ALBUQUERQUE — Neil Mondragon watched with approval at an auto repair shop recently as Representative Heather A. Wilson, a New Mexico Republican visiting her district, dropped into the pit and drained the oil from a car.

Afterward, Mr. Mondragon recalled how he had backed Ms. Wilson, a supporter of the Iraq war, in her race for Congress two years ago. He, too, supported the war.

But now, Mr. Mondragon said, it is time to bring the troops home. And he is leaning toward voting for Ms. Wilson's opponent, Patricia Madrid, who has called for pulling the troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.

"The way I see the situation is, we have done what we had to," said Mr. Mondragon, 27, whose brother fought in the war and returned with post-traumatic stress disorder. "I don't see the point of having so many guys over there right now. We can't just stay there and baby-sit forever."

Mr. Mondragon is far from alone in reassessing his view of the war that has come to define George W. Bush's presidency.

Mr. Bush is pressing ahead with an intensified effort to shore up support for the war, but an increasingly skeptical and pessimistic public is putting pressure on Congress about the wisdom behind it, testing the political support for the White House's determination to remain in Iraq.

The results have been on display over the past week as members of Congress returned home and heard first-hand what public opinion polls have been indicating.

"We have been there now for three years, and we have suffered more losses than I think most people thought we would see," Representative Steve Chabot, an Ohio Republican from a relatively conservative district near Cincinnati, said in an interview on Friday. "You may have the president or others now who say we always knew this would be a long slog, but I think most people did not expect it to be as hard as it has been."

In Connecticut, Representative Christopher Shays, a Republican who is one of the Democrats' top targets this year in the midterm elections, has distanced himself from the White House even as he has emphasized his support for the war, saying the administration has made "huge mistakes" by allowing looting, disbanding the Iraqi army and failing to have enough troops on the ground

Senator Mike DeWine, an Ohio Republican who is also facing a tough re-election challenge, said that "people are not optimistic about what they see."

Even Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican who has made her support for the war a centerpiece of her campaign, said the public seemed "to be losing patience" with the war.

Interviews with voters, elected officials and candidates around the country suggest a deepening and hardening opposition to the war. Historians and analysts said this might mark a turning point in public perception.

"I'm less optimistic because I see the fatalities every day," said Angela Kirby, 32, a lawyer from St. Louis who initially supported the war. "And the longer it goes on, the less optimistic I am."

Here in New Mexico, Dollie Shoun, 67, said she had gone from being an ardent supporter of the war and the president to a fierce critic of both.

"There has been too many deaths, and it is time for them to come back home," Ms. Shoun said. Speaking of Mr. Bush, she added: "I was very much for him, but I don't trust him at this point in time."

Polls have found that support for the war and expectations about its outcome have reached their lowest level since the invasion. A Pew Research Center poll this week found that 66 percent of respondents said the United States was losing ground in preventing a civil war in Iraq, a jump of 18 percent since January.

The Pew poll also found that 49 percent now believed that the United States would succeed in Iraq, compared with 60 percent last July. A CBS News poll completed two weeks ago found that a majority (54 percent) believed Iraq would never become a stable democracy.

Richard B. Wirthlin, who was the pollster for President Ronald Reagan, says he sees the beginning of a decisive turn in public opinion against the war. "It is hard for me to imagine any set of circumstances that would lead to an enhancement of the public support that we have seen," he said. "It is more likely to go down, and the question is how far and how fast."

Even more problematic for the administration, pollsters have found, is that Americans who have soured on the war include many independent voters and some self-described Republicans.

William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, argued that views on the war remained fluid and that the White House could still rally support for the effort if Americans "are convinced we can win."

A perception of progress on the ground could help turn public opinion back toward Mr. Bush's way, some analysts said. As it is, a significant number of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, want Mr. Bush to continue the war.

"Bush is right in being optimistic," said Susan Knapp, 64, a Florida Republican. "I listened to the news this morning and there are people who think he's out of touch with reality, but in fact I think he knows better than most of us about what is going on, and he does know the situation."

And in interviews, some respondents said they agreed with Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that journalists were exaggerating the bad news. "I have quite a few friends who have served over there and they come back with a different story than the media portrays," said Jerry Brown, a Republican in Fairfield County, Conn.

