Peace

Not long afterwards, the Iraq Survey Group's head, Charles Duelfer, issued a final report concluding Iraq had destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and that it was incapable of producing the nuclear weapons that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had warned were an imminent threat.

Reacting to the news, George W. Bush ranted on that "we must confront threats before it's too late". Apparently, he forgot that the new reports indicated that there never was any threat. The British Foreign Office also continued its long slog through the swamps of denial, insisting that "The hunt for WMD will continue under whatever authority is in charge, right now the Iraqi interim government."

Of course, years later now, we know what the hunt for WMDs in Iraq has turned up since that time. Absolutely nothing. That's what the war in Iraq has been for: Absolutely nothing. (Source: CNN, January 12, 2005)

Possibly innocent lives? Here was a family in their own home, minding its own business when a foreign army came along and drops a 500 pound bomb on them. The best that the American military can do is say that these people were possibly innocent?

Here within the borders of the Homeland, we assume that if people are in their own home, and there's no evidence against them, they are innocent - period. If their homes are attacked, we don't call their innocence into question.

The implicit suggestion in the American statement was, of course, that the family in that house was possibly guilty. Guilty of what?

14 people total were killed by that 500 pound American bomb, and 7 of them were children. What does the American military suggest that those 7 children were guilty of? The only possible way that those 7 children could have been possibly guilty is if we accept that it is now a crime simply to be an Iraqi.

A liberal like myself gets easily confused when the American government starts implying the guilt of children in wartime. Silly me. So, let me take this opportunity ask a simple question: Who are we liberating the Iraqis from now? I'm sure some wise Republican will set me straight. (Source: International Herald Tribune, January 10, 2007)

The Cold War ended over 15 years ago. Whatever are so many American nuclear weapons still in Europe for? Those 480 American nuclear missiles in Europe could easily destroy all of Russia, China, plus the nations of South Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. Does America really need a plan for such a level of destruction?

It's no wonder the ayatollahs in Iran are considering building nuclear weapons of their own. The United States has clearly demonstrated that nuclear weapons are the path to power. So much for setting a shining example that will reform the entire Middle East.

Before we go further down the route of increased sanctions, UN resolutions, and eventual invasion of Iran, we ought to put a little bit of our own preaching into practice, and pull our nuclear weapons arsenal out of Europe. It is unreasonable to expect nations in the area not to fiddle around with building 5 or 10 nuclear weapons, when we have 480 nuclear missiles ready to rain down on their cities at a moment's notice. (Source: Natural Resources Defense Council, February, 2005)

Gordon Johnson of the Joint Forces Command explains the benefits of designing robots to go invade foreign countries and kill people: "They're not afraid. They don't forget their orders. They don't care if the guy next to them has just been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes."

The Republicans in the Bush White House apparently think that the idea of robot soldiers is just great, and have given it the thumbs up. If you don't agree that creating armies of killer robots is a good idea, then you need to vote for a progressive candidate for President in 2008 who will shut the program down. (Source: New York Times, February 16, 2005)

"I have received hundreds of calls during the past few weeks, and many of my constituents are raising similar and very serious concerns. They are suspicious of the timing of this debate. They see political overtones to it, and question whether this vote is being used for political purposes... Many callers have told me they don�Zt see evidence that Saddam Hussein poses a current threat to the United States."

"There is every evidence, from the dossier prepared by the Prime Minister of Britain, to President Bush�Zs speech at the United Nations, that Saddam has rebuilt substantial chemical and biological weapons stocks, and that he is determined to obtain the means necessary to produce nuclear weapons."

"Although I disagree deeply with much of President Bush's domestic policies and some aspects of his foreign policy, I agree with his conclusion that we cannot leave Saddam to continue on his present course. No one doubts that he is trying to build a nuclear device, and when he does, his potential for blackmail to dominate the Persian Gulf and Middle East will be enormous, and our efforts to deal with him be even more difficult and perilous. The risks of inaction clearly outweigh the risks of action."

One might say that October 2006 was Iraq's September 11. One might say that, if one were seeking to downplay the extent of the violence.

For the United States, the attacks of September 11, 2001 were a one time event. For Iraq, the violence that led to the slaughter of 3,709 civilians last month has been going on for years now, and is getting worse, set to continue month after month after month.

The right wing lied to us when they promised that starting a war in Iraq would make the world more secure and more peaceful. 3,709 civilians dead in one month makes one very important reason to vote for a progressive President in 2008. (Source: Associated Press, November 22, 2006)

"The methods consisted of making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation ... playing music at full volume, having to sit in uncomfortably ... Rumsfeld authorized these specific techniques," Karpinski says.

The Geneva Conventions, which until the Military Commissions Act were law binding upon all members of the United States government, say something very different about how prisoners are to be treated: "Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind".

Progressives believe that the Secretary of Defense should be required to follow the laws of war. Right wingers think that the laws of war should only apply to those we call enemy. To support the integrity of the laws of war, America should elect a progressive President in 2008. (Source: Reuters, November 25, 2006)

It turned out, of course, that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. But the United States does have weapons of mass destruction. No, I'm not referring to nuclear weapons. I'm referring to chemical weapons, which by the end of World War I were universally despised. The International Chemical Weapons Convention, to which the United States is a signatory, mandates that the United States destroy its stockpile of chemical weapons by 2007. But the Bush administration says it has no intention of doing so. In fact, in violation of the Convention it has declared the United States will not destroy its chemical weapons until 2023.

How will the United States manage to use its moral authority to help persuade other nations to destroy their chemical weapons when it will not do so itself? (Source: Salt Lake Tribune, November 22, 2006)

Take, for example, the incident in which unidentified Iraqi Shiite "militiamen" grabbed a group of Iraqi Sunni civilians, doused them in kerosene and then lit them on fire, burning them to death. Iraqi "security forces" were there, and they did nothing to stop the incident. They just watched. Later in the day, when Shiites rampaged through the same neighborhood, killing 19 more Sunni civilians, including children, the same "security forces" once again refused to intervene.

There was a time when rebuilding the Iraqi police and military was a plausible part of a plan for salvaging the disaster of the Iraq War. That time is long gone. It has becoming quite clear that large numbers of the Iraqis that American soldiers have trained are involved in the attacks against Iraqi civilians and the growing civil war there.

It's simple math, really. The more of these "security forces" American soldiers have trained and armed, the faster the violence in Iraq has increased.

It is insane for President Bush to insist that the United States continue to follow the same course that has led to the current reign of terror in the streets of Iraq. Progressives don't share this insanity. We are dedicated to the process of critical examination of political agendas and ideas. When something goes wrong, we don't keep doing it. Unlike George W. Bush and his right wing supporters, we work to find a new way. (Sources: Associated Press, November 29, 2006; Associated Press, November 26, 2006)

America has separated itself from the world; put itself beyond the reach of international law. We must reunite with the world. We must rally the world in the cause of human unity, in the cause of the survival of the planet facing challenges from global climate change, nuclear proliferation and from useless war. I believe that as human beings we have evolved to the point where we can settle our differences without killing one another.

This is what President Franklin Roosevelt, who knew war, meant when he spoke of our responsibility to pursue "the science of human relations." It was this thinking that inspired legislation to create a Department of Peace which seeks to meet the challenge of domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the schools, racial violence, violence against gays, and to resolve conflict between police and community groups. War is not inevitable. Peace is inevitable if we are dedicated to creating new structures for peace.

