The problem that those who are opposed to the mismanagement of the Iraq invasion and the means by which the U.S. fights terrorism have is they have not successfully refuted the concept of limited perpetual war providing stimulus to specific sectors of the economy. The defense industry, the energy sector, and the news media are heavily invested in the concept of perpetual war as a substitute for total war or genocide for the stimulation of the U.S. economy.

Victory is possible if the U.S. decides to crush the will of the Iraqi people. The fact that most Iraqis believe that they are fighting a necessary war to prevent the destruction of their homes and their families from an invading force with a foreign, and perceived evil agenda aggravates their intention to fight until the U.S. leaves. This idea turns the the limited war concept into one of perpetual war. The one method that could resolve this war in a victory for the U.S. is to break the will of the Iraqi people. This would require an unlimited assault against Iraq.

The world has only one weapon with which to combat American interference in the internal politics of any nation, and that is economic isolation, because world opinion has a very limited effect on the current leadership. Money is what makes this game move, not morality, not world opinion, and as we can see from recent events, not the desire of the majority of the American people.

It was the U.S. that started this war, not the Iraqi people. Iraq's leaders foolishly believed that world opinion would protect their nation from an invasion, but they were wrong. The temptation of $14 trillion in Iraq's resources coupled with the perception of a weak Iraqi military were too great for the current leadership in this country to resist.

It is also necessary to refute the arguments contained in "A Clean Break" with an alternative argument that has the result of protecting the U.S. economy and energy supply. Without a workable plan that results in a positive outcome for those sectors of the economy that are benefiting from the war there will be no change. It is also necessary to develop an alternative plan to that put forth by the PNAC. Without these two arguments defeated the current self-proclaimed elite in this country are not motivated to change their methods for maintaining their influence over world events.

There is another subject that requires a serious journalistic response; it is the appointment of a military czar answerable only to the executive branch. By giving the military czar the title of "assistant to the president" it means that all communications and decisions between the executive branch and the military czar will be covered by Bush/Cheney's expansive view of executive privilege.

There were several reasons that the founders decided that the president should be a civilian authority rather than a military one, not the least of which is the potential for tyranny. A military czar who is directly under the president with no oversight is the equivalent of the U.S. having a military leader.

This move should be seen for what it is, an impeachable offense for attempting to undermine the intent of the Constitution for the purpose of consolidating military power directly under the president without oversight.

I understand that the president is the Commander-in-Chief over the military, but this is not done without oversight nor was it intended to give the president a free hand to use the military for whatever whim he may be responding to at any given moment, otherwise America will be ruled by a military junta. Bush (41) and Cheney have considerable experience in converting developing democracies into military dictatorships. It should not be blindly allowed to happen here. Some believe that it was in America's best interest to do so in South America, but there is no excuse for supporting such a manipulation of our political system in this country. It is an attempt to concentrate power in the executive branch so that it is answerable to no one, therefore giving it permission to commit whatever criminal acts it chooses without restriction. In this respect the Clinton impeachment was hypocrisy of the highest order. The phrase, "executive privilege" was not intended to be a means for the executive branch to hide criminal behavior. It is a privilege guaranteed to maintain the secrecy of lawful behavior. There is no "privilege" to hide criminal behavior in a democratic republic. Otherwise, why have a law on the books labeled "obstruction of justice." Rescind Clinton's impeachment, based on the current attempt to undermine the rule of law, by claiming that it does not apply to the executive branch. As republicans often said during the Clinton impeachment, no one is above the rule of law, no one.

This is the major story of this week regardless of the tragic murders in Virginia, and the testimony of Alberto Gonzales. The executive branch is making a cynical effort to undermine our constitutional form of government, and it must be recognized and responded to in a serious manner. This move is worse than signing statements, and worse than over-reaching; it is a cynical attempt to undermine the power of the people, and it must be prevented.