This is OFF TOPIC!!! You will SELDOM see me vary from my Italian American/Italian theme. This is a RARE exception. Please excuse!!

Professor Ben Lawton, Chair, Italian Studies, Chair, Film Studies, Purdue University,
is an idealist, and an enormously well intentioned man, who finds it difficult to merely stand by when great injustices are being committed.

Prof. Lawton in an attempt to help truth emerge, transmits the Lawton Report, which currently is focusing on the situation in Iraq, and supplies some very valuable information.

Ben is an interesting combination of a Liberal (radically change the status quo) and a Military Man (protect every aspect of the status quo). OK, a slight overstatement :)

Below is a sample of one of The Lawton Reports. His succinct interlinear comments are always particularly telling.

You must be prepared to check out the "Subject: line, and filter through a half dozen reports a day. And oh yes, You must be prepared to think :)

I highly recommend this FREE service. You may subscribe by merely addressing your request to:   << lawton@purdue.edu >>
=========================================================
Reserve Tours Are Extended
Army Orders 1-Year Stay In Iraq, Nearby Nations
[Washington Post, September 9, 2003, Pg. 1]
U.S. forces are stretched thin, forcing the Army to order that thousands of National Guard and Reserve troops in Iraq have their tours extended to a year, months longer than many of those soldiers had expected.

[why not? They are cheaper so Dubya &Co can have guns for American working stiffs and butter-AND-tax breaks for their plutocratic buddies! ]

Bush Likely To Get Money He Sought, Lawmakers Agree
[New York Times, September 9, 2003, Pg. 1]
Congressional members said President Bush will get the $87 billion he needs to support the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, although the administration will likely have to answer some tough questions about that issue.

[yeah, like, where are the WMD? Where were the Iraq-Al Qaeda links (we know that Al Qaeda is all over Iraq NOW, but where were they before???); and what’s the exit plan?

Iraq-Terrorism Link Continues To Be Problematic
No evidence has come up tying Hussein to 9/11, but the war itself seems to have triggered attacks.
[Los Angeles Times, September 9, 2003]
The Iraqi-terrorism link remains problematic. The Bush administration has yet to prove that Saddam Hussein had any complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks, or even that he had significant ties with al Qaeda.

[QED!]

Spy Agencies Warned Of Iraq Resistance
[Washington Post, September 9, 2003, Pg. 1]
U.S. intelligence agencies warned Bush administration policymakers before the war in Iraq began that there could be substantial resistance to an American occupation of the country.

[duh! Everyone warned Qemo Sabe and Tonto that there could be substantial resistance!]

North Korea To Display New Missiles
U.S. watches for nuke test, Taepo Dong that can reach West Coast
[Washington Times, September 9, 2003, Pg. 1]
North Korea is expected to soon display one or two new long-range missiles, including one system capable of hitting the Western U.S.

[Let me see, Dubya attacks Iraq because he just knows the have WMD, but does . . what about NK that not only has nukes, it has missiles that can read California?]

Weapons Experts: Iraqi Nuke Program Was In Disarray
[USA Today, September 9, 2003, Pg. 2]
U.N. inspectors found Iraq’s nuclear program in such disarray that it is was unlikely that it could support an active effort to produce nukes.

[But Dubya just KNEW (from classified sources) that Iraq had WMDs and the means to attack the US in 45 minutes!]

Homemade Bombs Bedevil Troops
[Washington Post, September 9, 2003, Pg. 12]
Coalition troops in Iraq are constantly threatened with homemade bombs---some cobbled together from artillery shells or other munitions and hidden in places like a clump of dirt, a soda can or a dead animal. The bombs are usually planted at night and detonated during the day.

[Oh well, if they can’t get their bombs to reach America, Dubya will send Americans where the bombs are!]

Troubles In Iraq Dim Rumsfeld’s Star, But He Fights Back
[New York Times, September 9, 2003]
Secretary Rumsfeld had a few weeks to take in the praise for conducting a fast, minimum-casualty war in Iraq. Subsequent events in that country have muddied his reputation, but that hasn’t stopped the Defense chief from speaking his mind about critics who encourage U.S. foes to believe that America might walk away from the war on terror.

[This is such baloney! The war on Iraq has nothing to do with the “war” on terror. In fact, it is taking away financial and military resources that could be directed against the war on terror.]

Rumsfeld Is Muted On Weapons Hunt
Secretary Tries to Avoid Issue During Trip
[Washington Post, September 9, 2003, Pg. 12]
Secretary Rumsfeld’s trip to Iraq and Afghanistan focused on the accomplishments of the U.S. and its allies, but did not include any debates about the search for Iraq’s suspected weapons of mass destruction.

