Governing council put in frame as US makes no bones about how situation is unravelling

Rory McCarthy
Thursday November 13, 2003
The Guardian

The unscheduled summit in Washington over the future of Iraq reflected intense White House unease about the way the situation is unravelling in the country.

Paul Bremer, who was flying back to Baghdad last night, has been leading a Coalition Provisional Authority that has become frustrated with the work of the Iraqi Governing Council.

In private, American and British officials in the CPA can barely disguise their disappointment at a body which has been criticised for tardiness and inefficiency.

The council, now 24 people, was intended to be an advisory group, but under pressure from Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN special representative killed in a bombing in August, it was handed more responsibility. US officials hoped its members would quickly chose a leader, then appoint ministers. But it took several weeks even to decide who should be president and in the end settled on a compromise: nine of them would lead the council in a rotating presidency.

Weeks later, ministers were named, but the council has yet to make a decision on its most important task: the creation of a committee to draft Iraq's new constitution - the Americans had hoped the drafting would begin as early as last August. Last month a committee reported to the council on forming a group to write the constitution. Yet no decision has been taken on its proposals.

Officials complain that several council members are routinely absent from the three days of meetings each week, often leaving only four or five of the original members at the table.

For their part, the Iraqis on the council are aware that as American appointees they lack the legitimacy of an elected body. They say they lack authority and that key decisions are taken without reference to the council.

The disarray of the Iraqi Governing Council merely reflects the disarray of the Bush Administration and the Coalition Provisional Authority regarding policy in Iraq. Howdy et al went into Iraq with absolutely no frim plan for a port war Iraq. They went in on the assumption that America would be welcomed as a savior, an assumption fostered by Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and our beloved President himself. This assumption was based on information from Iraqi National Congress and thoroughly spun through the "Office of Special Projects" (Rummy's ideologically bent intel office).

The Administration has no one to blame for the quagmire in Iraq but themselves. But following the pattern they have throughout their political careers, they seek to blame others for their failings.

US wants ban on protests during Bush visit

By Kim Sengupta, 12 November 2003

Anti-war protesters claim that US authorities have demanded a rolling "exclusion zone" around President George Bush during his visit, as well as a ban on marches in parts of central London.

The Stop The War Coalition said yesterday that it had been told by the police that it would not be allowed to demonstrate in Parliament Square and Whitehall next Thursday - a ban it said it was determined to resist. The coalition says that it has also been told by British officials that American officials want a distance kept between Mr Bush and protesters, for security reasons and to prevent their appearance in the same television shots.

The Metropolitan Police banned the Parliament Square and Whitehall route by the use of Sessional Orders - which can be enforced for such a purpose when Parliament is in session.

MPs supporting the protests say demonstrations have been allowed while Parliament was sitting, and, in any case, it was unlikely it will be doing so on the day of the proposed march.

The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said yesterday that Mr Bush should not be shielded from public anger about the Iraq war, and Londoners should not have to pick up the £4m policing bill. He said: "To create a situation in which perhaps 60,000 people remain unseen would require a shutdown of central London which is just not acceptable."

It seems that London is about to deliver a big, fat "Fuck You!" to Howdy. But in a move reminiscent of Joesph Stalin, Howdy wants public demonstrations banned during his visit. Wouldn't be good press you know, him being the self-annointed Champion of Democracy that he is. Yep, all them furinners screaming "Yankee go home!", and burning his effigies in public just wouldn't do his image any good...if they actually made on the air in the US that is.

Trials and Error

By Philip Allen Lacovara

Wednesday, November 12, 2003; Page A23

Two years ago this week, President Bush authorized trials by military commission for people accused of membership in al Qaeda or attacks on the United States. Six men have been identified thus far to appear before these commissions.

Shortly before the president issued his executive order, and just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, I raised my voice in strong support of military commissions. As deputy solicitor general in the Nixon administration, I had been in charge of the government's criminal and internal security cases before the Supreme Court. I understood how the Bush administration could invoke the laws of war sanctioned by the Supreme Court to deal with international terrorists -- as distinct from "mere felons" (including mass murderers) and legitimate combatants entitled to protection under the 1949 Geneva Convention as prisoners of war. I urged the administration to do so.

