BUSH WATCH
stories...
issues...
bushreport...
comedy...
site map...
contact...
The New Radical Left
(And the Old Folks Who Fuel It)
They say people become more conservative with age. Until recently, that seemed so. For the legions of us who came of age as the left became a cartoon, a rightward shift was inevitable. We grew to distrust all of it: long overdue advances in civil rights were accompanied by open season on anything white and male; the women's movement was hijacked by champions of unwed childlessness; and valid opposition to the Vietnam War gave way to factions shamelessly spitting upon soldiers. It was distasteful and disgraceful and we gravitated towards the center.
Nevertheless, what was real and honorable about the left stayed with us, always. We didn't understand why universal medical care was so scary, for example, particularly considering America's runaway corporate welfare. We weren't sure how helping the less fortunate became so threatening, since taxpayers blindly fund a defense budget of nearly $400 billion per year. We also wondered why people were up in arms over welfare to single mothers, but not over the $2.3 trillion the Pentagon misplaced. "Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed," Dwight D. Eisenhower once said. Would Ike be "too liberal" these days, too?
We thought we were just average citizens, with average concerns, until we woke up to find ourselves part of the radical left. We're not sure how it happened, mind you. In fact, we didn't even realize it until a chorus of pundits started steering us a certain way. When MSNBC's Lester Holt happily explained how daisy cutters work, for example, we were filled with queasiness in lieu of national pride. We believed Scott Ritter was telling the truth, no matter how often Paula Zahn warned us not to. And despite the president's assurances he'd like to avoid war, we trusted Newsday's observation that his administration "appeared to be purposely setting the bar too high for Hussein to comply."
Chants about "blaming America first" aside, we have always been uncomfortable with our legacy of coups d'etats and assassinations -- and of replacing democratically-elected leaders with tyrants of our own. We'd prefer to spend that money and energy aggressively seeking alternative energy, so babies need not die in our names. And we can't ignore the role we've played in creating problems named bin Laden, Hussein, Noriega and Pinochet; or inconsistencies in official stories; or hidden agendas, regardless how often we're chided by "the liberal media elite."
Citing others' misgivings over everything from Wellstone's death to 9/11 to JFK's murder, for example, Ron Rosenbaum recently joined Nicholas Kristof in describing ways the left has gone off track. Certainly, Wellstone's death could have been "one of those things"; Condoleezza "no one would think of flying planes into buildings" Rice might have suffered from memory lapses; and despite suggestions otherwise, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56560-2001Mar25 , Lee Harvey Oswald may have acted alone. Rosenbaum's absolute certainty regarding all of this is disarming, however, especially to those of us who have still have questions -- and realize, once again, that there will never be honest investigations into any of it. Ever. How can we not be "dumbed down" when it's taboo to even question? Do they not see it, too? We're told to forget or ignore history and are asked to not even ask. Questions regarding the 2000 election are met with "get over it;" Greg Palast's report about 91,000 voters wrongly purged from Florida rolls goes largely ignored; and an independent investigation into 911 looks as if will be stonewalled into oblivion. Will we ever hear another word about Wellstone's crash? We are foolish even in the asking. How can we expect journalists to pressure officials for answers, when they're too busy telling us to look the other way?
Unlike those in the sixties who took cues from members of their own generation, we unlikely radicals rely largely upon our elders. "Remember every question is legitimate." Helen Thomas recently said. Every question is legitimate? Imagine that.
When Thomas explained the difference between this president and others she's covered, we were grateful that someone, somewhere was saying something. "I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war," she said, adding, "it's bombs away for Iraq and on our civil liberties if Bush and his cronies get their way."
Then, too, Jimmy Breslin's recent comparison of Bobby Kennedy's campaign to the 2002 election gave us a glimpse of what we've lost. "I don't think that anybody today can understand the sheer thrill of a campaign that was based on uncomplicated good," he wrote. "Vote for the guy and you could stop people from getting killed. Your own vote could save a life! Vote for the guy and you could get a roof for somebody in Brooklyn and food for children in Mississippi. People got so excited they couldn't sleep.. . . . Nobody wanted war. People weren't crazy.. . .and poverty [wasn't] ended by throwing more of the poor into the streets."
Though we want to feel as if we're rooting for "uncomplicated good," we hold our noses each election and vote for more taxation without representation. When corporations are calling the shots, progressives are at a distinctive disadvantage, as veteran journalist Bill Moyers pointed more than a decade ago. And now, following the 2002 election, we can once again count upon Moyers to address our concerns. While self-proclaimed liberal Chris Matthews giddily hosts right-wing pundits like Bob Dornan heralding in "the beginning of the end of liberalism," Moyers chronicles the dark times we foresee. Confronting threats to the environment and to government transparency and to a woman's right to choose, he openly wonders how working people willingly voted against their own interests. "If you liked the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming," Moyers explained. Does that underscore why Chris Matthews delightedly characterized G. Gordon Liddy, Pat Buchanan and Dornan as "whooping it up" over what's ahead?
It would seem so. Because while the Regressive Right is often given a forum, the Progressive Left is not. When 20 antiwar congressmen recently held a press conference before the Iraq resolution vote, the media didn't cover it, as the congressmen were "out of the mainstream." We're not talking Noam Chomsky or Robert Fisk, here, we're discussing U.S congressmen. Nonetheless, Congressional Progressive Caucus chairman Dennis Kucinich was reelected with 74% of the vote, vice chairman Barbara Lee captured 81% in her district, Major Owens received 86%, Bernie Sanders, 65%, Peter DeFazio 64%, Nancy Pelosi 80% and Jesse Jackson, Jr. nabbed 86% of the vote. And remember Congressman Jim McDermott, who was demonized for visiting Baghdad and for (rightfully) saying Bush would mislead America in order to go to war? 74% of the voters in his district voted for him again. Needles to say, if McDermott had lost, you would have heard braying nationwide.
But none of this signals it's time to start singing "Power to the People" just yet. It's important to remember that the seismic shift that's occurred in parts of the country is very real. Democrat governor Roy Barnes, for example, lost his bid for reelection for having the gall to remove the Confederate symbol from Georgia's state flag, and though he lost three limbs serving in Vietnam, Max Cleland lost his bid after being attacked for a lack of patriotism, because he held out for an inclusion of worker's rights for Homeland Security employees. President Bush, Karl Rove and Ralph Reed orchestrated much of this -- and we can't help but wonder of Jesus Christ were elected to office, how quickly the Religious Right would be calling for His head.
Given this, it looks as if we're in for the fight of our lives. And we are going to have to rely on old mentors even more. For generations, enlightened writers have been, to paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi, our "guardians of peace and justice." This was "before the dark times, before the Empire," mind you. But luckily, while some journalists are telling us to close our mouths and close our minds, as we face the darkest times in recent memory; we still have some old standbys to offer us light. 11.11.02
Vote Democrat To Avoid The Upcoming Draft
Do Americans Realize What's at Stake?
Why Neither College Nor Canada Would Offer Refuge from the Draft
For those old enough to remember Vietnam, yet young enough to be parents to teenage sons, the war looming in the distance is especially menacing. Though we've often sympathized with Vietnam veterans, our empathy now lies with their parents, as well. What were their thoughts as they shipped their sons to war? Were there flashbacks to first steps and first Christmases and first heartbreaks, too?
We thought we had said good-bye to all that. We'd learned too much; we'd suffered too much; our leaders wouldn't do that to us, no, not again. But with each passing day, it seems lessons learned have come undone. We're living in an age of blowback and empire, and empires are costly. Enlistment is down, projections of urban warfare are grim, and it's difficult to imagine we can pursue protracted war and empire without forcing our young do old men's bidding. "I have recently learned from trusted sources on Capitol Hill that the Armed Services committees have quietly begun planning for a reinstitution of the draft," government whistleblower Mike Ruppert recently wrote. Can you imagine the outcry if he's right?
Unlike the Vietnam era, however, old loopholes aren't in place. This time, for example, college won't be a valid reason to avoid the draft. In the 1960s, a young man could procure a deferment, provided he was a full-time student and was making satisfactory progress towards earning a degree. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable, which were enacted in 1971, are still in effect -- and should the draft be reinstated, students would not be allowed to defer service for four or more years. Underclassmen would now only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester, while seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
Another Vietnam-era means of resistance, draft dodging, would be more difficult this time around, too. In December, 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which, in addition to keeping terrorists out of America, could also be used to keep draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs John Manley and U.S. Homeland Security director Gov. Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country.
