By Mike Hersh
Republicans demand absolute power -- the "trifecta" control of the White House, the Congress, and the Judiciary. We must deny them the omnipotence they seek. The Bush administration is illegitimate, corrupt and inept. Their economic policies -- favoritism of their big special interest contributors over the national interest -- have failed miserably.
They failed to keep us safe leading up to 9/11, but plan to divert our anti-terror efforts -- as well as risk thousands of American lives and squander hundreds of $billions we don't have -- to satisfy Bush's personal blood feud against Saddam Hussein. Today, Dick Cheney tells us we must risk our young peoples' lives to attack Iraq. A few years ago, Cheney's company was making $millions in business deals with Saddam. This is just one example of GOPocrisy.
Most Republican voters are decent people who do not support their party's extremism, but simply don't want to hear the proof about how far out of touch their party is. They have inklings that the Bush Occupation and their supporters in Congress lack credibility, but Republican voters discount things they don't want to hear. We have to confront Republicans of good conscience, and force them to face these facts about their chosen party. It may be uncomforatable to challenge them, but we have no choice.
Today, Dick Cheney tells us we must risk our young peoples' lives and spend several $billions per week to attack Iraq. A few years ago, his company Halliburton was making $millions dealing with Saddam. In between, Cheney repeatedly lied to us American people about it.
Cheney did millions of dollars of business with Iraq between 1998 and 2000 as CEO of Halliburton. When he denied Halliburton did any business at all with Iraq in the 1990's, he lied. The Washington Post and even the right wing website NewsMax expose the facts proving Cheney supported Saddam's Iraq and deceived us about it.
The Post reports: "During last year's presidential campaign, Richard B. Cheney acknowledged that the oil-field supply corporation he headed, Halliburton Co., did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries. But he insisted that he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq. 'Iraq's different,' he said."
Now it appears Cheney lied to us when he claimed he did not have business relations with that man, Saddam Hussein.
"According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company." See: Firm's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said, Colum Lynch, Washington Post, June 23, 2001, reposted at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm.
Newsmax and UPI report: "Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm." See: Halliburton Iraq Ties More Than Cheney Said, NewsMax, June 25, 2001: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml.
Bush appointed Cheney to run the antiterrorism task force. Even the conservative, pro-Republican magazine Businessweek questioned this: "For starters, critics will home in on the apparent collapse of U.S. human intelligence and raise questions about the vigilance of the FBI and the new antiterrorism task force headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney." See: Act of War, Lee Walczak, with Alexandra Starr and Richard S. Dunham, Businessweek Online, September 24, 2001: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_39/b3750601.htm.
According to Time Magazine, the outgoing Clinton national security team briefed the Bush people in depth on Al Qaeda. "Long before the tragic events of September 11th, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaeda. It didn't happen and soon it was too late. The saga of a lost chance." Time reports a top Bush antiterrorism official Richard Clarke who has "served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism" warned of the impending attack and outlined steps to "roll back" Al Qaeda:
As Time details: "Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. A senior Bush Administration official denies being handed a formal plan to take the offensive against al-Qaeda, and says Clarke's materials merely dealt with whether the new Administration should take "a more active approach" to the terrorist group. (Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which [Clinton National Security Advisor] Berger was present.)"
Bush administration denials ring false, as Time explains: "Other senior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, however, say that Clarke had a set of proposals to 'roll back' al-Qaeda. In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, 'Response to al Qaeda: Roll back.'"
Again according to Time Magazine, Bush's appointees including Cheney's derelict antiterror task-force pointedly ignored "Clarke's proposals [which] called for the 'breakup' of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel."
Time establishes that had Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft done their jobs, "The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble-Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen-would be given aid to fight the terrorists."
Unforgivably and tragically, Bush and Cheney disdained Clarke's demand for "a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to 'eliminate the sanctuary' where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime." See: Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented? Michael Elliott, Time Magazine, Aug. 04, 2002: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html.
Time Magazine also reports, "Last summer the White House suspected that a terrorist attack was coming. But four key mistakes kept the U.S. from knowing what to do." See: How the U.S. Missed the Clues, Michael Elliott, Time Magazine, May 18, 2002: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,238564,00.html.
The Clinton administration presented Bush and Cheney with a full-scale plan which could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, but they ignored this from day one. Throughout the summer of 2001, FBI agents warned the Bush Administration of impending terrorist attacks. As threats increased, Bush's top appointees -- including Cheney, Ashcroft and the FBI directorship -- did nothing. Bush himself went on an extended vacation. Why did they ignore these warnings?
This failure rests squarely with Bush and Dick Cheney, the man he appointed to coordinate antiterrorism policies. He worked with Enron and other companies to bilk investors, consumers and employees when he should have led FBI, CIA and other agencies' efforts to keep us safe from attack.
Cheney was in charge of the antiterrorism task force which never met once before 9/11. Cheney did manage to meet with Enron executives several times. No wonder he is doing everything he can to cover up his dealings with Enron and others developing his pro-oil company energy policy.
The Bush administration is blocking investigations into their failure to protect us from terrorist attacks. Are these issues -- energy policy and terrorism -- somehow linked? Why are they lying about 9/11? What else are they hiding?
