The Roots of Prisoner Abuse

The New York Times | Editorial Saturday 30 July 2005

This week, the White House blocked a Senate vote on a measure sponsored by a half-dozen Republicans, including Senator John McCain, that would prohibit cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment of prisoners. Besides being outrageous on its face, that action served as a reminder of how the Bush administration ducks for cover behind the men and women in uniform when challenged on military policy, but ignores their advice when it seems inconvenient.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican who has shown real political courage on this issue, recently released documents showing that the military's top lawyers had warned a year before the Abu Ghraib nightmare came to light that detainee policies imposed by the White House and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld violated American and international law and undermined the standards of civilized treatment embedded in the American military tradition.

In February 2003, Maj. Gen. Jack Rives, the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, reminded his civilian bosses that American rules on the treatment of prisoners had grown out of Vietnam, where captured Americans, like Mr. McCain, were tortured. "We have taken the legal and moral 'high road' in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate," he wrote. Abandoning those rules, he said, endangered every American soldier.

General Rives and the other military lawyers argued strongly against declaring that Mr. Bush was above the law when it came to antiterrorism operations. But the president's team ignored them, offering up a pretzel logic that General Rives and the other military experts warned would not fool anyone. Rear Adm. Michael Lohr, the Navy's judge advocate general, said that the situation at the American prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba might be so legalistically unique that the Geneva Conventions and even the Constitution did not necessarily apply. But he asked, "Will the American people find we have missed the forest for the trees by condoning practices that, while technically legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values?"

General Rives said that if the White House permitted abusive interrogations at Guantánamo Bay, it would not be able to restrict them to that single prison. He argued that soldiers elsewhere would conclude that their commanders were condoning illegal behavior. And that is precisely what happened at Abu Ghraib after the general who organized the abuse of prisoners at Guantánamo went to Iraq to toughen up the interrogation of prisoners there.

The White House ignored these military lawyers' advice two years ago. Now it is trying to kill the measure that would define the term "illegal combatants," set rules for interrogations and prohibit cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners. The president considers this an undue restriction of his powers. It's not only due; it's way overdue.

Why Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe ...

By Daniel Benjamin Time Magazine 18 July 2005 Issue

Sir Ivor Roberts, Britain's Ambassador to Italy, declared last September that the "best recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda" was none other than the US President, George W. Bush. With the American election entering its final furlongs, he added, "If anyone is ready to celebrate the eventual re-election of Bush, it is al-Qaeda." The remarks, made at an off-the-record conference, were leaked in the Italian press, and Sir Ivor, facing the displeasure of his Foreign Office masters for committing the sin of candor, disowned the comments. But now, as the soot settles in the London Underground, the words hang again in the air.

It is, of course, bad manners to point the finger at anyone but those responsible for the killings in London. They shed the blood; they must answer for it. But as the trail of bodies that began with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 continues to lengthen, we need to ask why the attacks keep coming. One key reason is that Osama bin Laden's "achievements" in standing up to the American colossus on 9/11 have inspired others to follow his lead. Another is that American actions - above all, the invasion and occupation of Iraq - have galvanized still more Muslims and convinced them of the truth of bin Laden's vision.

The conflict between radical Islam and the West, like all ideological struggles, is about competing stories. The audience is the global community of Muslims. America portrays itself as a benign and tolerant force that, with its Western partners, holds the keys to progress and prosperity. Radical Islamists declare that the universe is governed by a war between believers and World Infidelity, which comes as an intruder into the realm of Islam wearing various masks: secularism, Zionism, capitalism, globalization. World Infidelity, they argue, is determined to occupy Muslim lands, usurp Muslims' wealth and destroy Islam.

Invading Iraq, however noble the US believed its intentions, provided the best possible confirmation of the jihadist claims and spurred many of Europe's alienated Muslims to adopt the Islamist cause as their own. The evidence is available in the elaborate underground railroad that has brought hundreds of European Muslims to the fight in Iraq. And the notion that the West would enhance its security by occupying Iraq has proved utterly illusory. Coalition forces in Iraq face daily attacks from jihadists not because Saddam Hussein had trained a cadre of terrorists - we know there was no pre-existing relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaeda - but because the US invasion brought the targets into the proximity of the killers.

Those who bombed the Madrid commuter lines last year were obsessed with Iraq. They delighted in the videotape that showed Iraqis rejoicing alongside the bodies of seven Spanish intelligence agents who were killed outside Baghdad in November 2003; they spoke of the need to punish Spain (their adoptive country) for supporting America; they recruited others to fight in the insurgency. They began work on their plot the day after hearing an audiotaped bin Laden threaten "all the countries that participate in this unjust war [in Iraq] - especially Britain, Spain, Australia, Poland, Japan and Italy." It had been the first time Spain had been mentioned in an al-Qaeda hit list.

We may learn that the London bombers were, like the Madrid crew, a bunch of self-starter terrorists with few or no ties to bin Laden. US and partner intelligence services have done such a good job running to ground members of the original group that there may be no connection with the remnants of al-Qaeda's command on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. We may also learn that the killers belong to a network being built by Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, who has emerged in Iraq as bin Laden's heir apparent.

Or we may find that the bombings were engineered by returnees from Iraq. Muslims from Britain, France, Germany and elsewhere - along with several thousand from Arab countries - have traveled to Iraq to fight in what has become a theater of inspiration for the jihadist drama of faith. A handful are known to have trickled back to Europe already. Western intelligence services fear that more are on the way and will pose a bigger danger than the returnees from Afghanistan in the 1980s and '90s, the global jihad's first generation of terrorists. The anxiety is justified; the fighters in Iraq are, as the CIA has observed, getting better on-the-job training than was available in al-Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan.

Britain has been on al-Qaeda's target list since the group's earliest days in the 1990s; the country's appointment with terror was ensured. But now, because of the invasion of Iraq, it faces a longer and bloodier confrontation with radical Islam, as does the US America has shown itself to be good at hunting terrorists. Unfortunately, by occupying Iraq, it has become even better at creating them.

Bush Honesty Rating Drops to Lowest Point

By Mark Murray NBC News Wednesday 13 July 2005

NBC/WSJ poll: Iraq replaces jobs as most important American priority.

Washington - The last two weeks certainly have been eventful ones in America and across the globe: President Bush gave a prime-time speech on Iraq and attended a G-8 summit in Scotland; Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement from the Supreme Court (with perhaps another retirement on the way); and suicide bombers killed approximately 50 people in London. After these events, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that Bush's overall job rating has slipped and that his rating for being "honest and straightforward" has dropped to its lowest point.