So, while neither college nor Canada would offer refuge from the draft, it's hopeful that the unprecedented preemptive antiwar movement that's taken root will be enough to avert disaster. Given this administration's inability to see beyond their myopic interests, however, that might be wishful thinking. This timeline of recent developments shows why concerns over conscription, though not officially verified, are not unfounded either:
1997-2000: The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) compiles its report, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For a New Century. Including six of Bush's cabinet members within its ranks, PNAC says "America's 'core mission,' is to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars." They also describe America's armed forces as "the cavalry on the new American frontier." Two years after being delivered to Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, the group's findings are mirrored in President Bush's official military strategy.
August, 2000: Delaware becomes the first state to enact legislation linking drivers' license applications to Selective Service registration. By October, 2002, 27 states, 2 territories, and the District of Columbia follow suit. Commenting on this trend, Virginia's Gov. Mark Warner says, "In this time of war, we need to make sure that we have a full sign up Selective Service," while adding, "I think most boys would be proud to do it."
December, 2001: The Military Service And Training Act (HR 3598) is introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Nick Smith (R, MI) and Rep. Curt Weldon (R, PA). And though President Bush stated last spring that "the country shouldn't expect there to be a draft," if passed, this bill will require all young men to report for 6-12 months of military training and education.
December, 2001: Canada and the United States sign a "Smart Border Declaration." Designed to identify and manage security risks, this plan calls for the implementation of a Canada-US "pre-clearance agreement," the sharing of "advance passenger information" and the development of a jointly held immigration database and programs for "joint removals of deportees." Though designed to fight terrorism, the plan could make escaping to Canada more difficult.
August, 2002: A report by the National Research Council, commissioned by the Department of Defense, shows that despite a threefold increase in advertising, recruitment attempts by the US military aren't attracting enlistees. "Even with the instability in the economy and the loss of civilian jobs in many sectors in 2000-2001, interest in the military has not increased," the report declares.
September, 2002: As required by law, President Bush presents "the National Military Strategy Of the United States of America." Breaking from the traditional Cold War policy of determent and containment, the document clarifies America's first strike policy and quest for global dominance. "It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength," the document warns, adding that America will also "require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."
October, 2002: Mike Ruppert publishes his essay "Across the Rubicon," and claims plans are underway for the reinstatement of the draft. Pointing out that reserve units, which have been called up for over a year, are near "the breaking point," he says "the eventual drafting of our youth is to me as much a certainty as anything else I have written about thus far."
October, 2002: The General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve pilots and crews are leaving the military service, partly due to adverse reactions associated with the Pentagon's anthrax vaccine. Those leaving are among the most highly trained in the service and "are people not easily replaced," the GAO said.
November, 2002: The Journal News features an article regarding New York's Selective Service System need for draft board members in case "a military draft would ever become necessary." Other states have issued similar notices.
In Sept., 2001, one week following the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, ABC News reported that a military draft would be highly unlikely and listed reasons why. "It's very hard to imagine a military operation on the scale of Desert Storm," former deputy assistant secretary of defense Kurt Campbell said, adding that "the real challenge for us is to avoid situations where we would need to use large numbers of people in a large, on-the-ground effort."
One year later, as we face the prospect of door-too-door urban warfare in Baghdad, those reasons are no longer valid. And it's hard not to wonder if the draft might not be an unavoidable "situation" as well. Given the overwhelming majority of Republicans voting "yes" during House and Senate votes on the Iraq Resolution, and the Republican-sponsored Military Service and Training Act, Americans need to fully realize what's at stake. In order to put the brakes on this imperial president and his plans for forever war, they need to vote for Democrats this election. In fact, they need to vote as if their children's lives depend upon it. Because quite frankly, they do. Nov. 4, 2002
With Us Or Wacko. Ignoring Public Opinion
"I was talking to a Congressional office," Bob Novak reported on Crossfire. "They told me that the phone calls coming in were 571 against the war, 3 for the war. You got that? [The unnamed congressman] is going 100 percent for George Bush, not saying a word of criticism, because he knows it's the nuts calling in and that the real people are supporting the resolution."
As one of the "nuts calling in," I was taken aback. Did a congressman actually say that? Is that how America's representatives feel? Given the arrogance of the congressman's assertion, it seems some of us need to hightail it to the Land of Leahy and Jeffords to get the representation our taxation is rumored to buy.
A couple days later, on Resolution Day, my senses were similarly assaulted; this time, via e-mail from MSNBC's Hardball. "Of course Byrd went on another tirade this morning," it read, and I wondered how Byrd's "tirade" could possibly be an annoyance, considering what's at stake. "I know what you're thinking," the e-mail assured. "'Stop having all the anti-war folks on!' Don't worry, we're gonna have some Hawks on too."
So, great. While Congressman Gough-Tohell says I'm crazy, MSNBC thinks it is reading my mind. "We know you want war," Hardball implies, taking "manufacturing consent," to a whole new level. Well, thank you very much, but does anyone really believe there aren't enough hawks on TV? A day without Richard Perle is a day without sunshine! And dissenting generals aside, why did Hardball's email say that "everyone's for war?" Didn't they get the memo about anti-war protests? Tens of thousands, and countless others, marginalized, just like that. "You're either with us or you're whacko." Yessireebob.
I tried to imagine who might be among Bob Novak's nuts. Not the folks at Hardball, that's for sure. "Maybe Jimmy Carter?," I mused. After all, didn't he say Congress was wrong to pass its resolution on Iraq? And what about George Tenet, who says Saddam won't attack us unless we attack him first? And could the 50,000 citizens who e-mailed Sen. Byrd last week be whacked-out, too? Or what about the 20,000 who called him in support? Those people have been radicalized by the lies they've been told, and the helplessness and voicelessness of it all, I bet. Congressman Gough-Tohell's constituents, perhaps? And what, pray tell, separates the "nuts" from the "real people?"
New York Daily News reporter Lars-Erik Nelson would have made Novak's list, I think. Because while other Americans were congratulating themselves for being so reasonably impotent during the 2000 brouhaha, Nelson deemed the Bush campaign's post-election ploys "a mugging." Outraged and outspoken, he drew attention to the blatantly undemocratic shenanigans in Florida. "If you want to know the truth, I blame the Bush campaign for the death of Nelson," New York Observer columnist Ron Rosenbaum wrote. . . . "[He] saw what was going on in Florida early on, and he didn't see it with any equanimity: One of his colleagues at the Daily News called him on the day of his death, the afternoon of the televised Florida Supreme Court argument, and recalled Nelson crying out, "I can't believe they said that!" over some outrageous assertion by the lawyers for Ms. Harris and Mr. Bush. A few hours later, he was found in front of his television set, dead of a stroke. No one will convince me it was unrelated."
That kind of caring can be deadly. Yes, it can.
Filmmaker Steve Tesich might be another Novakian nut. Best known for films like Four Friends and Breaking Away, Tesich died of a massive heart attack at age 53. "America killed him," his sister Nadia claimed, which, admittedly, sounds extreme. But like brilliant writers before him, Tesich served as a lightening rod for the rest of us, especially in his outrage over the soulless propaganda perpetuated on TV. Awakened by "the deadly display, advertising of weapons, and destruction during the US war on Iraq," Steve was appalled by the "lack of opposition in the media." So he wrote to combat untruths and dilute the propaganda. His essays went largely unpublished.
"My brother suffered," Professor Nadia Tesich wrote, "Silently most of the time. He suffered because he thought he was an important writer, whose voice ought to be heard. He suffered because most of the people around him, even old friends, appeared brainwashed, brain-dead. He suffered more than I because he loved America once. That love turned against him. Yes, it can kill you.
He suffered because he woke up and with amazing speed and brilliance he saw what the USA did to us, and to their own people, and to the rest of the world. It was easier for me. I was immunized from before -- Vietnam, Chile, Panama, Guatemala -- the list is long.
He was only a writer, romantic, sweetly naive, full of optimism until 1990. He was unprepared. His awakening was deadly. He could not imagine his future in this new world order, faster, more deadly every minute as I write. He feared the day when his work will be censored entirely, the way it had happened to me. Here in Amerika. He wrote to expose, to bear witness against this era, this monster without an adequate name or a real face, so people will know many years later that someone objected."
Yes, he objected then and we object now - no matter how many congressmen or pundits pooh-pooh our concerns. America is on the eve of waging an unconscionable preemptive war, with murky motivations, and, as more of us see this, more will object. Because we too are waking up "with amazing speed and brilliance." We see what Lars-Erick Nelson saw and what Steve Tesich saw and what Mark Twain saw, even as far back as 1905.
