Impeach Bush

French German Russian Resolution

No Declaration of War in US Resolution

Jimmy Carter: The Troubling New Face of America

Washington Times versus Washington Post

Bush Faces Poor Image Overseas

William Raspberry: Powell_is_Lying

Groups Support Michigan Affirmative Action

Bush Budget: No Money for Afghanistan

Resolution Declaring War?--85% of Spaniards Oppose War

French German Russian Resolution
Fox News/AP
Associated Press
Monday, February 24, 2003

Following is the text of the French, German and Russian memorandum on Iraq:

1. Full and effective disarmament in accordance with the relevant (U.N. Security Council) resolutions remains the imperative objective of the international community. Our priority should be to achieve this peacefully through the inspection regime. The military option should only be a last resort. So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled:

-- While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field;

-- Inspections have just reached their full pace; they are functioning without hindrance; they have already produced results;

-- While not yet fully satisfactory, Iraqi cooperation is improving, as mentioned by the chief inspectors in their last report.

2. The Security Council must step up its efforts to give a real chance to the peaceful settlement of the crisis. In this context, the following conditions are of paramount importance;

-- The unity of the Security Council must be preserved;

-- The pressure that is put on Iraq must be increased.

3. These conditions can be met, and our common objective -- the verifiable disarmament of Iraq -- can be reached through the implementation of the following proposals:

A. Clear program of action for the inspections:

According to resolution 1284, UNMOVIC and IAEA have to submit their program of work for approval of the Council. The presentation of this program of work should be speeded up, in particular the key remaining disarmament tasks to be completed by Iraq pursuant to its obligations to comply with the disarmament requirements of resolution 687 (1991) and other related resolutions.

The key remaining tasks shall be defined according to their degree of priority. What is required of Iraq for implementation of each task shall be clearly defined and precise.

Such a clear identification of tasks to be completed will oblige Iraq to cooperate more actively. It will also provide a clear means for the Council to assess the cooperation of Iraq.

B. Reinforced inspections:

Resolution 1441 established an intrusive and reinforced system of inspections. In this regard, all possibilities have not yet been explored. Further measures to strengthen inspections could include, as exemplified in the French non-paper previously communicated to the chief inspectors, the following: increase and diversification of staff and expertise; establishment of mobile units designed in particular to check on trucks; completion of the new system of aerial surveillance; systematic processing of data provided by the newly established system of aerial surveillance.

C. Timelines for inspections and assessment:

Within the framework of resolution 1284 and 1441, the implementation of the program of work shall be sequenced according to a realistic and rigorous timeline:

-- The inspectors should be asked to submit the program of work outlining the key substantive tasks for Iraq to accomplish, including missiles/delivery systems, chemical weapons/precursors, biological weapons/material and nuclear weapons in the context of the report due March 1;

-- The chief inspectors shall report to the Council on implementation of the program of work on a regular basis (every three weeks);

-- A report of UNMOVIC and IAEA assessing the progress made in completing the tasks shall be submitted by the inspectors 120 days after the adoption of the program of work according to resolution 1284;

-- At any time, according to paragraph 11 of resolution 1441, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director general of the IAEA shall report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspections activities as well as failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations;

-- At any time, additional meetings of the Security Council could be decided, including at high level.

To render possible a peaceful solution, inspections should be given the necessary time and resources. However, they cannot continue indefinitely. Iraq must disarm. Its full and active cooperation is necessary. This must include the provision of all the additional and specific information on issues raised by the inspectors as well as compliance with their requests, as expressed in particular in Mr. Blix' letter of Feb. 21, 2003. The combination of a clear program of action, reinforced inspections, a clear timeline and the military build up provide a realistic means to reunite the Security Council and to exert maximum pressure on Iraq.

Gotta say this about the French Resolution. It translate better than the US Resolution. The French resolution is clear, simple and uses every day language. The US resolution is so silly sounding it sounds like it was written so no one has a clue what's in it.


No Declaration of War in US Resolution
Fox News/AP
Associated Press
Monday, February 24, 2003

UNITED NATIONS  — The text of the U.S.-British-Spanish draft resolution on Iraq:

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and 1441 (2002) of 8 November all the relevant statements of its president,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a cease-fire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein;

Recalling that its resolution 1441 (2002), while acknowledging that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions,

Recalling that in its resolution 1441 (2002) the council decided that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq pursuant to that resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that resolution, would constitute a further material breach,

Noting, that in that context, that in its resolution 1441 (2002), the council recalled that it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations,

Noting that Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its resolution 1441 (2002) containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that resolution,

Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring states,

Mindful of its primary responsibility under the charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,

Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441 (2002).

Decides to remain seized of the matter.

© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2003 Standard & Poor's
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright FOX News Network, LLC 2003. All rights reserved.

The press has been reporting for over two weeks that the US resolution will contain a declaration of war. I don't see the word "war" in there do you? This resolution is so watered down a country can sign it and say they were clueless it meant Bush could have his little war.

Since Bush said the resolution would contain a declaration of war and that's clearly a lie, the war networks have to go into spin cycle to salvage themselves from pushing the Bush lies. What a silly media. When will they come to understand this simple truth? "Never trust what a Bush says."


The Troubling New Face of America
Washington Post
By Jimmy Carter
Thursday, September 5, 2002; Page A31

Fundamental changes are taking place in the historical policies of the United States with regard to human rights, our role in the community of nations and the Middle East peace process -- largely without definitive debates (except, at times, within the administration). Some new approaches have understandably evolved from quick and well-advised reactions by President Bush to the tragedy of Sept. 11, but others seem to be developing from a core group of conservatives who are trying to realize long-pent-up ambitions under the cover of the proclaimed war against terrorism.

Formerly admired almost universally as the preeminent champion of human rights, our country has become the foremost target of respected international organizations concerned about these basic principles of democratic life. We have ignored or condoned abuses in nations that support our anti-terrorism effort, while detaining American citizens as "enemy combatants," incarcerating them secretly and indefinitely without their being charged with any crime or having the right to legal counsel. This policy has been condemned by the federal courts, but the Justice Department seems adamant, and the issue is still in doubt. Several hundred captured Taliban soldiers remain imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay under the same circumstances, with the defense secretary declaring that they would not be released even if they were someday tried and found to be innocent. These actions are similar to those of abusive regimes that historically have been condemned by American presidents.

While the president has reserved judgment, the American people are inundated almost daily with claims from the vice president and other top officials that we face a devastating threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and with pledges to remove Saddam Hussein from office, with or without support from any allies. As has been emphasized vigorously by foreign allies and by responsible leaders of former administrations and incumbent officeholders, there is no current danger to the United States from Baghdad. In the face of intense monitoring and overwhelming American military superiority, any belligerent move by Hussein against a neighbor, even the smallest nuclear test (necessary before weapons construction), a tangible threat to use a weapon of mass destruction, or sharing this technology with terrorist organizations would be suicidal. But it is quite possible that such weapons would be used against Israel or our forces in response to an American attack.

We cannot ignore the development of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, but a unilateral war with Iraq is not the answer. There is an urgent need for U.N. action to force unrestricted inspections in Iraq. But perhaps deliberately so, this has become less likely as we alienate our necessary allies. Apparently disagreeing with the president and secretary of state, in fact, the vice president has now discounted this goal as a desirable option.

We have thrown down counterproductive gauntlets to the rest of the world, disavowing U.S. commitments to laboriously negotiated international accords.

Peremptory rejections of nuclear arms agreements, the biological weapons convention, environmental protection, anti-torture proposals, and punishment of war criminals have sometimes been combined with economic threats against those who might disagree with us. These unilateral acts and assertions increasingly isolate the United States from the very nations needed to join in combating terrorism.

Tragically, our government is abandoning any sponsorship of substantive negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. Our apparent policy is to support almost every Israeli action in the occupied territories and to condemn and isolate the Palestinians as blanket targets of our war on terrorism, while Israeli settlements expand and Palestinian enclaves shrink.

There still seems to be a struggle within the administration over defining a comprehensible Middle East policy. The president's clear commitments to honor key U.N. resolutions and to support the establishment of a Palestinian state have been substantially negated by statements of the defense secretary that in his lifetime "there will be some sort of an entity that will be established" and his reference to the "so-called occupation." This indicates a radical departure from policies of every administration since 1967, always based on the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories and a genuine peace between Israelis and their neighbors.

Belligerent and divisive voices now seem to be dominant in Washington, but they do not yet reflect final decisions of the president, Congress or the courts. It is crucial that the historical and well-founded American commitments prevail: to peace, justice, human rights, the environment and international cooperation.

Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company


Washington Times versus Washington Post
By Ralph Z. Hallow
February 24, 2003

Editor's Note
I'm doing something a little different this time around. The stories are about the Governor's Association as told by two leading newspapers, the Time and Post. Read both versions then the commentary. The Washington Times first.

A threatened exodus of Republican governors from the National Governors Association was slowed yesterday when the organization's executive committee managed to kill a resolution that would have opposed tax cuts favored by President Bush. Top Stories

The resolution would have put the nation's governors on record as saying the best stimulus to the economy would be more federal tax dollars for the states, rather than the tax cuts supported by Mr. Bush and most Republicans in Congress.

