Six Democratic War Vets Seek House Seats ...see article

WASHINGTON - Lawyer Patrick Murphy and five other veterans of the Given their experience in Iraq, the six Democrats in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia say they are eminently qualified to pose the tough questions. Their reservations mirror public opinion, with an increasing number of Americans expressing concern about the mission and favoring a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed only 37 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, with 62 percent disapproving.

This summer, Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, nearly defeated Republican Jean Schmidt in a special election in an Ohio district considered a GOP stronghold. Hackett focused on his wartime experience and his opposition to Bush's policies.

On Monday, with support from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other party leaders, Hackett decided to seek a higher office, the Senate seat now held by two-term Republican Mike DeWine, said spokesman David Woodruff.

Some guys don't think it's time to question our government, but the fact is I love my country, said Murphy, 31, who fought with the 82nd Airborne Division. We need to have an exit strategy now.

While fighting in Iraq, a private asked then-Capt. Murphy why U.S. forces were in the Persian Gulf nation and was told it didn't matter; there was a job to do and just try to return home safely.

That wasn't the time to question our government, Murphy recalled.

Murphy is challenging first-term Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Republican in the northern Philadelphia suburbs of the 8th District.

Another Iraq war veteran, Texas Republican Van Taylor, is also running for a House seat, but he backs President Bush.

In 1974, public outrage over the Watergate scandal and Republican President Richard M. Nixon's administration swept a class of reform-minded Democrats into office. It's too soon to measure the impact of the war on the 2006 elections, but the handful of veterans pursuing seats in the House is an early indicator.

The Democratic veterans walk a fine line as they reach out to voters who may question Bush's handling of the conflict. The task is to challenge the administration while still being seen as patriotic.

David Ashe, who spent most of 2003 working as a Marine judge advocate general in Iraq, chooses his words carefully when asked whether the United States should have invaded.

There's no reason to Monday morning quarterback the decision, said Ashe, 36, who is trying to unseat first-term Republican Rep. Thelma Drake in Virginia's 2nd District. I would say we're in the right position to succeed. Whether or not we're going to get that success remains to be seen.

Although they often talk tough about the Bush administration, some of the candidates don't fit the typical anti-war image, said Charles Sheehan-Miles, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense.

They really want to help the Iraqi people and see the mission through, and they think we're losing because of stupid mistakes made at the senior leadership level, Sheehan-Miles said.

Historically, war experience has added to a candidate's credibility. As many as 70 percent of lawmakers in the 1950s were war veterans, but only about 40 percent of the members of Congress today have military experience.

During the Vietnam War, there was such a collective funk that veterans felt free to criticize, said John Johannes, a political science professor at Villanova University. A few, like Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., got their political start as anti-war activists.

Veterans today have an advantage because Americans have a positive feeling about soldiers, said John Allen Williams, a political scientist at Loyola University in Chicago.

Unlike Vietnam, people who do not like the war are not blaming the veterans, Williams said.

But that will not guarantee success, contends Ed Patru, deputy communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Democratic war veterans who are seen as liberal on other issues aren't going to be popular with voters, he said.

I think a lot of Democrats are looking at what happened in Ohio and trying to duplicate that around the country, Patru said.

Taylor, 33, a Republican businessman from West Texas, supports Bush's policies. He is a major in the Marines reserves, and, like the Democrats, cites his war experience.

The war on terror is going to be with us for a long time and Congress is going to grapple with the war on terror, Taylor said. We need policy-makers who know what it means to make war.

Bryan Lentz, 41, an attorney from Swarthmore, Pa., volunteered to go to Iraq at age 39 with a civil affairs unit. The Army reserves major was so disillusioned by the lack of a plan in Iraq that he decided while he was in Iraq to run for Congress.

He is trying to unseat 10-term GOP Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-failure, Lentz said. We need to define what victory is and we need to set a plan to get there. You cannot stay the course if you do not set a course.

