There can be no question that President Bush said Iraq's involvement with the 9/11 attacks justified our going to war. Here is Bush's Presidential Letter to Congress, dated March 18, 2003, available on the White House Web site, detailing why war against Iraq is justified. In case it is removed from the website, here's what it says:

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

[link via What Really Happened]

Journalist and author Christian Parenti is over in Iraq and reports back to The Nation on the state of mind and heart of our troops. How are they doing? They are Stretched Thin, Lied to & Mistreated:

Trapped in the polluted heat, poorly supplied and cut off from regular news, the GIs are fighting a guerrilla war that they neither wanted, expected nor trained for. On the urban battlefields of central Iraq, "shock and awe" and all the other "new way of war" buzzwords are drowned out by the din of diesel-powered generators, Islamic prayer calls and the occasional pop of small-arms fire.

I know that probably sounds sick," says [Sergeant] Sellers, "but humor is the only way you can deal with this sh*t." And just below the humor is volcanic rage. These guys are proud to be soldiers and don't want to come across as whiners, but they are furious about what they've been through. They hate having their lives disrupted and put at risk. They hate the military for its stupidity, its feckless lieutenants and blowhard brass living comfortably in Saddam's palaces. They hate Iraqis--or, as they say, "hajis"--for trying to kill them. They hate the country for its dust, heat and sewage-clogged streets. They hate having killed people. Some even hate the politics of the war. And because most of them are, ultimately, just regular well-intentioned guys, one senses the distinct fear that someday a few may hate themselves for what they have been forced to do here.

Added to such injury is insult: The military treats these soldiers like unwanted stepchildren. This unit's rifles are retooled hand-me-downs from Vietnam. They have inadequate radio gear, so they buy their own unencrypted Motorola walkie-talkies. The same goes for flashlights, knives and some components for night-vision sights.....

There's lots more. Parenti is also the author of a new book, The Soft Cage, which is the first book to trace the history of surveillance in the U.S., "from the slave pass to the Social Security number all the way to the many forms of computerized monitoring now shaping the post-9/11 world." We were sent an unsolicited review copy a few weeks ago and recommend it.

The Soft Cage

by Christian Parenti

It's about time someone made a scorecard of the Administration's handling of the terror war. The Independent Institute has just compiled one, with analysis. Here are the results.

To date, the biggest accomplishment—the elimination of Afghanistan’s Taliban regime that was harboring al Qaeda—has been significantly diminished by the al Qaeda leadership’s escape and by the nascent quagmire there that is embroiling the United States.

....Now that the threat to the U.S. homeland from al Qaeda in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced, rather than dig the Afghan hole deeper, the United States should declare victory, withdraw U.S. forces and turn the peacekeeping over to a coalition of the willing.

And the effects of U.S. policy go downhill from here. The hawks in the administration used the September 11 attacks to justify an unrelated policy agenda—settling old scores with Saddam Hussein. Because the administration hyped the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and then didn’t find any, its fall-back position is that Iraq is better off without the despotic Hussein.

There's lots more explanation, but here are the grades:

Report Card on U.S. War on Terrorism

Removing al Qaeda haven in Afghanistan and neutralizing the group’s leadership B-

Avoiding a quagmire in Afghanistan C-

Finding weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq F

Making Iraq better off by eliminating Saddam F Reducing proliferation of WMD to rogue states and terrorist groups F

Adopting a more “humble” foreign policy to prevent overstretch of U.S. military F

Making U.S. citizens and territory safer from terrorism and bringing 9/11 conspiracy to justice F

Via Atrios, we find this CNN regularly updated site with a list of U.S casualties in the war in Iraq. Look at their pictures.

There have been 337 confirmed coalition deaths in the war as of September 8, 2003. The casualty list below reflects the names of the U.S. and British soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors whose families have been notified. This list is updated regularly.

337 have died so far. A recent Time poll shows approval for Bush's war down to 52%. Let's get it down to single digits.