For Mr. Bush today, as it was for Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon decades ago, the question is how long can he continue fighting an unpopular war without it crippling his presidency by eroding trust in his judgment and credibility.

"Once the public loses confidence in a president's leadership at a time of war, once they don't trust him anymore, once his credibility is sharply diminished, how does he get it back?" said Robert Dallek, a historian who has written biographies of Johnson and Nixon.

The anxiety about the war could be seen in contested districts around the country. In recent weeks, Representative Wilson of New Mexico has been sharply critical of the administration on issues like domestic surveillance and its public projections about the war. Ms. Wilson said she worried that public opinion could turn decisively against the war in Iraq as it did during the Vietnam War. "Wasn't it Kissinger who said the acid test of foreign policy is public support?" she said.

In Connecticut, Diane Farrell, a Democrat challenging Mr. Shays, said she had consistently run into voters who drew comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam.

"People are throwing up their hands between the civil unrest, the number of deaths and the cost to taxpayers," Ms. Farrell said. "People feel worn out by the war, and they don't see an end. "

At the Capitol recently, Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican who was the secretary of the Navy during part of the Vietnam War, was introduced to a visiting Iraqi. Mr. Warner proceeded to lecture her about the need for Iraqis to form a new government, and fast.

"The American people have a mind of their own," he told her, recalling how he watched during the Vietnam War as public opinion turned against the conflict — and inevitably Congress followed. In a later conversation, Mr. Warner said that such a moment had not been reached yet, but he warned that he sensed a "certain degree of impatience" in the country and around the world.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

WASHINGTON—When the townsfolk gathered in the tiny Vermont community of Newfane for their annual meeting, the agenda was daunting.

There was the town budget to be approved, then the school budget, plus they needed to approve spending $50,000 on the town's property reappraisal.

And, oh yeah. Move to impeach the president of the United States.

And so, at the end of a five-hour meeting, the assembled were asked to consider:

"Whereas George W. Bush has:

"1. Misled the nation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction;

"2. Misled the nation about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda;

"3. Used these falsehoods to lead our nation into war unsupported by international law;

"4. Not told the truth about American policy with respect to the use of torture; and

"5. Directed the government to engage in domestic spying, in direct contravention of U.S. law;

"Therefore, the voters of the town of Newfane ask that our representative to the U.S. House of Representatives file articles of impeachment to remove him from office."

All in favour?: 129. All opposed?: 21. Meeting adjourned.

For a president on the run, cratering at record-low approval ratings, losing battles with Republicans who are beginning to consider him toxic, seemingly having lost his political stride like an aging slugger who can't catch up to the fastball, impeachment is likely the least of his worries.

More worrisome for Bush is the perception he is so insulated during this second term that he has lost touch with the concerns of the nation, that he is still surrounded by the same top aides in notorious "burnout'' positions who came to power with him five years ago, that the "trust me" president has squandered that trust.

But as a barometer of discontent with the second-term Bush presidency in a mid-term election year, the fact that impeachment has moved from angry bumper stickers to dinner party discussion is telling.

Democrats in Congress, probably quite wisely, won't touch the question.

Michigan's John Conyers introduced a resolution last December requesting an impeachment inquiry to deal with Bush's "manipulation" of pre-war intelligence, but only 26 of 201 House Democrats backed him.

But that hasn't stopped others.

ImpeachPAC.org has endorsed and raised funds for three Democrats who vow to push for impeachment if elected in November's mid-terms.

The organization, led by Democrat Bob Fertik is an offshoot of AfterDowningStreet.org, founded by David Swanson, a former reporter and press secretary who tried to mobilize opposition to Bush after the release of internal memos from the Tony Blair government indicated the White House was intent on crafting the conditions for an invasion of Iraq.

Newfane is one of nine U.S. communities, all in Vermont and California, to pass impeachment resolutions, the largest of which was San Francisco where city supervisors voted 7-3 for impeachment, saying Bush has destroyed civil liberties in his wiretapping program, and failed miserably in his response to Hurricane Katrina.

Lewis Lapham, the outgoing editor of Harper's magazine and one of the country's most outspoken Bush critics, makes the case for impeachment in the March issue of his magazine.

