Bush's Signing Statement and the First 100 Hours

The wrongheadedness of the Democrats' refusal to even entertain the notion of impeachment was underscored yesterday when it emerged that in signing a piece of postal legislation last month, George Bush issued a "signing statement" that effectively granted himself the right to open any American's mail without a warrant. The statement was attached to H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act," and the relevant passage reads,

The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

Translation: Bush has the authority to open Americans' mail without a court warrant.

Much of the rest of the signing statement reaffirms the "authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch" and asserts the "constitutional limitation of Federal courts."

Despite Bush's views on the "unitary executive" with its "plenary powers," the signing statement he issued actually contradicts existing law and the bill he just signed, say experts who have reviewed it. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known," said a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who co-sponsored the bill, emphasized that the signing statement does not change the intent of the legislation, which prohibits the government from violating people's privacy. "Despite the President's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection," he said, "the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant."

Indeed, the section of the legislation (section 1010) that Bush is "construing" to grant him the power to open mail without warrants is actually quite clear in its prohibition of warrantless surveillance of America's mail:

The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. The rate for each such class shall be uniform throughout the United States, its territories, and possessions. One such class shall provide for the most expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the Postal Service. No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.

With such explicit language on the matter, it's rather astounding that the Bush White House could "construe" the legislation as granting the Executive Branch authority to open mail without a warrant. But what is perhaps more astounding is that after the repudiation of the Bush agenda in November, and even with the possibility for greater oversight from Congress, that the president would make such a bold statement on his views of executive power.

What is perhaps even more astounding than that is the continuing refusal of the new Democratic leadership to make more of an issue out of civil liberties, executive power, and individual privacy. As the Washington Post pointed out on Wednesday,

Nowhere in the Democrats' consensus-driven agenda is legislation revisiting last year's establishment of military tribunals and suspending legal rights for suspected terrorists. Nor is there a revision of the civil liberties provisions of the USA Patriot Act, a measure curbing warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency or an aggressive confrontation of the president on his Iraq war policies.

It could also be pointed out that there is no mention of addressing the use of presidential signing statements, which under Bush has skyrocketed. He's issued more than 1,200 as president, and has taken them to a level that no previous president ever has, essentially using them as a line-item veto, or even as a way to legislate from the Oval Office.

Many legal scholars argue that his use of signing statements is flatly unconstitutional, and may even be grounds for impeachment. It's obvious that at the very least, they undermine the intent of duly passed legislation, and could pose a major obstacle to the new Democratic majority's legislative agenda. But rather than confront the president on this and other issues, it seems the Democrats' emphasis is on cooperation.

110th Congress Greeted With Calls for Impeachment

As the 110th Congress was sworn in this afternoon, about a hundred demonstrators gathered outside in a rally calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush and an end to the war in Iraq. With the Capitol Dome in the background, speakers denounced U.S. policies in Iraq and Guantanamo, and also highlighted domestic issues such as warrantless electronic surveillance and the abandonment of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Flanking the stage were a dozen demonstrators dressed up in orange jumpsuits and black hoods to represent the thousands of detainees being held in secret CIA prisons around the world, and at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern was among the speakers as was "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan, who yesterday disrupted a press conference by House Democratic leaders touting their proposed ethics reforms.

At one point, 12 protesters broke away from the rally and dropped a banner inside the Hart Senate Office Building denouncing war and torture. Inside the building, protesters chanted "De-escalate, investigate, troops home now," and "We will not be silent.”

Restoring the rule of law, ending the war in Iraq, and reining in the Executive Branch were the overriding themes of today's demonstration, but implicit in all of these goals was the necessity for George Bush's impeachment. One speaker, Sunsara Taylor of World Can't Wait, addressed the common refrain from anti-impeachment Democrats that impeaching Bush would distract Congress from enacting progressive policy, pointing out that progress will only be possible once Bush is removed from office.

In particular, when it comes to Iraq, she argued that because the president is unwilling to entertain proposals for a "graceful exit," and instead wants to escalate the war by sending a "surge" of 20,000 or more troops, only by removing Bush would peace be possible.

The crowd then erupted in a chant of "Impeach for peace! Impeach for peace!"

While the numbers at today's demonstration were not huge, what the rally made clear was that there will be no honeymoon for the new Democratic majority, and that although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has asserted that "impeachment is off the table," there are many Americans who will continue to insist that it is placed back on the table.

More demonstrations in the nation's capital are planned for the coming weeks, including one tomorrow at the American Enterprise Institute, where Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) will publicly call for the U.S. to send tens of thousands more troops to Iraq. Next week, on the fifth anniversary of the first prisoners arriving at Guantanamo Bay, a demonstration is planned against arbitrary detention and torture, during which more than a hundred activists will risk arrest by committing civil disobedience.

And on January 27, a mass march on Washington will call on Congress to heed the voters' demands and end the war in Iraq.

Dems, We're Citizens, Not Consumers

By Robert Parry
January 4, 2007

As the Democrats regain control of Congress for the first time in 12 years, the party leaders still don’t seem to understand the forces that sent them into the wilderness in 1994 or the reasons they were summoned back in 2006.

Typical of their cluelessness was a “100 Hours Survey” distributed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in mid-December. The survey asked Democratic contributors to rank nine priority issues in order of importance for the new Congress.

The issues included raising the minimum wage, financing stem-cell research, revising the Medicare prescription drug program and stiffening ethics rules. The only national security issue on the list was the implementation of all the remaining – but unspecified – recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

No reference was made to ending the Iraq War, launching investigative hearings on President George W. Bush’s actions, reasserting checks and balances on the Executive, or restoring constitutional safeguards that have been overridden during the “war on terror,” such as the habeas corpus right to a fair trial.

Though many issues on the DCCC’s priority list surely have merit, what’s missing is any commitment to the larger purpose of the American Republic.

Read on.

