View previous stories
	Three things about Iraq by The New York Times USA   28 June, 2005   To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:   The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Al Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was the absurd and offensive declaration last week by Karl Rove, President George W. Bush''s chief political adviser, that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11. Let''s be clear: Americans of every political stripe were united in their outrage and grief, united in their determination to punish those who plotted the mass murder and united behind the war in Afghanistan, which was an assault on terrorists. Trying to pretend otherwise is the surest recipe for turning political dialogue into meaningless squabbling.   The war has not made the world, or the United States, safer from terrorism. The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one. Of all the justifications for invading Iraq that the Bush administration juggled in the beginning, the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East. Any sensible discussion of what to do next has to begin by acknowledging that. The surest way to make sure that conversation does not happen is for the administration to continue pasting the "soft on terror" label on those who want to talk about the war.   If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan. Progress has been measurable on the political front. But even staunch supporters of the war, like Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a hearing last week that Bush was losing public support because the military effort was not keeping pace. A top general said last week that the insurgency was growing. The frequency of attacks is steady, or rising a bit, while the repulsive tactic of suicide bombings has made them more deadly.   If things are going to be turned around, there has to be an honest discussion about what is happening. But Rumsfeld was not interested. Sneering at his Democratic questioners, he insisted everything was on track and claimed "dozens of trained battalions are capable of conducting anti-insurgent operations" with American support. That would be great news if it were true. General George Casey, the commander in Iraq, was more honest, saying he hoped there would be "a good number of units" capable of doing that "before the end of this year."   Americans cannot judge for themselves because the administration has decided to make the information secret. Senator John McCain spoke for all Americans when he expressed his disbelief at this news. "I think the American people need to know," he said. "They are the ones who are paying for this conflict."   June 24, 2005   "The War President", by Paul Krugman.   In this former imperial capital, every square seems to contain a giant statue of a Habsburg on horseback, posing as a conquering hero.   America''s founders knew all too well how war appeals to the vanity of rulers and their thirst for glory. That''s why they took care to deny presidents the kingly privilege of making war at their own discretion.   But after 9/11 President Bush, with obvious relish, declared himself a "war president." And he kept the nation focused on martial matters by morphing the pursuit of Al Qaeda into a war against Saddam Hussein.   In November 2002, Helen Thomas, the veteran White House correspondent, told an audience, "I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war" - but she made it clear that Mr. Bush was the exception. And she was right.   Leading the nation wrongfully into war strikes at the heart of democracy. It would have been an unprecedented abuse of power even if the war hadn''t turned into a military and moral quagmire. And we won''t be able to get out of that quagmire until we face up to the reality of how we got in.   Let me talk briefly about what we now know about the decision to invade Iraq, then focus on why it matters.   The administration has prevented any official inquiry into whether it hyped the case for war. But there''s plenty of circumstantial evidence that it did.   And then there''s the Downing Street Memo - actually the minutes of a prime minister''s meeting in July 2002 - in which the chief of British overseas intelligence briefed his colleagues about his recent trip to Washington.   "Bush wanted to remove Saddam," says the memo, "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It doesn''t get much clearer than that.   The U.S. news media largely ignored the memo for five weeks after it was released in The Times of London. Then some asserted that it was "old news" that Mr. Bush wanted war in the summer of 2002, and that W.M.D. were just an excuse. No, it isn''t. Media insiders may have suspected as much, but they didn''t inform their readers, viewers and listeners. And they have never held Mr. Bush accountable for his repeated declarations that he viewed war as a last resort.   Still, some of my colleagues insist that we should let bygones be bygones. The question, they say, is what we do now. But they''re wrong: it''s crucial that those responsible for the war be held to account.   Let me explain. The United States will soon have to start reducing force levels in Iraq, or risk seeing the volunteer Army collapse. Yet the administration and its supporters have effectively prevented any adult discussion of the need to get out.   On one side, the people who sold this war, unable to face up to the fact that their fantasies of a splendid little war have led to disaster, are still peddling illusions: the insurgency is in its "last throes," says Dick Cheney. On the other, they still have moderates and even liberals intimidated: anyone who suggests that the United States will have to settle for something that falls far short of victory is accused of being unpatriotic.   We need to deprive these people of their ability to mislead and intimidate. And the best way to do that is to make it clear that the people who led us to war on false pretenses have no credibility, and no right to lecture the rest of us about patriotism.   The good news is that the public seems ready to hear that message - readier than the media are to deliver it. Major media organizations still act as if only a small, left-wing fringe believes that we were misled into war, but that "fringe" now comprises much if not most of the population.   In a Gallup poll taken in early April - that is, before the release of the Downing Street Memo - 50 percent of those polled agreed with the proposition that the administration "deliberately misled the American public" about Iraq''s W.M.D. In a new Rasmussen poll, 49 percent said that Mr. Bush was more responsible for the war than Saddam Hussein, versus 44 percent who blamed Saddam.   Once the media catch up with the public, we''ll be able to start talking seriously about how to get out of Iraq.
