Welcome to THE NORTH COLUMBIA MONTHLY ~ The best of the Inland Northwest!

Mark Harrison, who founded this magazine and was our lead writer, passed away on December 5th, 2003, a victim of cancer. He will be sorely missed.

In remembrance of him, we proudly present a partial archive of some of Mark Harrison's more recent columns. Always witty, always controversial, almost always right (!), Mark had a talent for making us smile at current events, or for making us mad (frothing?), or at the very least for getting us thinking about the issues that confront us all. Check him out.

The title of this article is not addressing you, dear reader; but rather, that person in the White House who has pilfered billions of dollars from the federal treasury that once belonged to you. But at least our money is being appropriated for schools, hospitals, dilapidated highways, and outdated electrical grid and energy production. Where could this be happening, you may wonder. In Iraq, of course; but very slowly with daily attacks on U.S. troops who are about as popular in the country as skunks at a tea party. The recent $87 billion Bush requested for Iraq, in addition to the $100 billion already spent, and the $4 billion dollars a month we are spending for security and reconstruction in the country, would go a long ways towards education, health care, and refurbishing outdated infrastructure right here in the U.S.A.

But instead we find ourselves, as the wealthiest nation on earth, unable to care for our own while borrowing money from future generations to pay for a war that was supposed to be about ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction and bringing to justice those responsible for the 9-11 attacks. But in reality, the war is a "fraud," as Senator Ted Kennedy recently stated. And Bush's answer to the fine mess he's got us into is that congress should reign in spending on domestic programs.

When we gave George W. Bush the keys to the nation's treasury, the administration put forth its first budget plan that stated the record surpluses (inherited from the Clinton administration) reflected "an unprecedented moment in history." And looking a decade ahead, the administration predicted that a cumulative $5.6 trillion surplus would build by 2011. Bush vowed that almost all the national debt would be paid off and that retirement and health plans would be strengthened for the future by setting aside trillions in savings.

Yet the $5.6 trillion surplus projected for 2011 is now a $2.3 trillion cumulative deficit under the best-case prediction issued by the Congressional Budget Office. We're talking trillions here; a $7.9 trillion math error! George Bush doesn't qualify to be a checker at a WalMart Super Center, let alone guardian of the tax revenues collected from "we the people."

So where has managing the nation's budget as if it were George's personal weekly allowance gotten us? The fiscal year beginning in October will close with a record $400 billion deficit, and 2004 deficits are projected to be around $525 billion. But that's okay, apparently, because we earn money the old fashioned way: we borrow it from our children and probably their children who haven't been born yet. And when they are born, they'll be slapped with a bill from our federal government stating: You owe a gazillion dollars to pay back the money borrowed by your ancestors for the war in Iraq. "Can you say Iraq?" "Goo goo!"

The long-term budget forecast has declined as much in the last two years as the total revenue collected by the United States government from 1789 to 1983, according to a New York Times report. Now we're making history.

When it came to choosing between leaving a few million American children, senior citizens, and infirm behind in education and health care, and the opportunity to dominate the world by controlling the global gas and oil supplies by invading Aghanistan and Iraq, the administration's reasoning went something like this: kids, shmids; seniors, shmeniors; health, shmealth

To pay for 140,000 U.S. troops to remain in Iraq, it looks like 40 million seniors won't get much from Medicare to pay for their prescription drugs. And now the best way to produce the revenue for the health care needs in this country, reasons the administration, is give the rich huge tax cuts while wasting billions on a senseless war. That's so smart.

The U.S.A. has fallen victim to a management style that is patterned after a sweet Enron deal, where a select few at the top take what they want at the expense of the majority at the bottom. The largest campaign donor to the Bush-Cheney ticket, George's baseball buddy and CEO of defunct Enron, Kenneth Lay, stole billions from his employees' pension and retirement funds and was punished for his malfeasance with a harsh term of life at golfing.

Our nation can no longer afford to throw any more money at Iraq as if it grew on Texas sagebrush. It doesn't look like the U.N. is too eager to bail us out of the Iraqi quagmire with a security resolution, foreign troops or financial aide without the U.S. first turning control of the country over to the Iraqi people and ceding transitional authority to the international body.

Why is the administration so reluctant to pull out of Iraq and bring our troops home since Iraq is not the diabolical threat to the world that the Bush administration so adamantly claimed it was when selling the war to the American people? Can oil, power and global domination be worth the almost daily loss of life of brave American soldiers in a country where it becomes clearer everyday that we are not welcome?

It would be best for the great people of this nation if George Bush abandoned his economic and foreign policies and ate a little crow so the less fortunate could at least eat beans. Poverty is up, incomes are down, more people are out of work, and more people are filing for bankruptcy since we've turned our once thriving economy over to Bush. There is one bright side to America's economic picture. The gross domestic product report shows that government spending on defense has soared by 45.9 percent, the strongest gain since the third quarter of 1951. It doesn't take rocket science to see that Bush needs to pack it up for Texas.

After two years, what have we learned about the cause of the September 11 attacks, other than what the smart people in the Bush Administration have told us: we good, them bad? Apparently, this analysis is not specific enough for the families and friends of 9-11 victims, who for 15 months fought with the White House to establish an independent 9-11 investigation. You would think the White House would want to investigate how our national security was so horribly compromised, just in case we want to prevent that from happening again.

So the 9-11 Commission was established under the conditions that Bush gets to hand-pick the chairman to lead the investigation. Bush believed the best man for the job was Henry Kissinger, who is best known for covering up the truth, not uncovering the truth. He gained his experience while serving as secretary of state and national security advisor for president and crook, Richard M. Nixon. But Kissinger stepped down from the 9-11 Commission so he wouldn't have to reveal the identity of his Middle Eastern business clients, who don't want to be investigated.

Now we have a brand new chairman for the 9-11 Commission, Thomas Kean. You may know Kean as the former Republican governor of New Jersey. You may not know Kean as director and shareholder of Amerada-Hess Corporation that formed a joint venture with Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia in 1998 to explore and develop oil fields in the Caspian Region.

So what? Who close to this administration isn't in the oil business except for Spot the First Pooch? Well, Delta Oil is owned, in part by, Kahlid Mafhouz whose sister is married to Osama bin Laden. This means that the man in charge of our 9-11 investigation will be investigating his business partner's brother-in-law, Enemy Number One.

The families of those slain on 9-11 filed a lawsuit against the Saudi Arabian government last August for civil damages totaling $1 trillion, accusing them of harboring and aiding the terrorists who took down the Towers. Fifteen of the 19 terrorists who flew the planes on 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia, as is Osama bin Laden and the Wahabbi sect of Islam that motivates their jihad. The lawsuit lists Kahlid Mafhouz and Mohammed Hussein al Amoudi as alleged "financiers" of al Qaeda, who are both in the oil and gas business with our independent 9-11 investigator, Thomas Kean.
Since the Saudi Government couldn't get Perry Mason for their defense, they retained the Houston law firm, Baker Botts. The "Baker" of Baker Botts is James Baker III, Secretary of State to George Bush Sr. and the attorney who defended Bush Junior's right to become president without having to be elected, in Bush vs. Gore.