When I proposed using military commissions to try terrorists, I conceived of trials with fair and reliable procedures designed to ascertain guilt -- or, equally important, innocence. I knew there would be critics of this approach but was confident that both legal and policy factors justified such trials.

Now, two years later, I reluctantly conclude that the administration's approach to military commissions confirms many of the critics' worst fears.

The rules governing military commissions depart substantially from standards of fair procedure. Most problematic, they undermine the basic right to effective counsel by imposing significant legal constraints on civilian defense attorneys. The rules negate normal attorney-client confidentiality and authorize the withholding of key evidence from defendants and their civilian counsel. In addition, the military commission rules permit the Defense Department to restrict defense lawyers' ability to speak publicly about a case -- while Pentagon officials face no such constraint.

It appears that George "Staunch Defender of Democracy" W. Bush has no compunction about abrogating the rights of others, especially when it is convenient for him. Consider the cases of Yasser Hamdi and Jose Padilla. These two men are US citizens, yet they have had all rights to due process negated at the whim of the President. They have been declared enemy combatants and stripped of ALL of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. They are being held incommunicado. They have no access to nor, apparently, any right to counsel. They cannot confront their accusers. They cannot see the evidence against them.

Their cases are the first on a slippery slope which endagers all of us, and renders null and void the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as set forth in the Constitution. Their case if not challenged and overturned will pave the path to unbridled presidential power and firmly set the foundations for an American police state.

The Bush administration poses a greater threat to peace and freedom in this country than any terrorist threat ever could. Bush et al prey upon the fears of America and turn those fears to their own use, namely the consolidation of their power. It is time to remove this administration from office. It matteres not whether it is by impeachment or election, but the sooner the better.

Countering the Radical GOP

By E.J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, November 11, 2003; Page A25

Our foreign policy debate right now pits radicals against conservatives. Republicans are the radicals. Democrats are the conservatives.

That jarring but shrewd perspective, offered by Anthony Lake, President Clinton's former national security adviser, explains much that is strange in our national discussion. And while Lake is critical of President Bush's policies, he does not use the word "radical" to make a partisan point. He is also critical of his own party's newly discovered conservatism.

In Bush's speech last Thursday on the need to promote democracy, particularly in the Arab world, the president embraced much of what liberal human rights advocates have been saying for years. Lake himself, when he worked for Clinton, proposed the idea of "democratic enlargement" as the underlying principle of American foreign policy.

Bush explicitly rebuked a narrowly realist worldview. "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe," Bush said, "because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." The United States, said Bush, must promote democratic change even in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, nations ruled by America's longtime friends.

..."because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty."

A significant point missed by Mr. Dionne is that Howdy isn't practicing what he preaches at home. There are changes being made to the electoral system, across this nation, that would not be tolerated in an internationally monitored election in a third world country. Perhaps we should have international monitors at our polling places in 2004. At the rate things are going, we're gonna need 'em. And let's not forget that horribly mis-named "PATRIOT" Act and the Administrations attempts to strenghten many of its provisions. No, listening to Howdy preach about the vitues of democracy is like listening to a whore preach about the virtue of chastity in Sunday school.

George W. Bush...Our Commander-in-Chief?

As a veteran, it truly burns my ass to hear Howdy talk about the sacrifices our soldiers are making in his dirty little war. It disgusts me to think of him placing a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Listening to him talk about fighting for freedom and democracy around the world makes my gorge rise.

Yes, George W. Bush, aka "shrub", aka "Howdy-Doody", scored just above not-being-able-to-walk-and-chew-gum-at-the-same-time, and leapfrogs over hundreds of other far more qualified applicants to a sinecure in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war. Just goes to show that money talks and shit walks. That wouldn't have been so bad, but the arrogant little peckerwood didn't even finish his term in the Guard. After being grounded for failing to take a flight physical, he goes AWOL for the last two years of his term in the ANG. The $10,000 reward for anyone who can verify that he showed up at ANY drills during that time frame still goes unclaimed.