Republican policies simply do not work. Their economic policies already cost millions of jobs, squandered our surplus, and threaten to drive us back in the ditch. Their national security policies leave us insecure. They cost us more than ever before -- not just in $billions but in needlessly lost American lives.
More Republicans in power would only mean more lost jobs, more lost lives, and more lost opportunities. Republicans had their chance, they did not lead, and now it's time to replace them with Democrats. Still, Republicans keep lying to the public, and the media keeps letting them get away with it. It's up to us to hold them accountable. We must free our nation from the Bush Occupation.
Deny Republicans the absolute power they seek. Vote Democrat. Make your friends and family vote Democrat. Don't let the Republicans steal another election. Get the word out. Get the vote out. It's up to you.
© Copyright 2002 by MikeHersh.com
Celebrate the Victory of Diplomacy
Iraq Unconditionally Accepts Weapons Inspectors
By Mike Hersh (c) 2002
Monday, September 16, 2002 The New York Times reported "Iraq unconditionally accepted the return of U.N. weapons inspectors. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said, "I can confirm to you that I have received a letter from the Iraqi authorities conveying its decision to allow the return of inspectors without conditions to continue their work." ( see: >NY Times: Iraq Agrees to Readmit Inspectors, U.N. Says
There is no longer any pretext for a military attack on Iraq. Our treaty obligations, the United States Constitution, and international law require reliance on renewed weapons inspections. The international community supports our efforts to render Iraq harmless short of unprovoked and now clearly unnecessary, invasion. US policies have already achieved every legitimate, logical objective in this matter.
Recent arrests of suspected terrorists outside Buffalo, New York, and in the Middle East prove our war on terror requires vigilance as well as help from our allies around the world. While desirable, we have no real justification for an attack on Iraq to engineer a "regime change" there.
There is no evidence Iraq was behind the September 11th attacks on the United States, much less that dividing our anti-terror coalition and diverting our armed forces would promote the War Against Terrorism. In fact, the opposite appears true.
Inspections during the 1990s eliminated Iraq's capacity to use weapons of mass destruction. Renewed inspections will identify and eliminate any remaining Iraqi threat. This is a triumph for US and UN diplomacy. The Bush administration has earned the right to declare victory on this front, and should begin to refocus on the Al Queda terrorist threat as well as address our growing domestic and economic problems.
Many believe the contrived timing of this discussion is pure partisan politics, something even Bush spokesperson Ari Fleischer deplores. There is only one way Bush and his people can assure American voters that this has not been a cynical effort to manipulate upcoming elections. Bush should embrace this victory as an opportunity to win the battle without having to fight the war.
The Bush Administration is at a crossroads. Either they can accept this triumph -- forcing Iraq to back down from confrontation without resort to US invasion -- to address our legitimate national security and profound domestic needs. Or else they can remain fixated on aggressive, highly risky and unwarranted militarist "solutions" in search of a problem.
The latter would betray a they followed a hidden agenda based on oil, personal enrichment, partisan manipulation of elections and other shameful aims. Bluntly, any further attempts by the Bush administration to foment warfare would confirm lack of good faith and ulterior motivations. --Sept. 17, 2002
Dems And Decent Repubs Will Take Back Country From Bush
To support Bush, Republicans have to put their party ahead of their country. Each day, more Republicans and Indies realize Bush's Enronomics derailed the economy, and his foreign policies make no sense. They have a choice - support an unelected, unqualified failure, or do what's best for America.
Already, we're seeing Republicans distance themselves from Bush on important issues like campaign finance reform and prescription benefits. The unanimous vote against Bush in the Senate on the Sarbanes business accountability law might have been the turning point. Elected Republicans are unwilling to follow Bush as he tries to mislead them - and us - into the abyss.
Sen. McCain and Sec. Powell are already actively opposing Bush's idiotic policies. I wonder if the frustration factor will lead Bush to explode - as he did with Jeffords - causing similar defections from those two and others who know Bush is ruining the country?
Republicans who have integrity put country ahead of party. I think the Democrats' strategy is to work with decent Republicans as much as they can, in a holding action until the elections. If and when Democrats regain the House, they will become proactive. As it is, they're on the defense and remain reactive.
I saw this during the 1980s with Reagan. Tip O'Neill - hardly a wimp - worked to contain Reagan as much as possible until the Democrats retook the Senate. Then they reversed the ills of Reaganism, and started investigating the dozen dozen crooks in the Reagan administration - including Reagan himself and Poppy Bush.
If their strategy fails to deliver wins at the polls, or if Democrats don't put Bush in his place (and the Bush crooks in prison) I'll be the loudest voice calling for more guts and glory from the Democrats. I'll be looking for tougher Democrats to replace any who don't lead the fight against the Bush Occupation.
I see indications the Democrats' strategy is working, because decent Republicans who care about America cannot and will not support Bush much longer. Moderates understand Bush is not the compassionate (or competent) conservative he claimed he was.
I think we only have to hold on for 3 more months. I predict strong showing by Democrats at the polls. Even if the Bush Occupation holds on this election cycle, their outrages, abuses and crimes guarantee their doom. They're a dead ideology walking.
People are angry with Bush for giving 40% of our surplus to the top 1% richest few, and for letting his CEO pals run amok. As the truth about Bush's special favors for Kenny Boy Lay and the rest become known, Bush will reap the whirlwind.