Democrats Facing Pressure from Activists on the Left

The Washington Post ran an article today discussing the "mounting pressure from liberal activists" for Democrats in Congress "to chart a more confrontational course on Iraq and the issues of human rights and civil liberties, with some even calling for the impeachment of President Bush."

The carefully calibrated legislative blitz that Democrats have devised for the first 100 hours of power has left some activists worried the passion that swept the party to power in November is already dissipating. A cluster of protesters will greet the new congressional leaders at the Capitol tomorrow. They will not be disgruntled conservatives wary of Democratic control, but liberals demanding a ban on torture, an end to warrantless domestic spying and a restoration of curbed civil liberties.

Many progressives are concerned that despite the clear repudiation of the Bush Agenda in the last election, Democrats in Congress will fail to address the issues that matter most to the Democratic base and the millions Americans who expelled the Republican majority from Congress. This concern may have been exacerbated by a survey sent out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee a couple of weeks ago that asked respondents which issues Democratic leaders should focus most of their attention on. Conspicuously absent from the list was ending the war in Iraq, restoring habeas corpus and other civil liberties, banning torture, and holding accountable members of the administration for misleading the nation into war.

In an effort to hold the Democrats' feet to the fire, activists are planning a number of demonstrations, beginning tomorrow, the first day of the new Congress: World Can't Wait Demonstration for Impeachment

The protest will be held at Upper Senate Park (Delaware & Constitution, just north of the Capitol) starting at 12:00 noon Thursday, Jan. 4.

The day Congress opens, World Can’t Wait will lead a major challenge to the political direction in this country since the election. A regime as criminal as the Bush regime still allowed to even remain in office? No! An unjust war started on lies, allowed to continue for four years despite an election where people meant to express how strongly they want it stopped? No! The Democrats, now the majority, allowing debate only on how to run the war more effectively, and saying that impeachment can’t even be considered? No!

Evening program:
Voices for Impeachment
Jan. 4, 7pm, National Press Club
Speakers to Include:
Cindy Sheehan
John Nichols
Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights*
Debra Sweet

On January 27, United for Peace and Justice is urging people to Bring the Mandate for Peace to Washington, DC

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, NOW CONGRESS MUST ACT.

On Saturday, Jan. 27th, people from every corner of the country will march on Washington, DC. Our message will be clear, our voice will be strong: End the war in Iraq, Bring all the troops home now! We urge you to join us!

On Mon., Jan. 29th, we will take our message directly to the new Congress during our lobby day.

There will also be a demonstration in DC on January 11, in which various groups will be denouncing arbitrary detention and torture on the fifth anniversary of the first prisoners being sent to Guantanamo Bay.

With the mounting pressure from progressive activists over the war, civil liberties and human rights, it should be interesting to see how the Democrats respond. If Democratic leaders continue to ignore these issues, they could find themselves facing an increasingly angry base and a divided party heading into the 2008 presidential election.

Operation: Save Bush's Legacy

By Robert Parry
January 3, 2007

If press reports are correct – that George W. Bush will approve a troop “surge” in Iraq of 17,000 to 20,000 soldiers – the follow-up question must be whether the escalation will do anything but get more Americans and Iraqis killed while only forestalling the defeat of Bush’s war policy.

Even top advocates for the “surge,” such as retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and neoconservative activist Frederick W. Kagan, have argued that U.S. troop levels must be increased by at least 30,000 for 18 months or more to bring security to Baghdad, what they call a “precondition” for any successful outcome.

“Any other option is likely to fail,” Keane and Kagan wrote in an Op-Ed article in the Washington Post on Dec. 27, 2006.

So, the more modest escalation of up to 20,000 soldiers would appear to represent what might be called “Operation: Save Bush’s Legacy,” with the goal of postponing the inevitable until 2009 when American defeat can be palmed off on a new President.

Read more here.

Saddam's Killing Provokes the Predictable Response in Iraq and Beyond

As the Iraqi government comes under international criticism for the manner in which Saddam Hussein was executed, U.S. officials are doing their best to distance themselves from the chaotic hanging, with Major General William Caldwell emphasizing that the Americans "had absolutely nothing to do with the facility where the execution took place." The U.S. would have "done it differently" if it had been their responsibility, he said.

The leaked video of the execution -- apparently taken on a cell phone smuggled into the gallows room -- has sparked angry Sunni Arab protests throughout Iraq and has drawn international condemnation over the blatant sectarian nature of the hanging. The criticism has pushed Iraqi officials to promise investigations of the incident, and apparently, the individual who took the video has been arrested. But even without the evidence provided by the video, the execution might have been seen by Sunnis as a sectarian vendetta, and to the international community might have had the look of an unjust killing after an unfair trial. Before the execution, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights urged Iraqis not to be hasty in carrying out the sentence, especially since the appeals court ruling required careful study.

It was also almost certain that the hanging would trigger an upsurge in sectarian violence in Iraq, regardless of the manner in which the execution was carried out. Still though, the level of anger and violence is alarming even the most seasoned observers of Iraq, such as University of Michigan professor Juan Cole. In responding to the attack by Sunni protesters on the Shiite Askariyah Shrine in Samarra, Prof. Cole wrote at his blog, "Folks, this is very bad news." Explaining the significance of the shrine, he wrote,

The Askariyah Shrine (it isn't just a mosque) is associated with the Hidden Twelfth Imam, who is expected by Shiites to appear at the end of time to restore the world to justice. (For them, the Imam Mahdi is sort of like the second coming of Christ for Christians). The Muqtada al-Sadr movement is millenarian and believes he will reveal himself at any moment.

The centrality of the cult of the Twelfth Imam, a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad who is said to have vanished in 873 AD, helps explain why the bombing of the Golden Dome on February 21 of 2006 set off a frenzy of Shiite, Sadrist attacks on Sunni Arabs. Last February, stuck in a Phoenix hotel because of a missed flight and without an internet connection for my laptop, I blogged from my Treo that it was an apocalyptic day. Sadly, it was, kicking off a frenzy of sectarian violence that has grown each subsequent month.

