One of the legacies of the Vietnam War is the now infamous quote from an American military press officer, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it." Rings some bells these days. In the name of "fighting terror," countries with secret weapons programs are poised to pulverize Iraq because of its secret weapons programs. And Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are being used against civilians in order to prevent WMD from being used against civilians.

Case in point: the American military's ongoing use of depleted uranium (DU), despite numerous independent studies warning of DU's toxic-radioactive effects. Research conducted six months before the Gulf War found that short-term high doses of DU could result in death, and long-term low doses could lead to cancer. Regardless, American forces used DU weapons in the 1991 Gulf war, the 1999 Balkan conflict, and the recent hostilities in Afghanistan. It can be assumed that DU weaponry will be used in any upcoming attack on Iraq as well.

The implications are staggering. The Geneva Conventions clearly ban weapons that continue to kill or cause genetic effects after the fighting ends, not to mention weapons that unduly damage the natural environment. DU fails miserably on each count. And DU makes no distinction between friend and foe - its victims include local civilians as well as service members sent abroad to fight.

Hundreds of thousands of US and allied troops entered areas heavily contaminated by DU dust and debris in the Gulf War, and at least 11 tons of DU was used by NATO forces in the Balkans. In Afghan cities subjected to allied bombing, uranium concentrations were recorded at 400% to 200% above normal, with birth defects sharply on the rise.

Stats like these would indicate an urgent push to unravel DU's deadly legacy and prevent further harm; instead, there seems to have been an urgent push to cover up the facts.

In an ominous 1991 memo, US Lt. Col. Ziehmn said that despite concerns over their toxic effects, if DU weapons "proved their worth during our recent combat activities, then we should assure their future existence ... I believe we should keep this sensitive issue at mind when after-action reports are written." This institutionalized denial could explain why governmental studies into the health effects of DU on Gulf war veterans have included flaws and omissions, such as lengthy delays ensuring that many DU acute exposure victims have been dead too long for autopsies to be adequately performed. It may also explain why the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) took a full 18 months after the Balkan conflict to begin investigating post-war uranium contamination, and why, even as late as last year, the US and UK governments vetoed a proposed World Health Organization (WHO) study into the health effects of DU on Iraqi civilians.

DU's ability to penetrate hard targets is desirable militarily, but alternatives such as Tungsten can achieve similar results without the radiation hazards. What then justifies the continued use of DU?

One answer might lie in a powerful corporate lobby: 99% of nuclear industry uranium waste is DU. In other words, by providing DU for weaponry, the nuclear industry not only makes a tidy profit but avoids the expensive hassle of disposing nuclear waste as well. Pretty sweet deal.

Bush has been a friend to the nuclear industry from the start, by opposing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and thumbing his nose at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. With 2002's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), however, the Bush administration raised the nuclear ante to critical heights. Among other proposals, NPR says the US could use nuclear weapons in the vaguely worded "event of surprising military developments," and lists such cases as a China-Taiwan conflict, an attack by Iraq on one of its neighbors, or an Arab-Israeli war.

In tandem with NPR, the Bush administration has publicly euphemized nuclear weapons as "low-yield," "tactical," and "user-friendly." (How significant that one of the brains behind current US nuclear policy, Dr. Keith Payne, is best known for his 1980's essay "Victory is Possible," an optimistic approach to all-out nuclear war.)

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld continually warns of rogue states holding "America hostage to nuclear blackmail," but fails to mention his own contribution: Rumsfeld was on the board of ABB, a company that sold hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment and services to North Korean nuclear plants. It's another intriguing coincidence that despite his administration's slamming "axis of evil" nukes, Bush recently requested $3.5 million in funding for a consortium currently building nuclear reactors in North Korea.

Double speak? Denial? Impending danger? And don't forget that India and Pakistan are still rattling nuclear sabers, Israel has a complete nuclear arsenal, and Britain's Tony Blair has publicly declared the possibility of using nuclear weapons in an attack on Iraq.

Yet every day we're told the important issue is that "time is running out for Saddam," a message ludicrous at best: Iraq's army is weak, its population vanquished by years of inhumane sanctions and as Secretary of State Colin Powell recently admitted, even he has not seen the supposed evidence linking Iraq with al-Qaeda or ongoing development of weapons of mass destruction.

But it's true that time is running out - for the planet and its people. DU/nuclear weapons are just symptoms of a larger world completely out of balance. Billions upon billions are poured into weapons of mass annihilation when the focus should be on mutual survival.

