Pun-Master Swami Calls for an Up-Wising

It may be that the Voice of Reason has come packaged with a name like Swami Beyondananda ...

Brandishing wordplay as his weapon of choice, the Swami covers considerable ground and comes to idealistic but logical conclusions as he delivers sage advice to the citizenry. He's clearly witty and he makes a lot of sense in the process:

For years now, we've been hearing "shift happens," and wondering when, where and how. Now finally, it looks as if the shift is about to hit the fan. This is good news for all those shift fans who've been wondering if the new age will arrive before old age does. Of course, if you're looking for signs in the news, you won't find them. At least, not yet. The news might as well be called the "olds," because the world still seems stuck in greedlock, ruled by fossilized fools fueled by fossil fuels. But I have been receiving encouraging intelligence reports that say indeed, humans are becoming more intelligent. Yes, people everywhere are wising up. And that's great, because we could sure use an up-wising!

The evolution has begun. But before we see changes in the old needy-greedy, we humans must change our consciousness -- and the first step is becoming conscious of how unconscious we've been. As the saying goes, the truth shall upset you free, and last year saw lots of disillusionment. But what better to free us from the far more dangerous condition of illusionment? If we want to stop the abuse of power, the first step is to disabuse ourselves. So, here's some good news: Despite a massive media impropaganda machine that feeds the public "babblum" (strained bullshit made digestible for a simple child's mind), more and more Americans are reading between the lyins' and peering behind the Irony Curtain.

In 2005, Americans had to face the sad realization that the Bush Administration's "pro-life" stance appears to be limited to the unborn and the brain-dead. Despite being panned by critics everywhere, the Iraqi Horror Picture Show continued its run, as thousands and thousands of born fetuses - ours and theirs -- lost their right to life. While we may or may not have saved our face by staying there, we have most definitely lost our ass. And we've been assured we'll be stuck in that morass until -- well, until there's no more ass to lose. Meanwhile, more and more Americans reached another sad conclusion: We're not in Iraq to keep the peace, we're there to keep the pieces.

The signs of up-wising are everywhere. Even the most unpleasant stories are beginning to break through the soundless barrier and defy the President's "don't ask, don't tell" policy: "You promise not to ask us what we're doing, and we promise not to tell you." Although we've been inundated with "fear-gnomes" and ominously warned we have to protect ourselves in this dogma-eat-dogma world, a majority of Americans are no longer comfortable with the notion that the only way to defeat the "evil-doers" in the world is to out evil-do them. Although our President has assured us that "we don't torture," it is now common knowledge that we simply send detainees to countries that do torture when we want them to "testify under oaf."

As for those progressives who've been whining that the President "never listens" to them, well it turns out he's been listening all along. And thanks to the so-called Patriot Act (which, I understand, is about to be renamed the Eternal Insecurity Act), it looks like he'll be able to listen in even more -- all in the name of making us safe. But now even some Republicans are beginning to see that there's a difference between protection and the "protection racket." And with the recent revelations about Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and other gold collar criminals, some of the more devout conservatives have come to realize that the "family values" they voted for bear an uncanny resemblance to Soprano Family values.

If there was any warm feeling in 2005, chalk it up to climate change. Katrina hit, and in the government's response we saw a future when at last all Americans will be equal -- where everyone regardless of race or creed will be treated like Black folks.

Alarming Policies Have Awakened Millions!

Fortunately, this is the State of the Universe Address, and from a universal perspective, things are humming along quite nicely. It turns out that the Earth is the talk of the Universe these days. In fact, the odds-makers at the Intergalactic Enquirer say the odds are actually in our favor: "We're betting on the human race to reach critical mass before they get to critical massacre." And we could beat the odds, if we finally gave up our addiction to getting even and got odd instead. It stands to reason. If each of us used our unique oddness to improve the odds for everyone, there would be no need for getting even.

Yes, the up-wising has begun, and intergalactic observers are saying that we have none other than George W. Bush to thank. How is that, you may ask? Well, I am reminded of a story my guru Harry Cohen Baba used to tell. A well-known minister died and arrived at the Pearly Gates at the same time as a cab-driver from New York. The cabbie was ushered in, but the clergyman was left waiting outside. After waiting and waiting and waiting, he finally called over the attending angel. "Excuse me, but I'm a renowned minister. How come you let that cab-driver in, and I'm left waiting out here?" "Well," the angel said, "when you preached, everyone slept. But when he drove, everyone prayed."

For millennia, spiritual teachers have been calling on us to go for the highest common denominator, but we've always seemed to end up with the lowest common dominator instead. And now, George W. Bush has done what preachers, teachers and other far-sighted visionaries have failed to do up until now: His policies have been so alarming, that he has awakened a slumbering body politic that slept through all previous alarms. Where others have failed, he has people all across the world praying, "God help us!" And instead of waiting for an intervention from above -- after all, we cannot expect to be fed intervenously forever -- people are beginning to help themselves, and even more importantly, help each other.

Sure, there are still plenty of Not-Sees out there who insist on not seeing that we humans are all in the same boat. The good news is, more and more Americans are getting that sinking feeling that there's only one Earthship, and ignoring a leak because it's "on the other side of the boat," is a mistake of titanic proportions.

We Are the Leaders We've Been Waiting For

America, the world's only super-power, doesn't need a revolution. We've already had one, thank you. What is needed now -- and what has already begun -- is the American Evolution where enough of us wake up and see that those two political parties have been partying on our dime, and we the people haven't been invited. Time to go beyond choosing the lesser of two weasels. If we want to evolve the dream of our Founding Fathers -- instead of devolve into the nightmare of Big Brother -- we must become the leaders we've been waiting for. I've said it before. The only force more powerful than a super-power is a Super-Duper Power -- the power of the people plus the power of love. And anyone who doesn't believe we are a Super-Duper Power, well they have been super-duped!

It's true, many people still feel that the affairs of the world should be left to the bolder and badder among us. But look what that leaves us with: Are you satisfied choosing between Saddam Hussein and George Who's-Not-Sane? Now I know those "God, guns and guts" Old Testament Christians might have forgotten, but Jesus did say that the meek shall inherit the earth. In all undue immodesty, maybe it's time for us meek folks to boldly step forth and accept our inheritance.

For just as 2000 years ago Jesus stood up to a class that placed the rule of gold above the Golden Rule, today we face the modern version of the Pharisees -- the Phallusees, I think they are called. They cynically cloak themselves in religious robes, but the only power they trust is the power of the stick. Well, there's another old saying: It doesn't matter how big your stick is, if you stick your stick where it doesn't belong, you're stuck.

Another sign of the up-wising and coming evolution is that people are growing dissatisfied with the positionality of "my side vs. your side," and are seeing the whole issue of sides from a new angle: Maybe we're all on the same side. For example, this argument between creationism and evolution is just another way for dueling dualities to steal our energy. I believe in both. I believe the Creator created us to evolve, otherwise Jesus would have said, "Now don't do a thing till I return." I have it on good authority that the Creator is pulling for us: "Come on, you children of God. Time to grow up and become adults of God instead."

Time to Overgrow the System From the Grassroots Up

The time for revolution and overthrowing has past. Now we need an evolution where we "overgrow" the current dysfunctional system from the grassroots up. You are probably familiar with the story of the Native American grandfather who tells his grandson that there are two wolves fighting inside all of us: The wolf of fear and anger, and the wolf of love and peace.

"Which wolf will win?" asks the young boy.

"Whichever one we feed," replies the grandfather.

And so when people ask me to predict what will happen, I tell them the only thing I can predict with certainty is the uncertainty of any prediction. The future's just too unpredictable these days. This is a Universe of infinite possibilities, so it all depends on which futures we invest in.

There is something far more empowerful than predictions, and that is Tell-A-Vision. If you're fed up with the current programming, my advice is turn off your TV and tell a vision instead. That way, we will have healing and functional visions to step into -- and that beats what we've been stepping into. So I will tell my vision for 2006: This is the year of the American Evolution, where all those who prefer the Golden Rule to the rule of gold get past left and right, and come front and center.

I see Americans of all political stripes, plaids and polka dots (not to mention solids), choosing to face the music and dance together. Sure, we'll have to learn some new steps, but it's time for a new dance - A-Bun-Dance. That is where we get up off our assets, move our buns, and dance together in rhythm and flow. And what better way to turn the funk into function, and leave the junk at the junction?

I see us in a new reality show -- Extreme Planetary Makeover -- where everyone can play and everyone can win. Just think. Something more compelling than reality TV ... it's called reality!