It includes this indictment:

"We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instil in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil; a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies.

"In a word, a criminal — known to be armed and shown to be dangerous."

Dan DeWalt, the 49-year-old Vermont woodworking teacher, furniture restorer and musician who introduced the Newfane resolution, says he wants to make impeachment a household word.

"We can't take up arms against our government, so we do what we can," he said.

"If we stand by and do nothing, we would be complicit in the immoral and illegal activities of the administration. If you do nothing, you are acting illegally and immorally yourself."

The litany of high crimes and misdemeanours in this grim era for Bush are well known.

It started shortly after his re-election, at a time when he was crowing about his "political capital" and there was talk of a conservative dynasty in the U.S. But when he spent much of that capital on an overhaul of Social Security, he found it couldn't be sold, even within his own party.

Then came the CIA leak investigation, a probe that clearly distracted the White House, ending with the indictment of Lewis "Scooter'' Libby, a top aide to Vice-President Dick Cheney.

It was during this period that it became clear the political radar on Pennsylvania Ave. was down.

His nomination of White House legal counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court foundered against opposition from the right and ultimately had to be withdrawn.

His laggardly response to last year's Hurricane Katrina became a case study of an administration asleep at the switch, bolstered by the recent release of video showing a seemingly disinterested Bush being briefed on the looming catastrophe.

Since December, when it was revealed in The New York Times, Bush has been fighting to justify a wiretapping program that has been denounced as illegal.

There was the tragicomedy shooting of a hunting pal by Cheney, a gun mishap that turned into a week-long crisis for the White House.

That was quickly followed by the Dubai ports controversy. Whether the deal should have been killed may be open to debate, but again the political skills of this White House were tucked away and the ensuing groundswell of opposition to turning port management over to a company from the United Arab Emirates left Bush belatedly sputtering about using his veto to keep the deal alive.

By week's end, he was in full retreat, having been stared down by a Republican congressional delegation which outflanked him on his vaunted strong suit, national security.

"They didn't see it coming," said New York Republican Representative Peter King who led opposition to the deal.

He told reporters in New York Bush administration officials have "got to get their antenna up much more on issues and bring the issues up in Congress. They need to realize we're now entering into a complex state of a post-9/11 world."

Against all this, is a war in Iraq nearing its third anniversary with an AP-Ipsos poll released yesterday indicating 80 per cent of Americans — including 70 per cent of Republicans — believe Iraq is heading to civil war.

Comic Bill Maher jokes the U.S. is suffering from "f-up fatigue" at the top.

They call it the six-year itch, the second-term cloud that seems to inevitably envelop any president who doesn't need to be elected.

Second-term presidents have dealt with sex scandals (Bill Clinton), out-of-control wars (Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman), arms scandals (Ronald Reagan) and political scandals (Richard Nixon).

But only Nixon has had approval ratings as low as Bush's 38 per cent average on a series of polls released last week.

The mystery in Washington is why Bush will not inject some new blood into his inner circle.

Chief of staff Andrew Card and deputy chief of staff and political strategist Karl Rove have been with him since day one.

"You can lose your political instincts, you become less sensitive to the political cross-currents,'' says presidential historian Robert Dallek.

"When you are falling on your face, faltering, stumbling around, it becomes all the more important to move the deck chairs around and bring in some fresh perspective and some fresh hope, plus a little renewed confidence for the country."

Larry Sabato, a political analyst at the University of Virginia, says Bush has faced some big "screw-ups" that have cost him.

"The question on the street, from people who are not necessarily political, is whether the president is competent," he says. "Presidents get tired and I think Bush is tired."

© 2006 Toronto Star

 CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

On the eve of George Bush's presidential campaign in 2000, the neoconservative Kenneth Adelman cast him as Prince Hal, who "puts the indiscretions of his youth behind him" and "redeems his father's reign." After September 11, Bush was wreathed with regal laurels as Henry V by a clerisy of pundits. From Ground Zero to the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln ("Mission Accomplished") the president struck bold poses, but his choreographed gestures have especially illuminated his hollow crown in the darkened breach of New Orleans.