If we don't change our focus to protecting the village, it may soon be too late to save it. --01.25.03

January 11, 2003
Reign of Terror Redux? From Bonaparte to Bush  

Here's the situation: The nation's leadership is taken over by a secretive group of elitists who profess democracy while dragging the country into a totalitarian nightmare. Confusion and fear take hold, civil rights are eroded in the name of fighting a terror war, and impersonal governmental bodies with names like "Committee of General Security" start labeling dissenters as enemies of the state. Secretive courts with limited accountability punish civilians who object. Tightening its grip on power, the government creates public crises it can later be seen as solving, and military service is made mandatory for young men. The ongoing terror war drains the country's resources, foreign relations hit rock bottom, and the economy slides even further. But since fear is the government's most effective weapon against its own population, the terror war is expanded.

Sound familiar?

The Reign of Terror, in late 18th century France, lasted only one year but left the country in chaos and ripe for Napolean's despotic rule soon after. Unless we learn from history, we could suffer the same fate.

Confusion and hardship characterized France in the 1790s, making citizens more inclined to tolerate increased military build-up and a leadership with strengthened executive powers. Robespierre, a key figure in the Reign of Terror, argued that civil liberties were less important in times of crisis than eliminating enemies of the state, both domestic and foreign, and it was under this guise that citizen dissent eventually became a capital crime. Robespierre also used the ongoing terror war to justify his regime's secretive excesses, exploding military budget, and eventual fondness for the guillotine.

Fast forward to 2003, and America is a nation on edge; 9-11, anthrax attacks and color-coded danger alerts have seen to that. Few have questioned the Bush administration's unprecedented increase in military spending or why social programs were cut to fund it. Even fewer realize our government has considered - in the name of fighting a war on terror - provoking attacks against Americans. No surprise that mandatory military service is once again a hot topic. Meanwhile, the Land of the Free has been usurped by Big Brother nightmares like the Pentagon's "total information awareness" program, and citizens have become enemy combatants, shorn of legal rights. The economy is tanking, taking the once-enviable Bush poll numbers with it, but our government has a secret weapon - fear. With the war on terror described as "endless" and dozens of countries on the "evil" list, fear can be transformed into rally-around-the-flag support for a dubious government and its dubious wars.

By the time the Reign of Terror ended, France had grown so used to an iron hand and a secretive, militaristic government that Napolean could easily pick up the pieces and impose another dictatorship. People had forgotten what freedom was. Patriotism had become a tool for social control, rather than social justice, and civil liberties were a thing of the past.

So how different are we today? The issue isn't Iraq, the Patriot Act, or Bush. The issue is freedom: if we want it, we'd better let go of fear, the ultimate Weapon of Mass Distraction. We'd better confront the hysteria-inducing tactics asking us to equate freedom with corporate pork for defense contractors. We'd better think twice about tossing aside fundamental constitutional rights in the so-called pursuit of liberty. Because if we don't, what's coming next could be even worse.

Forget Iraq: The Real Battle Is In Turkey

by Heather Wokusch

All eyes are on Iraq these days, but conventional wisdom holds it's just the first step of the Bush administration's larger push to gain hegemony over the international oil and gas industry. Two factors could stand in the way of the US grand plan though: Central Asia and Europe. A microcosm of this battle is quietly being fought now in Turkey, and in many ways the outcome could determine the future of the entire region.

Turkey enjoys a uniquely strategic geographical position, smack at the crossroads of Asia, Africa and Europe; more importantly for the Bush administration, Turkey borders Iraq. Speaking in Ankara recently, US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, "Obviously if we are going to have significant ground forces in the north (of Iraq), this is the country they have to come through. There is no other option." And it's clear the US aims for more than simply carrying out air-strikes from Turkish bases, as it did during the 1991 Gulf War. This time, the Pentagon wants to dig in deeper, using Turkey as a staging area for ground attacks into Iraq, and potentially beyond.

Turkey's central role in an attack on Iraq goes a long way in explaining the massive US military build-up currently taking place in southern Turkey. It also explains the Bush administration's about-face in dealing with Turkish AK Party leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan: after being unceremoniously snubbed on his first visit to Washington last year, Erdogan was suddenly given the White House star treatment a few weeks ago, complete with a presidential press conference and exclusive meetings with top government brass, not to mention a pledge for billions more dollars in military and financial aid, and US backing for a new multibillion dollar International Monetary Fund bailout.

Ironically, this flurry of cash-for-cooperation activity from the States coincides with the European Union's historic first steps to invite Turkey into its fold. At a recent EU summit in Copenhagen, the fifteen EU countries agreed to open membership talks with Turkey in 2005, on the condition that it clean up its human rights and economic acts in the meantime. At that point, Turkey would have to begin the mammoth task of adopting roughly 80,000 pages of EU law, a process that could take at least a decade and transform every aspect of Turkish society in its wake.