The commission is making headway. Their preliminary report in July said "there is evidence of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States." And just when the report starts to get juicy 28 pages go blank, scrubbed clean by the White House. And what country in the report might we guess is implicated in supporting the 9-11 terrorist attack? Afghanistan? Iraq? Of course not. The mystery country is one that we haven't bombed.

It's troubling to consider that we've started two wars in two years in two countries that had far less to do with the 9-11 terrorist attack than the mystery country that everyone knows is Saudi Arabia. Lest we be overcome with acute warrior remorse, so to speak, let's encourage ourselves by singing that country western war ballad, "Have you Forgotten," by Darryl Worley. It's real catchy. Just sing along with a bouncing ball, or whatever. Here we go. "I hear people say we don't need this war. But I say there's something worth fighting for. Some say this country is just out looking for a fight. After 9/11, then I have to say that's right."

That's right, Mr. Cowboy singer, we sure got even with someone for 9-11. Imagine the expression on Osama bin Laden's face when he saw how we got even with Saddam Hussein for something he didn't do. And if that doesn't teach Osama a lesson that he'll never forget, then this certainly will: Your mother wears U.S. Army combat boots and worked for Enron.

This is such a convoluted mess, there is but one way to know the truth, and that is to make it up. Let's start from the beginning.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Bush was reading the "Very Hungry Caterpillar" to second graders in Florida when he was interrupted and told that a tower at the World Trade Center went down. Just as many great presidents would have had the presence of mind to do, Bush continued reading the "Very Hungry Caterpillar" for another 30 minutes, until after the second tower went down.

There are a few possible explanations for this bizarre behavior. Explanation number one: The President of the United States isn't good at multi-tasking and therefore couldn't focus on the "Very Hungry Caterpillar" and a national emergency at the same time. Explanation number two: The president was so scared that he made a big boo boo in his pants and couldn't stand up without a very stinky caterpillar running down his leg. Explanation number three: The president's handlers told him only to talk about the "Very Hungry Caterpillar," because they were afraid he would blurt out something very dumb, like, "Have they hit the second tower yet?" Lest I be accused of fomenting conspiracy theories, I'll go with the stinky caterpillar explanation.

Why couldn't the FBII connect the dots? Here are the dots. Dot: The FBI knew that commercial planes had been used as weapons by terrorist groups for years. Dot: Suspicious flight school students, who had no interest in learning to land, were being monitored by the FBI in 2001. Dot: The FBI knew that a major attack was coming based on intelligence gathered throughout the summer of 2001 and through September. Dot: The 19 hijackers did not appear on airline passenger lists, yet the FBI knew who they were and released their names to the public within hours after the attack. That's an amazing bit of spy work for an agency unable to connect dots.

Explanation number one: The FBI couldn't find its crayon that it likes to connect the dots with. Explanation number two: The FBI stands for Full of Beans Inc.

Fortunately, we don't needs spy agencies to help formulate our foreign policy. We have at our disposal forged intelligence documents, hearsay, and country western songs.

Rumors of yet another regime change are adrift. And so close to home, too. But unlike regime changes in the recent past, we won't have to blow up a country. The U.S. Constitution has provisions for removing despotic leaders peacefully through impeachment.

Bill Clinton was impeached by a majority vote of the House of Representatives in 1998 for trying to keep his sex life a secret. This is not news. Everyone who reads supermarket tabloids knows that Clinton has been an insatiable sex addict ever since aliens from outer space abducted him and experimented on his reproductive organs. Bill, whose family and close friends like to call randy, remained in office because the Senate did not impeach him.

Taxpayers spent $80 million dollars to impeach President Clinton. That's expensive entertainment. It would have been cheaper for the government to sign everyone up for the Playboy Channel.

Spending $80 million to impeach George W. Bush, whose family and close friends like to call dumb head, would be a real bargain, on the other hand. After turning record government surpluses into record government deficits, starting a $100 billion war that continues to cost $1 billion a week to fight Iraqis whom we liberated with democracy, it becomes clear that we can't afford to keep Bush as president any longer. Way too rich for our blood. We need an economy model.
Impeaching the entire Bush regime shouldn't be too hard if House Republicans apply the same standards of impeachment they applied to Bill Clinton. After all, lying about "evidence" of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons in a presidential State of the Union address is different than lying to Congress about what one does with one's presidential tallywhacker.
That's what Senator Bob Graham of Florida said in July. "If in fact we went to war under false pretenses, this is a very serious charge. If the standard of impeachment is the one the House of Representatives used against Bill Clinton, this clearly comes within that standard."
House Republican Steve Buyer from Indiana is all for impeaching the president. "I have heard [people] from both sides of the aisle state publicly that [they] think these offenses rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors." Unfortunately, Buyer wasn't referring to Bush lying about the dangers of Iraq so that he could occupy the world's second largest oil reserve. Mr. Buyer's remark focused on the "high crime" of what White House intern Monica Lewinsky did with President Clinton's cigar.
House Republican James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin believes that presidential lies are grounds for impeachment. "The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the rule of law should apply to everyone, no matter what excuses are made by the president's defenders." Again, Mr. Sensenbrenner wasn't talking about impeaching Bush for lying about Saddam Hussein purchasing uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons. The congressman was talking about impeaching Bill Clinton who lied to Congress in a failed attempt to prevent his ding-dong from being featured on the nightly news for the next year.

The Bush administration is not guilty of crimes of erotic passion. Vice President Dick Cheney, whose family and close friends like to call Dick Tator, knew that the documents about uranium from Niger for Iraq's nuclear weapons program were bogus long before Bush gave his speech. The CIA sent Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, to Niger to investigate the claim on a request from Cheney's office. Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, has admitted that during a briefing from the CIA "the Vice-President asked a question about the implication of (Wilson's) report."

Dick Tator has been asked to resign in an open letter to President Bush from a group of former senior intelligence officials for selectively using intelligence to justify a war, and for knowingly misleading Congress when the administration sought its authorization for the use of force to oust Hussein.

Deputy Secretary Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, whose family and close friends like to call warmonger, advised Bush to include the nuclear weapons "evidence" in his January State of the Union address, according to a CIA intelligence official and four members of the Senate's intelligence committee in a report by Jason Leopold for Online Journal.

Imagine Secretary Wolfowitz saying to his president, "That's, right dumb head, just repeat this in your State of the Union speech: 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' Why, you ask? So we can hurry up and go to war before it gets too hot in Iraq, dumb head, sir."