For Sunni Arabs to parade a symbolic coffin of Saddam through the ruins of the Askariya shrine won't be exactly good for social peace in Iraq. Can't that site be properly guarded or something?

It's also possible that the sectarian strife and anti-U.S. anger could spill out well beyond Iraq. Already, protests have been taking place around the world against the execution, with many Muslims pointing out the timing of it contravened Islamic custom, since it fell on the beginning of the Eid-al Adha holiday. Zaman.com reported,

Libya and Yemen, which tried to prevent Saddam’s sentence, strongly reacted to the execution. Libya declared three days of mourning. Hamas also considered the decision a ‘political murder’. The Organization of Islamic Conference expressed its concerns about the increase of conflicts between the religious sects and appealed to Iraqis for peace.

A protest in Jordan was attended by Saddam Hussein's daughter, and Muslim youth have hit the streets of India, including the cities of Kerala and Srinagar. In a demonstration on Wednesday, protesters in Srinagar chanted anti-U.S. slogans.

Anti-American sentiments ran high as protesting Muslims accused US President George W. Bush of conspiring against the Muslim community.

"It is a conspiracy of America against the Muslim community. They want to destroy the whole of Muslim world. We as members of Muslim community demand that all the Muslim countries should come together, unite and fight against America," said Muzaffar Ahmed, a protestor.

While American officials try to distance themselves from the execution and criticize the blatantly sectarian way in which it was carried out, the perception that it was made in America will be difficult to extinguish. This is, after all, Bush's war, and the killing of Saddam after an unfair trial fits in well with all the general pattern of U.S. policy towards Iraq, especially the refusal to acknowledge that weapons of mass destruction did not exist in the country.

The overall ramifications of this execution remain to be seen, but it is safe to say that nothing positive can possibly come out of it. The only question is the degree to which it will contribute to further sectarian strife and revenge killings.

Where Gerald Ford Went Wrong

By Robert Parry (A Special Report)
January 1, 2007

After replacing Richard Nixon in 1974, Gerald Ford turned his back on the imperial presidency that had reached new heights under Nixon. But facing political pressure from the Republican Right, Ford gradually reversed course putting the nation on track for even worse excesses under George W. Bush.

This mixed legacy has been missed amid the effusive eulogies that have followed Ford’s death on Dec. 26 at the age of 93. Ford has been showered with near universal praise for helping to bring the nation together in the wake of Nixon’s Watergate scandal and the U.S. military defeat in Vietnam.

Ford is depicted as a common man who toasted his own English muffins, respected the constitutional role of Congress, supported reform of the CIA and advocated negotiations with the Soviet Union, a process known as “détente.”

But this praise focuses on the first months of his 2 ½-year presidency. By late 1975 and early 1976, Ford began shifting direction when he found himself threatened by Ronald Reagan’s insurgent campaign for the Republican nomination.

To stave off Reagan’s challenge from the Right, Ford made a series of critical concessions, such as backpedaling on CIA reforms, forsaking détente, and compromising the integrity of the CIA’s analytical division to pacify hard-line Cold Warriors.

Read on.

Bush Silences a Dangerous Witness

By Robert Parry
December 30, 2006

Like a blue-blood version of a Mob family with global reach, the Bushes have eliminated one more key witness to the important historical events that led the U.S. military into a bloody stalemate in Iraq and pushed the Middle East to the brink of calamity.

The hanging of Saddam Hussein was supposed to be – as the New York Times observed – the “triumphal bookend” to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. If all had gone as planned, Bush might have staged another celebration as he did after the end of “major combat,” posing under the “Mission Accomplished” banner on May 1, 2003.

But now with nearly 3,000 American soldiers killed and the Iraqi death toll exceeding 600,000 by some estimates, Bush may be forced to savor the image of Hussein dangling at the end of a rope a little more privately.

Still, Bush has done his family’s legacy a great service while also protecting secrets that could have embarrassed other senior U.S. government officials.

He has silenced a unique witness to crucial chapters of the secret history that stretched from Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979 to the alleged American-Saudi “green light” for Hussein to attack Iran in 1980, through the eight years of the Iran-Iraq War during which high-ranking U.S. intermediaries, such as Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates, allegedly helped broker supplies of war materiel for Hussein.

Read on.

Execution of Saddam Appears Imminent

Speculation is growing over when the Iraqi government will hang Saddam Hussein as punishment for the 1982 killing of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail. It has been confirmed that the US has handed over the former dictator to Iraqi authorities and his lawyers said they had been asked to dispose of Saddam Hussein's personal effects, raising concern that his execution could take place as early as tomorrow. An Iraqi Justice Ministry official, however, said there would be no execution before January 26, adding that "It's none of the Americans' business to decide when" they hang him.

Some human rights groups are renewing their criticism of the trial that condemned Saddam and urging Iraq to reconsider its insistence on carrying out the execution. Amnesty International, for instance, condemned the Iraqi Appeals Court's decision to confirm the death sentence and said the court should have ordered a re-trial.

"The trial of Saddam Hussein and his seven co-accused before the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) was deeply flawed and unfair, due to political interference which undermined the independence of the court and other serious failings," sad Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa program. Amnesty emphasized its general opposition to the death penalty and renewed its call for the appeals court to order a new trial. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, however, said that there would be no delay in carrying out the sentence, and asserted that "No one can oppose the decision to execute the criminal Saddam."

"Those who reject the execution of Saddam," he said, "are undermining the dignity of Iraq's martyrs."

But there is actually serious concern over the fairness of Saddam's trial and the wisdom of carrying out the exection, particularly with the likelihood that it could spark another surge in violence in Iraq. Other concerns are based in fundamental opposition to the death penalty, which much of the world considers barbaric.