Regarding Bush's upcoming pick to replace O'Connor on the court, moreover, the poll shows that strong majorities believe Bush would be taking a step in the right direction if he appointed a woman and someone who supports references to God in public life. But a majority also thinks that Bush would take a wrong step if he chose someone who would vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

The survey, which was conducted from July 8-11 among 1,009 adults, and which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, finds that respondents, by a 49 percent-to-46 percent margin, disapprove of Bush's job performance. That's a drop from the last NBC/Journal poll in May, when 47 percent approved and 47 percent disapproved. In addition, the only time when Bush's job rating has been worse was in June 2004, when 45 percent approved of his performance.

Furthermore, only 41 percent give Bush good marks for being "honest and straightforward" - his lowest ranking on this question since he became president. That's a drop of nine percentage points since January, when a majority (50 percent to 36 percent) indicated that he was honest and straightforward. This finding comes at a time when the Bush administration is battling the perception that its rhetoric doesn't match the realities in Iraq, and also allegations that chief political adviser Karl Rove leaked sensitive information about a CIA agent to a reporter. (The survey, however, was taken just before these allegations about Rove exploded into the current controversy.)

"It's a bad period for the president," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican Bill McInturff. Hart attributes Bush's problems to "one part the economy, two parts Iraq, and one part everything else." In fact, he is somewhat surprised that Bush's ratings didn't increase slightly after the London attacks. "I am sort of surprised we don't see more a skew toward rallying around anti-terrorism."

But McInturff sees Bush's poll numbers as part of a broader indictment against all of Washington and politics as usual. "These are problematic numbers, but there are a lot of indications that the other option - the Democratic Party - is also in a much weaker position than it started the year." He adds that the public's negative attitude toward Washington could intensify if Democrats and Republicans begin battling over Bush's eventual choice to replace O'Connor on the Supreme Court. "This is a very difficult climate to begin [that] conversation," McInturff said.

Also according to the poll, the public ranks the war in Iraq as the top priority the federal government should address, followed by job creation and then homeland security. In January's NBC/Journal poll, the economy ranked first - followed by Iraq and then homeland security.

On Bush's upcoming pick for the Supreme Court, strong majorities believe Bush would be making a positive step if he appointed a justice who continues to allow references to God in public life (63 percent), who is a woman (60 percent), and who upholds affirmative action laws and policies (55 percent). However, 50 percent think Bush would be making a mistake if his choice changes the court's balance on Roe v. Wade. "There are chunks of people who are certainly right-to-life who are willing to leave [Roe v. Wade] alone," McInturff explained.

The poll also notes that 41 percent (vs. 30 percent) want Bush to appoint a strong conservative to the court, while a nearly equal proportion (40 percent to 25 percent) would like for him to take into consideration the views of secular and liberal groups.

Abu Ghraib Tactics Were First Used at Guantánamo

By Josh White The Washington Post Thursday 14 July 2005

Interrogators at the US detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, forced a stubborn detainee to wear women's underwear on his head, confronted him with snarling military working dogs and attached a leash to his chains, according to a newly released military investigation that shows the tactics were employed there months before military police used them on detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The techniques, approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for use in interrogating Mohamed Qahtani - the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks - were used at Guantánamo Bay in late 2002 as part of a special interrogation plan aimed at breaking down the silent detainee.

Military investigators who briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday on the three-month probe, called the tactics "creative" and "aggressive" but said they did not cross the line into torture.

The report's findings are the strongest indication yet that the abusive practices seen in photographs at Abu Ghraib were not the invention of a small group of thrill-seeking military police officers. The report shows that they were used on Qahtani several months before the United States invaded Iraq.

The investigation also supports the idea that soldiers believed that placing hoods on detainees, forcing them to appear nude in front of women and sexually humiliating them were approved interrogation techniques for use on detainees.

A central figure in the investigation, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who commanded the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay and later helped set up US operations at Abu Ghraib, was accused of failing to properly supervise Qahtani's interrogation plan and was recommended for reprimand by investigators. Miller would have been the highest-ranking officer to face discipline for detainee abuses so far, but Gen. Bantz Craddock, head of the US Southern Command, declined to follow the recommendation.

Miller traveled to Iraq in September 2003 to assist in Abu Ghraib's startup, and he later sent in "Tiger Teams" of Guantánamo Bay interrogators and analysts as advisers and trainers. Within weeks of his departure from Abu Ghraib, military working dogs were being used in interrogations, and naked detainees were humiliated and abused by military police soldiers working the night shift.

Miller declined to respond to questions posed through a Defense Department liaison. Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said it is not appropriate to link the interrogation of Qahtani - an important al Qaeda operative captured shortly after the terrorist attacks - and events at Abu Ghraib. Whitman said interrogation tactics in the Army's field manual are the same worldwide but MPs at Abu Ghraib were not authorized to apply them, regardless of how they learned about them.

Some of the Abu Ghraib soldiers have said they were following the directions of military intelligence officials to soften up detainees for interrogation, in part by depriving them of sleep. Pvt. Charles A. Graner Jr., characterized as the ringleader of the MP group, was found guilty of abusing detainees and is serving 10 years in prison. Others have pleaded guilty and received lesser sentences.

The photos that caused alarm around the world included some showing the MPs sexually humiliating the detainees.

While Rumsfeld approved a list of 16 harsh techniques for use at Guantánamo on Dec. 2, 2002, most of the techniques were general and allowed for interpretation by interrogators. Many of the techniques involving humiliation were part of a standard "futility" or "ego down" approach.

"Reasonable people always suspected these techniques weren't invented in the backwoods of West Virginia," said Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch. "It's never been more clear than in this investigation."

Also yesterday, a federal district judge in Washington issued a ruling in which he declined to stop the interrogation of a young Canadian detainee at Guantánamo Bay who has alleged that he was tortured. The detainee said in court filings that he was "short-shackled" to the floor, threatened with sexual abuse and physically mistreated.

The 18-year-old detainee, identified as "OK," was arrested after a gunfight in Afghanistan in July 2002, when he was 15. He had asked the court for a preliminary injunction to stop what he called abusive interrogation tactics.

The investigation at Guantánamo Bay looked into 26 allegations by FBI personnel that military interrogators had mistreated detainees. It found that almost all the tactics were "authorized" interrogation methods and by definition were not abusive.

