WASHINGTON, D.C. - The "secret" reasons for the Bush military war against Iraq - he knows more than he is telling - is catching up with Bush and his nest of hawks.  After flying high, their main weapon  - accusing all who dare to disagree with Bush of being "unpatriotic," "anti-American," or even "liberal," is loosing it's chilling sting.

With the thaw, more and more Americans speak louder and louder against the military war on Iraq. More are now demanding that the US use the "power of example" as the trumpet for the ideals of liberty, justice,  freedom, and truth for which America and democracy stand. Bush has - with reckless rhetoric and his politics of war - painted himself and America into a political corner.

Now the ideas for which America stand begin to provide Bush his exit (hopefully from the Presidency) and to redeem America as the guardian of  liberty rather than the bully of the world. Free speech may be getting freer and as the right to know - not just blindly trust - takes its place, the lack of justification for the Bush war unveils itself. Bush has no case for a "just war."

Bush's January 28, State of the Union Address will regurgitate the same tired mantra that he has repeatedly used. It will feature imperative slogans designed to feed upon fear. The standard, "No action is not an option." He will assert that we will not know for sure that Iraq has WMD until we see the "nuclear cloud." Bush will have his laundry list. Iraq has violated 16 UN resolutions, Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people in 1988, he used chemical weapons in the war against Iran, invaded his neighbors 11 years ago, he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, we must liberate an oppressed people, that Saddam lies, cheats, and we are tired of hide and seek games, that he has WMD and that he is not "proactively" disarming.

He will argue America has reserved the right to unilaterally protect itself and that the UN must become relevant. That we must not shrink from our responsibilities. He will probably imply that those who oppose war on Iraq now do not understand the real threat or are supporting the enemy. The thrust of the argument will seek to capitalize on the fears and reality created by 9/11, how 9/11 changed the world, and how those that oppose the war are out of step clinging to notions of a past no longer here.

But, Bush will not present any evidence that Iraq is now an "imminent" threat to the US or any of our allies. The "solid evidence" the US touted on December 7, 2002 to justify the Iraq war will not provide any evidence to establish that Iraq is an imminent treat to the US at this time.  And its weight or the cooperation of the US in eliminating WMD must be questioned since Bush has not yet disclosed it to anyone, not even our allies, including Britain's Blair, or even to the UN inspectors.

As the master of focus shift tries to create a great and startling propaganda impact, truth and reason begin to emerge from a cloud of politically leveraged fear and the world is now demanding to know what unique "imminent" threat Iraq poises. What would justify the blood of even one American, a potentially devastating  humanitarian impact, regional instability, destabilizing numerous national economies, and hatred created from the perception that our goal is domination without first securing our homeland? How is security enhanced by adding to or creating hate and more enemies? How does paying billions to bomb other countries realistically make us safer?

How has war become more important than peace? Military war should not be America's number one priority. War is not the brass ring. World peace is the real prize. Military attacks on sovereign nations is not a solution to the global threat of terrorism it is the solvent which is dissolving a world coalition against terrorism. 

Bush has squandered a global coalition against terrorism and is turning that coalition into the opposition. Russia, China, France, Germany, Britain, the United Nations, on and on, are not now in the "coalition of the willing" - more time is wanted before war. America should be concerned that the Bush administration is "willing" to lead only itself. The willing do not have to be lead by threat and intimidation. And Bush's dream of himself as the pied piper - all following once the war has started or because they fear they are next - is a gamble against the odds with too much at stake.