At first it was bunker mode for the White House when the world began to learn that the administration exaggerated the dangers of Iraq to convince the American public that war was the only answer. Nobody was talking but White House chief spokesperson Ari Fletcher who tried to convince reporters that the Iraqi nuclear weapons claim was old news. Fletcher quit, and successor Scott McClellan started his new job by being asked by reporters 20 times in four days about Bush's false statement in the State of the Union speech. McClellen dismissed reporters, whose job it is to find the truth, by saying the subject had already been "addressed." It hasn't.

The White House press staff was unable to quell the controversy. On Bush's tour of Africa, he was dogged with questions about Iraq. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice went on television to tell everybody that Bush was "technically correct' in that the British government provided the bad intelligence. She had also warned the administration a month before the speech that the nuclear weapon's "intelligence" was based upon forgeries, which she neglected to share with us on the Sunday morning talk shows. Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent out on damage control, too, and said that the outcry was "overwrought and overblown and overdrawn (and) not totally outrageous." Going to war for nothing is "not totally outrageous"?

The White House tried to redirect the debate onto the overall danger posed by Saddam's chemical and biological weapons, which haven't been found.

CIA Director George Tenet had his turn at spinning the truth and tried to take the fall for the administration by claiming that his staff approved the sixteen words in question, even though the CIA had determined months earlier that the intelligence was unreliable.

In a rare move by the most secretive White House in history, eight pages of the 90-page top-secret National Intelligence Estimate, used as reference for the State of the Union address, were declassified. But instead of answering questions, more questions arose. The State Department, for instance, termed the reports that Saddam was shopping for uranium in Africa as "highly dubious."

Then came the Prime Minister Tony Blair show that entertained Congress and joined Bush in a news conference that heralded their war exploits and the intelligence that justified it. Before Blair's plane (a.k.a. Blair Force One, in the U.K.) landed back in Britain, he had received the horrible news about the suicide of U.K. scientist and weapons inspector David Kelly who had leaked to the British Broadcasting Corporation that Blair had exaggerated the dangers of Saddam's regime. Kelly had recently been grilled and reprimanded by his government for the leak.

The White House lost control of the media cycle, so Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser under Condoleezza Rice, has taken the blame for the nuclear weapons reference. Hadley's excuse? He forgot. According to The New York Times, CIA director George Tenet met with Hadley in 2002 to make sure Bush didn't mention Niger uranium ore in his speeches. "The reference was omitted when Mr. Bush gave [a] speech in Cincinnati on October 7." And it stayed out of Bush's talks until suddenly Hadley had a lapse of memory just prior to the State of the Union address.

Somebody is lying and it's not Bill Clinton this time. This is what House Republican Steve Chabot from Ohio said about impeaching the president for lying. "It would be wrong to tell American children that some lies are alright. It would be wrong to tell the rest of the world that some of our laws don't really matter." Of course, Mr. Chabot wasn't speaking of Bush lying about the evidence of the Iraqi threat and leading our nation into a preemptive war on pretexts. Chabot was speaking of impeaching Bill Clinton for not being forthright about leaving a stain on the most famous blue dress in history.

Looks like we didn't need to start a war in Iraq, after all. We must have got our intelligence dossiers mixed up with our Tom Clancy spy novels. And those "vast stockpiles" of biological and chemical weapons that Bush said Saddam Hussein possessed turned out to be part of an outrageous plot.

The "imminent threat" of Hussein's capabilities to launch weapons of mass destruction was the justification given to Americans and the world for the first preemptive military strike in U.S. history. I guess we were wrong. Not much we can do about that, now. All that's left for us to do is say we're sorry and occupy the oil-rich country, of course.

We in the USA like to forgive and forget. And we think that Iraqis should forgive us for any inconvenience that we many have caused by dropping millions of pounds of bombs on them. Sure, we could have further scrutinized President Bush's claims that Iraq has enough material "to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax enough doses to kill several million people ... more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxinenough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure (and) as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." But forgetting is much easier than math, especially when nothing adds up.

And that was long ago. Weeks, maybe. We've forgotten about all that now. Whatever it was. And we've forgiven our president, as well, for the time he took away from our favorite television shows with special war coverage featuring Pentagon press videos da, da, da, daaa and now, the latest from our war room, brought to you by our sponsors with cures for irritable bowels, and so forth.

We forgive and forget. Until agitators hinder our forgetting ability by reminding that the sole justification for a preemptive war against Iraq was "proof" of weapon s of mass destruction. And what about the evidence that Hussein had ties to al Qaeda and was providing the organization with banned weapons to be used against Americans? Not so, according to two of the highest-ranking leaders of the terrorist organization in U.S. custody, Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. They told CIA agents in separate interrogations that al Qaeda did not work with the Iraqi government. Spokesmen at the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon declined to comment on why Mr. Zubaydah's debriefing report was not publicly disclosed by the administration last year, before the war.

"I remember reading the Abu Zubaydah debriefing last year, while the administration was talking about all of these other reports, and thinking that they were only putting out what they wanted," one intelligence official told The New York Times. And one report the White House really wanted the U.N. to read was evidence that Iraq had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons production, which was forged.

Okay, we're sorry we wrecked your country, your schools, hospitals and infrastructure on false pretexts. Everybody makes mistakes. Please forgive us, Iraq. After all, Vice President Dick Cheney is setting the example by forgiving the throngs of perpetrators who call him a greedy fat head. As far as we know, Cheney has forgiven those who have disagreed with the administration about the war, which is unpatriotic, you know. Not only does Cheney forgive, he forgets, too. He can't seem to remember why he paid "multiple" visits to the CIA over the past year. But the CIA hasn't forgotten.

An environment was being created by Cheney and a top aide that pressured analysts into making assessments of Iraq that supported the urgency of war, according to unnamed senior CIA officials, in a Washington Post report.

Cheney's spokesperson was asked by the Post why the vice president only wanted CIA reports to surface that supported an Iraqi invasion, and nothing to the contrary. No comment. But if there were a comment from Mr. Cheney's office, it would go something like this: pant, pant, drool oil, power, and world domination slurp, gurgle cover up secret agenda gurgle, gurgle, gulp, burp none of which was covered by respectable newspapers.

Respectable newspapers tell us now that the administration is downplaying finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and is focusing more on following a paper trail that could prove, without a shadow of doubt, that Saddam was actually thinking about them. It's a good thing we've forgotten about the "thousands of tons of chemical agents" that Bush said Hussein has produced. Because U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said, "The more time passes, the greater is the possibility that no weapons of mass destruction exist there. The greater the number of authorities which coalition inspectors have interviewed, each with higher levels of responsibility than the last, without finding weapons, the more likely it is that they do not exist or that only a few remain." quoted the Portuguese newsweekly, Visao.