In the wake of such a dramatic failure, America needs leadership with fresh perspective. Republicans cannot provide a fresh perspective, and neither can those Democrats that supported George W. Bush's rush to war in Iraq. The only credible alternative to the current failed ideology of war is the progressive perspective. We need to elect a progressive President in 2008 so that the Executive branch can help, not hinder, the healing of America. (Source: Newsweek, January 15, 2007)

To reasonable people, it was immediately clear that there was no reason to believe that President Bush's surge would make any lasting difference in Iraq. The point, though, is what President Bush believed. President Bush believed that an increase in the number of soldiers in Iraq would make things better there.

The central moral question in this matter is this: If Bush believed six months ago that he could make things better with an increase of the number of soldiers in Iraq, why didn't he order such an increase? He was the Commander In Chief. He had a Republican-controlled Congress to back him up. So, why didn't he enact the surge strategy he already believed was necessary?

The only answer that makes sense is that Bush wanted to wait until after the election, so that he could reduce the number of Republican incumbents who would lose their seats. For partisan political gain, Bush dithered with the war.

This purposeful inactivity during the midst of a war gone out of control ought to be remembered by voters on Election Day 2008. We must never forget this lesson: Right wing ideologues cannot be trusted with the lives of American soldiers. (Source: Newsweek, January 22, 2007)

The United States needs a President who is at least willing to consider the point of view of peace. A progressive President might not always choose peace over war, but a progressive President will listen to voices who advocate peace. (Source: White House Press Briefing, January 16, 2007)

The article itself does not show those photographs. Searching online, I can't find any photographs of black crosses painted inside mosques. I can't find much news about them either, or even blog discussions saying that they exist. I did find a transcript of Amy Goodman interviewing a soldier who was in Fallujah, referring to the rumors of vandalism. The soldier, however, said he had not seen any himself.

This is not to say that the claims are false. Certainly, many people in Iraq don't have reliable access to electricity right now, much less access to the Internet through which they could publish evidence.

More fundamentally, it doesn't matter whether Americans have really been painting black crosses inside mosques in Iraq. What matters is that many Iraqis believe that this Christian vandalism is taking place. What George W. Bush and his pro-war followers never seem to have considered is that their war, instead of bringing clarity, would damage the ability of people, in Iraq and in the United States alike, to determine what is real and what is not. Given this ambiguity, the rumors of black crucifixes painted in Iraqi mosques acquire an operational reality.

No surge in the number of American soldiers can overcome the news of outrageous acts that have not been seen but are nonetheless believed. In 2008, we need to choose a new President who understands that beliefs are stronger than bullets, and will seek to persuade rather than invade. (Sources: Dahr Jamail's MidEast Dispatches, January 18, 2007; Washington News Review, November 8, 2005)

Bush was speaking in the context of trying to get European countries to join in his belligerent efforts to provoke a more serious conflict with Iran. Bush was trying to describe the motives of others, but in doing so, he ended up describing his own right wing ideology.

For right wing politicians, money trumps peace. They see war as an opportunity to expand profits and economic influence.

Progressives believe the opposite, that peace trumps money. They believe that profit is not an adequate justification for war. Progressives believe that preserving and strengthening peace is a worthwhile investment.

We've seen what disasters result when we have a politician who believes that money trumps peace is given the power of the White House. Isn't it time that we allow the other political philosophy a chance? (Source: The Guardian, February 14, 2007)

First, a bomb blew up in a book market in Baghdad, killing 38 people and wounding 105. Then, the bodies of 30 people shot to death were found in Baghdad. Several pilgrims were killed while travelling to a religious event in Kerbala. Nine Americans were also killed in two separate attacks.

This surge in death is taking place in the middle of the implementation of the Bush-McCain policy of escalating the Iraq War. So, how did George W. Bush and John McCain react?

They issued a lot of statements, about other subjects. John McCain issued three press releases announcing the addition of supporters for his presidential campaign in New Jersey, as well as the creation of a Michigan finance team and Southeastern finance chair for his campaign. George W. Bush talked about Latin America.

White House spokesman Tony Snow did say, however, that there are "a lot of encouraging signs" in Iraq.

How well is the Bush-McCain escalation of the Iraq War working? Every day, there are more people on the ground in Iraq who can't tell us about any progress they're seeing, because they're dead. (Sources: Reuters, March 6, 2007; Associated Press, March 6, 2007; White House Press Briefing by Tony Snow, March 5, 2007; John McCain 2008 press releases, March 5, 2007)

The idea of peace through strength is that only by having an immense military and by waging wars all around the world can we gain peace. The peace part comes later on, after a whole bunch of wars, through which anyone who might stand up to the United States of America learns that resistance is futile.

Peace through strength is as ridiculous an idea as establishing marital fidelity through sexual affairs. For a moment, however, let's assume that the basic idea of peace throgh strength is not ridiculous. Let us suppose that, in theory, peace through strength makes lots and lots of sense.

There's still a problem with the way that Republicans like Duncan Hunter promote an agenda of peace through strength. They aren't strong.

Just take a look at what's going on over in Iraq. Consider, for that matter, the mess of Afghanistan. Is that what Duncan Hunter thinks strength looks like?

If you go to war with the ideology of peace through strength, and then aren't able actually be strong in war, then you have neither peace nor strength. You have havoc through ineptitude.

The policy of havoc through ineptitude is what Duncan Hunter wants to continue. I think that there's a better policy. It's called peace through peace. (Sources: Iraq For Sale; Federal Election Commission)

Barack Obama attacked the antiwar legislation early, saying that the Senate Democrats would not stand up to George W. Bush on the Iraq War, and would give Bush the money for the war as requested. Roll over like a nice lap dog for President Bush, Mr. Obama, because your status as an antiwar candidate for President has gone to the dogs.

Then, Carl Levin kicked the antiwar proposal in the balls by saying that he thought it would be a good idea to go on giving billions upon billions upon billions of dollars in funding to continue the war in Iraq without any end in sight, just so long as President Bush gave his say-so that things in Iraq are getting better... you know, like Bush said last year, and the year before that, and the year before that. What makes Senator Levin think that approach will work, when it has failed so many times before? Levin said, "...we can keep the benchmarks part of the bill without saying that the troops must begin to come back... what we will leave will be benchmarks, for instance, which would require the president to certify to the American people if the Iraqis are meeting the benchmarks for political settlement."

Senator Charles Schumer, who helped George W. Bush out four years ago by voting in favor of starting the Iraq War, announced that he would help Bush prolong the Iraq War now. Senator Schumer said that he would support President Bush's plan to continue the war in Iraq, and just make a few suggestions for minor adjustments. Schumer explained he wants the Iraq War to go on for longer, and just wants Bush to tweak his strategy for fighting the war there.

Senator Russ Feingold did the right thing when he proposed legislation to end the Iraq War. Unfortunately, Feingold's effort to end the Iraq War was betrayed by wimpy pro-war Democratic Senators.

Charles Schumer, Carl Levin, and yes, even Barack Obama were afraid to stand up to George W. Bush.

Remember what the Democrats told you in 2006? They said that you had to vote for creepy candidates like pro-lifer Bob Casey and habeas-corpus- hating Michael Arcuri because the important thing was to get Democratic control of Congress. They said that once the Democrats gained control of Congress, they would end the Iraq War, and that would be worth electing some nasty right wing Democratic candidates.