Investigators found only three instances of substantiated abuse, including short-shackling detainees to the floor in awkward positions, the use of duct tape to keep a detainee quiet, and a threat by military interrogators to kill a detainee and his family.

In the case of Qahtani, who endured weeks of sleep deprivation and many of the harshest techniques, Lt. Gen. Mark Schmidt and Brig. Gen. John Furlow found that the cumulative effect of those tactics "resulted in degrading and abusive treatment" but stopped short of torture. Military commanders have said the techniques prompted Qahtani to talk.

The military achieved "solid intelligence gains," by interrogating Qahtani, Craddock said yesterday, and other military officials have said he revealed details on how the terrorist network operates.

The Schmidt-Furlow investigation is the last of about a dozen major Pentagon probes into abuse over the past 15 months.

The abuses at Abu Ghraib included military police taking photos of themselves mimicking the tactics used at Guantánamo Bay. Several photographs taken in late 2003 at the prison outside Baghdad show detainees wearing women's underwear on their heads, detainees shackled to their cell doors or beds in awkward positions, and naked detainees standing before female soldiers. Perhaps the most famous image is of Pfc. Lynndie England holding a leash attached to a detainee's neck.

Qahtani, according to the investigative report, was once attached to a leash and made to walk around the room and "perform a series of dog tricks." The report also notes the use of "gender coercion," in which women straddle a detainee or get too close to them, violating prohibitions for devout Muslim men on contact with women. Interrogators also threatened to tell other detainees that an individual is gay, according to the report. Detainees at Abu Ghraib were posed in mock homosexual positions and photographed.

"There are some striking similarities between the actions at Guantánamo and what occurred at Abu Ghraib," said Capt. Jonathan Crisp, England's military defense attorney. "I feel that warrants further investigation."

Committee Democrats appeared upset that Miller was not held accountable for abuses at Guantánamo Bay, and criticized the investigation for failing to examine the legality of administration and military policy on interrogations. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said no senior leader has taken responsibility for detention problems.

Some Republicans, however, said the alleged abuses occurred in just a small fraction of cases. They noted that there have been 24,000 interrogations at Guantánamo Bay and highlighted recent improvements at the facility. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) called the Guantánamo abuse relatively "minor incidents" that should not be a matter of national interest.

Part-Time Forces on Active Duty Decline Steeply

By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID S. CLOUD Published: July 11, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 10 - The number of Reserve and National Guard troops on domestic and overseas missions has fallen to about 138,000, down from a peak of nearly 220,000 after the invasion of Iraq two years ago, a sharp decline that military officials say will continue in the months ahead.

The decrease comes as welcome relief to tens of thousands of formerly part-time soldiers who, with their families, employers and communities, have been badly stressed by their long call-ups for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Reserve and National Guard members from all of the armed services make up about 35 percent of the troops in Iraq, a share that is expected to drop to about 30 percent by next year; the vast majority are from the Army Reserve and Army National Guard.

But as these returning troops settle back into their civilian lives, the Army is running perilously low on its Reserve and National Guard soldiers who largely fill certain critical support jobs, like military police and civil affairs officers and truck drivers. Marine Corps reservists are facing similar constraints.

A main reason for the shortages is that more and more of these troops who have been involuntarily mobilized are nearing their 24-month maximum call-up limit set by the Bush administration, military personnel specialists say.

The Army says it has found ways to handle the dwindling pool of reservists eligible to fill the support jobs, but some members of Congress, senior retired Army officers and federal investigators are less sanguine, warning that barring a reduction in the Pentagon's requirement to supply 160,000 forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, or a change in its mobilization policy, the Army will exhaust the supply of soldiers in critical specialties.

"By next fall, we'll have expended our ability to use National Guard brigades as one of the principal forces," said Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star Army commander who was dispatched to Iraq last month to assess the operation. "We're reaching the bottom of the barrel."

Peter B. Bechtel, deputy chief of the Army's war plans division, acknowledged that the situation posed difficulties but said there were solutions. "There are some concerns for the long-term access to the Reserve component," he said. "But it does not pose an insurmountable challenge."

The number of reservists serving in combat positions like infantry will be declining in the months ahead. The Army National Guard has six combat brigades and a division headquarters - more than 25,000 soldiers - in Iraq. That will decline to two combat brigades - 6,000 to 10,000 soldiers - over the next year or so. But that is not seen as a problem; the number of Guard combat units spiked for a limited period to allow newly restructured active-duty combat brigades to prepare to assume more combat responsibility.

To fill the pivotal support jobs for deployments to Iraq, Army and Pentagon planners are increasingly turning to the Navy and Air Force to provide truck drivers and security personnel. They are relying on more Army reservists to volunteer for extended duty, hiring more private contractors and accelerating the retraining of thousands of soldiers who had been essential to the cold war, like artillerymen, to be civil affairs and military intelligence troops needed for counterinsurgency operations.

The Army's revamped active-duty combat brigades contain more combat-support positions. The Guard and Reserves are enlisting thousands of people each month, but are well below their recruiting quotas. And it takes several months of training to prepare them for combat missions.

There have been warning signs of the looming shortages. In the last several months, the chief of the Army Reserve, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, has repeatedly cautioned that the Reserve was "rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force." General Helmly declined through a spokesman to comment for this article.

Janet St. Laurent, a senior defense specialist at the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said the Army was "taking many constructive steps to address these problems." But, she said, "many of the initiatives will take significant time to implement." The G.A.O. is expected to release a report within days that highlights the challenges facing the Army Reserve.

The long deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have left fewer troops available to be mobilized by governors to deal with state missions traditionally performed by guard units, like helping with forest fires, hurricanes and other natural disasters.

Some governors have complained that, with forest fire season beginning, they are confronting unprecedented shortages of National Guard personnel and equipment at a critical time. Facing similar complaints last summer, Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, promised governors that he would keep at least half of each state's guard troops at home for use in state missions.

"It's a very complex and sophisticated balancing act," General Blum said in an interview. "But frankly, we're up to this." Last month, Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana, a Democrat, asked the Pentagon to return some of the state's guard soldiers from Iraq to be ready to help with forest fires, but the request was denied.

More than 1,200 Montana Army National Guard troops are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, roughly 49 percent of the state's force, Maj. Scott Smith, a spokesman for the Montana National Guard, said. In addition, 10 of the Montana Guard's 12 Black Hawk helicopters, which had been used to transport firefighters and to drop water on burning forests, are in Iraq.