Bush's main ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, denied accusations that evidence against Iraq had been manufactured. Blair told the House of Commons that claims of Iraq's 45-minute launching capabilities of chemical and biological was added to intelligence dossiers at the behest of aides, despite the reservations of intelligence officials. Blair didn't explain why British intelligence officials take orders from aides who have no idea what they're talking about.

Even the U.S. Military was surprised that no chemical weapons were used against them by Iraqi forces. U.S. Marine Lt. Gen. James Conway said U.S. intelligence was "simply wrong" in leading the military to believe the invading troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons.

>Senator Robert Byrd addressed Congress regarding the mysterious lack of WMD's in Iraq. "It has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power. Were our troops needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraq civilians killed and maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public deliberately misled? Was the world?"

But how are we to recall these impeachable crimes? I can't even remember where I put my case of duct tape that I bought to fight terrorism; or, for that matter, the color of today's terror warning code. Feels like a purple day. Which I think means, pant, pant, go shopping.

Because we care what our readers think, our featured we-care-what-our-readers-think question is: Did Jesus or George W. Bush say,"If you're not with us, you're against us?" Please send your answer in immediately so this column can be completed properly.

According to media reports, President Bush used the phrase to recruit for war. But, according to the Bible, which many people take for gospel, Jesus said,"He that is not with me, is against me" to recruit for peace.

So, who's the plagiarist, here? Can't be Jesus, or we would have to cancel Christmas. And retail is already suffering so from the Bush economic stimulus plan that squandered the federal surplus, put two-million people out of work, bankrupted the treasury, and broke the world's record for the largest annual deficit in history.

So, Christ is in the clear; and for Bush, well, we can't automatically assume that he borrowed these words from the Prince of Peace for his own purposes. As soon as we're done with our perpetual war on terrorism, Bush says, peace will be ours to enjoy.

But before rushing off to Utopia, there are reconstruction issues in Iraq to deal with, first. Amnesty International has been poking around the country and complaining about U.S. disregard for law and order. Mayhem could have been avoided, says Amnesty and other organizations. Looting wiped out hospitals, businesses, palaces, banks, and museums that once held priceless art pieces and the world's oldest writings. But to be fair and balanced, Amnesty should have reported on what a fine job we did on protecting those oil wells.

Ancient art and cuneiforms (many yet to be translated) from the "cradle of civilization" aren't going to keep our trucks on the highways, planes in the skies, and Bradley tanks in the battlefields. So obviously, the oil fields were our top priority, which were secured first and foremost. And Iraqi oil, our leaders have assured us many, many, many times, belongs to the Iraqi people. Come now, does the administration really believe that television has made us that stupid? Who else would Iraqi oil belong to, Texans?

Of course no one wants to take Iraq's precious oil. Certainly not Halliburton, the Houston, Tex. oil service company that made its former CEO, Vice President Dick Cheney, a filthy rich man from Gulf War One. And even before body bag detail began in Gulf War Two, Halliburton's subsidiary, Kellogg Brown and Root, was awarded the contract to extinguish Iraqi oil fires. The contract was awarded without competition, leading a person to believe that absolutely no other company anywhere on Earth wanted that job too hot and greasy, maybe.

Halliburton's close ties with the White House should not suggest that the White House had anything to do with Halliburton's job prospects. The contract with the Army Corp of Engineers initially was said to authorize extinguishing oil fires and to perform related repairs. But mission creeps and the contract has been found to include "operation" of Iraqi oil fields and "distribution" of Iraqi oil, according to a letter in May from Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers of the Corp to California Rep. Henry Waxman.

The letter from Gen. Flowers failed to elaborate upon what "operation" and "distribution" of Iraqi oil might involve. Waxman is seeking the contract details for Congress to review; which is a good thing, because it will take smarter people than the average TV viewer to figure out the meaning of "operation" and "distribution." Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people, Bush said. But what he didn't say was that responsible people are needed, like Vice President Dick Cheney's good friends at Halliburton, to make sure that Iraqis get what's coming to them.

And wait until our new colonists learn about "trickle down economics," the policy first attributed to the Reagan administration that gives tax breaks and subsidies to the rich if the rich promise by crossing their little hearts and hoping to die if they ever fail to let a few bucks trickle down to the working poor. Fasten your money belts, Iraqis; democracy is on the way.

So, you are either with us, or against us. Qui?

Speaking of France, that country bit off a little more Freedom Bread than it can chew. They'll pay big-time for opposing war. Renaming our artificially processed and greasiest source of essential-fatty fast-food, the Freedom Fry, is just the beginning. Our breakfast toast grilled in chicken embryo is now Freedom Toast. And our patriotism abounds so that we've renamed the French Canadians to, you guessed it, Freedom Canadians. We're working on a constitutional amendment that makes French kissing an act of treason. And for such traitors we will reserve just one, lone French tradition the guillotine.

There is even discussion of augmenting our display of disdain for everything French by returning the Statue of Liberty. A new one should be arriving from Iraq sometime soon, anyway. Hopefully, a much smaller one made from molten Saddam heads. Our present 151-foot cement and steal version collects an awful lot of pigeon poop, costing taxpayers money that could otherwise be used to bolster Bush's 2003 defense budget that exceeds that of the next 25 nations combined, according to the Center for Defense Information (www.cdi.org). Of course, before shipping mademoiselle freedom back to France, we'd have to rename her the Statue of Pigeon Poop.

And poop, in general, happens. But there is an inordinate amount of the bull variety coming from the White House.

Who else needs a regime change? Iran, Syria, North Korea? We Americans specialize in establishing democracies with the most modern military equipment available. We can eliminate old worn out dictatorships in a matter of a few weeks and replace them with puppets. Democracy can be yours for only hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars. And with our precision killing machines, collateral damage is limited to your civilians and international reporters. Natural resources a requirement. Occupation fees extra. We like to call it "shock and awe." You might like to call it cheap democracy.

After the invasion, and once your backwards country is secured by armed forces for U.S. businesses to set up shop, you might get a Wal-Mart chock full of genuine USA products made in China and other countries that pay workers just pennies a day. You'all will like that. Hope you don't mind being called "you'all." That's just the way we cowboys talk over here in the land of the free. And if you're thinking about getting in the way of our freedom and the democratic process, just remember what happened to the Indians.

This is almost exactly what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Iran and Syria recently, that they should learn a lesson from Iraq. Anyone hostile to U.S. interests abroad will find themselves looking down the cannon barrel of a Howitzer. Freedom rings.

America is your regime change specialist. And for those who suspect that there's no method to our madness, you'll be pleased to know that we have a very good plan. We plan on ruling the world.

American conquest will not end with Iraq. We plan on spreading democracy immediately to Iran and Syria, like it or not. And after we teach the Middle East how to conduct fair and honest presidential elections like our own, we'll conquer the world and space. Yes, space. Our national missile defense system is designed to give our U.S. Space Force something to do. What good's a Space Force without space guns? Duh. And spare us any petty objections. Who do you think you are, the irrelevant UN?