Human Rights Watch is one of the strongest critics of Saddam's trial and his sentence. On Wednesday, HRW implored Iraq "not [to] implement the death sentence against Saddam Hussein, which was imposed after a deeply flawed trial for crimes against humanity." The group is calling for an appeals chamber to review the verdict.

“Imposing the death penalty, indefensible in any case, is especially wrong after such unfair proceedings,” said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. “That a judicial decision was first announced by Iraq’s national security advisor underlines the political interference that marred Saddam Hussein’s trial.”

...

A report issued in November 2006 by Human Rights Watch, which has demanded the prosecution of Saddam Hussein and his lieutenants for more than a decade, identified numerous serious flaws in the trial of Hussein for the Dujail executions. The 97-page report, “Judging Dujail: The First Trial Before the Iraqi High Tribunal,” was based on 10 months of observation and dozens of interviews with judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers.

The report found that the Iraqi High Tribunal was undermined from the outset by Iraqi government actions that threatened the independence and perceived impartiality of the court. It disclosed serious flaws in the trial, including regular failures to disclose key evidence, violations of the defendants’ right to confront witnesses, and lapses of judicial demeanor.

Human Rights Watch has speculated that Saddam was denied a fair trial in an international setting partially because that could have allowed him to bring out evidence that he was being supported by the U.S. at the time of his alleged crimes. It could have proved highly embarrassing to the U.S. if it came out during the trial that current members of the Bush administration were providing Saddam with material and diplomatic support with full knowledge of his crimes against Shiites and Kurds.

Other criticism of the pending execution has come from international bodies such as the United Nations and the European Union.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, yesterday called for restraint by Iraqi authorities, echoing HRW's concerns about the fairness of the original trial.

"The appeal judgment is a lengthy and complex decision that requires careful study," she said. "There were a number of concerns as to the fairness of the original trial, and there needs to be assurance that these issues have been comprehensively addressed. I call, therefore, on the Iraqi authorities not to act precipitately in seeking to execute the sentence in these cases."

For his part, Saddam claimed to be ready to die, offering to sacrifice himself as a martyr.

"I sacrifice myself. If God wills it, he will place me among the true men and martyrs. O faithful people, I bid you farewell as my soul goes to God the compassionate. Long live Iraq. Long Live Iraq. Long live Palestine. Long live jihad and the Mujahidin. God is great."

Saddam's supporters have vowed retaliation if the execution goes forward, warning that they would target U.S. interests anywhere in the world. In an internet posting, the Baath Party stated,

"The Baath and the resistance are determined to retaliate, with all means and everywhere, to harm America and its interests if it commits this crime. The American Administration will be held responsible for any harm inflicted on the president because the United States is the decision-maker (in Iraq) and not the puppet Iraqi government."

Whether or not the Baathists are able to strike U.S. interests outside of Iraq, it should be expected that at least within the war-torn country, Saddam's execution will lead to a spike in violence against U.S. troops as well as increase the sectarian strife among Sunnis and Shiites. This would follow the general pattern of Iraqi violence, as has been seen ever time a major development occurs such as the killing of Saddam's sons, Iraqi elections or Saddam's own capture in December 2003.

With the hellish existence that Iraqis are currently experiencing, it shouldn't be surprising either if the execution sparks a sense of nostaligia in Iraq for the relative stability the country enjoyed before the U.S. invaded. While Saddam had a horrendous human rights record, and unnecessarily put his country through a couple of costly wars, first against Iran and then against the U.S., Iraq under his rule was relatively prosperous and stable, and his government provided generous social welfare programs.

Many observers have been saying for some time that Iraq was better off under Saddam, including UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Earlier this month Annan said that Iraq was in the grips of a civil war and many people in society were worse off now than under Saddam Hussein.

"When we had the strife in Lebanon and other places," he said, "we called that a civil war -- this is much worse." He agreed with those who say that things were generally better under Saddam.

"I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi's life... If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison -- that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, 'Am I going to see my child again? And the Iraqi government has not been able to bring the violence under control."

The Iraqi blogger Riverbend states in her year-end post that "2006 has been, decidedly, the worst year yet."

The magnitude of this war and occupation is only now hitting the country full force. It's like having a big piece of hard, dry earth you are determined to break apart. You drive in the first stake in the form of an infrastructure damaged with missiles and the newest in arms technology, the first cracks begin to form. Several smaller stakes come in the form of politicians like Chalabi, Al Hakim, Talbani, Pachachi, Allawi and Maliki. The cracks slowly begin to multiply and stretch across the once solid piece of earth, reaching out towards its edges like so many skeletal hands. And you apply pressure. You surround it from all sides and push and pull. Slowly, but surely, it begins coming apart- a chip here, a chunk there.

That is Iraq right now. The Americans have done a fine job of working to break it apart. This last year has nearly everyone convinced that that was the plan right from the start. There were too many blunders for them to actually have been, simply, blunders. The 'mistakes' were too catastrophic. The people the Bush administration chose to support and promote were openly and publicly terrible- from the conman and embezzler Chalabi, to the terrorist Jaffari, to the militia man Maliki. The decisions, like disbanding the Iraqi army, abolishing the original constitution, and allowing militias to take over Iraqi security were too damaging to be anything but intentional.

She goes on to ask, "Why make things worse by insisting on Saddam's execution now? Who gains if they hang Saddam?"

With the painful reality of life in Iraq today, there must be some intensely mixed emotions among nearly all Iraqis to see their former president put to death. Beyond questions of his trial's fairness and the morality of the death penalty, the execution of Saddam is sure to unleash a variety of emotional responses, from joy to sadness to anger to rage, and in a place as volatile and divided as Iraq already is, this could be extremely dangerous. The execution might even establish Saddam Hussein as a martyr, which perhaps is exactly what the Sunni insurgency wants.