Casting a Novakian nut as the centerpiece of his anti-imperialist tale, "The War Prayer," Twain took on the hypocritical righteousness of pious warmongers. Arriving with "a message from Almighty God," Twain's hero, his unearthly "stranger," dramatizes the duality in praying for God's blessing, which, conversely, calls for others' hardships. The climax occurs when Twain's messenger recites this uncensored prayer:
". . . . O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended in the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames in summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-- For our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, strain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who us the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen. "
"It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic," Twain wrote, "because there was no sense in what he said."
So, yes, even though FOX has replaced Twain's altar as our propaganda podium and though lengthy sermons are now found in the "Gospel According to 'Showdown With Saddam!,' the message doesn't change. Because the fiercely anti-imperialist Mark Twain understood where Bob Novak and Congressman Gough-Tohell were coming from. He understood, all to well, the sickness that equates sanity with soulnessness, and approves of ends justifying means. After all, this sickness gave smallpox to Indians and root to slavery; it bred hatred towards abolitionists and killed four at Kent State. Echoed in "Heil Hitler," and Coliseum cheers, it's a sickness writers like Twain, Nelson and Tesich sense early on. And though they warn us, they are dismissed and vilified by the likes of Congressman Gough-Tohell, until Truth wins out, and the folly in ignoring them is acknowledged.
As the pre-fabricated Bush, Inc. war approaches (alongside the ridiculous façade that the president wants peace), we'll soon learn which side is crazy. But, in time, Bob Novak and his congressman may very well wish they'd listened to the nuts. After all, History is on the nuts' side. --October 15, 2002
Is Truth Bush's #1 Enemy? Why the "Best American" Is A Misinformed American
Last spring, BBC News ran a segment on depleted uranium (DU). Featuring an Iraqi doctor discussing increased cancer rates in areas where DU-tipped artillery shells were dropped during the Gulf War, the report chronicled the plight of 13 and 14-year-old girls undergoing mastectomies. In doing so, it delved into territory rarely seen. The clincher wasn't just that the BBC addressed uranium-associated horrors, which, in itself, was a TV-Land rarity, but that they did so without some British Paula Zahn accusing them of "drinking Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid."
Sans Fox Newsian experts discrediting testimony, the piece was entirely convincing. Though, admittedly, it was hard for this American to fathom that the U.K was seriously considering discontinuing its use of DU ammunition, due to ethical concerns. Would another nation actually admit it might have made a terrible mistake? And that it could somehow be culpable? Here in the Land of Pentagon Infallibility, where we export seeds for germ warfare (and act shocked afterwards), that was hard to imagine. And frankly, one felt "anti-American" for noticing.
DU Dancing
Certainly, though some journalists, scientists and citizens struggle for clarity, it's as if caring about the fate of Iraqis or suggesting the U.S might be harming its own soldiers is treasonous - even if it's true. Thankfully, some forge ahead regardless. The Christian Science Monitor, for example, should be commended for its valiant efforts with its "Trail of a Bullet" series, while Gulf War veterans should be applauded for their untiring search for answers. And despite the government's aversion to inquiry, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, former research scientist with the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs, is a hero for investigating the link between DU and Gulf War Syndrome. Now a professor of medicine, this former U.S. Army colonel has found a "significant presence" of depleted uranium in the bones of Gulf War veterans and estimates that tens of thousands of Gulf War veterans suffer the effects of radiation. With veterans of the conflict in Croatia showing similar symptoms, this can't be blamed on Saddam.
Moreover, if DU is "safe" why do military safety regulations call for those working near DU sites to wear heavily insulated clothing? And why have cancer rates risen 400% in Iraq since 1991? Are American tax dollars paying for mass genocide, as some suggest? "I believe that Americans are basically decent people," former U.N. humanitarian official Denis Halliday said, in a recent Salon interview. "If they understood that Iraq is not made up of 22 million Saddam Husseins, but made up of 22 million people. . . they would be horrified to realize that the current killing of innocent Iraqi civilians by the U.S. Air Force, or what happened in the Gulf War, is being done in their name."
That may be so, but when well-meaning souls try to inform Americans, Americans don't believe them. And those who speak out are often vilified and shouted down. Rep. Jim McDermott's latest statements on Iraq's DU-related birth defects confirm others' ethical concerns. But as politicians and pundits depict McDermott as a traitor (even though, unlike the squawking chicken hawks, he's a Vietnam vet), few listen to what he has to say. It's anti-American to have a conscience, it seems.
Misrepresentations
Representative McDermott is in hot water for other "sins," too, especially for suggesting President Bush would mislead the American people in order to drag them into war. Though the Guardian's Simon Tisdall calls Bush "America's great misleader," and CIA officials say the president is using "cooked information" to falsify Iraq's threat, American pundits cry foul. Why, one wonders, is McDermott's observation such a shocker? Is it really so outrageous to suggest that Bush would say or do anything to make sure the war progresses as planned -- especially when government insiders confirm that's the case? Whether today's excuse is "weapons of mass destruction" or "regime change" or "disarmament," or Saddam's alleged attempt to snuff Bush the Elder, war is on the agenda and has been since before the 2000 selection. Not only did pre-election think tank studies form national policy, but the GOP included "regime change" as part of its 2000 platform.
Why wouldn't George II mislead us? From Database Technology Florida shenanigans to our "humble" foreign policy to corporate and election reform, he's already told some pretty serious fibs. Plus, his father was a master of manipulation, contriving events and perpetuating propaganda to achieve his ends. "October Surprises" and media strangleholds notwithstanding, can we ever forget April Glaspie's "green light" meeting with Saddam, where she told Hussein, one week prior to the invasion, that the U.S had "no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait?" There were also forged photos of troops at the Saudi border and discarded babies in incubators fabrications, which goaded teetering representatives into supporting Gulf War I. If Bush #41 would subvert democracy through deceit, why wouldn't Bush #43 do likewise? As Jeb Bush's recent revelations indicate, "devious plans" seem to run in the family.
And don't forget war profiteering. According to Seymour Hersh, Neil and Marvin Bush and James Baker, among others, struck up sweet post-Gulf War deals. At the time, James Baker represented Enron, and as one Enron executive asked Hersh, "Is there any reason American companies shouldn't profit from the war in Kuwait?" Enron's Gulf War attitude foreshadowed things to come.
Dirty Secrets
"Profiting from war," of course, is one of Bush Inc.'s dirtiest secrets. Citizens shell out up to half of their income to fund a bulging beast while others in this country go hungry and uninsured. The United States' annual defense budget is $260 billion, while Russia, next in line, spends less than $80 billion a year. And guess who profits? Despite being under investigation for corporate wrongdoing, Halliburton continues to rake in the government contracts for overseas military bases and Gitmo cells, while George Bush Sr., James Baker and other Carlyle Group members make a killing through defense contracts.
As the Sunday Herald's Neil Mackay recently reported, the U.S .planned a military attack on Iraq five months before Sept. 11, in order to "secure control of its oil." Citing a document called, "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century" which has been linked to James Baker, Dick Cheney and other Captains of Industry, Mackay says America's 'military intervention' is meant to "to fix the [approaching] US energy crisis" and insure American dominance in the Middle East.
But Empire and Democracy can't exist side by side, and "we the people" will become but tools of the state. If developing revelations about Bush's Enron-like Harken misconduct weren't bad enough, recently released information about the government's use of citizens as bio-terror guinea pigs confirms that there's an "us" vs. "them." If you want to get beyond the Disneyfied version of reality the networks broadcast daily and don't trust G.W. Bush (or those he serves) to be on your side, educate yourself. Investigate seedier historic moments, for example, by researching Operation Northwoods, Operation Paperclip and Operation Mockingbird. Or look up "John Foster Dulles" along with "Prescott Bush." You can cross-reference "the National Security Memorandum 200," with "depopulation" and "biological warfare," if you like, or google "Chile, Nixon and Pepsi." And though searching "BCCI, Bush and bin Laden," or "BCCI , Bush and Iraq" or "BCCI, Bush and Iran" might make you permanently lose your innocence and faith, it's fun for the whole family, I swear. If you're especially ambitious, check out the dubious deaths of Don C .Wiley or Danny Casolaro, though you might want to save those for Halloween.