• Six Democratic War Vets Seek House Seats ...see article - Democrat
  • More Power To Them! - gt
  • I hope each one of these candidates - Libby
    • Yup - gt

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Mr McClellan admitted he was not at the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in June 2003 when Mr Bush supposedly revealed the extent of his religious fervour.

However, he said he had checked into the claims and I stand by what I just said.

Asked if Mr Bush had ever mentioned that God had ordered him into Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr McClellan said: No, and I've been in many meetings with him and never heard such a thing.

The claims are due to be broadcast in a three-part BBC documentary which analyses attempts to bring peace to the Middle East.

Mr Shaath, the Palestinian foreign minister in 2003, claims Mr Bush told him and other delegates that he was spoken to by God over his plans for war.

He told the film-makers: President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.

'And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.'

The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the June 2003 meeting as well, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state.

Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact that brings him much support in middle America.

History is littered with examples of people doing the most bizarre and sometimes wicked things on this basis, said Andrew Blackstock, director of the British-based Christian Socialist Movement. If Bush really wants to obey God during his time as president he should start with what is blindingly obvious from the Bible rather than perceived supernatural messages.

That would lead him to the rather less glamorous business of prioritising the needs of the poor, the downtrodden and the marginalised in his own country and abroad.

When we see more policies reflecting that, it might be easier to believe he has God on his side. And more likely that God might speak to him.

The TV series, which starts on Monday, charts recent attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from the former US president Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999-2000, to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip this year. It seeks to uncover what happened behind closed doors by speaking to presidents and prime ministers, along with their generals and ministers, the BBC said.

Filipino Charged With Spying Worked in White House

Wednesday, October 05, 2005 STORIES BACKGROUND LINKS • FBI Analyst, Filipino Charged With Spying • Hurricane Relief Scams on Web • U.S. Indicts Russian U.N. Official • FBI Keeping Eye on Prisoners Who May Become Extremists • FBI Launches Probe of Alleged Islamic Radical • Ex-FBI Whistleblower to Join Cindy Sheehan NEWARK, N.J. — An FBI intelligence analyst charged last month for passing classified information about Filipino leaders (search) to current and former officials of that nation retrieved the information from the White House, FOX News has confirmed. Originally reported by ABC News, FBI and CIA officials are saying this is the first case of espionage from within the White House in modern times. The alleged spy, Leandro Aragoncillo (search), worked undetected for nearly three years. He was most recently assigned to work with Vice President Dick Cheney. Aragoncillo was a Marine for 21 years. On Sept. 12, it was reported that the former FBI analyst, who was stationed at Fort Monmouth (search) in New Jersey, has been sending classified information since January, according to an FBI complaint. Investigators found that between May and August Aragoncillo printed or downloaded 101 classified documents relating to the Philippines (search), of which 37 were classified Secret, the complaint said. The White House would not comment on the case and only said that it was cooperating, FOX News has learned. (Story continues below) At the time of the arrest in September, officials did not describe the nature of the documents. Court filings said the records included intelligence on a defense treaty and the U.S. assessment of the political situation in the Pacific Rim country. Aragoncillo was ordered held without bail last month following an appearance before U.S. Magistrate Patty Shwartz (search). Aragoncillo's family members attending the hearing declined to speak with reporters. The defendant was to face a charge of conspiracy and a charge of acting as an unregistered foreign agent, the latter of which carries a sentence of up to 10 years and a $250,000 fine. Aragoncillo also was charged with unauthorized use of a government computer, which carries a sentence of up to 10 years and a $250,000 fine. The Associated Press and The Newark Star-Ledger contributed to this report.

