They work from within and are at first difficult to spot. Watch out for them, always waiting to pounce, scheming as treasonous, treacherous leaches of freedom.

They insist that their patriotism is beyond reproach, true Americans, yet they will not be satisfied till the American way of life is destroyed. Cloaked in the flag, they do the master's bidding, neither wondering nor caring if he is right. They blindly follow and terrorize those who do not.

Perhaps out of ignorance, hatred or fear, but with the same result, each act of their terrorism pushes this country another step closer to the state of tyranny and oppression against which they pretend to defend.

Despite infinite shades of gray, they see only black and white and are therefore easily influenced and manipulated. They insist that, if you don't support George W. Bush, then you support Saddam. They are evil incarnate and determined to destroy the American way of life. They are "Free Speech" Terrorists.

Already there is a behind-the-scenes effort by former senior Republican government officials and party leaders to convince President Bush that the advice he has received from Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz -- a powerful triumvirate frequently at odds with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- has been wrong and even dangerous to long-term U.S. national interests.

Citing past public statements by Cheney and others about the prospective ease with which the Iraq war could be won and the warm welcome U.S. forces would receive from the Iraqi people, one former GOP appointee said he and his allies were looking at "whether this president has learned something from this bum advice he has been getting."

Other Republicans and Bush administration officials, some close to Powell, also expressed concern that the Iraq war plan, with its "rolling start" using a relatively small force, was based on faulty assumptions that the Iraqi government would quickly collapse. Moreover, there is fear among some officials, especially in the State Department, that postwar diplomacy, if handled poorly, could result in further U.S. estrangement from allies and international institutions ...

Powell has stressed his support for the war plan, and those operating behind the scenes said they were acting without Powell's blessing. Indeed, among this group, there is criticism of Powell for failing to combat some of the assumptions about the war with Iraq more forcefully. "Powell won't pick up the fight and won't represent State Department professionals who are appalled by what is about to happen," a former party official said.

Administration officials are generally close-mouthed about their discussions and officially insist there is unity among Bush's senior national security advisers. But they also acknowledge that within this administration disputes among senior Cabinet officials are never really settled. With war now under way, the stakes in the debate over Iraq are much higher, affecting not only the course of the conflict but the world's acceptance of the U.S. invasion and its aftermath.

Republicans have also tried to whip wavering moderates into supporting tax cuts by stressing the need for national unity. "They're telling everybody to support the president in a time of war," GOP Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida told Congressional Quarterly. The notion that the successful prosecution of the war depends upon passing Bush's domestic agenda in toto may, too, seem counterintuitive at first. The best explication of how this dynamic would work came from Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. "When our troops are over there fighting," she said in a floor speech last week, "we don't want partisan bickering to be what they see on television from back home." Again, this incorporates a novel understanding of the American soldier. Troops in combat do not, after all, have much opportunity to watch television (and those who do presumably include relatively few C-SPAN buffs). One might also assume that whatever tiny minority of troops has found a way to monitor the floor debate in Congress could, having experienced the grisly carnage of war, take in a contested Senate vote with some equanimity. But let us suppose that there are a greater number of debate-averse, emotionally delicate, news-junkie troops on the front line than one might expect. Surely, the best way to avoid upsetting them is not to ram through a controversial tax cut on a party-line vote, as the White House has sought to do, but instead to postpone the debate until after the war. Of course, that would raise a frightening prospect: debating the tax cut on its own merits.

America. Ah-may-ree-ka. It was the most powerful word in the world. It would leave the lips of grown men and their hearts would crack open. Please, if you can help me I will do anything -- I will work for free, I will take care of your children, I will take care of your garden. I will stay only for one year, if you can just buy me a plane ticket to New York City. But after the bombing started, the worm turned. We were counting on struggling masses yearning to breathe free, but video of the bombs hitting Baghdad, the video of crying children, the reports of dead civilians...these have been played over and over, sometimes with sentimental Enya-like music, and it's just been too much for the people here. They are Kurds and their identity is linked to their Kurdish culture, but, apparently, their religious identity is stronger than this. Our attack on Iraq is being seen as an attack on their Muslim brothers and sisters. It has become a religious war, and Saddam Hussein is now being called a hero, even among the Kurds. In fact, the war has given the Kurds and the Turks a common ground, perhaps the first time they've ever agreed on anything.

For those of us who do want to challenge it, there's much we can't control. Barriers to such changes in U.S. public perception are formidable. The military complex in this country has enormous money behind it, enough to employ millions of people earning (except for the soldiers) a comfortable living building pieces of a repugnantly deployed whole. Mass media are currently dominated by a range of political opinion that makes Genghis Khan a centrist, and that usually acknowledges dissent only to ridicule it. Both major political parties are corrupted by corporate money almost beyond redemption.

But what we can control is what we say (and hear), how we act, who we appeal to and work with, and to what ends. Much of the political rhetoric in this country – with or without a war in progress – is so over the top and intolerant as to be anathema to a secular democracy, and many Americans know that, too. What is lacking is a coherent, appealing alternative. Times of crisis and maximum dissent are precisely when those alternatives should be on display – not when they should be abandoned for the protest equivalent of comfort food.

Many of us who have opposed this war feel frustrated and powerless; it is an emotionally charged time. Remember this sensation. Remember how unpleasant it is. Then resolve to do what you can to ensure that neither you nor future generations of people who care about their world will be put in this place again. And start working to do something about it.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon planners that substantially more troops and armor would be needed to fight a war in Iraq, New Yorker Magazine reported.

In an article for its April 7 edition, which goes on sale on Monday, the weekly said Rumsfeld insisted at least six times in the run-up to the conflict that the proposed number of ground troops be sharply reduced and got his way.

"He thought he knew better. He was the decision-maker at every turn," the article quoted an unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying. "This is the mess Rummy put himself in because he didn't want a heavy footprint on the ground."

It also said Rumsfeld had overruled advice from war commander Gen. Tommy Franks to delay the invasion until troops denied access through Turkey could be brought in by another route and miscalculated the level of Iraqi resistance.

"They've got no resources. He was so focused on proving his point -- that the Iraqis were going to fall apart," the article, by veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, cited an unnamed former high-level intelligence official as saying.

A spokesman at the Pentagon declined to comment on the article.

Fox News had its own response to the demonstrators. The news ticker rimming Fox's headquarters on Sixth Avenue wasn't carrying war updates as the protest began. Instead, it poked fun at the demonstrators, chiding them.

"War protester auditions here today ... thanks for coming!" read one message. "Who won your right to show up here today?" another questioned. "Protesters or soldiers?" Said a third: "How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them."

Still another read: "Attention protesters: the Michael Moore Fan Club meets Thursday at a phone booth at Sixth Avenue and 50th Street" - a reference to the film maker who denounced the war while accepting an Oscar on Sunday night for his documentary "Bowling for Columbine."

The protesters said Fox's sentiments only proved their point: that media coverage, in particular among the television networks, is so biased as to be unbelievable.

"They're all bad, but Fox is the absolute worst," said Tracy Blevins, 32, a New York City resident. "The people who report the news aren't journalists. They just say what the government tells them to say."

Reached for comment Thursday afternoon, Fox spokeswoman Tracy Spector was unaware of the messages on the news ticker and said she would look into it. Spector said the network "didn't mean to insult anyone."

Spector did not return calls for further comment by early Thursday evening.

Media experts said what Fox did Thursday morning was not shocking - Fox was openly hawkish about the war long before it began. But, they said, the display - tagged with the Fox News logo — threw journalistic objectivity out the window and also ridiculed the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

"Fox tries to position itself as 'the real American network,'" said Michael Hoyt, executive editor of the Columbia Journalism Review. "But real Americans believe in democracy and freedom of speech. I think what they did was cynical and bush league."

Barbara Reed, an associate professor of journalism at Rutgers University, said she wasn't surprised by Fox's action, given the fact that the network is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the Australian media mogul and ardent conservative whose publications have been hawkish.

"Fox isn't the only news outlet that has shown bias, but I think Murdoch and Fox are over the top on this one," Reed said.

