“It’s a tragedy that U.S. soldiers have killed so many civilians in Baghdad… But it’s really incredible that the U.S. military does not even count these deaths. Any time U.S. forces kill an Iraqi civilian in questionable circumstances, they should investigate the incident.”

The US military says it has concluded only five investigations above the division level, ordered by the deputy commanding general, into alleged unlawful deaths. Of these, soldiers were found to have operated “within the rules of engagement” in four cases. In the fifth case, a helicopter pilot and his commander face disciplinary action for trying to tear down a Shi`a banner in Sadr City in Baghdad, an incident that provoked a violent clash with demonstrators on August 13.

…At his hurriedly-called press conference, Wednesday, October 29, Bush claimed that the U.S. military was "striking the enemy with force and precision" -- an ironic claim, since on Monday U.S. soldiers killed six Iraqi civilians in a reckless response to a roadside bomb. And Human Rights Watch reports that U.S. soldiers have killed at least 94 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad alone. …

… Ordinary Iraqis - many of them long-term enemies of Saddam Hussein - are attacking the American occupation army 35 times a day in the Baghdad area alone…

... Dean picked up an endorsement Tuesday from the California Teacher's Association, an unusual move so early in the campaign season. The CTA represents 335,000 teachers statewide.

"Wherever you go, far from Washington, Democrats share one thing in common: We've got to get George Bush out of the White House," said Eli Segal, Clark's campaign chairman. "I've never seen this kind of passion before."... Polling in early-contest states suggests that there is currency for the view that Democrats are aching for a winner. For instance, a survey taken earlier this month by Stanley Greenberg, a Democrat not aligned with any candidate, found that when asked what they preferred in their nominee, Democratic voters in New Hampshire chose electability over ideology by 53 percent to 40 percent...

...rarely has a candidate for president so banked on electability as Clark has. And rarely has a candidate who has proved so popular in states with early contests grappled with the doubts that have surrounded Dean.

The retired general's claim of electability is not without doubters of its own. Many of his supporters were surprised to learn that he had spoken warmly of Bush, had voted for Nixon and Reagan, and had said he probably would have voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the war in Iraq, a stance he later recanted.

Advisers to some rival campaigns argue that positions like those would present an inviting target to the White House and that they fundamentally undermine Clark's case for electability...

... his aides say, the strongest argument for his candidacy is that he has the best chance of beating Bush. "Electability has emerged as a top issue in this race," said Chris Lehane, a senior Clark adviser. "And that is primarily a function of the fact that Democrats are so angry with the direction under Bush that above all else, they want to find a candidate who can beat Bush."...

... shrugging off the electability argument, Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, said that Democrats underestimated his candidate's appeal in the early days of the primary race and that any assessment that he would be a weak general-election candidate would also be proved wrong. Voters, he said, respond to appeals that are based on issues and values. "Bill Clinton didn't say, `Vote for me because I'm going to win,' " Mr. Trippi said. "I don't think people vote that way."

Nonetheless, questions about Dean's electability have shadowed him even as he rocketed to the top of many polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. In an appearance on "Iowa Press," an interview program on public television, he was challenged as to whether he was capable of winning the general election. He responded intensely, if wearily.

"It's possible that I am the only Democrat who can get elected... And let me tell you why: Every other Democrat in this race believes that the way to beat Bush is to be like Bush. I believe the way to beat Bush is to bring a lot of new people into this process."

... Campaigning this week in Wisconsin and New Hampshire, Clark pulled no punches in his indictment of the war and the president who launched it.

Attacking Iraq, he argued, was not just a mistake but a "national tragedy" that will "be looked at as a disastrous turn of events in U.S. history."

President Bush not only exaggerated the Iraq threat, Clark said, but also deceived people about it, pulling a "bait and switch" by using Sept. 11 as a "pretext" for going after Saddam Hussein.

"If someone wrote it in a novel and said, 'Can you imagine this would happen to the United States, our country would be struck and we'd strike back at a different country that didn't have anything to do with it?', you'd say, 'Can't be!' " Clark told listeners in Milwaukee. "But it is."

In a speech Tuesday, Clark said Bush's description of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the "axis of evil" was "probably the single worst formulation in the last half-century in American foreign policy."

And he assailed Bush not only over Iraq, but also over Sept. 11 - accusing him of trying to duck responsibility for the attacks - and Afghanistan, saying the United States should have gone through the United Nations and NATO as it struck back at Osama bin Laden.

The Bush record? "An almost unbroken string of foreign policy failures," the former NATO commander said.

"America needs a leader the world can trust," said Clark, "and we don't have one now."
An about-face

The scope and ferocity of Clark's foreign policy broadsides have been noted by his Democratic rivals and Republicans. Both have taken him to task. They say he's trying to score points with anti-Bush Democratic primary voters after praising Bush's leadership before he became a candidate - and after seeing the momentum of his much-publicized entry in the race fade....