But there's a more urgent change Turkey will have to make. According to EU High Representative, Javier Solana, "If it is to take its place in Europe, Turkey must also play a role in the European defense project." And that's where things get tricky. The Western military industrial complex is basically split in two distinct groups: the Franco-German dominated European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co (EADS), and the US-dominated "Big Six" (including Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, among others). This distinction is important given that the sides tend to compete in important global conflicts (the US pumping weapons into Pakistan while the French arm India, for example). So if the US decides to attack Iraq (let alone additional countries after that) against the wishes of other NATO partners, for example, could the ensuing rift place Turkey literally between Iraq and a hard place?

Another crucial factor is the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) project, a pipeline which would partially run through Turkey, thereby providing Ankara with revenue from millions in annual transit fees. Critical to the Bush administration, BTC would help a handful of US companies seize control over the massive Caspian oil reserves, sidestepping the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on the way. Energy analysts say the BTC project is unworkable, and environmentalists warn of potential catastrophic risks. Not surprisingly, Russia, Armenia, and Iran are rattling sabers and pushing for a different route, enraged at the prospect of losing control over Caspian oil to the US. Significantly though, US companies tied to the Bush administration are poised to reap huge profits from BTC (among others, Vice President Cheney's Halliburton is a finalist for the Turkish segment of BTC, while National Security Advisor Rice's Chevron is at the center of the BTC consortium).

The quagmire is further exacerbated by matters internal to Turkey. Even though Erdogan's AK party swept to power in this November's elections, a past conviction for "inciting religious hatred" forbids him from assuming the role of prime minister. To make matters worse, the Islamist image of Erdogan's party is at odds with the more secular stance of Turkey's military (leading to noisy disagreements about matters such as the right for women to wear headscarves in public), a significant conflict given that Turkish generals are an independent lot and have staged three coups since 1960. And then there are opinion polls showing most Turks strongly opposed to helping the US in any attack against Iraq, despite the Bush administration's financial incentives and friendship offensive.

The trans-Atlantic battle over Turkey came to a head at this month's EU summit in Copenhagen. Buoyed by Erdogan's flashy visit to Washington, Turkish representatives at the Copenhagen summit threatened to boycott European products, or even dump the EU and join NAFTA, if they did not receive their preferred date for membership talks. Meanwhile, high-profile US pressure on the EU to create a special fast-track for Turkey may have scored PR points with Ankara, but cut little ice with EU members. European External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten, for example, laughed off the Bush administration move as a cheap stunt, akin to EU members trying to score Latin American bonus points by pressuring the US to make Mexico its 51st state. The upshot was that Erdogan's attempt to play the States against Europe backfired: Turkey received a 2005 date for conditional membership talks even though it had pushed for one far earlier, and even worse, while the Greek part of Cyprus was asked to join the EU, the Turkish part got left behind.

The crucial question now is what path Turkey chooses to take. Erdogan can gain personal status and billions in monetary injections for the Turkish military and government by allowing the US full access to Turkish soil in its attack on Iraq; the danger is that he could anger both the Turkish people and the EU in the process, not to mention see Turkey flooded with refugees, as happened during the first Gulf War. Erdogan can support the Bush administration in its fight to secure the Caspians for US oil interests, thereby earning oil transit income, but also risking environmental devastation and the wrath of neighbors such as Russia and Iran. The other option is to bite the bullet and begin the long-term, painstaking process of bringing Turkey into line with EU standards. The first option is profitable in the short-term, and the second offers societal integration in the long-term. The first option requires war, and the second pursues community-based peace.

But of course, Turkey is in good company - the US has quietly stepped up its military support of Georgia, Azerbaijan and other countries in the region crucial to its desired control over Caspian reserves. One thing is clear: the support these countries give, or don't give, the Bush administration in its oil-based pursuits/terror war will be critical in determining the stability of Central Asia and beyond. --12.26.02

Heather Wokusch is a free-lance writer. She can be contacted via www.heatherwokusch.com

Material Breach: US Crimes in Iraq

D-Day of December 8th quietly approaches - the day Iraq must provide the UN Security Council with a complete accounting of its weapons programs, plus its civilian chemical/biological/nuclear production and research activities. Even though UN weapons inspectors have criticized the December 8th deadline as unrealizable, the consequences for missing it will be catastrophic: Iraq will be in "material breach" of UN resolution 1441, and therefore subject to swift and decisive military action.

But at this point, UN 1441 seems little more than a whitewash pretext for a US-led attack on Iraq. With US warplanes patrolling Iraq's no-fly zone, bombing raids against Iraq ongoing, multiple aircraft carriers on alert and 60,000 US troops currently in or around the Persian Gulf, it's clear the war has already begun, "material breach" or not. When it's convenient for the Bush administration, Iraq will be found to have violated some aspect of the UN resolution, and the current buildup and covert military activity will explode into an all-out attack.