I know, I know. Only a crazy person would dare to propose anything that sane. But maybe it's time to declare the current institutionalized insanity illegally insane, and set about building a sane asylum big enough for all six and a half billion of us. As my guru Harry Cohen Baba has said, "Life is like a good deli. Even if something isn't on the menu, if enough people order it they have to make it." So what kind of new world order are we ordering up? Do we feed the wolf of fear and buy into the "it's every man for himself" story? Or do we nourish the wolf of love and evolve into the "we're all in it together" story?

If we're going to be a Super-Duper Power, we have to be super-duper powerful in activating the power of love, and cultivating the power of joy. So laugh more. Why not? We all know there's something funny going on. The wall of lies cannot withstand the vibration of laughter. All seriousness aside, only a farce field that combines truth and laughter can bring down the Irony Curtain once and for all.

Release the old story -- been there, done that -- and speak the new story into the world. Dare to imagine what we could be doing if we weren't spending so much of our livelihood on weapons of deadlihood. Think about it ... think tanks where they think about something other than tanks. Young people living for their country instead of dying for it. Health and education fully funded, and the Air Force having to run a bake sale so they can buy a new bomber.

Can we change the course of history? Can we shift our karma into surpassing gear? I cannot say for sure, but if we choose to give up that old Dodge and trade it in for an Evolvo, that's a good first step. So ... let the Evolution begin. We don't have to wait until the first Big Shot is fired. If we create a powerful enough field, the Big Shots will end up firing themselves.

Fight Terror with Culture

I wrote a column that touched on this topic some time ago ...

Christopher J Falvey expands on that view, namely that the war on terror, as it is presently constituted, will fail. Not because of a lack of military might or strategy, but rather because we're forgetting the one great weapon that has won all previous wars we've been involved in: our culture.

A lot has been said about the Muslim outrage over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, and why not? It's a great storyline. It has an us-versus-them quality. It has a "free speech" element, which always fires people up. It even involves a righteous boycott of the Danish dairy industry, collateral damage if ever there was.

Nevertheless, the deeper meaning of the whole situation is really none of the above. Rather, the episode is a window into how we win wars - and how we could lose this one.

The war on terror, as it is presently constituted, will fail. The failure will not be from a lack of military might or strategy - that part of the war is actually going well enough, though you wouldn't know it from watching the television news. (For some, even one American casualty is too many.)

The breakdown of the war will not even be economic or political. Rather, the pending failure lies in the fact that we have not employed the one great weapon that has sealed the success of nearly every war in our past: our culture.

What we're really seeing from the recent Muslim outrage is our own nation being dragged into a religious war. We can pretend to analyze our way out of it, but if the Islamic community feels that we're fighting against each and every one of them, we'll soon find ourselves doing so - like it or not. And that's a bad thing. A really bad thing. Religious wars never end, and no one ever wins them.

Any student of basic world history could easily begin to draw a line- one I believe we are approaching quickly- where this war on terror devolves into the same religious war that has been going on among Christians, Muslims and Jews for millennia. Throughout American history, we've done a good job of not fighting that war. And for good reason: That war generally topples empires. This time around, however, we're foolishly being tempted into it.

Culture as a Weapon

You obviously need two sides to a religious war. America and the Western World are not a religion, right? That technically may be true, but the dilemma lies in the fact that we're beginning to fight the war on terror as a war of principle.

Religion and principle are really the same thing. When the administration speaks of "armies of compassion," "a God-given right to democracy" and the rest of the amorphous rhetoric that seems to be the entirety of the endgame strategy, its base reasoning is no different than fighting a war "because God told you to."

Speeches during World Wars I and II, as well the Cold War, were laden with similar rhetoric, but the rhetoric was merely window dressing on a real plan. These wars were a success because our enemies' nations rebuilt themselves on a framework of our own capitalist, secular culture. Neither Presidents Kennedy nor Reagan inspired the fall of communism among the populace as much as blue jeans and rock music did. The atomic bomb didn't prevent Japan from regrouping and continuing on as our enemy; the allure of corporate capitalism did.

The parallels between 20th century Japan and today's Middle East serve not only as an excellent example but as a model - maybe the only model - for how the war on terrorism can be won.

The nationalist movement of Japan in the 1930s used terrorism internally to eradicate western ideals and cultural structures. The result was a one-party government, complete with a state religion, and a bent on engaging in wars of principle through non-traditional means. Sound familiar?

After the end of the war, the real work began, and it had to do with the culture. Once the people of Japan no longer felt beholden to conform only to their own ancient culture, that, combined with the more easily achieved economic results of capitalism, erased the foundational need for wars of principle.

Certainly there are differences with today's Middle East. Japan carried out its attacks as a unified nation, and modern terrorists generally don't wear the uniforms of the nations whose policies they most espouse. However, the mono-religious, anti-capitalist, closed-market structure of the Middle East is similar enough to believe the results of cultural infusion would be the same.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the opposite of our current strategy in the Middle East, where military action is the only action, and the spread of a more stable culture is rarely discussed. In fact, some even consider it offensive to do so.

Growing Peace Organically

The ugly secret about using culture as a weapon is that it has no respect. This is also why it works. A nation cannot destroy irrational, religious-like fervor simply with "better" principles and bigger bombs. Those things may open the door, but after any initial success, you'll find the same institutions being rebuilt that help sow the same seeds of zealotry. You also cannot simply destroy these institutions or make them illegal. That is an effort doomed to failure and sure to provoke outcries of acts against humanity.

The one thing you can do is plant the seeds of an organic and free socio-economic culture. It'll do the work on its own. Think of Vietnam's doi moi policies of the mid-1980s. Decades of Western military intervention did nothing on its own, other than continue a bloody stalemate of principle in Southeast Asia. However, once the injection of even a little bit of capitalist culture caused an 8 percent annual economic growth, wars with Cambodia and Laos became meaningless. While Vietnam may not be the single shining example of economic progress for the globe, one thing is for certain - it's no longer a threat to anyone.

The reasons are fairly simple: The healthy, organic, internal struggles prescribed by a Western-style socio-economic culture generally force unhealthy, external struggles of principle and religion to cease. You can't spend your energy everywhere.

Organic is the operative term here: Such a culture needs to grow from within. It can succeed - and has succeeded many times, in places previously thought of as completely anti-capitalist and anti-Western.

One of the benefits of such a transformation is that religious zeal is the first thing to fly out the window.

The War on Religion

To best understand the cultural issues involved in the endgame of the war on terror, it helps to take a step back and ask: What exactly is religion?

Throughout human history, religion has been many things. In ancient civilizations, it was science. It explained rain, wind, fire, and everything else. Over time, religion became government - it made controlling the masses a lot easier because people were obeying the word of God, not necessarily the word of a king or queen. Religion in the modern Western World acts as a social glue. This has always been especially true of new immigrant cultures - it provides a base until the culture is assimilated.

The key is that religion provides structure for people until something better comes along. In America, we realized religion's place in society from the very beginning. One of the most unheralded consequences of America's Constitution is that the separation of church and state didn't just guarantee freedom for every individual to worship as he or she chose. The most important part was the converse - it allowed capitalism and government to grow without the interference that uncontrolled religion often produces.

We didn't ban religion, we just made sure it could not take over. We did this by providing a better alternative. When allowed to, people will always flock to free market capitalism over religious-like dogma. There is no reason to believe this cannot be true in the Middle East.

The Cultural Endgame

The Bush administration isn't completely to blame here. The Western World has become so guilty about exporting its own culture to developing nations that it often hinders that task. In America, we have a love/hate relationship with our Wal-Marts, Starbucks and Nikes. Thus, when we see members of a non-Western culture marching violently against Western values, many of us can sympathize with their sentiment.

This love/hate relationship is fine - in fact, probably a healthy and more advanced way of reflecting on life than, say, the mass-consumerism of the 1950s and 1960s. This, however, is irrelevant when it comes to the benefits of exporting that culture. When you look at the roots of terrorism, embedded in poverty and despair, the exporting of prosperity that springs from Western values is easily our best weapon in the war on terror.

What will the culture of the Middle East look like in five, 10, 20 years? It is hard to tell. One thing is for certain, though. No matter how well our military action succeeds in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever else, if we don't insist on harvesting the seeds of a secular, capitalist, Westernized socio-economic culture, the Middle East (and the terrorism that breeds there) will never change. This much we do know - that is a frightening proposition.

YouTube Has Become Indispensable in Politics

Tom Brown of the Seattle Times has noted what anyone who spends any time on YouTube has already discovered ...

That old political mantra, stay on message, may now mean posting more video clips on YouTube than the other guy.

Or, perhaps, hoping futilely that your own gaffes will be overlooked.

The post-it-yourself video site, which has only been around for a year and a half, now supports tens of millions of video downloads a day, many of them political.

Already this year, YouTube is being partially credited for businessman Ned Lamont's upset of U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut and for the embarrassment of U.S. Sen. George Allen of Virginia, who referred to an opponent's campaign worker as "macaca" (a South Asian monkey, we're told).