Montana's remaining guard troops would be available to help state officials with forest fires and other emergencies, and troops from nearby states could be used, if necessary, Major Smith said. The absence of the Black Hawks has been partly offset by the addition of four CH-47 Chinook helicopters, each of which can carry hundreds more gallons of water than the smaller Black Hawks, he said.

In Oregon, another state where National Guard units are often mobilized to fight forest fires, fewer helicopters are also causing worry. "We don't have the aircraft we've had before," said Capt. Mike Braibish, a spokesman for the Oregon National Guard. "We're still going to be there. It's just going to take longer to get there."

In Florida, where Hurricane Dennis crashed ashore on Sunday, Maj. Gen. Douglas Burnett, the state's adjutant general, said he was able to meet the state's missions, even though half of its 12,500 Air and Army National Guard forces have been activated for federal duty since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Although Pentagon officials insist they can meet troop needs in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely, some National Guard commanders in states where units have already been heavily deployed warn of looming problems if troop levels in Iraq do not decline substantially in 2006 or 2007.

Maj. Gen. John Libby, the adjutant general in Maine, said that only 30 percent of the state's National Guard soldiers were still available to be mobilized for federal missions in future rotations. Many of those remaining units do not have the specialties the Army needs in Iraq and Afghanistan, like troops trained in military policing and vehicle maintenance, he said.

"We're building very quickly toward a crisis if in the next two or three rotations we still have 135,000 troops on the ground in Iraq," General Libby said.

Eventually, the Pentagon could be forced to remobilize units that have already been deployed especially if recruiting problems persist, General Libby and other Guard officials said. That would require changing the 24-month limit, something the Pentagon says now it has no need to do.Military personnel experts say such a move would only worsen recruiting for the Guard and Reserve, which are both lagging behind their quotas for the year, although strong re-enlistments have offset some of the recruiting slump.

Still, said John Goheen, a spokesman for the National Guard Association, which represents state Guard units, "We do have a lot of soldiers that are bumping up against that 24-month requirement. This organization has concerns about how it's going to be interpreted in the future."

For Pentagon planners, the main focus of concern is the Army National Guard and Reserve, which currently have 115,645 troops mobilized, or about 84 percent of all reserve forces activated worldwide.

Pentagon officials say that they expect they will continue to rely on tens of thousands of mobilized National Guard and Reserve troops for a broad range of missions in this country and overseas. Lt. Gen. James J. Lovelace, the Army's chief of operations, dismissed concerns that the Guard or Reserve were "broken," saying, "we still have rich reservoir to draw on to fill those units."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has complained that the military has activated only about 44 percent of the nation's 1.1 million National Guard and Reserve soldiers since Sept. 11, but still faces shortages in specialties found mainly in the Reserve and National Guard.

That is because the part-time force was designed with a cold war mission to serve as strategic hedge in all-out war with the Soviet Union. With the end of the draft in 1973, the Pentagon shifted many specialized military duties - including water purification and minesweeping - to the Guard and Reserve, to cut costs and to ensure public support for a conflict long enough and important enough for the president to activate citizen-soldiers.

But this force was not intended to supply a long-term counterinsurgency, and does not contain sufficient numbers of specialists that the military now needs. So the Army, in particular, is reassigning about 130,000 positions within the active-duty and Reserve forces to strike a new balance that takes account of today's security environment. About 30,000 have been reassigned, Mr. Bechtel said.

A second hurdle involves the Pentagon's 24-month call-up policy and its goal of deploying National Guard and Reserve soldiers only one year out of every six. While current law allows for repeated call-ups of as long as 24 consecutive months, the Pentagon decided several months ago not to use such authority, fearing that to do so would only add more strain to the citizen-soldier ranks.

"No individual will have more than 24 months cumulative on active duty, Guard or Reserve," Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 29. "Right now we're able to stipulate that anyone who has already been called to active duty will not be recalled."

It Just Gets Worse

By Bob Herbert The New York Times Monday 11 July 2005

Back in March 2004 President Bush had a great time displaying what he felt was a hilarious set of photos showing him searching the Oval Office for the weapons of mass destruction that hadn't been found in Iraq. It was a spoof he performed at the annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association.

The photos showed the president peering behind curtains and looking under furniture for the missing weapons. Mr. Bush offered mock captions for the photos, saying, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere" and "Nope, no weapons over there ... maybe under here?"

If there's something funny about Mr. Bush's misbegotten war, I've yet to see it. The president deliberately led Americans traumatized by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, into the false belief that there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and that a pre-emptive invasion would make the United States less vulnerable to terrorism.

Close to 600 Americans had already died in Iraq when Mr. Bush was cracking up the audience with his tasteless photos at the glittering Washington gathering. The toll of Americans has now passed 1,750. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. Scores of thousands of men, women and children have been horribly wounded. And there is no end in sight.

Last week's terror bombings in London should be seen as a reminder not just that Mr. Bush's war was a hideous diversion of focus and resources from the essential battle against terror, but that it has actually increased the danger of terrorist attacks against the U.S. and its allies.

The C.I.A. warned the administration in a classified report in May that Iraq - since the American invasion in 2003 - had become a training ground in which novice terrorists were schooled in assassinations, kidnappings, car bombings and other terror techniques. The report said Iraq could prove to be more effective than Afghanistan in the early days of Al Qaeda as a place to train terrorists who could then disperse to other parts of the world, including the United States.

Larry Johnson, a former C.I.A. analyst who served as deputy director of the State Department's counterterrorism office, said on National Public Radio last week: "You now in Iraq have a recruiting ground in which jihadists, people who previously were not willing to go out and embrace the vision of bin Laden and Al Qaeda, are now aligning themselves with elements that have declared allegiance to him. And in the course of that, they're learning how to build bombs. They're learning how to conduct military operations."

Has the president given any thought to leveling with the American people about how bad the situation has become? And is he even considering what for him would be the radical notion of soliciting the counsel of wise men and women who might give him a different perspective on war and terror than the Kool-Aid-drinking true believers who have brought us to this dreadful state of affairs? The true believers continue to argue that the proper strategy is to stay the current catastrophic course.

Americans are paying a fearful price for Mr. Bush's adventure in Iraq. In addition to the toll of dead and wounded, the war is costing about $5 billion a month. It has drained resources from critical needs here at home, including important antiterror initiatives that would improve the security of ports, transit systems and chemical plants.

The war has diminished the stature and weakened the credibility of the United Sates around the world. And it has delivered a body blow to the readiness of America's armed forces. Much of the military is now overdeployed, undertrained and overworked. Many of the troops are serving multiple tours in Iraq. No wonder potential recruits are staying away in droves.

