Subscribe to
"Inside Bush Watch"
and you'll
get
breaking news and broken promises,
quotes, jokes, blokes, and tokes.
For you? Free. Such a deal!
for
Bernard Weiner...
...www.bushwatch.com
home... news... specials... novel... 'toons... archives... site map... us... e-mail...
By Bernard Weiner
I don't want to talk here about whether a full-scale attack on Iraq is right
or wrong -- or whether, with all the scandals surrounding Bush&Co., the
Administration is using its daily leaks and the whole Iraq debate as giant
distractions.
What I want to do here is to examine whether such attacks -- with Iraq being
the most potent symbol of America's unilateral adventurism in foreign and
military policy -- will further or endanger America's national interests. And
then we'll suggest what those of us with a less imperial view of U.S.
national interests can, and should, do to alter the situation.
First, let's look at it from the point of view of the Bush&Co. hawks
currently driving America's foreign and military policy. From their vantage
point, attacking Iraq will accomplish several important national-interest
goals:
1) It will remove a dangerous, ambitious thug from the region, with his
capacity for major mayhem -- which could well include Saddam's use of
biological, chemical, and, eventually, nuclear, weapons. If he isn't stopped
now, this reasoning goes, and he chooses to blackmail his neighbors with such
weaponry, he could exercise control over a good share of the world's oil
reserves, and thus threaten the economic health of the developed countries
that count on that energy supply.
2) Taking out Saddam Hussein would serve as a clear warning to other rulers
in the Persian Gulf/Middle East: Don't test us, or you'll get the same.
American suzerainty over the area would be insured for decades, and, after
Iraq falls back into its correct orbit, all without an additional shot having
to be fired. Because of all the bases set up for the Iraq attack, with some
contingents of American troops stationed in the region on a semi-permanent
basis, the threat of U.S. action against other would-be recalcitrant rulers
would take on more believability.
3) Attacking Iraq gives the military a chance to try out its new,
sophisticated hardware, and software, and thus hone the technologies and
strategies that bolster American power around the world. Afghanistan was the
prelude, but because it was carried out on such a poor, mostly non-urbanized
society, a lot of the weaponry could not be fully tested. The Afghan campaign
was, and remains, a kind of high-tech guerrilla war. Taking on Baghdad and a
well-armed and well-trained urban defense force would be a better test of
what these weapons can do in more conventional conflicts.
4) Attacking Iraq has a domestic benefit as well. The al-Qaida mass-murder
attacks of 9/11 frightened the hell out of the American populace, making
clear the vulnerability of the homeland; this state of mind led to easy
acceptance of moves toward a more rigorous, militarist America, with less
Constitutional constraints on Administration actions. The "permanent war on
terrorism" ensures that citizen and Congressional criticism of U.S. policy
will be muted, and condemnable as unpatriotic.
In wartime, power goes toward the White House. Even non-war-related
legislation will be easier to get passed because it can be seen as part of
"national security" and "homeland defense." A second Bush term is ensured.
(If the attack comes before November, GOP candidates could ride the coattails
of Bush, as the country rallies around the flag and its commander-in-chief.
If the war comes after the elections, the Administration has nearly two years
in which to nail down a victory over Iraq and get it fully integrated into
the Western camp.)
*****
So, from the standpoint of the Bush&Co. hawks, as you can see from the above
listing, it's a win-win. As the world's only superpower, the U.S. guarantees
continued dominance over key areas of the globe, and the Administration
maintains and grows its domestic power.
What impresses one about this Bush&Co. way of thinking is that it looks at
foreign policy only in terms of short-range goals. Its domestic policies
follow that same limited perspective: What can we get right now? Screw the
long-term effects. Global warming? We'll stay with fossil fuels and limited
gas-mileage requirements; let the market prevail. We can worry about the
effects of global warming later, and still later, and even later. Increased
terrorism in the Middle East and inside our own borders? Yeah, maybe, but we
and Israel can deal with it later, no problem.
*****
Now, what are the implications of this limited-vision thinking on short- and
long-range U.S. national interests?
1) So we get rid of Saddam Hussein. We have attacked yet another Arab nation,
devoid of an overt provocation. Granted, its leader is a constant nuisance
and threat to U.S. and Western interests -- and thus is a kind of hero on the
Arab street -- but, even though Saddam attacked nobody, he gets
"pre-emptively" taken out.
Virtually every Arab leader has warned us against attacking Saddam Hussein,
not because they like him or even want to support him -- he's a maniacal
bully who threatens their interests as well, and they'd be happy if he
disappeared -- but because their own regimes will become even shakier when
that Arab street erupts in protest and the terrorist atrocities fluorish. A
good share of the Arab leaders are moderates and somewhat secular, and they
realize they are bucking a strong Islamicist tide in the region. They might
well be sucked into the political maelstrom of chaos and Islamicist rage, and
could be overthrown by extreme fundamentalists.
Does Bush&Co. care about this? Apparently not; neither does it seem to have
paid much attention to the Law of Unintended Consequences when starting a
war. Unless, that is, they've already factored-in some of that chaos in the
region. Indeed, already there is serious talk within the Administration that
maybe the U.S. will then find it necessary and convenient to assert its
hegemony -- with troops on the ground, if threats don't result in the desired
"regime changes" -- over Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, maybe even
Egypt. (It already has established its suzerainty over the Caspian Sea energy
supplies, with U.S. military bases scattered throughout the former-Soviet
'stan countries.)
2) By not addressing the underlying causes for social unrest in the Middle
East/Persian Gulf (much not of our doing) -- the poverty, the hopelessness,
the Palestine conundrum, etc. -- we ensure that the soil in which terrorism
grows will become richer, more fecund, producing more desperate and violent
harvests. The U.S. should help solve the Israel/Palestinian conflict first,
for example, but it chooses to turn its head away -- focused like an on-point
hunting dog only on Baghdad -- while Sharon and Hamas grow more senselessly
brutal, caught up in the vicious cycle of revenge politics.
Given that the U.S. has walked away from the Palestine issue -- except to
push for "regime change" in the Palestinian Authority -- the Arab street
associates even more readily with Saddam, another "victim" (as they see it)
of American/Israeli aggression. Were the Palestine situation resolved -- with
a viable state of their own, the Israeli settlements on Palestinian soil
abandoned, a peace treaty between the parties, security for Israel and
Palestine as two equal countries, agreements over water worked out, etc. --
Hamas and similar terrorist outfits would be marginalized, and there might be
less support for the Saddams of the Middle East.
3) By attacking Iraq, the U.S. will have established the international
legitimacy of pre-emptive strikes, invasions, assassinations, etc. to effect
"regime change." When someone threatens, or in the vague future might
threaten, what you claim as your national interests, the precedent will have
been established that it's permissable, indeed even advisable, to attack them
first, to invade if necessary, to take out their leaders when you can. No
more negotiations, or compromises, or use of international agencies or
courts. The United States of America, the colussus astride the globe, says
it's OK to just smash and burn first, take questions later. Humanity,
civilized behavior, the rule of law -- all these slide backwards.
4) In summary, by behaving in such an arrogant, bullyboy fashion around the
globe, Bush&Co. is building up anti-U.S. resentment and anger, creating
conditions in which terrorism grows, ignoring and insulting our traditional
allies (especially in Europe), risking our long-term economic and social
health, and so on. In the long run, the world is a shakier, more violent
place, U.S. interests are damaged, the international economic and civil
situation is more chaotic (and we all know what kind of leaders rise in
chaotic times), the domestic political situation in the U.S. grows more
fascist-like, with a concomitant rebellion amongst key elements in the
citizenry.
In short, I fail to see any benefits, long-term for sure but even reasonable
short-term ones, that would arise from the Bush Administration's current
military and foreign policies, symbolized most immediately by its move toward
Baghdad.