We can see plainly now that the Democratic Party was lying to us. There are a few good Democrats in Congress who are genuinely trying to end the Iraq War, but they are in the minority. The majority of Democrats in the U.S. Congress are not doing anything to end the war in Iraq. They just used anti-war activists to get elected and then betrayed us.

That includes Barack Obama, a great disappointment. Now that Senator Obama has thrown in his hat with the pro-war Bush lap dog Democrats in the Senate, why doesn't he write a new book, with the title The Audacity of Talking Out Of Both Sides Of Your Mouth? (Source: Washington Post, April 8, 2007)

Isn't that sweet?

For the record, at the time George W. Bush made his comment, those "little girls" are 23 years old, 5 years older than tens of thousands of little boys and girls that President Bush knowingly sent into combat in Iraq, to fight a menace that Bush made up in order to score political points.

Bush never sent his "little girls". His own little girls spent the Iraq War partying back here in the United States. That's their right, I suppose, and I will not be among those who suggest that it is the duty of young Americans to join the military and march to their deaths at the order of the President. All young people deserve to remain free and to stay alive.

Still, it would be nice if President Bush would have shown some of the same concern for the little boys and girls of other families that he shows for his own little girls. After all, the "situation" that President Bush's little girls have to deal with is being young, wealthy, and famous members of the most powerful family in the nation. That's a situation that most little boys and girls would love to be in.

Bush is worried about his little girls? Cry me a river, Mr. President.

Who were these Iraqis protesting against the American occupation? They were Shia. That's the group that the American invasion and occupation put into power. That's the group that will continue to control Iraq if George W. Bush's war succeeds.

So, America, this is what your soldiers are fighting for: To create a government supported by people who hate America.

These huge anti-American protests make it plain to any rational person that the American occupation of Iraq cannot succeed in creating a nation that will be reliably pro-American. The longer the occupation of Iraq goes on, the more Iraqis, Sunni and Shia, despise the United States. If you want that to continue, then vote for a right wing, pro-war candidate in the 2008 presidential election. If you want the occupation to end, vote for a progressive. (Source: ITV, April 9, 2007)

McCain has been in Washington, DC far too long to carry off this kind of fun-fun war jokesterism. We need a grown up in the White House who won't treat war like it's just a form of entertainment. (Marketwire, June 13, 2007)

It has been more than six years since George W. Bush took control of the presidency, and he still hasn't read the Constitution?

George W. Bush, a politician in Washington, is commander in chief of the armed forces. His job is to tell generals how to do their job. The Congress, full of politicians in Washington, has the sole power to declare and set appropriations for the various engines of war, which are two ways to tell generals what to do in their jobs.

So of course politicians in Washington should be telling generals how to do their jobs, at least if you believe the Constitution is an appropriately constraining document. George W. Bush told America yesterday he either misunderstands the Constitution or disregards it. In either case, he has violated his oath of office. And the anti-constitutional alternative Bush identifies -- letting the generals carry out their jobs without instructions from Washington -- is the Filipino model of an Army, and it leads to coups or attempted coups approximately once a decade.

Whether Bush is a fool or a scoundrel, the sooner we can get him out of office and replace him with someone who understands the constitutional basis of government, the better. (Source: White House, April 23, 2007)

There, I said the magic words. Now nobody can accuse me of being unpatriotic.

Now let's get to reality: If George W. Bush and the Republicans running the Executive Branch really wanted to support the troops, they wouldn't lie to the American people about how soldiers are really dying.

When U.S. Army Ranger and professional football player for the Arizona Cardinals Pat Tillman was killed by another American soldier in a friendly fire incident, military officials decided to lie to the public about what really happened. They made up a story, saying that Tillman was killed by nasty Afghan insurgents while trying to save the life of another soldier.

Testifying before Congress, Pat Tillman's brother called the military's story "utter fiction" and "deliberate and calculated lies". He's right.

What's worse, the lies were told in order to keep Americans excited about the idea of going to war, and politically supportive of George W. Bush. Right wingers say that they support the troops, but the reality is that they're just using American soldiers for political gain.

Progressives don't play that kind of game. Progressives call upon Americans to support the peace, and end the lies about war. That's just one more reason America needs to elect a progressive President in 2008. (Source: National Post, April 24, 2007)

In order to obtain these new nuclear weapons, President Bush plans to resume the testing of nuclear weapons on American soil.

Most frighteningly of all, President Bush says that these nuclear weapons would be "useable". Bush says that it would be okay for America to launch these nuclear weapons against an enemy, even if that enemy has no nuclear weapons itself.

Bush has claimed in the past that these new nuclear weapons would be only used to destroy underground enemy bunkers. Bush has claimed in the past that by exploding these nuclear weapons in attacks on underground enemy bunkers that no one but the bad guys we want to kill would get hurt. Bush even tried to make the new nuclear weapons sound cute by calling them �bunker busters�.

It turns out that Bush's new generation of cute nuclear weapons are not so cute after all. The National Academy of Science's National Research Council was asked to evaluate the scientific validity of President Bush's claims about the supposed bunker buster bombs. The council of scientists found that, even if exploded underground, Bush's new nuclear weapons could easily kill one million civilians living nearby. If exploded above ground, on purpose or by accident, Bush's new nukes would kill millions more. In short, the scientists found that President Bush has been lying to the American people - again.

Even if President Bush were telling us the truth about these new nuclear weapons he wants to build, what's the use? Really, what is the use of these bunker buster bombs? When, ever, has the United States of America lost a war, or even a single battle, because an enemy bunker could not be destroyed without nuclear weapons?

The answer is simple. It has never happened. Bush's nuclear weapons are completely unnecessary.

Why does Bush want to build these new nuclear weapons, then? Apparently, Bush just wants to prove to the world that he can do it. That makes me wonder: Once he gets his new nuclear weapons arsenal, what else will Bush want to prove that he can do?

I don't want to find out. Before it's too late, the American people need to put a stop to George W. Bush's terrifying lust for new arsenals of nuclear missiles. Luckily for us, the Union of Concerned Scientists is on the job, working to counter Bush's immense pressure upon his loyal Republican members of Congress to give him the new nuclear bombs that he craves. (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists, June, 2005)

Cottrell has got it wrong. To keep soldiers fighting in a lost war, while insisting that the war is not lost, is the real betrayal to our nation.

Progressives understand that truth is not treason. That's another reason we need to elect a progressive President in 2008. (Source: USA Today, April 26, 2007)

Yes, I'm talking about the United States.

George W. Bush has already launched one war and sacrificed over 1500 American lives on the premise of Iraq violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (which, it turns out, Iraq was not doing at all). But what is Bush's own record on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?

Well, Bush waves his arms in panic about Iran developing nuclear weapons. But, Bush himself, far from eliminating America's arsenal of nuclear of weapons, Bush is pushing to expand it. Bush has developed a plan for building an entire new category of nuclear weapons that he calls "bunker busters". Bush says that he could use these nuclear weapons on the battlefield "safely". The Pentagon says that using just one of the new kinds of nuclear weapons Bush is seeking would cause one million civilian deaths, even if detonated underground. That's Bush's definition of the "safe" use of nuclear weapons.

When it comes to nuclear weapons testing, Bush blasts the North Korean government for threatening to test one nuclear weapon. However, Bush has himself unilaterally withdrawn the United States from the nuclear test-ban treaty, and has declared that he has the right to order as many nuclear weapons tests as he wants.

The terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty are clear. Nations like Iran and North Korea do not have the right to develop nuclear weapons. However, nations like the United States have no right to keep their nuclear weapons arsenals.

Not only is Bush failing to live up to America's obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. He is actively moving backwards against the requirements of the treaty. This puts the Bush Administration in the same category as the governments of Iran and North Korea. So, before we use the treaty as a pretext to launch a war against either of those nations, we would do well to eliminate the shameful nuclear weapon arsenal and testing program in our own country first.

The inaccuracy of those statistics were exposed yesterday by the United Nations, which conducted its own investigation and found that the true extent of civilians killed and injured in Iraq was purposefully concealed by the Iraqi government installed and supported by the United States. What's really going on in Iraq as a result of the so-called surge? According to the United Nations, the crisis is "rapidly worsening".

Did General Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and President George W. Bush know about the cover-up of the true extent of civilian casualties in Iraq? Did General Petraeus purposefully lie to Congress, using what he knew were false numbers?

If President Bush knew about the deception, he ought to be impeached and imprisoned for fraud. If Bush didn't know about the deception, then he ought to resign, having been exposed as an incompetent leader who lacks the ability to keep track of the war he has responsibility for as Commander-In-Chief. (Sources: USA Today, April 26, 2007 and Associated Press, April 25, 2007)

On the one hand: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons." - George W. Bush, September 26, 2002

On the other hand: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has or will establish its chemical agent production facilities." - Defense Intelligence Agency report to Bush administration, September, 2002.

Unfortunately, the dichotomy of realities inherent in these two claims didn't make the war hawks' heads explode. It didn't make them reconsider their idea of invading Iraq in a war of choice. They just kept right on chugging merrily along to a disaster of a war. And that's why we need regime change in 2008. (Source: Washington Post, June 6, 2003)

There is another solution to the problem. Instead of stretching American society thin to pay for a bigger military, we could reduce the demand for military adventures around the world. The demand for huge numbers of soldiers is just as easy to manipulate, if not more so, as the supply. The demand is caused, after all, by President George W. Bush's enthusiasm for war and military occupation of foreign countries. End that enthusiam. End the wars. End the occupations. Then, we will need a smaller Army, not a larger one.

See the more peaceful side of the equation. Vote to elect a progressive President in 2008. (Source: Associated Press, April 29, 2007)

When the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction took a look at a sample of reconstruction projects in Iraq that the pro-war American government said were successfully completed, they found that seven of the eight projects they examined were, in fact, failures. These projects were no longer successfully operating, even though they had all been officially declared successful, some as few as just six months ago.

The right wing pro-war crowd has proven so inept that even their successes are failures. Could there be any better reason than to work to elect a true alternative, a progressive President in 2008? (Source: New York Times, April 29, 2007)

George W. Bush said that his so-called "surge" would make life better for people in Iraq. Instead, Bush's plan to prolong the war in Iraq is making the Iraqi government more like the brutal dictatorship that the American invasion kicked out in the first place.

The next time some pro-war extremist tells me that American soldiers are occupying Iraq to defend our freedoms here at home, I think I'll tell them about this new revelation, and ask how putting huge numbers of innocent Iraqis in prison protects American freedoms. I'm curious as curious can be to see what kind of response I'll get. (Source: USA Today, May 6, 2007)

People who support war say that it's in the interests of the United States to kill civilians in incidents like these. They say that killing civilians is worth it, because it enables the American military to kill Taliban fighters too. They say that tactics like these are the only way to obtain victory in Aghanistan.

Are they right? Well, the United States military has been killing and wounding civilians in Afghanistan for more than five years now. For all the civilians that have been killed there, victory has not been achieved. In fact, year after year, Afghanistan becomes more insecure. Year after year, the Taliban are getting stronger.

It's part of right wing ideology to say that killing civilians is part of a larger good. Progressives look past this ideology, at the facts. The killing of civilians doesn't help anyone. We need a President who recognizes this truth, and stops making excuses for massacres. (Source: Associated Press, May 9, 2007)

So, it seems like the two messages neutralize each other. It seems that way, unless you pay attention. You see, the White House has admitted that it wasn't really telling the truth. It turns out that the Governor of Kansas really did send specific requests for help, and that the Bush Administration was not able to meet them in anything close to a prompt manner.

War isn't just soldiers and civilians get shot at and blown up over in Iraq. War is the aftermath of a tornado in Kansas, when people don't get the help they need.

We need a new President who won't suck America dry of the resources it needs to deal with the storms to come. (Source, International Herald Tribune, May 7, 2007)

This legislature is part of a government that was established by the United States and remains propped up by the United States. Many of the people in this government were once opposed to the Taliban, when the Taliban were in power. Now, thanks to the inept, clumsy way that the United States has fought a losing war for years against the Taliban, they are calling for the occupying United States military to back off.

Of course, the United States military has no intention of backing off and declaring a cease fire with the Taliban. The United States military won't negotiate for peace with the Taliban. That's because, as an occupying military power, the United States does practically whatever it wants in Afghanistan. Afghan sovereignty is a sham.

We need a new Commander-In-Chief who is capable of radically reimagining the strategy behind American policy regarding Afghanistan. We need a progressive President who is able to see beyond a campaign of bomb after bomb after bomb. (Source: New York Daily News, May 10, 2007)

What kind of a person admits that he doesn't prepare, and doesn't consider downsides and risks, before going to war, then expects to be made Commander-In-Chief of the military nonetheless? The kind of person who is thoroughly unfit to become Commmander-In-Chief.

In 2008, let's elect a President who has enough sense to avoid sending soldiers off to war without considering that bad things might happen to them. Let's elect a progressive. (Source: Washington Post, May 11, 2007)

The Associated Press called the people who performed the massacre "gunmen wearing Iraqi army uniforms". That's a curious phrase. It seems to skip and jump around a very uncomfortable possibility: That those "gunmen wearing Iraqi army uniforms" were, in fact, members of the Iraqi army.

It's possible that the army uniforms were part of a fraud. Hamid Shifi residents had expected a Sunni insurgent attack. Perhaps it was the Sunnis, after all. If the Sunnis were behind the attack, however, how did they get the army uniforms?

Was the massacre at Hamid Shifi orchestrated by the Iraqi government that has been installed and supported by the American military occupation? I wasn't there. I don't know.

We would all be better served if the American news media would stop pretending that it's not a possibility that gunmen dressed as members of the Iraqi army were actually members of the Iraqi army. We would be best served if the American military would stop propping up a corrupt and ruthless government that has been caught in so many barbaric acts that it can be reasonably suspected in the massacre at Hamid Shifi.

For the sake of the victims of Hamid Shifi, let's elect an antiwar progressive President in 2008, and stop compounding our nation's complicity in the Iraqi bloodbath. (Sources: Associated Press, May 19, 2007; New York Times, May 20, 2007)

Another economic opportunity for illegal drug gangs: Is that what George W. Bush meant when he declared "Mission Accomplished?" (Source: The Independent, May 23, 2007)

Then came the news that before the war, U.S. intelligence specifically warned the Bush administration that a war in Iraq could increase the threat of attacks against the United States by groups like al Qaeda, not decrease the threat. But intelligence agencies were told that the decision to war had been made long before � and the warnings proved futile.

