... MARK SHIELDS: Jim, what has fascinated me about this whole debate has been how it has shifted each time with the objective. [1] It was defanging Saddam Hussein. And then [2] it was deposing Saddam Hussein. And then [3] it was protecting us against an imminent threat from Iraq. And now [4] it turns out, enforcing U.N. resolutions. Now it turns out that [5] it is to bring democracy to the Middle East. I don't know anybody, anybody, serious, who believes that the way to peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis lies in the invasion and occupation of Baghdad. I really don't. I mean I've talked to people who fought there, who have been there, who spent their lives involved there.

The president did lay it out. Paul is right. And I think it is something he had to do. I think the analogy to Germany after War World II limps. Germany had had democracy prior to Hitler. And they had the Marshal Plan. There is no mention of the Marshal Plan. The administration doesn't want to talk about costs. I mean Paul Wolfowitz basically said no, no, we don't have any figures, which everybody knows is a lie. They have figures. They have been discussing it with the president. But they don't want to talk about it. They will come up with another appropriation request when there are troops in the field and then everybody votes for the $95 billion they have to ask for.

According to the audience analysis company Nielsen NetRatings, US traffic to the UK's biggest news sites, BBC News Online and Guardian Unlimited, has increased dramatically over the past year, reports Journalism.co.uk media news website. Jon Dennis, deputy news editor of the Guardian Unlimited web site said: "We have noticed an upsurge in traffic from America, primarily because we are receiving more e-mails from US visitors thanking us for reporting on worldwide news in a way that is unavailable in the US media. "American visitors are telling us they are unable to find the breadth of opinion we have on our website anywhere else because we report across the political spectrum rather than from just one perspective.

MURHAF JOUEJATI: I wish I could; I wish I could be as optimistic as this. I agree totally that people of Iraq are tired of this tyrannical and militarist regime. Where there is a marked difference with Germany, for example, is that before the fascist days of Mr. Hitler there was a democratic tradition in Germany. There is no such thing in Iraq. Iraq, which is a nation of thousands of years of history, has never had a democratic tradition. So although I wish very much for democracy to occur in Iraq it's going to take a very, very long time, if only to build the very human and physical infrastructure that a democracy requires....
MURHAF JOUEJATI: Democratization is wonderful, but the key to peace in the Middle East is the end of occupation and occupation that engenders and triggers terrorism. If we want to defeat terrorism we are going to have to take away its causes, which is the end of Israeli occupation. And if Mr. Bush is as adamant as he says he is about Iraq abiding by U.N. resolutions, then by God, Israel too must abide by U.N. resolutions.

Creating stability in Iraq - the kind of "nation building" Bush has dismissed in the past - is likely to be much harder. "Those of us who study democracy fulltime often talk about the list of basics you need," says James Walsh, an international-security expert at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government: "a robust middle class, a tradition of democracy, a variety of civil institutions [such as] lawyers' groups, unions, a strong and independent judiciary, a free, strong press - basically, a civil society, a civil structure, the underpinning for democracy."
"None of those are present in Iraq," adds Mr. Walsh.

A career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan resigned this week in protest against the country's policies on Iraq. The diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, the political counselor at the United States Embassy in Athens, said in his resignation letter, "Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson." Mr. Kiesling, 45, who has been a diplomat for about 20 years, said in a telephone interview tonight that he faxed the letter to Secretary of State Colin L, Powell on Monday after informing Thomas Miller, the ambassador in Athens, of his decision. He said he had acted alone, but "I've been comforted by the expressions of support I've gotten afterward" from colleagues."No one has any illusions that the policy will be changed," he said. "Too much has been invested in the war."

... The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

You can’t say they haven’t tried. The administration has rolled out every possible message and messenger it could to get the American public to join the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld red-blooded hawk team. But, as the latest spate of numbers reveal, the public still leans toward the tough dove team (“yes, we’re willing to support a war, but only as a last resort and once we’ve moved heaven and earth to get UN and allied support”). That’s got to worry the GOP since that means they’ll go into the war—which they seem irrevocably committed to—with a reluctant public, likely to react quickly and negatively to setbacks, casualties, and the inevitable messiness of a post-invasion military occupation. ...

You’ve got to hand it to the Bushies. They’ve got the chutzpah to tout their new tax cut plan as an economic elixir, because, well, the first one worked so well! So well, huh? If that’s the case, why is the public so darn negative about the economy these days?

Check out these numbers. According to Gallup, only 18 percent of the public now rates economic conditions as good or excellent, while 34 percent say they’re poor. That’s the weakest rating for the economy since November, 1993. At the same time, nearly two out of three adults (63 percent) think the economy is getting worse, more than twice as many as think it is getting better (26 percent).

"The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration headed by a yet-to-be named American civilian who would direct the reconstruction of the country and the creation of a 'representative' Iraqi government, according to a now-finalized blueprint described by U.S. officials and other sources," DeYoung reported.

"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."

Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, unleashed a tirade today against former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont and other Democrats who oppose a war with Iraq, saying the Democrats were fast becoming "the appeasement party of the future."