Tales of the energy rape of California will ensure that huge state stays solidly Democratic, and the rising Democratic demographic tide in several states - including Bush's Texas - will bring a new flood of Democrats into the Senate and House.
The Bush Occupation is just about over. Strong showing at the polls by Democrats in three months will end Bush's reign of error. Then we'll begin the long, hard process of repairing the damage and building a better future.
Conversation with a Naderite
I wrote an article "Nader Democrats, Please Come Home" (see second story below) in which I explained the stakes in the upcoming 2002 Congressional elections. We need to work together, and stop the Bush Occupation before it's too late. Almost all the feedback was extremely positive. Because of the rancor remaining from 2000, Nader Democrats felt ostracized and many wrote thanking me for the invitation to rejoin their party.
I should stress that I do not speak for all Democrats. I have no position with the DNC, the DLC or any other alphabet soup. Also, I do not defend or support all the actions of all Democrats. Some of the Naderite criticisms hit home, and we should work on that. However, first things first. We cannot make much if any progress on any important issues so long as the Bush Occupation dominates our Nation.
The Bush Occupation offers endless war, war on our most basic rights, a listless economy dominated by corporate crime and rampant greed, massive increases in military spending choking off needed investment in the future: education, environmental protection, development of alternative energy, and more.
With all this so clear, most former Nader voters understand. They welcomed the olive branch, and now dedicate themselves to reversing the damage the Bush Occupation will leave in its wake. Therefore, I was gratified to read that an olive branch offered and accepted gets the dialogue going, and many Nader Democrats are happy to support our efforts against the Bush Occupation. Unfortunately, not all Nader voters are so forward thinking.
There are some who still nurse personal grudges, unfortunately. I wish I could find some way to reach through the lingering bitterness to convince well-meaning Nader voters. Here is one such attempt. One Naderite wrote to me:
July 01, 2002 Subject: Nader Democrats Come Home: "No way. After 9/11, the war in Afganistan, and now the war against the Palasteinans, the support of the Democrat party for all, the time has come for the Democratic party to go the way of the Whigs as an obsolete party that has lost all its principles."
"After marching at the 2000 Democratic under the loaded guns of the LAPD, seeing the Constitution of the U.S. left in shreds in the streets of Los Angeles, and then hearing Al Gore commend the cops for what they did, I will never support the Democratic party again."
I responded later that day, perhaps too flippantly: LA cops were mean to you? I'm sorry, but I've been punched in the face by a cop, and it didn't turn me against working for progress. When they hit you, did Al Gore thank them for doing it? Thanks for writing!
He replied July 13, 2002: "He most certainly did. I heard him say so on TV. He commended them for doing a fine job after what they did on the streets outside the convention and at the subway station on the last night."
"I hope you are under no illusion that you are doing anything or saying that might bring Nader democrats like myself back to Democratic party. You certainly are not. That would happen only if the party returned to its historic Roosevelt working class base. I don't see any possibility of that happening. I certainly hear no such suggestions from you."
When I contested this claim that Al Gore praised police brutality, my correspondent took strong exception. I wrote back to him the same day: No, Gore didn't praise police brutality. You are entitled to your beliefs, but I know I am bringing many Nader Democrats back into the fold. You can choose to further empower the right wing - as Nader does - if you wish. I hope you come to your senses and work for the best USA and Democratic Party we can have, rather than embrace Naderite Nihilism.
Note that in all of this, the Nader supporter considered whatever general remarks Al Gore made about the police (which he never quotes directly) as an endorsement of police brutality, even "[T]he Constitution of the U.S. left in shreds in the streets of Los Angeles, and then hearing Al Gore commend the cops for what they did."
Going by the anger and lack of accuracy in his statements, I can't tell what really happened. What was he doing? What did the cops do? We don't know. We do know that Al Gore never went on the "local news" to celebrate police brutality or shredding the Constitution as this person claims. Can't tell our Nader supporter that, however.
He replied on August 05, 2002: "Bull shit. I heard him on TV. Local news. I saw what happened on streets of LA. You weren't there. It is people like you have your head in the sand that guarantee that people like me permanently left left the Democratic party."
"Tell me about the Free Trade for the Americas, passed with the support of Citibank Senator Tom Daschle and other Senate Democrats. Tell me about the Bankruptcy bill passed with the support of Citibank Senator Tom Daschle and other Seante Democrats. Tell me about he tax cut for with the support of Citibank Senator Tom Daschle and other Senate Democrats. Tell me about Libermann's comments today about how Gore was wrong to appeal to populism."
"I and others have not deserted the Democratic party. The Democratic party in general and the Democratic Leadership Council in particular has deserted ordinary people by joining the Republicans in Legislative class war against them."
Because most of these comments are rhetorical questions which assume false facts - Sen. Daschle didn't support Bush's tax cuts, and in fact led the fight against them (where was Ralph?) - I focused on just one of these broadsides:
"Tell me about Libermann's [sic] comments today about how Gore was wrong to appeal to populism."
Again replying the same day, August 5, I wrote: You miss the main point. That proves Gore *did* appeal to populism. Gore was by far the most populist candidate in 2000 - far more than Nader whose constituency was mainly well-off whites and their college-aged kids. These people can afford Bush's assault on labor, women, minorities and the rest of the heart and soul of the progressive movement, unlike the victims of Bush policies which are ripping apart America at the seams.