Then there was the satirical takeoff on former Vice President Al Gore's global-warming movie in which Gore bores an audience of penguins to sleep. It's funny, but, the Wall Street Journal reported, was made by a PR company that numbers Exxon Mobil among its clients. So who's more embarrassed?

Here are some recent links to stories and blog entries about the YouTube political phenomenon. Many representative YouTube clips are linked from them:

Washington Post media colunist Howard Kurtz ruminates on the potential significance of YouTube in political campaigns:

While bloggers played a role in the last presidential election, most advertising and message delivery still comes from campaigns, political parties and interest groups with enough money to bankroll a television blitz. But the YouTube revolution -- which includes dozens of sites such as Google Video, Revver.com and Metacafe.com -- could turn that on its head.

If any teenager can put up a video for or against a candidate, and persuade other people to watch that video, the center of gravity could shift to masses of people with camcorders and passable computer skills. And if people increasingly distrust the mainstream media, they might be more receptive to messages created by ordinary folks.

In this blog entry, a communications company highlights some recent YouTube videos, including one from South Carolina that is straight from Jim Crow's playbook and one from San Diego that is ... well, you decide.

"When Republican Sen. Conrad Burns briefly struggled to keep his eyes open at a Montana farm bill hearing last Thursday, a state Democratic party operative was right there taping it, reports the AP's Mary Clare Jalonick Within hours, the video of Burns was on YouTube and available to viewers around the world."

Burns spokesman Jason Klindt characterized the YouTube posting as a "gotcha" video, saying Burns had gotten little sleep the night before the farm hearing because a flight had been canceled.

The Phoenix in Boston catches up with John Bonifaz, whom it describes as a voting-rights advocate who's running against Commonwealth Secretary Bill Galvin.

In California, Capitol Weekly reports, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and challenger Phil Angelides are squaring off on YouTube.

The online magazine Slate reports on how "Web videos dismantled Joe Lieberman" and features five Lamont clips.

Finally, Michelle Malkin, the columnist, last month created a new group at YouTube for those of her persuasion.

She says one video she posted "has garnered 76,000+ views and was the 5th most-watched video on Friday/98th most-watched video of the week; proving there is a market for right-leaning video at YouTube waiting to be tapped."

Many partisans see YouTube and its siblings as vessels for spreading their message "virally." Those of like mind download it and share it with people they know, who do the same and so forth. The frequently cheesy production values seem to be part of the charm, though there also are plenty of slick, professional productions as well.

Expect to hear more about all this as the campaign season proceeds.

Geek Is the New Language

Ben McIntyre writes in The Times of London that "The world wide web, which turned 15 this week, has given us a fantastic outpouring of new words" ...

Fifteen years after the birth of the world wide web, the lines of battle are clear. On one side the still young culture of the internet — anarchic, playful, joyfully (and sometimes wilfully) inaccurate, global and uncontrollable; on the other, a paper-based set of priorities — precise, polite, often national in perspective and increasingly paranoid. The latter seeks to manage, limit and define the culture; the former delights in its resistance to regulation.

The battle rages in the conflict between Wikipedia, the sprawling internet encyclopaedia, and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the canon versus the loose cannon. This week it erupted in the nursery, when the child-rearing guru Gina Ford threw a tantrum and launched her bizarre attempt to shut down the Mumsnet website because some of the mums had been rude about her.

But in no area of the culture is the collision more intense than over the English language, for the web has changed English more radically than any invention since paper, and much faster. According to Paul Payack, who runs the Global Language Monitor, there are currently 988,974 words in the English language, with thousands more emerging every month. By his calculation, English will adopt its one millionth word in late November. To put that statistic another way, for every French word, there are now ten in English.

That claim has enraged traditional lexicographers. The 20-volume OED has 301,100 entries, and purists point out that Mr Payack has little in the way of method and few criteria to define what really constitutes a word. But that, of course, is the point.

He found the remaining 687,874 words by scouring the internet. Every digital English dictionary was combed, before adding in the emerging words, the hybrids, Chinglish (Chinese-English), the slang, the linguistic odds and sods, and even Hollywords, terms created by the film industry. If a word is used in English, it was acceptable.

The nearest rival to English in sheer fecundity is Chinese, and with 1.3 billion Chinese now being officially urged to learn English, the result is nomogamosis (It is on the list: "A state of marital harmony; a condition in which spouses are well matched.") and many, many offspring, some of them rather sweet. Drinktea, for example, is a sign on a shop door meaning closed, but also derives from the Mandarin for resting.

The so-called tipping point may have come in the mid-1990s at the same time as the invention of the first effective web browser, for ever since the web has served as a seedbed for language, for the cross-fertilisation and rapid evolution of words.

So far from debasing the language, the rapid expansion of English on the web may be enriching the mother tongue. Like Latin, it has developed different forms that bear little relation to one another: a speaker of Hinglish (Hindi-English) would have little to say to a Chinglish speaker. But while the root of Latin took centuries to grow its linguistic branches, modern non-standard English is evolving at fabulous speed. The language of the internet itself, the cyberisms that were once the preserve of a few web boffins, has simultaneous expanded into a new argot of words and idioms: Ancient or Classic Geek has given way to Modern Geek.

The web has revived the possibilities of word-coinage in a way not seen since Shakespearean times, when the language was gradually assuming its modern structure but was not yet codified into dictionaries (the first comprehensive English dictionary appeared in 1730). Then, as now, the lack of control, and the rapid absorption of new terms and ideas through exploration, colonisation and science, enabled a great flowering of words. Of the 24,000 words used by Shakespeare, perhaps 1,700 were his own inventions: besmirch, anchovy, shudder, impede.

Thanks to the internet, we are witnessing the second great age of the neologism, a fantastic outpouring of words and phrases to describe new ideas or reshape old ideas in novel forms of language. Today, a word does not need the slow spread of verbal usage or literature to gain acceptance. If a word works, the internet can breathe instant life into it.

You do not have to be Shakespeare to forge words. George Bush is constantly evolving new words, but no one should misunderestimate the ability of lesser wordsmiths to do likewise. So many words that ought to exist inexplicably do not. There should be a term for that momentary flash of embarrassment when a cell phone rings and you wonder if it is yours; and for the vague disappointment you feel when you think you are about to sneeze, take a deep breath and then don’t. (National Public Radio in the US recently held a competition to name this proto-sneeze and came up with "sniff-hanger.") Why is there a word for déjà vu, but nothing to describe the opposite experience, far more common, of knowing something perfectly well but being quite unable to remember it? (Cyberiter comment: Actually, there is --- jamais vu.)

Last year this newspaper reported the existence, in the Bantu language Tshiluba, of the long-needed word ilunga, meaning "a person who is ready to forgive any abuse for the first time, to tolerate it a second time, but never a third time." Subsequent investigations suggested that the word may not exist in Tshiluba, but it exists now in English, as thousands of entries on the web attest, and the language is better for it.

Rather than fight the word loans and word borrowings, the strange hybrids and new coinages, we should welcome them. New words expand our world. They can even change it. If ilunga is the thrice-repeated offence that cannot be forgiven, then its opposite is an Arabic word, taraadin, meaning "I win, you win," the face-saving way to end an argument. As bombs fall on southern Lebanon and missiles on northern Israel, the world could profit from learning a new language, in which ilunga is solved by taraadin.

'Fiasco' Details American Strategic Failure in Iraq

Bruce Ramsey has provided this well-balanced book review to The Seattle Times ...

"Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq"

by Thomas E. Ricks

Penguin Press, 482 pp., $27.95

Of the war books now landing like mortar shells in our midst, "Fiasco" is making people jump. Its author, Thomas E. Ricks, covers the military for The Washington Post, and knows it well. His story of the Iraq adventure is now on bestseller lists, and deservedly so.

If the news is the first cut at history, and monthlies the second, books like this are the third. Ricks has had a couple of years to organize and think about most of his material, and he has gone a long way in making sense of it. Still, he is a writer of newspaper stories, and his book reflects that. Every page or two brings a mini-headline and a switch from one story line to another. This keeps the book easy to read but also makes it easy to put down.

The first quarter of the book, which is about the arguments before America went to war, is the most gripping and deeply considered. Ricks profiles Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz, an early champion of belligerency, and reveals how Wolfowitz's family's losses in the Holocaust shaped the way he thinks. The war party, Ricks says, had not convinced President Bush to invade Iraq until 9/11. Ricks argues that Bush and his senior advisers wanted a fight, and deceived themselves as well as the public about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction."