Yes, this snivelling little craven is our Commander-in-Chief or, more appropriately, our Commander-in-Thief.

Sorry...I got a little carried away there.

The Incredible Lying BushCo

This just in: More irrefutable proof that Dubya's is the slimiest administration in 100 years
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, October 31, 2003


Like you even needed more proof.

Like you even need to read about the incredible and ever-increasing list of lies and misinfo and deeply, colon-clenchingly humiliating wrongness shot forth from the mouth of the GOP machine, a truly jaw-dropping assortment of falsehoods and fabrications about war, and war, and war. Oh, and the economy. And the environment. And war.

Look. There is no doubt left. Zero. None. Even many high-ranking Republicans are deeply worried over the increasingly embittered national timbre regarding BushCo's lies, as reflected in his ever-slipping ratings and declining reelectability quotient and his smug little smirky emptiness.

Do you need to be reminded? Do you need to see it again?

Very good, then. Let us recap: No WMDs. Biggest joke on the American public in the past 50 years. Saddam doesn't have 'em, and probably never did. Over 1,400 of BushCo's own investigators and specialists and scientists -- affectionately known as the Iraq Survey Group -- canvassing postwar Iraq for six months, not to mention the teams of original U.N. investigators, and finding not a trace of anything resembling huge stockpiles of massive scary weaponry.

Which is to say, no nukes. No biotoxins. No big cannons full of scary Korans and rusty bullets and old gum. Nothing at all resembling what Condi Rice and Cheney and Rummy and Wolfowitz, et al., said were absolutely positively no question going to be found any day now because after all that's why we went to war. Except that it wasn't. And they knew it.

Foul, putrescent, gut-wrenchingly malodorous lies. Howdy's political fortunes are built on lies, from the day he entered Texas politics to the present. And "We, the People..." swallow this hellbroth without batting an eye. Why? Are "We the people..." so self-absorbed and dissolute that we can't be bothered? Or is it simply easier to abdicate resposiblity and let the fuckers have their way? Or are we just so intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt that our indifference to the situation is overwhelming?

Iraq vets join ranks of have-nots under Bush administration

BY JESSE JACKSON
October 28, 2003

Former POW Shoshana Johnson has finally returned home, still suffering from injuries she received in the military. But now her postwar wounds are exceeding her war wounds.

First, she had to fight simply to get an assessment of her injuries so she could get medical care and disability payments. She had been shot in both ankles, beaten and imprisoned for 22 days, and her military career was cut short. For all this, she has received $600 a month disability compensation, far beneath her needs or what she deserves.

But Johnson isn't an exception. America's soldiers and veterans seem to be at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to Iraq.

Dick Cheney's former company Halliburton is earning hundreds of millions charging U.S. taxpayers 85 percent more than Iraqi companies to import oil into Iraq. This tidy profit is on top of what Halliburton will earn for the multimillion dollar, no-bid contract it was awarded to rebuild Iraq's oil fields.

Even as taxpayer money is sluicing to Halliburton, the U.S. military refused to spend the money needed to supply soldiers on the front lines in Iraq with the modern body armor. Assigned to an occupation for which they are neither trained nor equipped, thousands of soldiers were sent out with outdated Vietnam-era vests. Desperate mothers and fathers have been buying their sons and daughters the modern vests -- even as the Pentagon dawdles.

So much for Howdy's "support" for our troops. The Administration seems more focused on lining the pockets of Haliburton, and other war profiteers.

Howdy is Doing to America What He Did to Texas

Just a little comparison as to what Howdy did for Texas and is now doing to the country as a whole.