Actually, with the double dip Dubbya recession, many of the young Nader voters who took the Clinton/Gore economy for granted are moving back in with mom and dad. Bush's voodoo "Enronomics" - like Reaganomics of the 80s - is killing the American dreams of a whole generation of college graduates.
The real progressives supported Al Gore and vice versa. People like you who deny that shouldn't lecture others about heads and sand, my friend. People who have litmus tests which disqualify Democrats for various positions and actions but support Nader have a double standard. Nader fails where Al Gore gets an A+ as real progressives understand. That's why the real progressives supported Al Gore.
Al Gore champions the causes of all progressives, and has for decades. He was an early leader demanding public financing of congressional elections, and remains a leader on real campaign finance reform (CFR). Gore is a leader on national health, which is why Ted Kennedy supported him from day one in 2000. Gore presents a real and workable plan to get to national health care - the same approach Hillary Clinton advocates.
Gore fights for and respects equal rights for gays, women and minorities. Gore offers a comprehensive workable plan to wean America from fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine. He endured ridicule for this, but he's right and his critics - including Nader - are wrong. Nader only offers empty words, unrealistic and unfulfilled promises, and ... Bush.
Nader busted unions, opposes gay rights (mocks their issues like AIDS research and anti-hate crimes laws as "gonadal politics"), never did anything for women or immigrants or the poor or unions. Nader talked a good game during his presidential runs, but in reality he's nowhere on most progressive issues and never has been anywhere.
Nader started out as the champion of large, "safe" cars and thereby set back the move toward smaller, more efficient cars years or decades. When the oil shocks hit, Detroit hemorrhaged jobs which we've never gotten back. Michael Moore should blame his mentor Nader for the ills of Flint. It all goes back to Nader's deeply flawed "Unsafe at Any Speed."
Although he's been a "bougie" (bourgeois) backer of clean hiking trails and a birdwatcher's friend on the environment, that's not helping the people most in need, and it shows. Nader's support in 2000 came from the well off and the white. Poor and minority voters shunned him, as they can spot a phony a mile away.
Nader has been a yuppie white middle class male hero. In 2000, he lied to his friends and supporters when he vowed never to help Bush, but did that and worked hard to keep the election close enough to steal. Nader violates all of these progressive litmus tests - several of which Gore passes easily.
The bottom line is this. Even if Nader were as good or better than Al Gore - and I just proved he's not even close - Nader never had a chance to do anything in 2000 except help the most pro-corporate and anti-labor, pro-sexist and anti-woman, pro-pollution and anti-environment, pro-racist and anti-civil rights, pro-oil and anti-alternative energy, pro-globalist and anti-human, anti-choice, pro-Scalia and pro-Clarence Thomas, anti-freedom, jingoistic, as well as least qualified, compassionate and conscientious candidate.
Nader was well aware of this, and helped Bush anyway. You cannot defend this, so you make up stories about Al Gore wanting the police to hit you with a stick. OK - then think of it this way. If Gore beat you with a stick, then Nader hit all of us with a Bush.
-------------
I think this demonstrates the problems many mainstream progressives have. We try to appease people who falsely accuse and posture: "the time has come for the Democratic party to go the way of the Whigs as an obsolete party that has lost all its principles," and vowing "I will never support the Democratic party again."
Maybe it's time to respect people like this enough to take them at their word. No matter what harm or crime the Bush Occupation commits, no matter how wise, just and progressive a Democratic candidate is, they will never support a Democrat or help us oppose the right wing. OK - they make their position clear. So why should we discuss anything with them? What do they bring to the table or offer us by way of help? If we credit their accusations, we only cripple our own efforts.
As most progressives know, the horrors of the Bush Occupation are self evident. People may quibble about Nader's intent, but not the effect of his candidacy in 2000. Much less his current efforts running stalking horses in close, key Gubernatorial, Senate and House races against people like Paul Wellstone, Robert Reich and Ron Kirk. If it's pointless to debate Nader's role in 2000, it's equally critical to understand and oppose Nader's efforts in 2002.
If the GOP takes the Senate, it goes from a slim Democratic plurality to a Republican rubberstamp Senate. Now, it's an "obstructionist" brake on the Bush Occupation, holding the line against Bush's worst abuses. ANWR? Call it ANWELL, as in oil wells as far as the eye can see. CFR? Call it gone. Medicare? Social Security? Bush is still pushing "privatization" of both, even after the Bush Bear market broke records for failure set by Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression.
Nader is actively helping the GOP hold the House, State Houses, and most ominously, retake the Senate. People who support Nader now indirectly support the right wing's efforts to consolidate their extreme ideological power on the federal bench - from the lower courts to the US Supreme Court - for a generation.
A slim majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee endures constant attack as they block Bush's most extreme right wing judges. Will they get reinforcements in 2002, or will the right wing win, and reverse civil rights, choice, pollution controls, worker protections and so many other hard-won victories?
