The Chicago Tribune has some pretty strong criticism of the Bush Administration's increasing involvement in Colombia's ongoing civil war.

"In 2001, the U.S. pumped about $860 million into Colombia, followed by $400 million the following year. Pending before Congress is a request by the Bush administration for $538 million more."

"Under President Clinton the aid was earmarked for counter-narcotics activities. But under the Bush administration it has become part of an anti-terrorism crusade, a catch-all that disingenuously lumps Colombian guerrillas and paramilitary thugs with Al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorists. In truth the new money would be gasoline on an already toasty fire."

".... The U.S. ought to be pressuring all parties to negotiate--the only way a 38-year-old civil war is going to be resolved--or at least refrain from fueling it with more military aid."

"From an anti-drug perspective, Plan Colombia, as the initial U.S. aid package was known, has been a flop. Coca growers have simply moved around inside Colombia or to neighboring countries, with no effect on either the supply or the availability of cocaine and other narcotics."

"President Bush's embrace of his counterpart in Colombia as a fellow warrior against terrorism is a poor excuse for staying involved in a civil war. With a real war against terrorists on its hands, and a possible war in Iraq, the U.S. ought to back off the mess in Colombia, and the sooner the better."

The alternative news media has been carrying similar views for quite a while. We hope that by the mainstream media jumping on the bandwagon, more pressure will be brought on the Administration to stop its unwise involvement in Colombia.

President Bush was in Denver today. He was greeted by more than 2000 anti-war protesters.

"In a scene reminiscent of anti-war protests of the 1960s, at least 2,000 people gathered Friday outside a fund-raiser featuring President Bush to rally against a possible war in Iraq. "

"Chanting ''No blood for oil,'' ''No war for votes'' and ''Hey hey, ho ho, this war machine has got to go,'' the protesters marched from the Denver City and County Building four blocks to the hotel where Bush was speaking. "

There were no arrests. "Inside the hotel, Bush spoke to a packed crowd at the $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser for Bob Beauprez, who is running in the 7th Congressional District. After the event, Bush went to Arizona. "

Bob Bezuprez? No way.....we're supporting Democrat Mike Feeley. We spoke with him earlier this week and he's personally opposed to the death penalty (although not going to make it a campaign issue) and he's likely to support the Innocence Protection Act. He has called us personally (not through a staffer) three times and even left his cell number. If you have a few extra bucks, send it his way.

Update: Here's more on Feeley -- we found it by way of Sideshow .

"Feeley, a former Marine, came out swinging at an evening debate at Red Rocks Community College, saying he was "really upset with our president right now."

"It is not the time to play politics with the possibility of going to war with Iraq and the possibility of losing young American lives," Feeley said."

"If he doesn't get an apology, Feeley said, "we'll play politics."

"I'll talk about every chicken-hawk Republican running for office - who never served a day in uniform defending this nation - asking for your vote so they can go to Washington and send someone else's child to war."

Another Update: Buzzflash has a first-person perspective on the protest and says the Denver Post confirms there were 2,000 protesters present.

Daily Kos has an excellent post today on the true cost of the 1991 Gulf War.

He includes this documented fact: "159,000 Gulf War vets are receiving disability payments from the government -- suffering from the still mysterious "Gulf War Syndrome....Thousands suffer from memory loss, dizziness, blurred vision, speech difficulties, nerve disorders, muscle weakness. Many have chronic skin disorders, including rashes. They have reported incidences of cancers in themselves and birth defects in their children, though U.S. government studies deny they are related to the war. "

Kos also outlines why a new war with Iraq will be even costlier.

Nation Columnist and MSNBC blogger Eric Alterman poses some real questions about the Bush Administration's plans to invade Iraq. Here's a few that particularly resonated with us:

"Why can't the FBI afford a decent computer system and people who know how to run it? Can't they hire Microsoft?"

"Why is John Ashcroft arresting people who grow medical marijuana? Ditto New Orleans hookers? Isn't there a war on? Don't the terrorists win if we give up pot and hookers?"

"What about those detention camps Ashcroft wanted for the purposes of indefinitely incarcerating US citizens deemed to be "enemy combatants," while stripping them of all constitutional rights, including the right to trial? Is that still happening? That sounds kinda bad."

To answer the last one, yes it's still happening and we suspect will happen even more. The so-called "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla and Yser Hamdi are still in custody, without lawyers and without charges.

We think the military has the right to accuse someone of being an enemy combatant but it should be a judge who makes the decision. In open court. At a hearing where they are afforded a right to a lawyer, the right to review the evidence against them and to call and cross-examine witnesses. Until and unless a court determines they are an enemy combatant, they should retain their rights as Americans. To say otherwise means the Government can brand someone with a label and then imprison them indefinitely, even forever. We think that's way too much power to give the Government.

"Who elected this guy anyway?"

Not the American people, and we'll have a chance to correct it in 2004.

The New York Times editorial today on The Politics of War makes some good points:

"Before risking the lives of American troops, Democrats and Republicans should closely examine Iraq options and make a decision on the merits rather than on the advice of their campaign strategists."

"The draft resolution proposed by Mr. Bush yesterday would give him virtually a free hand in attacking Iraq and trying to oust Mr. Hussein. The use of force may prove necessary, but there first needs to be a serious effort to give Baghdad one last chance to comply voluntarily with the U.N.'s disarmament demands. Working with the fractious Security Council can be maddening, but the effort must be made before Washington turns to the possibility of acting on its own. Democrats owe Mr. Bush careful deliberation about the possibility of war. They do the nation, and Mr. Bush, no service by charging ahead in lock step with the White House."