Texas	America
Pushed tax-cut for the wealthy through Texas legislature. By 2000 the Texas state Budget was a smoking crater in the ground.	Pushed tax-cut for the wealthy through Congress. Unable to discern total damage as the mushroom cloud is still rising.
Gutted Texas environmental regulations making Texas the most heavily polluted state in the country.	Is in the process of gutting the EPA and appointing industry insiders to key posts in the agency. Raccoons guarding the henhouse.
Gutted Texas worker protection laws making it impossible for workers to seek legal redress for injuries sustained on the job.	Is in the process of gutting OSHA, once again placing industry insiders to key posts…More damn raccoons.
Cut funding to social safety-net programs at all levels, thus making Texas one of the most unfriendly states for the poor…Just like Alabama but with decent roads	Is cutting funding to social safety-net programs at all levels…Just like Alabama

As you can see, Howdy is doing to the country just what he did to Texas. So, everybody…Bend over ‘cause here it comes again.

"Hans Blix, the UN chief weapons inspector, lashed out last night at the "bastards" who have tried to undermine him throughout the three years he has held his high-profile post.

In an extraordinary departure from the diplomatic language with which he has come to be associated, Mr Blix assailed his critics in both Washington and Iraq.

Speaking exclusively to the Guardian from his 31st floor office at the UN in New York, Mr Blix said: "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media. Not that I cared very much.

"It was like a mosquito bite in the evening that is there in the morning, an irritant."

In a wide-ranging interview Mr Blix, who retires in three weeks' time, accused:

·The Bush administration of leaning on his inspectors to produce more damning language in their reports;

·"Some elements" of the Pentagon of being behind a smear campaign against him; and

·Washington of regarding the UN as an "alien power" which they hoped would sink into the East river.

...Instead of seeing the UN as a collective body of decision-making states, Washington now viewed it as an "alien power, even if it does hold considerable influence within it.

...That was especially worrying given President Bush's openly proclaimed belief in the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. "It would be more desirable and more reasonable to ask for security council authority, especially at a time when communism no longer exists and you don't have automatic vetoes from Russia and China," he said.

Similarly it would be much more "credible" if a team of international inspectors were sent into Iraq instead of the 1,300-strong US-appointed group now conducting the search for weapons of mass destruction, he said." - Helena Smith in New York, Wednesday June 11, 2003, The Guardian

Well, Howdy and his merry band have no credibility as it is so what do they care about international inspections? The arrogance of this administration is boundless and its belicosity is the product of political machinations than of any real threat to this nation. It's impeachment time, boys and girls.

The Bush "War on Terrorism"

The Bush administrations' so called "war on terror" is misguided, one dimensional. It's more a case of shutting the barn door after the horses have fled or, more apt I think, a physician treating only the symptoms of a fatal disease without treating the disease itself.

Rather than just hunting down terrorists, and killing them, the very roots of terrorism...ignorance, poverty, oppression...must be ripped up. But Bush and his merry band seem more intent on spreading these ills than on curing them.

Call, write, fax, or e-mail your congressional representatives...Let them know that the administration is wrong, and either needs to change course or be impeached.

May 16, 2003

Paths of Glory

By PAUL KRUGMAN

The central dogma of American politics right now is that George W. Bush, whatever his other failings, has been an effective leader in the fight against terrorism. But the more you know about the state of the world, the less you believe that dogma. The Iraq war, in particular, did nothing to make America safer — in fact, it did the terrorists a favor.

How is the war on terror going? You know about the Riyadh bombings. But something else happened this week: The International Institute for Strategic Studies, a respected British think tank with no discernible anti-Bush animus, declared that Al Qaeda is "more insidious and just as dangerous" as it was before Sept. 11. So much for claims that we had terrorists on the run.

Still, isn't the Bush administration doing its best to fight terrorism? No.

The administration's antiterror campaign makes me think of the way television studios really look. The fancy set usually sits in the middle of a shabby room, full of cardboard and duct tape. Networks take great care with what viewers see on their TV screens; they spend as little as possible on anything off camera.