Long time Religious right activist Dr. D. James Kennedy, head of Coral Ridge Ministries, focuses his ire on mainline Protestant leaders whose opposition to the war is "essentially propping up Saddam Hussein's regime."

AgapePress reports that Dr. Kennedy -- clearly unable to grapple with the concept that opposition to the war does not equate with support for Hussein -- believes the protests are actually aimed directly at President Bush: "Why any churchman would choose to support that rather than to support our own president, I don't know. I think that some of them are doing it for purely political reasons, and [because] they have a very strong liberal bias -- and George W. Bush is their favorite target. Anything he does, I think, in their eyes would be wrong."

Then, there's the Rev. Jerry Falwell who has Senator Tom Daschle and the Dixie Chicks on his mind. In the March 20 edition of Falwell Confidential, his e-mail newsletter, he claims that Daschle is solely motivated by "hatred of President Bush." As for the Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines -- who apparently broke the good Reverend's heart by criticizing President Bush -- they have gone "from top of the charts to bottom of the barrel in the minds of many music lovers." The Rev. Falwell was ahead of the curve here. Of late there have been a number of events organized by good and righteous Americans who stand around a bon fire and throw Dixie Chick CDs into it.

Of Maines' apology, the Rev. Falwell says that while she "attempted a pseudo apology for her words... the damage had been permanently done." The Rev Falwell knows from whence he speaks when talking about "pseudo" apologies. He's been issuing them pretty regularly down the through the years.

Early Saturday, a strong explosion shook the center of Baghdad, and it appeared to be located on the west bank of the Tigris River. Many government departments are located in the area, including the Information Ministry. Information Minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf said 58 people were killed in the market explosion, and said the number was likely to rise because many others were wounded. There were conflicting reports, however, on the number of casualties. Haqi Ismail Razouq, director of al-Nour Hospital, where the dead and injured were taken, put the death toll at 30 and the number of injured at 47; surgeon Issa Ali Ilwan said 47 were killed and 50 injured. Witnesses said they counted as many as 50 bodies.

Bingham, who had been Vice President Al Gore's official photographer
Leftist elitist journalist meets the real world and finds out that they aren't really in a protected class.
7 posted on 03/27/2003 12:06 PM PST by razorback-bert (27 March 2003..."Saddam Hussein still denies he's alive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

---

Evidently she led a life of pleasure where everything was handed to her on a silver platter, and though she was untouchable because she not only an American, but a Clintonite as well. Not sad in the least.

18 posted on 03/27/2003 4:05 PM PST by Timesink (If you use the word "embedded" in a conversation, you'd better be carrying an x-ray to show me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

---

I lost contact with Newsday years ago.
They are a liberal-socialist rag, and basically suck ass.

8 posted on 03/26/2003 4:32 PM PST by Yankee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

so you go to gw? well if i ever saw your anti-american shit ass at kogan plaza or in your thurston dorm i'd kick it. -t

Okay boys and girls... this is one of the many little stories that, when given some thought, is downright scary.

Newsweek, March 31, 2003 -- page 42: Article: "W's Comfort Zone"

From the first and second paragraph:

----------------

The movie screen appeared and the popcorn came out... (Bush) was viewing "Conspiracy Theory," the weird, noirish tale of a comically paranoid taxi driver (Mel Gibson) who discovers -- when the CIA crashed into his life to torture him -- that "they" really are out to get him.

Dan Bartlett, communications director, recommended the six-year old film because Bush had seen all the newer ones onboard.

The president, who once said his favorite flick was "Austin Powers," didn't like it - big time. Slow start, confusing plot, just a mess. He ribbed Bartlett all the way home.

This is the president who likes his stories upbeat, his plotlines simple and his villains clearly marked.

------------------------

Wow... where to begin. It's scary enough that during an extended period of Bush-induced national and international crises, he was able to find enough time to see "ALL" of the newer movies onboard.

But the scariest part is that he found the plot of "Conspiracy Theory" confusing!! This is the guy "leading" this country, and he doesn't even have the brainpower to understand the plot of a Mel Gibson / Julia Roberts movie??

If he can't get a grip on that plot, then how on Earth would he be able to understand the REAL global plot that he's a part of now?

The current situation he's in "control" of is anything but "upbeat," it's "plotlines" are far from "simple," and the "villains" are NOT "clearly marked." This idiot must be totally in the dark right now.

Of course, I was always troubled that his favorite movie was "Austin Powers" in the first place... but to think that the reason is because it's the only type of movie he can follow is downright dispicable.

Now, apparently, is the time for all good radio and TV stations to come to the aid of their country's war.

That is the message pushed by broadcast news consultants, who've been advising news and talk stations across the nation to wave the flag and downplay protest against the war.

"Get the following production pieces in the studio NOW: . . . Patriotic music that makes you cry, salute, get cold chills! Go for the emotion," advised McVay Media, a Cleveland-based consultant, in a "War Manual" memo to its station clients. ". . . Air the National Anthem at a specified time each day as long as the USA is at war."

The company, which describes itself as the largest radio consultant in the world, also has been counseling talk show stations to "Make sure your hosts aren't 'over the top.' Polarizing discussions are shaky ground. This is not the time to take cheap shots to get reaction . . . not when our young men and women are 'in harm's way.'

Notice Scalia's comments, in bold, indicating a prejudice towards homosexuals.

In the District of Columbia, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation:

The District of Columbia, California has a law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination.

Human Rights Act, 1977, D.C.L. 2-38, D.C. Code §1-2541(c) 12/13/77: covers public employment, public accommodations, private employment, education, housing, credit, and union practices.

Have any openly-gay law students or lawyers applied for clerkships with Scalia and been rejected? If so, I believe Scalia's comments in yesterday's oral argument could be Paragraph 1 of their lawsuits for employment discrimination in hiring!

Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice and law-breaker extraordinaire!

Dean also disputes another major criticism of his presidential campaign: that his antiwar stance threatens to make him a single-issue candidate, ''I started out as the guy who wanted to balance the budget and bring health insurance to every American,'' he says.

At the moment, however, America's war with Iraq is driving political dialogue in the world and in the Democratic presidential campaign. Dean, who opposed war with Iraq without UN backing, continues to criticize the policy that got the United States into the war. He is eloquent when it comes to explaining why such criticism should not be considered unpatriotic. ''Patriotism is standing up for your country and believing in your country's values,'' he says. ''One of those values is people's ability to say what they think. You can't root against your country. But I have no problem disagreeing with the president's policy.''

Adds Dean: ''It would be hypocritical to change my position just because 70 percent of the country doesn't agree with me. I don't operate that way. I'm not poll driven. To suddenly change my position, it just is not the right thing to do.''

There is no question that Dean's willingness to speak his mind, war or no war, is appealing to Democrats who are eager to hear some passion and conviction from a presidential candidate.

"Girls Gone Wild."
Kangaroo Jack
Testicular Cancer
AIDs
Atrios
PanAm
This website.
The mediocrity of Third Eye Blind's followup album, "Blue."
Jumpin Jack Flash.
Anal warts.
Brian Griese
Onion rings
Breakup of the Beatles
Titanic.

DenverPost - Even off duty, he liked to test his limits. Last summer, when wildfires were encroaching on a friend's home in Evergreen, Slocum helped his friend evacuate, though he was almost due back from his leave. He made it back to Camp Lejeune with 30 minutes to spare.

He was a lance corporal, the team leader of four Marines, when he was killed.

Slocum was proud of his rank. He almost always included it with his signature when he wrote to his longtime friend Kristy Urbanic, 22.

"I can't wait to come home and share the stories of my experiences and travels with the whole family," he wrote to her on March 13, in a letter she received Monday.

"I've been training hard and becoming smarter, harder, faster and deadlier everyday. ... I took the picture of you and (Urbanic's daughter) Zoe ... and put it in the pocket closest to my heart always."

Slocum had always had a thing for Urbanic, friends said. They'd known each other since fourth grade. Before he left for Iraq, they talked about moving in together when he returned, Urbanic said.

"I want you and Zoe more than anything in the world," he wrote to Urbanic on March 2.

"It does not matter if Zoe is not mine. All that matters is that I love her, teach her and protect her."