For the first time, last week, the public has seen the spontaneous Bush behind closed doors, in a leaked videotape that recorded his briefing the day before Hurricane Katrina struck. Teleconferenced in from his Crawford ranch, Texas, Bush listens to disaster officials inform him that the storm will be unprecedented in its severity and consequences. "This is, to put it mildly, the big one," says Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center, warns: "This hurricane is much larger than Hurricane Andrew ever was." Bush asks not a single question, says, "We are fully prepared," and departs.

The Katrina videotape is defining for Bush's presidency. It exposes a deaf man spouting talking points. After the hurricane hit, he stayed on vacation, went to a birthday party, strummed a guitar with a country and western singer, and on September 1 said: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." On his flight back to Washington, four days after landfall, his aides gave him a DVD of television news reports of the hurricane's impact about which he had done nothing to learn on his own.

As the catastrophe of the foreshadowed aftermath unfolded, he clapped Brown on the back: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." But soon the administration settled on Brownie as the scapegoat, prevented him from defending himself and forced him to resign. He was expected to fall on his sword.

Suddenly, last week, the sacrificial Brown stormed back, the betrayed turning on his betrayers. He proclaimed on every media outlet that he would no longer play the fall guy, detailed the warnings he had given, and named malefactors running up the chain of command.

In New Orleans, a sad Mardi Gras has come and gone, while crews from the morgue continue searching for bodies - still finding them. The city has lost more than half its population, most of the refugees are African-Americans, and their neighborhoods remain scenes of devastation. Having rejected a plan for rebuilding, Bush travelled to New Orleans for another photo-opportunity this week to announce a program that would supposedly give money to the homeless but absurdly will not permit destroyed housing to be replaced by new. Not one penny so far has been spent on new homes. Six months after the tempest, New Orleans, one of the glories of American life and culture, lies in ruins, and Bush visits to pose as visionary.

In a recently published hagiography on the theme of Bush-as-Prince-Hal, Rebel-in-Chief, written by the rightwing pundit Fred Barnes, Bush explained to him that his job is to "stay out of minutiae, keep the big picture in mind." To illustrate his self-conception, he "called my attention to the rug" in the Oval Office. Bush said that he wanted the rug to express that an "optimistic person comes here." He delegated the task to his wife, Laura, who designed a rug featuring bright yellow rays of the sun. In his Oval Office, Prince Hal imagines himself grown into a Sun King.

Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is the author of "The Clinton Wars." Email to: sidney_blumenthal@yahoo.com.

© 2006 Guardian Newspapers Limited

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As a young man I was honored to serve our nation as a commissioned officer and helicopter pilot in the U. S. Navy.

Before me in WWII, my father defended the country spending two years in the Pacific aboard the U.S.S. Hornet (CV-14). We were patriots sworn “to protect and defend”. Today I conclude that you have dishonored our service and the Constitution and principles of our oath. My dad was buried with full military honors so I cannot act for him. But for myself, I return enclosed the symbols of my years of service: the shoulder boards of my rank and my Naval Aviator’s wings.

Until your administration, I believed it was inconceivable that the United States would ever initiate an aggressive and preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to us. Until your administration, I thought it was impossible for our nation to take hundreds of persons into custody without provable charges of any kind, and to “disappear” them into holes like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. Until your administration, in my wildest legal fantasy I could not imagine a U.S. Attorney General seeking to justify torture or a President first stating his intent to veto an anti-torture law, and then adding a “signing statement” that he intends to ignore such law as he sees fit. I do not want these things done in my name.

As a citizen, a patriot, a parent and grandparent, a lawyer and law teacher I am left with such a feeling of loss and helplessness. I think of myself as a good American and I ask myself what can I do when I see the face of evil? Illegal and immoral war, torture and confinement for life without trial have never been part of our Constitutional tradition. But my vote has become meaningless because I live in a safe district drawn by your political party. My congressman is unresponsive to my concerns because his time is filled with lobbyists’ largess. Protests are limited to your “free speech zones”, out of sight of the parade. Even speaking openly is to risk being labeled un-American, pro-terrorist or anti-troops. And I am a disciplined pacifist, so any violent act is out of the question.