Our good pal Skippy the Bush Kangeroo takes us to the Buffalo News report that it was President Bush who ordered the arrests of the five alleged members of the Lackawanna purported "sleeper cell" with suspected ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network.

Skippy also has this to say in response to our "Buffalo Eight" post yesterday:

"it looks more and more to me like another dirty bomb case: the govt. needed some good publicity in their 'war on terror,' so they found somebody who talked to somebody who knew somebody who said something that made somebody think somehthing about somebody who might want to blow something up...if they got all the explosives and and the motivation and knew how to do it and nothing was on tv that day..."

"in other words, children, we have entered winston smith's world of thought crimes."

"when the buffalo 5 (as they were when first arrested) were taken into custody, and the next day, the press release said no guns were found, they weren't actually planning anything, i said to myself, it's just another attempt to distract us from the fact that we don't have jobs and there's a huge deficit and both osama bin laden and ken lay are still free men."

Toby Sackton over at Toby's Political Diary - 'Let it Begin Here' lays out the theory that Bush is telling "The Big Lie" the same way Joseph Goebel told "The Big Lie" that laid the foundation for the Holocaust. Leaving the aptness of the analogy aside, Toby sets out five reasons for Bush's "Big Lie", from him being a fundamentalist, to having represented oil interests his whole life, to losing to Afganistan, and deflecting attention away from home issues. Go read it, it's good.

Democratic Underground today publishes one man's autobiographical account of the conflict he faced as a drafted soldier in the days of Vietnam who was opposed to that war.

Titled Of Empire, War, Propaganda, and Courage, author Punpirate says:

"Intelligent people everywhere, therefore, have both the right and the obligation to express doubt when doubt arises. We have the right to demand honest answers from government (yes, I know, I know the futility of that exercise with the Bush administration). Had more of us, and more of our legislators, expressed doubt about the evidence regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, we might have prevented millions of unnecessary deaths and disabilities, American and Vietnamese alike, might have resolved a difficult problem with diplomacy instead of militancy, and might have engendered in many parts of the world a respect for the United States, instead of affirming fear and suspicion of our country. "

"Today, that same fear and suspicion of us is rising in the Arab and Islamic world because an administration purportedly representing the people of the United States has consciously chosen militancy over diplomacy and common sense. This current administration has chosen to do so, without adequately informing the American public of all the consequences, because of a very narrow view held by the most extreme and conservative elements of our society about America's determinist role as an empire. "

A new website, Stop the Rush to War in Iraq, offers easy to construct letters to be sent upon a click of your computer to your elected officials in Washington. The letter will reflect who you are and your specific concern about waging war in Iraq. Here are the site's options:

What's the rush?
There is no clear and present danger
We don't have the moral authority
We don't have the legal authority
War will destabilize the Middle East
War will jeopardize the War on Terror
We can't act alone on this one
We don't have the military capacity right now
We can't afford the cost right now
We're only in it for the money
It's just politics as usual
What is our government hiding?
We are being lied to
What happens if we win?
What happens if we lose?

(Via Counterspin)

The Baltimore Sun reports that Attorney General John Ashcroft has been lying low the past three months due to a run-in with the White House over his exaggeration of the importance of "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla.

"After nearly a year of constant public appearances, Attorney General John Ashcroft has become the Bush administration's Bigfoot - the mythical, rarely seen figure who shows up only briefly before quickly ducking away. Until he made a few appearances last week marking the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Ashcroft - a long-time politician who seems to enjoy the limelight - had kept an unusually low profile during the past three months. "

"The trigger for Ashcroft's vanishing act, according to news reports, was a run-in with the White House after he overstated the case against alleged terrorist Jose Padilla, who was initially accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb."

Senior Bush aides believed Padilla to be a mere "low level scout" for Al Qaeda. They were not happy with Ashcroft's spin.

"A Justice Department spokesman denied last week that the White House had ordered Ashcroft, a former Missouri governor who represented the state in the U.S. Senate, to keep quiet. But the attorney general's schedule shows a remarkable drop-off in news-making announcements."

"He held 17 news conferences in the three months before the Padilla announcement. In the three months afterward, he held one, a session Sept. 3 in which he announced that the nation was on a higher security alert."

Meanwhile, Padilla is still being held in a navy brig and has not been formally charged with a crime.

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright weighs in on Iraq in an op-ed article in today's New York Times.

Her main problem with attacking Iraq now is the timing:

"We should pick this fight at a moment that best suits our interests. And right now, our primary interest remains the thorough destruction and disruption of Al Qaeda and related terrorist networks. "

"Although the president's speech yesterday was persuasive in many respects, he was neither specific nor compelling in his effort to link Saddam Hussein to other, more urgent threats. As evil as Mr. Hussein is, he is not the reason antiaircraft guns ring the capital, civil liberties are being compromised, a Department of Homeland Defense is being created and the Gettysburg Address again seems directly relevant to our lives."

"In the aftermath of tragedy a year ago, the chief executive told our nation that fighting terrorism would be "the focus of my presidency." That — not Iraq — remains the right focus."

Law Professor Anita Ramasastry argues for an alternative to unilateral war with Iraq. She says that U.N. sponsored coercive inspections rather than war are the solutions that President Bush should propose when he speaks to the U.N. tomorrow.

Online Journal Contributing Editor Carla Bin tells us that the Boston Globe is one of the first mainstream papers to tell the truth about the real Bush motives for war.

According to the article, the real agenda of the Bush administration is reshaping the Middle East. Iraq is "merely a first step." Once Hussein is gone, the U.S. will have "more leverage to act against Syria and Iran." Oil and domination of the region, not a threat from Suddam Hussein, are the Administration's primary concerns.

Also check out Carla's article, The Masters of War and the Human Factor, a historical perspective on how the United States wages war.