We have no choice but to militarize space because very soon, and sooner than you may care to believe, there will be nothing left on Earth for us to militarize. Then, and only then, will the entire planet be free, just dying to do business with America. Now we're talking democracy.

And if you doubt our resolve, consider the document entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources For A New Century, published by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Portions of the blueprint for global domination were first published last September in Scotland's "Sunday Herald," revealing that the Bush cabinet (months before they were the Bush cabinet) planned to conquer Iraq as a step to take military control of the region, whether Saddam Hussein was in power or not.

"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." The document further describes U.S. armed forces abroad as the "Calvary on the new American frontier."

And that "new frontier" could be your country, soon. The "frontier" might be old to you, but it will be brand new to us. And isn't this what makes imperialism so much fun? And no need to wait until we topple the regimes of Iran and Syria, which happen to be within easy shooting range of our most recent acquisition, Iraq. The PNAC document says that our "core mission" is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous theater wars." So when it comes to Free Trade, you had better vote "yes," because we'd hate to resort to military options when fatal threats can achieve the same results. But if left with no choice, backs up against the wall, so to speak, we will utilize every means available to us to "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger or regional role," says the plan that our leaders reportedly commissioned.

It's a simple matter of good verses evil. And, as our commander in chief explained to us months ago, we are good and you are evil. And, evil ones, you know who you are if you watch genuine USA television network news. Consider what happened to the evil in Iraq. We blew it up. This means that Iraq no longer qualifies as a member of the axis of evil. So, we have an immediate opening. Any applicants? Canada, maybe? Your communications director called our smart president a "moron." Sounds like axis of evil material to me.

Some countries may not qualify to be in the actual "axis of evil," but they can still be evil enough to be invaded by coalition forces (250,000 U. S. troops, Tony Blair and 900 guys from Spain). And we require no provocation for our complete regime change services. As of this presidency, and for the first time in U. S. history, we can preemptively attack any country we want to, just as long as they are evil. We Americans have a low tolerance for evil. So, our president has made it easy for us to distinguish between good and evil in this otherwise complex melting pot of humanity: we are good and you are evil. And evil deserves to be destroyed with limited nuclear weapons if necessary, without any provocation, because our president said so, which means the Bible probably says so, too, somewhere. Don't laugh. Our plan is foolproof: invade evil regimes and replace them with good ones. And someday, all countries will be good, just like the USA.

The blueprint to rule the world was reportedly drawn up by PNAC for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz before they were vice president, defense secretary and deputy, and Florida Governor Jeb Bush. But since the majority of the country voted against George W. Bush, not every U.S. citizen is in favor of ruling the world. So, in order to rally public support for dominating humanity and the world's resources, the document disclosed a need for "some catastrophic and catalyzing eventlike a new Pearl Harbor." And then came September 11, 2001.

On September 12, Secretary Rumsfeld insisted that Iraq should be a "principle target of the first round in the war on terrorism," according to "The Washington Post." But Secretary of State, Colin Powell, reportedly persuaded the administration to hold off until public opinion could be prepared for an Iraqi invasion. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice (former Chevron Oil director who was honored with an oil tanker bearing her name in the Caspian Sea) urged the U.S. Security Council to "think about how do you capitalize on these opportunities," according to "The New Yorker." And now, thanks to the hunt for Osama bin Laden that has cost some 20,000 lives in Afghanistan, according to reports in the UK "Guardian," and, thanks to Unocal oil advisor, Hamid Karzai, the new Afghani president, Unocal will build a pipeline across Afghanistan from the oil-rich Caspian states. The evil regime of Afghanistan was replaced with a good one, one sympathetic to America's addiction to the cheap fossil fuels that threaten to shut down the planet by 2050 if we continue consuming at present rates.

Our plan to rule the world is in everyone's best interest, of course. And once lesser countries become accustomed to doing things the American way, they'll learn that we've been dead right all along.

Bold reforms in health care have been proposed by President Bush and would give seniors, the poor, sick and disabled new health care "choices" whether they want them or not. The reforms are especially good news for those planning never to become seniors, poor, sick or disabled. But there's even better news for the stock market and for-profit health insurance providers, if you can believe it.

In a speech given to the American Medical Association, a speech better suited for the American Gullible Association, Bush laid out his vision for the future of Medicare and Medicaid. Departing from decades of government guarantees of basic health benefits for all Americans, President Privatization wants to place the financial responsibility of federal health care costs where he says it belongs: with the states that will be forced to cut benefits; and in the business world where health can be bought, sold, and traded on the stock market.

The fundamental precepts of Medicare are that all working Americans pay into the same Medicare system; that whether rich or poor, healthy or sick, and no matter in what state they may reside, all have the same core benefits when they retire.

But Bush insists seniors would better be served by private health insurance companies and the integrity of the marketplace, rather than by the federal government.

The savings to the federal government, which needs money to start wars, would be enormous if it could shift its responsibility for the 85 million Americans on Medicare and Medicaid onto the states, stockbrokers, accountants and insurance providers. And coincidentally, U. S. Secretary of Offense Donald Rumsfeld needs that money for war right now.

Bush says Americans deserve health choices which can only be accomplished by privatizing our social health insurance system that has worked for over three decades. The options include prescription drug discount cards, tax credits, investing in the stock market, and some really fun choices the president forgot to mention.

For instance, seniors can choose between contributing to the profit centers of HMOs and other insurance providers, and paying their own hospital bills, then moving into a cardboard condo with a view of the Dumpster in a quiet ally close to the soup kitchen.

Those on Medicare could save a whopping 10 percent on prescription drugs with government-issued "discount cards." Or, they could choose to save 50 percent by telling the U. S. government to shove their stingy cards where a proctologist might find them and buying prescriptions in Canada which is not part of Bush's health plan.

When the idea of a prescription discount card was first proposed last year, the Congressional Budget Office found the discounts didn't amount to a pile of genetically modified beans, and it flew through Congress like a dirt dirigible. So, President Compassion tried to fly the proposal again in his Sad State of the Union address in February. But what with having to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein has the imminent capability of delivering nuclear warheads to major U. S. cities on camel back, there wasn't much time in his speech to outline another important choice. Namely, if seniors are unable to pay 90 percent of the cost not covered by their prescription "discount cards," then they could always earn a little extra cash by choosing to sell their organs.

Bush would like to get the government out of our hospital beds and put business people in them; which would be good for the economy, which is really lousy except for the duct tape sector and related defense industries. But Bush learned in the school of hard knocks that even when the economy gets bad, it doesn't really matter if you're rich.

You don't have to be rich to invest in the stock market to pay for future health care costs. But you can't be poor, either. And you can't be one of those who chooses not to gamble in what that commie Castro calls the "world's largest casino." And those who do, wish to Caesar's Palace they would have sold their stock investments before Bush was selected president of the United States and the market lost nearly $5 trillion dollars.