The justification (that Iraq's Hussein violates international law with his weapons of mass destruction and is thus a menace to world peace) seems a bit ironic in light of US actions in Iraq these past eleven years.

Case in point. Article 54 of the Geneva Conventions clearly states that destroying or rendering useless items essential to the survival of civilian populations is illegal under international law and a war crime. Hard then to explain the 1991 US bombing of electrical grids that powered 1,410 water-treatment plants for Iraq's 22 million people. An excerpt from a 1998 US Air Force document, entitled "Strategic Attack," text chillingly explains: "The electrical attacks proved extremely effective ... The loss of electricity shut down the capital's water treatment plants and led to a public health crisis from raw sewage dumped in the Tigris River." A second US Defense Intelligence Agency document, 1991's "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," predicted how sanctions would then be used to prevent Iraq from getting the equipment and chemicals necessary for water purification, which would result in "a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population" leading to "increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."

So basically, in defiance of international law, the United States knowingly destroyed Iraq's water supply, then for the past eleven years has prevented the contaminated drinking water from being treated, even though it was obvious those most affected would be millions of citizens doomed to preventable disease and death. If that's not a material breach, what is?

Then there's the depleted uranium (DU) weaponry the United States and its allies used on Iraq during the Gulf War, despite foreknowledge its radioactivity would make food and water in the bombed regions unsafe for consumption on an indefinite basis (DU remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years). Add in the fact that trails of carcinogenic dust left in a DU bomb's wake spread in the wind to be absorbed by plants and animals, thereby devastating a region's food chain. Of course, humans inhale and absorb DU dust as well, which has most likely led not only to dramatically elevated levels of birth defects and cancer cases among Iraqi civilians, but also to a wide litany of suffering among Gulf War vets; a recent study, for example, found that even nine years after the war, veterans afflicted with Gulf War Syndrome ailments still had DU traces in their urine. This while there has yet to be any US governmental study on the effects of DU inhalation...

We can expect DU to be used in the next attack on Iraq too, in spite of the inhumane risks to civilians and military personnel alike. According to a Defense Department report, text "the US Military Services use DU munitions because of DU's superior lethality" adding, "Gulf War exposures to depleted uranium (DU) have not to date produced any observable adverse health effects attributable to DU's chemical toxicity or low-level radiation." With more than one out of six American Gulf War vets having reported health problems text since their service, and over 9,000 having died since the war ended, not to mention the marked increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer cases in DU-bombed regions, denial like that is nothing short of material breach, an affront to both human rights and common sense.

And what if the December 8th deadline is met, and no weapons of mass destruction are found by U.N. weapons inspectors inside Iraq? Says US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld text: "What it would prove would be that the inspection process had been successfully defeated by the Iraqis. There's no question but that the Iraqi regime is clever, they've spent a lot of time hiding things, dispersing things, tunneling underground." So it would appear regardless of how the inspections turn out, the Iraqis will be attacked anyway.

In facing a no-win situation, Hussein could seem like a martyr to others in the region; he could also see little option but to unleash whatever destructive powers he has left. Backing someone like him into a corner is foreign policy at its most disastrous, a dangerous development for the entire region and very bad news for the unfortunate service men and women thrown into that quagmire.

It's clear that Saddam Hussein is a loathsome ogre who has shown criminal disregard for his population. What's also clear though is that the US record in the region is disgraceful if not downright criminal. Consider that for the two years following Hussein's infamous 1988 gas attack on the Kurds at Halabja (an attack in which US-built helicopters were apparently among those dropping the bombs text) the US government seemed quite uninterested in his possession of chemical weapons, or any other weapons for that matter. Remember too, that a 1992 Senate committee report entitled "US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq," demonstrated that Hussein bought technology and materials necessary to create nuclear, biological and chemical weapons from none other than the States and Britain - and continued to make purchases even after the attack at Halabja. Factor in the water supply degradation, DU toxicity and debilitating sanctions and it's hard to imagine the average Iraqi embracing American forces as welcome liberators.

The bottom line is that the US has some questions to answer about its past conduct in Iraq, questions that can't be answered by another full-scale war. 12.02.02

Heather Wokusch is a free-lance writer. She can be contacted via her web site at www.heatherwokusch.com

War On Peace:
What's Happening And What We Can Do About It.

It started with the November 2000 rigged US presidential election and has just degenerated from there. I've not been alone in watching with horror as our country's government flipped the bird at international treaties designed to protect human rights and the environment, favoring military build-up and big oil instead. Many of us have been outraged by the unelected ones sabotaging chances for an independent investigation into 9/11, and disgusted by their ass-covering legal gyrations to prevent inquiry into their former shady business dealings, not to mention their equally shady bedding with oil interests once having seized political power.