Truth as a Terrorist
Keep educating yourself, and while you're at it, ask: Who stands to gain by having citizens believe the avalanche of lies we're fed? Sooner or later, you'll realize that what amounts to anti-Americanism these days is often an affinity for Truth. As a Vietnam veteran, Congressman McDermott has every reason to question the government's official line before the bloodshed commences. All of us, each and everyone, should have an idealized vision of what America can be - and work towards that goal. The neo-cons who've stolen America can't comprehend that. To them, and their benefactors, the best American is a misinformed American. But whose country is this? Theirs? Or yours?
"The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology," author Michael Parenti wrote. Push that mythology aside and endure the howls of anti-Americanism. Because though Truth is the enemy of the state, it's the only thing that will set you free. --Oct. 10, 2002
We're Not A Free Country Any More
Top 10 Signs Democracy Is Dying
"We're not a free country anymore. Because the people who are smart enough and powerful enough to take out a president 'like that' and get away with it. . . are probably involved in other areas of the government. In other words, the country is being run by people we did not vote for." - researcher Gary Mack, in The Men Who Killed Kennedy.
Given time, inconsistencies in the official story always take their toll. Some fibs, like Condoleezza Rice's assertion that nobody imagined planes being used as weapons, are uncovered early on, while deeper mysteries, like John F. Kennedy's murder, unravel less quickly. Though it took nearly 40 years and a team of British forensic scientists to finally prove, with 96.3% accuracy, that JFK's assassination was the result of a conspiracy ("Study Backs Theory of 'Grassy Knoll,'" the Washington Post, March 26, 2001), by the time anyone heard Richard Nixon's taped confession that the Warren Commission was "the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated," more than three-quarters of Americans realized we'd been duped. Deemed a "coup d'état," by forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht, the Kennedy killing was, above all, a plot to usurp American democracy. "The only way you prevent [future coup d'etats]" Wecht said, "is to expose those elements of government and society in this country that were responsible for the killing of John. F. Kennedy."
Are those sinister elements still at work?
Since Coup D'etat, Part Deux, (i.e. the 2000 election) we've had ample reason to believe so. The blatant lies told by this administration notwithstanding, we've been bombarded with a parade of decidedly undemocratic outrages including the Patriot Act, secret detentions and an underground government. Still hovering out there in the journalistic ether, these concerns have been touched upon, ever so gently, but new horrors slither steadily into peripheral view each day. And though Bush, Inc. continues to implicate itself, somehow it's protected, while "we the people" are increasingly at risk. For your consideration, then, are 10 brand new reasons to be alarmed:
1) The New Jersey Senate Race: Did Sen. William Frist actually say that New Jersey's Supreme Court was "overriding the will of the people?" What? By giving them a choice? The GOP's recent appeal to the Supreme Court to try to overturn the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision reeks to election high heaven. "The 2000 presidential election set a precedent for the Supreme Court to get involved in state election fights," an unnamed (and hopefully deeply embarrassed) GOP spokesperson said. What's that saying about two wrongs not making a right? Unless you're an ethically-challenged hypocrite? If the GOP prevails, any illusions that this country is free will be shattered and democracy will be officially dead.
2) Iraq: Set aside, for a moment, the illegality and immorality of an Iraq attack. Ignore the charade behind Bush's U.N. appearance. And forget, that though generals warn of Armageddon, Richard Perle brays about cakewalks. Because in addition to concerns over lives, dollars and stability, one question begs an answer: What about the will of the American people? According to Intervention Magazine, calls to Senate and House members are running 2-1 against giving George Bush a "blank check," while the radio program, Democracy Now! reports 22 out of 26 Senate offices saying constituents are expressing 'overwhelming' opposition to an Iraq attack. None of this meshes with what we're being told. How can Congress "speak with one voice" in favor of war, if constituents are against it? Is consent being manufactured and democracy undermined? "If the real motives were made clear," author Michael Klare wrote, "that this is a grab for oil . . . it would make our motives look more predatory than exemplary." Filling in for Bush #41's fabrications about discarded incubator babies, we now have blatant lies regarding Al Qeada ties and weapons capabilities. But though some might be fooled into thinking our cause is just, others wonder: What else is Bush lying about?
3) The Project for the New American Century: Defined by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jay Bookman as a "group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire," the Project for the New America Century (PNAC) seems to have provided the blueprint for our dangerously misguided foreign policy. With six of Bush's cabinet members (including the strangely Strangelovian Paul Wolfowitz) being directly involved, and Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Jeb Bush being among the recipients of its findings, PNAC is troubling for one important reason: Its published report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For a New Century," has became our nation's playbook. "America's 'core mission,'" these neo-cons wrote, is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars." The report was written in 2000, suggesting that forever war was planned even before the election. Democracies don't function this way. Banana republics do.
4) The National Military Strategy Of the United States of America: "They hate us because we don't know why they hate us," asserted one writer following Sept. 11. Nowhere is arrogance more glaring than in the recently released "National Military Strategy for the United States of America." Clarifying America's first strike policy and quest for global dominance, this new national strategy is Wolfowitz's vision of American Empire revisited. When the Wolfowitz Doctrine was leaked to the New York Times in 1992, former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown warned that our desire to control the world's resources, while squelching any chance for opposition, would present a "grave danger of nuclear war," and Sen. Kennedy accused the Pentagon of looking for ways "to justify Cold War levels of military spending." Now that Wolfowitz's dream has become stated policy, there's been nary a peep. Foisted upon us, without the benefit of democracy, this bellicose, imperialistic policy makes the world a decidedly more dangerous place.
5) The Universal Military Training and Service Act: In December, 2001, HR 3598 was introduced in the House. And though President Bush stated last spring that "the country shouldn't expect there to be a draft," if passed, this bill will require all young men to report for 6-12 months of military training and education. Selective Service System official Lewis C. Brodsky believes that the nation should be prepared to conduct a draft, and Virginia's Gov. Mark Warner agrees. Commenting on legislation that links driver's license applications to Selective Service registration (which 26 states have passed within the last two years), Gov. Warner said, "In this time of war, we need to make sure that we have a full sign up Selective Service," while adding, "I think most boys would be proud to do it." When the body bags start pouring in from Iraq, Iran, or wherever our neo-con dictators lead us, Warner's thesis will be put to the test.
6) Dick Cheney's Stonewalling: As White House aides, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld persuaded President Ford to veto the Freedom of Information Act. But with Nixon's excesses freshly remembered, Congress overrode it. Since then (or at least until Team Bush shot it full of loopholes), the FOIA has protected the public's right to know. Dick Cheney's refusal to turn over energy task force information, however, is an unprecedented and infuriating ploy to shield the executive branch from accountability. Aside from prompting questions regarding what Cheney is hiding, a new concern emerges: When this matter is decided by the Bush-appointed judge assigned to the case (or, if need be, by the Supreme Court), if the vice president prevails, any façade that our selected officials are "public servants" will be forever stripped away.
7) Military Oddities: If tales of wedding party bombings and desert massacres weren't weird enough, stories concerning our military operations are getting progressively stranger. Recently, a BBC reporter in Afghanistan met up with American soldiers who handed him a laminated government-issued card, which instructed soldiers on how to interact with journalists. "How do you feel about what you're doing in Afghanistan?" one question read. "We're united in our purpose and committed to achieving our goals," came the scripted reply. "How long do you think that will take?" another asked "We will stay here as long as it takes to get the job done - sir!" (For more information, see, pipeline, Unocal, Afghanistan). This comes at a time, as the Washington Post reports, when the U.S. government is muzzling the media. Though Newsweek was able to cut though the propaganda regarding "Operation Mountain Sweep," journalists covering Guantanamo have no such luck. There, military personnel may only be interviewed under the watchful eye of media escorts, who accompany journalists everywhere, including the bathroom. Adding to the intrigue, 30 detainees have tried to commit suicide, and one Army staff sergeant assigned to guard detainees suddenly disappeared.