Twenty-one days later, he was dead.

---

Sun - But for West Virginia children in some of the more rural areas, the military is the one good chance of getting an education and making something of themselves."

Lack of jobs and the military service of her older brother, Gregory Lynch Jr., led Jessica into the Army, her father said. She signed up before graduating from Wirt County High School in Elizabeth, where she played basketball and softball.

Greg said: "The Army offered a good deal." Jessica's brother is stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina.

Locals have been supporting Greg, Jessica's mother Deidre, and her 17-year-old sister, Brandi Renee. A yellow ribbon was tied to a tree near the family's mailbox and two others were attached to posts on the front porch.

In an interview today, Mr. Limbaugh said he was trying to raise national morale in the face of what he said was overly negative news coverage. With 20 million listeners a week, he has a sizeable platform.

"I want people to remain optimistic," Mr. Limbaugh said. "I'm not trying to avoid realism. There's no question that we have had setbacks. But we're the United States military; there's no way we're going to lose this."

Comedian Chris Rock has been strongly advised not to engage in any Bush-bashing during the promotion of his new film HEAD OF STATE, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Rock once said of Bush: "He's not stupid, he's just drunk," adding, "All the black people who voted for Bush are both on his cabinet."

DREAMWORKS is preparing to release the comedy wide on Friday. There are deep concerns that Rock may unleash a fresh diatribe on President Bush and the Iraq war, studio insiders reveal, which could ignite a public backlash and boycott of the film.

In the movie, Rock plays a character who is the Democratic party's choice for its 2004 presidential nomination. Rock is also director, producer and co-scenarist.

"We are confident Chris knows this is not the appropriate time to make jokes about war and the president," said one top studio source. "We don't want to get Dixie-Chicked, or anything like that, out of the gate. We've invested tens of millions of dollars in the making of the movie and its marketing."

For his part, sources say Chris Rock has decided to maintain a neutral point of view on Bush if he is prodded to comment during any press promotion for HEAD.

On a recent guest spot on OPRAH, Rock cautiously offered: "Ah, the war, ah, well, maybe if we Americans really knew what a war meant, ah, then maybe we wouldn't be so eager in waging or supporting it."

CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST But all, almost all, laws are based on disapproval of either some people or some sort of conduct. That's people legislate.

MR. SMITH And what this court does under the equal-protection clause is standard as a bulwark against arbitrary government . . .

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST If you prevail, Mr. Smith, and this law is struck down, do you think that would also mean that a state could not prefer heterosexuals to homosexuals to teach kindergarten?

MR. SMITH I think the issue of preference in the educational context would involve very different criteria, Your Honor, very different considerations. The state would have to come in with some sort of a justification.

JUSTICE SCALIA A justification is the same that's alluded to here, disapproval of homosexuality.

MR. SMITH Well, I think it would be highly problematic, such a custody case.

JUSTICE SCALIA Yes, it would?

It's drive time with WABC's rightwing talkshow host, Curtis Sliwa, and Bill is on the line from the Poconos in Pennsylvania with a tale so funny he can hardly share it for giggling.

He was carrying an American flag and yelling support for the troops in a delayed St Patrick's Day parade over the weekend when he saw one woman carrying a sign saying: "No blood for oil".

"She was wearing black and she was an older lady," says Bill. "And then our sheriff saw her and she didn't have a permit. So they put her in the back of the truck car and hauled her away."

On its own, Bill's story would be aberrant - the tale of an overzealous legal official and an unfortunate woman in smalltown America. Increasingly though it is becoming consistent. The harassment, arrest, detention and frustration of those who are against the war is becoming routine. Relatives of victims who died on September 11, who are opposed to the war, have been prevented from speaking in schools. Last month Stephen Downs was handcuffed and arrested after refusing to take off a Give Peace a Chance T-shirt in a mall in Albany. He was told he would have been found guilty of trespass if the mall had not dropped the case because of the bad publicity.

A CITIZENS' DECLARATION

As a US-led invasion of Iraq begins, we, the undersigned citizens of many countries, reaffirm our commitment to addressing international conflicts through the rule of law and the United Nations.

By joining together across countries and continents, we have emerged as a new force for peace. As we grieve for the victims of this war, we pledge to redouble our efforts to put an end to the Bush Administration's doctrine of pre-emptive attack and the reckless use of military power.

A few hours and a simple Internet search was all it took for U.N. inspectors to realize documents backing U.S. and British claims that Iraq had revived its nuclear program were crude fakes, a U.N. official said. Speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, a senior official from the U.N. nuclear agency, who saw the documents offered as evidence that Iraq tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, described one as so badly forged his "jaw dropped."

Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union suggest that the Attorney General is aggressively wielding a disturbing power that - without the approval of a judge - allows the government to force banks, Internet service providers, telephone companies, and credit agencies to turn over their customers' records.

"Without judicial oversight, there is simply no assurance that the Attorney General is using this authority in keeping with democratic principles and constitutional rights," said Jameel Jaffer, an attorney with the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program.

Information about the government's surveillance powers was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed jointly with the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression and the Freedom to Read Foundation.

According to documents obtained through the FOIA lawsuit, the government employs "National Security Letters" - signed by Attorney General Ashcroft or a delegate and with no judicial approval - to "compel the production of a substantial amount of relevant information." The government can use this power to obtain records about people living in the United States, including American citizens, without probable cause that the person has committed any crime. Entities that are forced to turn over records are prohibited from disclosing to their customers - or to anyone else - that the FBI has demanded the records.

On paper, CNN ''Newsnight'' anchor Aaron Brown has some good qualities. He is bright, even cerebral. He has a smooth set of pipes that are easy on the ears. He often asks smart, layered questions that go beyond the obvious. But as was the case in the days after the attacks on Sept. 11, the war on Iraq is again proving that he is just too studied, too enigmatic, and frankly, too weird, to be anchor material.

Brown's mannerisms -- the subtle lip bite, the fingers playing at the corners of his mouth, the Mona Lisa-like smile -- can seem contrived, even inopportune. And he is not well served by sitting next to retired General Wesley Clark, a CNN military analyst. Crisp, focused, and direct, Clark is the antidote to Brown's pregnant pauses, quizzical looks, and at times, languorous pacing. On Sunday, after a rather heated exchange with an Al-Jazeera journalist, a flustered Brown could only utter this mysterious passage: ''On we go. General Clark, apparently it's going to be a night.''

One of CNN's frustrations has been its elusive search for a marquee anchor. Maybe the network thought it landed one when it imported Brown from ABC in 2001. But with the possible exception of Dan Rather, no anchor can be more annoyingly self-conscious.

In the U.S., Fox News simply has wrapped itself in the flag and makes no effort to distinguish between its journalism and the U.S. war effort. Fox executives can be pleased that their approach has allowed the network to hold the lead in cable news ratings; the rest of us can be relieved that viewers who want that sort of thing will be too busy having their prejudices confirmed to bother the rest of us. With some notable exceptions, meanwhile, the British Broadcasting Corp. -- heard nightly on many PBS and NPR stations -- has continued to elevate traditional reportorial skepticism to near-toxic levels.

Washington's ambassador to Canada has delivered the sternest public rebuke by a U.S. representative since the Trudeau era, saying Americans are upset at Canada's refusal to join the war in Iraq and hinting there could be economic fallout.

At a breakfast speech yesterday to the Economic Club of Toronto, U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci said "there is a lot of disappointment in Washington and a lot of people are upset" about Canada's refusal to join the United States in its efforts to depose Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with," the ambassador told the Bay Street audience.

"There would be no debate. There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada, part of our family, and that is why so many in the United States are disappointed and upset that Canada is not fully supporting us now."

In Ottawa, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien retorted that Canada is a "sovereign independent country" that makes its own decisions and that there is unhappiness all around over the war in Iraq.

"We, too, are disappointed" that the United States went to war in Iraq without the approval of the United Nations, Mr. Chrétien said. Strong public criticism of Canada from a U.S. ambassador is extremely rare. Ambassador Paul Robinson created controversy in 1982 when he accused Canada of spending too much on social services.