Whatever one's views on the war, thoughtful Americans need to consider the damage it is doing to the United States, and the bitter anger that it has provoked among Muslims around the world. That anger is spreading like an unchecked fire in an incredibly vast field.

The immediate challenge to President Bush is to dispense with the destructive fantasies of the true believers in his administration and to begin to see America's current predicament clearly. New voices with new approaches and new ideas need to be heard. The hole we're in is deep enough. We need to stop digging.

The Battle after the Battle...Soldiers say military pushes them to discharge before medical needs are met.

By Les Blumenthal The News Tribune Sunday 10 July 2005

Soldiers say military pushes them to discharge before medical needs are met.

The day before his 22nd birthday, a bomb hanging from a tree along a road near Fallujah exploded above Rory Dunn's Humvee.

Dunn's forehead was crushed from ear to ear, leaving his brain exposed.

His right eye was destroyed by shrapnel; the left eye nearly so. His hearing was severely damaged.

"I remember a bright flash. The trees lit up, and the Humvee was shaking," Dunn recalled during a recent interview while curled up in an easy chair in the living room of his mother's Renton home.

Within minutes of the May 2004 explosion, he was strapped on a stretcher and flown by helicopter to a hospital in Baghdad - the first step in his 10-month struggle to recover.

Yet, even as Dunn fought to overcome his traumatic brain injury and other wounds, his mother, Cynthia Lefever, fought the Army to ensure her son continued to receive critical care from Army specialists. Lefever said the Army tried to pressure her son into accepting a discharge before he was ready - pressure other severely wounded soldiers say they've experienced, too.

Lefever and other critics say the Army's medical system, particularly Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C., has been overwhelmed by the number of wounded returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. They accuse the Army of attempting to discharge wounded soldiers before their essential medical needs are met and transfer them to Veterans Affairs medical facilities.

"The Army tried to get rid of him," Lefever said. "It was immoral and unethical. The Army owes these kids."

Army officials deny they're taking advantage of wounded soldiers.

"There are no efforts to 'rush' anyone out of the Army or through medical treatment and the disability system," Col. Dan Garvey, deputy commanding officer of the Army's Physical Disability Agency, said in an interview via e-mail.

Soldiers are discharged if they no longer can "adequately perform" their assigned duties and have received "optimum medical care," Garvey said. The process is subjective and can last months or more than year, he said, but soldiers are informed of their rights and can appeal.

"There must be a balancing act, and the system tries very hard to maintain that," Garvey said.

The issue has attracted attention in Congress and among veterans groups.

John Fernandez, a 27-year-old retired 1st lieutenant from New York who lost part of each leg in Iraq, told the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee this spring the Army tried to discharge him before he received the medical care he was entitled to.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Seattle), a member of the committee, said she heard similar stories from other wounded soldiers and their families.

"I think (the Army) underestimated the number of wounded. No one predicted this," Murray said. "I don't know whether they are overcrowded or just trying to cut costs. No one is talking about it."

Clinging to Life

Doctors initially gave Rory Dunn little chance of survival.

As he clung to life in the Baghdad hospital, they glued his left eye back into its socket and placed him in a deep medical coma to ease brain swelling. Five days later, Dunn was flown to a hospital in Germany, where his family had gone on "imminent death orders" to say their goodbyes. If he lived, they were told, he might need full-time care for the rest of his life.

Almost six weeks after he was wounded, Dunn emerged from his coma at Walter Reed, where he had been transferred. Days later, Lefever said, the Army asked her son to begin the discharge process. She objected.

During the coming months, before his skull was rebuilt, before a cornea transplant, before speech and physical therapy, the Army made at least three attempts to get her son to accept a discharge, Lefever said. In one instance, she said a top medical officer showed up in her son's room in Ward 58, the neuroscience ward at Walter Reed, and said Dunn needed to immediately sign papers formally starting the discharge process.

"We all understood he couldn't return to the Army, but he hadn't even started his treatment," Lefever said, adding that her son had just emerged from his coma.

In the fall of 2004, roughly five months after he was wounded, Lefever said her son was told to attend a meeting without his mother. During the meeting , which Lefever insisted on attending, Dunn was given three days to sign papers starting the discharge process or the Army would do it without his authorization. At that point, Dunn had not received the surgery that would rebuild his forehead.

"I felt bullied," Lefever said.

During a six-week period stretching into February, Lefever said the Army stepped up the pressure, at one point offering to send her son to a hospital in Palo Alto, Calif., that specializes in traumatic brain injuries - but only if he first agreed to a discharge.

"I was disgusted," Lefever said.

Though Dunn wanted out, Lefever said he wasn't ready and felt the Army was trying to play her son off against her. In phone calls and in meetings, Lefever said her son was repeatedly told that his discharge was "none of his mom's business."

"Rory left his right eye, his forehead and his blood in the dirt in Iraq because the Army sent him there," Lefever said in one e-mail to medical officials at Walter Reed. "Rory went and did his job as ordered by the Army, and deserves so much better than to sit and wait . depressed, angry, frustrated and contemplating suicide. Rory deserves the opportunity to 'come back' 100 percent both physically and mentally."

Feeling overwhelmed, Lefever said she sought assistance from a veterans group, Disabled Veterans of America, as well as Sen. Murray's office. The veterans group assigned an advocate named Danny Soto to Dunn's case.

Soto said lots of soldiers feel they're being "pushed out the door." He blames the military for failing to adequately explain to the families of wounded soldiers that there will be a "continuity" of medical care after discharge.

After a series of meetings involving Dunn, Soto, a Murray aide, Lefever and Army officials, an agreement was reached that allowed Dunn to be sent to Palo Alto for treatment, then accept a discharge.

"All I wanted was the best for my son," said Lefever, who made her feelings known to a string of Army officials, including generals at the Pentagon and then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

Lefever's fight wasn't unique.

'I Felt I Was Being Rushed'

Fernandez, the retired 1st lieutenant, was injured in a friendly fire incident in Iraq in April 2003. His right leg was amputated below the knee, as was his left foot. He was fitted with eight prosthetics before he found ones that were comfortable.

A graduate of West Point, where he captained the academy's lacrosse team, Fernandez studied the regulations and was able to "push back" and fend off the discharge for months.

"I had to fight to stay on duty," Fernandez said, adding he didn't want to be discharged until the Army provided him with the care he felt he deserved.