8) West Nile Virus: Understandably sensitive after being targeted during last fall's anthrax mailings, Sen. Patrick Lehey asserted that West Nile virus might part of a bio-terror program. Conjuring visions of mad scientists injecting and infecting mosquitoes with teensy tiny needles (while cackling maniacally, of course), his claim was dismissed. But as the Boston Globe recently reported, West Nile virus is now "causing" polio, though both stem from a different family of viruses. How then, one wonders, could this strain be nature-made? And wasn't West Nile added to Saddam Hussein's "made in the U.S.A." germ warfare cart during his Reagan/Bush era shopping spree? Even so, Dr. Leonard says the issue runs deeper. Pointing to malathion, Anvil 10:10 and other toxins being sprayed to "protect" Americans from virus-bearing mosquitoes, he believes there is a "great likelihood" that the CIA is hyping West Nile to get the public to accept pesticide sprayings. Citing declassified documents and Congressional Records proving America's role in third world "depopulation programs," he says these sprayings weaken the immune system and increase susceptibility to deadlier forms of bio-terrorism and risky vaccinations. In other words, he believes some U.S. citizens might be slated for "depopulation," too. Too X-Filish? Regardless, there's no reason to doubt the doctor's expertise on malathion and the immune system, which, in itself, doesn't bode well for those living in heavily sprayed areas, should smallpox vaccinations be implemented.
9) Missing Children Media Hype: Can anyone explain the media hype surrounding missing children this summer, despite FBI statistics that show that kidnappings are on the decline? After several nights of kidnapping-related alerts, a mother from Texas, whose infant was stolen the day before, interrupted regularly scheduled programming to give a nationally televised press conference -- even though she didn't speak English and her baby was returned unharmed. This was 0% newsworthy, 100% surreal. Oddly enough, the very next day, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a front-page story on why parents should consider having their children implanted with microchips. "We have [global positioning system] units for our cars," Applied Digital spokesperson Matthew Cossolo told the Inquirer. "If your car is stolen, we can locate it. Do we love our cars more than our children?" When televised assaults are presented alongside front-page commercials masquerading as news, the Orwellian implications are too striking to overlook.
10) The Patriot Act, Secret Detentions, the Shadow Government, Military Tribunals, Concentration Camps, Enron, Thwarted Investigations and "Veritable Blueprints" Regarding Sept. 11: Though these are all are "old concerns," together they serve as one big reminder of what has befallen our nation in the past year. Bush can scoff at Hitler comparisons all he likes, but America no longer feels like the land of liberty. Democracy is dying, Mr. President, and you're tugging at the noose.
Which brings us back to square one. "One of my greatest shames, as a journalist," Hunter S. Thompson said in a recent interview, "is that I still don't know who killed Jack Kennedy." Considering where we're headed, it's the nation's shame, too.
When Leaders Kill For Business, It's Nothing Personal
You read the White House's reaction to your elected president's speech. He's "not relevant," they say. He's "out of the mainstream," it seems. And you feel irrelevant and out of the mainstream, too. Because you know Al Gore is right about this war. He's right about the wisdom and the timing and the politics of it all. And he's right about good will squandered and world opinion, too. And in this Age of Empire and Preemption, though you hate to say it, you also fear what America is going to do next.
And you wonder how many more of you are out there; voiceless and angry, and troubled by what our tax dollars are about to buy. And you feel complicit, in a way, like Carmela Soprano. So you call. And you write. Else evil thrive. But it will run right over you, you know. How can you stop it? Can your congressman stop it? Does he weigh Iraqi lives as heavily as his career? You don't want to think this way. You don't want to feel it. But he's not speaking out. Why not? Does he not know your children's futures hang within his silence?
So, yes, you think about your sons, and your sons' sons, too, until something catches you. Better not dream of things to come, it says. Not now, not in this Age of Empire and Preemption. What will it cost? $100 billion? $200 billion? They throw around numbers, because money matters. But you dare not ask about body bags, no. The children to be sacrificed aren't relevant, they say. Better to merge with their mainstream and look the other way.
Because somehow your questions have become enemies of the state and your conscience has become un-American, too. "3,000 dead!" they scream, as their reason to kill anyone, anywhere. They imply you don't care, you see, but you care, more than they can know. But Iraq didn't attack and preemption is wrong and this war isn't about justice anyway. We're killing Arabs perched upon Dick Cheney's oil, you think. Hail to the chief and to the Carlyle Group and to Halliburton and to the military/industrial complex, for which we stand, one nation, under Oil, indivisible, in an Age of Empire.
But even though you know something's wrong, and possibly broken, you would be "horrified" Denis Halliday says, to learn how many Iraqis your government kills, even now, or to learn what was done in the Gulf War, in your name. Denis was there, as a U.N. humanitarian official, and saw. Did you know your government deliberately poisoned water supplies? And did you know about the Highway of Death? Then there's the truth about sanctions and a half million dead and depleted uranium and things people investigate, but you'll never know. But no, this isn't true, you think. It can't be true. This isn't us. Better to merge with their mainstream and look the other way.
It's not like your leaders kill for hatred, you see. No, of course not. It's purely business, nothing personal. Isn't that better? But will this new war, this forever war, become Chile or Nicaragua times ten? Or times a thousand, perhaps? When will it end? Do they want it to end? Do they care, have they ever cared, about the will of the people? Because how do we manipulate them, and keep them from killing the leaders we install, as we make the world safer for Exxon-Mobile?
They're going to spread democracy, they say, but you've seen how this works. "Is the general who gassed the Kurds really the frontrunner in our Mr. Iraqi pageant?" you wonder. And in this post-Saddam, post-Osama, post-Pinochet world, is control of the world's resources worth the inevitable? In an Age of Preemption and Empire, apparently so.
But, you've never seen anything like it. Worse than Nixon, they say. And you remember Iran/Contra, and all its goons, and how some of them are being rewarded with your tax dollars, even now. Best to ignore these things, of course, it's un-American to notice. In an Age of Preemption and Empire, nationality trumps morality. And as oil companies vie for shares of Iraq's 112 billion barrels and your tax dollars are used to bribe other nations, you concerns are not relevant anyway. We're in big house, now, far from the fields, and it's "not helpful" to look at other people's scars. And besides, do you really want to give up your way of life? No, it's better to merge with their mainstream and look the other way.
Because who else could make the world not only safer, but "better?" And never mind the implications here or that regime change and forever war were envisioned, even before they stole your democracy. And never mind, too, that Paul Wolfowitz's formula for Pax Americana was dismissed a decade ago, because today it's all the rage. After all, hasn't Sept. 11 given us the right? And, yet, you wonder what would happen if another country acted this way. What if China expressed a desire for global dominance and control? Or Russia unilaterally bombed its way across the Middle East? What would we do if Pakistan or India took a first strike stance, too? Don't worry that we opened Pandora's arsenal, though, no. Better to merge with their mainstream and look the other way.
Because Bush Cronies, Inc. finally brought integrity to the White House, they say, even though they had to lie and cheat to do so. It's un-American for you to notice, you see, or to disagree, and if you do, you don't care about national security -- even if you're a veteran of the war they all dodged.
"We must defend freedom and liberty," our selected leader says, and to demand transparency too. Yes, we'd like some of that, too, you think. Because whatever happened in those energy task force meetings; no matter how many of these folks benefit from war, make no mistake: The sins of the father will be visited upon our children. And in though it may be irrelevant in this Age of Preemption and Empire, in the future, redemption may be hard to come by. --Sept. 27, 2002
Pre-Planned War And Oblivious Pundits:
Aweakening To Inequities That Threaten Us All
In his short story "Harrison Bergeron," Kurt Vonnegut depicts a futuristic world in which a Handicapper General insures that no one is smarter, better looking or stronger than anyone else. In this world where everyone is equal, being average is excellent and excelling is illegal. By story's end, we realize that though life isn't fair, forced equity would be less so.
But while natural selection is acceptable (we all can't be Einstein, after all) today we're saddled with a separate, often peripheral class of people who aren't awarded unfair advantage because of their looks, or their brains, or their brawn, but because they're not susceptible to the same laws and rules as the rest of us. Sinister undercurrents from this system of inequities ripple throughout the country. As Enron executives plead the fifth, Dick Cheney dodges subpoenas and our president's insider trading is swept under the "fully vetted" carpet, a beleaguered Martha Stewart becomes the poster girl for privileged smarminess.
Meanwhile, war drums resound with Keith Moonish urgency, beckoning our nation's less fortunate sons to make the world safer for Exxon-Mobile. A document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For a New Century," which was drafted in 2000 for members of this administration (as well as Jeb Bush) proves that plans for perpetual warfare were laid out before Sept. 11 and even predated the stolen election. Like the Wolfowitz formula for "Pax Americana," this 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence' calls for an 'American grand strategy' to last well into the future. Issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the document concedes that global dominance requires military might and states that America's 'core mission' is to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars.' Describing our military as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier,' PNAC packages its plan enticingly, while Texas Democratic Senate candidate Ron Kirk tells it like it is: "Look who would be doing the fighting," he said. "They're disproportionately ethnic, they're disproportionately minority."
