIA has told Bush that the chances of overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein soon through covert action or a coup are slim, leaving a large-scale U.S. invasion as the likeliest option to change the government...A former CIA official says [CIA] Director George Tenet presented that view to Bush earlier this month. Tenet was given approval in February to try to oust Saddam. 'They have not ruled out' a covert operation or aiding a coup, but 'the odds are not good in the next several years,' says Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East expert at the [Richard Scaife funded and CIA-linked] Center for Strategic and International Studies...Andy Bacevich, a retired Army officer... believes Bush has no choice but to attack after several months of war rhetoric. 'They have made such a point of regime change, the president [sic] can't run for re-election and have Saddam still in power thumbing his nose at us.'" So young Americans must die to keep Bush in power??? We demand impeachment!

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress - NOT THE PRESIDENT - the power "to declare war." But George W. Bush is openly planning to use 70,000 to 250,000 American troops to INVADE IRAQ - WITHOUT A DECLARATION OF WAR! Has Bush simply scrubbed the Constitution??? Call your Senators and Representatives (202-224-3121) and demand immediate hearings on Bush's ILLEGAL plan to invade Iraq. And get busy registering every young voter in America who will be sent to fight and die in Iraq to make Bush's oil and weapons puppeteers infinitely richer. We must sweep ALL Republicans out of office in November, and sweep in a Democratic Congress that will IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH.

Roll Call's Morton Kondracke is a mouthpiece for global conqueror Paul Wolfowitz. He writes, "Bush's Mideast policy may look confused, but it has a logic: It's designed to calm the Israeli-Palestinian fires while the United States prepares to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. If U.S. forces are successful in toppling Saddam later this year, the logic goes, the entire politics of the region will shift in America's favor and peace will be easier to achieve in Israel." Hey MorTON - how exactly will murdering tens of thousands of Iraqis bring peace to Israel? And are you volunteering to lead American forces into battle in Iraq?

"New information, recently released by the Pentagon, provides some confirming evidence that the Bush administration has been building military bases in the countries surrounding Iraq. As reported in the YellowTimes.org news report, 'U.S. armed forces surrounding Iraq under veil of secrecy,' published Thursday, March 28, 2002, undisclosed U.S. military sources reported that new airbases for use against Iraq were being constructed in Jordan, the Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. These reports were partially confirmed in an International Herald Tribune article published on April 8, 2002. According to that article, the Pentagon has been moving equipment, planes and other military materials out of its Saudi Arabian air base. The materials have been going to bases located in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman to help with future U.S. air operations against Iraq." So writes Christopher Reilly for the Yellow Times.

"To prevent terrorism by dropping bombs on Iraq is such an obvious idea that I can't think why no one has thought of it before. It's so simple. If only the UK had done something similar in Northern Ireland, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today... It is well known that the best way of picking out terrorists is to fly 30,000ft above the capital city of any state that harbours them and drop bombs - preferably cluster bombs... Having bombed Dublin and, perhaps, a few IRA training bogs in Tipperary, we could not have afforded to be complacent. We would have had to turn our attention to those states which had supported and funded the IRA terrorists through all these years. The main provider of funds was, of course, the USA." So writes Terry Jones in another withering satire.

"Paul Wolfowitz, the US deputy defence secretary and a leading hawk in the Bush administration, commissioned a CIA investigation of the chief United Nations weapons inspector in an apparent attempt to undermine the importance of inspections and strengthen the case for military action against Iraq, it was reported yesterday. According to the Washington Post, Mr Wolfowitz asked the CIA earlier this year to look into Hans Blix's record when he was head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) between 1981 and 1997…The Washington Post quoted a state department official as saying that Mr Wolfowitz had 'hit the ceiling' when the CIA report appeared to support Mr Blix's defence, concluding he was operating within the 'parameters' laid down for him. But an administration official claimed that the outspoken deputy defence secretary 'did not angrily respond' to the CIA report because it only gave a 'lukewarm assessment' of Mr Blix." So reports Julian Borger.