"A private just out of high school who doesn't know his rights might just go with the flow," he said. "You are dealing with injuries that will affect you and your family for the rest of your life. It's an emotional time. Then you get overwhelmed with all this information."

Former Staff Sgt. Jessica Clements of Canton, Ohio, suffered a traumatic brain injury when a bomb - the military calls them "improvised explosive devices" - detonated while she was riding in a convoy near the Baghdad airport. To relieve brain swelling, Clements said, a neurosurgeon at the Baghdad hospital clipped off a piece of her skull and temporarily inserted it into her belly for safe keeping.

"I could feel it," said Clements of the piece of skull stored in her belly for four months before it was removed and reattached.

As she lay in a bed at Walter Reed, Clements said, she received repeated telephone calls from an Army official telling her she needed to start the discharge process.

"I had no idea what was going on," she said in an interview. "It was only two months after I was injured. I felt I was being rushed. My skull was in my stomach, and I was doing eight hours of therapy a day. It was very frustrating."

Panel Reviews Each Case

Army officials won't comment on individual medical cases, but they say they try to be sensitive when discharging seriously wounded soldiers.

"We get complaints and criticisms of the process not infrequently," said Col. James Gilman, head of the Walter Reed Health Care System. "We get complaints it takes too long and we get complaints it goes too quickly. Our goal is to take care of the soldiers."

When it becomes apparent a wounded soldier won't be able to return to active duty, a medical board made up of Army physicians reviews the case. The medical board review can't be completed until it's decided the wounded soldier has received "optimal medical care," said Gilman. And that's the tricky part.

"It can be very subjective," Gilman said, adding the medical boards have some flexibility. "We don't just follow the regulations blindly. It's not a one-way street."

The findings of a medical board are turned over to a Physical Evaluation Board, part of the Army's Human Resources Command, which ultimately decides whether a soldier stays on active duty or is discharged, and what percentage of disability a soldier receives.

Some 11,300 U.S. military personnel have been evacuated due to injuries or illness since hostilities began in Afghanistan and Iraq in October 2001. Of those, 740 had been discharged as of last week, according to the Army.

Medical advances help reduce the number of deaths in wars. With more soldiers surviving near-fatal wounds, hospitals are overburdened.

Gilman said Walter Reed, where many of the wounded are initially treated when they return to the United States, has been swamped at times.

"The installation was not built to handle all the outpatients we have now," Gilman said.

A hotel on the hospital grounds for soldiers receiving outpatient care and their families is mostly full. Some outpatients are housed at nearby hotels or government-leased apartments.

Other Army medical facilities also feel the strain, including those in the South Sound.

Barracks at Fort Lewis have been upgraded to include, among other things, wheelchair-accessible quarters to house wounded soldiers treated as outpatients at Madigan Army Hospital, the General Accountability Office told Congress earlier this year.

Veterans organizations say they are aware that the military medical system is stretched.

"It's obvious when you go to Walter Reed," said Cathy Wiblemo, the American Legion's deputy director for health care. "They are running out of room."

Wiblemo said she has no specific knowledge that the Army has moved to discharge wounded soldiers too quickly. But she said she wouldn't be surprised.

"The Army's medical bills are going up, and it's encroaching on other things they have to pay for," she said.

Murray: Dunn's Case 'One of Many'

Dunn, Fernandez and Clements have been discharged and are being treated

at VA facilities or through the military's Tri-Care System, a health plan that covers military personnel, dependents and retirees.

Murray, who has taken a personal interest in Dunn's case and awarded him his Purple Heart in June, said she has talked with soldiers who feel the Army has tried to "push them out."

"Rory Dunn is just one of many," Murray said. "It strikes me as amazing that Rory needs an advocate in the U.S. Senate. He shouldn't have to go through this."

As Dunn's physical scars fade, the emotional ones linger, as do the memories of that day outside Fallujah a year ago.

"It got me, boy did it get me," Dunn said of the explosion. "The last thing I remember was stumbling around shouting, 'Charge, charge,' and my buddies trying to get me to sit down."

Though his forehead has been rebuilt, Dunn covers it with a purple baseball cap that says "Combat Wounded" and has the symbol of a purple heart. With thick glasses, he can see out of his left eye. With hearing aides, he can hear.

Lefever said she was surprised when her son joined the Army about a year after high school. She remembers him as a good student who played football and basketball. She said he also had a rebellious streak and was sort of a "cowboy."

Dunn just shrugs when asked why he joined and later volunteered for duty in Iraq.

"It was a terrible, terrible mistake," he said. "I was a fool."

Dunn fidgets as he talks. His attention span is short. He ducks out for a cigarette and to play with his dog Duke, a 6-month-old German shorthair. His memory is intact, as is his sense of humor. He remembers the name of the girl he took to the senior prom. He's looking forward to getting his own apartment and a driver's license.

He's also angry and impatient.

"I feel better, but I wish I could get on with my life," he said. "I lived in hospitals and rehab for a year. It was the worst thing I ever had to go through."

Lefever said she refused to give up until her son received the care that she says Army regulations require.

"I remain angry and disgusted with them for certain things, but I am eternally grateful to them for other things," she said.

Col. Gilman of Walter Reed said he remembers spending a lot of time with Lefever and her son.

"We are grateful for the families who are interested. The mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters," he said. "The ones who worry me the most are the ones whose families aren't involved."

"Iraq: Credibility, Responsibility, Accountability" By Senator Barbara Boxer

Wednesday 06 July 2005 Listen to the speech.

Thank you, Dr. Fink, for that very kind introduction.

It is a great honor to be back at the Commonwealth Club.

When I decided to give a speech about Iraq, I knew I wanted to give it here. That's because of the pivotal role the Commonwealth Club has played for more than 100 years, fostering real dialogue on the critical challenges that define the times in which we live.

Today, those challenges are vast, from the Supreme Court vacancy to the attack on Social Security. But the war in Iraq is the most daunting because the status quo - of Americans dying, of Iraqis dying, of young soldiers coming home by the thousands with injuries to mind and body - weighs so heavily on all Americans.

As a policy maker, I must push as hard as I can for a strategy that can succeed in Iraq and bring our brave men and women home. That will only happen if we immediately bring credibility, accountability, and responsibility to a war that has been lacking in all three.

Last week, President Bush had a chance to regain credibility when it comes to Iraq. In my opinion, he did not.

He mentioned 9/11 five times in 30 minutes, despite the fact that there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and that tragic day.

Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity. The war of necessity was the war against Osama bin Laden that we launched after 9/11...the war that every single Senator voted for...the war that was a clear response to the vicious attack of that day.

That's why I was incredulous when Karl Rove said: "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war"

Therapy? By rewriting history, President Bush's chief advisor is either trying to divide our nation, or divert attention from what is happening in Iraq.

Let me read you directly from my speech on the Senate floor on September 12th.

"We are resolved to hold those who planned these attacks and who harbor these people absolutely 100 percent accountable. They must pay because this is the test of a civilized nation...We will not back down. I stand proudly with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with our President. We will be resolved to do everything - and do it well and do it right - to bring justice..."

After 9/11, the Congress was determined to dedicate as many resources as necessary to find the people who planned the attack. We knew they were in Afghanistan. We knew the Taliban was complicit. And, very important, we knew that the entire world was standing with us.

Instead, the Administration took its eye off the ball and focused on Iraq.

On September 12, the same day that I spoke on the Senate floor, the top terrorism expert at the White House, Richard Clarke, sat down with the president and a few colleagues in the Situation Room. He describes this scene in his book. I quote:

"'Look,' [the President] told us, 'I know you have a lot to do and all...but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.'

"I was once again taken back, incredulous, and it showed,' Clarke wrote. 'But, Mr. President, al Qaeda did this.'

'I know, I know, but...see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred.'

'Absolutely, we will look...again.' I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. 'But, you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen.'

'Look into Iraq, Saddam,' the President said testily and left us."

No link was found. And yet, according to Bob Woodward, two months later, the President took Rumsfeld aside and asked, "What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret."

Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says that going after Saddam was raised at a meeting just 10 days after the first inauguration.

And then there's the now-famous Downing Street memo. In July, 2002, months before Bush asked Congress for authority to wage war in Iraq, the head of British intelligence reported that, and I quote: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [Weapons of Mass Destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

So, what happened to the President's aides who misled the public about the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, those who falsely claimed that this war was about terrorism, and that it wouldn't cost us much - in lives, troops, or dollars?

Condi Rice, who said "We do know that there have been shipments going...into...Iraq...of aluminum tubes that...are really only suited for nuclear weapons programs," was promoted to be our Secretary of State.

Paul Wolfowitz, who said, "Like the people in France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator," got the top job at the World Bank.

George Tenet, who called the WMD claims a "slam dunk" was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.

And the President? He had to know al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the war. [SHOW CHART]. His own State Department issued a report right after 9/11. It lists 45 countries in which al Qaeda operated. Guess who was not on that list? Iraq.

Now, there were some who tried to speak the truth. But they didn't last long in the Bush Administration.

Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill are both gone.

Army Vice Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki estimated that it could take "several hundred thousand" soldiers to successfully stabilize Iraq, Wolfowitz called that number "wildly off the mark." Shinseki retired early.

White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey said that a U.S. intervention in Iraq could cost between $100 and $200 billion. He was disputed, and ultimately left. We've now surpassed $200 billion.

The rest of us were told we had no right to criticize the President in a time of war.

Twenty six months ago, President Bush told us our mission was accomplished. It wasn't. And do you know why? The Administration knew how to win phase one - the military invasion - but had absolutely no plan to win phase two - the peace. As former NSC Advisor Brzezinski said, "This war has been conducted with "tactical and strategic incompetence."

So, where we are now? We have already lost 1,746 Americans in Iraq, 13,190 have been wounded. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, up to 17 percent of Iraq veterans suffer from major depression, generalized anxiety or post traumatic stress disorder. Divorces for active duty and enlisted personnel has nearly doubled and 8,000 Iraqis have been killed.

Here is the unvarnished truth. The Bush Administration's failures thus far have left us with no good choices. If you went to the doctor with a diseased kidney and he took out the wrong one, you would feel distressed, angry, and frustrated about your options.

And that's how many Americans feel now - distressed, angry and frustrated at the difficult situation facing our country and troops. All Americans love, support, and pray for our soldiers. The point is that our troops deserve far more than the status quo.

So, we must, as I have said, start being credible, truthful, if we want to succeed.

But it is also long past time for accountability, and that is my second point.

Last month, I co-sponsored Senator Feingold's resolution asking the President to submit to Congress the remaining mission in Iraq, the time frame needed to achieve that mission, and a time frame for the subsequent withdrawal of our troops. Why?

Because after two and a half years at war, the American people finally need to hear what our mission is and a detailed plan to accomplish it. That will give our soldiers and citizens hope and confidence.

It is difficult to keep track of all the missions we've had so far in Iraq. There was the weapons of mass destruction mission. Then the regime change mission. Then the rebuilding mission. Then the democracy mission.

And finally, terrorism, which the president mentioned more than 30 times in his speech. "Our mission in Iraq is clear," he said. "We will hunt down the terrorists."

That mission is a guarantee of a never-ending cycle of violence because our open-ended presence in Iraq is itself fueling the recruitment of terrorists. With that as a mission, we will find ourselves on a treadmill that never stops. We stay there to hunt down the terrorists and more terrorists are recruited, so we fight them and more terrorists are recruited and so the cycle goes.

Let's be clear: "What we have done in Iraq," terrorism expert Peter Bergen explained, "is what bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams...It's hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on terrorism."

A report issued by the CIA's think tank found that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists. But, the tragic irony is, terrorism was the result of the war, not a reason for waging it and so we are in greater danger.

I believe our mission in Iraq is this: Security for Iraqis provided by Iraqis. We need a Manhattan project to train the Iraqi soldiers and a successful plan to tighten the borders, which should include troops from around the world.

And what about our democratic goals? Yes, we must help the Iraqis create a government in which everyone has a stake, including the Sunnis. But, while we will likely continue to play an advisory role if asked, we cannot tie current troop levels to the goal of a well-functioning democracy, which, even under the best circumstances, takes generations to perfect. Ours certainly did.

And that brings me to this point. The Administration continually compares Iraq's struggle for democracy to our country's struggle for democracy. Fine. But we fought for it with our own people. That's what countries do. Others helped us, sure. But the people power was American.

If there is to be a free Iraq, and I certainly hope there will be, then the Iraqis must want that freedom - and be willing to defend it - as much as we want it for them.

We need to hear from the Administration exactly how many Iraqi forces are needed; how to meet that goal; and by when. And the current pace will not cut it.

In March, I went to Iraq with six other Senators of both parties. You can read or hear about it. But nothing can prepare you for seeing the security challenges we face there.