Rebellious Republicans led by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Colorado Gov. Bill Owens managed to thwart the resolution. The victory came a day after Republican governors met privately and resolved to work together to gain control over an NGA staff they say is dominated by liberals and Democrats.

Republicans say the staff has long set the NGA agenda, even though Republican governors are in the majority.

"There was a massive effort by Republican governors to pull out on Saturday," Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, the incoming NGA chairman, said of a private meeting of Republican members on Saturday. "We had a letting of the blood, we put it all on the table. We've never done that before.

"There were strong emotions from governors who questioned the value of the NGA as it has been run. I asked them not to pull out and to give me a chance to make the changes they want.

"There will be staff changes," Mr. Kempthorne said he promised fellow Republican governors.

One of them said privately, "Dirk now gets it, based on a lot of pressure from us. He understands that a whole lot of us aren't going to remain in this organization if it doesn't start to pull back from this liberal advocacy.

"I think you're going to see him being a better chairman than the one we have."

As a result of Mr. Kempthorne's promises, Mr. Owens has changed his mind and decided to let his state pay its NGA dues.

But, Mr. Owens said, "I'm going to ask the NGA executive director for an audited financial statement, a list of all contributors — public, private and nonprofit — a list of the NGA staff members and their salaries, and a list of which states are paying their dues and how much.

"We made it clear we want the NGA staff to represent all governors, not just Democratic governors."

Six months ago, Mr. Kempthorne telephoned Mr. Owens, Mr. Bush and Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland to ask them to serve in leadership roles in the NGA in order to help him get control of the staff. "Had I gone into this meeting without doing some homework, it could have been a disaster," Mr. Kempthorne said.

The chairmanship of the NGA alternates between a Republican and a Democratic governor. The outgoing chairman is Kentucky Gov. Paul E. Patton, a Democrat.

The liberal bent of the NGA has annoyed Republicans for years, from the time in 1998 when they had 32 governors. But — as they now concede — they never got around to doing anything about it.

But with the federal budget heading into deep deficits and states facing fiscal crises, Republicans have found an added impetus to express their unhappiness with an organization they dominate but do not control.

Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle and Texas Gov. Rick Perry decided to quit the NGA and not pay their states' annual dues, which for Texas amounts to $166,000. "The reason he is dropping out is primarily a budget issue, but the governor has not always agreed with the positions that the NGA has taken, some of which have been liberal and some anti-President Bush," said Perry spokeswomen Kathy Walton.

Miss. Lingle told Mr. Kempthorne this was her first and last meeting. But the Idaho governor argued that he needed her help to change things and finally persuaded her to remain in the organization, even if Hawaii didn't pay dues for a while.

Mr. Bush, the Florida governor, said he has paid only half his state's dues for last year and this year, but wants to give the NGA a chance to work. He was not one of the governors who advocated that fellow Republicans pull out, but he raised the issue of the spending resolution, calling it an example of "why we have problems with this organization," according to a governor who was present.

All site contents copyright © 1999-2003 News World Communications, Inc.

By Dale Russakoff and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, February 24, 2003; Page A05

The National Governors Association narrowly averted a partisan rupture yesterday over the Bush administration's responsibility for the states' growing fiscal crises, after the group's executive committee voted along party lines to do away with an earlier resolution seeking "substantial funds to every state and territory."

The vote came on the second day of the association's winter meeting, which had opened with several Democratic governors accusing the White House of callousness toward state needs and some Republicans complaining that the NGA was becoming a captive of big-government liberals.

But after the party-line vote, governors held a closed session that one Republican described as a "come-to-Jesus meeting," during which all agreed to put aside partisanship and focus on their common need for White House assistance with specific trouble spots in their states -- Medicaid, homeland security, special education and President Bush's education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act.

"We agreed to put pragmatism ahead of partisanship," said Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne (R), vice chairman of the group.

NGA gatherings are typically harmonious, with the states' chief executives generally avoiding divisive issues to focus on their common problems.

But with states cutting programs and raising taxes to offset revenue shortfalls estimated to be $30 billion this year and $82 billion next year, Democratic governors, in particular, have voiced anger at what they view as Bush's efforts to push more of the costs and responsibilities of government on to the states.

State Medicaid budgets are ballooning, in part, from the cost of prescription drugs and long-term care for the elderly, whose medical care is supposed to be covered by the federal Medicare program. In addition, states have not received promised federal assistance for homeland security. And for years, the federal government has funded less than half of the 40 percent share of special education costs that it originally promised to pay states.

The governors' association in recent months has gone on record in favor of federal financial assistance to ease mounting state fiscal crises. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) said that staff members of seven of the nine governors on the NGA's bipartisan executive committee attended a session earlier this month and unanimously approved the latest resolution seeking financial aid.