But now it seems the coup from hell is complete. In midterm US Congressional elections in which only 40% of those citizens eligible bothered to vote, a full 95% percent of House races and 75% of Senate races were won by the candidates who spent the most money text. This while, under the guise of "poll watching," Republican Party functionaries were posted at polling stations across the country on Election Day, harassing (mainly Democratic) working class and minority voterstext. This while, right before the voting, a beloved Democratic Senator who was locked in a close election contest died in a mysterious plane crash, exactly two years after another Democratic Senate candidate died in the same mysterious way. This while the same inaccurate lists of supposedly ineligible (mainly Democratic) voters which unfairly disenfranchised tens of thousands text in the 2000 presidential race, were inexplicably used again in this election. This while much of the country voted via computer systems whose proprietary nature does not permit public scrutiny, and which by definition do not leave much in the way of physical evidence for each vote. The computer glitch in South Florida which almost deleted 103,000 votes text is a case in point; what other votes could have been "lost" at the touch of a button, and to whose benefit?

Do the math: in a seriously flawed, arguably corrupt, electoral process in which the majority of the population was too apathetic to even feign democratic pretenses, only 21% ended up granting Bush his newfound sweeping and absolute powers.

Call me old-fashioned, but that's just not my idea of democracy. It's a farce and a travesty. And it's guaranteed to get much worse.

With a lame-duck Congress, and Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate (plus the Supreme Court), it's clear military spending will skyrocket as domestic social services are slashed and the environment is pillaged. Any previous attempts to rein in corporate scandal and excess will be attacked as un-American (kiss the corporate-fraud targeting Sarbanes-Oxley Act goodbye, for one). The proposed $37 billion Department of Homeland Security bureaucracy will be approved, along with its attending decimation of civil protection rights and collective bargaining power. And with the Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2 text (nicknamed GARDEN PLOT) finally enforced, the military will be able to suppress domestic "assemblages or rebellion against the authority of the United States" whenever the President sees fit. In other words, it's going to get a lot more dangerous to protest or express dissent.

And that's the relatively good news.

As the US economy tanks, Bush will pursue his oil-hegemony dreams in Iraq, creating a bloodbath for both Iraqi civilians and US service members, not to mention burning up hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars in the process. Meanwhile, the Putins and Sharons of the world will see fit to continue oppressing their chosen targets, with full knowledge the US will turn a blind eye to their crimes against humanity in return for their own tacit approval of similar US actions. The Middle Eastern region will predictably destabilize, with dangerous political/economic consequences accompanied by untold human costs.

And the US will be subjected to further terrorist attacks - that is, if Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has his way. According to a little-discussed classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by the Defense Science Board, a group of private industry executives advising the Pentagon, new counter-terrorism measures will include "cover and deception" and secret military missions to stimulate terrorists into making attacks, thereby leaving them open to counterattacks by US forces. Plainly put, the so-called "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)" text aims to save citizens from terrorist attacks by actively provoking terrorist attacks against citizens. Got that?

It's no wonder many normal people are feeling devastated and disillusioned right now, ready to draw back from this whole damn dysfunctional mess.

But now is not the time.

This train has barely left the station and its destination can still be changed. The only chance to alter the current sorry state of events and prevent matters from getting much, much worse, is a vigilant and involved population. That's you and me - actively assuming responsibility on a daily basis to name this societal rollback for what it is, then confronting each step away from sanity, while presenting a more humane and equitable alternative.

It's our only chance.

Killing the Political Animal:
How CIA Psychological Operations Are Talking Us Into War

Dysfunctional Bush and his anachronistic cronies are leading us right into a catastrophic Middle Eastern blowout. That much is apparent. But what's not so clear is why we're allowing it to happen.

Analyzing Dubya's psychological challenges is not enough - he's the symptom not the cause, and while the rapidity of societal decline has seemed to accelerate since 2000's farcical US presidential election, the framework for rollback was in place long before. If it hadn't been, citizens quite simply wouldn't have tolerated the rigged results.

But what mechanisms could have been used to facilitate the rollback? How can an unwilling population be trained to blindly accept a new, repressive social order?

A CIA instruction manual entitled "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare" provides some clues. Written in the early 1980s (coincidentally, soon after Bush Sr. headed the Agency) the document was part of the US government's crusade to bring down Nicaragua's leftist government, by providing training and weapons to the Contra rebels. Detailing how to gain a community's support through propaganda and selective violence, the manual begins "In effect, the human being should be considered the priority objective in a political war ... Once his mind has been reached, the 'political animal' has been defeated, without necessarily receiving bullets."