What a dangerous man to be president. What a dangerous administration in office. We need someone who listens to experts. We need a reality-based president. (Sources: Sioux City Journal, May 24, 2007)

There was some small good news, at least on the presidential campaign front. Most of the Democrats in Congress who are running for President in 2008 voted against the pro-war bill. The following Democratic candidates for President voted against the bill to give George W. Bush carte blanche to play shoot �em up some more in Iraq:

Good for them.

One congressional Democrat running for President, Joseph Biden, chose to vote in favor of the legislation to prolong the American military occupation of Iraq.

At this point, after he has called Barack Obama remarkably clean for a black man, made jokes about people from India in 7-11 stores, and now voted in favor of the Iraq War all over again, I don't understand why Senator Biden insists on continuing his campaign for the Democratic nomination. How many Democrats could get excited about voting for Biden?

Now for the Republican presidential candidates.

Ron Paul was one of only two Republicans in the House of Representatives to vote against prolonging the war. Good for him.

What about Sam Brownback? Senator Brownback didn't bother to show up to vote either way. (Source: Library of Congress)

A full 200 jobs in the State Department, most of them overseas posts, have simply gone unfilled by the Bush administration. You can't build a robust foreign policy of diplomatic engagement if you don't have members of the diplomatic corps to do the work of engaging. As our foreign entanglements deepen, we need a progressive administration that will take its diplomatic obligations seriously enough to let the work of diplomacy be done. (Source: New York Times, June 6, 2007)

One would hope that the Republican presidential candidates of 2008 have learned the lesson from George W. Bush's childish declaration of a war against evil. Unfortunately, it seems that, at least for some, the lesson has not been learned.

Almost as soon as he announced the formation of his presidential campaign exploratory committee, Fred Thompson followed in George W. Bush's rhetorical footsteps. Thompson declared, of the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, "This is a battle between the forces of civilization and the forces of evil and we've got to choose sides!"

Oh really? It's a battle against the forces of evil? So, then, will we be bombing the corrupt government of Pakistan? Will we be throwing bank robbers into the gulags of Guantanamo? Will people be placed on no-fly lists when they're caught being really mean to other people?

A vote for Fred Thompson is a vote for four more years of sending the American military around the world on quixotic quests to rid the world of evil. In 2008, America needs a more mature option. (Source: Reuters, June 3, 2007)

I've been calling what's going on in Iraq a "war", but it's clear to me now that the war part of the mess in Iraq is over. The violence there now in which American soldiers are playing a part is the result of the struggle to maintain American control over Iraqi territory. It's an occupation we're seeing, and armed resistance to that occupation.

Of course, there's also vicious fighting between different sects in Iraqi society. That fighting, however, is uncannily reminiscent of the divide-and-conquer policy of the British occupation of India.

America is not at war in Iraq. America is struggling to establish and preserve an imperial control over Iraq and its resources.

This is worse than war. It's killing for power, with sovereignty and liberty tossed aside like unneeded props in a play that goes on for far too long. It is now clear that the Bush White House doesn't intend for Iraq to be free and independent. It is the official policy of the Bush Republicans to keep Iraq under American control for as long as possible.

That's not what Americans agreed to, not even the Americans who trotted out their "Support Our Troops" yellow ribbons back when the Iraq mess was still a real war.

Progressives recognize the horrible reality of the American occupation of Iraq. Right wingers are proposing a decades-long fight against terrorists as a justification for imperial policy. I can't think of a better reason to elect a progressive President in 2008. (Source: The Australian, June 2, 2007)

Take Omar Khadr. He was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan by the American government. His alleged crime: Throwing a hand grenade on a battlefield. That was five years ago, at the age of 15. He had been coerced by his father into going halfway around the world to join the Afghan government's effort to resist the American invasion. He was a child soldier.

Omar Khadr is what right wingers believe that to be an example of the worst of the worst. Progressives have a more realistic idea of who's a serious threat to American security. (Sources: Village Voice, March 3, 2006; Montreal Gazette, June 6, 2007)

Lieberman says that bombing Iran would be an effective way to calm down the violence in Iraq. Iran, on the other hand, has promised to enter into no holds barred open warfare with the United States if it is attacked by the U.S. military. So, with the United States waging war in Iran in order to try to get the initial mess of Iraq under control, what would Lieberman's next suggestion be? Would he say that we ought to start bombing Azerbaijan in order to get the violence in Iran under control?

Lieberman's plan to win one war by starting a new war would lead to war around the world. It's not a plan for victory. It's a plan for magnifying the humiliation of America's defeat.

Joseph Lieberman is going to be promoting his crazy ideas in the United States Senate for at least five more years. In 2008, we need to elect a President who is willing to stand against the Lieberman pro-war agenda, not help it become official American foreign policy. (Source: Financial Times, June 11, 2007)

The series examines how, for many years, the American military has been dumping toxic chemicals, including chemical weapons such as mustard gas, into the depths of the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean, with no reliable measures to guarantee that the toxic materials will not leak out into the water, and no plans for a cleanup. How much toxic material has the military dumped, and where is it? Some information is available, but the full information has yet to be released.

When the death and destruction caused by America's military extends even down to the bottom of the ocean, it's a sign that our nation has taken its hunger for military power too far. Progressives see the wisdom in pulling back and reducing the military to a more rational size. Right wing politicians, however, refuse to acknowledge the problem and will not consider military reductions.

It won't just be human beings that suffer the consequences if we allow military inflation to continue. (Source: Hampton Roads Daily News, October 2005)

Back in 2002, when Fred Thompson was still in the Senate, he issued a news release claiming that there was proof of a prolonged cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda, among other terrorists. In that news release, Thompson wrote,

"What is the relationship between Saddam Hussein and terrorism? The President pointed out that one of the most dangerous circumstances that we can contemplate is having a regime such as his with the ability to transfer his capabilities over to terrorists. We know that he has a long history of relationships with various terrorist organizations, including some with Al Qaeda. Are we to assume that he would not ever use as a surrogate someone to do his dirty work?

Iraq is extremely relevant to the war on terrorism. I think those who urge that we totally clean up the war on terrorism before we address the situation in Iraq are missing the point."

The fact is that Fred Thompson had absolutely no evidence of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda. There never was any such evidence because there never was any such link.

Fred Thompson said "we know" Saddam Hussein had a "long history of relationships" with Osama Bin Laden's organization. Plain and simple, that wasn't true. Fred Thompson did not know any such thing. Fred Thompson was lying to America. He claimed to have secret information that didn't even exist.

Sadly, it was Fred Thompson who was missing the point. Five years later, the United States is still trying to defeat the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. In part, that's because of Fred Thompson's decision that the time had come to divert resources away from the fight in Afghanistan to start a new war in Iraq.

Fred Thompson wants to be elected as the next President of the United States in 2008, but he still hasn't explained, much less apologized for, his decision to help George W. Bush deceive the American people so that the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq could begin. (Source: News Release from the Office of Senator Fred Thompson, September 12, 2002)

One issue that is conspicuously missing from Senator Thompson's 1999 list of important issues is Iraq.

Just three years later, Fred Thompson was following the Republican party line in declaring Iraq to be a grave threat to the entire world. So much of a threat was Iraq, Senator Thompson said, that a preemptive invasion of Iraq was absolutely necessary.

What changed in Iraq in those three years?