Still, some people accuse Democrats of supporting Bush's tax cuts - if not police brutality and Constitution shredding. This is odd, considering Nader's silence during the Florida fiasco, and his gushing praise of Bush in 2001 and 2002. Even after the Bush Occupation's shocking attacks on voting rights - especially for minorities, free speech, habeas corpus, and even talk of unleashing our military against us through repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act! All this while Nader remains silent.
The Bush Occupation offers endless war, war on our most basic rights, a listless economy dominated by corporate crime and rampant greed, massive increases in military spending choking off needed investment in the future: education, environmental protection, development of alternative energy, and more.
With all this so clear, most former Nader voters understand. They welcome the olive branch, and dedicate themselves to working against and reversing damage the Bush Occupation will leave in its wake. Unfortunately, not all are so forward thinking. Some hate Democrats so much they would rather help Bush to spite Democrats - and in so doing they spite themselves. Those who still blame Al Gore and Tom Daschle, Paul Wellstone and Barney Frank for Bush's abuses seem beyond our reach.
I urge Nader Democrats to unite with other Democrats against the Bush Occupation. We need all the help we can get. So much so that we cannot waste time on Naderites who hate Democrats. They demand a Democratic Party like FDR's, but they are helping Bush give us an America like Herbert Hoover's - and J. Edgar Hoover's. I think it's a huge waste of time to try to convince people who practice politics of self destruction by following Nader's nihilistic path. We have to focus on the positive, and build a coalition of people who know the Bush Occupation is the threat to our rights and freedoms.
Inspect Iraq - Don't Attack
The top question today is Iraq. Are we going to attack? Or when are we going to attack? And why? We are a single-issue group working to stop the coming invasion of Iraq. War will kill many Americans in uniform, and many innocent Iraqis already suffering under Saddam's rule - including infants and children. We urge a better way.
We all know the "wag the dog scenario." It's no secret Republicans are in big trouble as the November elections come closer. We don't believe the Bush administration would create a war for partisan politics, but his top man Karl Rove did admit that is their best issue. We consider questions of war and peace nonpartisan matters. Luckily top Senators on both sides of the aisle agree.
Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware is known as a straight shooter. He took off after Bill Clinton many times, and Sunday July 28, he was on the talks shows saying it would be "irresponsible" if Bush led us into war for political reasons. He added that Bush hasn't explained what we would do after we depose Saddam. Republicans like Sens. Lugar of Indiana and Hagel of Nebraska also question this impending invasion.
July 29, USA Today reported "many congressional leaders - including those who support the use of force against Saddam - worry that the administration needs a clearer justification than the belief that Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction." According to the USA Today, Biden says Bush has "no Constitutional authority to invade," and he hopes the Bush people have the "resolve" to do the right thing.
As it stands now, we'd be going it alone. Our allies are not with us on an invasion. Jordan's King Abdullah II calls plans to invade Iraq at this time "ludicrous" and even our #1 ally England isn't with us on this. Most of all, it's not necessary to invade. We won the Cold War without attacking the USSR, so containment works. We already have total air control over Iraq, and we've got them locked up economically.
Most people agree Bush's father pulled back because he didn't want to commit us to 10 years of military occupation or more. If Iraq has poison gas and bio-weapons, and we can find out where they are and destroy them without letting Saddam use them, we should do that.
We don't want to even think about how many American troops would die in an invasion. That's not even counting casualties during any occupation afterward, and all the innocent Iraqis killed. Then there's all the money this will take. Bush I had to raise taxes to pay for Desert Storm, and that was just to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. Even so, that Bush left office with a $290 billion deficit! Bush II will have to raise taxes even more and roll up an even bigger deficit to get Saddam out of Iraq.
According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Iraq is not now a threat to the United States. Weapons inspections can prevent Iraq from becoming a threat. Ritter, a former Marine intelligence officer wrote a book, Endgame, "Solving the Iraq Problem -- Once and for All." Even if we have no choice but to attack someday, inspectors would help determine the best course of action. But Bush is leading us headlong into an war. See: RED ALERT: October War in Iraq.
The bottom line
is this: invasion isn't called for at this time. Containment is working.
It worked against the USSR, and it will work against Iraq. We don't
have to invade to ensure our safety. We have better, safer, less dangerous
alternatives. We can and should demand resumption of weapons inspections
and we can always invade if the circumstances warrant. They certainly
do not warrant a costly, bloody unprovoked attack by the US. That's
why we say "Inspect Iraq, Don't Attack." --July 30, 2002
Nader Democrats, Please Come Home
By Mike Hersh (c) 2002
I understand "Nader Democrats," because 22 years ago, I was a "John Anderson Democrat." I felt the same way about Jimmy Carter Nader Democrats seem to feel about Al Gore.
Other, better writers -- Joe Conason, Eric Alterman, Greg Palast -- have gone over these points, but mainly from a place of astonished anger at Nader. I've written angry articles as well, but this time I want to write a different kind of article.
I consider Nader himself a lost cause, but I will not abandon good people who saw Nader as a worthy cause -- the Nader Democrats.
I remember that the day after Election Day 1980, my government professor Isaac Kramnick, now Provost of Cornell University tongue-lashed Anderson supporters for helping Reagan. We didn't think Reagan could possibly win. Our professor knew better.
Professor Kramnick realized Carter had flaws, but understood what we didn't. Carter was a decent man and a worthy President. Reagan was neither. He also knew that making the perfect (or idealized) the enemy of the good (or realistic) makes for dismal results.