The London based Arabic daily Al Quds Al Arabi reported on Tuesday, March 25 that the American vice president, Dick Cheney, would soon head to the Jordanian capital, Amman.

The newspaper claimed that the visit would be an attempt by Cheney to convince his daughter, who was in the Jordanian capital, to back down her decision to go to Baghdad within a group of volunteers who want to form human shields against the US led attacks on Iraq.

Al Quds Al Arabi cited news reports it claimed circulating in Amman as saying that Cheney would arrive in the Jordanian capital soon on a special visit it described as having a "social mission." "News agencies cited sources as saying that Cheney will arrive in Amman next Friday. He will try to convince his daughter who is currently staying at a hotel in Amman not to go to Baghdad along with a group of volunteers who want to go to Iraq and form human shields against the Anglo American attacks," said the report.

A U.S. Embassy spokesman in the Jordanian capital, denied that Cheney was on his way to Jordan: "The embassy has no information that the U.S. vice president will arrive in Jordan to convince one of his daughters not to travel to Iraq to join human shields opposed to war," he said.

However, some sons of western officials have already volunteered as human shields in Iraq against the American invasion, including the son of the Canadian Foreign Minister, Bill Graham

"Dead Iraqi Would Have Loved Democracy"

Baghdad resident Taha Sabri, killed Monday in a U.S. air strike on his city, would have loved the eventual liberation of Iraq and establishment of democracy, had he lived to see it, his grieving widow said.

"Taha was a wonderful man, a man of peace," his wife Sawssan said. "I just know he would have been happy to see free elections here in Iraq, had that satellite-guided Tomahawk cruise missile not strayed off course and hit our home."

A shoemaker and father of five, Sabri, 44, was listening to the radio at 3 a.m. when a missile launched from a U.S. warship in the Persian Gulf veered off course and struck just feet from his house. Sawssan was away at the time, tending to an ailing aunt in the Baghdad suburb of Mansour.

"My husband was no fan of Saddam," Sawssan said. "He felt he was a terrible despot. If the Americans do drive him from power, it will be that much more of a shame that they killed Taha."

---

Vital Info On Iraqi Chemical Weapons Provided By U.S. Company That Made Them
BALTIMORE—The Pentagon has obtained vital information on Iraqi chemical weapons from Alcolac International, the Baltimore-based company that sold them to the Mideast nation in the '80s. "It's terrifying what Iraq has," Pentagon spokesman James Reese said Monday. "Saddam possesses massive stockpiles of everything from ethylene to thiodiglycol, according to sales records provided by Alcolac." The Pentagon has also been collecting key intelligence on Iraqi nuclear weapons and guidance systems from Honeywell, Unisys, and other former U.S. suppliers to Iraq.

---

U.S. Continues Proud Tradition Of Diversity On Front Lines
CAMP COYOTE, KUWAIT—With blacks and Hispanics comprising more than 60 percent of the Army's ground forces in Iraq, the U.S. military is continuing its long, proud tradition of multiculturalism on the front lines of war. "Though racism and discrimination remain problems in society at large, in the military—especially in the lower ranks where you find the cannon fodder—a spirit of inclusiveness has prevailed for decades," Gen. Jim White said Monday. "When it comes to having your head blown off by enemy fire, America is truly colorblind."

For example, during the State of the Union speech President Bush again asserted the dangers facing the United States in absolute and uncompromising terms: America simply cannot wait.

But, while the president proclaimed to a rousing applause that America will be triumphant, he did not speak frankly or honestly of the potential sacrifices needed, nor did he provide any sense of how many Americans or others might die.

It seems clear that the leading voices in support of war are operating under the remarkably casual assumption that this war will be quick and decisive.

Much of the commentary following the President's speech, especially that on Fox Cable News, has even seemed downright giddy with anticipation for war.

Wars, however, are not sport. They are extraordinarily complex events with very real human costs.

And they rarely go according to script.

McKinley, Truman, and Johnson rushed into war believing they would win decisively.

McKinley believed the Filipinos would welcome American Troops with open arms after they were liberated from the Spanish.

General Douglas Macarthur persuaded Truman that China would not enter the war in Korea.

Johnson believed a strategy of counter-insurgency coupled with nation-building efforts would lead to victory in South Vietnam.

All were wrong.

A column of up to 1,000 Iraqi military vehicles was reported moving south Wednesday night toward Najaf, the scene of an earlier battle with U.S. forces, U.S. Army officers told CNN.

The column is believed to be made up of troops from Iraq's elite Republican Guard. The forces were moving from Baghdad at a rate of 18 mph to 36 mph, toward the lead elements of the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division, CNN's Walter Rodgers reports.

Coalition military officials said they expect the Iraqi forces are heading south to try to retake a key Euphrates River bridge, captured by U.S.-led troops after fierce fighting this week.

U.S. commanders were calling in airstrikes to slow the Iraqi advance.

The administration has adjusted its message to include much blunter assessments of the risks ahead. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned yesterday that the campaign "could well grow more dangerous in the coming days and weeks as coalition forces close on Baghdad and the regime is faced with its certain death."

That is a significant shift in emphasis from the run-up to the war, when Bush was trying to sell his policy. Vice President Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press," only days before the war started, that he guessed that significant elements of Hussein's elite Republican Guard would be likely "to want to avoid conflict with U.S. forces and are likely to step aside."

Bush began preparing the public for sacrifice the next day, saying in an address to the nation that Americans "understand the costs of conflict, because we have paid them in the past." Democrats say that was too late, leaving Americans unprepared for the possible cost in lives, dollars and time.

Police arrested two Nobel Peace Prize winners along with more than 30 other people protesting on Wednesday near the White House against the U.S.-led war against Iraq.

Police handcuffed Mairead Corrigan Maguire, who won the prize in 1976 for peace activism in the Northern Ireland conflict, and Jody Williams, a 1997 winner for her work to ban land mines, after they refused to leave Lafayette Park opposite the home of the U.S. president.

The Nobel laureates were detained along with 35 religious leaders as they sat in a circle in the park and chanted "Peace, shalom." They held roses as well as gruesome posters showing civilian casualties from the war.

How does President George W. Bush propose to respond to this shortfall? Even leaving aside the cost of an Iraq war and its possible "nation-building" aftermath, he has advocated huge tax cuts and spending increases that, in 2013 alone (according to the Congressional Budget Office), will cost us $561 billion. Even chopping the tax cut in half, as the Senate has now proposed, would leave the adverse effect in 2013 at nearly $400 billion.

People are already beginning to recognize that these reckless proposals endanger Social Security and Medicare, while also raising the specter of a panicky hyper-inflation down the road if the government starts printing money to avoid outright default. But our military security is also endangered if we find ourselves financially too stretched to consider taking on costly international commitments. It would certainly be ironic if an administration that has so concentrated on fighting terrorism should end up helping to ensure that Osama bin Laden's malevolent long-term plan for us comes true. And we would have no one to blame but ourselves.

A truck driver from South Fairmount was arrested Monday after he drove toward a group of anti-war protesters with his tractor-trailer rig in the West End.

"It (the semi cab) stopped about 10 feet from the nearest protester," Larry Schartman, one of the about 40 people who were participating in a "Peace in Iraq" rally, said Monday night. "Thank God nobody got hurt."

Police charged James Watters, 49, with aggravated menacing, inducing panic and reckless operation in the incident that occurred about 6 p.m. on the Ezzard Charles Drive bridge over Interstate 75.

According to the police report, an officer observed Watters drive his truck onto the sidewalk of the pedestrian walkway toward a large group of protestors causing them "to run in fear of being hit."

I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.

After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.

The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.

The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.

But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.

The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home?

A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.

Most Americans are rallying behind President Bush and U.S. troops and are optimistic about the nation's direction as the war in Iraq intensifies and casualties rise, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Saturday and Sunday shows ...

Bush may be benefiting from the patriotic tendency of the public to adopt an optimistic attitude in the early stages of war. Not only do people say they feel better about Bush's leadership than they did before the shooting started, but they also feel better about the country in general.