However, with the White House firmly opposed to federal aid, Republicans arrived at this meeting branding the resolution as "partisan."

"That resolution basically said, 'We want a blank check, and the only way to solve these problems is more money,' " said Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland (R), who offered the motion to lay it aside.

The motion carried 5 to 4, with all Republicans on the executive committee voting for it and all Democrats opposing it. Afterward, at a closed luncheon, governors urged one another to find common ground, lest the organization lose effectiveness.

"If we're going to have any impact, people realized we have to have a common position," said Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell (D).

The governors said they will produce a consensus resolution today. So far, they have agreed only on a proposal by Rowland endorsing changes to Medicaid and Medicare, including a prescription drug benefit for seniors this year.

Rendell said Democrats intend to add language asking the federal government to honor $9 billion to $13 billion of previous commitments to pay for homeland security, some special education costs and the No Child Left Behind program.

"We will ask only for funding of federal mandates, no new forms of aid," Rendell said.

While the luncheon appeared to have relieved tensions, Democrats, who hold 24 of the 50 state governorships, complained bitterly that the White House was trying to over-orchestrate a dinner Bush held with governors last night as well as a 45-minute meeting he will have with them this morning.

Democrats said administration officials insisted on reviewing a Democratic toast for the dinner, limited the number of governors who can meet with reporters at the White House after today's meeting, dictated who will speak to reporters and tried to cut back on a traditional question-and-answer session with the president.

"We didn't come to Washington to be potted plants or cheerleaders for administration policies," Vilsack said.

"We want a productive meeting, not a photo op," said Washington Gov. Gary Locke, chairman of the Democratic Governors' Association.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the arrangements this year are the same as they were last year, except that the meeting has been moved to a different room.

"It would be unfortunate if a few Democratic governors who received bogus information from their staffs got spun up in a partisan manner, when the NGA is known for bipartisanship," Fleischer said.

He said it is White House practice to limit the number of speakers who are permitted to use the microphones in the White House driveway after a large-group meeting with the president. "It's an effort to avoid unseemly elbow-to-elbow jockeying in the small space that's available," Fleischer said.

In another sign of increasing partisanship at the NGA, some Republican governors are considering withholding their dues from the 95-year-old group, which they accuse of being unduly influenced by liberal staff members. The dues depend on population: Florida was billed $162,900 this year, Maryland was billed $120,400 and Virginia was billed $141,500.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said yesterday that following the luncheon and the governors' agreement to unite on issues of pressing importance, he felt that paying dues to the governors association was worth the investment.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Ok, here's the deal. The conservative Times plays the story as liberal against conservative. The liberal Post plays the story from the perspective of why liberal and conservative governor's are pissed at Bush.

We already know states are in a world of hurt. We know Bush has failed to fund his 'No Child Left Behind' education plan and his 'Homeland Security' plan. States have to raise taxes to pay for his unfunded mandates (an impeachable offense). The conservative response is to blame liberals. The Times plays to the moron in the conservative party---someone who doesn't really care what the problem really is. Liberals didn't force Bush not to fund either of these programs, conservatives did. Oops, on the conservative side. The Times does a huge disservice to its readers by not telling them what the real problem is.

I look forward to the day when conservative start acting like adults and stop whinning about those big bad liberals. Of course this means they have to blame themselves for the tax increases they're proposing and for their irresponsible tax cuts during the booming 90's.

Conservatives, stop whinning and grow up.


Bush Faces Poor Image Overseas
Washington Post
By Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, February 24, 2003; Page A01

The messages from U.S. embassies around the globe have become urgent and disturbing: Many people in the world increasingly think President Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

U.S. embassies are the eyes and ears of the U.S. government overseas, and their reports from the field are closely read at the State Department. The antiwar protests by millions of people Feb. 15 in the cities of major U.S. allies underscored a theme that the classified cables by U.S. embassies had been reporting for weeks.

"It is rather astonishing," said a senior U.S. official who has access to the reports. "There is an absence of any recognition that Hussein is the problem." One ambassador, who represents the United States in an allied nation, bluntly cabled that in that country, Bush has become the enemy.

This shift in public opinion has presented the Bush administration with a much different set of circumstances than U.S. officials anticipated last September, when, in a bid to create a coalition to confront Iraq, Bush took the issue before the United Nations. It has seemed to embolden political leaders in Europe and elsewhere who have long been wary of military action. Although senior White House officials have insisted that U.S. policy toward Iraq will not be affected by public opinion, they acknowledged over the past few days that they need to confront the worldwide mood opposing a move to war.

Polls have indicated that Americans are more likely to support an invasion of Iraq if they believe it has international backing. Antiwar protests were held in dozens of American cities at the same time as the protests in other countries.