Nevertheless, to remain silent is to let you think I approve or support your actions. I do not. So, I am saddened to give up my wings and bars. They were hard won and my parents and wife were as proud as I was when I earned them over forty years ago. But I hate the torture and death you have caused more than I value their symbolism. Giving them up makes me cry for my beloved country.

Joseph W. DuRocher

Joseph DuRocher was for 20 years the elected Public Defender of Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit, covering Orange and Osceola counties. Since retirement, he’s been writing and teaching law at the University of Central Florida and the Barry University School of Law. He was a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy in the 1960s, serving as a Naval Aviator in the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Mediterranean. On Monday, Mr. DuRocher returned his Lieutenant’s shoulder bars and Navy wings to President Bush, and enclosed the following letter. Mr. DuRocher can be reached at: PDJWD@aol.com.

© 2006 Candide's Notebooks

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

THE

TORTURE AND PROSTITUTION

The Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) has a regulation for every action that might be encountered by a member of the US military.  There are regulations governing every aspect of military life from the time a soldier enlists until after he has left the service.  The UCMJ covers not only activities for daily life, but for combat, disciplinary actions allowed by commanders, and for regulating the military prison systems.

The role of the guard staff and the command, it seems, is to do everything within their power to hide the truth,not to encourage rehabilitation of the inmates.  It doesn't seem to be to provide counseling for inmates who suffer from emotional or psychological disorders; inmates were told that such counseling could not be provided as the money for these programs was needed to fund the war.

The role of the guard and command at the RCF seems to be to do very little to positively affect the rehabilitation of the inmates in their control and to hide that fact whenever it is brought into question.   

From all accounts, it seems the role of the staff is to make every effort to prevent the 507^th MP Brigade from ever “looking bad,” but not by training its members to follow the rules.  The command has actually instructed its unit members to say nothing, to report nothing, to talk to no one in an effort to ensure that no one ever learn of all the mistakes this unit has made because it has never been adequately trained to follow the regulations.  Who is there to train them when those in command publicly state that they do not have to follow the regulations, and they do not care what the regulations say?

One month ago a guard from the RCF at Ft. Lewis, a member of the 507^th MP Brigade, died while taking a rigorous Physical Training test at 6:30 in the morning.  His medical records showed that he had a heart condition, and his command was aware of this condition.  Prior to being ordered to take this PT test, the guard had just served a 12 hour shift through the night on guard at the RCF.  What was the command thinking?

SFC Parham once served as the enlisted man in charge of the prisoners’ affairs.  He has now been promoted to First Sgt. of the 507^th MP Brigade.  While still managing the affairs of the prisoners, SFC Parham told the prisoners that he was not going to allow them to have educational opportunities while serving time, violating their rights according to the US military regulations governing Corrections facilities.  SFC Parham seemed to think that his only responsibility was to see that the inmates served their sentence, nothing more.  While several inmates have repeatedly requested that they be allowed to participate in correspondence courses and distance learning programs as a way to help prepare them for making a positive contribution to their communities and for their families upon their release, none of these requests have been granted.  At this CORRECTIONS facility, education doesn't matter.

There is, however, a female specialist  who serves her 507^th MP unit by working in the Education office at the RCF, where no education programs are offered.  Could it be SFC P’s solution for seeing that this Specialist’s behavior does not cast a bad light on her unit?  By assigning this female soldier to duty as the non-existent education facilitator, she has very little contact with the inmates.  Wise move by the man in charge of prisoner affairs, in light of the fact that this female was caught on more than one occasion giving out specialist favors on the back steps. Heaven forbid – we certainly don't want this unit to look bad. 

There are several inmates who have written to their congressional representatives regarding abuses they have faced at the hands of the command at this RCF who does not think the UCMJ matters. 

When the military liaisons of these Congressional offices write inquiries to the facility, they get responses.  The responses say that the inmates and their family members are lying, that they are making the stories up.  The command responds with half-truths, and the actions they take at the RCF are clearly meant to prevent anyone from ever being able to learn the truth.