In terms of world opinion, the execution could also backfire against the United States. Not only is much of the world opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, but most of it is also opposed to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, which according to the Lancet, has led to 655,000 Iraqi deaths. The inconsistency and disproportionality of executing the Iraqi leader for killing 148 Shiites while President George Bush remains free might be too much for people to handle.

Gerald Ford's Mixed Legacy

By Robert Parry
December 29, 2006

The disclosure that Gerald Ford opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq but embargoed his objections until after his death fits with his contradictory legacy as a national leader who opposed the imperial presidency while laying the groundwork for its restoration.

After assuming the presidency on Aug. 9, 1974, Ford earned praise by demonstrating greater respect for Congress than the prickly and paranoid Richard Nixon. Ford also scored points with the public for toasting his own English muffins and acting like a regular guy.

By contrast, Nixon had dressed White House guards up in uniforms more befitting the Hapsburg monarchy than the American Republic. More significantly, Nixon had asserted broad powers to wage war overseas and acted secretly to sabotage his political enemies at home. Nixon embodied the notion that if a President did it, it couldn’t be illegal.

Symbolically at least, Ford represented a repudiation of Nixon’s imperial excesses. Since Ford’s death on Dec. 26, that contrast between Nixon and Ford has been the theme of many eulogies, effusive praise for a common man of the Midwest who helped heal the nation’s bitter divisions from Watergate and Vietnam.

But in hindsight, Ford’s actions in the White House may have done more to salvage the idea of an imperial presidency than to shatter it. From the perspective of three decades later, the two-plus years of the Ford administration could be viewed more like a period of strategic retreat for the imperial presidency than a return to the traditional checks and balances envisioned by the Founders.

Read on.

Upcoming Events of Potential Interest

There are several important events in the coming weeks and months that will be calling for Bush's impeachment, an end to the war, and media reform. Below are some that may be of interest to our readers.

January 4 World Can't Wait Demonstration for Impeachment

The protest will be held at Upper Senate Park (Delaware & Constitution, just north of the Capitol) starting at 12:00 noon Thursday, Jan. 4.

The day Congress opens, World Can’t Wait will lead a major challenge to the political direction in this country since the election. A regime as criminal as the Bush regime still allowed to even remain in office? No! An unjust war started on lies, allowed to continue for four years despite an election where people meant to express how strongly they want it stopped? No! The Democrats, now the majority, allowing debate only on how to run the war more effectively, and saying that impeachment can’t even be considered? No!

Evening program:
Voices for Impeachment
Jan. 4, 7pm, National Press Club
Speakers to Include:
Cindy Sheehan
John Nichols
Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights*
Debra Sweet

January 27, Bring the Mandate for Peace to Washington, DC

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, NOW CONGRESS MUST ACT.

On Saturday, Jan. 27th, people from every corner of the country will march on Washington, DC. Our message will be clear, our voice will be strong: End the war in Iraq, Bring all the troops home now! We urge you to join us!

On Mon., Jan. 29th, we will take our message directly to the new Congress during our lobby day.

Events to Mark the 3,000th American Death in Iraq

The American Friends Service Commmittee urges peace supporters to organize events in their hometowns the day after the 3,000th U.S. military death in Iraq is announced.

Together, we'll mourn all the lives lost in this war and call for the troops to come home.

More about the event

There are currently 182 events planned in 42 states and counting...

National Conference for Media Reform, Jan. 12-14, Memphis

Connect with media reform leaders and activists from around the country.

Learn how to mobilize media reformers in your community.

Get the policy scoop from D.C. and learn how the new political landscape impacts media reform.

Be part of the growing movement.

National Conference on Organized Resistance, Feb. 3-5, Washington, D.C.

NCOR is an annual event that brings together activists from a variety of issues, struggles, ideologies and backgrounds for a weekend of learning and reflecting on the state of progressive movements occurring locally, nationally and worldwide. Through diverse workshops, panel discussions, skillshares, tabling, and the creation of an open and safe space, NCOR seeks to promote organized action amongst participants against the injustices and inequalities that we confront in our daily lives and in the world. NCOR is held on the main campus of American University in northwest Washington, DC.

NCOR 2005 was a raging success with 86 workshops and numerous guerrilla events, again doing justice to a tradition that has happened every winter since 1998. Over 1500 people attended last year! As NCOR continues to grow exponentially, 2006 looks like another great conference.

March on the Pentagon, March 17

On March 17, 2007, the 4th anniversary of the start of the criminal invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of people from around the country will descend on the Pentagon in a mass demonstration to demand: U.S. Out of Iraq Now! 2007 is the 40th anniversary of the historic 1967 anti-war march to the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. The message of the 1967 march was "From Protest to Resistance," and marked a turning point in the development of a countrywide mass movement.

In the coming days and weeks, thousands of organizations and individuals will begin mobilizing for the upcoming March on the Pentagon. Organizing committees and transportation centers are being established to bring people to the March on the Pentagon.

The March 17 demonstration will assemble at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (Constitution Gardens) at 12 noon in Washington, D.C.and march to the Pentagon.

Also in DC, on January 11, various groups are organizing a demonstration against arbitrary detention and torture on the fifth anniversary of the first prisoners being sent to Guantanamo Bay.

The GOP's $3 Billion Propaganda Organ

By Robert Parry (A Special Report)
December 27, 2006

The American Right achieved its political dominance in Washington over the past quarter century with the help of more than $3 billion spent by Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon on a daily propaganda organ, the Washington Times, according to a 21-year veteran of the newspaper.

George Archibald, who describes himself “as the first reporter hired at the Washington Times outside the founding group” and author of a commemorative book on the Times’ first two decades, has now joined a long line of disillusioned conservative writers who departed and warned the public about extremism within the newspaper.

In an Internet essay on recent turmoil inside the Times, Archibald also confirmed claims by some former Moon insiders that the cult leader has continued to pour in $100 million a year or more to keep the newspaper afloat. Archibald put the price tag for the newspaper’s first 24 years at “more than $3 billion of cash.”