This week, the administration plans to begin a coordinated effort to draw attention to what one official called "the plight of the Iraqi people, with a focus on human rights and freedom and Saddam's brutality." As part of that initiative, the administration has scheduled a briefing today on Bush's plans for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction in Iraq, with participants from the White House and the Pentagon.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell embarked late last week on a series of media appearances in Germany, France, Russia and the Middle East to help explain the administration's urgency in confronting Iraq over its banned weapons programs. "We know that there is great anxiety, that there are many, many people who do not want to see war," Powell told a Russian reporter.

Still, White House officials are unapologetic about their overall approach, which is based on forcing an early confrontation with Iraq rather than agreeing to the stated wishes of several European allies to allow U.N. weapons inspections to continue. White House officials even contend that they expected this change in momentum toward those opposing an early move to war.

Bush, in his public comments last week, appeared to shrug off the protests.

"History has proven that the closer you are to potential hostilities, the more vocal the opposition," White House communications director Dan Bartlett said. "There is always going to be a faction of people that don't agree. But I think anybody who gives a fair look at history on this will see that this president and this administration is acting responsibly and is attempting in every way possible to resolve this issue peacefully."

Bush said Tuesday that he had no intention of recalibrating his approach based on last weekend's global protests. "Size of protest, it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group," Bush said. "The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security -- in this case, the security of the people."

Analysts and U.S. officials suggest a number of reasons the president has become the subject of such vitriol overseas. Some of it stems from personality: Bush's blunt manner and frequent references to religion appear especially grating to European ears, these analysts and officials say. But much of it is rooted in substantive questions about the role of U.S. power in the world and whether Bush is properly using it in his battle with Hussein.

"The debate [overseas] has not been about Iraq," a State Department official said. "There is real angst in the world about our power, and what they perceive as the rawness, the arrogance, the unipolarity" of the administration's actions.

But, pointing to Bush's seemingly dismissive statements about the protests, the official said the concerns reflected in cables from American "overseas posts" appeared to have little impact on White House decision-making.

Indeed, since the demonstrations, Bush has not acknowledged the concerns of the protesters or the fears they expressed, and he has not tried to counter their arguments that U.N. inspections must be allowed to continue.

"Democracy is a beautiful thing, and that people are allowed to express their opinion," Bush told reporters Tuesday. "I welcome people's right to say what they believe. Secondly, evidently some of the world don't view Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace. I respectfully disagree."

Bush's unyielding rhetoric contrasted sharply with the approach of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose approval ratings have plunged because of his hard line against Hussein. During a news conference on Tuesday, Blair said that he does not "pretend to have a monopoly of wisdom in these issues," and that it is important to "have a dialogue" with opponents like the 1 million people who rallied in London in the largest political demonstration in that nation's history.

"There was a huge emphasis, I thought, by people on the march about the consequences of war, their fear about that, and I think it is important that we address that better," Blair said.

White House aides argue that an overwhelming case for action against Hussein has already been made. "At every step of the way, this administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to explain the threat -- even to the point of the secretary of state going before the U.N. Security Council and delivering classified information for the whole world to see," Bartlett said.

Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, believes world opinion shifted dramatically against Bush when, after the new year began, he signaled he was not committed to supporting continued inspections. Cirincione said U.S. allies had been relieved when Bush appeared to embrace resolving the issue through the United Nations last fall. "It now appears to be an elaborate con job," he said. "Other leaders feel manipulated and deceived."

Helmut Sonnenfeldt, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and a staff member of the National Security Council during the Nixon administration, said there has been a natural progression in attitudes overseas. "It was antiwar, not anti-American. Now it's anti-Bush, not anti-American," he said. "That image is stuck in people's consciousness."

Another senior U.S. official acknowledged the administration has had "a rough week or so."

"That is a byproduct of a policy that is, let's face it, controversial," the official said. "You are dealing with such a wide array of allies and a wide array of their own concerns."

One official said that Bush took the Iraq question to the United Nations last September in part to be responsive to allies who were demanding that he do so. But, the official continued, Bush went to the world body with a full awareness "that our allies in Europe and developing nations look to the U.N. not only as a sounding board but as a point of leverage" against the United States.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

The problem with Bush and Powell is two-fold. First, they're both pathological liars and second if they had absolute proof against Iraq every sane person knows they would have given it the inspectors on day one. Failing that, they look like fish out of water, having a made for TV war that no one is wants to buy.


Powell is Lying
Washington Post
By William Raspberry
Monday, February 24, 2003; Page A21

This is hard. So soon after very nearly swooning over Colin Powell's report to the United Nations Security Council, I find myself thinking the once unthinkable: I don't believe him.