For America to go to war for the wrong reasons, Ricks writes, required more than self-deception in the executive branch. It required "major lapses in several major American institutions." One was Congress, where the Republicans cheered for their president's war and the Democrats, who had learned that antiwar leaders lose elections, went along. Another inert institution was the press, which is bold only when it can quote the boldness of somebody else. Then there were the officers of the intelligence community, who knew the information they saw did not justify a war but imagined that the Bush people were seeing something much clearer.

Ricks is at his best explaining how beliefs and institutional bias shaped the result. The assault on Iraq went well, he says, because that was what the Army was trained for. It had not planned for an occupation or for crushing an insurrection, and had no good strategy for that.

Ricks explains the difference between strategy and tactics, how the second flows from the first. The strategy for a war might be to defeat the enemy by destroying his army in battle; the tactics might be a particular form of tank assault. For crushing an insurrection, Ricks says, the best strategy is to win over the people -- a strategy that implies a certain restraint. Part of the problem at Abu Ghraib, he says, was that most of the Iraqis imprisoned there were not rebels, and many were held because the 4th Infantry Division was following the wrong tactics.

The American military, as pictured in this book, made some big mistakes. But the military has some leaders who remember history -- he profiles several in the book -- and adjust their policy. Ricks is much harsher on the politicians, who have a greater freedom to be delusionary. It was civilian authority under Paul Bremer that dissolved the Iraqi army and dismantled state enterprises, creating chaos when the military's goal was stability.

The book covers in-depth the run-up to the war and the first year, skimming thereafter. By the later chapters the subject is more purely military, and some readers may lose patience with it.

"Fiasco" is the story of the occupation of a country Americans did not understand, done for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. Ricks ends by saying that Iraq has been greatly damaged, which will have repercussions for many years. His analysis does not leave the reader with much hope for a good end.

War in Lebanon Fuels Anti-American Sentiment

Given that Lebanon's population is comprised of Christians and various factions of Muslims that were not necessarily sympathetic to Hezbollah, this report by Leila Fadel of the McClatchy Newspaper syndicate is surely not a result that will serve America well ...

BEIRUT, Lebanon -- In trendy central Beirut, a large banner looms over the now nearly empty streets of downtown: U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stares intently, with piercing fangs and blood dripping from her lips.

"The massacre of children in Qana is a gift from Rice," the banner says. It's referring to a southern Lebanese town that's now synonymous with the word massacre after the deaths of at least 28 civilians, including many children, in an Israeli airstrike July 30, and another attack in 1996, when Israeli artillery killed more than 100 civilians.

Last year, Lebanon was the beacon of the Bush administration's vision of a new Middle East. There were free elections without Syrian influence, women's rights, a free press and free speech.

Today, much of this nation feels deserted by America as Israeli warplanes, dropping U.S.-made weapons, destroy apartment blocks, bridges and roads. After four weeks of bombardment, the feeling is increasingly shared by Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Christians and Druze.

Israeli and U.S. officials thought Israel's counterattack against Hezbollah would turn more Lebanese against the militant Shiite group, but members of the new independent government worry the war will turn Lebanon into a bastion for extremism. With every civilian death, anger rises, among both the displaced poor living in parks and the well-off still eating pasta salads in cafes.

"You cannot see the Middle East only through the eyes of Israel," said Misbah Ahdab, a Sunni Muslim member of parliament who was in the political movement that forced Syria to leave Lebanon last year. "Either this is settled immediately and we hurry and work to rebuild, or it will be a mini-Iraq and all the extremists will come to Lebanon to fight Israel."

Ahdab is disappointed in what he considers to be a pro-Israel policy, which he says has forsaken a Lebanese government that once saw the United States as a friend and protector.

"This is a picture of democracy that has been used by the U.S. You don't want it to be a failure," he said. "This is where the U.S. has an opportunity to show a new inclusive Middle East and not only Israel's Middle East."

Ahdab is hardly alone. Many officials who once considered themselves pro-American don't disguise their dismay at a Bush administration that for weeks refused to call for Israel to stop bombing Lebanon and is backing a U.N. resolution that doesn't call for an immediate cease-fire or for Israel to withdraw its troops.

"The cost and toll in human suffering is enormous, and it's undermined the capital that the U.S. has in Lebanon and other places, not to mention it's undermining pro-Western governments across the region," said Sami Haddad, the minister of trade and economy and another stalwart of Lebanon's anti-Syria coalition.

Anti-U.S. posters have become commonplace in tony shopping districts that only weeks ago were full of students from the American University of Beirut sipping lattes at the now-closed Starbucks.

The images are graphic: In one, a man lifts a dead child covered in dust with a blue pacifier hanging from his shirt, an image from the Qana bombing July 30. The poster states: "March 21st Mother's Day, June 18th U.S. Father's Day, July 30th Bush's Children's Day."

In another, a U.S. flag's red stripes bleed onto a dead Lebanese man and asks, "What's next?"

In a bookstore nearby, a coffee-table book called "The Beirut Spring Independence '05" documents the rise of the anti-Syria movement and the withdrawal of Syrian troops under intense U.S. pressure after the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. His death was blamed on Syria and spurred a demonstration of a million people March 14, 2005.

Those days are all but forgotten now.

"We were fighting for real democracy in this country, and the U.S. supported us," said Maha Hoteit, 21, as she chatted with friends in De Prague, a cafe on trendy Hamra Street where musicians and activists smoke cigarettes over conversations about art and politics.

Hoteit, a Shiite Muslim, had taken to the streets March 14 with her family. Now her hope for a new Lebanon is gone and all she thinks about is leaving.

"They left us. The Americans are just watching this happen," she said. "All that the Cedar Revolution was is gone."

Ghassan Bouz, 22, a stylish musician in a black Dolce & Gabbana shirt, called America's support of Lebanon "a lie."

"The U.S. has two kinds of democracies," said Bouz, a graduate of the American University of Beirut. "The good kind for them and the foreign kind for us."

Now, pro-Syrian elements of Lebanon have been vindicated, many said. "This proved what the pro-Syrians say, that the U.S. only cares about Israel," Hoteit said.

Certainly, the pro-Syrian elements are working to drive home the point.

"Bitter is an understatement about American politics in Lebanon," said Yaacoub al-Sarraf, minister of the environment and one of the few ministers who unabashedly support Lebanon's pro-Syria president, Emile Lahoud. "We're not bitter about them sending bombs; we're bitter about them covering up for murder."

CNN Puts bin Laden into Perspective

I consider Peter Bergen to be Western civilization's foremost authority on Osama bin Laden ...

If he's involved in a documentary on terrorism's figurehead, then that's a program worth watching. So, as Lynn Elber of the Associated Press reports, CNN's upcoming special on this topic is recommended viewing:

To terrorism expert Peter Bergen, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida are hiding in plain sight as the force behind the alleged plot against trans-Atlantic airliners.

Bin Laden's tenacious influence five years after Sept. 11 is why, Bergen said, he felt compelled to write about him and to participate in "In the Footsteps of bin Laden," a new CNN documentary based in part on Bergen's book, "The Osama bin Laden I Know."

The two-hour special, reported by CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, airs on Wed 23 Aug.

While U.S. and British officials investigate links between the airplane bombing plot and al-Qaida, Bergen already sees a clear connection.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahri, have released dozens of video and audio tapes that Bergen characterizes as "the most widely distributed political statements in history."

"Hundreds of millions of people see them or hear them or read about them ... to people who are part of the jihadist movement, these words are akin to a religious order," Bergen said. When bin Laden calls for assaults on members of the Iraq war coalition, "people react to that in Madrid and London."

As he dodges capture (he's believed to be in Pakistan), bin Laden is not in operational control of al-Qaida but "he doesn't need to be because these tapes get the message out."

Bin Laden's organization may have done more than inspire last week's failed jetliner plot: It's "a classic al-Qaida operation," said Bergen, who teaches at Johns Hopkins University and is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.

CNN's film constructs an account of bin Laden's life based on dozens of worldwide interviews, 21 of which were with people who had direct contact with him, including childhood friends, university classmates, fellow jihadists and a former English teacher.

In trying to comprehend the "fatal switch" that turned bin Laden from what Amanpour calls a "comfortably off, establishment person" into an extremist, the CNN documentary sidesteps armchair analysis.

There are details that carry the potential for such scrutiny: bin Laden, the son of the late Saudi construction magnate Mohammed bin Laden, lived apart from the sprawling family that included his father's 22 wives and 54 sons and daughters.

But the CNN special deliberately avoids theorizing about bin Laden's personal demons, Amanpour said.

The facts themselves paint a striking picture, Amanpour said. One particular element that came into focus was how bin Laden used international media to clearly communicate his plan of attack.

Bergen, who in 1997 obtained the first TV interview with bin Laden for CNN, found two elements of his research on the man particularly intriguing and unexpected.