Historian Immanuel Wallerstein writes in Newsday, "George W. Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on invading Iraq from which he cannot extract himself, one which will have nothing but negative consequences for the US - and the rest of the world. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. And he will rapidly diminish the already declining power of the US in the world. A war against Iraq will destroy many lives immediately, both Iraqi and American... [But] if he doesn't invade Iraq, he will look foolish where it matters to him most - in the eyes of American voters... Bush's incredibly high approval ratings reflect his being a 'war president.' The minute he becomes a peace-time president, he will be in grave trouble - all the more so because of failed wartime promises. So, Bush has no choice. He will invade Iraq. And we shall all live with the consequences." Unless we say NO WAR IN IRAQ!!!

Senator Bob Smith (R) is such a militant religious opponent of abortion that he actually left the GOP during his "abortive" Presidential campaign in 2000, and switched to the far-right (and militantly anti-choice) Constitution Party. But apparently Smith's version of the Bible does not include "Thou Shalt Not Steal," as a recent speech shows. "Why don't we just take his oil?" Smith bellowed to the crowd during a fiery 13-minute speech, referring to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. "Why buy it? Take it!" Say what??? In Smith's Bible, does might make right? Will the greedy inherit the earth? In response to this rhetorical insanity, we can only ask: "Why don't we just kill Bob Smith?" The answer: Because it's against all human morality, because it's a crime, and because it only leads to a cycle of murder. Ditto for stealing Iraq's oil. HAVE THE REPUBLICANS LOST THEIR SOULS - AND THEIR MINDS???

"On Sunday, the US government will launch an international coup. It has been planned for a month. It will be executed quietly, and most of us won't know what is happening until it's too late. It is seeking to overthrow 60 years of multilateralism in favour of a global regime built on force. The coup begins with its attempt, in five days' time, to unseat the man in charge of ridding the world of chemical weapons. If it succeeds, this will be the first time that the head of a multilateral agency will have been deposed in this manner. Every other international body will then become vulnerable to attack. The coup will also shut down the peaceful options for dealing with the chemical weapons Iraq may possess, helping to ensure that war then becomes the only means of destroying them." So writes George Monbiot in the UK Guardian. Join the anti-war protests in DC and SF on Saturday!

John Nichols writes in the Nation, "It turns out that Blair, who has been the president's most enthusiastic international ally since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been having a very hard time making the case at home for British support of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq... Dismissing Blair's sympathy for the American president's military strategies as misguided, the mass-circulation Mirror newspaper has taken to referring to the prime minister as 'the president's poodle.' 'We didn't do so lightly -- but the truth is the prime minister has done nothing but play lapdog to the Washington Red Neck,' Mirror editors wrote in an editorial that appeared Friday morning. 'Whenever Bush has barked, Mr. Blair has rolled over with his legs in the air. As other European leaders held back from jumping to Bush's demands (on Iraq), Britain under Blair has rushed forward with embarrassing haste.'"

Check out this propaganda piece, with the misleading headline "Suicide bomber's patron: Saddam." The title implies that Saddam supported THE Suicide Bombers of the 911 attacks. But the article itself makes tenuous claims that Saddam and Iran fund suicide bombers in the region. The author is Andrea "Mrs. Alan Greenspan" Mitchell, who quotes such (un)trustworthy folks as anonymous "intelligence sources", a spokesman from the CIA-linked Council on Foreign Relations (second home to Alan and BushDaddy), and another from the National Defense University. If there was an investigation of CIA penetration of the Media like that in the '70's (that exposed Operation Mockingbird), the smart money is on Mrs. Greenspan as being on the BushDaddy CIA payroll. Nice try Andrea, but next time, we'd like some solid evidence before you help the Bush Gang make a case for invading Iraq.

Bush is so determined to trump up a reason to invade Iraq that he's trying every trick in the book. First, "The Jerry Falwell Trick": Bush self-righteously condemns Iraq as "evil" and hopes to inspire a "religious crusade" against Saddam. Next, "The Mysterious News Scoop Trick": Bush's media minions manufacture Al Qaeda-Iraq connections (connections, of course, even the CIA failed to uncover after years of trying!). Now Bush is resorting to the "Wizard of Oz Trick": He demands that the UN - and, in essence, everyone else in the world - simply not ask any questions. Pay no attention to that oil baron behind the curtain! So what's next? "The Caligula Trick" in which he declares himself emperor and personally takes over the Pentagon, naming George Bush Sr., Frank Carlucci and James Baker III the new Chiefs of Staff?