CNN has told Connie Chung, one of the its most prominent hosts, that it has dropped her prime-time show, effective immediately. Although CNN asked her to stay in some other capacity, she declined and will leave the network, an associate of Chung said Tuesday night.

Chung, a longtime news anchor who worked for the three major broadcast network news departments before joining CNN last summer, was informed of the decision by Jim Walton, the new president of CNN, the associate said Tuesday. The show, "Connie Chung Tonight," which is usually broadcast at 8 on weeknights, had been suspended for coverage of the war with Iraq.

Chung pressed CNN's management last Friday to put the program back on as soon as possible. CNN, a unit of AOL Time Warner, responded by telling her that it would decide over the weekend when it would bring the show back. Instead, its management called her in Tuesday to tell her the program will not resume when the war coverage ends.

A lack of skepticism toward official U.S. sources has already led prominent American journalists into embarrassing errors in their coverage of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, particularly in relation to claims that proof had been found that Iraq possesses banned weapons.

On March 20, the second day of the invasion, U.S. military sources initially described missiles launched by Iraq as "Scuds"-- the U.S. name for a Soviet-made missile used by Iraq during the Gulf War. They exceed the range limits imposed on Iraqi weapons by the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

While some reporters appropriately sourced the Scud reports to military officials, and cautioned their audience about the uncertainty of the identification, others rushed to report claims as facts. NBC's Matt Lauer's report was definitive: "We understand they have fired three missiles. One of those was a Scud missile. It was destroyed by a Patriot missile battery as it headed toward Kuwait."

His colleague Tim Russert was similarly certain, saying, "Because of last night's activity, clearly the Iraqis are now trying to respond with at least one Scud fired at the troops mapped on the border of Kuwait and Iraq." Fellow NBC anchor Brian Williams added, "We learned one Scud had been intercepted, but two missiles had made it to Kuwaiti soil."

On NPR that day, anchor Bob Edwards was equally sure about what happened: "Iraq this morning launched Scud missiles at Kuwait in retaliation for the American strike on Baghdad a few hours earlier." Correspondent Mike Shuster helpfully pointed out that "these Scuds are banned under U.N. Security Council resolutions and have a range of up to 400 miles."

ABC's Ted Koppel, "embedded" with an infantry division, reported matter-of-factly that "there were two Scud missiles that came in. One was intercepted by a patriot missile." ABC anchor Derek McGinty had earlier explained that "there was a Scud attack, one Scud fired from Basra into Kuwait. It was intercepted by an American patriot battery, and apparently knocked out of the sky. There is still no word exactly what was on that Scud, whether or not there might have been any sort of unconventional weaponry onboard."

Fox News Channel's William La Jeunesse was not only asserting that a Scud had been launched, but was drawing conclusions about its significance: "Now, Iraq is not supposed to have Scuds because they have a range of 175 up to 400 miles. The limit by the U.N., of course, is like 95 miles. So, we already know they have something they're not supposed to have."

Gephardt
Gephardt is making news for talking war in a fundraising email.

In one of the first fund-raising forays of the war, Democratic presidential hopeful Dick Gephardt sent prospective donors an e-mail opening with his prayers for the U.S. military and closing with a pitch for cash.

Gephardt has continued his regular campaign schedule, spending time in South Carolina. And he's enthusastically endorsed the war:

"I'm a believer that there are weapons of mass destruction and the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction, and I think that's what the facts will show when the time comes."

However, it doesn't appear as though he's beeing shadowed by anti-war protesters like Edwards or Lieberman.

Edwards
After a one-day pause the first day of the war, Edwards is maintaining a regular campaign schedule, though he's getting shadowed by hostile anti-war protesters. Check out this eyewitness report of one of these protests outside an Edwards fundraiser in North Carolina.

Dean
Dean, the harshest war critic amongst the top contenders, has vowed to lay off the "partisan criticism" of Bush during the duration of the war. He continues to campaign, trying to talk about universal health care. But of course, no ones to talk about anything else but war.

Bipartisan Majority in Senate Strikes Blow Against Bush's Tax Cuts But Budget Still Irresponsible

Congratulations and thank you! As a result of your calls and letters, 51 senators took a significant step today to stop President Bush's seemingly inevitable tax cuts for millionaires and the massive cuts they would force in social services from healthcare to education. An amendment to the Senate budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 23) that reduces the size of the tax cut by half to $350 billion passed with bipartisan support. This victory is a major blow to President Bush's irresponsible tax cut agenda, but the smaller amount does not change the fact that the benefits would overwhelmingly go to the wealthy few and be paid for out of programs on which you and millions of other Americans rely. Senators are expected to vote on final passage of the Senate budget resolution at 4 PM on Wednesday, March 25th.

Please call or e-mail your senators today and tell them to vote 'NO' on the budget resolut The impact of your action is even being seen in the Republican-dominated House. Following last week's Fair Taxes For All call-in day, the House was forced to stay in session until 3 AM Friday morning in order for Republican leaders to twist the arms of several moderate Republicans who switched their votes at the last minute. These great lengths ended in a narrow 215-212 vote for Bush's budget. Senate leaders will likely use the same hard-nosed tactics to try to raise the tax cut amount before Wednesday's final vote, so call or e-mail your senators now and urge them to reject any amendments to increase the tax cut.

The House budget resolution clearly shows how Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy will be paid for by the vast majority of Americans whose income doesn't average $1 million a year. Supplemental Security Income for low-income seniors and people with disabilities would be cut by $19 billion. Veterans benefits would be cut by $14 billion. Child nutrition programs, including school lunches, would be cut by $6 billion. Student loans would be cut by $2 billion. The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) for low-income children would be cut by $2 billion.

The Bush tax cut, adopted by the House, is not a plan for economic recovery and job creation. It's an irresponsible and inequitable blueprint for disaster in the present and the future. President Bush is twisting more than an arm or two; he's twisting the nation's priorities into a get-richer-quicker scheme for a handful of the most fortunate Americans. Momentum in the Senate is moving the right way. Keep it going!

So, what should the peace movement do now? First and foremost, we shouldn't give up. We should maintain all the energy and creativity that has resulted in the mass mobilizations, the vigils, the mass faxes and phone calls to Congress, the growing civil disobedience against the war, the campus teach-ins and the whole rich festival of democratic activity that has gotten us this far. And we should make sure that every protester (and all of our friends, family, colleagues and acquaintances) registers and votes against Bush and his circle of new-age warmongers in November 2004. No dabbling with the Green Party, no sitting out the elections because the Democratic candidate isn't the second coming of Martin Luther King Jr. It's time for the peace movemennt to play political hardball, just as the NRA and the Christian Coalition have been doing for decades.

While CNN's Connie Chung and Judy Woodruff ooh and aah over the smart bombs while ignoring the dumb policies that made the dropping of the bombs come to pass, we need to change the subject. We can ask some of the questions that the media rarely address (not that they are never asked, just that they don't get the time and attention they deserve).

Even if Bush gets his quick, "clean" war in which Saddam Hussein is quickly deposed and disarmed, which seems unlikely--will America or the world be any safer the day after the war ends? Will we be less vulnerable to terrorist attacks? Will it be less likely that some tin-pot dictator will get hold of a nuclear arsenal? Will the poverty, ignorance and ideological fervor that are fueling war and terrorism be diminished?

My short answer to these questions is no, no, no and no again. We're not going to build a safer world by pushing aggressive unilateralist policies at the expense of diplomatic, economic and security cooperation. We're not going to be in a better position to "roll up" Al Qaeda networks after a war with Iraq. We're not going to be in a better position to recruit systematic allied cooperation to thwart the nuclear weapons programs of North Korea and Iran. We're not going to be in a better position to revive the US economy and replace the visions of strife and victimhood that pervade so much of our global polity with visions of hope and prosperity.

The next "regime change" that needs to happen after the one in Baghdad should not be in Teheran or Pyongyang--it should be in Washington. It won't come through force of arms, it will come through what one recent documentary called "a force more powerful"--nonviolent, democratic activism.

For those folks who think the peace movement has "lost," I say, get back to me in November of 2004. I'm going to be busy for the next twenty months trying to take my country back from the prophets of aggressive unilateralism.