The following are quotes from the original psyop textbook, along with contemporary examples-

PSYOP quote: "It is appropriate ... to guide the discussion of a group to cover a number of points and to reach a correct conclusion." The people "should feel it was their free and own decision."

Interesting to note that up until early 2000, military personnel from the Fourth Psychological Operations Group based in Fort Bragg, North Carolina were active at CNN's Atlanta-based headquarters - and left only after public outcry when CNN admitted to employing them. Their presence was perhaps not surprising given former CIA director William Colby's boast that "the Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any major significance in the major media."

So much for a democratic free flow of information.

Also striking is how the "discussion" around attacking Iraq is being guided "to reach a correct conclusion." After both the House and Senate agreed to give Bush his blank check to attack Iraq (requesting only that Bush report to Congress every 60 days if he does decide to take action) Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle called the endorsement of war "a statement of American values and resolve." Apparently Daschle was unaware of the large anti-war street protests taking place across the country, and the overwhelming number of anti-war phone calls flooding House and Senate offices.

Now that the vote is finished, the media will no doubt bombard with messages echoing Daschle's myopic observation, and assuring the American population the vote for war was their "free and own decision."

PSYOP quote: "Always be prepared with simple slogans in order to explain to the people, whether in intentional form or by chance, the reason for the weapons." Reasons such as: "The weapons will be for winning freedom; they are for you," or "Our weapons are, in truth, the weapons of the people, yours."

The Bush administration proposes to increase its annual military budget by $120 billion (over one third) by 2007, which would bring the total annual budget to $451 billion; this while the economy crumbles and social services get left behind. The justification?

George W. Bush

"Nothing is more important than the national security of our country. So nothing is more important than our defense budget. The price for freedom is high, but it's never too high as far as I'm concerned."

Donald Rumsfeld

"The defense budget is cheap when one compares it to putting our security at risk, our lives at risk, our country at risk, our freedom at risk."

PSYOP quote: "In places and situations wherever possible ... explain the operation of weapons to the youths and young men."

A endless war requires an endless supply of cannon fodder; lucky for the military if enough recruits succumb to the sexy hype about weapons and enlist. If they don't though, there's always the Universal Military Training and Service Act (H.R. 3598) which, aiming to bring back the draft, states: "ALL males residing in the U.S. between the ages of 18-22 (must) receive military training for at least 6 months" and imposes additional time on high school dropouts.

Chew on that quote for a second. The high school dropout part is self-explanatory; longer military sentences would effectively be forced on poor kids and minorities, those most likely to drop out of school. The "residing" part is odd though - apparently, even citizens of other countries who happen to live in the US will be obligated to complete military service for Uncle Sam.

So it appears every trick in the book will be used to get our youth on the battlefield, but once those boys come home wounded or in body bags, they and their families will be abandoned, at least if Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has his way. Addressing the Armed Services Committee, Rumsfeld recently claimed he had no knowledge of the US having ever shipped any biological weapons to Iraq; Rumsfeld said he had no knowledge despite the existence of substantial proof, including a widely-distributed 1994 Senate Report documenting the US sale of bacteria and viruses to Iraq.

The medical issue becomes even more serious when considering the fact that biological warfare agents don't affect only those service members directly exposed: they can lie undetected and later be transferred to family and friends back home. This is the stuff of epidemics, and the DOD's head-in-the-sand handling of the physical maladies of Gulf War veterans has only exacerbated the danger to us all.

Small wonder that, unlike hawkish politicians who have never seen battle, many Gulf War vets oppose an attack on Iraq. And Rumsfeld had better take notice: the American Gulf War Veterans Association (AGWVA) is so appalled by his claim of ignorance about the weapons sale - and attending denial about the dangers of a new war with Iraq - they've officially called for his resignation.

PSYOP quote: "Established citizens ... will be recruited initially as 'Social Crusaders' in typically 'innocuous' movements in the area of operations. When their 'involvement' with the clandestine organization is revealed to them, this supplies the psychological pressure to use them as 'inside cadres' in groups to which they already belong or of which they can be members."

Operation TIPS, US Attorney General John Ashcroft's plan to enlist citizens in spying on one another is down, but definitely not out. Due to public outcry, postal and utilities workers may have been exempted but employees of "industry associations and groups" in the broadly-defined transportation sector are still being "invited to receive information" on the program. It's anyone's guess who the invitation will be extended to next...

PSYOP quote: "Bring about uprisings or shootings, which will cause the death of one or more persons, who would become the martyrs ... in order to create greater conflicts."