And so it has been with the campaign against terrorism. Mr. Bush strikes heroic poses on TV, but his administration neglects anything that isn't photogenic. - The New York Times

Bush isn't really interested in fighting any "war on terror", after all, they (the terrorists) give the administration the leverage it needs to keep its opposition cowed with the whips of "patriotism" and "national security". These are, however, nothing more than smokescreens to hide the administration's efforts to undercut the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"The United States will find the killers, and they will learn the meaning of American justice."

- George W. Bush -

Now where have we heard that before? If I recall correctly, it was after 9/11. And while we smashed the Taliban and Al Quaeda cells in Afghanistan, all the air has since gone out of the sails of the "war on terrorism". We now see the Taliban and Al Quaeda retrenching in southern Afghanistan, and Hamid Karzai has been demoted from President of Afghanistan to Mayor of Kabul.

Operation Iraqi Liberation: O.I.L.

As if the war wasn't bad enough...now the World Bank and the IMF are about to get their shithooks into Iraq. Instituted after WW II, these organizations were originally intended to help rebuild the economies of the nations devastated by that war.

Over the intervening years, however, they have morphed into huge siphons that drain the wealth of those nations they are involved with into the accounts of foreign (read American and European multinational) corporations. In their wake, they leave wages depressed, unions busted and everything that can be privatized is left in the hands of radical free-marketeers whose only interest is in profits.

We need look no further than Chile, Bolivia , Brazil, Argentina, and let's not forget the economies of African nations, too numerous to mention, left as smoldering craters in the ground, for proof of their malificence.

This is what is coming to Iraq...decades of further grinding poverty in the hands of so called free market reforms, the privatization of power and water infrastructures leading to further disease and death, the oil wealth drained into the coffers of European and US oil companies. The aftermath of this will be an increasingly radicalized Islamic movement spreading terror and death across the globe.

So much for "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Deja Vu

Deja vu, indeed. The wholly fabricated Tonkin Gulf incident was used to justify US intervention in Viet Nam. It was, however, so well done that the truth of it didn't come out until the parties involved were mostly dead or drooling in their pablum.

Bush's "Tonkin II", however, was ham-handed and amateurish. It didn't long survive scrutiny in the light of day. Yet here we are...now...fighting an illegitimate, illegal war of aggression in Iraq. Nobody questioned the administration's evidence, mostly because they never released it. We have gone to war on nothing more than the say-so of a dry-drunk with a massive Oedipal complex; backed by a coterie of power and money hungry monsters who would peddle their own mother's ass on the streets if they thought they could turn a buck and kill her if she if she couldn't turn a profit.

It's impeachment time.

The Myth of "Compassionate Conservatism"

With our attention riveted on the death and destruction in Iraq, and the continued threat to Americans in the war zone, the other very serious problems facing the U.S. get short shrift. We knew last fall that the proportion of Americans living in poverty had risen, and that income for middle-class households had fallen.

We know that unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, is a big problem. And we've known that the states are facing their worst budget crisis since the Great Depression, a development that has led, among other things, to drastic cuts in education aid that are crushing the budgets of local public school districts.

These issues aren't even being properly discussed. The Bush administration sounds the alarm for war and blows the trumpet for tax cuts, and Congress plunges ahead with the cuts in domestic programs that must inevitably follow. The voices of those who object are effectively silenced by the war propaganda and the fear of seeming unpatriotic.

With attention thus deflected, the administration and its allies in Congress have come up with one proposal after another to weaken programs that were designed to help struggling Americans.- Bob Herbert, The New York Times, 03/27/2003

For the full text, goto:

Casualties at Home

As America's public education, its healthcare system, its social safety -nets collapse, Bush wages bloody war abroad. He cries for tax-cuts at home, he seeks to undermine the very foundations of this democracy, all while the nation is distracted by the events unfolding in Iraq.

These policies have nothing to do with compassion, but rather with a naked lust for unbridled power and unlimited wealth, bought with the blood and suffering of countless innocents. Bush claims the Prince of Peace as his role model, yet his actions seem to be guided more by the Prince of Darkness. His actions brand him a hypocrite of the worst sort, one who wears the mantle of piety to hide the rotten core of his soul.