Even strident Greens concede Jimmy Carter was a better President than he was given credit for. Proving my point. The point is not that Carter was correct on every issue. He wasn't. The point is my own decision was wrong. It was based on emotion more than good sense.
I was angry with Carter over military increases, draft registration, and other issues I forget now. I helped Anderson. That helped Reagan -- the worst President in decades, a disaster for working people, the poor, the environment, and innocent victims at home and abroad.
I don't excuse my mistake. I knew better, although it was my first Presidential Election. After the debacle in 1980, I've never helped another GOP by splitting from my party. But this is not about me. It's about the lesson I learned the hard way.
No one is saying Nader is always wrong or Democrats are always right. What we are saying is very simple. Nader is wrong about Democrats when he claims they are no better than Republicans. He knows this is a lie, even if some people don't understand. The evil of the Bush Occupation goes without saying. Look at all the excellent articles at this site demonstrating the existential horror.
Sometimes Nader says Democrats are beyond saving, and he doesn't care how many liberals lose to right wing GOPs. He doesn't mind helping the right wingers hold the House and retake the Senate, because he claims they are no worse than Democrats and may be even better. But Nader proves he doesn't really believe this.
Nader also claims he is trying to bring Democrats to the left. If Democrats and GOPs are just about the same, as Nader claims, then why does he bother trying to save us? Nader is using mutually contradictory rhetoric to suck the life out of the progressive movement. Nader aims different pitches at different people to hurt our cause as much as possible.
I don't know for sure that Nader understands the harm he's doing, but the harm is obvious and his concern--if it exists--is invisible. If Democrats and GOPs are the same, why isn't Nader demanding progressive votes from GOPs, and demonizing them when they don't act as he demands? He does that to Democrats, but not to the "identical" Republicans.
Nader is too busy bashing Democrats to tell the truth about the GOP. He knows almost no GOPs will vote for him, so he's not trying to take votes from them. He is trying to take votes from even the most liberal Democrats like Paul Wellstone. He's less liberal than they are, so he has to fudge the facts to take away their support. But this isn't about Nader, it's about the Nader Democrats.
I respect Nader Democrats enough to tell them the truth: Coddling people doesn't do anything to help them. It's either patronizing them or worse. I will do for others what my professors and other wise people did for me.
If you please come home, you will find many Wellstone Democrats, Kucinich Democrats, McKinney Democrats and others who will welcome you with wide open arms. We need you to challenge the appeasers and wimps in our party. We need your fire, energy, and idealism. We need you to retake our party and retake our nation.
Nader Democrats, Please Come Home!
Bush's Honesty Deficit
By Mike Hersh (c) 2002
I poured over the data from the 2000 election, and I found some very odd results. People who thought Gore was too liberal and voted for Bush -- that makes sense. People who thought Gore was too conservative but voted for Bush -- that doesn't.
I was struck by how many people admitted Bush wasn't up to the job, but voted for him anyway. (See: Decision 2000, http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=N1) I can think of a few reasons for this.
One is the media relentlessly bashing Al Gore with dishonest attacks on his character -- even on his choice of clothing -- while ignoring Bush's deep flaws, Texas record, and shady dealings.
Remember the flap about Naomi Wolf telling Gore to wear "earthtones?" The media frenzy about Al Gore "inventing the Internet," inspiring Love Story, and "discovering" Love Canal? All those came directly from Republican National Committee "attack faxes" and went directly into print and on the air -- not as paid political commercials. As "news." All of them were lies.
When a lone reporter dared report what Bush did in the Lone Star State, it was so anomalous Bush attacked him with a profanity. The reporter became the story, and the real story -- Bush's record in Texas -- all but disappeared.
Remember Adam Clymer and what Bush called him? We all do. Remember what Clymer wrote that brought on Bush's blast and Cheney's "big time"remark? Most voters didn't.
That was no accident.
The Clymer incident demonstrated almost unanimous media support for Bush in every way that matters. Just as the Naomi Wolf tempest showed the media sunk to all time lows to blast Al Gore. If the media did their job, Al Gore would be doing his, serving as President, as we elected him to do in 2000.
Why did they do this? Most media millionaires wanted Bush to win. If there were any questions about this, The Daily Howler put them to bed. (See: http://dailyhowler.com/archives_00.shtml)
It may have been the tax cuts, or orders from the corporate suites. Karl Rove cut a deal with the media moguls: if we get in, you can merge and acquire each other to your hearts' content, we will not enforce FCC or antitrust regulations. The why is important, but the what is clear. The mass media -- where almost all of us get the "news" to choose our leaders -- became Republican stenographers rather than reporters.
Another is the cynical, but expertly designed Republican dirty trick machine which fed a steady stream of lies to a compliant media.
The Republicans realized Al Gore would win easily on the issues and would benefit from a strong economy, peace, his experience, and general professional qualifications. They set out to attack Al Gore as a phony, striking early and often, belittling everything he said and accusing him of lying whatever he said. Their strategy: turn boring Boy Scout Gore into a lying Clinton clone. It worked.
I estimate Gore lost (and Bush gained) up to 4% because millions of voters considered Gore too dishonest to support. Without this apparent "honesty deficit" Gore could have won 54% to 46%!