Meeting with reporters in his Capitol office, Mr. DeLay said the Democrats were pursuing a "reckless strategy" in fighting the war and singled out Dr. Dean, a presidential candidate who last week accused President Bush of trying to wage a unilateral war.
"I saw his speech on C-Span, and I think it was outrageous," Mr. DeLay said. "He either doesn't know what he's talking about when he says we're going to take unilateral action, or he's seriously uninformed, or he's just misleading the American people and his party."...[There's more]

Q: Ari, in Mexico, the President will continue to call President Fox to pressure him to change his mind against -- and to vote in the
Security Council? What Mexico can get from the United States if it votes yes for the resolution that was presented by this country?

MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, this entire matter will be dealt with in a matter of diplomacy and logic and expressions of our position. And
nations then will be in a position as sovereigns to evaluate that information. This is why the Security Council is set up with 10 members who rotate on to the Council. This is a moment for 10 nations that would not typically be on the Security Council to have their moment, as part of the international community's regimes to enforce peace and to fight proliferation.


Q: But Mexico can get something from the United States, from the President --

MR. FLEISCHER: This is a time -- no, the President is not offering quid pro quos. This is a time for nations to do what they estimate is
the right thing to do to promote the peace.

Q: Ari, just to follow up on Mexico. Is it true that the administration is willing to give Mexico some sort of immigration agreements like amnesty or guest worker program, to assure the Mexican vote, as the French press is pointing out today and is quoting, actually, two different diplomats from the State Department?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's exactly as I indicated, that we have, on this issue, a matter of diplomacy and a matter of the merits. We ask each
nation on the Security Council to weigh the merits and make a decision about war and peace. And if anybody thinks that there are nations like
Mexico, whose vote could be bought on the basis of a trade issue or something else like that, I think you're giving -- doing grave
injustice to the independence and the judgment of the leaders of other nations.
Q: -- the French press is quoting actually two different diplomats from the United States State Department that -- they're highlighting
that the United States is giving some sort of agreements or benefits to Colombia -- and other non-members of the Security Council --

MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't seen the story. And you already have the answer, about what this will be decided on. But think about the
implications of what you're saying. You're saying that the leaders of other nations are buyable. And that is not an acceptable proposition.
(Laughter.)

Thank you.

By setting an end-of-March deadline for Iraqi compliance, the Canadian scenario would give Saddam an extra two weeks beyond the implied date for a possible invasion in a game plan outlined by the U.S. administration.
A March 28th time limit could trigger an invasion three months before the program envisioned by France, Germany, Russia and other countries. "We view the Canadian proposal favourably and are working on this," said a Chilean diplomat at that country's mission to the United Nations, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We think it is better than the French position which allows this situation to continue indefinitely." Chile is one of 10 temporary members of the Security Council and will vote on any resolution on Iraq. Chrétien has discussed the Canadian "middle way" proposal with Chilean President Ricardo Lagos by telephone. He expects similar backing from Mexico after arriving in that country Wednesday for talks with Mexican President Vicente Fox. Representatives from Pakistan and Cameroon were also interested enough in the Canadian ideas to take them back to their respective capitals for discussion.

On the one hand, the US, backed by Britain and Spain, will seek the six countries' support for a new UN resolution introduced Monday that would place an international imprimatur on the use of force to disarm Iraq.
But also on Monday, France, Germany, and Russia began circulating in the 15-member Council their own proposal for enhancing weapons inspections as a way to put off war.

The objective, experts say, is to win the crucial battle for international public opinion. "It's not a United Nations blessing of US action that we need. It's the support of domestic and international opinion, and going through the UN is the way we get that," says Ivo Daalder, a foreign-policy expert at the Brookings Institution here. If the US is to fight a war with any country at its side, it will be only with a new UN resolution, Mr. Daalder adds. "[British Prime Minister] Tony Blair needs it for his domestic audience ... so does Spain, so does Italy," he says - and that means a Council majority of nine must be won over. The White House acknowledges that while the US holds to its view that authorization for war is contained in previous resolutions - including 1441, which passed the Council unanimously last November - the new resolution is a concession to allies such as Britain that face strong antiwar majorities at home.

Judges must be more vigilant in preventing the use of race as a factor in jury selection under a tougher standard established by the US Supreme Court.The new standard emerges in the case of a Texas death-row inmate who said he was denied a fair trial when prosecutors excluded 10 of 11 qualified African-Americans from serving on his jury. In an 8-to-1 decision [Can you believe it! Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter] with implications for capital cases nationwide, the court ruled Tuesday that a federal judge and a federal appeals court panel wrongly denied the defendant an opportunity to raise the issue on appeal....
Some experts consider the decision noteworthy for the court the justices went against. "In addition to the fact that their reversal was so decisive," says University of Houston law professor David Dow, "the fifth circuit being one of the most conservative courts is also extremely important."

...[Powell] knows that our elected leaders lied repeatedly to the American people about Vietnam -- about its risks, about its excesses, about the chances for U.S. victory. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?

So why does Powell now mouth the misstatements and distortions -- the lies, really -- that the Bush administration is using to sell the American people on its proposed invasion of Iraq? Why does Powell allow himself to be badly misused by repeating the canard that Saddam Hussein is clearly linked to Osama bin Laden?

If the first casualty of war is truth, then the second casualty of this war is Powell's credibility. (The third casualty may be Tony Blair's political career, but that's another column.)...