"With the exception of Britain, leaders from the Atlantic to the Urals have politely but firmly said they will not support a war against Iraq unless President [sic] George W. Bush puts up a convincing argument that Baghdad is a threat or that it took part in the September 11 terrorist attacks," reports the New Zealand Herald. "Opposition to action against Iraq was so clear that the matter was abruptly withdrawn from last weekend's European Union summit in Barcelona. Belgium had sought a formal discussion, but the suggestion was quashed. 'I have no sympathy for the dictatorial Iraqi regime,' [French Prime Minister Lionel] Jospin said. 'Iraq must obey its international obligations and be brought back in line with its obligations and oversight of its weapons...The problem is how to go about it. You cannot choose solutions whose consequences could make the current situation only worse." Which is just what Global Wreckingball Bush does best.

WashPost columnist David Ignatius writes, "After Sept. 11, some prominent U.S. commentators pushed the idea that al Qaeda terrorist Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer named Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. The key meeting supposedly took place in April 2001, as Atta was plotting the deadly operation that was to destroy the World Trade Center five months later... [But] the hard intelligence to support the Baghdad-bin Laden connection is somewhere between 'slim' and 'none.' A senior European official said that Atta did visit Prague once, in 2000, but there is no solid evidence he met with Iraqi intelligence. [And] there is strong evidence to the contrary -- directly undermining the theory of an 'Iraq connection.' The officials said intelligence reports indicate that Saddam personally decided against allowing bin Laden and al Qaeda to use Iraq as a base because he feared they might destabilize his regime." Bush's criminal war against Iraq must be stopped!

It seems as if the Bush administration is recuiting every arm of the mainstream media as part of his propaganda machine. Now, alas, even the mighty have fallen: "The New Yorker." This once proud mag just ran a story based on three dubious witnesses about a supposed tie between Al Qaeda and Saddam - running the story just as Bush is desperately seeking ANY excuse to launch into the next phase of the Endless War on Terrorism. Even the CIA has failed to find even a reliable shred of evidence that Al Qaeda and Saddam were connected. But now we should be willing to have thousands die - including our boys and girls in uniform - because of an article in "New Yorker" magazine. Is the Pentagon Disinformation Office behind this? Give us a break!

Even as Condy Rice lied through her teeth on Meet the Press on 3/10, saying plans to attack Iraq were merely an option, Bush has been mustering a force of 25,000 to invade Iraq. At the same time, Cheney - who has failed to make himself available to the U.S. public - is on a "hearts and minds" PR tour of the UK and Middle East to whip up support for the Great Oil War. Most insidious of all is the timing of this plan and the blatant and arrogant collusion of the U.S. media with the administration. Does ANYONE think it is a coincidence that the networks are absolutely bloated with 9/11 "Six Month Anniversary" coverage this weekend, complete with "inside never before shown scenes of the WTC" on a CBS "special event"? Or that Tim Russert's choice of Condy Rice - or his questions to her - on the propaganda hustle he calls a news hour is a coincidence? America is being hijacked by a cartel bent on world domination that does not give a damn about this nation's people or its soul.

Bush is getting so desperate to keep his "war on terrorism" going through 2004 that he appears ready to do anything to create a confrontation - ranging from blanket condemnations of other entire nations as "evil" to standing on the North Korean border and hurling insults and challenges like some drunken jock before the Big Game. Now it is revealed that Bush has blocked a record $4.6 billion in humanitarian supplies to Iraq, perpetuating the misery that has cost the lives of Iraqi 500,000 children since 1991. How is this unexplained and unjustified assault on innocent civilians different from the evil of terrorism?