In "Body of Secrets," respected journalist James Bradford explores official government records in which the Pentagon "called for innocent people to be shot on American streets, for boats ... to be sunk on the high seas, for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington D.C., Miami and elsewhere," for "people to be framed for bombings they did not commit" and for planes to be hijacked, all in the name of convincing Congress and the American public to support a new war. Bradford writes about the early 1960s, but many of the Pentagon's proposals then seem uncomfortably reminiscent today.

So whatever happened to the basic foundations of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Have we really gone so far astray that independent thought is a thing of the past, trampled in the dirt by an artificial psyop reality?

Time to read through those Amendments once again, slowly. Then take a careful look at the insidious ways we're being controlled, and throw off the shackles. --October 14, 2002

Heather Wokusch is a free-lance writer whose background is sketched on her web site at www.heatherwokusch.com

At issue are toxic dangers (at home and abroad) linked by governmental and corporate denial regarding their deadly effects on the population. But the hazards and suffering toxicity brings can no longer be relegated to some unacknowledged separate world; we must expose our hidden bombs for what they are, then demand justice for those afflicted and fight to prevent new casualties. --Sept. 29, 2002

Heather Wokusch is a free-lance writer whose background is sketched on her web site at www.heatherwokusch.com

Return of the DICKS! (Awarding Our Warmongering Leaders)

It's that time again...

Last spring's DICK awards, in honor of US "Vice President" Dick Cheney (under investigation for accounting fraud in his role as CEO of Halliburton), honored outstanding achievements in the art of duping the masses and using public resources for personal gain.

But now that Zany Cheney is fightin' mad and ready to spill some blood (not his own, of course) by attacking Iraq - and eventually maybe the other 60 countries he has labeled as part of the "terrorist underworld" - a new breed of DICK is emerging: the Warmonger, eager to initiate global brawls and "take the battle to the enemy."

Yes, this is the same Dick Cheney who deferred the draft multiple times because he "had other priorities than military service," and as Secretary of Defense during the Gulf War registered cold surprise that the US casualties were so low. The Dick Cheney who recently addressed veterans' groups, and (oddly resembling Mr. Staypuff's scary twin) warned them of Saddam Hussein's pattern of skirting UN resolutions and sanctions, yet failed to mention that back in his own CEO days, Cheney's Halliburton had allowed its foreign subsidiaries and affiliates to skirt US sanctions on Iraq, selling more than $73 million in goods and services to Hussein's government. Cheney repeatedly cited Hussein's possession of chemical weapons as justification for a US attack, but failed to mention his own fight against an international convention on chemical weapons, or the fact that both the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations had sold chemical weapons to Iraq (right up until 1992 - even after it was revealed Hussein had gassed the Kurds at Halabja).

But details like history get lost with the smell of blood - or oil. So now that our Warmonger "leaders" insist it's time for battle, without further ado, (drum roll please ...) let's bring on the DICKS!

The nominations for Best Supporting Foreign Warmonger DICK were crowded with worthy hopefuls. Would the prize go to Australian Prime Minister John Howard for his "firm and faithful" commitment to Bush's global war on terrorism, or for the distinction of being the first foreign leader to hail Bush's pre-emptive military strike policy? Or would the award go to our man in Afghanistan, US-approved Hamid Karzai, whose response to escalating tribal violence and a recent assassination attempt consisted of a quick trip to the US?

Truly deserving candidates indeed, but one DICK rose above the rest, grandly outperforming all expectations. A big hand for that special friend, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair! Whether hangin' out at the Texas ranch, downing cocktails at the presidential retreat in Maryland, or politely clarifying what Bush is fumbling at joint press conferences, Blair has proven a loyal comrade all the way. Promising that Britain would be alongside America "when the shooting starts" and providing aircraft to accompany US military planes on their recent bombing raids of Iraq, Blair justified his military support by citing a "new" International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report as proof Hussein was developing nuclear weapons; this report came as news to the IAEA, which issued a quick press release in response, stating that they actually had not released any "new" report, and furthermore stood by their previous reports stating the Iraqi program had been successfully dismantled by the end of 1998.

Blair somehow forgot to mention that, like their American counterparts, the British government had actually stepped up its weapons-related sales to the Hussein government after the 1988 Halabja attack. (Former Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, explained the sales were kept secret to defend British corporate interests from "malicious commentators" and "emotional misunderstandings.") Bottom line: DICKs don't worry about such niceties as complicity or half-truths: war is good, corporate profit is good, and if you disagree you're the enemy.

Each nominee for Best Back-scratching Foreign Warmonger DICK exemplified the motto "If Bush can call people he doesn't like terrorists, then so can I." There was Russian President Vladimir Putin stirring up trouble in Chechnya, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon rolling tanks into Palestinian territory, and Indian-Pakistani leaders rattling Kashmiri sabers, threatening the nuclear decimation of millions. In a class by himself, though, was Pakistan's General Pervez Musharaf, who recently re-elected himself both president and army chief, cryptically explaining "If you want to keep the army out, you have to bring it in." Far too many deserving DICKs in this category folks, so no clear winners - looks like we all lose.