When Bush took office, surrounded by a well-seasoned, experienced Cabinet,
many were willing to believe that even if Dubya himself was something of a
dim bulb, the light and competence emanating from those around him would lift
him up and make the government look good. But after 9/11, and more recently,
it seems more and more evident that these guys, with their limited short-term
blinders on, don't really know what the hell they're doing, other than
blustering their way through with threats and aggressive behavior.
My friends, unless the situation changes, they are going to take us all down
with them. The world will become a charnal house of wars and counterwars and
constant, growing terrorist atrocities -- with the U.S. acting more like the
Roman Empire, sending its armed legions hither and yon to prop up the state
and deal with nationalist revolts -- and internally our own country will
resemble more and more a proto-fascist society, with its ancillary
Resistance movement.
For the sake of U.S. national interests, and for us and our (and the world's)
children and grandchildren, these guys simply have to be stopped. Protests,
teach-ins, agitation, education, letters-to-the-editor, online analyses,
leaning on our legislators, etc. etc. -- all these and more have to be
employed, for the sake of our democratic republic and for the world.
The most obvious place to start is for Bush&Co.'s nose to be bloodied badly
in the upcoming November elections, to remove some of the Administration's
aura of invincibility. (Already, polls indicate a fast-dropping Bush approval
rating, along with less support for an Iraq invasion; plus, the sinking
economy is beginning to affect people directly.)
I'm not saying that defeating enough Republicans to deny the House and Senate
to them will be a panacea. A lot of the Democrats running are not much
better. But what a Dem election victory would mean (in association with a
growing number of courageous GOP moderates) is that it would be easier to gum
up Bush&Co. adventurism abroad, make it more difficult for Ashcroft to
continue shredding the Constitution, keep ideologue judges off the bench,
make it easier for serious investigations of Bush&Co. crimes, scandals, bad
policies to be initiated in the Congress, possibly leading even to
resignations or impeachments.
If we can't stop them now, in 2002, it will be even harder in 2004, with that
much more power concentrated in Bush&Co. hands. So, if you have to, hold your
nose and donate money and time and energy to electing Democrats in November.
(I wish the objective conditions were ripe for serious Green campaigns right
now, but they aren't; the most we can hope for at this moment in time is to
move things back toward the middle.) We can get rid of the worst apples
later.
The point, the only point, is to break the momentum of Bush&Co. in their
actions abroad and here at home, and to help create the conditions that will
lead to their removal from office, by the ballot or by
resignation/impeachment. It can be done. More citizens seem open to hearing
about reasonable alternatives, especially as the economy continues to falter.
Let's get to work.#
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught American government and international
politics at Western Washington University and San Diego State University; he
was with the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly 20 years, and has published
in The Nation, Village Voice, Progressive, and widely on the internet.
By Bernard Weiner
Dear Diary:
This is so much fun! Watching those harebrained idiots try to figure out what
to do with me makes me smile. They couldn't get me under the last Bush who
tried, and it's not going to be any easier this time.
Is it because I'm beloved by my people, who loyally will resist the American
invaders and their British and "Iraqi Opposition" lackeys? Of course not. I'm
no fool. I rule by power and threat and torture and murder. But I'm still
here.
So what if I have to rub out some Kurds or an entire layer of lieutenants or
colonels when I suspect an assassination plot? The troops and populace
receive the lesson and I still have my head.
Yes, of course, I'm doing all this out of love for #1. But I'm also quite
conscious that I have been, and remain, a gigantic symbol in so many ways.
For the nation of Islam, and especially for its beleagured Arabs, I'm a hero,
because I am a constant irritant to the West, and especially to America, and
none of them knows how to scratch me away into oblivion. I stand up to them
when nobody else does, and, even though most of my fellow Muslims hate my
guts and are scared that I'll maybe attack them or otherwise bring ruin to
the region -- especially when my nuclear arsenal is completed -- they admire
my courage and patience in the face of so much overwhelming power. My
audacity and tenacity -- catchy, yes?