But, these inequities aside, imperialistic power grabs simply don't sit well with a democratic populace. Zbigniew Brzezinski addressed ways around this in his book, THE GRAND CHESSBOARD: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. "The pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion," he explained, "except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being." Sept. 11 took care of that.
And so, as today's propaganda competes with phantom Gulf of Tonkin submarines, the zestful, greedy will of the few is once again imposed upon the masses. Egged on by shameless pundits, Armchair warriors spout platitudes and lies, while budding futures become shrouded in uncertainty. In the past two years, 26 states have linked driver's license applications to selective service registration, while a Universal Military Training and Service Act, which would require all young men to report for 6-12 months of military training and education, has been introduced in the House. Forever war is costly. Someone has to pay.
At times, the shilling is blatant. The Dick Cheney/Rush Limbaugh interview, for example, which painted Democrats as enemies of the Reich, would have made Geobbels grin. But if our man-made system of injustice could somehow be abolished, if there were a Department of Equity, for instance, Dick Cheney wouldn't be hawking war on partisan radio. He would not have had "other obligations" when called to serve in Vietnam and would be as reticent as Colin Powell. He would not have made millions through business deals with Iraq, nor would he reap profits from war. And, like the rest of us, he wouldn't be able to openly defy law suits.
Then, too, if the FCC hadn't eliminated broadcasting's fairness doctrine in the 1980s, Paula Zahn wouldn't vilify guests on national TV. Though Scott Ritter swore he's "not courting Saddam Hussein" and that he's motivated by a desire "to [do] the right thing for the United States of America," Paula later said the former U.N weapons inspector had "drunk Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid." Considering she has no qualms openly belittling Ritter, she must be convinced he's lying about Iraq's weapons capabilities and the neo-cons are correct. Given this, would Paula send her son to guard America's interests in Baghdad once he comes of age? After all, Richard Pearl and Frank Gaffney assure us that the Iraqis will dance in the streets, even if saving the day means killing thousands of their countrymen. The people of Iraq will forgive us for sanctions that have killed half a million and for deliberating poisoning their water supply and for the teenage girls who've undergone mastectomies, thanks, doctors say, to our use of depleted uranium. If this isn't so, however, and our policies permanently place our soldiers in harm's way, Paula and others might think twice about denouncing opposing points of view and demonizing messengers.
Andrew Card's stance on Iraq shows similar callousness."From a marketing point of view," he said, "you don't introduce new products in August." This new product was actually prototyped in the year 2000, as described in the GOP party platform, which supported the Iraq Liberation Act as "a starting point in a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein." Card's product will inevitably leave a trail of parents recalling first steps, and voices they'll never again hear. It needs to be nixed.
They say trauma can lead to greater compassion and instill a sense of "there but for the grace of God go I." Not so for Gov. Jeb Bush. Though privilege hasn't shielded him from heartache, particularly when it comes to his daughter Noel, when he labeled her drug abuse "a private issue" and said "the road to recovery is a rocky one for a lot of people that have this kind of problem," we felt his pain. But though he views his daughter's troubles a family matter and health problem, he advocates throwing the less fortunately-addicted into jail. "Why is Noelle Bush sitting in a rehab center while other drug-law violators are rotting in prison?" Libertarian Party Ron Crickenberuger recently asked, "Because her father happens to be a hypocritical governor who believes in one standard of justice for his family and another standard for yours."
Which brings us to the country's most fortunate son. If you or I had been arrested three times, had been caught DUI, had gone AWOL or refused to take drugs tests while with the National Guard, we'd be in jail. George W. Bush, on the other hand, Gumps his way through bad business deals, partakes in insider trading, has BCCI business dealings with some very shady Saudis and becomes president of the United States.
This inequity isn't the acceptable sort Vonnegut wrote of. No, this is maddeningly incomprehensible. It's the kind that gnaws at one's gut, particularly as one wakes to realizations that the soulless and mediocre sit atop hardworking shoulders and cheapen everything others sacrificed for. Maybe it's better, then, to dwell in Paula Zahn oblivion than to suffer though a sense of justice, fairness and empathy?
Filmmaker Steve Tesich, who wrote love letters to America in films like Breaking Away and Four Friends, was described by his sister as being "romantic, sweetly naïve [and] full of optimism until 1990," when his illusions were shattered during the Gulf War. His disgust over America's behavior in Iraq later turned to rage -- particularly as he tried to remedy the media's laziness and disregard for truth during the conflict in Yugoslavia. Yet his essays and letters went unpublished.
"My brother suffered." Professor Nadja Tesich, wrote. "Silently most of the time. He suffered because he thought he was an important writer, whose voice ought to be heard. He suffered because most of the people around him, even old friends, appeared brainwashed, brain-dead. He suffered more than I because he loved America once. That love turned against him. Yes, it can kill you.. . . It was easier for me. I was immunized from before -- Vietnam, Chile, Panama, Guatemala -- the list is long."
"When I heard my brother was dead, she wrote, "my first words to his wife were, 'America killed him.' Yes his anger against it was huge. On some days, powerless, dying for justice, we could only howl together."
That's the price of feeling and of caring and of waking up. We feel powerless. And until more of us awaken, we will remain powerless. What can save us but some sort Dickensonain model of redemption? A Spirit of Compassion Past, perhaps? Who knows? But something has to give. Something has to happen. Because if this unthinking and uncaring injustice continues, it will eventually destroy us all. --09.17.02
The Armageddon Administration
In the early '80s, a Native American woman made several predictions. Foreseeing escalating terrorism, clandestine agreements, high level secrecy, increased propaganda and a series of unwise Supreme Court decisions, she also prophesized a "germ warfare release accident" twenty years before anthrax hit the mail. In interviews transcribed in the book, Phoenix Rising, she also warned of an American police state, a string of unpopular, undeclared wars and a reinstated, but oft-dodged draft. Skeptics might point to some predictions, such as the one concerning nuclear waste transportation accidents and say they're easy guesses, especially since controversy over Yucca Mountain is as old as the hills. But given President Bush's attempt to pass off a decade-old photo as proof of Iraqi evil-doing and Dick Cheney's steadfast refusal to release energy task force records, it's hoped her more promising visions come to pass. She foresees a future where more people start questioning, discover a pit of deception, and finally rebel.
Cross referencing doesn't confirm any of this, however. For example, Nostradamus, didn't take a populist approach at all. Though he prophesized that a "King of Terror" would descend from the skies and usher in a devastating global war, he didn't focus on the war on terror's hidden agenda or whether or not "Bush knew." Interestingly enough, however, he predicted that a world leader aligned with a necromantic cult would be responsible for "setting the East aflame." Anyone familiar with Skull and Bones or Bohemian Grove or oft-repeated warnings linking an attack on Iraq to Armageddon should understand why the more superstitiously-minded believe George W. Bush is perfectly suited for this apocalyptic vision.
Normally, this kind of psychic speculation would remain in the realm of amusement and tabloid journalism, ala Y-2K hand-wringing and sightings of the Virgin Mary in Cinnabons. Surprisingly, however, a recent Time/CNN poll showed that a whopping one third of all Americans are now checking the news for apocalyptic signs. And while Armageddon aficionados logging onto raptureready.com might be easily dismissed, when Brent Scowcroft says an attack on Iraq will lead to Armageddon and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa warns it will "open the gates of hell," these matters take on more weight.
Various mainstream sources have also reported that Christian Zionists are giving End Times prophecies a helping hand. Campaigning to oust the Palestinians in order to make way for the Second Coming of Christ, these groups are not only funding settlers to Israel (while downplaying another aspect of their "to do" list, conversion of the Jews) but are garnering immense influence in Washington. The secretive Council for National Policy, for example, which ABC News labeled "the most powerful conservative group you've never heard of," includes John Ashcroft, Tommy Thomson and Left Behind author Tim LaHaye as former members. Speculation that the council was responsible for Bush's presidential nomination is fueled by the Bush campaign and CNP's refusal to release a tape of G.W's "king-making" speech given before the council in 1999. And as the Washington Post reported last December, "For the first time since religious conservatives became a modern political movement, the president of the United States has become the movement's de facto leader."