If United States President George W Bush was surprised on his recent trip to Indonesia by the negative image the country's Muslim leaders had of his administration, he is unlikely to be reassured by two new surveys from Latin America and Europe. The details are laid out by David Sanger in the nyt

Bush's highest negatives were found in the region's traditional powerhouses: Brazil (98 percent), Argentina (93 percent) and Mexico (92 percent), according to the survey. (incidentally, Brazil’s President, Luis 'Lula' da Silva is most Popular, according to that poll, because he is seen through his activities of in the G20 as one person standing up to US trade barriers, especially when the US is crowing about the virtues of “free trade” to the rest of the world. Check out this account of the results of the collapse of the recent WTO conference in Cancun. )

The notion that a free-trade accord would favor Washington over Latin America was particularly strong in the region's two biggest economies, Brazil and Mexico, where three of four respondents said the US would benefit most.

Only 6 percent of the 7,515 people polled said that they believe Washington should be in charge of security in Iraq, while 43 percent agreed the job should be given to the United Nations.

Only 4 percent of respondents there said they accepted Washington's main stated reason for going to war - to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. More than four in 10 said that they believed the principal objective was to secure Iraq's oil reserves.

Gallup Poll of Baghdad: Gauging U.S. Intent

Although 62% of Baghdad residents who participated in Gallup's landmark poll of that city said ousting Saddam Hussein was worth any personal hardships they have endured since the invasion, most [Baghdad residents] are deeply skeptical of the initial rationale the coalition has given for its action.

They are glad to see Saddam Hussein gone — as shown by their desire to punish members of the old regime — but they don't really trust the Americans who drove him out.

Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr. said Monday that he would soon endorse Howard Dean for the Democratic presidential nomination… Dean has "the best chance to be the next president of the United States."

Introducing Dean to a Chicago university audience, Jackson observed that I’ve seen him stand up for

• health care

• students

• ordinary Americans

“Now, I'm asking you to stand up for Howard Dean."

The support of Congressman Jackson, the son of Jesse Jackson, has been coveted by several presidential contenders in part because he carries some of the imprimatur of his father.

Other African-Americans indicating, and/or edging toward, endorsement of Dean’s candicacy for president include are

Jonathan Jackson, brother to Congressman Jackson, Congressman Major R. Owens of Brooklyn as better-known black leaders backing Dr. Dean.

Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Detroit and Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston.

Dean: "Congressman Jackson has been one of the major new up-and-coming African-American leaders in this country, and he has been enormously helpful already."

As for Mr. Jesse Jackson Sr., Dean said, "We've spent a lot of time on the phone with him," adding, "He is probably the pre-eminent spokesman for civil rights and economic justice, so he's enormously important to a candidate like me."

Representatives of a new coalition of prominent foreign-policy scholars and analysts whose political views range from right to centre-left announced Thursday October 17, 2003 they hope to spearhead opposition to the imperial policies pursued by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Leaders of the 'Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy' charged that the administration is moving "in a dangerous direction toward empire," an idea that they said has never been embraced by the U.S. public.

The spokespersons said they will hold a series of policy forums and conferences around the country, publish papers and articles, and represent an anti-imperial viewpoint on television and radio, media that, since the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon, have been largely dominated by pro-imperial or pro-war voices.

"We are a diverse group of scholars and analysts from across the political spectrum who believe that the move toward empire must be halted immediately," says the coalition's charter statement, signed by 44 foreign-policy specialists.

"We are united by our desire to turn American national security policy toward realistic and sustainable measures for protecting U.S. vital interests in a manner that is consistent with American values," it added.

"The time for debate is now," the charter states, noting that imperial policies "can quickly gain momentum, with new interventions begetting new dangers."

Among the more prominent right-wing signers are Doug Bandow, a special assistant to former president Ronald Reagan and now a senior officer at the libertarian Cato Institute, Scott McConnell, chief editor of The American Conservative magazine and Alan Tonelson of the U.S. Business & Industrial Council Educational Foundation.

Representing more centrist positions are Steven Clemons of the New America Foundation, former senator Gary Hart and Harvard international relations professor Stephen Walt.

More left-wing figures in the group include Charles Kupchan, an aide to former president Bill Clinton now with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Kenneth Sharpe, a prominent foreign-policy analyst from Swarthmore College in Philadelphia.

The launch of the coalition, which intends to recruit other members, comes amid growing concern in both the U.S. Congress and the public about the aftermath of Washington's invasion of Iraq last March. …

Kupchan noted that the public dialogue on Washington's global role had been far too muted, if one-sided, since the 9/11 attacks. "Now there's been a shift in the country that has taken place," he said. "The fact that we're all together here speaks volumes about the degree to which our foreign policy is off course."