Compassionate Conservatism = Bullshit

This enormous tax cut will provide a break of $256 a year to the average working family. Almost half of all taxpayers will get less than $100. But someone making a million dollars a year will cut a cut of $92,000. This is iniquitous. It is wicked. It is damnably unfair.

This budget does three stupid and mean things simultaneously: It cuts taxes for the richest Americans during a national crisis, cuts domestic spending that people's lives depend on, and completely ignores the cost of both war and reconstruction. Under this budget, almost all discretionary domestic programs, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, are subject to cuts or restraints. - Molly Ivins, 3/25/2003

Bush is, apparently, under the impression that Americans can be bribed to support his wrong-headed, misguided policies for chump-change. Looking at current poll numbers, one can assume that many Americans are stupid enough to fall for it.

Wake up America! The country is being systematically looted for the benefit of a few oligarch wannabes. It's being done on the backs of you, and me, and countless others across the world. Imperial America is being built on the suffering of those who will be left behind by the administration's policies. Our children, grand children and their children's children will be paying for this debacle for generations, and America may never recover.

Whose Side is God On?

Saddam claims God is on his side, Bush claims God is on his...which is it? Both Islam and Christianity claim to follow the God of Abraham. It seems more likely that God isn't on Bush's side, as the Pope, and the leaders of most of the other of the world's great religious orders, have denounced Bush's dirty little war. The glaring exception is the Southern Baptist Convention. Their take on Christian virtue is a rabid xenophobia and complete intolerance of any view not in lockstep with their own. Sounds kinda like Bush.

The upshot here is, that both Bush and Saddam use religion as a tool of political convenience. Neither has any true understanding of the ideals of their espoused religions. Both are hypocites. If there actually is a God, and a just one at that, Bush and Saddam will spend eternity roasting in hell's deepest pit...tied face to face.

Shocking, but True

The truly horrifying thing about the Bush administration lies not in its blatant and unremitting corruption, but rather, in the America’s docile, sheeplike acceptance of it.

For example, when the General Accounting Office was planning to sue Yice President Dick Cheney for release of notes which would reveal those who met with the veep to formulate the Bush Energy Bill, Bush threatened to slash GAO funding, and the suit was dropped. There are plans afoot, supported by the Bush administration, to contract the production of computer voting machines, with easily manipulable code, to 3 companies. This may have been done in Georgia in 2002 resulting in wins for that states Republican governor and US Senator. Such tampering may have also resulted in Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel’s re-election. He owns a voting machine company there. Chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell ( son of Colin) is pushing the Administration’s policy of scrapping regulations keeping nearly all mass media from being monopolized by a few mega-corporations.

These are just a few example of what I am talking about. I haven’t even discussed Dick Cheney’s role as Haliburton CEO in revitalizing Iraqi oil-fields after Gulf War I. Or What about Donald Rumsfeld”s cozey little chats with Saddam Hussein in the !980’s? There’s so much more, but I’ll get to it in the days to come.

"...there are those who believe that continuing the inspection process is a kind of delaying tactic to prevent or avert military intervention. That naturally raises a question of how much time is allowed Iraq. And this brings us to the heart of the matter. What is at stake is our credibility and our sense of responsibility. . . .

France, for its part, would propose another meeting on 14 March at the ministerial level to assess the situation. We would then be able to judge the progress made and what remains to be done.

Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time. . . .

Ten days ago, the U.S. secretary of state . . . reported alleged links between Al Qaeda and the Baghdad regime. Given the present state of our research and intelligence in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. But we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this level. Would such intervention today not be liable to exacerbate divisions between societies, cultures, peoples; divisions that nurture terrorism? . . ." Dominique de Villepin, French Foreign Minister

The Bush administration continues to push for action sooner, rather than later, as he has encamped a massive force around Iraq. Unless some action is taken, soon, seasonal conditions will make it impossible for US forces to operate in the heavy, and marginally effective, NBC gear they will be using. Also, it costs a lot of money to keep those forces forward deployed. Unfortunately, Bush's tax-cuts for his wealthy friends will drain US coffers to the point that he can no longer afford to maintain those troops abroad. And lets not forget his sliding poll numbers. The longer this saga continues, the more Americans will come to realize that the whole issue has nothing to do with any imminent threat to the US.