Whether hyping dubious links between Iraq and al-Qaeda or using forged evidence of Iraq's nuclear program, the Bush administration has proven itself adept at spinning the American public on the facts surrounding the war with Iraq. And no piece of spin has enjoyed more success than the fiction that America is fighting side by side with a robust, multilateral "coalition of the willing." As I write, the number of nations is up to 46, but that could always change -- Angola, after all, was on the official White House list for less than a day before being removed. Of these courageous and non-French countries, two things can be said: They are not, in the realm of Great Power politics, the most impressive group of nations ever assembled into a global coalition -- and, in some cases, they may not even be allies ...

Seven nations on the list may be allies, but the Department of State warns Americans not to visit because they could get killed, kidnapped or blown up. These nations are Uganda (5), Rwanda (6) and Honduras (7), the former Soviet-controlled nations of Georgia (8), Uzbekistan (9) and Macedonia (10), and Colombia (11), that staunch ally in the other critical American war, the one on drugs. In the past three years, 26 Americans have been kidnapped in Colombia.

An unsung testament to U.S. diplomacy is the creation of quite possibly the largest ever "coalition of island nations." Somehow the administration managed to overcome whatever resistance was put up by Micronesia (12), the Marshall Islands (13), the Solomon Islands (14), Singapore (15) and Palau (16), which does actually exist. (It is a republic in the Philippine Sea.) Powell also managed to get half of the island of Hispaniola when the Dominican Republic (17) signed on. Apparently residents of the other half of the island -- Haitians, that is -- weren't so impressed with U.S. efforts to bring democracy to their nation. Iceland (18) also is part of the coalition, but because the U.S. forces based at Keflavik constitute Iceland's military, the country had an incentive to come on board.

The U.S. war strategy has counted in part on separating the people of Iraq from the government of Hussein.

But the deaths and injuries from misdirected or errant bombs, or from shrapnel and fragments that spray into nearby homes even when the munitions find their intended target, are making more and more people believe that the United States is heedless of the Iraqi public.

The danger to coaltion forces is that when the decisive battle comes, many will rally to Hussein and take up arms against the U.S. and British troops.

Information Minister Mohammed Said Sahaf said Monday that 62 civilians had been "martyred" in the last 24 hours across Iraq and that hundreds had been injured.

---

---

After the crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964, a similar crisis faced a loose coalition of gun lovers, abortion foes, southern segregationists, Ayn Rand libertarians, proto-Moonies, and those who feared immigration within and communism without would destroy the America they loved. Each of these various groups had tried their own "direct action" tactics, from demonstrations to pamphleteering to organizing to fielding candidates. None had succeeded in gaining mainstream recognition or affecting American political processes. If anything, their efforts instead had led to their being branded as special interest or fringe groups, which further diminished their political power.

So the conservatives decided not to get angry, but to get power.

Led by Joseph Coors and a handful of other ultra-rich funders, they decided the only way to seize control of the American political agenda was to infiltrate and take over one of the two national political parties, using their own think tanks like the Coors-funded Heritage Foundation to mold public opinion along the way. Now they regularly get their spokespeople on radio and television talk shows and newscasts, and write a steady stream of daily op-ed pieces for national newspapers. They launched an aggressive takeover of Dwight Eisenhower's "moderate" Republican Party, opening up the "big tent" to invite in groups that had previously been considered on the fringe. Archconservative neo-Christians who argue the Bible should replace the Constitution even funded the startup of a corporation to manufacture computer-controlled voting machines, which are now installed across the nation. And Reverend Moon took over The Washington Times newspaper and UPI.

Their efforts, as we see today, have borne fruit, as Kevin Phillips predicted they would in his prescient 1969 book "The Emerging Republican Majority," and as David Brock so well documents in his book "Blinded By The Right."

But the sweet victory of the neoconservatives in capturing control of the Republican Party, and thus of American politics, has turned bitter in the mouths of the average American and humans around the world. Soaring deficits, the evisceration of Social Security, "voluntary" pollution controls, war for oil, stacking federal benches with right-wing ideologues, bellicose and nationalist foreign policy, and the handing over of much of the infrastructure of governance to multinational corporate campaign donors has brought a vast devastation to the nation, nearly destroyed the entrepreneurial American dream, and caused the rest of the world to view us with shock and horror.

Thus, many progressives are suggesting that it's time for concerned Americans to reclaim Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Party. It may, in fact, be our only short-term hope to avoid a final total fascistic takeover of America and a third world war.

"But wait!" say the Greens and Progressives and left-leaning Reform Party members. "The Democrats have just become weaker versions of the Republicans!"

True enough, in many cases. And it isn't working for them, because, as Democrat Harry Truman said, "When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time." (And, history shows, voters are equally uninterested in Republicans who act like Democrats.)

Alternative parties have an important place in American politics, and those in them should continue to work for their strength and vitality. They're essential as incubators of ideas and nexus points for activism. Those on the right learned this lesson well, as many groups that at times in the past had fielded their own candidates are now still intact but have also become powerful influencers of the Republican Party. Similarly, being a Green doesn't mean you can't also be a Democrat.

This is not a popular truth.

There's a long list of people who didn't like it - Teddy Roosevelt, H. Ross Perot, John Anderson, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader - but nonetheless the American constitution was written in a way that only allows for two political parties. Whenever a third party emerges, it's guaranteed to harm the party most closely aligned to it ...

My answer is that only a political party as large and resourceful as the Democrats could have the power to re-institute exit polling, and catch scams like the voter-list purges Jeb Bush used to steal the 2000 and 2002 elections for himself and his brother.

And the Democratic Party can only do it if we, in massive numbers, join it, embrace it, and ultimately gain a powerful and decisive voice in its policy-making and selection of candidates.

Retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey, commander of the 24th Infantry Division 12 years ago, said the U.S.-led force faced "a very dicey two to three day battle" as it pushes north toward the Iraqi capital.

"We ought to be able to do it (take Baghdad)," he told the Newsnight Program on Britain's BBC Television late on Monday.

"In the process if they (the Iraqis) actually fight, and that's one of the assumptions, clearly it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties," said McCaffrey who became one of the most senior ranking members of the U.S. military following the 1991 war.

"So if they (the Americans and British) are unwilling to face up to that, we may have a difficult time of it taking down Baghdad and Tikrit up to the north west."

McCaffrey said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had misjudged the nature of the conflict. Asked if Rumsfeld made a mistake by not sending more troops to start the offensive, McCaffrey replied: "Yes, sure. I think everybody told him that."

I used to be pretty psyched about Howard Dean as the best candidate to take on Bush in 2004. To some extent, I still am. But watching the war on CNN lately has made me realize just how good a presidential candidate General Wesley Clark -- currently the newtwork's main talking head when it comes to Iraq -- would make. Of all the various supposed Democratic contenders, nobody's getting better air time during these crucial days.

And not just that. I'm convinced that the Democrats will never win another election if they don't learn how to be tough and credible on national security. Well, Clark is the perfect answer to that problem. He won a fricken' war, for Christ's sake, whereas George W. Bush dodged one. Clark has the ideal pedigree to take on Bush on the topic of defense and score some serious blows. As Michael Tomasky put it in a Wesley Clark profile in The American Prospect:

As viewers of his regular appearances on CNN know, Clark has emerged as a ferocious critic of the Bush administration's national-security policy. To Clark, the administration has not made even a version of a case against Iraq. Iran and North Korea are obviously bigger and more immediate threats. And the administration's cowboy unilateralism, he says, goes against everything the United States is supposed to represent to the world. "After 9-11, who are we?" he asked me. "Are we going to be an angry, beleaguered giant swatting out at selected nations with our sword of vengeance? Are we going to be Daddy Warbucks handing out money? What are we?"

Since the war started, Clark has stopped criticizing Bush on CNN. He's been too busy answering all manner of technical questions about warfare -- what kind of planes we fly, what kind of strategy we employ, what kinds of bombs we drop. He's articulate and obviously knows this stuff cold. He is indeed, as Tomasky suggests, "Mr. Credibility." And if he runs for presdient the media is guaranteed to love him, CNN most of all.