Believe it or not, ancient and modern scientists also hopped onto the End Time bandwagon. The Mayan calendar, for example, is based upon precise mathematical equations decoded from a Mayan text. Unlike other ancient calendars, it's more accurate than ours, and ends abruptly on December 21, 2012. Mathematicians have also decoded hidden messages embedded within the Bible. Using a letter-based numerological system created by Jewish mystics and facilitated by computer technology, Michael Drosnin concluded, in his 1997 best selling The Bible Code, that the Holocaust, Hiroshima and Kennedy killings were among major events foretold in the Torah. Predicting the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (whom he personally warned), he also found "terrorism" encoded with "world war," "atomic holocaust" aligned with the year 2006 and 2012 encoded with the phrase "earth annihilated."
Controversy over these findings continues, even among scientists who endorse the Bible code, but debunk Drosnin's work. One mathematician used Drosnin's technique to decode Moby Dick and found hidden messages regarding the assassination of Gandhi, Leon Trostsky and Martin Luther King, while another discovered the phrase, "the code is bogus" embedded in Genesis. Then too, Mayans suggest the world ends in 2012, Nostradamus says there'll be 27 years of war, and Christian Zionists await Jewish control of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of God's temple. In other words, the end is near! Sort of. Kind of. Maybe.
In times of uncertainty, people reach for explanations where none exist. Whether one calls it faith or superstition, we seem to have an innate need to understand that which we cannot. On one hand, it's silly to put stock in these things, while on the other, Hamlet's observation that, "There are more things in heaven and earth. . . than are dreamt of in [our] philosophy" has never been more timely. Which brings us to our clear and present danger: Using the Statue of Liberty and Sept. 11 as backdrops, President Bush continues to shamelessly cull Americans into accepting his agenda: "War is peace. Slavery is freedom. And we're going to attack Iraq no matter what." As one seasoned government official told the Christian Science Monitor, "This administration is capable of any lie. . . in order to advance its war goal in Iraq." Discarded babies and incubators: the sequel? Given Gulf War propaganda expert John MacArthur's assertion that this crew will "make up just about anything ... to get their way," it's easy to see how the Bushies could become the Armageddon administration.
Even considering warnings that a U.S.-led attack against Iraq will lead to Armageddon and open hell gates, chances are, you can still say, "it's not the end of the world" and not hurt your credibility. And face it, only the world's Eeyores believe we are powerless to change our future. But unless we speak out clearly and loudly against this administration's war plans, who knows where it could lead? And why else would this administration maintain an underground government, if they're not preparing for the worse? So right now, no, it's not the end of the world. But until the Bush bunch leaves the White House, it will continue to feel as if it were. --Sept. 12, 2002
Stepford Citizen Syndrome: Top 10 Signs Your Neighbor is Brainwashed
Though much of the world is convinced the 2000 election was a coup d'etat, and many believe we're being lied to regarding 9/11, we Americans are unaware of how numb we seem. Not only are we being coerced into World War III, but at this very moment, unnamed souls are secretly locked away, the Army's drafted plans for civilian detention camps and there's a shadow government buzzing beneath our streets. And yet, we continue to ignore the oily elephant in the living room.
The administration's Iraq war dance is likewise baffling, particularly when Dick Cheney says Saddam can't be trusted --even though, not too long ago, he was trusted to the tune of $73 million during Halliburton/Iraq transactions. Moreover, newly discovered memos reveal that Cheney was also involved in a 1975 cover-up involving the CIA's mind-control experiment, MK-ULTRA. Back then, the government paid $750,000 restitution to Army biochemist Dr. Frank Olson's family, after admitting the CIA slipped Dr. Olson LSD days before his 1953 fall from a New York City building. When the Ford administration finally came clean, they promised they'd revealed everything. Yet according to an article in the "Mercury News," (Scientist's death haunts family, August 8, 2002) key officials, including White House aides Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld pushed to continue to conceal information.
But not only has the government tried to control people's minds, they've copped to controlling the media, too. Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's plan to infiltrate America's newsrooms, was such a success that former CIA director William Colby boasted, "the Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any major significance in the major media." Carl Bernstein substantiated this, revealing that hundreds of journalists and news organizations were involved in this subversion. And though officials have admitted to planting fabrications in the past, it seems they're still at it. Remember the story about the terrorist's passport surviving the fiery crash into the World Trade Center? What could that be but government-issued pabulum? And what else but full-scale public brainwashing accounts for the rash of Stepford Citizen Syndrome spreading throughout the country?
Which brings us to the case in point. Researchers have identified the following symptoms. If you overhear anyone making the following statements, assume they've been brainwashed and intervene immediately:
1) "George Bush is a decent man."
Abraham Lincoln once said, "[I]f you want to test a man's character, give him power." If he steals power, however, the nature of his character is no longer in question. This week's out of court settlement with the NAACP over Florida's foray into election fraud confirms BBC's Greg Palast's report that the election was rigged. Yet pundits ignore this travesty, while referring to Dubya's decency in much the same way our ancestors spoke of Earth's flatness. Overlooking our thrice-arrested president's blatant disregard for civil rights, human rights and the environment, they continue to downplay scandals and downgrade their role as protectors of the public trust. But with oft-repeated quips like, "lucky me, I hit the trifecta" and "if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier," G.W. offers a glimpse at his indecent inner frat boy. Especially revealing was a Talk Magazine interview, in which he mimicked death row inmate Karla Faye Tucker. "Please," Bush whimpered, mocking Tucker's plea for clemency, "don't kill me." Gallows humor is only funny when those telling jokes don't have the power to save people from the gallows.
2) "I have faith in our system of checks and balances."
Certainly, the uproar over Operation TIPs and recent court decisions on FBI abuses and secret deportation hearings are healthy signs. Except, of course, that controversial findings against Ashcroft's Justice Department will most likely be appealed before the same felonious five who handed down the 2000 selection. Chief Justice Rehnquist has already warned that, "in times of war, the laws are silent." Then, too, though the Constitution grants Congress the sole right to declare war, since 1948, America has been involved in approximately 250 military incursions without one single declaration of war. The Bush regime has already said they don't need Congress' approval on Iraq. So much for checks and balances.
3) "We have to defend ourselves, and the war on terrorism is the only way to do that."
Anyone who believes this war is simply a drive to eradicate terrorism must be brainwashed. The U.S. has been building military bases along proposed oil pipeline routes, and has its eye on the oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea region. All anyone need do is read Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard" or brush up on the Wolfowitz Doctrine to understand the not-so-hidden agenda behind U.S foreign policy. In recent appearance on Crossfire, Insight Magazine's Jamie Dettmer deftly addressed America's aim to control the oil fields in Iraq. "Nobody has suggested the United States is going into Iraq to control the oil," Tucker Carlson asserted, leaving some to wonder if Tucker's bow tie isn't too tight. "Let's not be unsophisticated about this," Dettmer replied, warning that, "in the end, if America doesn't restrain itself, [it's] going to provoke groupings of countries which will restrain America instead."
4) "Since September 11, George Bush has shown strong leaderships skills."
Since September 11, George Bush has led us away from progressive policies and alienated us from the rest of the world. British papers describe the biggest rift between Europe and the U.S. in more than 50 years, 85 percent of Germans no longer trust America, and veteran reporter Helen Thomas bemoans how, "friends and allies wonder what's happened to the United States." Our $7 trillion surplus has followed the president's example and gone AWOL, while unemployment, crime and intellectual numbness are on the rise. Under Bush's "leadership," the U.S. has become the kid who picks his nose in class. Those of us who love America are embarrassed; others are repulsed.
5) "Europeans don't agree with us because they're effete appeasers."
Europeans don't agree with us because we're wrong. They understand the geopolitical motivations behind this war, as their press isn't as censored. In America, however, stories about Enron's involvement in the proposed oil and gas pipeline though Afghanistan were squashed, and if you wanted to know about the Taliban's trip to Texas, you had to learn about it in the National Enquirer rather than on Meet the Press.
6) "George Bush's administration is filled with solid, foreign policy pros."
Aside from Colin Powell, George Bush's cabinet is swarming with neo-conservative ideologues who'd be clamoring for an attack on Iraq even if the atrocities of 9/11 hadn't occurred. Despite the chorus of countries opposed, Dick Cheney unilaterally forges ahead, while Donald Rumsfeld says he's certain America will receive backing from the international community. Meanwhile, the international community scratches its head and wonders what's become of our once great nation.
7) "George Bush is doing an excellent job in the war on terror."
Given limited media coverage, how would anyone know? Unless one digs through foreign press and alternative media reports, there's little to go by. When one reads reports from journalists like Seymour Hersh, however, a different picture emerges. Stability in Afghanistan is but a myth, warlords carry out atrocities without intervention, and the State Department is forced to guard President Karzai. Meanwhile, many warn that Bush's plans for Iraq could lead to Armageddon. Yet "Bush is doing an excellent job in the war on terror?" How?