So, of course Bush is going to push for war within the next month. It is also quite likely that he, fool that he is, pursue his dirty little war unilaterally. That will result in a bitter harvest indeed for all of America and the world.

This is what the Bush administration's "war on terrorism" is about:

" ¶Invalidate state legal consent decrees that seek to curb police spying. The authors argued such orders could hinder terrorism investigations.

¶Eliminate the requirement that the attorney general personally has to authorize using certain intelligence evidence in a criminal case, permitting him to designate an assistant attorney general to make such authorizations.

¶Allow the collection of DNA samples by "such means as are reasonably necessary" from suspected terrorists being held by federal authorities. Failing to cooperate would be a crime.

¶Flatly bar Freedom of Information Act efforts to gain information about detainees, because litigation over such issues costs the Justice Department resources.

¶Allow citizenship to be stripped from people who support groups that the United States considers terrorist organizations." - Adam Clymer, The New York Time, 02/08/2003

It's not about protecting American's from any terrorist threat, it's about establishing an American police state. It's about protecting the power and position of America's oligarchs and dictator wannabes.

For the full text, goto:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/politics/08BILL.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

That such measures are even being discussed by Bush's Justice Department show the administration's true colors. Bush, after all, once said "This would be alot easier if this was a dictatorship, and I was the dictator." He's well on his way to making that nightmare a reality.

"The latest battle strategy would, as its title insists, "Shock and Awe" Iraq by dropping as many as 800 "smart" cruise missiles on that country in two days—more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 Gulf War. Late last month, the architect of Shock and Awe, military strategist Harlan Ullman, gloated to the press about the effect being "rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima." Such an attack would "take the city down," he said, wiping out the water and power supplies in Baghdad. "In two, three, four, five days, they are physically, emotionally, and psychologically exhausted."

In other words, a lot of human beings—children, women, old people, students, and yes, soldiers—are dead, and the infrastructure that supports those left breathing—sanitation, water, food delivery, and all the rest—lies in a shambles. As for the American troops wreaking the devastation, they go untouched in this antiseptic scenario: The blitz is meant to leave the Iraqis so stunned and dispirited that they abandon support for Saddam Hussein instead of shooting back or following orders to unleash biological or chemical weapons.

In what one defense official has called a "dangerous role reversal," it is the Pentagon that has been urging a civilian administration, none of whose vociferous warmongers have ever gone to battle themselves, to slow down. Though top Pentagon officials have been careful not to openly oppose the war—in this administration, after all, disagreement is tantamount to treason—some of the contingency plans they've come up with suggest grave doubts about the president's storyboard. According to a Denver Post report on January 24, the Pentagon has been considering an option to bulldoze the bodies of U.S. soldiers killed by chemical or biological weapons into mass graves and then burn them to save the lives of surviving troops. In November, the General Accounting Office expressed "continuing concerns" about the Defense Department's ability to defend against such weapons even as Pentagon officials revealed that soldiers' protective suits and gas masks were inadequate and often defective. Even Norman Schwarzkopf, who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War, expressed skepticism in a Washington Post interview that an invasion of Iraq would be quick and easy. " - Alisa Solomon, The Village Voice, 02/05/2005

This "Shock and Awe" strategy and its deliberate, cold, calculation of its potential to inflict civilian casualties, is nothing short of criminal. That it is being considered at all, only bolsters the validity of Ramsey Clark's Articles of Impeachment against President Bush and those named members of his administration.

It is time, America...write, call, e-mail, contact your congressional representatives. It is time to impeach President Bush, and prevent his dragging the whole world into war and ruin.