One was the sharp criticism from within al-Qaida that bin Laden faced after Sept. 11, initially seen as a tactical error. Bin Laden thought it would drive the United States to withdraw from Mideast involvement; instead, it fueled attacks on his group and Afghanistan's Taliban.

(The Iraq war, which Bergen said reinvigorated al-Qaida and its terrorist efforts, ultimately reversed its attitude toward the attack on America.)

Bergen also was struck by another detail about bin Laden. He named a daughter Safia, after a woman from the prophet Muhammad's time who was known for killing Jews.

"Just the kind of mental state of calling your infant daughter" after such a figure is striking, Bergen said. "I think that gets inside that he's a really rabid anti-Semite."

The Follies of Bellacosity

Sometimes, it's better to believe that image is everything ...

It seems the Israeli military didn't learn anything from the American military's current escapades in Iraq, and thus what everyone assumed to be the dominant force in the region has experienced has been exposed to be as fallible as what everyone assumed to be the dominant force in the world.

It is now painfully clear that --- for both the American and Israeli military machines --- the threat of deployment was more of a deterrent than actual deployment. Among other things, it was certainly a much less expensive strategy, both financially and mortally.

Now, as Robert Fisk of London's Independent opines, there's a significant new chapter about to be written in the Middle East. The realization that it was totally avoidable is now academic, with significant repercussions:

The real war in Lebanon begins today. The world may believe -- and Israel may believe -- that the UN ceasefire due to come into effect at 6am on Mon 14 Aug will mark the beginning of the end of the latest dirty war in Lebanon after up to 1000 Lebanese civilians and more than 30 Israeli civilians have been killed. But the reality is quite different and will suffer no such self-delusion: the Israeli army, reeling under the Hizbollah's onslaught of the past 24 hours, is now facing the harshest guerrilla war in its history. And it is a war they may well lose.

In all, at least 39 -- possibly 43 -- Israeli soldiers have been killed in the past day as Hizbollah guerrillas, still launching missiles into Israel itself, have fought back against Israel's massive land invasion into Lebanon.

Israeli military authorities talked of "cleaning" and "mopping up" operations by their soldiers south of the Litani river but, to the Lebanese, it seems as if it is the Hizbollah that have been doing the "mopping up." By last night, the Israelis had not even been able to reach the dead crew of a helicopter -- shot down on Saturday night -- which crashed into a Lebanese valley.

Officially, Israel has now accepted the UN ceasefire that calls for an end to all Israeli offensive military operations and Hizbollah attacks, and the Hizbollah have stated that they will abide by the ceasefire - providing no Israeli troops remain inside Lebanon. But 10,000 Israeli soldiers - the Israelis even suggest 30,000, although no one in Beirut takes that seriously - have now entered the country and every one of them is a Hizbollah target.

From this morning, Hizbollah's operations will be directed solely against the invasion force. And the Israelis cannot afford to lose 40 men a day. Unable to shoot down the Israeli F-16 aircraft that have laid waste to much of Lebanon, the Hizbollah have, for years, prayed and longed and waited for the moment when they could attack the Israeli army on the ground.

Now they are set to put their long-planned campaign into operation. Thousands of their members remain alive and armed in the ruined hill villages of southern Lebanon for just this moment and, only hours after their leader, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, warned Israel on Saturday that his men were waiting for them on the banks of the Litani river, the Hizbollah sprang their trap, killing more than 20 Israeli soldiers in less than three hours.

Israel itself, according to reports from Washington and New York, had long planned its current campaign against Lebanon -- provoked by Hizbollah's crossing of the Israeli frontier, its killing of three soldiers and seizure of two others on 12 July -- but the Israelis appear to have taken no account of the guerrilla army's most obvious operational plan: that if they could endure days of air attacks, they would eventually force Israel's army to re-enter Lebanon on the ground and fight them on equal terms.

Hizbollah's laser-guided missiles - Iranian-made, just as most Israeli arms are US-made - appear to have caused havoc among Israeli troops on Saturday, and their downing of an Israeli helicopter was without precedent in their long war against Israel.

In theory, aid convoys will be able to move south today to the thousands of Lebanese Shia trapped in their villages but no one knows whether the Hizbollah will wait for several days -- they, like the Israelis, are physically tired -- to allow that help to reach the crushed towns.

Atrocities continue across Lebanon, the most recent being the attack on a convoy of cars carrying 600 Christian families from the southern town of Marjayoun. Led by soldiers of the Lebanese army, they trailed north on Saturday up the Bekaa valley only to be assaulted by Israeli aircraft. At least seven were killed, including the wife of the mayor, a Christian woman who was decapitated by a missile that hit her car.

In west Beirut on Sun 13 Aug, the Israeli air force destroyed eight apartment blocks in which six families were living. Twelve civilians were killed in southern Lebanon, including a mother, her children and their housemaid.

An Israeli was killed by Hizballoh's continued Katyusha fire across the border. The guerrilla army -- "terrorists" to the Israelis and Americans but increasingly heroes across the Muslim world -- have many dead to avenge, although their leadership seems less interested in exacting an eye for an eye and far more eager to strike at Israel's army.

At this fatal juncture in Middle East history -- and no one should underestimate this moment's importance in the region -- the Israeli army appears as impotent to protect its country as the Hizbollah clearly is to protect Lebanon.

But if the ceasefire collapses, as seems certain, neither the Israelis nor the Americans appear to have any plans to escape the consequences. The US saw this war as an opportunity to humble Hizbollah's Iranian and Syrian sponsors but already it seems as if the tables have been turned. The Israeli military appears to be efficient at destroying bridges, power stations, gas stations and apartment blocks -- but signally inefficient in crushing the "terrorist" army they swore to liquidate.

"The Lebanese government is our address for every problem or violation of the [ceasefire] agreement," Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, said yesterday, as if realising the truce would not hold.

And that, of course, provides yet another excuse for Israel to attack the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon.

Far more worrying, however, are the vague terms of the UN Security Council's resolution on the multinational force supposed to occupy land between the Israeli border and the Litani river.

For if the Israelis and the Hizbollah are at war across the south over the coming weeks, what country will dare send its troops into the jungle that southern Lebanon will have become?

Tragically, and fatally for all involved, the real Lebanon war does indeed begin today.

Inevitable: Top US Generals Fear Iraqi Civil War

Dana Priest and Mary Jordan of the Washington Post have filed a report that should surprise no one ...

WASHINGTON -- Two top U.S. generals said recently that the sectarian violence in Iraq is much worse than they had ever anticipated and could lead to civil war, arguing that improving the situation is now more a matter of Iraqi political will than of U.S. military strategy.

"The sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it," Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. military operations in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "If not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."

The testimony from Abizaid and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, was the military's most dire assessment of conditions in Iraq since the war began 40 months ago. It echoed the opinion of Britain's outgoing ambassador to Iraq, who, in a confidential memo revealed Thursday, told Prime Minister Tony Blair that a de-facto partition of Iraq is more likely than a transition to democracy.

Both U.S. generals said they think Iraq will be successful in maintaining a stable government in the near future, but their assessment about the possible slide into civil war is something the administration has avoided acknowledging.

"We do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, but that does not have to be a fact," Pace said. "... We need the Iraqi people to seize this moment."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called the Iraq violence "unfortunate" and "tragic." He said he remains "confident in the good, common sense of the American people" that running away from Iraq would amount to victory for "murderers and extremists."

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the administration may need to seek new authorization from Congress to allow U.S. troops to fight in a civil war. Originally, U.S. forces were authorized to topple Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath party.

Senators from both parties questioned whether troops were adequately trained to fight in a civil war. If it comes to that, asked Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., "which side are we on?"

"I'm reluctant to speculate about that," Rumsfeld said. "It could lead to a discussion that suggests that we presume that's going to happen ... The government is holding together. The armed forces are holding together."

Several times during the hearing, Rumsfeld expressed concern that the committee's back-and-forth would aid the enemy. "They want us pointing fingers at each other rather than pointing fingers at them," he said.

The somber mood at the hearing was amplified by concern about the war in Lebanon and the possibility that it will lead to instability in the region.

"I've rarely seen it so unsettled or volatile," Abizaid said.

The Bush administration celebrated in May the Iraqi factions' agreement to form a government and in June the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who led al-Qaida in Iraq. But violence now claims 100 victims a day, according to a report by the United Nations Assistance Mission to Iraq, and Baghdad is no longer secure.

Recent pledges from Bush that the United States might be able to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq were upended when the Pentagon announced recently that 3,700 troops who had been planning to return home over the next two weeks will be sent to Baghdad for as long as four months.

Both generals before the committee said they could not say when the insurgency would be defeated, when Iraqi militias might be disbanded, when Iraqi forces would be strong enough to fight on their own, or when U.S. troops could begin to withdraw. Abizaid said he expects Iraq to "move toward equilibrium ... in the next five years."