Oh, sure, some die hard supporters of the Iraq War might still claim that Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States. Everyone else recognizes by now, however, that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. The two were adversaries, not allies.

So, what changed in Iraq in the three years between the time when Fred Thompson concluded that Iraq was not an important issue and the time when Fred Thomson declared Iraq to be a grave threat to the entire world? Nothing changed. Iraq didn't get any new weapons, didn't invade any other country, and didn't make any new threats against anybody.

There are two ways to interpret the odd transformation of Fred Thompson's political opinion about Iraq.

Possibility one: You might generously conclude that, in spite of the complete lack of evidence for any such thing, Saddam Hussein was secretly involved in planning the attacks of September 11, 2001. Even if you make this huge leap of faith, it does not reflect well upon Fred Thompson. After all, if Saddam Hussein did have a plan to help Osama Bin Laden, Fred Thompson failed to do anything about the threat until the United States was attacked. Even under this most indulgent acceptance of Republican conspiracy theories about Iraq, Fred Thompson is exposed as failing to deal with the Iraqi threat when it might have mattered. As his own records show, as a United States senator, Fred Thompson was more concerned with sending pork barrel money to projects in Tennessee than he was with confronting Iraq, until 2002, when Thompson performed an abrupt reversal.

Possibility two: Taking a look at the evidence, you reasonably conclude that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with each other. In that case, you reasonably concede that Saddam Hussein was no more of a threat to the United States or to any other nation on Earth in 2002 than he was in 1999. If that's the case, then the sudden switch by Fred Thompson from ignoring Iraq to pushing to start a war in Iraq was not justified by the security needs of the United States. In that case, it seems that Fred Thompson changed his ideas about Iraq based on a change in the political climate, not based upon actual need.

The second interpretation fits the facts better than the first interpretation. Still, you have your choice: Either Fred Thompson failed to confront a grave threat to the United States until it was too late, or he pushed American into a bloody, costly war that he knew was not necessary. Whatever your choice, it's clear that Fred Thompson is the wrong choice to become President of the United States in 2008. (Sources: Fred Thompson Senate web site, 1999, http://thompson.senate.gov/important.html; News Release from the Office of Senator Fred Thompson, September 12, 2002)

Tommy Thompson was campaigning in Iowa when he told an audience that the Bush Administration's conduct of the war has "a degree of insanity stapled with it". Thompson also complained that, "Eight and a half billion dollars a month and we still do not have a plan on how we're going to win the war or win the peace."

Tommy Thompson also said that, if he were elected President, he would nominate Colin Powell to serve as his Secretary of State. It was Colin Powell, some will remember, who helped George W. Bush to the United Nations about fake evidence for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell also had a special responsibility, as Secretary of State and former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for ensuring that the Bush White House develop a plan for how to win the war and how to win the peace. Colin Powell did not fulfill that responsibility, yet Tommy Thompson wants him back in the White House.

For proposing to reconstitute the political team that led America into Iraq in the first place, it's Tommy Thompson who has "a degree of insanity". (Source: Radio Iowa, June 19, 2007)

What problem of Saddam Hussein were inspections not the answer for? Weapons of mass destruction, of course.

Why did Fred Thompson say that inspections were not the answer for Saddam Hussein? Because the inspectors were not finding any weapons of mass destruction.

Fred Thompson presumed that there were weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam Hussein was hiding them from ineffective weapons inspectors. What we know now is that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. All the evidence pointed in that direction, but Thompson refused to consider that evidence, because he had already decided what the truth was.

Another year of weapons inspections, along with an intelligent consideration of the evidence already available, would likely have enabled the American public to figure out what many experts and progressive activists were already saying: That there was no evidence of a need for war. However, Fred Thompson would not tolerate such restraint and consideration. He demanded a rush to action. Thompson declared that looking for more conclusive evidence wouldn't help out at all.

When deciding whether to lead America into war, Thompson would make up his mind first, stop gathering information about the situation, and then send American soldiers into unknown circumstances. When confronted with an uncertain situation, Thompson's approach is to steadfastly refuse to gather more information.

After five years of an increasingly bloody occupation of Iraq, we have already seen the consequences of Fred Thompson's approach to leadership. (Source: Senator Fred Thompson's Weekly Column, March 22, 2002)

If George W. Bush had read history, he might have reconsidered before launching America into unnecessary wars for obedience of distant territories. Sadly, Bush seems not to have read much at all, history or otherwise. (Source: Routledge Dictionary of Quotations)

No kidding. George W. Bush now says that his vision of success for Iraq is to have ongoing suicide car bomb attacks and violence in the streets, with elections. That's the goal that American soldiers are now fighting for.

We wouldn't accept that as a successful way of life here in the United States. We ought not to accept that as a new lowdown definition of success for Iraq. (Source: Boston Herald, June 29, 2007)

The American government acknowledges civilians were killed, but says that their deaths were necessary.

Were those deaths really necessary? How, if for about six years now, Americans have been fighting to defeat the Taliban and rid the nation of Al Qaeda, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda still keep coming back, will killing civilians help change Afghanistan from a haven for terrorists? Hasn't it now been proven that American military efforts are not effective in ridding Afghanistan of terrorists and other militant extremists? If those military efforts are ineffective, why are the deaths of civilians killed by the American military necessary?

Progressives think to ask these difficult questions. These questions don't occur to right wing politicians, who just keep on supporting the same old failed war policies, and call the progressives' questioning "treason".

Question military authority. Vote progressive in 2008. (Source: Associated Press, June 30, 2007)

Because diplomats weren't allowed to do their job in the lead-up to Bush's pet war, the world has become too unsafe and too anti-American for diplomats to do their job safely now. George W. Bush's would-be successors want to continue down the same path in the future, jostling with each other in presidential debates too see who can most fulsomely endorse the torture of foreigners. This is a road to international chaos. We need to find another road. (Sources: Associated Press, July 7 2007; Los Angeles Times, May 18 2007)

"Was Iraq the proper thing for us to do, the logical extension of our war against terror? Specifically, was it the right thing to do in our war against fundamentalist Islam? Because that is really what we are at war with. I agree with some of the comments made earlier by some of the folks over here that said that terror is not the thing with which we are at war. It is simply a tactic. I have said this on this floor many times and now for several years, and I am glad to hear it being repeated by others because, of course, it is important for us to understand who the enemy really is.

I think our friends on the other side did not go as far as they needed to go to actually describe them. It is fundamentalist Islam with which we are at war, make no mistake about it. And whether that fervor, that Islamic fervor leads you to do things like press for a separation from Russia because you want to create an Islamic republic, it is still fundamentalist Islam with which the world is at war. Or whether it manifests itself as it did here by planes crashing into buildings and into the Pentagon and into fields in Pennsylvania, it is fundamentalist Islam with which we are at war. Around the world, incidents occur. There are motivating factors that combine to create them, but when you sort of get to the bottom line, what is the common element? It is fundamentalist Islam."

You don't get much more clear than that. Tom Tancredo believes that the United States is at war against fundamentalist Islam. He doesn't believe that America is at war against terrorists, or a gang of criminals, or against the governments who protect them. Tom Tancredo believes that the United States is at war against a religion.

I don't like Islamic fundamentalism and what it stands for. I don't like Christian fundamentalism any more than I like Islamic fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is unhealthy, irrational, disrespectful, and antidemocratic. Nonetheless, I don't think that religious fundamentalism ought to be outlawed. Fundamentalism should be contended with through democratic means and through the law, keeping theocratic bullies from using the power of government to enforce their ridiculous beliefs.