Clark has yet to formally declare his candidacy. But what better time to do so than just after he's finished guiding us through the Iraq war on CNN? And even if Clark ultimately doesn't run for president, whoever emerges from the primaries as the Democratic candidate would be an absolute imbecile not to enlist him as a running mate....

Somebody doesn't like hearing the truth. Okay, for a second, lets scratch that and choose a slightly less politically charged term. Someone doesn't like to be disputed with alternative views, counterclaims, research and fact. Someone wants you, the reading public, to only gather one-sided, monotone, Orwellian dispatch. News the way they "fashion" it. Or as CNN will have you believe, the "most reliable source for news."

And so, once again, the staff at YellowTimes.org was threatened with a shutdown:

"We are sorry to notify you of suspending your account: Your account has been suspended because [of] inappropriate graphic material."

Within hours, the site was shut down.

What's next? Martial law?

An e-mail hours later was more explanatory: "As 'NO' TV station in the US is allowing any dead US solders or POWs to be displyed (sic) and we will not ether (sic)." Of course, at the time of this e-mail, TV stations across the U.S. were allowing the images of U.S. POWs to be brought to the public's attention.

These are most certainly difficult, perilous, and often confusing times. The world has been torn asunder by first the prospect of war, and now by the images of war fed live into our living rooms.

As one of the neo-conservatives who argued throughout the Clinton years for a second war with Iraq, Richard Perle is having his day in the sun. He's helped realize his vision as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, which advises the Pentagon; he's been crowing "Thank God for the death of the UN," and starring in Goldman Sachs conference calls on investment opportunities to arise from the carnage.

But Perle is not all high politics and public service. Turns out he's also in business on the side. For example, he's been promised a $600,000 check from the Global Crossing telecom company if he can convince the government to O.K. selling that bankrupt company's fiber-optic network to buyers in Hong Kong and Singapore. Since the U.S. government uses Global Crossing's network, the Pentagon and FBI have opposed the sale. The New York Times, which broke the story, gets it right by noting Perle is using a public office –- his Defense Department post -- for private gain. (What do you expect from an Administration that sports Enron's energy trader chief as Secretary of the Army?)

Perle's business dealings have raised eyebrows before. Seymour Hersh just reported in The New Yorker that Perle has been meeting with Saudi businessmen, including a star of the Iran-Contra scandals, apparently to drum up business for Trireme Partners L.P., a venture-capital company Perle helped found to invest in homeland security. Perle's response was to smear Hersh as a "terrorist." But to truly appreciate Pentagon consultant-cum-businessman Perle, harken back to the days when President Bush solemnly proclaimed the new era of corporate responsibility –- when CEOs would sign pledges to pay attention to what they signed -– and then read the original Times article and savor Perle's twisting and turning over whether he signed a document, or didn't sign it, or signed it but forgot to edit it ...

As chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle has been an influential architect of the Bush administration's Iraq policy and war plans. At the same time, it turns out, he has signed on to represent a major telecommunications company that has a strong financial interest in lobbying the Defense Department. This is a conflict pure and simple, and Mr. Perle should immediately drop one of his two roles.

Mr. Perle, who served as an assistant defense secretary under President Reagan, is indisputably an important part of the current Defense Department. His position as chairman of the policy board, to which he was appointed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is unpaid. But he is nevertheless considered a "special government employee" and is subject to federal ethics rules.

Global Crossing, the telecommunications giant, is now in bankruptcy. It has retained Mr. Perle to help persuade the Defense Department to drop its objections to a proposed sale to foreign buyers in Hong Kong and Singapore. The deal has been opposed by the Defense Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a threat to national security because it would put Global Crossing's fiber optics network, which is used by the United States government, under foreign control. Mr. Perle stands to make up to $725,000 from his work for Global Crossing.

Mr. Perle insists that there is no conflict in his case because the Defense Policy Board is not involved in approving the Global Crossing deal. But that is not the right test. Global Crossing's fee is clearly payment, at least in part, for the influence Mr. Perle exerts through his Defense Department post, and federal ethics rules prohibit using public office for private gain. To remove the conflict, Mr. Perle will have to choose between the gain and the office.

What had been planned as a simple production of an inarguably provocative play with strong language exploded early last week into an issue whose after-shocks were felt clear to week's end.

To say it was the talk of the campus is an understatement, according to students and faculty. An imminent war with Iraq and the success of the school's basketball team were mere whispers among students who had turned the campus into one broad and obvious political placard by Friday.

Beyond free expression -- the transcendent and galvanizing issue -- the controversy expanded to questions about the importance of students in defining the mission of the university, the voice of women on campus and the role of alumni and outside groups in determining what the university is all about.

Some saw V-Day as a renaissance of student activism on campus.

"Xavier is an apathetic campus, and all of a sudden the student body is mobilizing,'' said Chuck Sambuchino, chair of the School Activities Council. "It's really a great thing to see.''

The Student Activities Council, the events programming board at XU, had planned to stage Vagina Monologues last weekend. But on March 10 the council was told the play was cancelled. The Rev. Michael Graham, president of XU, said the play was "being overshadowed by concerns about the sensational nature of some of the language and themes in the production.''

A victory in Iraq is about to enhance America's stature in the world. America deserves it. Because of all the powerful countries in the world, it is the most trustworthy, reliable and constructive.

[snip]

(Jeez...that just has "I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!" written all over it)

Soon this war will be over. It was hard getting there, hard doing it and there will no doubt be hard going. But it will be over, and we won't come back from hell with empty hands. We will have won a great deal. In the next week and weeks it will be good to keep that in mind, and keep our eyes on the prize.

Except for the rebuilding of the country, the thinly disguised resentment by populace at being made colonial subjects, the daily guerilla warfare, the instability in other Middle Eastern countries at they view the the white Christian occupation of an invaded country...... everything is going to be just "peachy".

Isn't war keen?

THERE IS STILL NO EVIDENCE OF A LINK WITH AL-QAEDA. Powell made more assertions, no evidence. Mainstream U.S. (and ALL the international press) is filled with reports of intelligence analysts from the U.S. and a host of other countries denying that Powell's claims are proved by any of the evidence he provided. IT'S ALL SPECULATIVE -- AND WE DON'T GO TO WAR ON SPEC.

PUBLIC OPINION MATTERS MORE THAN EVER BEFORE. Public opposition to war is keeping the French and German governments honest. WE'RE NOT ISOLATED AMONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE -- WE ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! Yesterday in Washington 35 mayors and city councilmembers came to present to the White House & Congress some of the 92 city council resolutions passed in cities across the U.S. -- including giant cities (Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc.), smaller cities (Cleveland, Syracuse, etc.) and tiny little towns. Even though the organizing focus of tomorrow's demonstration was New York, there are parallel demonstrations in 225+ cities across the U.S. There are now more than 600 cities around the world where "The World Says No to War" mobilizations will take place.

THE U.S.-EUROPEAN DIVIDE IS REAL. WHILE 18 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES SIGNED TWO DIFFERENT LETTERS THAT IMPLY, TO DIFFERENT DEGREES, ACCEPTANCE OF WASHINGTON'S WAR STRATEGY, THEY STAND COMPLETELY ISOLATED FROM THEIR OWN PEOPLE. They are primarily (though not all) poor, NATO wannabes, and eager for U.S. support. According to some polls, there is not a single European country where the opposition is less than 70%; most are above 80%. (In Turkey, key U.S. "ally," public opposition is at 96%.)

ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER VICTIMS WE KNOW OF IN IRAQ AND THE REGION, THIS WAR WILL UNDERMINE THE UNITED NATIONS. We reject the Bush administration claim that the UN's "relevance" is defined by its willingness to follow the U.S. into war. We stand with the overwhelming majority of the world's people in saying that THE UN'S RELEVANCE IS DETERMINED BY ITS ABILITY, REFLECTING THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE'S OF THE WORLD, TO STAND DEFIANT OF US PRESSURES FOR WAR.