If the market seems inadequate to offer insurance to cover an eventual operation or treatment, then another Bush choice is a tax credit in exchange for bailing out of the traditional Medicare system. This tax credit can, of course, be applied to expensive private health insurance. But if an American, who deserves choices, chooses to spend his or her tax credit on a six pack of beer every Friday night, instead of applying it to a health insurance premium, then, too bad. They can always choose to pray. Faith-based medical care would become a popular choice under the Bush plan.

But these choices retreat from the pact that government has made to Americans over the decades with FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. So, maybe GWB could call his plan a New Steal from a Great Society.

The government's number one responsibility is to protect its citizens from harm. And the Bush administration is doing an admirable job of protecting our country from future terrorist attacks by ridding the world of Saddam Hussein with an Iraqi war since they can't find Osama bin Laden after blowing up Afghanistan. Terrorist networks have further been demoralized by the US Patriots Act that violates constitutional privacy rights by authorizing the FBI and the CIA to spy on patriots just in case they're terrorists.

And domestically, the administration is protecting our citizens who operate polluting industries that donated more than $44 million in campaign contributions to the Bush-Cheney ticket. The contributions from these trade groups were tracked with codes to ensure that the respective industries, whether oil, mining, timber, asbestos, etc., got what they paid for. And in just over two years, we've seen 25 years of environmental protections, guaranteed by both Republicans and Democrats, ignored, challenged, or rescinded by those currently in the White House.

If there be any solace in Bush rolling back environmental regulations that safeguard citizens from the industrial poisons released into our waters, sky and soil, we must consider that Bush is an honorable man, working hard to protect his campaign donors, even if it means rising health care costs yours.

And in protecting citizens from harm, our government leaves no one behind. Under the compassionate hand of the Bush administration, even one of our most prominent citizens is being sheltered from the financial harm that can be inflicted by asbestos-injury lawsuits.

When Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000, he understood the special needs of those suffering from asbestos-related diseases at his company. About 273,300 workers have filed suit against Halliburton since 1976, though most filed before Cheney's tenure. But, according to William McNary, President of USAction, a health care coalition, the Cheney-led Halliburton Company knowingly poisoned its own workers for years and is counting on federal bailout legislation to escape responsibility to the people it has injured.

Cheney and Halliburton contributed more than $150,000 to members of Congress who sponsored legislation that would limit the ability of workers to sue companies for their asbestos-related diseases. Mercy! (expression of genuine disbelief) Could it be that someone has hung "for sale" signs on our laws of the land? And are these laws peddled to polluters at the expense of the polluted? Certainly not in a democracy that guarantees "justice for all," confirmed Zelma Branch, Halliburton's spokeswoman when questioned about the money trail. "Our PAC (political action committee) has made contributions without regard to the pending asbestos legislation (sure, Zelma). Any similarities between the supporters of such legislation and the recipients of contributions from our PAC is purely coincidental (right, Zelma)."

>"Coincidental" like the White House killing the EPA asbestos health emergency declaration scheduled for last April in Libby, Montana. No need to warn between 15 and 35 million families nationwide about the dangers of disturbing the highly carcinogenic tremolite fibers in the Zonolite insulation in their homes, the administration reasoned.

Just days before the scheduled public health notification that was backed by years of research, the head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, John Graham, blocked the EPA warning. According to reports and memos gleaned from nine boxes of EPA files obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Andrew Schneider of the Saint Louis Post Dispatch, EPA director Christie Whitman and Superfund chief Marianne Horinko were outraged with the White House move. A senior staffer said the White House didn't exactly order the declaration aborted, but, "they just really, really strongly suggested against it. Really strongly." A bit thuggish for a White House greeting.

The "Libby Declaration" authorized the removal of Zonolite insulation from homes in Libby, which was done last May, without national fanfare. A diluted and muted statement was issued that was sure not to alarm the millions of other Americans about the serious health hazard in their walls and ceilings. With Zonolite in as many as 35 million homes across the nation, that could cost billions.

And billions we don't have, I might add. With a war in Iraq, battles in Afghanistan, Homeland Security trying to hire cable TV technicians as spies, and tax cuts for the wealthy, there really isn't much left over for ambulance chasers with asbestos claims. Billions here, billions there; only so much money a president can borrow from future generations by operating a corporation, I mean the government, with the largest budget deficit in U.S. history. It's a wonder there's enough of your money left over for the thousand-dollar screwdrivers that the Pentagon buys from struggling defense contractors. And as important as safeguarding the public health may be, it's safeguarding the health of corporations that puts Bentleys and Lamborghinis in the garages of average Americans.

When Schneider contacted the EPA and the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) for his December article, both agencies acknowledged the White House was involved in killing the emergency health warning, but refused to explain why. Perhaps the administration has new scientific evidence proving that asbestos is good and fun to breath. Perhaps a televangelist has a miracle asbestosis cure, and pull out those check books, please. Or, perhaps Dick Cheney wants to limit the damages from his own asbestos liability as Halliburton's CEO.

In seeking an interview, the OMB (Office of Money for Bush, Inc.) told the reporter to check with the EPA. Then the EPA (Environmental Pollution Agency) said to check with OMB. And OMB's head of its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (propaganda department), John Graham (defender of industry cleverly disguised as public servant), refused repeated interview requests.

The administration killed an EPA announcement that would have warned 15 to 35 million Americans about the microscopic asbestos fibers in Zonolite insulation that, if disturbed and inhaled, could cause the lung cancers that have killed and sickened thousands in Libby. Tremolite fibers are up to one hundred times more carcinogenic than those in more common asbestos. So, instead of the national emergency health declaration, the EPA listed the hazard on its web site, which is "a joke," said Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., who is sponsoring legislation to ban asbestos from the U.S.

Any connection between the White House killing an asbestos emergency declaration and its own efforts to pass legislation that would limit companies' responsibilities to those suffering with asbestos-related diseases is purely coincidental (sure, Mark).

We can feel secure with a government that's doing all it can to equally protect all Americans from harm; whether rich or poor; whether living with cancer-causing insulation in their walls and ceilings, or not; whether they can afford to buy a president, or not; whether they're rich enough to get away with murder, or not. And with all this security, I wonder how much a law costs protecting writers from suspicious cable TV technicians.

You probably know this from singing songs like "Take This Job and Shove It," but as America's workers, we are important economic indicators that are closely monitored by government officials for the sake of capitalism and most likely national security in case we're terrorists. The indicator that is scrutinized more thoroughly than any employee on a leisurely restroom excursion cares to imagine is worker productivity. It is calculated by the amount of output in dollar bills that can be withdrawn from each of us, the units of input, for every hour we claim to actually work.