I thought senate seats belonged to the state that person resided in.  And I thought the people who fill the seats are picked by the people of their states in a vote.  These DC people are acting as though their seats are to be handed down to their family members as though they are Royalty.  Last I knew I didn't think we lived in a Monarchy, but now I'm beginning to wonder.  Bill Clinton is now "suggesting" Hillary's old seat should go to Chelsea Clinton?  Impeached Bill should have no say in who the senate seat goes to.  The Clintons don't want Caroline Kennedy to fill it because Caroline backed Obama.  This is rediculous.  They think they are entitled to these positions.  My feeling is that the senate seat should be filled with someone who is qualified from that state.  Not family members of family members of family members.  Caroline Kennedy should run for the seat when the time to run comes up.  Not be placed there because her name is Kennedy.  As for Chelsea?  Talk about someone with NO skills or qualifications to fill the position.  She has worked for a manager at some Hedge fund company.  She is a total id!ot.  Just because daddy was the Prez and mommy held the senate position, does not mean that Chelsea is qualified.  And certainly just because she attended a lot of mommy's fund raising events doesn't mean she's qualified.  Blimey, why not let Obama's daughter take his old senate seat. 

I heard someone describe our government as an aristocracy.  There are so many people who are qualified for the positions, but they will never get appointed because they are not rich or don't have the "name' or in the club.  I also heard that someone is sitting in Biden's old senate seat "keeping it warm" until Biden's son comes back from the service where he will just waltz in and the seat will be his.  All I can say is W-T-F??????

Like I say, I thought senate seats were appointed by people who vote for the candidates to fill the seat.  Now I'm hearing seats are just being given to the children and relatives of the ones who held the seat before them.  Tell me there isn't something wrong with what is going on.  Cripes!  We got rid of Bill (finally), sort of got rid of Hillary, and now little miss Chelsea is trying to weezle her way into the scene via mommy and daddy to get there.  

I am really disgusted with the political scene. 

right-wing extremists, KKK, skinheads, etc. would try to target returning veterans because of their knowledge of and possible access to weapons. (Remember Timothy McVeigh, a decorated Army veteran and American terrorist who killed 168 people and injuring hundreds?)  No doubt that thousands of returning vets are suffering from PTSD or other emotional/mental problems caused when GW Bush forced them to remain in combat for repeated tours without even giving them the break that they were supposed to get. 

But telling the truth makes Obama look better so I guess we'll go with your inaccurate story instead, right?

Here's one of them, Daniel Goetz.  There are others there, as well.  I'm sure most of you know this site exists.  I've added it to my Favorites.  I'd also recommend reading Daniel Goetz' blog, as well.

Seven months ago, my service in the army was to have terminated. Instead, I am in Iraq for the second time. I sit next to a DOD contractor whose job is identical to mine. Except he makes $120,000 more, works four hours less, and visits home four times more often than I do. Daniel Goetz is currently serving in Samarra, Iraq.  Read his blog here. I am not alone in my anger and humiliation. When we were here in 2003, there was anger, but there is a difference between anger and bitter hatred. The atmosphere of discontent is thick and contagious. Even soldiers not stop-lossed feel The Betrayal. They know it might be them next time. Dissent will not change anything for us now because our voices are muted. Still, there is hope. It is that in twenty years, it will be these men and women in office. Perhaps, that alone should make me feel better. I don't think it is enough, though, for our wounded and fallen. I can't speak for them, of course. Not yet, at least.   I joined the army soon after I finished college; the decision was an amalgamation of desire to serve, to belong, and to repay student loans. I wanted the challenge to see if I really could be all I could be. Our country was a vastly different place then; one in which policemen, firemen, and servicemembers were no different than any other American. I had almost completed my two years of training to become an Arabic linguist when September Eleventh dramatically changed the nation's climate. I knew my own role would be pivotal, and was eager to see our country avenged on the battlefield. Until then, I had a rather dim view of the army. Their promise to repay my college loans turned out to be false, and I was left to shoulder the massive burden of debt alone. My dismay melted away in the patriotic euphoria that enveloped the country in the run-up to our invasion of Iraq. Like the rest of the America, I clung fervently to the justifications for it. The underlying righteousness was my source of motivation when we crossed the Kuwait-Iraq border in March of 2003. In the months that were to follow, those justifications collapsed - and with them, my confidence in a nation. In those days, my colleagues and I would often patrol the streets of Baghdad with the infantry in a bid to quell boredom. We were also looking for hope among the Iraqi people; we could live vicariously through their optimism, and perhaps therein find meaning for our occupation. But hope betrayed us as the insurgency swelled. It was when the fighting began again in earnest that we left Iraq. By the end of August, I was back in The United States, free to pretend Iraq never happened. But it had. And nothing could wrench the darkest memories from repression like the knowledge that we were to return. Worse, our year in America was wasted. Almost every week, CSPAN would feature one committee or another complaining that our armed forces hadn't enough servicemembers in critical jobs like intelligence and military police. I wanted them to know how poorly we were thought of in our own units, and how little job-specific training we received before we left. At one point, we were told to study Arabic only on our own time. That was hardly possible when we were kept late every night, sometimes doing only menial tasks like weapons-cleaning until three in the morning.   The last straw was stop loss. My enlistment contract ended in March of this year. It is seven months hence, and I am still in Iraq. I propose that, in order for me to respect my commitment, the army ought to respect the contract we agreed upon. It was for five years, not six. Proponents of this form of conscription argue that I signed it nonetheless, fully aware of possible outcomes. True, I ought to have prepared myself better. But to remain bound to an expired commitment - exposed to prolonged peril in support of an unjustifiable cause - was beyond my expectations. Today, I find the greatest challenge of the army is to find honor in service. I don't ever regret having joined because I've learned so much about myself and about America. I have faith in both, but yearn for hope to become reality. I want to go home as badly as I want to be proud of my country again.

Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN

Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called 20th hijacker and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a special interrogation plan, personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld .

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides universal jurisdiction allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a a big, big problem. U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.

The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.

U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against war criminals could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/08/Gitmo_911_suspects_to_plead_guilty/UPI-68631228752620/

And, what do you think the Super Delegates will do?

In order to smear it.

No talk about the 12 prior years of Reagan and Bush.

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:00 AM

Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.

Rep. Norm Dicks voted in 2002 to back the war.

JIMI LOTT / THE SEATTLE TIMES, 2003

U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, center, with military officers at ceremonies marking the opening of new facilities at Naval Station Bremerton in 2003.

By Alicia Mundy
Seattle Times Washington bureau

WASHINGTON — It was after 11 p.m. on Friday when Rep. Norm Dicks finally left the Capitol, fresh from the heated House debate on the Iraq war. He was demoralized and angry.

Sometime during the rancorous, seven-hour floor fight over whether to immediately withdraw U.S. troops, one Texas Republican compared those who question America's military strategy in Iraq to the hippies and peaceniks who protested the Vietnam War and did terrible things to troop morale.

The House was in a frenzy over comments by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had called for the troops to leave Iraq in six months. In response, the White House initially likened Murtha, a 37-year veteran of the Marines and an officer in Vietnam, to lefty moviemaker Michael Moore.

Then a new Republican representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message to the House that she said she had received from a Marine colonel in her district: Cowards cut and run; Marines never do.

During much of the debate, Dicks, a Democrat from Bremerton, huddled in the Democrats' cloakroom with Murtha, a longtime friend. Both men are known for their strong support of the military over the years. Now, they felt, that record was being questioned.

There was a lot of anger back there, Dicks said in an interview this week. It was powerful. I can't remember anything quite as traumatic as this in my history here.

Near midnight, he drove to his D.C. home, poured a drink and wondered how defense hawks like he and Murtha had gotten lumped in with peaceniks by their colleagues and the administration.

And he thought about all that had happened over the past couple of years to change his mind about the war in Iraq.

Voted to back Bush

In October 2002, Dicks voted loudly and proudly to back President Bush in a future deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq — one of two Washington state Democratic House members to do so. Adam Smith, whose district includes Fort Lewis, was the other.

Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't hesitate to use them against the United States.

After visiting Iraq early in the war, Norm told me the Iraqis were going to be throwing petals at American troops, Murtha said in an interview this week.

Dicks now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.

While he disagrees with Murtha's conclusion that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within six months, Dicks said, He may well be right if this insurgency goes much further.

The insurgency has gotten worse and worse, he said. That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong — we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake.

Dicks, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, says he's particularly angry about the intelligence that supported going to war.