Waging war against a religion, as Tom Tancredo suggests we do, is a bad idea doomed to failure. Religion cannot be met on the battlefield, because its adherents are mostly not on the battlefield. Religion lives in houses, with children, and it walks in marketplaces, with its neighbors. Wage a war against religion, and you'll end up bombing houses and marketplaces, much as the United States has begun to do in its directionless military campaigns.

A war against Islamic fundamentalism can only make Islamic fundamentalism stronger. The United States cannot hope to kill off all the world's Islamic fundamentalists, but if it tries, it will bring new converts into Islamic fundamentalism out of sympathy for its stand against the bombs and bullets of the United States.

Tom Tancredo doesn't understand the folly of waging war against a religion. He thinks it's a great idea. Tom Tancredo wants the United States to fight a religious crusade. If we follow Tancredo's advice, the United States is sure to be as successful as the crusades of the medieval era were.

Go back in history if you need a refresher on what that version of success looks like.(Source: Congressional Record, September 13, 2004)

When the Air Force was confronted with these failures, it admitted the problems. Yet, the Air Force leadership refused to solve many of the problems.

With this kind of pathetic mismanagement by the military taking place even in peaceful areas, it's no wonder that the Republicans in government have been unable to wage successful military operations in the combat zones in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Source: Fact Sheet, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, June 28, 2007)

Iraqis trained by the American military are often using their training to increase the chaos and violence in Iraq. For instance, this week, the American military had to attack a squad of Iraqi police that had been acting as a death squad against Sunni Iraqis, as well as attacking American soldiers.

These people the American military is now fighting are not Al Quaeda terrorists. They are not Iranians infiltrating Iraq. They are Iraqis, trained and armed by the USA. Here's what the Associated Press writes about this latest battle between American soldiers and Iraqi police:

"The Iraqi police are believed to be widely infiltrated by Shiite militiamen blamed for sectarian killings, creating a deep mistrust of the force among the Sunni Arab minority. Purging the force of a militia presence is one of the political benchmarks sought by Washington, though the Bush administration said in its assessment released Thursday that progress on purging the security forces is 'unsatisfactory.'"

We can break that statement down to the following elements:

The American right wing Iraq policy for victory in Iraq is to train and arm the very people American soldiers are fighting against. We cannot afford another four years of this insane idea. (Source: Associated Press, July 13, 2007)

There is no issue more important than whether to end the bloody military occupation of Iraq. Yet, two candidates for President did not even bother to show up for the vote.

Republican presidential candidates Tom Tancredo, from Colorado, and Ron Paul, from Texas, did not even show up for the vote.

Tom Tancredo says that he supports continuing the occupation of Iraq. But, he didn't take the effort to vote in favor of that position. He was nowhere to be seen.

Ron Paul says that he supports ending the occupation of Iraq. Yet, when he had the chance to cast a vote to end the occupation, Ron Paul didn't do it. He wasn't even there to cast a vote.

It seems that Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo are too busy talking about Iraq in their campaign speeches to actually do something about Iraq. That's not the kind of leadership we need from our next President of the United States. (Source: Library of Congress, Roll Call 624)

Zoikes! Someone call Scoob and the Gang. We need some real, honest-to-goodness ghost hunters here, because it's the ghosts of the 9/11/01 bombers who are out to get the Iraqis now. The very same folks, but now dead. And bullets can't stop the dead. And spikes and garlic can't stop the dead, unless they're vampires, and stuff. No, even a cursory television history tells us that the only ones who can stop the ghost terrorists are Scooby, Shaggy, Velma, Fred, and Daphne, with the occasional help of Scrappy Doo and the Superfriends. After all, what do the villainous fiends say at the end of every episode? "I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids." Say no more!

Maybe the Scooby Doo plan isn't as thorough, thoughtful, careful, and precise as it could be. Unfortunately, it's about as well-conceived as the President's claims of a link between the attacks of September 11th and the chaos in Iraq. America needs to choose a more clear-headed leader in 2008, one who knows the difference between cartoon thinking and a realistic foreign policy. (Source: New York Times, July 13 2007)

Why were the unarmed Iraqis executed? Had they done something wrong that made them deserve to be killed by their American captors?

Indications are that the American soldiers killed their Iraqi captives merely because the soldiers were given orders to go somewhere else, and decided that it would be impractical to take the prisoners with them.

Such incidents are not isolated from the larger war. Rather, they take place when stressed out soldiers are sent on futile missions into dangerous situations in civilian areas without a clear idea of who the enemy is. Responsibility for these incidents rests with the soldiers who commit war crimes, but the military leadership that creates the circumstances that makes the war crimes likely also shares a substantial amount of the responsibility.

The President of the United States is at the head of that military leadership. The buck stops with him. (Source: Reuters, July 5, 2007)

On July 14 2007, Vladimir Putin informed NATO that he would suspend Russia's compliance with the Conventional Forces in Europe arms limitation treaty and consider itself free to redeploy heavy weaponry on the continent.

All this because George W. Bush is deploying a missile shield in Europe& a missile shield that doesn't work. (Sources: New York Times July 15 2007; Agence France Presse May 26 2007)

In his report, Cordesman says of Al Qaeda in Iraq that, "Al Qa'ida in Mesopotamia is only one part of a mix of different Sunni Islamist Extremists and more nationalist groups. There is a wide mix of Shi'ite extremists and militias. There are still no reliable estimates of the strength of given groups, or of how many attacks of what kind a given group conducted, who their leadership is many cases, or exactly what they stand for."

Cordesman also explains that officials in the Iraqi government are prone to exaggerate the extent of Al Quaeda activities in Iraq, because, "it is easier for them, particularly if they are Shi'ite, to blame as many of Iraqi's problems on foreigners and Sunnis as possible."

Looking even at the public statements about attacks in Iraq, which Al Quaeda is particular fond of making, Cordesman finds that only 17 percent are made by the Islamic State of Iraq, and Al Quaeda in Iraq makes up only part of the Islamic State of Iraq.

Besides that, Cordesman points out that something like 90 or 95 percent of the members of Al Quaeda in Iraq are not foreign fighters at all, but Iraqi natives who took on the label of Al Quaeda after the American invasion in order to gain attention to their cause.

Thus, only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the people fighting in Iraq are even distantly connected to Osama Bin Laden. The Republican claim that the fighting in Iraq is part of a global war against Al Quaeda just doesn't match up with the facts.

The fraud of the Republican claim is plain to see through simple research and reasoning. For some people, research and reasoning aren't enough. Some people need a person in a position of authority to proclaim what's true for them. This reason is for them: The Republicans claims about Al Quaeda in Iraq are wrong. Expert Anthony Cordesman says so. (Source: Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 16, 2007)

The trouble was that the Pentagon story was a lie. Pat Tillman was killed by what the military calls "friendly fire". That means that Tillman was killed by American soldiers accidentally firing their weapons at other American soldiers.

That death didn't make for good propaganda, of course. The Bush Administration seems to have decided that a soldier as famous as Pat Tillman needed to have an honorable death, for the sake of keeping up support for the war. So, they made up a fake story, and covered up what really happened on the battlefield.

