Lately, I have been thinking about the ways in which being a mother informs my view of the world. The question that haunts me is why the casualties of modern warfare are primarily women and children.

I am trying with little success to imagine what it is like for the mothers in Afghanistan and Iraq whose children have died in the bombing, or by stepping on landmines or from brightly colored unexploded cluster bombs that looked like toys. The children who have died because of the lack of medicine and hospitals. The children who have been raped. The children who have been detained in Guantanamo. The children who have died or will die because of exposure to depleted uranium. We have no way to know how many children have been killed or injured in these countries because our own government dismisses them as unimportant collateral damage. What we do know is that 80% of the casualties in modern warfare are civilians and that the vast majority of these are women and children.

AUSTIN -- There was the president at his press conference looking just like a turtle on a fence post. "They (weapons of mass destruction) could still be there. They could be hidden." Saddam Hussein is still an "ally" of the 9-11 terrorists. Hussein was still "a direct threat" to America. Oi.

            The Nation points out a charming little Bush thesis: "Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free." The infamous "some people" making this racist argument are cleverly hidden: I never heard of it before Bush trotted it out.

            I got a lovely question last week: "Why do you and your ilk (it's hard to speak for my entire ilk) hate George W. Bush so much and love Osama bin Laden?" If that's what public discussion has come down to, we really are in trouble. In fact, we're in trouble anyway.

Yes, there is a 'grocery list' of grounds on which to impeach President George W. Bush.  However, impeachment starts in the House of Representatives and, at the moment, the House is controlled by Republicans.  We're all focused on getting President Bush out of the Whitehouse in November (and rightfully so).  But, let's not forget about getting back the House and the Senate.

Those who read my column, FranklySpeaking.info you have seen that I have tried to be as frank/honest and up front as possible about the issues America! These few days and weeks have provided many testimonials from fellow Americans, who have sons and daughters fighting in Iraq. Today on TV there was a father, who had two sons, who had served one year in Iraq and were asked to go back for another stay. The father was trying to rationalize his feelings about their return. But it was not until this week when I learned that a Grandson of mine had joined the National Guard that the reality of this foolishness hit me in the belly.

I enjoyed - and agree with - your column on the reasons for bringing Bush to trial.  

Some comments:  

1. There are also many valid reasons to try him in an American court which might make a good piece for you in a future column.  

2. There may be significant economic benefits that would likely  follow his defeat, arrest, trial and conviction. That neonazi cloud that's been hanging over the world's largest economy these last three and a half years is at least partially responsible for the lack of consumer confidence! Seriously though, major events like the the removal of a madman from power (not their madman our madman!) can and do have positive economic impacts.  

3. The so-called third-world countries are  losing faith in democracy as a course to take, thanks to bush.  

I believe they're saying, "hey we can't trust democracy of autocracy because if the USA - the most established democracy in the world - can't stop a madman fromtaking over, how can we?In other words, throwing bush in jail ( i oppose the death penalty, even for bush) would restore world faith in democracy as a system that works.