How important is worker productivity? So important that U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan smiled back in 2000 when four straight years of 3.4 percent gains were recorded after a couple of decades of poking along at just 1.7 percent. "Riply's Believe It or Not" has photographic evidence of this spectacle, I would think.

Productivity is now expected to gain about 2.5 percent each year; otherwise, government budgetary forecasts will get more screwed up than they already are. And productivity can be affected by many things, like whether or not we show up for work, and, if so, how late or hungover.

If we units of input should slack by just half a percent, then senior citizens won't get their drug prescriptions for ten whole years. That's how important productivity is. And a scrawny point-five can be gained by showing up for work sober, for seniors' sakes. Is that too much to ask for old people? I suppose I should explain what actually was said about seniors and their prescription drugs in a New York Times report, since I'm being edited. Former director of the Congressional Budget Office, Dan L. Crippen, said the equivalent of a half-percent decrease in worker productivity will cost the federal budget about $800 billion, which would cover drug prescriptions for the elderly for ten years.

So, productivity, the principal contributor of economic growth, is in the apt, metaphorical hands of the units of input. Our productivity is what makes the economy grow and, thus, the wealthiest in our nation wealthier. Productivity determines whether companies are making enough profits to avoid raising prices, resulting in an inflationary economy, resulting from the God-given right of the average CEO who made 532 times the amount of money than their average worker in 2000, up from 42 times in 1980, according to commondreams.com to make even more.

And to ensure the largess continues to flood from the working poor upward to the ruling class, we, the units of input, must continue to raise our productivity forever. Fortunately, neither naps, nor steamy workplace romances need be curtailed for the sake of this efficiency. Forbid that productivity interferes with frivolous potty trips, way too many coffee breaks, incessant office gossip, emergency beauty make-overs, four-Exedrine hangovers, or other output-in-dollar-diminishing behavior. There are many ways to increase productivity without resorting to being productive. Work is still the place for novels and needlework; and remains a favorite spot for staying in touch with friends and relatives with the boss's money-saving communication devices. And all the while, slaving for wages, there's still plenty of time for on-line shopping and surfing the world wide web for, oh... whatever.

The very same modern miracle that brings pornography to us in the workplace is that which enables us to work less and accomplish more, without working up a sweat, so to speak. Computers brought us the "new economy" of 1996 through 2000 and a momentary but welcome reprieve from Chairman Greenspan's sour puss. And then, not long after Bush took office, productivity sky-rocketed. By the first quarter of 2002, the indicator marked the best showing in 19 years with a growth rate of 8.6 percent, according to the Labor Department.

Holy gazillions! What could have stimulated America's work force so? Patriotism? Diet pills? Coffee enemas? Visions of Obe Wan Kanobe body slamming Darth Vader? Business managers offering free Prozac to slow-moving employees? Of course not, Unit (may I call you that for short?). Just as the information age of the "new economy" boosted productivity without any imposition on the worker to work harder, another economic phenomenon has affected recent productivity. And this phenomenon, you won't be surprised to learn, is not you, a phenomenally more productive unit. Gains in productivity are largely the contribution of the almost 2 million units who have been downsized, pink slipped, fired, walking papered, axed, Enron-ed or otherwise canned because wealthy companies don't like to lose money when they can lose units, instead. And the most puzzling mystery in the Milky Way Galaxy: why didn't Bush's 2000 tax cut for the wealthy trickle down to us units like it was supposed to?

Gains in productivity have further been accomplished by limiting workers' hours so that companies can avoid paying for benefits and overtime. Much like the largest private sector and lawsuit-ridden employer in the United States that pays enough to keep many of the "associates" below the nation's poverty level: Wal-Mart, proudly keeping poor people poor with low, low, low everything since 1962.
No matter where we work, wage earners would be making the same money in 20 years as they are today, in real dollars, should history repeat itself. Big business would continue to amass wealth for the rich at the expense of consumers and the environment by spending billions to buy government legislation and deregulation without regard for "we, the people, too often." But "we, the people" are more than units of input. We outnumber the plutocrats by a vast majority and are educating and organizing so that it may be recorded in history that democracy survived in the USA. But you probably knew this from singing songs like "Power to the People."

Jesus of the Bible wouldn't bomb anyone, of course. But for a president who says that Jesus Christ changed his life, George W. Bush seems inordinately intent upon bombing Iraq. So much so, the president's foreign policy has believers around the world praying: "Do a quick work, oh, Lord, and change the fearless leader before he blows up the whole earth that the meek are supposed to inherit." Or some such divine invocation.

Unlike Bush, James, the "Lord's brother," doesn't need Pentagon briefings from Secretary of Defense I-can-conquer-the-world Donald Rumsfeld to justify the urgency of a U.S. preemptive military invasion of Iraq. James asks rhetorically in his biblical epistle. "From whence come wars and fightings among you?" After confirming with his Big Omniscient Brother and getting two holy thumbs up and the peace sign, James proclaims in perfectly clear and understandable King James English: "Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?"

President Bush, according to the Apostle James, has lusts warring in his members. But it's not altogether the lust for revenge against Saddam for trying to kill his daddy. And it certainly can't be because of the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq may or may not possess, considering that many other nations hostile to the US are confirmed to possess such weapons. Is US policy, then, preemptively to conquer them all? Bush's obsession with Iraq is a consequence of lust for the enriching and empowering black crude that beckons from beneath the sands of the second largest oil producing region in the world, to be extracted and controlled by the United States oil companies that stand united to those in the White House.

But Bush insists he's not invading the oil-rich country for the spoils of war (nor earth). But, because Saddam Hussein poses an immediate "mortal threat," as VP Dick Cheney put it recently. But the CIA disagrees with the Veep-made-rich by heading Halliburton energy company whose subsidiary, Brown and Root, a major defense contractor, is building and equipping military bases in preparation for war as we speak.

An October 10 CIA letter quoted a senior intelligence official saying that the chance of an unprovoked attack by Iraq on the United States in the foreseeable future is low. However, if the U.S. strikes first, there is a "pretty high" chance that Baghdad would attempt to defend itself with biological or chemical weapons in an Iraqi war.

But, according to the White House, you can't take the CIA warning of a U.S. first-strike leading to chemical or biological warfare "out of context." And though the "context" is never mentioned in Bush's war speeches, the "context," with little doubt, is oil.

There are 40 nations besides Iraq that the Defense Department considers existing or emerging threats and believed to possess weapons of mass destruction. And with no material evidence linking Iraq to the al Qaida terrorist network, why is the Pentagon preparing for war?

Considering that 15 of the 19 suicide bombers who attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, were not from Iraq but from our oil-exporting ally, Saudi Arabia, Bush's "war on terrorism" is bombing up the wrong trees... or, rather, sand dunes. But U.S. dependence on Saudi oil prohibits invading the country that is now under investigation by the FBI and the CIA for funneling money through charitable organizations from Princess Haifa al-Faisal, the wife of the Saudi ambassador to Washington, to two of the 9-11 hijackers, according to "Newsweek Magazine." But, reasons the Bush administration, we must invade Iraq.

