Front page headline: "Bush sees years more of war."

Three of them, to be exact. Unless, of course, he is impeached. Otherwise, well, it's someone else's mess to clean up. --Geov Parrish

On the eve of the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, the Bush White House was casting around for presents, a loving way to once again say "fuck you" to the civilized world in celebration of an unprovoked, illegal invasion that has now led to at least a couple hundred thousand innocent civilian deaths. And, happily for our neo-con friends (who, let's face it, could use a little pick-me-up these days), they succeeded. It's a talent they have.

This time, the middle finger came in the form of the United Nations General Assembly's near-unanimous decision to form a new UN watchdog agenda, the Human Rights Council, to study and monitor human rights abuses around the world. Even the world's worst tyrannies supported the measure, because, of course, nobody usually admits that they oppose human rights. Just like nobody ever admits that they use torture...

Well, that was your hint. The final General Assembly vote was 170-4, and the four opposed were John Bolton speaking for the United States (natch), Israel (natch), Palau, and the Marshall Islands. Those last two are tiny Pacific island countries that are former trust territories of the United States. In terms of foreign policy, they loyally do America's bidding, and America clearly thought this was such a bad idea that we went and recruited, well, all the votes we could. Two, from tiny countries entirely economically dependent upon the US (And the last time Palau tried to assert diplomatic independence, when it followed a regional trend and declared itself a Nuclear Free Zone a couple decades ago, Palau's governor was mysteriously assassinated, a more pliant man installed in his place, and the freeze rescinded. So much for independence.) In combination, the four countries are renowned for their lonely vigil opposing any UN notions regarding greater human rights or military accountability that might come down the pike.

No word on whether Kofi Annan issued a signing statement. I'm betting not. Happy anniversary. --G.P.

This month, just in time for the media attention accompanying the third anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon and White House announced a new "largest offensive of the Iraq war" that was, according to the Pentagon, focused on four villages northeast of Samarra where insurgents were said to be thick.

Even on those terms, it was a charade. Aside from the PR nature of the offensive being timed to the invasion's anniversary, the announced "cooperation" in the offensive between US and Iraqi troops, the evidence that the Iraq army is standing on its own (and therefore US troops can be reduced in the near future), was A CROCK OF SHIT. The Iraqi "military" has no air power, no tanks or other large transport or weaponry, no capacity of its own to move troops, nothing, in fact, of any number of things that are basic possessions of any other military in the world. And neither the Bush administration nor the Pentagon nor the nominally sovereign "government" of Iraq has any intention, or planned budget, for developing or funding such things. Moreover, the Iraqi "military" has been and remains under the command not of Baghdad, but of the Pentagon. The Iraqi army, in other words, can only do "joint" operations, because its only functions are to put Iraqis on the front lines (here in America we call that "cannon fodder") and to be a PR stunt to make it appear to Americans that the Iraqi government is making progress when in many significant ways it does not control its own country.

Well, good news. The massive bombing campaign near Samarra is even more of a charade than that. It did not exist. Turns out those helicopters were moving troops around, that's all. They made the whole thing up. The good news is that with fictitious war, the US has finally found a way to avoid too much "collateral damage." (Though I'm sure we shot a few civilians, just for morale.) The bad news is that the whole fucking thing was a PR stunt designed to make America's and Iraq's military look good to Americans during the media attention focused by the anniversary of the invasion.

Is there no depth of dishonesty to which this administration will not sink for political purposes? I mean, I'm glad tens of thousands of additional Iraqi civilians (or more) aren't dead. Truly. But this is one hell of a way to run a war. Or a country. And me thinks, based upon a new Pew Research poll that showed Dubya at his lowest approval rating ever (33 percent) and that identified the three most common single words associated with the President as "incompetent," "idiot," and "liar," that the American people have just about had enough. Though based on this stunt, "liar" should have finished higher. --G.P.

The progressive furor over South Dakota's new law banning almost all abortions has missed a few important points. South Dakota had already effectively banned abortion; in a large, rural state, exactly one clinic, in Sioux Falls (tucked in the state's southeast corner), offered legal abortion--and that only one day a week, with a doctor flown in from Minneapolis because no local physician dared do it. The goons had already won.

What they want to do with this law is overturn Roe v. Wade in a US Supreme Court decision. Republican strategists would have preferred that they wait until after the 2006 midterms, but now that the gun has been jumped several other states, most larger than South Dakota and with laws affecting far more women, are about to pass similar laws. The hope is that with Alito and Roberts safely on the court (thanks, Democrats!), legal abortion rights can be stripped away permanently. Thomas and Scalia are clearly on board, and the needed fifth vote, Anthony Kennedy, may well be.