[I wonder why?]

78% Of Bush’s Postwar Spending Plan Is For Military
[New York Times, September 9, 2003]
President Bush’s request for $87 billion for postwar operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is heavily weighted to maintain military activities, with $65 billion directed to the armed forces, $15 billion toward rebuilding Iraq and $800 million for civilian programs in Afghanistan.

[You know, if we spent $87 billion to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, I bet you we wouldn’t need that money to maintain military activities]

Europe Hears Bush’s Call For Help Without Scorn
[New York Times, September 9, 2003]
The world did not gloat following President Bush’s televised address, during which he sought international help to secure Iraq. Kofi Annan moved rapidly to resume the diplomatic debate on Iraq, calling for the foreign ministers from the five permanent Security Councils to meet him in Geneva next weekend.

[considering the way Dubya & Co treated the Europeans, this is incredibly civilized of them]

Bush Pushes Iraq Plan
Officials to Make Worldwide Appeal
[Washington Post, September 9, 2003, Pg. 13]
President Bush has begun a careful effort to build national and global support for his costly plans for making Iraq secure. Secretary Rumsfeld warned that to ignore the president’s efforts would be to coddle terrorists.

[Visit Michah Wright’s site!]

Amid Iraq Policy Change, Refusal To Admit Change Is A Constant
[Washington Post, September 9, 2003, Pg. 21]
President Bush’s decision to seek a U.N. resolution giving the global body a greater role in Iraq is portrayed by administration officials as nothing new---just a continuation of what Bush has said since launching the war on terror.

[How do you know when this administration is lying? Watch their lips!]

U.S. May Not Be Able To Sustain Iraq Troops Levels
Rotation schedules and a limited number of soldiers mean a change is inevitable, experts say.
[Philadelphia Inquirer, September 9, 2003]
President Bush seems to be planning to keep some 130,000 troops in Iraq for at least a year. That could be a challenge, since nearly three-quarters of the Army’s 33 combat brigades are deployed in Afghanistan and in and around Iraq.

[How do you spell “draft”?]

Democrats Say Spending With Tax Cuts Is Unaffordable
[Washington Post, September 9, 2003, Pg. 13]
Democrats, stirred by President Bush’s request for $87 billion, complain that the nation’s economy cannot absorb Bush’s tax cuts and then be expected to fund the war on terror.

[Well, duh! Too bad they didn’t have the brains and intestinal fortitude to come to that realization before Dubya got into this mess]

U.S. Rep Obey: Rumsfeld Made ‘Spectacular Number’ Of Errors
[Wall Street Journal (WSJ.com), September 8, 2003]
Rep. David Obey still wants Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz to resign. He said they have made a “spectacular number of misjudgments about the post-war Iraq situation.”

[YES! AMEN! TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!! (and then send them to sit in the desert for a year)]

Whose Sacrifice?
E.J. Dionne Jr.
[Washington Post, September 9, 2003, Pg. 23]
President Bush said U.S. troops will be sacrificing in Iraq, but didn’t indicate that he would sacrifice anything himself. Maybe he should have dropped some his optimistic rhetoric and let the nation know just now desperate is the situation in Iraq.

A Long Time Coming
David Broder
[Washington Post, September 9, 2003, Pg. 23]
President Bush’s televised speech was too long coming. The speech was a start toward a realistic outline of what must be done in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can do nothing else but to take on the task ahead. It would be comforting to know that Bush has extricated himself from those who so badly misjudged the situation and who delayed the speech he finally made.

Whatever It Takes
David Brooks
[New York Times, September 9, 2003]
The essential message delivered by President Bush is that the U.S. will do whatever it takes to prevail in the war on terror. It’s too bad that those responsible for the lousy decisions that led to the troubles in post-war Iraq haven’t admitted their errors in public

Other People’s Sacrifice
Paul Krugman
[New York Times, September 9, 2003]
President Bush’s call for unity demands sacrifice from everyone but him. He expects a blank check to pursue his goals, while the military and the taxpayers who pay the freight are forced to accept the unfortunate circumstances of a post-war strategy gone wrong.

[And, in conclusion, I want to thank the Wall Street Journal for proving that having lots of money doesn’t mean that you have any brains. See below]

‘The Central Front’
[Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2003]
Critics can no longer claim that President Bush hasn’t been up-front about his strategy for victory in Iraq, or how much it will cost. Iraq is the “central front” in the war on terror, he said during his televised speech. Bush pledged that America won’t tuck tail and run, but will stay the course and eventually overcome terrorism.

[Iraq is the “central front” in the war on terror for the same reason the Battle of Little Big Horn became the central front in Custer’s campaign against the Sioux and their allies. ]