Inmates are required to submit requests for actions, including calls to their attorneys, calls to their congressional representatives, visits from family members, visits to support groups, and chaplains – all requests must be submitted on forms that go through the RCF counseling office.  There is no written documentation of any of these requests until the counseling office completes one of these forms.  Inmates can request a form from the counseling office for days before one is given.  There is NO documentation of these verbal requests, so the command conveniently gives the appearance that the inmates never really try to seek help.  Isn’t it time for the command to tell the truth?

Warden Ennice Hobbes is one of three personnel who sit on the D and A Board to determine the disciplinary action to be given for infractions.  Mr. Hobbes is a civilian and inmates have submitted statements addressing the fact that he has signed many of the D and A decisions as the President of this board.  The regulations for Military Corrections require that the President of the board be a member of the military, E-8 or above.(DOD 190-47, pg. 73, Ch. 12, para. 2)  Those responsible for providing the proper support to inmates who are at a facility so that their actions are “corrected” and they may return as productive members of society, ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAWS.  Who cares?

A guard at the RCF witnessed a case of physical assault by another guard on one of the inmates.  This inmate listed the guard as a witness to the offense, but when it was time for her to make a statement, she would not.  After the D and A Board had assigned a disciplinary action against the inmate, the guard told him that she did not make a statement on his behalf because the command told her that to do so would make their unit look bad.  Of significance in this situation is the fact that the inmate was assaulted as a result of his going to the block guard commander as the respresentative of his block to complain about a XXX-rated movie being shown in the bay, the choice of the guards. It seems that greater moral character was displayed by the married inmates who requested not to have such a movie shown, while the guards, part of the unit that, according to regulations, was to ensure rehabilitation and promote positive moral growth in these inmates before releasing them back to their communities, actually assaulted an inmate for voicing his complaint about such a movie and refused to turn the movie off.

What makes Americans believe that we should be out saving the world?  What makes Americans believe that we must look to Iraq, Iran, India, Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela, and a host of other countries to find human rights abuses to confront, and violations of the rules of law to set straight?  Why are we spending money on global peace conferences, and human rights events? 

The issues presented here are just the tip of the iceberg – an iceberg that exists in our own house. 

America – WHEN WILL YOU ACTUALLY CARE? 

President George W. Bush, whose overall approval rating fell to a new low of 34 per cent this week, has repeatedly said the US would finish the mission in Iraq. But a Zogby International/Le Moyne College poll found that only 23 per cent of US troops believed that they should stay “as long as they are needed”.

Seventy-two per cent of troops said the US should withdraw within 12 months; 29 per cent said they should pull out immediately.

Meanwhile a CBS News poll recorded another record low for the president this week: only 30 per cent of respondents approved of Mr Bush’s handling of Iraq.

John Zogby, the president of Zogby International, said US commanders in Iraq unofficially approved the poll of 944 respondents, which was conducted before the escalation in violence that followed last week’s bombing of the Golden Mosque.

Bryan Whitman, the deputy Pentagon spokesman, said the poll figures were “certainly not borne out in our recruiting and retention statistics”.

Mr Bush said on Tuesday that the Iraqi people and their leaders must choose between “a free society and evil people who kill innocents”.

“There are some who are trying to sow the seeds of sectarian violence,’’ he said following a meeting with Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, who is withdrawing Italian troops from Iraq this year.

Ninety-three per cent of US troops polled said the removal of weapons of mass destruction was not the main US mission in Iraq. Instead, 68 per cent said the mission was actually the removal of Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi president.

Despite the fact that Mr Bush has acknowledged that Iraq played no role in the September 2001 attacks, 85 per cent of troops said the US mission was mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks”, a result that Mr Zogby described as “bewildering”.

While Mr Bush insists that progress is being made in Iraq, US intelligence and military officials frequently acknowledge that a full-scale civil war could erupt.

“I think we should take heart in the leaders who have come forward at this point but we’re also in a very tenuous situation right now,” Gen Michael Maples, the director of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, told a Senate hearing on Tuesday.

“I think that more violence, were it to occur, were it to be stimulated by al-Qaeda in Iraq, would have a very significant impact on the situation in Iraq.” He gave warning that political progress would not necessarily reduce the conflict. “Even moderate Sunni Arab leaders see violence as a complement to their political platforms,” he said.

A separate study on Tuesday from Globespan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes found that 33 of 35 countries polled believe the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks around the world.

© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK