Here is a wonderful segment on the Department of Peace that was on the tv in California.
http://cbs5.com/30minutes/local_story_350231908.html

Exciting News From Puerto Rico!

Dot Maver and Patty Roeding have been in
Puerto Rico this week speaking about and
networking for the Department of Peace
campaign at the Alliance for a New Humanity
conference. Marianne Williamson and Congressman
Dennis Kucinich were also present as keynote
speakers.

At the conclusion of the conference, on
International Human Rights Day, December 10,
2005, conference participants, representing
hundreds of organizations from around the
world, voted in favor of a resolution
endorsing a U.S. Department of Peace.
Following the vote, Deepak Chopra, founder of
the Alliance for a New Humanity, applauded the
resolution, saying it will now go to the
White House and President George W. Bush,
as well as to the Senate and House of Representatives.

In the course of the conference, people from several
countries approached Dot expressing interest in
the international initiative and launching
or getting in touch with campaigns for departments
and ministries of peace in their countries,
including people from Palestine, Israel, Sri Lanka,
Australia, Canada, Japan, Denmark, Germany, and others.

For the U.S. campaign, we are preparing a formal
press release with this news, which should go out
later today.

That spotlight of peace is shining brighter and
brighter every day!

Mike Abkin

Thank you, windy city!

ROBERT C. KOEHLER

For release 12/8/05

  FLICKERING DREAMS OF PEACE

By Robert C. Koehler

Tribune Media Services

Ever try to shift a paradigm? I salute the brave souls
scattered around the continent - some of them are in
Congress - who are doing just that, who are daring,
right now, to challenge the conventional wisdom of
war and peace at the highest levels at which the game
of geopolitics is played, and are calling for the
establishment of a Cabinet-level Department of Peace.

When long-time correspondent Bill Bhaneja, a senior
research fellow at the University of Ottawa and
retired Canadian diplomat, recently e-mailed me
the proposal he co-authored with Saul Arbess for such
an addition to Canada's government - inspired by
U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich's H.R. 3760 - I confess
to a queasy skepticism that such a project was just
too darn idealistic.

Then I thought about bird flu - and George Bush's
wild  musings two months ago about combating it
with National Guard troops, that is, by implementing
martial law to enforce quarantines. This from the
man who has "degraded" (in the words of one high-
level health official) the nation's public health
system and underfunded and politicized every branch
of government created to deal with national emergencies.

And it hit me with a jolt: The level of public
awareness is deteriorating. We're now whelping
leaders who haven't got a clue how to deal with
complex social issues except to start shooting at them.
And there's no adequate challenge to this in the media
or from the opposition party, and apparently no public
context big enough even to allow for debate.

For instance, there was Hillary Clinton the other day
telling potential supporters of her run for the
presidency, who I'd wager are against the war by a
large margin, that the United States must "finish
what it started" in Iraq, as though there's a consensus
what, exactly, we started and what "finishing" it would
mean, and how many more deadIraqis and U.S. servicemen
we might expect before we attain our
unarticulated goal.

It was sheer politician-speak, in other words, betraying
no courageous intelligence, no insight that our brutal
occupation might be fueling the insurgency and creating
the terrorists we're obliged to keeping fighting. But
the media have already pegged Hillary a frontrunner,
which means they're condemning America's anti-war majority,
once again, to a campaign season without a presidential
candidate who represents their ardent hopes.

This is intolerable. This is why I support and heartily
endorse what is, in fact, a global movement to raise
awareness by challenging the blood-myths of the nation-
state and the inevitability of war, and the geopolitical
canard extraordinaire that high-tech, high-kill, earth-
poisoning modern wars have any chance of achieving
controllable ends and do not spew incalculable suffering
and future wars in their wake.

"What we seek," write Bhaneja and Arbess, "is a world in
which peaceful relations between states are a systematically
pursued norm and that the numerous non-aggression pacts
between states become treaties of mutual support and
collaboration. We envision a world in which a positive
peace prevails as projected most recently in the U.N.
International Decade for a Culture of Peace (2001-2010)
Programme of Action."

The establishment of a peace academy, the training of 
peace workers, the promotion of nonviolent conflict 
resolution at every level of human interaction - 
there's no reason why such projects should be nothing 
more than the flickering dreams of protestors at 
candlelight vigils. There's no reason why they should 
not be the business of government. I have no doubt 
whatsoever that the public is ready to move beyond 
the barbarism history has bequeathed us, and would do 
so in an eye blink if enough respected voices said, 
"Now is the time." And respected voices are saying 
this, if only we could hear them.
"What is quite clear - and would become clear as you 
go along with this campaign - is that you are trying, 
and I consider myself with you on this in every way . . . 
(to create) not only a massive but a basic change in 
our culture, in our entire approach to our relationships
with other human beings. . . . It's not a matter of simply 
getting another department of government. You're speaking 
of an entire philosophical revolution."

This is Walter Cronkite, in conversation with Kucinich last
September at a Department of Peace conference in Washington,
D.C. Kucinich, the hero of this movement, first introduced
Department of Peace legislation in 2001. The bill now has
some 60 sponsors in theHouse and, in September, was
introduced in the Senate (S. 1756) by Mark Dayton of Minnesota.

The architects of the war on terror have minds stuck in old
paradigms of domination and conquest. Their enemy is always
the same:Evil Incarnate. Today's jihadist was yesterday's
Communist, playing the same game of dominos.

This war is doomed to create nothing but losers, and more
and more people - including many who are in or close to
the military, such as Jack Murtha - are grasping this.
As they wake up, the Department of Peace will be waiting for them.

- - -

Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist,
is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally
syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at
bkoehler@tribune.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.

Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:11:02 -0500

   From: "Linda Henderson" <lindakhenderson@hotmail.com>

Subject: RE: National Dept of Peace, Patterson article.

 To The Editor:

 I would like to write in appreciation of the attention
your paper has given to the the legislation now pending
in the U.S. Congress in consideration of creating a
cabinet level Department of Peace in the Executive
Branch of our federal govenment. Specifically, I
would like to respond to Dave Coogan's statement 
regarding his belief that such a department would
be "completely ineffective":
1.  This rather dismissive statement is a mere
conclusion not supported by fact.  It seems to
be presented more from the perspective of his
political affiliation and ideological bias
(College Republicans) than from any sound reason.
The facts seem to more readily support that our
present means of dealing with violence at home
and abroad are not working...regardless of who
is the "ruling" party.  This proposed department
is a transpartisan concept. It does, however,
require that the governed and the government 
evolve.  I for one am not so skeptical that
this cannot be done.  This is a democracy,
and we are a species given the gift of free
will...we can and will do whatever we decide
to so do.  A more intelligent direction than
what we currently employ would seem to me a
good use of our free will.
2.  From a cost/benefit analysis, this
legislation is more practical and timely
than any effort now being employed.  Wasn't
it Einstein himself who advised that we
cannot solve a problem from the same
consciousness that created it?  Not
unlike the concept of preventative
medicine, if we address violence at the
front end of the equation...we will not
be required to spend so much of our tax
dollars on violence manifest.
3.  What's all this I hear about
"VALUES"?  You would think, after the 
last election cycle, when we heard so
much about values, that we would be
mindful of how many lives have been
lost because we did not value them
quite as much as we valued our need
to react to our own fears.  Over two
thousand of our own people killed,
countless others maimed, "collateral
damage" for years to come for
countless families, tens of thousands
of Iraqi citizens killed in the name
of saving them from that bad man Sadam.
Al Qaida is now part of the norm in 
Iraq.  There is an estimated 80%
unemployment in that country while
Halliburton is making a "killing".
Here at home, school children are
killing and being killed, women are 
battered, police are at highest risk
in responding to domestic violence,
prisons are overflowing, schools are
closing, racial and homophobic violence
continues to rear it's ugly head.  And
when these things happen usually our
answer is to commission another study.  
Might it be valuable to do our study
before the violence happens?
4.  Too much bureuacracy?  NO...just
a shift in bureaucracy.  The simple
truth is that the State Department
deals with U.S. interests abroad, often
in the interest of U.S. businesses. The
Secretary of State can negotiate with
heads of state, and usually does so
only after an issue arises.  A
Department of Peace would have as it
sole mission proactively researching
and addressing the underlying causal
elements to violence abroad. For
instance, we knew for decades the
environment that was festering in 
Afghanistan and did nothing.  Would
it not have been beneficial to have 
someone at the table (cabinet)
advocating and advising regarding
the likely outcome that such an
environment would become a breeding
ground for terrorism?  We may have
stemmed that tide for a fraction of
the human and financial cost expended
thus far.  At a minimum, we likely
would have mitigated our damages had
we taken a more proactive role in 
preventative measures. The State Dept
has some ad hoc programs that deal in
these terms, just as do the Departments
of Education, Defense, Homeland Security,
Environmental Protection Agency, etc. 
None of them are given priority status,
and none of them create the national
intention a Department of Peace would
create, nor give uniformity, funding
and priority to all of the existing
programs in our local and state governments.
5.  Readiness and Training.  The Department
of Peace would create a Peace Academy as
a sister institution to the existing
military academies. America has many
people who are ready to step into roles
training military and civilian students
in proven techniques of non-violent
communication skills who could be sent
into any given environment before, during
and post conflict. In addition, this
 academy would address education in
language and culture arts that would
give soldiers and civil servants the
tools necessary to truly have credible
communication with peoples from other
countries. Every school in our country
should have curriculum that employs this 
skill.  Teaching non-conflict resolution
prevents the weeds of violence fromtaking
root. That we will continue to have
conflict as human beings is plain enough...
to learn how to "agree to disagree"
without the use of violence while we are
promoting our own positions is essential
to our survival.
6. Democracy requires that whatever form
of govenmental institutions we create
must be held accountable by citizens to
do the task they were created to do.  
Do we do that now?  No.  One only need
look at what's become of the EPA. 
Does that mean we should not have an EPA...no.
Itmeans we must evolve as a citizenery to
recognize that we have a vested interest
in seeing to it politics are...the citizens,
by action or omission to act, have to take
the ultimate responsibility for the government
that exists at any given time.  One hopes that
when the citizens of this country realize the
need for a Department of Peace to the extent
that their elected Representatives will be
compelled to comply with their wishes, that
we will have also come to the collective
realization that we will have to maintain our
investment in sustaining a non-violent
environment by our vigilance in seeing
the intentions of such a department be honored.
Let me quote a very wise woman who proffered
the golden rule thusly:  "Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you....because
they will". With the weapons available
which are capable of anihilating the species,
and people who are willing to kill themselves
in the pursuit of their beliefs/causes, the
concept of creating a Department of Peace is
the most sane, practical and productive effort
I have seen promoted in my lifetime.That is why 
I volunteer my time to coordinate the State of 
Michigan's effort to lobby for passage of these
bills. I hope you will join me.  We not only
have the potential to change the world, we
have the present capacity to do so.  For more
information, please contact: www.thepeacealliance.org. 
To get involved locally you may contact me at:
lindakhenderson@hotmail.com.

 Linda Henderson, State Coordinator

Department of Peace, Michigan Campaign

MSU Class of '78, Thomas M. Cooley, J.D.

 P.S. GO GREEN!

Published in Volume 4, Issue 3, December 1, 2005

Peaceful Solution

Is it time to give a National Department of Peace, a chance?

by Steve Patterson <http://www.thebiggreen.net/info.php?staff=142>

 On any given whim, our country has the destructive power profound 

enough to utterly obliterate any other nation in the world. But 

just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

 Bernard K. Doyle, Jr., a retired U.S. Army officer, served 27 years as 

An infantryman. Although he gives his full support to the military and

sympathizes with the men overseas, Doyle said he no longer condones 

war as a solution. "I am aware of lobbying and movements at present 

and in the past that have been developed to end war, something that 

will not catch on quickly in this nation and other nation states,

" said Doyle. "However, it appears to me that the loss of women, 

children, old people and institutions such as churches, museums, 

power plants water sources and the likes make the people of a 

country suffer beyond the aims of war."

We, as Americans, are protected by the most powerful military on the 

planet. A comforting thought? Many are beginning to think not. 

Throughout MSU and across the nation, Americans are crying out to 

the U.S. government for an alternative method for handling conflict 

- many Americans are crying out for peace. "Our national constitution

 is built on equality and fairness. We need to be reminded of that.

We need to develop peaceful alternatives to conflict."

--Gwen Hill

The state of Michigan has become one of several focal points for the 

Peace mission and the suggested Department of Peace. Gwen Hill, the 

Department of Peace's Congressional Team Leader for the 9th district 

of Michigan does her part everyday to spread the word about what the 

proposed organization would, and does, stand for.

"This is legislation that is meant to last longer than any one war 

or administration," said Hill. "We live at a time when we all see 

the level of violence that permeates our lives and our communities. 

One glance at the headline stories on TV news reports is enough to 

understand that violence threatens to overtake our intentions. It's 

wearing us out."

 And the movement isn't just about that war overseas. "Many people 

Believe that the movement for a Department of Peace is a response 

to the war in Iraq," said Hill. "This is incorrect."

Hypothetically, the war serves as an arena for the Department of 

Peace movement itself. What would the Department of Peace do to 

help the situation? While certainly the proposed department's 

attention span isn't limited to war situations including the 

controversial one in Iraq, it gives a good launching pad for 

discussion on just how the Department of Peace would respond.

 Doyle, having served time for his country, expressed his concerns 

about the current situation. "I believe that now, deeply ensconced 

in a war we are extending ourselves beyond our means and dollars," 

the veteran said. "People are now beginning to question the validity 

of this war and its toll of more than 2,000 of our young men and 

women. People are unsure of the outcome -withdrawal when and how, t

he timing - when will it stop?"

 Some wonder if a Department of Peace could have kept the war from 

Escalating to 2,000 deaths. "If a Secretary of Peace had been a 

part of the Cabinet prior to the Iraq war, we might never have 

entered a war of these proportions," said Hill. "We might have 

had a clear, exit strategy that promoted peace between our nations. 

We might not be creating four new terrorists in the families of 

every one terrorist that we kill. There might be fewer people in the 

world who hate us for our disrespect of cultural norms and our 

violent aggression toward countries whose cultures are not 

westernized to our liking."

 Despite the lack of anything that resembles a peace department in 

our nation's contemporary government, this is not the first time a 

concept of this nature has been announced. In fact, propositions of a 

governmental peace agency have dated back to discussions among 

framers of the Constitution. Throughout American history, the 

notion of having something on this scale has been brought up 

several times, resurging in the minds of revolutionary officials 

but having no real momentum.

 That is, until now.

 Dissipating poll numbers are beginning to show a growing unrest 

towards the war in Iraq, while peace protests and anti-war 

demonstrations litter the nation each year. More importantly, 

the rest of the world grumbles with a critical tongue and glares 

with a disparaging eye. When did America become the evil empire?

 The first formal proposal for the establishment of a U.S. 

Department Of Peace dates to 1792, when architect/publisher 

Benjamin Banneker and physician/educator Dr. Benjamin Rush proposed 

the idea. The initiative was for a "Peace Office" that was to be 

equal with the "War Office," however the concept never received 

proper footing.

 On July 11, 2001, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced 

legislation to create a cabinet level agency dedicated to 

peacemaking and the study of conditions that are conducive to peace. 

Hill said that progress was being made in getting the bill passed

through congress. She further explained that there are now 60 

Congressional co-sponsors of this legislation. There is a bill on 

the floor of the House (House Bill # H.R. 3760) and within the past 

few weeks, a similar bill was introduced on the floor of the Senate 

(Senate Bill # S.1756) by Sen. Mark Dayton of Minnesota. There are 

activist groups in more than 280 Congressional Districts in 48 states 

and now activist groups in every Congressional District in Michigan.

 This is the potential Department of Peace: a theoretical executive 

branch cabinet that would handle all matters in foreign and 

domestic conflict resolution. The bill also provides for a Peace 

Academy that would train people in peace and peacemaking strategies, 

just as our military academies train students in military strategies.

With conflicts and crisis around the world, the proposed organization 

Would act as an alternate solution for the loss of U.S. casualties 

in a wartime situation. Many are wondering why nothing like this 

had never been done before. Why has it taken America, the world's 

foremost "superpower," to think of a peaceful organization in times 

of conflict resolution that is commonly solved by the gun?

 "The problem isn't that peace is a bad idea...the problem is the 

Department of Peace would be completely ineffective."

--Dave Coogan

 "At the International level, the bill provides for a Secretary of 

Peace on par with the Secretary of Defense," said Hill. "When 

cabinet members meet to respond to an international conflict, the 

Peace Secretary would put peace options on the table for discussion 

and make recommendations to the President."

 Hill said that in a war situation, a Peace Secretary would provide 

Input from peace building experts on how to begin a war with peace 

outcomes integrated into the strategy. "In this way, we can show 

the world that a desire for peaceful coexistence is central to 

American operations abroad," she said.

The Department would not just be an agency on the international 

level but a worldwide organization that deals with many fronts, 

including state, local and domestic issues. Hill explained that on 

the domestic level, the bill provides for trained peace experts to 

present options for making and maintaining peace in response to 

conflict that occurs within our nation and at the local level, the 

bill funds a way to coordinate the application of best practices 

of the many local organizations that respond to violence and 

conflict in our cities and towns.

 "Imagine, for example, local police departments that are burdened 

with responding to domestic violence complaints would be able to 

easily initiate a coordinated community response that included 

family counseling, violence prevention strategies, conflict 

resolution strategies, etc," said Hill.

"Families with repeated domestic violence issues could be served in 

ways that can prevent serious injury, murder or jail time. The 

savings to our communities would be significant."

 While Hill's enthusiasm for a more basic solution is understandable, 

Many disagree that an organization is required for that purpose. 

Dave Coogan, the second vice chair of the College Republicans and 

international relations junior, is decidedly skeptical about this 

affair. "The domestic solutions the Department of Peace is supposed 

to provide are already handled at the local level," he said. 

"The Department of Peace is going to address problems like drug and 

alcohol abuse, spousal and child abuse, civil rights, sister-city 

programs and animal abuse. I can assure you that your city and 

state government is going to handle these problems better than the 

federal government." Coogan is also weary of the financial costs 

the department would bring. "If I remember right, the Department 

of Peace budget would be almost $10 billion. I don't think that 

the United States government should be spending money on a 

Department of Peace," said Coogan. "The problem isn't that peace 

is a bad idea…the problem is the Department of Peace would be 

completely ineffective."

"This campaign gives rise to a renewed level of good citizenship.

Peace is what our citizens want."

  --Gwen Hill

The ultimate decision could rest solely on this pivotal matter. 

"The proposed budget for a Department of Peace and Nonviolence would 

be only 2 percent of the budget of the Department of Defense in 

any given year," said Hill. We know that effective, preventive 

measures save money. The war in Iraq is costing us approximately 

$1 billion each week. Without an exit strategy, who knows how long 

this astronomical drain on our economy will last?"

 Once aptly named the War Department before 1947, the United States

Department of Defense's budget exceeds approximately $425 billion a 

year(not including the tens of billions more in supplemental 

expenditures allotted by Congress) and since its birth has waged 

major campaigns in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. The Department of 

Defense includes the combined powers of Army, Navy, Air Force and 

Marines as well as non-combat agencies such as the National Security

 Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

 Coogan was adamant about his opposition to the proposed organization,

stating that most of the international issues that the Department of 

Peace will deal with are handled by the Department of State. "The 

Department of Peace being a counter to the Department of Defense…

not going to happen," he said. "Even if the Secretary of Peace was 

on the National Security Council, he or she would still be one of 

the President's supporters. They would not be bringing an 

alternative policy perspective to the discussion."

This is another problem facing the proposition…do we really need 

Something that could so easily be covered by another faction? While 

this is a major question, Doyle reminds us that there is no attempt 

at issues such as these. He said it could be to the nation's 

ultimate benefit to have one organization in charge of handling 

conflict decisions. "I do not see the Department of Peace 

conflicting with the Department of Defense but rather being 

an alter ego for it and the entire government," the former 

soldier said. "Our national constitution is built on equality 

and fairness. We need to be reminded of that. A Department of Peace 

would make that more evident. We need to develop peaceful 

alternatives to conflict."

 With all the praise and opposition, the Department of Peace is 

either a saving grace for world and domestic issues or a doomed 

ideological venture-and a costly one at that. "I think it would just

 be a costly government office that would make people like 

Martin Luther King Assistant Secretary to Civil Rights," said 

Coogan. "He would then be working in the government bureaucracy 

instead of creating change in the street."

 Expressing overall thoughts on who we are as a people and what the

organization could mean for us as a whole, Hill said, "It's you and

 me and our neighbors being responsible and responsive citizens.

This campaign gives rise to a renewed level of good citizenship. 

Peace is what our citizens want. The Department of Peace and 

Nonviolence Campaign gives ordinary citizens the opportunity to 

learn about how legislation get passed. It gives us a vehicle to 

make a meaningful contribution toward the kind of society Americans 

really want."

She continued, "What Americans are learning is that our democracy 

does not work without us. Our democracy is meant to be by the 

people, of the people and for the people. The 'people' is us."

 It is easy for any MSU student to get involved with the program. 

Go to www.thepeacealliance.org and request to find a point person 

in your area. From there you will be permanently signed up on the 

Department of Peace mailing list and will receive e-mails from the 

leader in your area.

*Steve Patterson can be reached at 

http://us.f348.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?

Copyright 2003-2005 The Big Green. All Rights Reserved.

We need another investigation"The spirit we have, not the work we do, is what makes us important to the people around us."

By Joan Chittister, OSB

That this country is divided over the situation in Iraq is not new news. But why the country is divided is new indeed. The rift is a serious one.

Polling results are clear: The U.S. population has lost its commitment to the war in Iraq. People, in general, are sorry it began or doubt its value or want it over. But that is not what's at issue.

When and how U.S. troops are removed from Iraq, after almost three years of bombing, fighting, destroying, dying, are now the basic issues. The answer to those questions may expose some fissures in our own country as well as in Iraq.

Some people think U.S. troops will need to stay in place there until the country is both reunited and reconstructed. After all, this group argues, we ruined the place, we need to put it back together. The control question here has become, "What kind of country are we going to leave for the Iraqi people?"

If the question seems to lack meaning, think Hurricane Katrina -- the damage it did, the money it is costing, the social insecurity it has spawned, the dispersion of peoples it has generated, the years of recovery it presages, the change it implies for the rest of the country as well as for New Orleans itself.

Economically, politically, socially, Iraq has become a desert in the desert. Water is undrinkable. Whole neighborhoods are decimated. Refugees are everywhere. Medical services are scant. The number of wounded, the number of widows, the number of orphans rises every day. Insurgent attacks, Representative John Murtha tells us, have increased from 150 to more than 700 a week in the past year.

Point: Three years later and things are not better there.

The only problem is that this time a hurricane didn't do it. War did it. What Saddam Hussein didn't manage to ruin in Iraq, we did.

The writing of a constitution is no substitute for the reconstruction of the country. What good is a new constitution if the seeds of civil war -- or worse -- are embedded in the social environment in which it is meant to function.

Other elements of the U.S. population, on the other hand, want U.S. troops brought home now. They argue that the war has been a mistake from the beginning. The reasons for which we invaded Iraq never existed -- no weapons of mass destruction, no alliance with Al-Quaeda, no relationship to the toppling of the Twin Towers on 9/11/01. However, now that we are in Iraq, there is no definition of "victory," they tell us, and no plan for getting out. Worse, the war itself has made Iraq a training ground for terrorists and the United States the prime target. Every day, that part of the world sees the United States as more enemy than friend.

From this perspective, we are creating what we say we are resisting.

No wonder we're confounded. No wonder we're divided. Both arguments are cogent. Each argument has its point, its truth, its valor -- whatever a person's personal reaction to war in general or this war in particular.

But that mental disarray is precisely what may finally bring us to the real question. The White House may have been wrong from the very start of this debacle but where was the Congress?

Everything in the country is being investigated these days: campaign finances, public security, immigration policies, the intelligence community, violations of confidentiality at the highest levels of the government. Maybe it is time to investigate whatever has happened to the whole concept of "checks and balances," of congressional debate, of political perspective.

While millions of people around the globe marched in the streets against the invasion of Iraq -- millions in the United States itself, while the British Parliament split over the decision to declare war on Iraq and two cabinet members resigned over the decision, while France and Germany, the United Nations and most of the rest of the world asked for more time, more involvement, more assurance, more proof to justify an assault on a sovereign nation, the Congress of the United States steadfastly saluted in front of TV cameras and hummed "Hail to the Chief." No cautions given. No conditions defined. No real debate mounted.

But the American people don't elect Boy Scouts, they elect Senators and Representatives to scrutinize national legislation, to examine national policies, to consider national alternatives, to declare wars.

"Patriotism" is no substitute for Congressional responsibility. Loyalty does not supercede accountability. We do not elect senators and representatives to "get behind the president in times of war." We elect them to get behind the Constitution, to get behind the country, to get behind the arguments, to get behind the administration spin on whether we should be in a war or not. And when. And how. And for what real purposes.

"Victory will be achieved," the president said again at the Naval Academy and on national TV this week. "We will not cut and run." But we still don't know how anyone in Washington is defining "victory" in a situation where what we said we were going to war about does not exist. Nor do we know whether "we will not cut and run" may not simply be jargon for "we will not admit we were wrong."

Heaven forbid. If it is "unpatriotic," "political," "un-American" to even suggest that war is not a proper course of action when a president suggests a full-scale invasion of another country, it must surely be treasonous to suggest it four years, billions of dollars, thousands of dead, and hundreds of thousands of wounded and displaced later.

It is now clear that George Bush wanted a war with Iraq. But it is equally clear that the Congress that is supposed to be the voice of the American people simply rolled over and let it happen -- and all in the name of patriotism, Americanism and political unity. What is not clear at this point of the debacle is whether or not either Bush or Congress really want peace even now.

Where is the Congress now?

Someone, somewhere ought surely to investigate why it is that our vaunted "system of checks and balances" did not work in this case, in fact does not even seem to attempt to work even now.

From where I stand, it looks as if the millions of citizens who stood in the streets in an attempt to stop this war simply went home far too soon.