"Former President George Bush said in remarks aired Thursday that he still yearned to see his old foe, Saddam Hussein, gone from Baghdad but added he did not want to complicate his son's decision-making in the next phase of the U.S.-led war on terrorism. Bush blasted critics of his failure to push on to Baghdad in 1991 to get rid of Saddam…The ex-president singled out lawmakers who opposed the congressional vote that ultimately authorized him to use force to dislodge Iraqi troops from Kuwait. 'Those I really find hypocritical,' he said, without mentioning any names." Hey BushDaddy, we think it's worse than hypocritical that you covertly armed Hussein right up to the Kuwaiti invasion (enter 'iraqgate' in our .Compass search engine). We call it treasonous. If your boy does topple Hussein, the best history will say about you is that you were a failed one-termer who needed your son to finish the job. You'll be forever in Dubya's twisted shadow.

"America intends to depose Saddam Hussein by giving armed support to Iraqi opposition forces across the country, The Observer has learnt... Bush has ordered the CIA and his senior military commanders to draw up detailed plans for a military operation that could begin within months. The plan, opposed by Tony Blair and other European Union leaders, threatens to blow apart the increasingly shaky international consensus behind the US-led 'war on terrorism'. It envisages a combined operation with US bombers targeting key military installations while US forces assist opposition groups in the North and South of the country…One version of the plan would have US forces fighting on the ground...Another key player is understood to be former CIA director James Woolsey...[Iran-Contra figure] Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State, said that action against Iraq was not imminent, but would come at a 'place and time of our choosing'."

"Iraq and the United States appeared headed for a fresh confrontation Tuesday after Baghdad rejected a call by President [sic] Bush to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country...On Monday, Bush hinted that Iraq could be the next target of the U.S. war on terrorism... As to the possible repercussions for long-time U.S. foe, President Saddam Hussein, Bush said, 'He'll find out'... Athough there are no proven direct ties between the Sept. 11 attacks and Iraq, the country has demonstrated chemical and biological capabilities, and is reported to have used such weapons on its own people during the Iran-Iraq war." Unfortunately, Bush Sr. covertly armed and financed Hussein's army right up to the Kuwaiti invasion, and left US taxpayers with $2 billion in defaulted Iraqi debt. In fact, the company of Bush crony George Wackenhut transported ingredients for chemical weapons to Iraq (enter 'iraqgate' in our .Compass search engine).

"American investigators probing anthrax outbreaks in Florida and New York... have named Iraq as prime suspect as the source of the deadly spores. Their inquiries are adding to what US hawks say is a growing mass of evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved, possibly indirectly, with the 11 September hijackers. If investigators' fears are confirmed - and sceptics fear American hawks could be publicising the claim to press their case for strikes against Iraq - the pressure now building among senior Pentagon and White House officials in Washington for an attack may become irresistible... The hawks winning the ear of President Bush [are] assembled around Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, and a think tank, the Defence Policy Advisory Board, dubbed the 'Wolfowitz cabal'... 'We see this war as one against the virus of terrorism... if that means embarking on the next Hundred Years' War, that's what we're doing.'" Has Congress authorized THIS???

According to Jane's Security, "Israel's military intelligence service, Aman, suspects that Iraq is the state that sponsored the suicide attacks on the New York Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington. Directing the mission, Aman officers believe, were two of the world's foremost terrorist masterminds: the Lebanese Imad Mughniyeh, head of the special overseas operations for Hizbullah, and the Egyptian Dr Ayman Al Zawahiri, senior member of Al-Qaeda and possible successor of the ailing Osama Bin Laden... Mughniyeh is probably the world’s most wanted outlaw... 'Bin Laden is a schoolboy in comparison with Mughniyeh,' says an Israeli who knows Mughniyeh."

While Bush publicly focuses on Afghanistan, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is itching to attack Iraq, whether or not it was involved in the September 11 attack. Wolfowitz is backed by Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, I. Lewis Libby, a former lawyer for fugitive Marc Rich, as well as conservative ideologues William Kristol, Robert Kagan, William Bennett and Richard Perle, founders of the right-wing "Project for the New American Century." Colin Powell is opposed, because it would undermine Arab support for Bush's new anti-terrorist coalition.