	US senators challenge Bush''s Iraq optimism by Reuters / Los Angeles Times USA   June 20, 2005   Republican senators challenge Bush''s Iraq optimism. (Reuters)   US President George W Bush needs to tell Americans the nation faces "a long, hard slog" in Iraq, a key Republican senator says, while another says the White House was "disconnected from reality" in its optimism over the war.   "Too often we''ve been told and the American people have been told that we''re at a turning point," Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said on NBC''s Meet the Press. "What the American people should have been told and should be told ... (is that) it''s long, it''s hard, it''s tough.. It''s going to be at least a couple more years," said Senator McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.   Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, was quoted by US News and World Report as saying the administration''s Iraq policy was failing. "Things aren''t getting better, they''re getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," said Senator Hagel, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. "It''s like they''re just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we''re losing in Iraq."   The two senators'' remarks came as the Bush administration makes a push to counter growing US public impatience with the Iraq war, and to resist demands by some law-makers to set a date for withdrawal of US forces. US public polls show the Iraq war is losing support.   Washington. June 17, 2005   "War Criticism and concerns both Growing", by John Hendren and Cynthia H. Cho. (LA Times)   Apprehension over the war in Iraq surged Thursday as a group of lawmakers demanded that President Bush develop plans to withdraw troops and a top Pentagon official expressed concern about sagging public support for the U.S. military effort.   After a deadly increase in violence in Iraq, congressional critics of the war grew more vocal in demanding a change in policy, and antiwar activists staged a rally near the White House..   A Gallup poll this week found that about 6 in 10 Americans advocated a partial or full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This month, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that 41% of Americans approved of how Bush was handling Iraq, the president''s worst grade to date.   Insurgent attacks have claimed the lives of hundreds of Iraqi civilians in recent weeks. Eighty-eight U.S. troops died in May and 45 were killed in the first half of June, the highest level since 126 troops were slain in January, before the Iraqi election. As of Thursday, at least 1,713 U.S. troops had been killed since the start of the war.   A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a resolution that would require Bush to submit a plan for troop withdrawal by the end of the year and to begin the pullout by October 2006.   "After 2 1/2 years, it''s right to take a fresh look. We have a right to ask, ''What are the goals?'' " said Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, one of the Republican sponsors of the measure.   "It''s time to get serious about an exit strategy," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, a Democratic sponsor.   Other sponsors of the resolution include Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas), Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) and Lynn C. Woolsey (D-Petaluma).   The White House rejected requests by lawmakers and antiwar groups that Bush respond to the "Downing Street memo" and other prewar British government documents that foreshadowed U.S. military action against Iraq.   The Downing Street memo reported minutes of a meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisors indicating that the U.S. considered an attack on Iraq to be inevitable eight months before the war began.   More than 30 members of Congress attended a meeting Thursday called by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, to discuss the British documents. The meeting was not an official hearing of Conyers'' committee and was held in a room in the basement of the Capitol.   John C. Bonifaz, one of four witnesses invited to meet with lawmakers and the cofounder of an organization called AfterDowningStreet.com, said that if the documents were proven to be true, the president may have violated a federal law against misleading Congress, and his actions would be grounds for impeachment. "The American people deserve to know if the president lied," Bonifaz said.   Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in action April 4, 2004, told lawmakers the Downing Street memo confirmed what she had already suspected: "The leadership of this country rushed us into an illegal invasion of another sovereign country on prefabricated and cherry-picked intelligence."   Sheehan is the cofounder of Gold Star Families for Peace, an organization whose members have lost a relative in combat and who oppose the war.   Former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who traveled to Niger to investigate the alleged sale of processed uranium ore from the country to Iraq, and Ray McGovern, a former CIA official, also met with Conyers and other lawmakers.   Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) was one of more than 30 lawmakers who announced the formation of an "Out of Iraq" congressional caucus.   After the hearing, Conyers and other lawmakers went to Lafayette Park across from the White House for a rally organized by AfterDowningStreet.com. Kevin Zeese, director of Democracy Rising, urged protesters to "give a shout out if you think we were misled." He was greeted by cheers from the hundreds of demonstrators.   Some members of the crowd broke into chants of "Bring them home now!" and "End this war!" and carried banners calling for Bush''s impeachment. The rally brought out young and old, Washington residents and people who had traveled from across the country.   "Bush should be impeached for lying to Congress and then prosecuted for war crimes," said Carol Moore, a 57-year-old writer and resident of Washington. "Impeached and prosecuted."   A small group of counter-protesters demanded support for U.S. troops.   Conyers and others sought to enter the White House gates to deliver petitions gathered by an anti-Bush group, MoveOn.Org, and others demanding that the president respond to the British documents.   Analysts said the antiwar rhetoric on display Thursday marked a reversal from recent months. The Iraqi election Jan. 30 boosted hopes for progress, experts said, but the situation has since deteriorated.   "Now you''ve got a combination of a lot of death, a lot of violence, things getting worse and no real convincing argument from the president as to why," said Michael O''Hanlon, a military analyst for the Brookings Institution, a Washington political think tank. "It was almost unnatural that there was such a long hiatus in antiwar activity."   The antiwar movement has reappeared in part because lawmakers — especially Democrats — have avoided rhetoric that could be perceived as critical of troops but keep hearing differently from constituents, activists said.   "We see this as the beginning of the end," said Tom Andrews, a former Democratic representative from Maine who is executive director of the antiwar group Win Without War. "It''s the very beginning of a new wave of activism on this war. There''s a real sense that something is beginning to move."
	View more stories