All three officials said they believe that Iraq will overcome its difficulties and that pulling U.S. troops out anytime soon would sabotage the goal of building a democracy there. They said the key to stopping an insurgency of 20,000 in a country of nearly 27 million is for the Iraqi people to unite, for the government to disband armed militias and for Iraqi security forces to grow in number and capability.

"There's something more going on in Iraq at a deeper level ... for this violence to be sustained so long and grow, not lessen," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "What do you think that something is?"

Pace responded that Graham was "fundamentally correct that if the Iraqi people as a whole decided today that, in my words now, they love their children more than they hate their neighbor, that this could come to a quick conclusion."

Republican and Democratic committee members peppered the trio with pointed questions about widespread corruption, increasingly bold militias, the growing role of Iran and the depleted state of U.S. forces.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., accused the Pentagon of "playing a game of whack-a-mole," moving U.S. troops from one unstable area to the next. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., sparred with Rumsfeld and Pace over Pentagon reports that two-thirds of Army brigades are not at an adequate level of combat readiness.

Pace and Rumsfeld said the calculations did not adequately reflect growth in the military's capability.

The day's most riveting moment came when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., read a list of policy blunders she said had led to the current Iraq crisis and accused Rumsfeld of incompetence. "Given your track record," she asked, "why should we believe your assurances now?"

After a long pause, Rumsfeld responded: "My goodness."

He said the war planning was a complicated set of decisions, taken with commanders' input and approval. "Your assertion," he concluded, "is at least debatable."

Hours after excoriating Rumsfeld at the hearing, Clinton called on him to resign.

"I just don't understand why we can't get new leadership that would give us a fighting chance to turn the situation around before it's too late," Clinton told The Associated Press. "I think the president should choose to accept Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation.

"The secretary has lost credibility with the Congress and with the people," she said. "It's time for him to step down and be replaced by someone who can develop an effective strategy and communicate it effectively to the American people and to the world."

Asked about Clinton's comments, Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff said, "We don't discuss politics."

In the confidential memo obtained by the BBC, William Patey, Britain's top civil servant in Baghdad until last week, wrote that "the prospect of a low-intensity civil war and a de-facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy."

"Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq -- a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror -- must remain in doubt," Patey said, adding that "the position is not hopeless" and the "next six months are crucial" although Iraq would be "messy and difficult" for the next five to 10 years.

Ignored: Warnings in 2003 About Iraqi Insurgency

Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay of Knight Ridder Newspapers uncover what has surely become an inexcusable oversight ...

WASHINGTON -- U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports.

Among the warnings was a major study, called a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), completed in October 2003, that concluded that the insurgency was fueled by local conditions -- not foreign terrorists -- and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops.

The reports received a cool reception from the White House and the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to the former officials, who discussed them publicly for the first time.

President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and others continued to describe the insurgency as a containable threat, posed mainly by former supporters of Saddam Hussein, criminals and non-Iraqi terrorists -- even as the U.S. intelligence community was warning otherwise.

Robert Hutchings, chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC) from 2003 to 2005, said the October 2003 study was part of a "steady stream" of dozens of intelligence reports warning Bush and his top lieutenants that the insurgency was intensifying and expanding.

"Frankly, senior officials simply weren't ready to pay attention to analysis that didn't conform to their own optimistic scenarios," Hutchings said in a telephone interview.

Hutchings said one theme that ran through intelligence analyses as early as 2003 was that there were "signs of incipient civil war."

"The invasion and occupation opened issues for which the Iraqi people had no answer," he said, including the role of religion and relations among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

The NIC is the intelligence community's foremost group of senior analysts, and Hutchings presided over the drafting of the October 2003 report and other analyses of the insurgency.

Wayne White, a veteran State Department intelligence analyst, wrote recently that when it became clear that the NIE would forecast grim prospects for tamping down the insurgency, a senior official "exclaimed rhetorically, 'How can I take this upstairs?' [to then-CIA Director George Tenet]."

White argued forcefully in inter-agency deliberations for a more pessimistic description of the insurgency, and his views prevailed. White now is an adjunct scholar at the Washington-based Middle East Institute.

Revelation of the intelligence warnings come as religious and ethnic violence has escalated in Iraq after last Wednesday's destruction of a revered Shiite Muslim mosque in the city of Samarra.

In Congress on Tuesday, Army Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified that the insurgency "remains strong and resilient."

While Iraqi terrorists and foreign fighters conduct some of the most spectacular attacks, Maples said, disaffected Iraqi Sunnis make up the insurgency's core.

"So long as Sunni Arabs are denied access to resources and lack a meaningful presence in government, they will continue to resort to violence," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

That view contrasts with what the administration said as the insurgency gained traction in the months after the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Bush and his aides portrayed it as the work primarily of foreign terrorists crossing Iraq's borders, disenfranchised former officials of Saddam's deposed regime and criminals.

In August 2003, with concerns about the insurgency growing, Bush said: "There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on. ... We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

On Nov. 1, 2003, a day after the NIE was distributed, Bush said in his weekly radio address: "Some of the killers behind these attacks are loyalists of the Saddam regime who seek to regain power and who resent Iraq's new freedoms. Others are foreigners who have traveled to Iraq to spread fear and chaos. ... The terrorists and the Baathists hope to weaken our will. Our will cannot be shaken."

As recently as May 2005, Cheney told a television interviewer: "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

White, who worked at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, said of the administration: "They've gone through various excuse phases."

Now, he said, "The levels of resistance are pretty much as high as they were a year ago."

Hutchings, now diplomat in residence at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, said intelligence specialists repeatedly ran up against policymakers' rosy predictions.

"The mind-set downtown was that people were willing to accept that things were pretty bad, but not that they were going to get worse, so our analyses tended to get dismissed as 'nay-saying and hand-wringing,' to quote the president's press spokesman," he said.

The result, he said, was that top political and military officials focused on ways of dealing with foreign jihadists and disaffected Saddam loyalists, rather than with other pressing problems, such as growing Iraqi anger at the U.S.-led occupation and the deteriorating economic and security situation.

A former senior U.S. official who participated in the process said analysts at the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department's intelligence bureau agreed the insurgency posed a growing threat to stability and to U.S. hopes for forming a new government.

"This was stuff the White House and the Pentagon did not want to hear," said the former official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They were constantly grumbling that the people who were writing these kind of downbeat assessments 'needed to get on the team,' 'were not team players' and were 'sitting up there [at CIA headquarters] in Langley sucking their thumbs.'"

The October 2003 report on "violence and instability in Iraq" was requested not by the White House but by the U.S. military's Central Command, whose area of responsibility includes Iraq, current and former officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

When analysts from various intelligence agencies first met in mid-2003 to prepare the report, White said, almost all argued that the insurgency could be contained.

He was the sole exception, he said.

The office of Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte declined Tuesday to comment for this article, but, appearing at the Senate hearing with Maples on Tuesday, he warned that a civil war in Iraq could lead to a broader conflict in the Middle East, pitting the region's rival Islamic sects against each other.

Saudi Arabia and Jordan could support Iraq's Sunnis, Negroponte said. And Iran, run by a Shiite Islamic theocracy, "has already got quite close ties with some of the extremist elements" inside Iraq, he added.

Bush, in an interview with ABC News' "World News Tonight," said he did not believe the escalation of civil unrest would lead to a general civil war.

Incredible: Poll Shows Some Americans Still Think Iraq Has WMDs

Not all of America's perception problems regarding Iraq emanate from overseas ...

Charles J. Hanley of the Associated Press has found an amazing phenomenon. Specifically, there remains a significant element of citizenry in the USA who aren't going to let the truth get in their way:

Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq.

People tend to become "independent of reality" in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents -- up from 36 percent last year -- said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story.

"I'm flabbergasted," said Michael Massing, a media critic whose writings dissected the largely unquestioning U.S. news reporting on the Bush administration's shaky WMD claims in 2002-03.

"This finding just has to cause despair among those of us who hope for an informed public able to draw reasonable conclusions based on evidence," Massing said.

Timing may explain some of the poll result. Two weeks before the survey, two Republican lawmakers, Pennsylvania's Sen. Rick Santorum and Michigan's Rep. Peter Hoekstra, released an intelligence report in Washington saying 500 chemical munitions had been collected in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

"I think the Harris Poll was measuring people's surprise at hearing this after being told for so long there were no WMD in the country," said Hoekstra spokesman Jamal Ware.

But the Pentagon and outside experts stressed that these abandoned shells, many found in ones and twos, were 15 years old or more, their chemical contents were degraded, and they were unusable as artillery ordnance. Since the 1990s, such "orphan" munitions, from among 160,000 made by Iraq and destroyed, have turned up on old battlefields and elsewhere in Iraq, ex-inspectors say. In other words, this was no surprise.