Outside a meeting room I sat in, located in the safe green zone, two people had recently been killed. In the building where the Assembly gathers, the security was even more intense. Two guards with machine guns had to stand beside each of us everywhere we went.

We watched the dynamic U.S. Army Lieutenant General, David Petraeus, train the Iraqi security forces. He told us he has enormous confidence in the ability of the Iraqis to take over their own security soon.

Yet when we talked to the Prime Minister, Ibrahim Jafari, he was in no rush at all, emphasizing that you can't build an army overnight.

So how many Iraqi troops do we have right now? The answers are all over the map. Recently, the Pentagon said they have 107 battalions, totaling 169,000 men.

But of those 107 battalions, military commanders consider that only about 5,000 Iraqi soldiers are capable of carrying out missions on their own. That's especially troubling when you consider the size of the insurgency, which has been estimated at anything from 12,000 to 50,000 with many more supporters.

We must enlist all the countries willing to train Iraqi security forces outside of Iraq. France has offered. Egyptians have offered. The Jordanians have offered. Yet, Senator Biden says that none of these offers has been taken up. It's time. It's past time.

When the Administration said that our allies who opposed the war need not apply for reconstruction contracts, the message was clear and counterproductive. What a mistake. Leadership is now needed to turn this around, and make reconstruction truly the world's responsibility.

Because inside Iraq, water, electricity, and fuel are in short supply. Sewage still runs through the streets. The situation in Baghdad is so bad that the Mayor has threatened to resign in protest.

Despite all those claims that Iraqi oil would pay for its reconstruction, we are still paying most of it. I believe more of the reconstruction money now going to Halliburton - who just over-billed our government by $1 billion - should go to the Iraqis so they can rebuild their own country.

So, where is the Congress in all of this? In every other war, Congress has played an oversight role. We are the voice of the American people. And the American people, who are fighting in and paying for this war, deserve to know the truth about everything. The truth about how we are measuring up to our highest ideals, including what happened at Abu Ghraib, a scandal that sickened everyone who saw those photos and has placed our brave troops in more danger.

And they deserve to know the truth about whether we are meeting our clearly-stated goals in Iraq - and, if not, why?

The Administration should come to the Hill often to report on specific progress. And the president himself should meet with the Senate in private sessions. Quite frankly, there are Senators of both parties - including Inouye, Warner, Lautenberg, McCain, Kerry, and Hagel - who have seen far more battles than the President and his core national security team. It would be wise to listen to these Senators.

We have no idea - none - how long the Administration plans to be in Iraq. Is it two years, ten, twenty? Condi Rice now calls it"a generational commitment." The President's message of 'as long as it takes' is counterproductive.

Retired General Gregory Newbold, who was one of the central planners of phase one of the war, told us: "We have to understand that the fundamental reason for the insurgency, the thing that ties all the various groups together, is their view that we are an occupying power."

It is time for the President to send a clear message that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely or maintain permanent bases there. That doesn't mean we should set an exact date for withdrawal. But it does mean we need a general timeframe to complete the mission.

And that brings me to my third and final point - responsibility. Responsibility to our troops and to the next generation.

In his speech, the President told us how important it was to honor the courageous young men and women of the military on the 4th of July. And I couldn't have agreed more.

But, to me, we need to do more than that. We must also honor our soldiers every day by giving them the equipment they need while they are deployed and the health care they deserve when they come home.

Many of us have heard the heartbreaking stories about the soldiers sent to Iraq without proper armor to protect their bodies or vehicles. One wrote: "My mother, an elementary school teacher, shipped the bullet-proof ceramic plates to me from the states. Other soldiers weren't so lucky, having to raid buildings and patrol dangerous streets while wearing inferior Vietnam-era flak jackets."

Another wrote: "I was driving a high-back humvee with no armor...I lost three fingers on my left hand and took shrapnel in my legs and chest. Would an uparmor kit have kept my fingers from being blown off? No one will ever know for sure, but I think so."

When roadside bombs are now the weapon of choice for insurgents, how can we fail to give our soldiers the jamming devices they need to protect themselves?

But, in April, I had to fight - too hard - for an amendment to provide $60 million for jamming devices. And, we had to fight - too hard - to get the Administration to finally admit that it was $1 billion short of funds to provide health care for soldiers returning from war.

It's also no secret that we are facing a serious recruiting crisis, which the chief of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command called "the toughest recruiting climate ever faced by the all-volunteer army."

More pressure on recruiters is making some so desperate they are encouraging recruits to lie about their education and fitness to serve. And new aggressive ways of gathering data on high school students is angering parents, and not respecting family values.

But those who are bearing the brunt of this recruiting crisis are our soldiers and their families. Many are forced to serve on multiple tours in Iraq, missing birthdays, wedding anniversaries, and the small moments that make up our life stories. National Guard and reserves are being kept away from both their families and their jobs.

And what about those who make the ultimate sacrifice? Shouldn't we honor, not hide, them? We should see photos of their flag-draped coffins. We should see the President or his personally appointed representatives meeting the coffins when they arrive - every single one.

But we must do far more. We owe it to the fallen, to all those who serve bravely now, and those who will do so in the future, to get this war right. We cannot rewrite the history of the last three years, but we can write a new chapter in this war.

On December 11, Bob Woodward had just finished his second interview with President Bush. They stood by the glass doors looking out on the Rose Garden. And Woodward asked him, "Well, how is history likely to judge your Iraq war?"

"And he said, 'History,' and then he took his hands out of his pocket and kind of shrugged and extended his hands as if to say this is a way off. And then he said, 'History, we don't know. We'll all be dead."

Imagine if our forefathers fighting for independence had thought that way? Or those who fought in the Civil War? Or in the World Wars? Or those who risked their lives - like Martin Luther King Jr. - for civil rights? Or suffragists who almost died in a hunger strike for the right of women to vote.

When Americans dedicate, and even sacrifice, their lives for what is right, we do it because we have a sacred responsibility to those who come after us to leave behind a world that is better, not worse, than the one we found.

Because, 20, 50, even 100 years from now, another group will gather in this spot to discuss issues of war and peace. And, when they do, I hope they look back and say that the summer of 2005 is when Americans, brought credibility, accountability, and responsibility to a very tough situation.

I hope they say that we finally began to level with the American people. That we articulated a winnable mission and a detailed plan to fulfill it. And that we gave our troops the support they needed and deserved in Iraq and upon their return to our beloved shores.

We owe it to our soldiers, to the American people, to Iraqis, and, yes, to history, to do nothing less