North Korea recently admitted to a program that produces enriched uranium that can be used in nuclear weapons which nullifies the 1994 Agreed Framework wherein the country pledged to freeze operation and construction of nuclear reactors suspected of being a part of a covert weapons program. Another fine reason to invade Iraq.

In exchange for North Korean missile parts needed to build a nuclear arsenal capable of reaching every strategic site in India, Pakistan, Bush's new terrorist ally, a "rogue" nation prior to the 9-11 attack, has been shipping North Korea designs for gas centrifuges and much of the machinery it needs to make highly enriched uranium for the country's latest nuclear weapons project. Militarily speaking, this poses a threat to South Korea, Japan and 100,000 American troops in Northeast Asia. The shipments, in full view of U.S. spy satellites, were conducted on U.S.-built C-1301s, no less, according to intelligence officials. But we must bomb Iraq because Pakistan is purportedly helping Bush track down Osama bin Ladin. Remember him? The alleged mastermind of the 9-ll attacks and the reason for our unconstitutionally undeclared war on terrorism? Bin Ladin is reportedly hiding in Pakistan, not Iraq.

But we must invade Iraq because the country has proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of oil, compared with 49 billion for Russia and 15 billion for the Caspian states, countries considered back-up oil suppliers in the event that peaceful but tense relations with Saudi Arabia, a principle supplier of U.S. oil, breaks down and oil supplies are cut off.

Bush must bomb Iraq because the country possesses vast areas of unexplored hydrocarbon potential. These fields may hold the world's largest remaining reservoir of unclaimed petroleumexceeding the untapped fields in Alaska, Africa and the Caspian Sea, according to energy analysts. A war in Iraq will determine who controls the world's fossil fuel energy markets in the twenty-first century. Or, until such time the planet can no longer absorb fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere and retaliates with cataclysmic climate change.

So instead of funding solar, wind and other clean energies that can free the U.S. from foreign oil dependence and, thus, the imperialist military doctrine of the administration, V.P. Dick Cheney secretly wrote the nation's energy policy based upon recommendations from polluting, fat cat, international energy executives. By excluding representatives from clean fuel industries, and thus data that could turn the country towards energy independence with clean and inexpensive fuel, the report concludes that by 2020, the U.S. will depend on foreign oil for two-thirds of what it consumes, up from one-half in 2000. And where there is oil, there will be military escalation to protect it, currently costing taxpayers over one billion dollars a day.

Oil explains why Iraq is first on Bush's list of nations to conquer. The lust for oil and the absolute power and unthinkable wealth that it guarantees could thrust humanity into a war costing hundreds of thousands of lives and further incite anti-American sentiment among Arab nations. But conquering Iraq will guarantee the oil elite many more years of satiated greed while assuring that millions in the middle and lower classes will be subjected to the escalating cruelties of war and terrorism.

President Bush should follow the wisdom of men of peace like the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., whose life and work we celebrate this month: "Violence beget(s) that which it seeks to destroy." But instead, Bush is heeding the "lusts that war in his members," and in the members of his regime, for the sake of almighty oil.

The Reverend Jerry Falwell called the Prophet Mohammed, founder of the Islamic religion, a "terrorist" in an interview broadcast on the CBS program "60 Minutes" in October. Jerry apparently has been spending too much time in the Southern Baptist section of the Kingdom of God and listening to speeches by George W. Bush.

In an AP follow-up piece, Falwell said he'd learned much about the Prophet Mohammed from reading books. From his throne in heaven, the Prophet Mohammed wishes that Jerry would quit reading those unauthorized biographies and start reading the Koran where Muslims learn to honor Jesus as Messiah and to love their neighbors. And Jesus, from his throne in heaven, wishes that Jerry would quit embarrassing Him on national TV.

It's not clear why Jerry wants to stir up hatred and division, instead of peace on earth and good will towards men and women; unless it's true what Kashmir's chief Muslim cleric, Mohammed Omar Farooq, said about Jerry after the terrorist remark. "(Jerry) is an ignorant bigot (who) outrage(d) the religious sentiments of the second largest religious group in the world." Farooq didn't reciprocate by calling Jesus a flim-flam man simply because gazillions of dollars are televangelized in Jesus' name.

Falwell "apologized" for his remarks, meaning he's either asking pardon for his offensive statements, or he's making a formal justification for them, depending on a preference for first or second dictionary definitions. Regardless, apologies did little to mitigate the damage from the protests that Falwell's statements incited, which left five dead and 42 injured in India, as reported by The New York Times.

No one reportedly died or was physically injured last year when Jerry said the 9-11 attacks were caused by Satan's attorneys working down at the ALCU, the femi-nazis who demand that physicians rather than Big Brother help make their private health care choices, and, naturally, those perverted, hell-bound homosexuals, Republican or not.

Jerry believes that God is so mad at liberals and lesbians that He had no other choice but to send Prophet Mohammed's followers on suicide hijacking missions to New York and Washington on September 11 to kill about 3,000 people; giving George W. Bush a pretext to retaliate by killing another 3,500 innocents (according to news reports) in Afghanistan, march a quarter million Christian soldiers into Baghdad, and get the battle of Armageddon off to a rip-roaring start. And if you believe the gospel according to Jerry Falwell, then you might be interested in a little plastic Kitchen Jesus that will sanctify and protect your food from causing obesity, complete with a convenient refrigerator magnet, all for a free-will offering of just $49.95.

The North Columbia Monthly provides news, views, humor and a calendar of events for an area that stretches from Southern British Columbia south to Spokane in Washington State and covers all points in between. A free (and free-thinking, progressive) magazine, The Monthly is available at several hundred spots throughout the region and now is also available on-line at www.northcolumbiamonthly.com. Published once a month since 1994, The Monthly is an independent magazine that often challenges contemporary wisdom by encouraging critical thinking about issues and attitudes in the region and beyond.

Featuring our one-of-a-kind "What's Happening" department, The Monthly provides the region's only all-inclusive, free listing of community events and is the first place many people check to find out about area arts, crafts, music, fairs, services and events of all kinds. Our open listing policy for the "What's Happening" department promotes diversity, cultural interaction, and the exchange of ideas and free expression. Also featured in the magazine are people, food, health, humor, and feature articles that keep readers coming back for more each month.

We can be reached by mail at The North Columbia Monthly, PO Box 541, Colville, WA 99114; by phone or fax at 509-684-3109; by email at editor@northcolumbiamonthly.com; and on the Web at www.northcolumbiamonthly.com.

Thanks for stopping by!

©1994-2009. All rights reserved. Reproduction of the contents or use in whole or part without written permission from the publishers is strictly prohibited. Views and opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the publishers.