We know this kind of GOP attack is coming again in 2004, no matter who runs against Bush. This time, we know Bush has a real "honesty deficit," and we should be ready. We must also anticipate all the new GOP dirty tricks, and millionaire media complicity with them.
The Media Supports Michael Moore Because He Marginalizes Bush's Critics
by Mike Hersh
Some people think I am "trashing" Mike "Stupid White Men" Moore, and not crediting him enough for lashing out against Bush. People say it's great Moore is speaking out, and we should embrace him. That's their opinion, and I respect that. This is my view on Moore.
I know many people also speak out, but the media is pushing Moore in front of the TV cameras while ignoring the others. My question is, why? The media clearly support Bush. They think Moore is helping Bush, and that's why they give him room to rant. They might be right. They might be wrong. Let's do the math and decide.
I believe the mass media let Moore to speak because they think he has marginalized himself and the more he talks, the more he marginalizes all Bush's critics. Even the name of Moore's book "Stupid White Men" is -- as a friend put it -- designed to enrage the 'Reagan Democrat' types who decide every election.
First, let's get Moore's actions during 2000 out of the way. Here is my opinion, and I doubt I will ever change it: There was too much at stake in 2000 to pretend there was no real difference between Gore and Bush. Moore told this killing lie repeatedly with tremendous impact. Actually it goes even deeper than that for me.
I keep remembering how Moore blamed Al Gore for the accidental death of a little girl in Michigan. Moore spewed this lie, knowing it was a lie, and that it helped the most pro-gun candidate ever steal the White House. Knowing he was helping Charleton Heston, Wayne LaPierre and their fellow NRA gun nuts "open an office in the West Wing."
Next time some little kid dies from a gun shot, should I write an "open letter" blaming Mike Moore for helping the NRA make guns cheap and easy to obtain by kooks, kids and crooks? If I had the same character and sense Moore does, I sure would. Of course I won't. That's asinine.
Even so, Moore spewed this lie about Al Gore, knowing Nader shied away from bruising fights against the NRA, which Clinton and Gore led. Fights Gore promised to lead as President. A promise which lost Gore 100,000s of votes and probably cost him states like West Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, and Arkansas. Where is Moore's embrace of Al Gore for those courageous, principled stands? Cue sound of crickets.
This is not about trashing Moore for dancing around like a trained monkey mocking Al Gore at Nader rallies in 2000. This isn't about how Moore was personally instrumental in helping the least qualified major party candidate in decades steal the election. This is about cold hard math. Let's overlook Moore's past, and ask the only question that matters. Is Moore helping us or not?
I can see the benefits of any loudmouth or crank attacking Bush. I can appreciate Moore and any other face on TV putting out the ideas that Bush is a crook who should resign. That's what Moore and I believe is true. But is Moore is helping us? Is he persuading people? Who is he reaching other than those already open to that message?
My friend impressed upon me that most people think our anti-Bush message is "from Mars." If that's true, then Moore isn't really helping. I think he may be expanding the pool of potential Bush critics, but not by much. Not enough. Not the way he's doing things. I know Moore is energizing people already on our side, that is, against Bush or at least willing to listen to criticisms of Bush. But if we already have all of those people, there's no net gain there.
If I were in Moore's place, feeling the rage against Bush Moore seems to genuinely feel, I might do the same thing he's doing. I am not a hypocrite, so I am not hostile to Moore for going over the top. I am doing the same thing Moore is, but with a critical difference.
When I write to lists of like-minded people, I energize them but do not "frighten the horses" or enrage the masses -- the voters we know decide every election -- against us. I am narrowcasting, and trying to craft a winning message we can use to swing undecided voters our way.
It comes down to zero-sum electoral mathematics. If Moore is really convincing more undecided people to turn against Bush than against us, he is doing some good. I think he is doing some of that, but be is also turning off far more undecided people, driving them toward Bush.
This is why. Moore is couching accurate criticisms of a popular goon by kicking all white men in the crotch. Is this helping? I don't think so. Even worse, I believe Moore is demoralizing and leading away some of the people we already with us. It's the same thing he's done all his career.
Moore is broadcasting and ranting, not even trying to build an election winning coalition. It's the same fatal mistake Nader and Moore always make. I hope I'm wrong. I hope Moore will stand up to Bush, and not stab us in the back again.
I agree we can thrill at the rants Moore directs against Bush, but my joy is tempered. When a purported liberal enrages voters, who wins? The right wingers win. They win elections and consolidate power. Also, I expect Moore will spew the same overheated attacks at Democrats during the critical stage of the 2002 and 2004 elections that he spewed during the 2000 campaign. The higher Moore's profile, the more he can damage Democrats when voters are deciding.
When Gore and the Democrats talk about step-by-step progress toward national health, I can accept that. When they say we need new and cleaner energy, phasing out the internal combustion engine, and tax cuts which don't enrich the top 1% with 40% of the total money, I see sensible and good people, not the "lesser evil" Moore still attacks.
I don't know what I see when I look at Bush, but it's hard to consider him a human being. When I see people who know or should know better deny the critical differences between Gore and Bush or pretending there are no important differences, I do not see a friend. I see a liar, a moron, and / or a jerk.