At the newspaper’s tenth anniversary, Moon announced that he had spent $1 billion on the Times – or $100 million a year – but newspaper officials and some Moon followers have since tried to low-ball Moon’s subsidies in public comments by claiming they had declined to about $35 million a year.

The figure from Archibald and other defectors from Moon’s operation is about three times higher than the $35 million annual figure.

Read on.

Robert Parry Discusses Ford's Death on "Democracy Now!"

Discussing the death of Gerald Ford, Robert Parry pointed out on "Democracy Now!" the role the former President played in the resurgence of the Imperial Presidency and the rollback of accountability for high-level misconduct, whether at the CIA or the White House. While Ford "brought, in a sense, the end to the national nightmare of Watergate," Parry says, "he also marks the beginning of the counter-attack, if you will, against the efforts by Congress, the Press and other Americans to reign in the Imperial Presidency."

You start seeing already, in the early days of the Ford Administration, an effort to strike back against those efforts to limit the Executive Power. We have efforts in the CIA, when he brings in George H.W. Bush, to push back against Congressional oversight. To allow more space for the CIA to operate, to fight against efforts to expose some of the more corrupt CIA actions. And oddly, because of the timing of Ford’s Presidency, that it sort of came after the period, the Church Commission looked at, in terms of CIA abuses, and it came before the beginning of the formal congressional oversight process, the CIA operated during that year with a great deal of freedom. And we know -- we don't know enough about some of the things that were done during that period.

So I think while Ford gets a great deal of credit, because he helped mend the nation's wounds over Watergate, it wasn't entirely this pleasant experience that some people are making it out to be. It was, in a sense, the incubator for the resurgence of the Imperial Presidency. People like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were in the Ford White House, and many of their feelings about re-establishing that Imperial Presidency have lived to this day.

More at Democracy Now!

War With Iran?

With the new UN sanctions on Iran, the Bush administration may be provided with the political cover it needs to raise the stakes in its policy towards Tehran. While most Americans might believe that the administration wouldn't risk the potentially catastrophic consequences of war with Iran, several indications point to the very real possibility of military conflict, much of it thanks to Iran's own intransigence over its nuclear program.

Although the Security Council demanded that Iran immediately suspend its enrichment program and its reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, Tehran has unequivocally rejected the resolution, with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling it "a piece of torn paper." Rather than cease enrichment activity, as called for in the resolution, Ahmadinejad vowed to accelerate uranium enrichment immediately.

US officials nevertheless jumped on the resolution as a major diplomatic and propaganda victory.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns called the vote "humiliating" for Iran. He added that the vote "would open the way for further action outside the Security Council," and that the United States would continue to press Japan, European governments and international financial agencies to impose their own penalties on Iran. link

While seizing on the resolution as a "humiliating" defeat for Iran, Burns also emphasized, "We don't think this resolution is enough in itself." And he strongly hinted that the US would now intensify its pressure on Iran, saying, "we're certainly not going to put all our eggs in a UN basket."

Although Burns was careful not to reveal too much detail on US intentions, the message seems to remain that "all options are on the table," including the military option.

So, despite the Iraq Study Group's recommendation that the Bush adiminstration reach out to Iran diplomatically, the administration instead appears to be intensifying the sabre-rattling. Of course, that recommendation was never exactly welcomed by the administration, with Condoleezza Rice immediately rejecting the idea of seeking help from Iran and Syria. "If they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they will do it anyway," she said dismissively.

Rice also emphasized that there would be no retreat from the administration's push to "promote democracy" in the Middle East, saying, "Get ready. We are going to the Middle East a lot." It was unclear whether she meant it as a threat or a promise.

Indeed, the US presence in the Middle East is growing at a troubling rate and is already sounding some alarms, particularly in regards to Iran. Dave Lindorff writes at This Can't Be Happening that

It now appears that the idea of attacking Iran is again moving forward. The Eisenhower strike force, armed with some 800 Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as a fleet of strike aircraft, and already on station in the Arabian Sea for over a month and a half, has moved into the Persian Gulf. A second carrier group, led by the USS Stennis, is set to start steaming toward the Gulf, too, from its base in Washington. Already in position are three expeditionary strike groups and an amphibious warship, all suitable for landing Marines on Iranian beaches.

At Consortiumnews.com, for our part, last week we reported that

The first two or three months of 2007 represent a dangerous opening for an escalation of war in the Middle East, as George W. Bush will be tempted to “double-down” his gamble in Iraq by joining with Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair to strike at Syria and Iran, intelligence sources say.

President Bush’s goal would be to transcend the bloody quagmire bogging down U.S. forces in Iraq by achieving “regime change” in Syria and by destroying nuclear facilities in Iran, two blows intended to weaken Islamic militants in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

The Israeli army and air force would carry the brunt of any new fighting albeit with the support of beefed-up U.S. ground and naval forces in the Middle East, the sources said. Bush is now considering a “surge” in U.S. troop levels in Iraq from about 140,000 to as many as 170,000. He also has dispatched a second aircraft carrier group to the coast of Iran.

The possibility of a US-Iran war was also discussed recently in an interview between investigative journalist Sy Hersh and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter.

Ritter, who had correctly argued before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction, said in the interview:

And if you can’t confront it successfully diplomatically, that leaves only the military option on the table. And right now, that’s the direction we’re heading, because the debate’s over, apparently, about whether or not Iran has a nuclear weapons program, even though the IAEA has come out and said there’s no evidence whatsoever to sustain the Bush administration's allegations that such a weapons program exists. Note, I didn’t say that the IAEA said there is no such weapons program -- they can’t prove that.