"These are not stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," said Scott Ritter, the ex-Marine who was a U.N. inspector in the 1990s. "They weren't deliberately withheld from inspectors by the Iraqis."

Conservative commentator Deroy Murdock, who trumpeted Hoekstra's announcement in his syndicated column, complained in an interview that the press "didn't give the story the play it deserved." But in some quarters it was headlined.

"Our top story tonight, the nation abuzz today ..." was how Fox News led its report on the old, stray shells. Talk-radio hosts and their callers seized on it. Feedback to blogs grew intense. "Americans are waking up from a distorted reality," read one posting.

Other claims about supposed WMD had preceded this, especially speculation since 2003 that Iraq had secretly shipped WMD abroad. A former Iraqi general's book -- at best uncorroborated hearsay -- claimed "56 flights" by jetliners had borne such material to Syria.

But Kull, Massing and others see an influence on opinion that's more sustained than the odd headline.

"I think the Santorum-Hoekstra thing is the latest 'factoid,' but the basic dynamic is the insistent repetition by the Bush administration of the original argument," said John Prados, author of the 2004 book "Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War."

Administration statements still describe Saddam's Iraq as a threat. Despite the official findings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has allowed only that "perhaps" WMD weren't in Iraq. And Bush himself, since 2003, has repeatedly insisted on one plainly false point: that Saddam rebuffed the U.N. inspectors in 2002, that "he wouldn't let them in," as he said in 2003, and "he chose to deny inspectors," as he said this March.

The facts are that Iraq -- after a four-year hiatus in cooperating with inspections -- acceded to the U.N. Security Council's demand and allowed scores of experts to conduct more than 700 inspections of potential weapons sites from Nov. 27, 2002, to March 16, 2003. The inspectors said they could wrap up their work within months. Instead, the U.S. invasion aborted that work.

As recently as May 27, Bush told West Point graduates, "When the United Nations Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to take that final opportunity."

"Which isn't true," observed Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a scholar of presidential rhetoric at the University of Pennsylvania. But "it doesn't surprise me when presidents reconstruct reality to make their policies defensible." This president may even have convinced himself it's true, she said.

Americans have heard it. A poll by Kull's WorldPublicOpinion.org found that seven in 10 Americans perceive the administration as still saying Iraq had a WMD program. Combine that rhetoric with simplistic headlines about WMD "finds," and people "assume the issue is still in play," Kull said.

"For some it almost becomes independent of reality and becomes very partisan." The WMD believers are heavily Republican, polls show.

Beyond partisanship, however, people may also feel a need to believe in WMD, the analysts say.

"As perception grows of worsening conditions in Iraq, it may be that Americans are just hoping for more of a solid basis for being in Iraq to begin with," said the Harris Poll's David Krane.

Charles Duelfer, the lead U.S. inspector who announced the negative WMD findings two years ago, has watched uncertainly as TV sound bites, bloggers and politicians try to chip away at "the best factual account," his group's densely detailed, 1,000-page final report.

"It is easy to see what is accepted as truth rapidly morph from one representation to another," he said in an e-mail. "It would be a shame if one effect of the power of the Internet was to undermine any commonly agreed set of facts."

The creative "morphing" goes on.

As Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerrillas battled in Lebanon on July 21, a Fox News segment suggested, with no evidence, yet another destination for the supposed doomsday arms.

"Are Saddam Hussein's WMDs Now In Hezbollah's Hands?" asked the headline, lingering for long minutes on TV screens in a million American homes.

Middle East Propaganda, American Style

I recently received a slide-show attachment in an e-mail that was supposed to be an affirmation of support for the American troops in Iraq ...

It was entitled, 'Gladiator, American Style' and was quite well done, with soldiers holding Iraqi babies, talking pleasantly with Iraqi children, improvising golf games, smiling and doing all the happy things soldiers do when they're not risking sudden death.

I'm sure it was well-intentioned, but the ironic impression it made on me was that Joseph Goebbels would surely have approved.

My support and sympathies are extended to all the troops serving in the Middle East, but I do not support the invasion in any way, shape or form. Their futures are being mortgaged badly enough with this current series of American follies for them to possibly be exposed to going there.

Such criticism isn't coming just from the left and the moderates. Staunch conservatives from George Will and William Buckley to Pat Buchanan believe the Bush Administration's Middle East policies are egregious and unjustified mistakes.

I've offered a link to it before, but let me do so again: Here's a speech given in the House of Representatives by the Hon Ron Paul, an oil-state Republican, elaborating on the damage being done to the USA economy, both financially and politically.

And note in this commentary from Pulitzer-prize winner Carl Bernstein (of Watergate fame) that Republican leaders are quoted as much as Democrats.

History has justified their reasoning --- for example, check the brilliant documentary, Fog of War, from the fake Gulf of Tonkin report to the poor homework behind the Domino Theory that even North Vietnam later debunked --- and one would have hoped our leaders from that point onward would have learned from the experience, the cost and the unnecessary deaths and maimings.

And yet, here we are, watching another round of tributes to troops which are supposed to make us feel good, but knowing that the next moment could see any one of them blown away, lost to their families and loved ones forever. And for what?

I am simply aghast that the President thinks so little of their lives that he did not better define their mission.

His administration's policies are not curbing terrorism. They're creating more terrorists who are uniting against us. For example, consider these undisputed facts:

- Al-Qaida had no support in Iraq until the 'Allies' invaded. Al-Qaida is predominantly Sunni; the Iraqi insurgency is predominantly Shi'ite. They had no use for each other until we became the common enemy.

- Hezbollah (Shi'ite) and Hamas (Sunni) were just as diametrically opposed to each other. Not now. American policies have, in effect, created a crescent of more radical terrorism across the Middle East involving groups who had nothing to do with the Al-Qaida attack on the USA.

- Instead of being a local pariah that had been reasonably contained, Iran (Shi'ite) --- with its ample resources --- has now become a major, destabilizing influence throughout the entire Middle East.

As a direct result of the Bush Administration's policies, these developments have put more American troops and citizens even more at risk. This is more than ironic; it's unconscionable.

I believe in America. I just believe that its leaders have a responsibility to uphold the ideals upon which the country was founded and for which many of its troops have given their lives over the past two centuries. I believe the facts in the USA's present situation find its leadership falling woefully short, to the detriment of its troops and civilians alike.

There are better and more efficient ways to focus on America's enemies without deploying costly, short-sighted policies that only create more of them. The USA needs smarter leaders --- from any party, preferably from the ranks of those who have served in the military --- to determine wiser plans and implement them.

Hopefully, Americans will start to find them during this autumn's elections.

Recreational Drugs: Danger Rankings

This is the first ranking based upon scientific evidence of harm to both individuals and society ...

It was devised by British government advisers, and then ignored by ministers because of its controversial findings.

Research by medical experts, who analyzed 20 substances for their addictive qualities, social harm and physical damage, produced strikingly different results from the government's drug classification system.

Heroin and cocaine, both Class A drugs, topped the list of harm, but alcohol was ranked fifth, ahead of prescription tranquilizers and amphetamines.

Tobacco was placed ninth, ahead of cannabis, which has recently been downgraded from a Class B to Class C drug, at 11th.

Alcohol and tobacco, and solvents, which can also be bought legally, were judged more damaging than LSD (14th) and ecstasy (18th).

The warning on alcohol comes amid growing alarm among British government ministers over a surge of "binge drinking" over the last decade. They fear it is fuelling rising levels of violent crime and creating long-term health problems for the nation.

Methadone, used to wean heroin addicts off the drug, also scored highly, being judged more dangerous other Class A substances.

The research will put more pressure on the Home Office to a rethink the 35-year-old system for classifying illegal drugs as Class A, B or C substances. It reflects the penalties for possessing them or dealing in them, but that means heroin is categorized alongside drugs such as ecstasy.

The analysis was carried out by David Nutt, a senior member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and Colin Blakemore, the chief executive of the Medical Research Council. Copies of the report have been submitted to the Home Office, which has failed to act on the conclusions.

Professor Blakemore told the BBC Radio 4 Today program: "Alcohol, on our classification, is the fifth most harmful drug --- more harmful than LSD and, by a long way, than ecstasy and cannabis and a whole range of illegal drugs.

"That's not to say there's any argument that alcohol should be made illegal, but it does give one a feel for the relative harm potential from any drug."

1: Heroin (Class A)
ORIGIN: Vast majority comes from poppy fields of Afghanistan
MEDICAL: Sedative made from the opium poppy. Can be smoked or injected to produce a 'rush'. Users
feel lethargic but experience severe cravings for the drug
NO. OF UK USERS: 40,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 744
STREET VALUE: £30-100 a gram
DANGER RATING: 2.75/3

2: Cocaine (Class A)
ORIGIN: Made from coca shrubs from Colombia and Bolivia
MEDICAL: Stimulant made from leaves of the coca bush. Increases alertness and confidence but raises
heart rate and blood pressure and users will crave it
NO. OF UK USERS: 800,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 147
STREET VALUE: £30-55 a gram
DANGER RATING: 2.25/3

3: Barbiturates (Class B)
ORIGIN: Synthetic lab-made drugs, used to be prominent in clubs
MEDICAL:Powerful sedatives. Widely prescribed as sleeping pills but dangerous in overdose and now
superseded by safer drugs
NO. OF UK USERS: Not many
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 14
STREET VALUE: £1-2 a tablet
DANGER RATING: 2.10/3

4: Street Methadone (Class A)
ORIGIN: Synthetic drug similar to heroin but less addictive
MEDICAL: Similar to morphine and heroin and used to wean addicts off these drugs because it is less
sedating. Street versions may be contaminated
NO. OF UK USERS: 20,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 200
STREET VALUE: £2 a dose
DANGER RATING: 1.90/3

5: Alcohol (Legal)
ORIGIN: Brewed across the world in many different forms
MEDICAL:Central nervous system depressant used to reduce inhibitions and increase sociability.
Increasing doses lead to intoxication, coma and respiratory failure
NO. OF UK USERS: Most adults
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 22,000
STREET VALUE: £2.25 pint of lager
DANGER RATING: 1.85/3

6: Ketamine (Class C)
ORIGIN: Anaesthetic drug popular on club and rave scene
MEDICAL:Intravenous anaesthetic used on humans and animals which, when taken in tablet form, creates
hallucinatory experiences
NO. OF UK USERS: Unknown
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: N/A
STREET VALUE: £15-50 a gram
DANGER RATING: 1.80/3

7: Benzodiazopines (Class C)
ORIGIN: Tranquilisers used to beat anxiety and insomnia
MEDICAL:The most common prescription tranquillisers. Effective sedatives which have a calming
effect, reducing anxiety, but are addictive
NO. OF UK USERS: 160,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 206
STREET VALUE: Prescription drug
DANGER RATING: 1.75/3

8: Amphetamines (Class B)
ORIGIN: Synthetic stimulants snorted, mixed in drink or injected
MEDICAL:Man-made drugs that increase heart rate and alertness. Users may feel paranoid. Newer form,
methamphetamine, is addictive
NO. OF UK USERS: 650,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 33
STREET VALUE: £2-10 a gram
DANGER RATING: 1.70/3

9: Tobacco (Legal)
ORIGIN: Most of the leaf comes from the Americas
MEDICAL: Contains nicotine, a fast-acting stimulant which is highly addictive. Tobacco causes lung
cancer and increases the risk of heart disease
NO. OF UK USERS: 12.5m
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 114,000
STREET VALUE: £4.50 a packet
DANGER RATING: 1.65/3

10: Buprenorphine (Class C)
ORIGIN: Can be made in a laboratory
MEDICAL: More expensive alternative to methadone used to wean addicts off heroin. Preferred by some
addicts because it leaves them more 'clear headed'
NO. OF UK USERS: Unknown
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: N/A
STREET VALUE: Unknown
DANGER RATING: 1.55/3

11: Cannabis (Class C)
ORIGIN: Plant is easily cultivated in temperate climates
MEDICAL: Leaves of the cannabis sativa plant or resin can be smoked or eaten. It is a relaxant but
stronger forms can also cause hallucinations and panic attacks
NO. OF UK USERS: 3m
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 16
£40-100 an ounce
DANGER RATING: 1.40/3

12: Solvents (Legal)
ORIGIN: Organic compounds found in glues, paints, lighter fluid
MEDICAL: Includes glue, gas lighters, some aerosols and paint thinners. Produces euphoria and loss
of inhibitions but can cause blackouts and death
NO. OF UK USERS: 37,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 53
STREET VALUE: £9.99 a tin of paint
DANGER RATING: 1.35/3

13: 4-MTA (Class A)
ORIGIN: Amphetamine derivative; similar effects to ecstasy
MEDICAL: Amphetamine derivative, similar to ecstasy, and also known as 'flatliners'. Popular dance
drug, producing feelings of euphoria
NO. OF UK USERS: Unknown
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: N/A
STREET VALUE: Unknown
DANGER RATING: 1.30/3

14: LSD (Class A)
ORIGIN: Hallucinogenic, synthetic drug more popular in 1960s
MEDICAL: Man-made drug that has a strong effect on perception. Effects include hallucinations and
loss of sense of time. A 'bad trip' can cause anxiety
NO. OF UK USERS: 70,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: N/A
STREET VALUE: £1-5 a tab
DANGER RATING: 1.25/3

15: Methylphenidate (Class B)
ORIGIN: Medicine, similar to amphetamines
MEDICAL: The chemical name for Ritalin, the stimulant drug used to treat children with attention
deficit hyperactive disorder which helps them concentrate
NO. OF UK USERS: Unknown
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: N/A
STREET VALUE: Unknown
DANGER RATING: 1.20/3

16: Anabolic Steroids (Class C)
ORIGIN: Hormones used by bodybuilders and sportsmen
MEDICAL: Synthetic drugs that have a similar effect to hormones such as testosterone. Used by body
builders to increase muscle bulk
NO. OF UK USERS: 38,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: N/A
STREET VALUE: £7.99 a tablet
DANGER RATING: 1.15/3

17: GHB (Class C)
ORIGIN: Synthetic drug, sold as 'liquid ecstasy'
MEDICAL: The date rape drug, Gammahydroxybutyrate, is a sedative that has a relaxing effect,
reducing inhibitions, but can lead to stiff muscles and fits
NO. OF UK USERS: Not many
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 3
STREET VALUE: £15 a bottle
DANGER RATING: 1.10/3

18: Ecstasy (Class A)
ORIGIN: Synthetic drug in tablets; popular in dance scene
MEDICAL: MDMA or similar man-made chemicals. Causes adrenaline rushes and feelings of wellbeing but
also anxiety and high body temperature
NO. OF UK USERS: 800,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: 33
STREET VALUE: £1-5 a pill
DANGER RATING: 1.05/3

19: Alkyl Nitrites (Legal)
ORIGIN: Liquid, better known as 'poppers'; inhaled
MEDICAL: Gives a strong, joyous rush and a burst of energy for a few minutes which quickly fades and
can leave a powerful headache
NO. OF UK USERS: 550,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: N/A
STREET VALUE: £2-6 for 10ml
DANGER RATING: 0.95/3

20: Khat (Legal)
ORIGIN: Green-leaf shrub grown in region of Southern Africa
MEDICAL: Natural stimulant, its leaves are chewed to produce a feeling of wellbeing and happiness.
Popular with the Somali community
NO. OF UK USERS: 40,000
NO. OF UK DEATHS IN 2004: Not many
STREET VALUE: £4 a bunch
DANGER RATING: 0.80/3

A Vaccine to Aid Weight Control

Roger Highfield, the Science Editor of the London Daily Telegraph, reports on a credible development that may provide a logical tool in dieting's battle of the bulge ...

An anti-obesity vaccine that significantly slowed weight gain and cut body fat in tests on animals has been recently announced.

Mature male rats that received the jab ate normally yet gained less weight and had less body fat, suggesting that the vaccine directly affects the body's metabolism and energy use.

The vaccine, described today by an American team in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, may be especially important to stop "yo-yo dieting," the cycle of repeated loss and regain of weight. The vaccine acts against ghrelin, a naturally occurring hormone that helps to regulate energy balance in the body. This approach is called immuno-pharmacotherapy and is also being tested to treat drug addiction.

Prof Kim Janda of the Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, the senior author, said: "To have an impact on appetite and weight gain, ghrelin first has to move from the bloodstream into the brain where, over long periods, it stimulates the retention of a level of stored energy as fat.

"Our study is the first published evidence proving that preventing ghrelin from reaching the central nervous system can produce a desired reduction in weight gain."

Prof Janda told The Daily Telegraph: "We could speed quickly into human trials, maybe in a year, but we are going to be more cautious," referring to the recent trial at Northwick Park Hospital that went wrong.

Dr Eric Zorrilla, lead author of the study, said a vaccine against ghrelin was "particularly compelling in terms of the well-documented problems of human dieting."

"When you diet, the body responds as if it was starving and produces ghrelin to slow down fat metabolism and stimulate eating, changes meant to help retain and regain body fat.

"As a result, many people end up regaining the weight they lost and more once they go off their diets."

According to the World Health Organization, about one billion people worldwide are overweight or obese.