When Bill Clinton was president, he nominated two Latinos, Enrique Moreno and Jorge Rangel, to seats on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Both are Texans. Like Mr. Estrada, both are graduates of Harvard Law School. Both received the highest rating from the American Bar Association.

But the two Texas senators, Republicans Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, blocked both nominees. Mr. Rangel withdrew his nomination after waiting a year for a hearing. President Bush chose not to renew Mr. Moreno's appointment. Republicans also kept Christine Arguello, another Harvard Law graduate, off the 10th Circuit. A Hispanic woman had to wait 32 months before the GOP-controlled Senate finally voted her onto the district court bench.

Despite Republican opposition, Mr. Clinton appointed 23 Hispanics, including eight of the 10 who sit on federal appeals courts. Sen. Graham voted for all of them. In fact, Republicans are for Latino judges -- as long as they get their kind of Latino judges. Rep. Foley bucked the House leadership when he opposed legislation that would have allowed faith-based groups to take federal money and discriminate when hiring. Ambition threatens to turn him into an extremist.

When I told David Carr of The New York Times, that "Reader for reader, [The Standard] may be the most influential publication in America," I knew I was presenting its editor and publisher with a dilemma. They would love the quote but hate the source. Would they love it enough to use it anyway? Or would they hate the source too much to accept it as an accurate judge of anything?

What did they do? They deliberately misled their readers. The quote appears on page 36 in the current issue and is falsely attributed to "The New York Times." But of course, I have no connection to The New York Times whatever. Thousands of people are quoted in The Times every day, from Saddam Hussein to Jerry Falwell. Quoted sources do not speak for the New York Times and being journalists, the Standard editors and publishers understand that. The reference is a deliberate attempt to deceive its readership. After all the honest accolades the magazine has received, who would have thought it would stoop so low?

Unfortunately, the explosions also had an eerie prettiness to them, and the shelling often had the appearance of a spectacular light show -- especially when shot after dark and turned a glowing green by night-scope photography.

In this sense, though the pictures were dramatic and often live, they didn't bring the horror or ugliness of war into sharp focus or into any kind of focus at all. There was no sign of human carnage and barely evidence of any carnage at all; mostly one saw flashes of light and billows of smoke.

Donald Rumsfeld says the American attack on Baghdad is "as targeted an air campaign as has ever existed" but he should not try telling that to five-year-old Doha Suheil. She looked at me yesterday morning, drip feed attached to her nose, a deep frown over her small face as she tried vainly to move the left side of her body. The cruise missile that exploded close to her home in the Radwaniyeh suburb of Baghdad blasted shrapnel into her tiny legs ­ they were bound up with gauze ­ and, far more seriously, into her spine. Now she has lost all movement in her left leg.

Her mother bends over the bed and straightens her right leg which the little girl thrashes around outside the blanket. Somehow, Doha's mother thinks that if her child's two legs lie straight beside each other, her daughter will recover from her paralysis. She was the first of 101 patients brought to the Al-Mustansaniya College Hospital after America's blitz on the city began on Friday night. Seven other members of her family were wounded in the same cruise missile bombardment; the youngest, a one-year-old baby, was being breastfed by her mother at the time.

There is something sick, obscene about these hospital visits. We bomb. They suffer. Then we turn up and take pictures of their wounded children. The Iraqi minister of health decides to hold an insufferable press conference outside the wards to emphasise the "bestial" nature of the American attack. The Americans say that they don't intend to hurt children. And Doha Suheil looks at me and the doctors for reassurance, as if she will awake from this nightmare and move her left leg and feel no more pain. So let's forget, for a moment, the cheap propaganda of the regime and the equally cheap moralising of Messrs Rumsfeld and Bush, and take a trip around the Al-Mustansaniya College Hospital. For the reality of war is ultimately not about military victory and defeat, or the lies about "coalition forces" which our "embedded" journalists are now peddling about an invasion involving only the Americans, the British and a handful of Australians. War, even when it has international legitimacy ­ which this war does not ­ is primarily about suffering.

Pentagon officials said Friday they are pleased with the way the American media have portrayed the war, but the flood of dazzling images arising from hundreds of reporters in the combat zone has so far crowded out a staple of previous conflicts: daily questioning of the top military officers directing the campaign.

More than 500 journalists are traveling with coalition forces, generating largely positive reports and images from the battlefield. Accompanying these visuals, U.S. television networks have employed a parade of military men offering detailed analyses of the war.

"We're extremely happy with the coverage," said Capt. Stewart Upton, a public affairs officer with the U.S. Central Command in Qatar

Anchor after anchor extolled his reports. "Never before have we seen such images!" they cooed, even though the images were just tanks rolling through dirt.

Paula Zahn, the morning host, reran a clip of one of Walter Rodgers' reports, during which an explosion took place in the distance. No one was hurt, but the broadcast was interrupted as Rodgers -- and those around him -- asked a pretty common war question: "What was that?"

When the clip ended, Zahn looked at the camera and said, "Wow."

She neglected to mention that the report was old, more than a day old, and that rerunning it was nothing short of gratuitous, to show folks how impressive -- and brave! -- CNN was.

"So far," one anchor actually said, Walter Rodgers and the photos from his crew have been "the star and the story of this war."

Oh, really?

Holy shit, people die in war?

It's interesting to hear CNN's increasingly subdued war reporting. It's gradually evolved from rank cheerleading and mocking of the Iraqi defenders, to surprise that "liberated" Iraqis weren't showering our troops with rose petals and actually dared to resist, to sickening acceptance that "our" soldiers are dying.

Remember, US/UK forces haven't even reached Baghdad -- where the bulk of Iraq's defenses are located. This isn't a trip to Disney World, and the cable networks are finally waking up to reality.

Whether or not the nation is at war, standing up for its highest ideals is a profoundly patriotic act. With American servicemembers headed to battle in the Middle East and many of us wondering whether and how terrorism will strike again at home, we must all be vigilant against the particular dangers that wartime poses to our democratic values and institutions. In the face of legitimate fears, and those who exploit fear for political gain, Americans must oppose dismantling the very freedoms in whose name our leaders are sending young people into battle. These are freedoms for which so many patriots in our armed forces and social justice movements have fought and died.

The dangers to democracy at home are clear. Tolerance for dissent is shrinking, with accusations of treason hurled against those who dare to question official policy. Pundits and political leaders suggest that the fight against terrorism requires us to sacrifice constitutional liberties that are at the core of what it means to be an American. President Bush is asserting - and using - the power to declare American citizens to be enemies of the state and with the stroke of a pen place them outside the protection of the Constitution. Muslims and people of Arab descent are at risk not only of being taunted and attacked on the streets of the country that is their home, but also of being swept into indefinite detainment with little legal recourse.

The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees Americans the freedom to question, to argue, and to vigorously dissent. This is the foundation of our democracy. People For the American Way and its 600,000 members and activists must strongly assert our role as guardians of the Constitution and the values that sustain a free society.

Shortly after Clinton took office, in a show of astonishingly bad taste even for Rush Limbaugh, the right wing pundit held up on his TV show a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, 13 years old at the time. Limbaugh wasn't the only one -- late-night hosts, "Saturday Night Live," my older brother -- all made Chelsea a punch line.

But who wasn't awkward at 13? If you know of someone, chances are you didn't like him or her. If you yourself sailed through that age looking adorable, chances are people didn't like you.

But Chelsea always has been likable. Whether she was traveling to Africa on a humanitarian mission with her mother or holding hands with her publicly humiliated father, she always remained strong and resolute.

She had every excuse in the book to rebel: Stuck in the limelight at an early, awkward age; incessant teasing from powerful people; private-school friends with money to burn; a father with a penchant for women close to her age.

Instead, she took it all in stride, studied her tail off, got into Stanford, scored straight A's, signed up for Oxford, and now, landed a six-figure job in New York City. Oh, sweet justice.

Other first daughters just haven't had the same hold on me. I envision the Bush girls graduating from college and becoming bartenders at Coyote Ugly. They remind me of the girls who did sail through adolescence with smooth skin and well-behaved hair, the ones elected to homecoming court. When they were staying after school for pompom practice, the Chelseas of the world were staying after for Latin Club. I love it that it paid off.