The coalition … will … focus on the recruitment of foreign-policy specialists and analysts who can help frame the context for public and media debate. A major target of the group will be the "neo-conservative" strategists in and around the administration, especially those close to Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who led the charge into Iraq, continue to argue for military and other actions against Syria, Iran, and North Korea, and promoted the larger strategic vision of global U.S. military dominance.

The coalition's purpose: … to publicly take on liberals and conservatives who support the administration's imperial policies, beginning with its 'National Security Strategy.'

… Democrats Fear Dean
Posted by NYC Republican PoliPundit.com |

Congressional Democrats are afraid of what a Howard Dean nomination would do to them: Vulnerable House Democrats are worried that Howard Dean’s negative coattails will whisk them out of office in 2004. The incumbent lawmakers — especially those from culturally conservative Southern states — are concerned that if he is nominated, the former Vermont governor’s antiwar, pro-gay positions will create a national mood that will make it more difficult for Democratic incumbents to keep their seats, let alone win back the House. If it's bad for House members, it's worse for senators. As I put it in June, when I...

Focus on the Family [leader, James Dobson,] Decries Media Lambasting of Lt. General Boykin; Worldwide Ministry Alarmed at Anti-Christian Attacks
…
Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James Dobson expressed outrage over the vicious media treatment Lt. Gen. William Boykin has received for making Christian statements in reference to the war on terrorism.

"We are extremely distressed by the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and others' treatment of Gen. Boykin. Since when does a man not have the right to express his private religious views in the company of fellow believers?" asked Dobson. "Does a man forfeit his freedom of speech when he becomes a military leader?"

Dobson also explained that Gen. Boykin's comments were directed to a Christian audience who clearly understood the meaning of his message.

"Every conservative Christian would understand the language that Gen. Boykin used to describe what is known as spiritual warfare. His words were consistent with mainstream evangelical beliefs and he had a right to express them."

Dobson further lashed out at Boykin's vocal media critics, describing a record of antagonism toward Christians in the public square.

"General Boykin was speaking about terrorists with no regard for human life, not peaceful Muslims. Nothing in the excerpts of his speeches can even remotely be construed as an attack on Islam. Yet, his critics are all too eager to draw inferences that don't exist. These diatribes against Gen. Boykin are consistent with the denigration of anyone in public life who has the temerity to speak openly about his faith. This is nothing more than an assault on the Christian faith, which is becoming a very common occurrence in the mainstream media."

Dr. James Dobson also addresses the issues raised by Lt. General Boykin's comments during the first part of today's Focus on the Family radio broadcast.

The entire broadcast can be heard by visiting http://www.family.org

Phone Campaign Organized in Support of US General Who Made Controversial Remarks on Islam

A conservative Christian activist has organized a phone campaign in support of a U.S. army general who has sparked controversy over his remarks casting the war on terrorism in religious terms.

Pentagon officials confirm that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office has been flooded with phone calls in support of Lieutenant General William Boykin.

James C. Dobson, founder of the non-profit organization Focus on the Family, which produces his internationally syndicated radio programs, organized the campaign and publicized the secretary's phone number. …

After Bush took office, a coalition arranged to ask Karl Rove to lobby Bush that the United States intercede in the civil war in Sudan. The group included Charles W. Colson, the born-again Christian who spent seven months in jail for his role in Watergate. … Although twenty-year war in Sudan was not that important in the Bush admin,… the religious strife between Christians and Muslims in a conflict that had killed two million people was of enormous concern to American religious groups, particularly the evangelicals who make up a major portion of President Bush's electoral base.

Rove, the participants in the meeting recalled, was unusually receptive during a nearly hourlong conversation. "He made it clear how seriously the administration was going to engage on this," said Rabbi Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

Close to three years later, the White House has lived up to Rove's promise to engage not only in peace talks in Sudan, but on other human rights issues of critical importance to American religious groups, most notably sex trafficking and AIDS.

Administration officials and members of Congress say the religious coalition has had an unusual influence on one of the most religious White Houses in American history. The groups have driven aspects of foreign policy and won major appointments, and they were instrumental in making sure that the president included extensive remarks on sex trafficking in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September.

No one disputes that Bush already cares deeply about those issues and has a personal faith that his advisers say brings a moral dimension to a foreign policy better known for war. "To put it simply, it's a fairly radical belief that a child in an African village whose parents are dying of AIDS has the same importance before God as the president of the United States," said Michael Gerson, Bush's chief speechwriter and an important White House policy adviser who is a born-again Christian.

But it is also true, religious leaders and administration officials note, that white evangelicals accounted for about 40 percent of the votes that Bush received in the 2000 presidential election. In 2004 , political analysts say, he is unlikely to be re-elected without the strong support of this constituency, which is predominately but not wholly Republican, and which in other years has thrown significant support to southern Democrats like Bill Clinton. Rove is now tending to the constituency with great care.

"You're not going to run into too many people who are smarter than Karl," said Dr. Richard D. Land, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Co