Take a look at this new Columbia University poll showing that confidence in the government's ability to respond to a terrorist attack has dropped:

The Columbia University study, released Monday, found 46 percent of those surveyed believed authorities could "respond effectively" to a biological, chemical or nuclear attack, down from 53 percent last year. The drop was most dramatic among New Yorkers, from 53 percent to 36 percent.

Update: Read this, it will make you cry. Bring our troops home now.

The military is demanding that the thousands of army and National Guard reserve troops in Iraq stay for a year.

Here's the difference in policy. Up until now, reserve troops were called up for a year but a chunk of that time was spent in the U.S. training to go overeseas, and in debriefings upon their return. So much less than a year was spent in Iraq.

Under the new policy, the reservists will have to spend a full year in Iraq or neighboring countries.

The new deployment policy, which is still being disseminated to Guard and Army Reserve units, is already prompting concerns by troops and their advocates, who said uncertainty about the length of deployments can have a highly negative impact on morale. The Army issued the new policy late Friday night, but made no formal announcement of the change.

There are 122,000 Army personnel in Iraq, including 3,000 National Guard soldiers and 5,000 reservists, Army officials said. Another 5,000 Guard soldiers and 7,000 reservists are serving in Kuwait, they said.

Sometimes, what goes around, comes around. Maybe we'll start seeing a comeback of "Hell No, We Won't Go." Maybe by the time of the national conventions for 2004, Bush will be considered as vile as Nixon. Already there are plans for massive demonstrations in New York when the Republicans convene --how great a stretch is it to think that New York next summer could turn into a scene from Chicago in 1968? One can only hope.

Oliver Willis says Rumseld should resign.

So does David Obey (D-WI), the highest ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee. Obey also calls for the resignation of Wolfowitz.

The Capital Times joins the call in this editorial.

After talking with military and diplomatic experts, assessing reports from Iraq, and visiting with his constituents in northern Wisconsin, U.S. Rep. David Obey, D-Wausau, came to the conclusion that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz must go. Obey, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, argues that the shift is necessary to restore relations with allies whose help is needed to stabilize Iraq and begin a serious process of turning power over to the Iraqi people. Additionally, Obey argues that changing the bosses at the Defense Department will help renew confidence in the administration's pronouncements.

Obey's assessment is rooted in genuine concern for America and Iraq. The Bush administration ought not reject this wise counsel. It is time to replace Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

Yale Law Prof Jack Balkin has some advice for Bush and Rumsfeld--learn the value of dissent.

In a speech to hundreds of military officers, Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a former U.S. Commander in the Middle East who remains a consultant with the State Department, has blasted Bush's war policies.

A former U.S. commander for the Middle East who still consults for the State Department yesterday blasted the Bush administration's handling of postwar Iraq, saying it lacked a coherent strategy, a serious plan and sufficient resources...."There is no strategy or mechanism for putting the pieces together," said retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, and so, he said, "we're in danger of failing."

Zinni cannot be dismissed as a malcontent or Bush opponent:

Zinni's comments were especially striking because he endorsed President Bush in the 2000 campaign, shortly after retiring from active duty, and serves as an adviser to the State Department on anti-terror initiatives in Indonesia and the Philippines. He preceded Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks as chief of the U.S. Central Command, the headquarters for U.S. military operations in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Here's the best part --Zinni's speech was well-received.

Zinni's comments to the joint meeting in Arlington of the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association, two professional groups for officers, were greeted warmly by his audience, with prolonged applause at the end. Some officers bought tapes and compact discs of the speech to give to others.

Update: We've decided to reprint the email we received tipping us to the article--it's from defense lawyer Terry Kindlon, a former marine sergeant in Vietnam, who was at the speech. Please read it:

Back in April, we wrote about Green Card Troops, the 37,000 non-citizen, green card holders in the military. A major incentive for them to join is that they receive a shortcut to citizenship.