Media Channel's Danny Schecter is carefully monitoring the airwaves for signs of what the Bush administration will do in response to Tuesday's attack. He writes: "One of Lehrer's mostly conservative experts, Bill Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard, passed on a high-level leak. Namely, that the U.S. will link Bin Laden to Sadam Hussein. Recall that Dubya said he would 'punish' states harboring terrorists. No one really spent much time discussing what that meant. Now Rupert's emissary was predicting that the game plan might be to ask for a declaration of war against Iraq to 'finish the job'... So, is another Gulf War in the offing? Will Son of Bush 'finish' his father's failed Desert Storm? That is a real possibility, suggesting also that more media manipulation is on the way. The coverage on Tuesday night was tilting in the direction of whipping up the outrage with no alternatives to war even discussed."

On June 19 - a date strategically, just a month before the recent missile test - a frightening story was released by the AP. According to this report by Edith Lederer, Iraq has been smuggling in new weapons, despite sanctions. The story was purportedly based on findings of the "Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control," a "nonprofit watchdog group." When journalist Jeffrey Weiss did some digging, he found the WP "report" was actually just an article in "Commentary" magazine, one based entirely on "confidential" statements made by unidentified sources. It also turns out the Wisconsin Project is funded partly by the Pentagon and is not a "nonprofit watchdog." Worse yet, the Wisconsin Project also released a phony report on June 10 that Iraq had tested a nuke. This report was picked up and disseminated globally by Reuters and other mainstream news. This lie was exposed within hours by seismologists and UN officials. Smells like Bush Daddy 'Company' propaganda.

"Bush authorized the largest American military action against Iraq in more than two years without understanding the provocative nature of the U.S.-led airstrikes and without a full briefing on the Feb. 16 targets." Consequently, "it also highlighted Bush's lack of experience in national security affairs and the drawbacks of a management style that leaves details to subordinates." Furthermore, "the officials described an incoherent and disjointed planning process for the raid, with planning and execution being handled almost solely by the Pentagon. Details were only shared with civilian officials, including the secretary of state [Powell], at a late date." Flimsy charges were often made that Clinton was "wagging the dog." But Clinton's National Security team was fully briefed and signed off on the military actions. In contrast, was the Bush Pentagon doing some dog-wagging to deflect from scrutiny of the USS Greeneville accident on Feb. 9 - that hosted many Republican VIPs?

In Kuwait there was a 10th anniversary celebration of the US-Allied victory in driving the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait. Attending were Secretary of State Colin Powell, Former President George Bush, and former British Prime Ministers John Major & Margaret Thatcher. "Powell described his country's mission as one of combating evil." Too bad that Former President Bush helped build that evil by arming Saddam Hussein right up to the '90 Kuwait invasion . Then, five days before the invasion Bush's ambassador told Hussein that the US "took no position" on Iraq's conflict with Kuwait (see our earlier report on Iraqgate). But Bush Sr. shows no shame in using BushSpeak to plaster over his past sins: "the United States will never let Kuwait down. We are never going to betray our responsibilities to continue to preserve the peace of Kuwait. We fought too hard, too many died."

Congressional leaders - even Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC)! - are upset at Bush for not telling them about about his plan to bomb Iraq. For Pete's Sake, even President Clinton notified them the last time we attacked Iraqi sites outside the north and south no-fly zones. Bush lost the election, but he thinks he's the Emperor.

With news of UnPresident George W. Bush's bombing of Iraq (2/16/01), here are some historical reminders as to who helped build Saddam Hussein's power - former President George H. W. Bush, with the assistance of Secretary of State James Baker. Also included is information about Dick Cheney and George W.'s business dealings in the Gulf region. (A Special Report for Democrats.com).

The last time President Clinton ordered an attack on Iraq, he was accused by Republicans and the media of "wagging the dog" - creating a bogus military distraction from other administration troubles. Now let's make a list of news the Cheney/Bush administration doesn't want to divert us from. A big Bush donor among the Greeneville civilians... Key Republicans coming out against the Bush tax plan... The BBC expose of the phony felon purge that stole Florida for Bush, underscored testimony before the US Commission on Civil Rights... Or maybe the worst possible news: another Cheney heart attack?