But note that the Bush administration has taken this and now changed course, like they did with Iraq. Saddam said, “We don’t have any weapons. The inspectors aren’t finding any weapons. Keep looking.” Why? Because the onus isn’t on the inspectors to find the weapons. The onus is on Iraq to prove that none exist. But how can you prove a negative? The same thing is in play today with Iran. We have told the Iranians it is their responsibility to prove to the international community beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no nuclear weapons program in Iran. How can you prove a negative?

But that’s not the point, because it’s not about a nuclear weapons program. It’s about regime change and the Bush administration using the perception of threat from a nuclear weapons program to achieve their ultimate objective of regional transformation, which is, again, a policy born more in Tel Aviv than Washington, D.C.

The potentially disastrous consequences of such a war have been studied in-depth by think tanks and NGOs, as well Pentagon war planners. The price of oil would surely skyrocket, and the response of Iran would likely be extremely deadly for Americans and Israelis. The Moneterrey Institute notes,

Open source information suggests that currently Iran possesses more than 500 Shehab ballistic missiles. Most of these missiles are Shehab-1 and -2, with a 300- to 500-kilometer (km) range and a 700- to 985-kilogram (kg) payload. With these missiles, Iran is capable of reaching U.S. bases in Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, and Iraq. Iran is also believed to possess 25 to100 Shehab-3 ballistic missiles, displayed in a military parade marking the anniversary of the Iran-Iraq war on September 22, 2003. The Shehab-3 has a 1,300km range, a 700kg payload, and is capable of reaching Israeli cities and bases (See: Chart 1). Iran could launch dozens of these ballistic missiles in the direction of Israel; and U.S. targets in the region, over a long period, depending on the size of the Iranian arsenal, the desired severity of the counterattack, and the ability of U.S. forces to find and destroy their missile launchers.

On the one hand, the destructive potential of these ballistic missile systems should not be underestimated. Although these Scud variants are relatively inaccurate - they are certainly incapable of the pinpoint accuracy associated with U.S. cruise missiles and guided munitions - they do have much greater accuracy and higher payloads than the Iraqi al-Husseins that turned out a mediocre CEP (circular error probability) of 1 to 3km in 1991. Multiple missiles attacks on U.S. or Israeli targets carrying large warheads can potentially be very deadly, as demonstrated by an Iraqi Scud attack on barracks in Saudi Arabia in early 1991. It turned out to be the deadliest such incident of the entire war for U.S. troops, killing 28 and injuring 98.

Iran could also move to further destabilize Iraq, and possibly even Afghanistan, potentionally leading to a regional conflagration that could quickly spiral out of control.

Of course, the current stituation is not helped by the belligerence shown by Iran, and the way that Tehran has systematically alienated whatever allies it may have had through actions such as its recent Holocaust deniers conference. That action was particularly foolish in light of the fact that Germany is one of the three EU negotiators seeking some sort compromise over Iran's nuclear program. In Germany, of course, it is illegal to deny the Holocaust, so it is difficult to imagine exactly what Ahmadinejad hoped to accomplish by so thoroughly alienating this potential ally with the Holocaust conference.

Considering how certain that action was to force Germany into a more hawkish position, and increase the international perception that Iran's rulers are irrational, belligerent, and pose an existential threat to Israel, the possibility that Tehran is intentionally escalating the situation should not be discounted. To the outside observer, indeed, it certainly seems that both Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush are doing everything in their ability to ensure that military conflict takes place between the US and Iran.

Some Americans, increasingly alarmed by this possibility, will be gathering in Washington, DC on Jan. 27 for a mass march demanding an end to the war in Iraq, as well as sending the message, "No War on Iran."

Troop 'Surge' Seen as Another Mistake

By W. Patrick Lang and Ray McGovern
December 24, 2006

Robert Gates's report to the White House on his discussions in Iraq this past week is likely to provide the missing ingredient for the troop ''surge'' into Iraq favored by the ''decider'' team of Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush.

When the understandable misgivings voiced by top U.S. military officials made it obvious that the surge cart had been put before the mission-objective horse, the President was forced to concede, as he did at his press conference on Wednesday, ``There's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops, before I agree on that strategy.''

The President had led off the press conference by heightening expectations for the Gates visit to Iraq, noting that ''Secretary Gates is going to be an important voice in the Iraq strategy review that's under way.'' No doubt Gates was given the job of hammering out a ''specific mission'' with U.S. generals and Iraqi leaders, and he is past master at sensing and delivering on his bosses' wishes.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's aides have given Western reporters an outline of what the ''specific mission'' may look like. It is likely to be cast as implementation of Maliki's ''new vision,'' under which U.S. troops would target primarily Sunni insurgents in outer Baghdad neighborhoods, while Iraqi forces would battle for control of inner Baghdad. A prescription for bloodbath, it has the advantage, from the White House perspective, of preventing the Iraqi capital from total disintegration until Bush and Cheney are out of office.

More here.

Congress, the Voters & a Peace Plan

By Brent Budowsky
December 23, 2006

Memo to Democratic Leaders In Congress, Democratic Presidential Candidates, and Statesmanlike Republicans:

In December of 2006 the United States stands on the brink of a historic miscalculation that could translate a catastrophe in Iraq into a region-wide conflagration, even more deadly than the status quo.

As President Bush prepares to announce the policies that will define the final two years of his presidency, what I propose privately and now publicly is this:

First, that the President initiate -- and Congress require as a condition for support -- a credible and legitimate attempt to broker a broader and comprehensive Middle East peace.

Read more here.

Bush's 'Global War on Radicals'

By Robert Parry
December 23, 2006

The United States will never win the “war on terror,” in part, because George W. Bush keeps applying elastic definitions to the enemy, most recently expanding the conflict into a war against Muslim “radicals and extremists.”

With almost no notice in Official Washington, Bush has inserted this new standard for judging who’s an enemy as he lays the groundwork for a wider conflict in the Middle East and a potentially endless world war against many of the planet’s one billion adherents to Islam.

Indeed, it could be argued that the “war on terror” has now morphed into the “war on radicals,” allowing Bush to add the likes of Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and the leaders of Syria and Iran to his lengthening international enemies list.