It's not that I think the secretary of state -- the one member of the president's inner circle I thought we could count on to be straight with us on Iraq -- is lying. But I'm starting to think that his interpretation of facts and circumstances assumes so many things and ignores so many others that it comes to the same thing.

Whence my change of heart? For one thing, I've had time to digest that tour de force performance of earlier this month. For another, I've been listening and reading (particularly Dilip Hiro's book "Iraq: In the Eye of the Storm"). And finally, I've found it impossible to see how Powell's allegations and speculation -- even if they are all true -- lead so ineluctably to war.

The argument is that Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations; therefore the United States must punish him. And not just with sanctions or diplomatic pressure but with war -- even though there is no evidence he is doing anything to us.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), in a recent speech that has received too little attention, put it this way:

"This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense."

The senator's concern is that we are about to set a precedent that will come back to haunt us. I share that concern, and this one: Who, with Powell having abandoned his effort to steer America on a saner course, will say to the president that this is dangerous stuff we're rushing into?

One gets the sense that the president is convinced he has to do this war before someone talks him out of it. The chief weapons inspector tells us he's found nothing and wants more time. The administration, certain the inspectors won't find anything, thinks we're wasting time. Just find "material breach" and let's roll!

Why so fast? Because Hussein will stall, the same way he's been stalling for a dozen years. A dozen years, by the way, during which he has attacked no one, gassed no one, launched terror attacks on no one. Tell me it's because of American pressure that he has stayed his hand, and I say great! Isn't that better than a U.S.-launched war guaranteed to engender massive slaughter and spread terrorism?

Maybe all Hussein wants is a chance to gas or sicken or nuke somebody. But isn't there a chance that he wants things that, to his mind, are worth trading for some of the things the civilized world wants? What? Allow this madman to blackmail us?

We don't describe it as blackmail when the North Koreans imply their willingness to trade a few atomic bombs for desperately needed economic assistance.

We don't call it blackmail when our pals the Turks, learning how much our war plans hinge on using bases in their country, tell us that the price of their cooperation has doubled -- pay up or find yourself another launching pad.

I accept the possibility that Hussein isn't interested in negotiations -- that he's eating very well and couldn't care less that his people are starving or that he's motivated by some combination of hatred and jealousy of the democratic West.

For this we should make unilateral, unprovoked war?

But, says the administration, we've moved all these ships and carriers and troops into place, and we can't just keep them there indefinitely.

Maybe it makes sense to them. To me it sounds like "I've got my gun loaded and cocked, so I might as well shoot somebody."

Colin, come home. We need you.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

File this one under "better late than never." Far too many believe what his White House says without checking the facts. Moral of the story--never trust what this president or Sec. of State say.


Groups Support Michigan Affirmative Action
New York Times
February 17, 2003

WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 — A month after the Bush administration filed a brief with the Supreme Court opposing affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan, more than 300 organizations representing academia, major corporations, labor unions and nearly 30 of the nation's top former military and civilian defense officials, announced that they would file briefs supporting the university by Tuesday's deadline.

The friend-of-the-court briefs, expected to top five dozen, may challenge the record of 62 briefs filed during the court's 1978 decision in University of California Board of Regents vs. Bakke. The variety of organizations filing briefs this time reflects the broad reach of affirmative action policies in the quarter century since the Supreme Court's landmark Bakke ruling.

Speaking by satellite to hundreds of university presidents gathered at a hotel for the American Council on Education's annual conference here, Mary Sue Coleman, the president of the University of Michigan, defended admissions policies at the university's law school and undergraduate divisions, urging the Supreme Court "not to turn back the clock."

"The debate over the landmark 1978 Supreme Court decision," Dr. Coleman said, "is a debate about the future direction of this country."

Briefs supporting Michigan are being filed by 64 Fortune 500 companies, including Microsoft, Bank One, Boeing, General Motors, Shell and American Express. Among the 29 military and civilian defense officials filing briefs supporting the university are three former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff and several four-star generals. In addition, 14,000 law school students lent their signatures to a brief defending race-conscious policies in higher education that will be submitted on Tuesday.

In each case, the briefs are arguing that racial and ethnic diversity have become an essential feature of success in the United States, whether in a university offering an education that challenges students to know others from different backgrounds and perspectives, or a medical school that sees minority doctors as opening new avenues of research, or military leaders who seek well-educated minorities to fill the officer corps.

Taken together, the scores of briefs amounted to a broad endorsement of affirmative action policies by leading sectors of society at the moment they are most in jeopardy.

On April 1, the Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case against Michigan, which challenges systems that give minority students extra points, bolstering their chances for admission.

Though President Bush publicly criticized affirmative action and derided the use of "quotas" in announcing his plans to file a brief opposing the university, the administration stopped short of asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Bakke decision. That decision opposed quotas, but it said racial equity was such a compelling social concern that universities could consider race in admissions decisions.