Let Nader, Moore and the Naderites them speak out and try to earn back my trust and respect if they care to. Until then, I will cut people like them the same slack they cut Al Gore and Democrats. Which is none.
Smoking Gun in Enrongate
By Mike Hersh
If Curtis Hebert is Right, Bush Broke the Law--Again.
Former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Curtis Hebert, Jr. is going public with explosive allegations. Hebert says Enron CEO Ken Lay--the largest contributor to George Walker Bush--made improper demands.
When Lay threatened that his close friend Bush, would fire Hebert unless he obeyed, Hebert refused. Lay ordered Bush to fire Hebert, and Bush complied in August 2001. Hebert has been on record about all of this for months, but he recently made a new, even more explosive charge. Hebert says Bush also let Lay INTERVIEW him and other candidates for FERC Chairman in the first place!
In a nutshell: Enron gave Bush $millions to sponsor his rise from a losing Candidate for the US House to the "leader of the free world." In return, Bush gave Enron "hire and fire" authority over the FERC, and performed other favors in return for money. This directly and personally ties Bush to the Enrongate scandal in all its illegality.
Bush betrayed his oath to the American people when he let Ken Lay hand pick regulatory watchdogs we entrusted to prevent the massive meltdown that cost Americans $billions. This makes letting the fox guard the hen house look like tender loving fiduciary care.
This is nothing new for Bush, who fired Texas Funeral Service Commission (TFSC) director Eliza May in retaliation for her investigations of Service Corporation International and its CEO Robert Waltrip. Waltrip--like Enron's Lay--is a longtime Bush patron.
Bush lied under oath regarding this political quid-pro-quo, then he and SCI settled a lawsuit to keep May quiet. Texas taxpayers picked up $155,000 of the hush money tab, while SCI paid May the other $55,000, according to a Dallas Morning News story published 11/09/2001. Texans know this scandal as "Funeralgate."
The Rule of Law requires that Bush testify under oath about Funeralgate, his and his Brother John Ellis Bush's Votergate activities during the 2000 election in Florida, and Enrongate. We already know George Walker Bush has an established pattern of helping his friends and backers evade regulation and possibly even criminal charges!
We must demand action now, because Enron and its accountants at Anderson have been destroying evidence by the box-load. We must know what Bush did, and why he did it.
Enrongate is not just a Bush scandal: this is a Republican scandal. Other top GOP officials like VP Dick Cheney, White House advisor Karl Rove, House Leader Dick Armey and Sen. Phil Gramm also helped Enron plunder and evade regulation. They helped Enron rip off consumers, investors and employees.
Ignore Republican and media efforts to spin this as a business scandal or a bipartisan scandal. This is not about the generous, but legal contributions Enron made: 73% to Republicans, 27% to Democrats. This is a GOP political scandal because Republicans helped Enron pay no taxes in four out of five years, while hiding profits in offshore accounts. Despite the hype, no Democrat did anything of the sort.
Even with all these special favors, golden boy Ken Lay ran Enron into the ground. Adding insult to injury, if not perfidy to perjury, the Republican "stimulus porkage" aims to give Enron and Lay even MORE of your tax money.
This Republican scandal exposes GOP corruption at the highest levels, but more profoundly, it reveals the bankruptcy of the GOP "government is the problem" ideology. It blows the lid off Bush's Enronomics, and his plan to Enronitize Social Security, energy and other policies.
I am currently working on another article concerning these fundamental failures in Republican philosophy. For now, back to the immediate scandal. Already, Armey and Gramm are quitting politics to escape Enrongate, but ending their careers to enjoy tax-paid pensions may not be enough to satisfy justice and the Rule of Law.
These top Republicans--all outspoken critics of President Clinton's conduct in office--should welcome full-scale investigations into their own apparent influence pedaling. As should House Whip Tom DeLay, VP Cheney, George Walker Bush, and other GOP leaders. As should Ken Lay, Sen. Gramm's wife Wendy--a former regulator turned Enron board member.
If they broke the law, they should pay the penalty. That's been the Republican mantra for nearly a decade. Let them prove they meant it by volunteering to testify before the US Senate--under oath, on national television. If they're innocent, what do they have to fear? They should welcome the opportunity to come clean or set the record straight.
Despite their nonstop pontificating about others' lacking accountability, I'm not confident these Republicans will step up and do the right thing. We must take it upon ourselves to demand justice and uphold the Rule of Law. Call the media and your elected officials NOW to make sure they understand the real issues in Enrongate, Funeralgate, and Votergate. Let the investigations, perhaps even impeachment begin! --Mike Hersh
The Dallas Morning News: Texas/Southwest Ex-funeral agency chief settles suit 11/09/2001. By GEORGE KUEMPEL / The Dallas Morning News. www.dallasnews.com/texas_southwest/STORY.ea0f50d542.b0.af.0.a4.c348f.html
CNN.com - Former regulator: Enron tried to manipulate policy ... Curtis Hebert, Jr., FERC chairman in the Bush Administration www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/01/15/enron.probes/?related
Votergate information: http://www.gregpalast.com/ Theft of the Presidency http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency
Editorial Policy: All entries are dated and documented as needed.
Text (c) Politex. Permission of author required for reprinting.
Duration of working link not under our control.
Updated daily at various times.
Send all e-mail to Politex.
|
|
|