In the end, the Pat Tillman fiction was bad for the war effort, because it exposed the way that the American military often lies to Americans about the way it wages war. As a result of the lies about Pat Tillman, Americans have become more doubtful that what the military tells the public is true.

If the Bush Administration had any sense, it would try to limit the damage by coming clean and telling the complete truth about the Pat Tillman affair. Sadly, the Bush Administration doesn't seem to have any sense. Years after the death of Pat Tillman, the Bush White House is still trying to cover up what really happened.

This summer, when the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the House of Representatives requested documents from the White House related to the death of Pat Tillman, the Bush White House refused to comply. The White House said that it would continue to keep almost all of documents secret from Congress and the American public, not because of national security needs, but because George W. Bush contends that he has the right to keep such secrets if he wants to.

It is impossible to say what exactly information about the death of Pat Tillman the White House is keeping secret. This much is certain, however: Even after it has been caught in a coverup that distorted the legacy of a man who was considered to be an American hero, George W. Bush and his Republican aides have not learned the lesson that it's best to tell the American people the truth.

In the short term, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will be holding a hearing on August 1, 2007, exploring the continuing Bush White House coverup of the truth about Pat Tillman's death. In the long term, we need a new, progressive President who will not use the power of government to perpetuate lies about American soldiers, or keep the American people from knowing the truth about what the military is doing in their names. (Source: House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, July 13, 2007)

The McClatchy Newspapers have obtained statistics compiled by Pentagon about the number of civilians that have been shot by American soldiers at security checkpoints in Iraq. The statistics show that the military admits to having shot 429 civilians at these checkpoints in one year alone.

These 429 civilians, mind you, are just the ones that were shot at checkpoints, and are only the ones that the military admits to. Also, much of the time that the statistics covered was before the so- called "surge", the escalation of the American military presence on Iraqi streets. It's safe to assume that civilians are being shot at an even higher rate now.

There are two reasons to elect a progressive President in 2008 in this story:

Republican Eric Edelman, Undersecretary in the Department of Defense, responded to the letter by saying that the Department of Defense would refuse to allow the Senate to conduct its constitutionally-established oversight responsibilities, writing to Senator Clinton that "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda".

Consider what Edelman's claim really means. He is claiming that, just by discussing the issue of whether the military occupation if Iraq should end, Americans like Hillary Clinton are aiding the enemy. He suggests that Senator Clinton just stop talking about the issue.

Edelman and his right wing supporters just don't seem to understand the way that democracy works. In a democracy, government policies are supposed to be arrived at through a process of lengthy and comprehensive discussion of possible alternatives. In the United States, Congress is given the power of oversight of the Executive Branch, including the military, in order to ensure that such discussions take place.

Besides, Edelman's credibility is broken when he describes Senator Clinton's request for contingency planning for Iraq as "premature". The American military has been bogged down in Iraq, making no progress on stabilizing the country, for four years. The American public has been engaged in a debate about whether a withdrawal is appropriate for all of that time.

Edelman further complains to Senator Clinton that "Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks in order to achieve compromises on national reconciliation, amending the Iraqi constitution, and other contentious issues."

If Iraqi government officials are unnerved at the processes of American democracy, ought we to squelch our democracy to make them feel better? Edelman seems to think so.

However, the premises of this suggestion are flawed. First of all, the Iraqi government is making very little progress to achieve the compromises that Edelman refers to. Secondly, as Senator Clinton suggested herself in the letter she sent to Secretary Robert Gates, the Iraqi equivalent of the Department of Defense is making contingency plans of its own for working with an American military withdrawal. Clinton explained, "Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obeidi is preparing plans in the event that the United States and its forces departed Iraq quickly, reviewing worst-case scenarios, and conducting meetings with Iraq's political leadership on this issue."

Is the United States of America to be less prepared for developments in Iraq than the Iraqis themselves? That seems like a sure recipe for failure, but it is the course that Eric Edelman and his right wing supporters suggest.

Senator Clinton is right. We deserve better. (Sources: Office of Senator Hillary Clinton, Letter of May 22, 2007 and Response of June 16, 2007)

A diplomatic surge is a good, solid progressive idea that can work. George W. Bush spent the first months of his presidency neglecting diplomatic relations with the other nations of the world, and he has had to play diplomatic catchup ever since, reacting to problems instead of cooperating with other countries to deal with issues before they become problems. The Bush White House never gained sufficient diplomatic momentum because it preferred thinking in military means.

Barack Obama has proposed a better way: Surge diplomatic efforts so that military surges are not necessary.(Source: CNN, July 23, 2007)

Now, anti-terrorism experts are indeed questioning Bush's claim. In fact, the top anti-terrorism analyst in the government says that Bush is just plain wrong.

Edward Gistaro is the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, and in his testimony before two committees in the House of Representatives yesterday, he directly contradicted the assertion by President Bush that Iraq is the central front in the struggle against terrorism. According to Gistaro, it is Afghanistan and Pakistan where the primary terrorist threat comes from, not Iraq. In spite of the years-long war led by the United States in Afghanistan and supposed cooperation from the Pakistani government, Gistaro says that areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan are a "comfort zone" for Al Quaeda.

Considering that one of the primary goals of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was to make sure Afghanistan was no longer a safe haven for terrorists, it seems clear now that the war there has failed. The Republicans have offered incompetent military and diplomatic leadership for years now. Gistaro's testimony gives good reason for Americans to consider an alternative approach, and elect a progressive President in 2008. (Source: Boston Globe, July 26, 2007)

The Bush Administration is aware of the alarm caused by its proposal, and has come up with a solution that it believes ameliorates the threat. Bush's idea of a solution: To send even more weapons into the Middle East. The Bush White House believes that it can deal with the criticism of its huge arms deal with Saudi Arabia by sending more than 30 billion dollars worth of weapons to Israel.

How will sending even more weapons into a volatile region make up for the 20 billion dollars worth of weapons sent to Saudi Arabia help to bring about peace? How will the gift of billions of dollars of weapons to Israel prevent Saudi Arabia from using American weapons to escalate the civil war in Iraq?

If the Iraqi government established by the American occupation won't even go along with the American efforts to reconstruct Iraq, how are we supposed to achieve victory and peace in Iraq? Well, the Bush White House doesn't have an answer to that question. (Source: New York Times, August 28, 2007)

"QUESTION: Mr. President, yesterday in an interview I guess with Scott, you described Iraq as the enemy.

BUSH: I described them as the axis of evil once. I described them as an enemy until proven otherwise."

Bush's standard for launching a war was not that his administration had to make a case, but that someone else had to show that the administration is wrong.

Given what war did to the Iraqi people, we should have asked for more than that. We should have done more than ask. We should have demanded, loudly. We didn't demand loudly enough to stop Bush in his prove-me-wrong war of 2003. It's too late for us to right that wrong. The task before us now is to make sure that our next president is better touch with reality. Is that too much to ask? (Source: White House News Release, August 10, 2002)

Oxfam and a network of non-governmental organizations have just released a report summarizing the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. Here's what the report tells us about the costs of Bush's war of liberation:

The impact of the failed Iraq War goes far beyond just the body count of the people who have died in gun battles and bombings. Each one of these points of suffering is a sign of the profound lack of foresight among those who so eagerly pushed for the United States to invade and occupy Iraq. Each one is a good reason to vote in 2008 for a progressive presidential candidate who urged peace when it mattered most - before the war was begun. (Source: Oxfam, July 30, 2007)