Without the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he said, he would absolutely not have voted for the war.

The Bush administration has accused some members of Congress of rewriting history by claiming the president misled Americans about the reasons for going to war. Congress, the administration says, saw the same intelligence and agreed Iraq was a threat.

But Dicks says the intelligence was doctored. And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency.

A lot of us relied on [former CIA director] George Tenet. We had many meetings with the White House and CIA, and they did not tell us there was a dispute between the CIA, Commerce or the Pentagon on the WMDs, he said.

He and Murtha tended to give the military, the CIA and the White House the benefit of the doubt, Dicks says. But he now says he and his colleagues should have pressed much harder for answers.

Norm ... has agonized

All of us have gone through a difficult period, but Norm really has agonized, Murtha said this week.

Murtha and Dicks were appointed to the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee in 1979, three years after Dicks first was elected to Congress. They rarely have disagreed, especially in their support of the military.

In October 2002, Dicks made an impassioned speech during the House debate over whether to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq without waiting for the United Nations to act.

Based on the briefings I have had, and based on the information provided by our intelligence agencies to members of Congress, I now believe there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he may be close to developing a nuclear weapon, Dicks said at the time.

By spring 2003, U.N. weapons inspectors said they hadn't found hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq. But Dicks remained convinced of Iraq's threat.

We're going to find things [Saddam] had not disclosed, he said shortly before the war began in March 2003. There is no doubt about that. Period. Underlined.

By June of that year, with no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons found, Dicks remained steadfast in his support for the war but called for a congressional inquiry into the intelligence agencies' work on Iraq. I think the American people deserve to know what happened and why it happened, he said at the time.

That same month, Dicks was upset when a good friend, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, was forced into retirement after telling Congress that the secretary of defense was not sending enough troops to win the peace.

Growing doubts

On July 6, 2003, Dicks awoke to read the now-famous New York Times opinion piece by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA mission to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa.

Wilson wrote that he had found no evidence of such Iraqi intentions and criticized Bush for making the claim in his State of the Union address two months before the invasion.

That Joe Wilson article was very troubling, Dicks said.

Dicks grew somber about Iraq. Rep. Jim McDermott, who represents Seattle and had opposed the war from the start, talked with him about it.

Norm is a lot like Jack Murtha. These are guys with a somewhat different philosophy than me, McDermott said recently. This an extremely difficult time for them because they have to reassess what they were led to believe about prewar intelligence.

The White House maintains it did nothing to mischaracterize what it knew about Iraq and its weapons.

Dicks' private concerns became more public two months ago. At a breakfast fundraiser on Capitol Hill, Dicks surprised the guests with a tough talk against the war.

The White House last Friday called Dicks to gauge his support. House GOP leaders were pushing for a vote on a resolution they hoped would put Democrats on the spot by forcing them to either endorse an immediate troop withdrawal or stay the course in Iraq.

Dicks said he told the White House that their attack on Murtha was the most outrageous comment I've ever heard.

The resolution, denounced by Democrats, ultimately was defeated 403-3.

Dicks says the Pentagon should begin a phased withdrawal and leave some troops to help maintain order and train a new Iraq army. We've got to be very concerned that Iraq comes out of this whole, he said.

But he added, We can't take forever.

Some people say it takes eight to nine years to control an insurgency, Dicks said.

I don't think the American people will give eight to nine years, and I sure as heck won't.

Alicia Mundy: 202-662-7457 or amundy@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company

Stand up to whom and why?  The Congress is run by Republicans.  Bush does whatever he wants, when he wants, regardless of what Congress or the courts deem to be legal or constitutional. 

He has already stood up to them by spreading propaganda that anyone who doesn't agree with him is either on the terrorist's side or a fascist.  If he gets really mad, he swiftboats them. 

This is the reason people want him to get warrants before spying on Americans.  A President with such a history of personal revenge can't be trusted to just go after the terrorists.  He can't be trusted not to spy on innocent Americans who don't agree with his policies.  He can't be trusted to have a good reason to spy.  He just can't be trusted, period.