8) "People who say the Bush administration 'let 9/11 happen' are conspiracy nuts."
Forget the president's odd behavior on September 11. Ignore that jets weren't scrambled from Andrews Airforce base, or that the FBI reportedly thwarted investigations. Pretend there are no connections between the Bushes, bin Ladens and the Saudis or that Bush #41 doesn't profit from this war through his connections with the Carlyle Group. Imagine, for a moment, it doesn't matter that those heading the closed-door investigation into 9/11 met twice with the former Pakistan intelligence chief, who reportedly helped finance Mohammed Atta. And never mind that, despite warnings, only 14 planes were defending our mainland on September 11. These oddities could be explained through coincidence and incompetence rather than complicity.
That said, remember this: After World War II, the CIA recruited Nazi scientists to share information later used in the aforementioned MK-Ultra program. In the '60s, the Pentagon drafted plans to kill American citizens and blame it on Castro as a pretext for war with Cuba. And Army-based concentration camps aren't merely a gleam in Ashcroft's eye. The brainwashed are conditioned to hear "conspiracy" and shut down, however, immediately deducing information isn't true and the messenger is daft. But even Bill Clinton reportedly asked Webster Hubbell to find answers to two questions: "One, who killed JFK? And, two, are there UFOs? " He never found out. And odds are we won't either. Even so, it's not crazy to demand an independent investigation into 9/11. Nor is it nuts to wonder why the administration is doing everything in its power to make certain we never uncover what went wrong.
9) "The media is liberal."
Ann Coulter complains about the liberal media through the "liberal media," where she's regularly given a forum, yet Michael Moore has appeared on less than a handful of shows, though his book's been a bestseller for six months. During the election, the corporately-controlled media portrayed Al Gore in a negative light, while touting Bush's phony ranch-hand charm, and according to a report in F.A.I.R (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), 75 % of the dominant sources of opinion on all three major networks are Republican. Yet the brainwashed continue to believe the media has a liberal bias. Go figure.
10) "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!"
This phrase has replaced, "Saddam gassed his own people!" as the #1 mantra of war-mongering dittoheads. But despite former weapons' inspector Scott Ritter's assertion that there's no proof Hussein has amassed weapons of mass destruction, Dick Cheney says there's "no doubt" he's got them and plans to use them. During the Cuban missile crisis, John F. Kennedy relayed photographic evidence proving the Soviet Union was up to no good. Where's the proof now? Why hasn't the administration won over our allies? Why do so many doubt there is "no doubt?"
Latest polls indicate that nearly half of all Americans believe the First Amendment "goes too far," proving that Stepford Citizen Syndrome is now a national crisis. We have an obligation to rouse our loved ones out of their stupor. If we don't, the thugs who've stolen America will steam-roll right over us. And if you can't see that, chances are, you're brainwashed.
Why this King George is Worse than the First
By MaureenFarrell, August 30, 2002
Anyone who's ventured into Independence Hall has felt it. Whether gazing towards the chair in which George Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention, or ogling the spot Ben Franklin occupied during the Second Continental Congress, the energy in the Pennsylvania Assembly Room is palpable. Perhaps it's the "phantoms of lost liberty," one senses, or the spirit of America herself, but whatever it is, it feels as if someone punched a hole in the wall that separates the here and now from the events that shaped our nation.
Down the street, at Philadelphia's 7th and Market, tourists are treated to more of the same. A marker in the Graff House courtyard reminds visitors they're entering the very site where Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence. Upstairs, two rooms Jefferson rented are painstakingly recreated, while downstairs, copies of initial and finished drafts dot the walls. Next to those is a framed quote from philosopher John Locke, from whom Jefferson borrowed heavily. "Great mistakes in the ruling part," Locke wrote, "will be borne by the people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses. . .. all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people. . . it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the end for which government was at first erected." It's impossible to read those words, especially in light of the imperialistic Bush presidency, and not appreciate from whence we came.
Exploring our nation's most historical mile is always haunting, yet this year, it's as if the forces that forged us cry out to us. The tyranny Jefferson and Franklin warned of is upon us with both a vengeance and a Texas twang, and now that Bush's goons have decided they need not seek Congress' approval before attacking Iraq, Colonial "taxation without representation" seems but an inconvenience by comparison.
When Ann Coulter says that liberals hate America, what she really means is that liberals (and several conservatives, in case she hadn't noticed) hate the Amerika she endorses. Did our ancestors sacrifice for the benefit of Exxon-Mobil? Did Patrick Henry fight for the Bill of Rights so John Aschroft could squash it? And when did "free speech zones" start trumping free speech? Though our right to petition the government has fallen by the pepper-sprayed wayside, most of us love the country to which we were born.
True patriots cringe at the notion that love of country means blind allegiance, however, particularly when our government conducts itself immorally, illegally or shortsightedly. We hate the way our country has been hijacked by thugs to become the very monster our forefathers (and Dwight D. Eisenhower) warned against. The first King George has been replaced by a second, who worries not for the fate of the unemployed or newly deployed, but complains that the "saddest thing about the presidency" is that his daily jog is cut short. Enthroned on a distant self-involvement, our imperial president promises peace though war, and freedom through unthinking compliance. Meanwhile, he and his cohorts hide traces of their true agenda, lying shamelessly and vilifying an unending parade of enemies, while the media dutifully deflects the truth. What is America supposed to stand for anyway? Continuous military intervention and a quest for global dominance? Or a Republic founded upon democratic principals and laws?
For those who love America, the founders' words are hymns. The country we love differs from that proposed by the sullied and sordid voices of those who profess to represent us, as does our notion of what is ugly and unacceptable. Imagine, for example, if Benjamin Franklin or James Madison were to debate George W. Bush or John Ashcroft. Or if Thomas Jefferson were to take on any of today's overexposed talking heads. All it would take is one Hardball debate featuring Jefferson and Coulter to see how far we've fallen, and why King George II is worse than the first.
Though eerily timely, Jefferson's brilliant observations on the separation of church and state or on how a "monied aristocracy" is hoarding power that should be "restored to the people to whom it properly belongs" might not be aired. Because by the time he expounded on the need for a free press and Ann rattled off hateful tirades about Tim McVeigh and the New York Times, he might wonder why he bothered.
Jefferson's belief that an educated populace is "the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty" would only frustrate today's audiences, anyway, especially when Coulter's coarse assertion that "a cruise missile is more important than Head Start" reflects our modern reality. Likewise, her view that "we need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals," confirms Jefferson's notions that "law is often but the tyrant's will." And sadly, though Jefferson swore "eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" our citizens seem to lap it up. How else can anyone explain how Coulter's assaults on intellectual tolerance and her vilification of those who don't goosestep rightward have made her a best-selling author? "[I]f Americans knew what they [liberals] really believed," she noted in Slander, "the public would boil them in oil." Sure sounds like tyranny to me.
Even worse than toxic pundits, however, are those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and have instead cynically undermined it. When you compare these statesmen and statements, the danger we face becomes starkly clear. Jefferson's observation that government's most sacred duty is to impart "equal and impartial justice to all its citizens" is countered with the Justice Department's assertion that the president has the right to indefinitely detain some U.S. citizens without filing charges. Benjamin Franklin's warning that, "those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety," is tempered by several of this administration's fascist policies, including the mother of them all, the Patriot Act. And Jefferson's remark that, "no one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another" is negated by Bush's "axis of evil."
But James Madison's insights are perhaps the most chilling. In fact, his words would be so perilous to those in charge, that if he were around today, he'd most likely be sidelined from mainstream debate. "Of all the enemies to public liberty," he mused, "war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded." Saying that war creates conditions "for bringing the many under the domination of the few" and leads to "inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud," he wisely concluded that, "no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." This advice is particularly timely when contrasted with Bush's declaration of continuous war, until "every terrorist" has been "found, stopped or defeated," (or his cronies are covered in defense contracts and American-controlled oil).
After visiting our nation's first capital, it's hard not to wonder what would happen if Jefferson, Franklin and Madison did return, for a time. They'd be horrified by the prospect of forever war and troubled by the emperor's latest decree that, while he may consult Congress, he doesn't need approval before committing us in Iraq.
Chances are, these founding fathers would also be denounced and vilified and called "anti-American" -- as part of "a long train of abuses. . . . all tending the same way."
The views expressed are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect those of Bush Watch.