Bush’s twists and turns in defining the enemy in the “war on terror” started more than five years ago, in the days immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Amid the nation’s anguish, Bush spoke in grandiloquent and quasi-religious terms, vowing to “rid the world of evil,” a patently absurd task that never received the ridicule it deserved.

But Bush then settled on a more practical aim, defeating “terrorist groups of global reach.” Though that formulation still presented some problems of definition – what does “global reach” exactly mean? – at least it offered measurable terms.

Read on.

A Very Dangerous New Year

By Robert Parry
December 21, 2006

The first two or three months of 2007 represent a dangerous opening for an escalation of war in the Middle East, as George W. Bush will be tempted to “double-down” his gamble in Iraq by joining with Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair to strike at Syria and Iran, intelligence sources say.

President Bush’s goal would be to transcend the bloody quagmire bogging down U.S. forces in Iraq by achieving “regime change” in Syria and by destroying nuclear facilities in Iran, two blows intended to weaken Islamic militants in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

The Israeli army and air force would carry the brunt of any new fighting albeit with the support of beefed-up U.S. ground and naval forces in the Middle East, the sources said. Bush is now considering a “surge” in U.S. troop levels in Iraq from about 140,000 to as many as 170,000. He also has dispatched a second aircraft carrier group to the coast of Iran.

So far, however, Bush has confronted stiff opposition from the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to the plan for raising troop levels in Iraq, partly because the generals don’t think it makes sense to commit more troops without a specific military mission.

But it’s unclear how much the generals know about the expanded-war option which has been discussed sometimes in one-on-one meetings among the principals – Bush, Olmert and Blair – according to intelligence sources.

Read more here.

No Military Hope, So Send More Troops

At Consortiumnews.com, we posted a story today by W. Patrick Lang and Ray McGovern, "No Military Hope, So Send More Troops," which highlights the oxymoronic logic of the so-called "surge" strategy of sending 30,000 to 40,000 more troops to Iraq.

Egged on by “full-speed-ahead” Cheney, Bush is determined that the war not be lost while he is President. But events are fast overtaking White House preferences and moving toward denouement well before two more years are up.

Perhaps it was not quite the way he meant it, but Bush has gotten one thing right; there will indeed be no “graceful exit.” And that goes in spades, if he sends still more troops to the quagmire.

Let’s send more troops to Iraq so we can pull our troops out of Iraq. A generation from now, our grandchildren will have difficulty writing history papers on this oxymoronic debate on how to surge/withdraw our troops into/from the quagmire in Iraq.

Although it may be totally illogical, the new emphasis on one last "surge" to "win" the war actually fits in well with prior administration tactics and strategies in this war, such as the Operation Iron Hammer offensive in late 2003, or the sieges of Fallujah in the spring and fall of 2004. While those prior campaigns succeeded in killing hundreds of people, and perhaps temporarily quelled the insurgency in the targetted areas, the fact is, Iraq as a whole is no more pacified now than it was before those U.S. offensives. In fact, as the Iraq Study Group put it, the situation is "grave and deterioriating."

As some have pointed out for years, increasing the violence and heavy-handed tactics against the Iraqis could actually be backfiring and fueling the insurgency by creating more and more enemies among the Iraqi people. One last "surge" against Baghdad would likely do nothing to reverse this dynamic, and would probably only succeed in creating more death and destruction in an already devastated country. Perhaps this is why the Joint Chiefs of Staff are unanimous in their opposition to the surge idea. As the Washington Post reported yesterday,

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

But this expert military advice is apparently no more welcome in the White House than the Iraq Study Group's suggestions for reaching out to Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq. Despite the occasional acknowledgement that things may not be going precisely the way they hoped -- such as Bush's admission today that we are neither "winning" or "losing" the war -- it seems as a whole that the neocons still insist upon making their own reality. The insistence on "winning" the war with one last "surge" recalls to mind the process of reality-manufacturing that a Bush aide explained to author Ron Suskind in 2002:

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Perhaps he was right that we will be studying what they do, but only in the way that a psychologist might study a sociopath's behavior.

How Low Can He Go?

By Sam Parry
December 20, 2006

As President Bush enters the last two years of his presidency contemplating sending more troops to Iraq, a move favored by only 12% of the American people in a recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey, he teeters on the edge of becoming one of, if not THE least popular American president in history.

Bush's national approval rating has hovered in the mid-to-upper 30's for most of 2006, and his current national rating remains fixed in that zone. However, if the early state-by-state opinion polls published by SurveyUSA.com are any indication, Bush's national numbers may soon dip even further.

So far this month, SurveyUSA has published 16 state tracking polls and in none of them is Bush close to break even. The closest state, Kansas, shows a -9% net rating, statistically unchanged from November.

In traditionally Republican states like Alabama, Kentucky and Bush's home state of Texas, the numbers are downright scary: -13% in Alabama and -21% in both the Blue Grass and Lone Star states. These states slipped from -7%, -19% and -18% in last month's survey.

In Virginia, Bush's rating took a huge dip, from -9% to -21%. While in several other states, Bush's rating simply remained at historically low points. In New York, for example, Bush's net rating is down one point from -50% to -51%. In Ohio, Bush's rating remained at 65% disapprove, 34% approve.

Ironically, in solidly Democratic Massachusetts, Bush's standing had a modest improvement, from -46% last month to -38% this month.

But, overall, these early numbers point to a widespread and potentially worsening dissatisfaction with Bush.

The big question is, as SurveyUSA reports more state tracking polls in the coming days, will Bush have a net positive rating in any state?

Last month, only 3 states – Utah, Idaho and Wyoming – reported net positive ratings of 12%, 12% and 1% respectively. Could the proposal to send more troops into a war perceived by many to be a lost cause whittle away Bush's only positive ratings in the entire country?

Stay tuned.