So far, 15 briefs have been filed opposing Michigan's affirmative action policies. A White House spokesman did not return a call today seeking comment. The Center for Individual Rights, which has also supported the plaintiffs in the Michigan cases, could also not be reached for comment.

"This is not a case about college admissions alone," President Coleman said. "It touches on every major sector of our country, and the outcome will influence the direction of America's public policy."

Dr. Coleman cited research her university has done, which contends that students in more diverse environments "learn better."

"They are more analytical, and more engaged," Dr. Coleman said. "The teaching environment is more enlightening. The discussion is livelier and more representative of real-world issues."

But perhaps the most striking arguments surrounding affirmative action today came from the variety of groups across society coming to the defense of admissions policies that take race into account.

"Diversity creates stronger companies," said Kenneth Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel at Merck, the pharmaceutical company. "The work we do directly impacts patients of all types around the globe. Understanding people is essential to our success."

Adm. Dennis C. Blair, who retired last year as the commander in chief of the Pacific Command, said that for him "the argument is combat efficiency." Admiral Blair recalled the Vietnam War, when minorities were heavily represented in the ranks of enlisted men, who come to the military from high school, and hardly at all in the officer corps, which is made up of college graduates. Racial resentments ran high, he recalled.

"We need to take special measures to ensure there are race conscious policies of admissions at universities, so they can go on to become part of our officer corps," said Admiral Blair. "We need these officers both for their own talent, and so that we have an armed forces that is not split the way it was early in my career."

The military brief was signed by former leading figures in the armed services, including Gen. H. Norman Schwartzkopf; William S. Cohen and William J. Perry, former defense secretaries; and Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., Gen. Hugh H. Shelton and Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff.

Though Michigan is a public university, the court's decision will affect public and private universities alike. Its impact will be felt most keenly at the country's two or three dozen most selective institutions, said David Ward, president of the American Council on Education, which filed a brief supporting Michigan on Friday that was joined by 54 other higher education associations.

Kermit L. Hall, president of Utah State University, said that while he supported affirmative action, the court's ruling could have little impact on the large majority of the nation's campuses, including his own, because they already have policies of open admissions.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Bush used this case to show the racists he's their guy. The evening news shows all said he was opposed to the Michigan Plan, then only later did a few reporters look at his brief and find that what he said in public and what he said in the legal brief are two different birds. I have a suggestion for the press, obviously this president has no character and lying comes far too easy for try this. NEVER print or report a word he says until AFTER you've checked it out. It seems this approach would save us a lot of time.

It's impressive to see so many groups rise up against this silly little man. Maybe if everyone does this enough times he'll go away.


No Money for Afghanistan--Bush Budget
By Michael Buchanan
BBC correspondent in Washington
Thursday, 13 February, 2003, 23:32 GMT

The United States Congress has stepped in to find nearly $300m in humanitarian and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan after the Bush administration failed to request any money in the latest budget.

One mantra from the Bush administration since it launched its military campaign in Afghanistan 16 months ago has been that the US will not walk away from the Afghan people.

President Bush has even suggested a Marshall plan for the country, and the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, will visit Washington later this month.

Washington has pledged not to forget Afghanistan
But in its budget proposals for 2003, the White House did not explicitly ask for any money to aid humanitarian and reconstruction costs in the impoverished country.

The chairman of the committee that distributes foreign aid, Jim Kolbe, says that when he asked administration officials why they had not requested any funds, he was given no satisfactory explanation, but did get a pledge that it would not happen again.

'Too early'

A spokesman for the US Agency for International Development, which distributes the money, says the reason they did not make a request was that when budgetary discussions began in 2002, it was too early to say how much money they would need.

Jim Kolbe has expressed surprise at the administration's oversight.

The US will spend over $16bn in foreign aid this year.

The main beneficiaries will be Israel, Jordan and a number of anti-Aids programmes.

However, Mr Kolbe says that should there be a military conflict in Iraq, he believes the US will have to find billions more, not only to help Iraq, but also Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

If you're new to politics here's how it works. Bush knows he's already blown a hole in the budget. By not including money he knows congress will spend because he asked for it, he can later blame congress for the spending he didn't want. It's a trick right out of the Reagan handbook. Ask congress for something, don't put in the budget, then blame congress for giving it to you. Bush is a president for idiots and people with no character.

Presidents should be impeached for lying to the American people. Even if they lie about things not related to bj's.

Moral of the story; "Never trust what Bush says, watch what he does."


Resolution Declaring War?--85% of Spaniards Oppose War
Washington Post
The Associated Press
Sunday, February 23, 2003; 2:23 AM

President Bush, declaring that Saddam Hussein has not disarmed and does not intend to, said Saturday the United States will submit a new resolution to the U.N. Security Council early in the week to set the stage for war against Iraq.

