No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the President is requesting an additional $87 billion for operations in Iraq, the national deficit is quickly approaching $500 billion, thousands of Americans are being laid off each month, and -- finally -- elected officials are starting to make some noise!

In the past month, a number of lawmakers from every level --national, state and local-- have begun to criticize, question and demand answers from the Bush administration. While Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld maintains criticism of the Bush administration strengthens and encourages U.S. foes, nothing could be further from the truth.

Here's a list of some of the recent examples:

· On September 9, 2003, the Santa Cruz City Council became the nation's first local government to ask Congress to look into impeaching President Bush on charges he deceived the American public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and used the Sept. 11 attacks as an excuse to crush civil rights, the San Jose Mercury News reported. The council sent a letter to members of the House Judiciary Committee asking the panel to investigate the president.

Bush vs The Nameless Democrat: An Open Race

· The September 12, 2003 edition of USA Today reported that President Bush's approval rating had dropped to the lowest point since 9/11, "due in large part to an economy that continues to lose jobs and a situation in Iraq that is messier and more costly than the administration predicted, Bush is taking a hit." The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll shows Bush with a 52% approval rating, down from the year's 71% high. The article goes on to note that "Bush's slippage suggests that if the election were held today, he would be in a tough fight. Among registered voters, he holds a slim 4-percentage point lead over an unnamed Democrat. He had a double-digit lead two weeks ago."

CONGRESS is NOT an ATM

· Nine Senate Democrats are demanding answers from President Bush on his plans for Iraq, reported the New York Times (September 10, 2003). In light of the President's $87 billion request for Iraq, the Democrats introduced a bill that would require the administration to submit a detailed plan of its intentions in Iraq in the next 60 days. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) said, "I for one, will not simply rubber-stamp this request. Congress is not an ATM. We have to be able to explain this new enormous bill to the American people, and the first responsible step for dealing with this request is to hold hearings."

Centrist Democrat Senator John Breaux noted, "I got things that need to be rebuilt in Louisiana. And I certainly don't want to give money we don't have to a faraway country to the neglect of the domestic demands we have here. I mean, $87 billion for Iraq and zero for better security at our ports? That's not exactly balanced." In addition to Democrat demands for answers, the Los Angeles Times (September 10, 2003) reported that some Republicans were starting to criticize the administration's postwar planning and recent request. Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss) said, "They are going to have to be more forthcoming and more specific." He said the situation in Iraq had better be substantially improved a year from now, or "my patience will be running very thin." Senator Charles Hagel (R-Neb) raised the issue of accountability among the Bush administration. On CBS' Early Show Hagel said, "I think they did a miserable job of planning for a post-Saddam Iraq … They treated many in Congress, most of the Congress, like a nuisance."

"SECRETARY OF STUBBORNNESS" Rumsfeld

· Representative David Obey (D-Wis.) has called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. "This is precisely the time when we should speak up," Obey said on MSNBC. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) said, "Rumsfeld's been diminished." Even usual supporters are noting that Rumsfeld is losing support. Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House said, "A high water mark for Rumsfeld was the period when they were winning decisively. Now, he has a little bit less aura than in that period." The New York Times reported that the conservative magazine, The Weekly Standard, "which supported the Iraq war, is filled with articles lambasting the current Iraq policy. One article about Mr. Rumsfeld carries the headline, 'Secretary of Stubbornness.'"

· Protesters bearing a sign reading "Bloody Hands" disrupted a speech Rumsfeld was giving at the National Press Club last Wednesday. The protesters yelled "Mr. Rumsfeld you're fired. Your foreign policy is based on lies. The war in Iraq is unjust and illegal and the occupation is immoral." Read more at CommonDreams.org

· Fire Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz:

The Council for a Livable World says Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz should be summarily fired. The Bush Administration needs to be held accountable for its mistakes. You can compose your own letter to Bush at http://capwiz.com

To make sure you are getting heard in Washington, tell Congress too... Move On.Org has a new site where you can tell Congress to hold on to our money until President Bush changes his team and changes his course in Iraq.

· While the CIA and most analysts long ago dismissed any link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, on September 14th in a nationally televised interview Dick Cheney maintained that the administration was learning "more and more" about the connections. The Boston Globe reported that in response, "Democrats sharply attacked him for exaggerating the threat Iraq posed before the war." Senator Bob Graham said, "There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 ... There was no such relationship."

An advisor to Howard Dean, front-runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination, said it is "totally inappropriate for the vice president to continue making these allegations without bringing forward" any proof. Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding." "Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link." Read more at CommonDreams.org

· Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has asked the GAO to investigate the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decision to award Halliburton, Cheney's former firm, no-bid contracts for reconstruction projects in Iraq. Halliburton has already received $1.7 billion in contracts from the war in Iraq and set to rake in hundreds of millions more. In response to the GAO report on Cheney's 2001 energy task force, released Aug. 25, 2003, Representative John Dingell, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy Committee, called the report "a sad chronicle of the efforts of the office of the vice president to hide its activities from the American people." Two months ago a group of senior-level former US intelligence officers sent an open letter to Bush calling for Cheney's resignation for his role in leading a "campaign of deceit" in promoting the war in Iraq.

· A new report released by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, "Assessing the New Normal: Liberty and Security for the Post-September 11 United States," contends that, "The U.S. government can no longer promise that individuals under its authority will be subject to a system bound by the rule of law ... In a growing number of cases, legal safeguards are now observed only so far as they are consistent with the chosen ends of power."

Reports   |  Recent News Coverage   |  Updates