The Al Jazeera English website is back up today and has this report on British MP George Galloway's criticism of the U.S. over the policy:

Galloway went on to attack the US policy of putting its poor minorities and non-citizens in the frontline of its foreign wars. In an exclusive interview he told Aljazeera.net that it was part of a long US tradition of using its underclass as cannon fodder.

The statistics, buried by White House spin doctors, reveal that a significant minority of troops fighting under the US banner are not in fact US citizens but residents hoping to speed up their citizenship.

Galloway said that this was typical of a government used to having the marginalised fight its battles. "Nothing has changed since that last failed attempt to invade and determine the future of another country, Vietnam," he told Aljazeera.net from his holiday villa in Portugal.

"Of course the underclass has now become increasingly more Hispanic than black." This explains why a disproportionate number of the so-called US casualties in the invasion and occupation of Iraq have borne Latino names.

U.S. military officials confirm the shortcut:

"The military services have processes and programmes in place to help service members expedite their citizenship," says a US Department of Defence spokesperson. "The estimated time for the application is about six months."

There is a serious downside: Advancing the process only helps if the soldier comes home alive. Given the number of deaths in Iraq, it appears to us to be more and more like a proposition of Russian Roulette.

Via Tom Tomorrow and Oliver Willis we learned that Iraqi Blogger Salam Pax, who was highly touted by the American and British media (and pro-war bloggers) during the war, had his house searched by American soldiers. It wasn't pleasant.

Here's some, but go read the whole thing:

They came at around 12 midnight they were apparently supposed to do a silent entrance and surprise the criminal Ba’athi cell that was in my parents house, unfortunately for them our front gate does a fair amount of rattling so my brother heard that and opened the door and saw a couple of soldiers climbing on our high black front gate....

A new CBS News poll shows public confidence is dropping for Bush's handling of Iraq:

Asked whether the U.S. is in control in Iraq, 42 percent said yes, and 47 percent said no.

Republicans remain more supportive of Bush than Democrats and Independents. Bush's approval rating remained at 55%.

The Los Angeles Times reveals that the reason for going to war may have been trumped up by the Iraqis:

Intelligence officials are reexamining data used in justifying the war. They say Hussein's regime may have sent bogus defectors.

The new review has been prompted by criticism of the Administration's failure to find weapons of mass destruction. The goal is to find out if Bush & Co. were duped.

The goal, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official, "is to see if false information was put out there and got into legitimate channels and we were totally duped on it." He added, "We're reinterviewing all our sources of information on this. This is the entire intelligence community, not just the U.S."

The far-reaching review was started after a political firestorm erupted this summer over revelations that President Bush's claim in his State of the Union speech that Iraq had sought to import uranium from Niger was based on forged documents.

....officials say former Iraqi operatives have confirmed since the war that Hussein's regime sent "double agents" disguised as defectors to the West to plant fabricated intelligence. In other cases, Baghdad apparently tricked legitimate defectors into funneling phony tips about weapons production and storage sites.

This is major. It's not like the U.S. can morph into Emily Litella and turn to the parents of those soldiers killed in the war and its aftermath and say, "Never mind."

The U.S. Military is conducting a hearing to determine whether four U.S. reservists abused Iraqi prisoners at a POW camp in Iraq.

The hearing is a military version of a grand jury proceeding. The hearing officers will decide whether to recommend to senior military officials that a trial be commenced. Their recommendation is not binding.

The four - Spc. Timothy Canjar, 21; Shawna Edmondson, 24; Master Sgt. Lisa Marie Girman, 35, and Staff Sgt. Scott A. McKenzie, 38 - are all from the 320th Military Police Battalion, based in Ashley, Pa.

They are alleged to have punched and kicked several Iraqis, breaking one man's nose, while escorting a busload of prisoners to a POW processing center at Camp Bucca in May in Umm Qasr. The soldiers have said they acted in self-defense.

....The list of allegations, obtained by The Associated Press, included kicking and hitting the prisoners in the groin, face, abdomen, and head, and holding prisoners and encouraging others to kick them.