The resolution, to be offered jointly with Britain and possibly Spain, will make its case in "clear and simple terms," Bush said. A spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he expected the Security Council to vote on the new resolution by mid-March.

Bush predicted approval, even though disagreements continued among sponsors over its wording and whether it should set a specific deadline. There has been little support thus far in the 15-member council for moving ahead with any new resolution.

"We will not allow the Iraqi dictator ... to continue to possess or to produce weapons of mass destruction," Bush said at a news conference on his ranch with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at his side.

Asked if this was the Security Council's last chance to show its relevance, Bush answered curtly, "Yes."

The president gave another one-word reply - "No" - when asked whether he again was willing to wait two months before U.N. action, the length of time it took to pass the previous Iraq resolution last fall.

"Time is short," Bush added.

In Tokyo, Secretary of State Colin Powell told a news conference he expected a period of intense - but brief - diplomacy over a second Iraq resolution.

"It isn't going to be a long time between the tabling of the resolution until a judgment is made as to whether the resolution is going to be voted on or not," Powell said.

He noted that once chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix makes his next report to the Security Council, on March 7, "everybody will have one last opportunity to make a judgment. I think that shortly after that, a decision will have to be made as to what the Security Council should do."

Aznar, an ally of Bush's hard line against Iraq who nonetheless faces overwhelming opposition at home to war, said, "Our aim is for Iraq to disarm and for Saddam to comply with his obligations."

Even so, Aznar emphasized that it was important to do this "in unity and in agreement within the framework of the Security Council."

Bush has repeatedly said he would lead a "coalition of the willing" if the Security Council failed to act.

Of the 15 Security council members, only three other nations have joined the United States in pressing for a new resolution: Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. To prevail, the United States needs nine votes, and weeks of intense lobbying by the United States have apparently failed to add to the tally of supporters.

The United States and Britain must also persuade the other three permanent members of the Council - France, Russia and China - to at least acquiesce by not exercising their vetoes. All three have argued for giving inspectors more time to their job, and have voiced objections - France's the loudest - to military action now.

But Bush brushed aside doubts about whether the resolution could overcome those deep reservations, telling reporters "we are just beginning" to line up allies. Bush noted that last November's resolution sending U.N. weapons inspectors back to Iraq eventually passed unanimously after similar questions about its fate.

The president pointed to provisions of the earlier resolution demanding that Saddam surrender the weapons of mass destruction the Bush administration says he has.

"He hasn't disarmed," Bush said. "So the clarity of vision that took place four months ago I'm confident will be in place after the Security Council takes a good look at the facts."

Bush dismissed reports that Iraq had agreed to destroy missiles that weapons inspectors declared had longer ranges than permissible. Those missiles amount to a "just the tip of the iceberg" of Iraq's arsenal, Bush asserted.

The new resolution would endorse military action if Iraq fails to comply, possibly by a certain time. U.S. officials said they were continuing to tinker with the wording in hopes of picking up as much support as possible among wavering council members.

Despite the lack of final draft, Bush said the resolution would be submitted in New York "early next week."

Administration officials hoped Aznar could help win over skeptical allies for a possible invasion of Iraq, particularly the other two Spanish-speaking nations on the Security Council - Chile and Mexico. Bush called the leaders of both countries to discuss Iraq on Saturday.

Aznar, who visited Mexico before coming here, apparently failed to sway President Vicente Fox, who wants a peaceful resolution.

Aznar said it was "difficult to ask for agreement on something that doesn't exist yet."

Before meeting with reporters at midday, Bush and Aznar called Blair and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to engage in a four-way conference call on strategy.

Berlusconi supports Bush on Iraq, but Italy is not a member of the Security Council.

Aznar met with Bush on a day when a new poll showed 85 percent of Spaniards oppose war in Iraq under any circumstances. That was up 10 percentage points in three weeks.

A senior Bush administration official acknowledged widespread opposition to war across Europe but said the sentiment can be overturned when Bush and fellow leaders present the case for military action.

Also Saturday, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said in Iran that Iraq was not fully cooperating with inspectors.

© 2003 The Associated Press

Seldom in the course of representative democracies have governemnt ignored the will of the people. Bush has found a flaw in democracy---government of, by and for the people exists only if we (and the world) agree with his agenda. The War Networks push his agenda around the clock and still few of us really want war. What drives these war-mongers? Money? Power? Ratings? It's sure as hell isn't National Security.

Never forget "Regime Change" in a violation of International Law and if the US engages in this behavior without the consent of the Security Council then we are no better than other law-breaking nations.