Or not. If he isn't, the health of Justice Stevens, widely expected to retire before Bush does, becomes huge. Because if Bush gets another Supreme Court pick, abortion really is dead, for sure. Except that if Democrats can regain the Senate this year, they can block anti-choice nominees, likely to arise before the laws from South Dakota and other states get to the high court . If they show backbone, of course--another huge "if."

For this reason, and because of sheer anger that a tiny cluster of religious zealots could use their faith as legal justification to hijack the health care rights of all women in defiance of the expressed wishes of a solid majority of Americans, abortion could and should be a hot-button issue in 2006. It's only one of many reasons to be enraged with the results of six years of Republican rule, but it's a reason that's immediate and personal to a great many voters who might not otherwise turn out on Election Day. It's a winning issue, demonstrating at a glance the arrogance, zealotry, and insensitivity of the rich white men controlling the agenda of the Republican Party.

Given how few women in South Dakota are actually impacted by this new law (that weren't already functionally unable to receive an abortion already), perhaps Democrats ought to thank those pea-brained South Dakota legislators--for giving the so-far hapless Democrats the keys, if they want them, to retaking the Senate this year. --G.P.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the military has a right to recruit at US colleges, universities and law schools. The court's ruling upholds the Solomon Amendment in which Congress legislated that schools which receive federal funding must allow recruiters on campus.

The precedent-setting case was brought by law schools and professors who claimed that they should not be forced to support an employer which discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. The US armed forces still hold to a policy of denying the rights of gay soldiers who want to come out while serving in the military. The plaintiffs in the case claim that their right to freedom of speech is being violated by the Solomon Amendment's federal requirements.

In 2005, the Garfield High School PTSA (Parent Teachers Student Association) in Seattle voted to bar recruiters from their campus. A day-long, city-wide series of student demonstrations closed several local recruiting centers. City-wide student walkouts took place with protest marches and rallies. The Seattle student actions helped spark a national campaign to stop military recruiting on school campuses across the country. Major protests were held in New York, Los Angeles and other US cities. In Pennsylvania a confrontation between students and police resulted in the use of so-called "non-lethal" weapons on demonstrators.

Anti-recruiting activists in Seattle say the Supreme Court ruling is a major blow to their grassroots organizing efforts, but they pledge to continue their campaign to protest US military recruiting of students. The groups Youth Against War and Racism, Not In Our Name and The World Can't Wait say they will continue to protest the recruitment of students for war as a part of a larger effort to confront corporate militarism in US society. --Mark Taylor-Canfield

A broad-based coalition of businesses, environmental organizations, labor and concerned citizens in Washington State has launched a campaign to place the Washington Energy Security initiative on the November ballot. Initiative 937 would guarantee that at least 15 percent of the electricity from the state's largest utilities must come from local renewable energy sources by 2020. Wind, solar, and other sustainable energy sources will be developed to meet this need. The initiative would require utilities with 25,000 customers or more to meet designated targets for energy conservation. Utilities not meeting the requirements would pay penalties to the state, but they would be allowed to purchase renewable energy credits.

Initiative 937 is being touted by the group Washingtonians for Energy Security as an alternative to the state's current plans to exploit coal and other fossil fuels. According to the initiative backers, regional utilities are struggling to meet the increasing demands for energy in the Northwest. They say I-937 would provide cleaner energy at lower costs to consumers. According to Washingtonians for Energy Security, renewable sources are insulated from the volatile price swings associated with fossil fuels, providing for long-term rate stability.

I-937 backers claim that investment in local energy efficiency and renewable energy projects will create thousands of new living wage jobs in engineering, construction and building design. Farmers hosting wind projects earn up to $5,000 a year per wind turbine, helping to keep family farms alive.

Groups supporting Initiative 937 include the Northwest Energy Coalition, United Steelworkers, the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Audubon Society of Washington.

To qualify the Energy Security Initiative for the November ballot, 160,000 volunteer signatures from registered Washington voters need to be collected by June 30. --M.T.-C.

As we go to press, many unanswered questions remain about the tragic shooting on Capitol Hill early Saturday morning. By all accounts, it was a senseless act of violence by someone who had little to do with the community of people he victimized.

It only adds insult to massacre to blame the victims, or for local authorities to use the incident to crack down on raves, all-ages events, house parties, or any such thing. The rave subculture has come under the media microscope in recent days, but let's be clear--this is not about "raves." Guns and violence typically have no more place in the rave community than they have at a Quaker meeting.

If anything needs more scrutiny and regulating, it's guys who drive pickup trucks loaded with enough guns and ammo to take out a small village. If there are any lessons to be learned from this senseless act, let's learn the the right ones and keep the focus where it belongs.