But now it's time for the grand prize, the coveted DICK of the Year award ... (drum roll please) ... two thumbs up for, you guessed it, "President" Bush! Like Cheney, Bush seemed to have had other priorities than military service, barely showing up for a mysteriously shortened stint in the Texas Air National Guard, but that doesn't stop him from bragging "I've been to war." He delicately observed Hussein "has sidestepped, crawfished, wheedled out of any agreement he had made not to harbor, not to develop weapons of mass destruction ... I'm going to call upon the world to recognize that he is stiffing the world," but has yet to convince the world that Hussein is the one stiffing them. He fulminates about Hussein's "nuke-u-lar" weapon capacity in spite of the fact that available evidence points against it and former weapons inspectors call the Bush claims direct lies. He tells the United Nations he wants it to be "effective and respectful" then thumbs his nose saying if the UN doesn't give him the green light to attack Iraq, he will do it anyway. What a DICK!

Interesting that many arguing against an attack are those who experienced it the first time. A 10-point list by Gulf War veterans eloquently opposes a second Gulf War, citing factors such as increased troop vulnerability and decreased international support.

As with the last DICK awards, the overriding question remains - who really is the biggest DICK? The "leader" getting away with duping the public into war, or the public allowing the leader to get away with it?
Heather Wokusch is a free-lance writer whose background is sketched on her web site at www.heatherwokusch.com

Praying for Armageddon

by HEATHER WOKUSCH

As the religious right gains ground in the US, accompanied by politicians evoking the god-fearing values of good and evil, a culture honoring diversity is replaced by calls for apocalyptic war.

As always, the schoolyard has become a major political battleground. Hysteria over removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance aside, the latest educational minefield lies in the origins of life: namely a return to the 1925 Scopes Trial debate of evolution vs. creationism. Tto promote Christianity, Cobb County, Georgia is putting disclaimers on its science textbooks saying that evolution is "a theory, not a fact," and school districts from Kansas to Ohio are enmeshed in battles royale over an issue that should be settled in a country separating church and state.

Not that bible-banging US attorney general John Ashcroft is troubled by the far right's assault on the First Amendment; claiming "I think all we should legislate is morality," the man charged with upholding the Constitution has instead slowly dissected it to fit his far-right Assemblies of God ideals.

And then there's Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's insisting "the religious viewpoint should have a role in the legislative and political process." Speaking at the University of Chicago earlier this year, Scalia cited the New Testament to assert government, "derives its moral authority from God ... to execute wrath, including even wrath by the sword," adding, "the more Christian a country is, the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral ... for the believing Christian, death is no big deal."

Good thing he cleared that up because for many of us death seems like a pretty big deal indeed.

The upshot of all this is that by promoting fear and blind arrogance, "leaders" charged with protecting the tolerance and diversity that make our country strong, chisel away at the base instead. Their approach boils down to: "If you are one of us, religious freedom and life itself are all-important; if you are one of them, your beliefs are wrong and your death is no big deal."

This attitude would be creepy enough if many of those marching us into a Middle Eastern blowout didn't believe in a literal Armageddon. Not helpful either that a full 59% of Americans polled say they believe in the apocalyptic events predicted in the Bible's Book of Revelations: when the Messiah returns on judgement day, believers will be lifted to glorious heaven while sinful non-believers will be "left behind" to do battle with the anti-Christ. All of this is complicated by the belief that the Messiah can return only if a new temple is built on Temple Mount, one of the holiest - and most contentious - sites for Islam, Judaism and Christianity combined.

So we're left with US arsenals of mass destruction in the hands of politicians with a simplistic good/evil, us/them approach to the globe - among whom are those seeking salvation in a fiery Middle Eastern apocalypse.

Not the most comforting reality as the potentially nuclear Palestine-Israel conflict implodes, and Iraq is backed into more dangerous corner every day.

While longing for deeper meaning is natural in times like these, divisiveness and fiery death aren't the correct goals. And who said our lawmakers should be in the business of legislating morality and defining life and death according to their own religious beliefs?

Ultimately, rather than glorifying in the sinners "left behind" to face torturous battles with the anti-Christ, we should focus on helping those left behind by today's unbalanced social and economic systems. Through diversity and tolerance we all are lifted up; through small-minded arrogance and greed we all lose.

Heather Wokusch is a free-lance writer. She can be contacted via her web site at www.heatherwokusch.com

The views expressed are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect those of Bush Watch.