For the Americans, I am a symbol of "evil" who must be eliminated because: 1)
They foolishly ended their last war against me and went home without
finishing the job. (Yes, I realize they rationalized their decision by
"keeping him in power as a counterweight to the fanatical mullahs in Iran.");
2) They think I'm developing "weapons of mass destruction" and might use them
against Israel, neighboring oil-countries, or even pass them on to terrorists
to attack the U.S. directly. I'm not that dumb; I know what they'd do to me
-- a nuclear missile right into my deepest bunker -- but they can't be sure
they know what I'd do, and I like it that way.
Probably the cleverest thing I did during the last U.S. invasion was to set
the oilfields ablaze. They weren't expecting that one. Now they don't know
for sure what I'm capable of doing; I might just be loony enough to unleash
biological and chemical weapons on the advancing U.S. troops, or fire off a
few missiles full of the stuff into Tel Aviv. (Actually, I'm less worried
about the Americans -- they're just confused -- than I am about the Israelis.
They took out my fledgling nuclear program once before, and this time they'll
simply level everything they think is weapons-related. And it'll all be over
in a day-and-a-half.)
The father Bush was an old-time warrior, and a former CIA hand as well. I
could figure out how he'd move. This younger one, though, is something of a
crazy cowboy, and he's already demonstrated that he's capable of anything.
Yes, of course, he's a doltish puppet, but the folks around him use him well,
and his ignorance and threatening bluster -- and his Texas fascination with
violence -- actually serve their cause well.
Speaking of violence, damn that bin Laden guy! Even though I don't believe
any of that religious crap, I was setting myself up as the savior-to-be of
the Muslim/Arab world -- and had resurrected my weapons and research programs
after I got the U.N. inspectors to leave -- and then he had to come along and
engage the adoration of the Islam street by striking the American beast in
his own lair. And then Arafat, that corrupt poseur, to counter bin Laden
decided he'd have to ratchet up the rhetoric and violence against mad-dog
Sharon's Israel -- leaving me out here, hemmed in and handicapped by my
situation, twiddling my thumbs. At the most, I was #3 in the hero sweepstakes
in the Middle East. Qadaffi, poor soul, retired.)
Thankfully, George W. Bush has made my stock shoot up once again, by labeling
me one of the dread "axis of evil," whatever that means, and promising to
come and get me. I'm a contender again, and I don't have to show you no
stinkin' anything.
Besides, you wouldn't find anything. Sure, I've got my biological, chemical
and nuclear programs and missiles, but they're scattered and hidden
underground so skillfully -- I didn't waste these years since the U.N. left!
-- that nobody will ever find them, not even if I have to permit the
inspectors back in. They found a lot in those early days, but after awhile,
those dolts were so easy to fool. And we made their job such a hassle --
simply by endlessly delaying their work, and standing up to them and at times
threatening them -- that they took flight.
That's the secret of my success -- infinite patience -- along with
determination, nastiness, and never, never giving in totally to the West.
Eventually, they get tired of dealing with a hard-headed dictator and back
away, or compromise. Their leaders come and go. The embargo has more holes
than a collander. And I'm still here.
True, I don't like moving around from palace to palace every night or two, but
the dance is still fun. Especially when I read about how divided the Bush
Administration is about what to do with me. Their military, and the British
military too, are opposed to a Western attack on Iraq, as well they might be
-- we'd tie them up here for years, and send a lot of their young men home in
garbage bags -- but the civilian "hawks" in the White House and Pentagon (who
have never fought in a war, of course) are raring to take me out.
They want me out of the picture, but not just because I thumbed my nose at
Daddy Bush and got away with it. What they really want is control of the oil.
Not just Iraq's but the whole thing: the Middle East, Caspian reserves in the
'stans (the Afghan pipeline slots in here), Venezuela, everywhere.
Of course, I have similar ambitions, at least for this region -- I almost got
Kuwait and I think maybe I could have taken Saudia Arabia too -- and for
what I can do politically with the power of that oil-tap. I could create
economic chaos and depression in the West, get them to lean on Israel,
guarantee a Palestinian state's viability, become even more of a hero amongst
the Muslim masses. I wouldn't even need "weapons of mass destruction" against
the West.
In short, I'm in the way of their master plan. If they can kill me, they'll
install some equally brutal military leader, but he'll be beholden to the
West, and the Middle East/Gulf once again will be totally under the thumb of
outsiders. I'll do anything to keep that from happening, maybe even taking
them down with me if they force the fight. The worst thing that can happen is
that I'll be seen as a martyr for the cause.
But I don't think it'll have to come to that. I'll diddle with the U.N. for
awhile (maybe agree to a quick, one-month look-see), try to make sure that no
Arab states offer staging bases to the Western attackers, rattle my own
sabers, and probably the U.S. will "postpone" its attack.
Sure, Bush will look weak, but he'll spin it and come at me from another
direction, another time. And guess what? I'll still be here. #
Bernard Weiner, playwright and poet, was the San Francisco Chronicle's
theater critic; a Ph.D. in government & international relations, he has
taught at various universities, and been published in The Nation, Village
Voice, The Progressive and widely on the internet.
Hold Your Nose And Vote Dem. Why Bush Must Be Stopped, Now
Inside Saddam Hussein's Diary: "I Don't Have to Show You No Stinkin' Anything"
By Bernard Weiner
As we approach the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it might be useful to see how far an ordinary citizen's knowledge has progressed one year on. So here, in the way of a summing-up, based on journalistic documentation, is a list of things we Americans have learned since last September -- some of which might prove useful in the run-up to the November elections.
1. We've learned that Bush&Co.'s "war on terrorism" has morphed from finding and destroying those responsible for the 9/11 mass-murders to a worldwide campaign to install a Pax Americana, by force if necessary. In other words, neo-imperialism, reminiscent in many ways of the old Roman Empire or, closer to our own time, the British Empire.
2. We've learned that Bush&Co. has no desire to rethink any of its policies abroad, the same policies that isolate it and that generate hatred, suspicion and terrorism in so many regions of the globe. Rather than reconsider its pol icies, or try to accomplish its ends through diplomacy and alliances and cultural/economic initiatives, in its arrogance it continues to bully and threaten others, insult its European and other allies, disregard international treaties and courts, engage in unilateral actions without regard to the national interests of others, and, in general, simply throw its massive weight around. The prevailing attitude seems to be: We are the one Superpower, get used to bending to our will.
3. We've learned that Bush's national-security leadership was alerted months ahead of 9/11 (and, it has admitted, no later than August 6) that a major air attack from al-Qaida was in the works, along with the likely targets, but did nothing to try to prevent those attacks or warn anyone about them. Caught in their own lies, they blame "the system," especially elements in the FBI, for "not connecting the dots."
4. We've learned that plans already were in the works prior to 9/11 for the evisceration of Constitutional guarantees of due process of law. The White House hustled the so-called USA PATRIOT Act through a frightened Congress in a patriotic blur, just a few days after the attacks, with few, if any, of the legislators having had time to read the final version.
5. We've learned that prior to September 11, the Bush Administration was negotiating with the Taliban about a pipeline desired by a U.S.-led energy consortium that would cross through Afghanistan. When the Taliban balked, the U.S. negotiators told them they either could accept a "carpet of gold" or face a "carpet of bombs." The Taliban backed away from the deal and refused to hand over Osama bin Laden; shortly after the terror attacks of 9/11, the U.S. began bombing in Afghanistan.
6. We've learned that now with the Taliban having been overthrown, and a U.S.-friendly regime installed in Kabul, the pipeline project is back on track, designed to carry energy supplies across Afghanistan from the Caspian Sea area to near India. Hamid Karzai, the new leader of Afghanistan, formerly was a consultant on the payroll of the pipeline folks; likewise, the new U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan.
7. We've learned that Bush&Co.'s Homeland Security Act includes programs that bear an amazing resemblance to totalitarian programs from the fascis/communist end of the spectrum: getting the military (restricted heretofore to activity outside the U.S.) involved in domestic policing, signing up neighborhood and block snoops to work for the central government, investigating what books citizens are checking out and buying, denouncing those deemed insufficiently patriotic or suspicious because of their views, etc. Remind you of Stalin's Russia, Castro's Cuba, Hitler's Third Reich, the Stasi of East Germany? (There also are prototypes of patriotic youth leagues being tried out in cities, which could become a national program.) A kind of martial-law coming to a neighborhood near you.
8. We've learned that Ashcroft/Bush are shredding Constitutional due-process guarantees in their move toward total control: already they have compromised attorney-client privilege, removed habeus corpus protections, locked up folks with no charges, secreted citizens at military installations which puts them out of reach of the judicial system, violated privacy in rifling through personal telephone and email communications, etc. etc. When the ambiguously-worded PATRIOT Act was first brought up, Ashcroft and Bush told us not to worry, promising that these rules would affect only non-citizens. Since that time, American citizens have been handled in similar fashion. Coming to a neighborhood near you.
9. We've learned much about the dangers of religious fundamentalism in Islam, but we've also learned about dangers posed by our own religious fundamentalists -- eager for a Christian theocratic society, symbolized most recently by a Secret Service agent scrawling on a Muslim suspect's refrigerator "Islam Is Evil, Christ Is King" -- and the extraordinary power they wield within the Bush Administration, represented most openly by John Ashcroft, who in frame-of-mind resembles a Taliban mullah.
10. We've learned that the FBI, focusing now on foreign terrorists, doesn't seem energized with the same zeal to catch domestic terrorists, such as abortion-clinic arsonists -- and especially the anthrax-dispenser. Though the FBI seems to know that the anthrax villain probably worked at a government bio-lab, nobody has been arrested, or even targeted as a prime suspect. It may not be likely, but the unsaid is finally being asked: Could this dangerous terrorist actually be working for the government?
11. We've learned that the HardRight of the Republican Party has taken control -- of the House leadership, of the Supreme Court, of the White House, of much of the conglomerate-owned media -- and has demonstrated its willingness to do nearly anything to maintain that power. (Only the courageous defection of Sen. Jim Jeffords from GOP ranks is standing in the way of HardRight total control of all three branches of government.) More and more truly objectionable HardRight judges are being nominated by Bush in an e ffort to stack the judiciary for decades to come. This by a man who lost the election by more than half-a-million votes, coming into his White House residency, with no popular mandate, only because his supporters on the Supreme Court installed him there.
12. We've learned that to break the momentum of the HardRight, all energy for the upcoming November elections (less than 90 days away, let us not forget) must be expended in electing Democrat candidates and defeating Republican ones. The objective conditions are just not ripe yet for anything more than trying to move the country back toward the middle of the political spectrum. We progressives more in tune with the Greens (Green candidates are being supported secretly in many states by the Republicans, to try to defeat Democrats) will have to wait. The difference between Democrats and Republicans may seem small to Greens and others, but, as we've learned in a painful way under Bush&Co., that difference is immense when it comes to foreign and domestic policy and its actual effects on real people, here and abroad.
13. We've learned that Cheney is up to his ears in Halliburton irregularities, and may be liable for indictment for participating in financial fraud. In addition, we've learned that Cheney, who was the head of the task force that came up with a corporate-friendly rather than a consumer-friendly energy policy, has refused to turn over to Congress the requested documents that will reveal how that policy was arrived at and which industry leaders (other than Enron's Kenny Boy) helped shape it.
14. We've learned that Bush knew in advance, as a member of the Harken Audit Committee, that Harken Oil was going to release negative financial news, and sold his shares before that. He may be liable for indictment for insider-trading and other Harken irregularities. (Even if Bush and Cheney are not indicted, they are the last people on earth who should be speaking about corruption in the corporate financial world, as these hypocrites benefitted from that very corrupt system. As did most of Bush's corporate-derived cabinet.)
15. We've learned that Bush&Co. were mightily opposed to any reform of corporate financial reporting, but when more and more companies were caught in such corrupt practices and the mood of the country shifted -- mainly because so many folks, especially seniors, lost huge chunks of their pensions and portfolio holdings when the Stock Market tanked as a result of investors' losing confidence in the numbers provided by corporations -- they jumped on the bandwagon and pretended they were reformers all along. In the background, they are trying to help their corporate supporters water down, and otherwise get around, the new rules. To that end, Bush&Co. have appointed Harvey Pitt and Larry Thompson, two tainted corporate types, to head up the "investigations" of corporate wrongdoing. Break out the whitewash.
16. We've learned that Bush&Co., having placed its chips on Ariel Sharon, continues to have no real desire for a just peace in the Middle East. All it wants is for the area to be quiet and controlled (thus giving carte blanche to the Israeli Army's police-state occupation and oppression), so that it can continue its plans for overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Iraq. And, of course, there has been no declaration of a State of War by the Congress, neither against Afghanistan nor against Iraq, and no real debate about the wisdom of a war against Saddam -- even when the top brass at the Pentagon and in Great Britain have expressed their opposition to such military adventurism.
17. We've learned that there will be no peace now in the Middle East because the U.S. is not fully engaged in the peace process, also because neither extreme in the area wants peace: Sharon thrives on war and brutality, Hamas needs Sharon's bloody policies to justify its campaign of terror. There are signs that moderate Palestinians finally are starting to speak out in favor of a peaceful solution, and there are plenty of land-for-peace Israelis (supported by many liberal Jews in the U.S.), so the outlines of a peace are out there. But until the U.S. and U.N. make the commitment to separate the warring extremists and arrange an equitable treaty both Israel and the Palestinians can live with -- secure borders for Israel (and an end to suicide bombing), a viable state for the Palestinians, abandoning of the settlements by Israel, reparations for Palestinians who lost their homes and property -- there will be only more bloodshed. And more fertile ground for new generations of terrorists, in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Islamic world.
18. We've learned that Bush&Co. has been a total disaster for the environment, in every way: from reneging on its campaign promise to cut carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse emissions, to backing away from higher fuel-efficiency in cars (we could cut our dependence on foreign oil 20% just by increasing fuel efficiency by 5%), to giving breaks to corporate polluters all across the country, to permitting increased arsenic levels in the water, etc. etc.
19. We've learned that Secretary of State Colin Powell -- who sees the world in something other than simplistic black-and-white, us-versus-them dichotomies -- is a man imprisoned in the Bush Cabinet, forced to alter his principled opinions in the service of Bush&Co.'s stupidly aggressive and ultimately self-defeating foreign policies. Powell, a moderate conservative, looks like a raving progressive when measured against his masters. He should resign but probably won't.
20. We've learned that the tax-cuts provided to the most wealthy are not only payoffs to the corporate sector that provides support for Bush&Co. By locking in those tax cuts for ten years (and with humongous chunks of the budget spent on the "war on terrorism"), Bush&Co. have ensured that innumerable social programs that aid the less well-off will be cut or eliminated. In short, a rollback of New Deal/Great Society programs, so hated by the HardRight. (The HardRight movement to detach prescription drugs for seniors fr om the Medicare program, and, especially, to privatize Social Security -- even in the face of recent stock-market disasters -- is part of this same desire.)
Even after all the above shorthand summaries, no doubt I'm leaving out lots of Bush&Co. dirt, but this list can provide a starting point, and a handy compilation of enough crimes and misdemeanors to warrant their removal from power, either through the ballot box or by resignation or impeachment.
Finally, as we enter August, we know that one of two things will happen in the summer-doldrums, with the Congress on vacation: Either Bush&Co. will start its Iraq war and carry out more under-the-radar attacks on important American programs, or the media, bereft of their usual Beltway stories, will use the down time to engage in hard-hitting investigative reporting that will reveal in even more stark relief the machinations of Bush&Co. But, given the corporate nature of our corporate-owned media, don't count on it. Instead, we'll probably be flooded with this summer's Condit-like sex scandal.
By Bernard Weiner
Dear Diary:
The last time I wrote at length in my journal, in January, the first of the business debacles was just starting to unfold. Course, I had to tell a major whopper -- that I didn't know Kenny Boy all that well -- but there wasn't a lot of damage and the story basically fell by the wayside. Especially once we ratcheted up the War-on-Terror and patriotic themes.
But, my lordy, things are a bit different today. The stuff has hit the fan, and our administration is covered in huge chunks of it. It's like we're being sucked into quicksand and can't seem to escape, no matter how much we bob and weave. And the damn media -- the media that's kept silent and supportive up til now -- is starting to resemble the circling sharks of old. They smell blood in the water, my blood, our blood. Even calling in our markers to the publishers isn't working as well as it once did.
If it was just me and the Harken thing, I probably could ride out all the accusations. After all, the SEC cleared me after a thorough investigation. Well, that ain't true: they never even asked to interview me, and they merely said they wouldn't prosecute -- thanks, Poppy! -- and would keep the matter open for possible future looks.
Even with that, though, I think I could still get through this one, with not too much damage. No, what's creating the quicksand danger is that Cheney is getting suctioned under as well -- he's in REAL trouble, and all his stonewalling isn't going to save him this time -- and Tom White, the Army secretary, is covered in Enron slime and needs to go. Cheney, it looks like, is going to be my Agnew: not only because he's hiding the Enron papers but because he's getting caught with his fingers in the cookie jar of corporate funny accounting, with Halliburton. Might work in another time, but not now, with the American people angry at greedy corporate financial bosses.
(If Dick has to go -- we'll make sure he resigns because of "health reasons," his weak heart and all -- I'm thinking of appointing Condy. That should silence all the critics: a black WOMAN! It makes me salivate, just thinking about the damn liberals trying to attack me on that one. Of course, I could really fry their brains if I appointed Colin, hee hee hee. But as much as I like a good prank, I wouldn't do it. I can't stand the guy, with all his moralizing and questioning. I don't trust him, not now and certainly not in 2004.)
And the guys we've picked to head off the scandal investigations, Harvey Pitt and Larry Thompson, are neck-deep in the conflict-of-interest quicksand as well. This is not fair. How were we to know that the common practices of the day in '90s corporate America would suddenly look so dirty in 2002, and come back to haunt us all?
I don't know what I'm supposed to do -- what, appoint Ralph Nader to investigate us? There just aren't that many non-corporate types in my Administration. If one's dirty, they all are going to look dirty. And I certainly can't agree to an objective outside investigator. And CERTAINLY NOT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!!!!! Ashcroft could try to get a friendly one appointed, but, given our luck lately, we might just wind up with a liberal or an ambitio us Ken Starr-like bulldog, anxious to make his mark, and we'd all be in deep doodoo.
No, we're just going to turn the spin cycle to high. We'll try the "don't attack the President and his Administration in the middle of a war" routine, but not a hell of a lot of folks are buying that one these days -- especially since the Congress hasn't declared war. The stench on the street is so overwhelming, the public wants someone to pay. All those poor seniors out there, angry because their pensions are flaking away as the markets tank.
I did my part. I read a speech denouncing corporate fraud and greed, but of course I made sure there were no harsh prescriptions, no major reforms, or we'd lose totally the backing of our business friends. Unfortunately, the Democrats are saying I'm just mouthing words, with no criminal penalties to back up the rhetoric. I may have to throw someone overboard. I'll try to protect Kenny Boy as long as I can -- he knows where too many of the bodies are buried, and besides, he's been good to me over the years -- but, if the worst happens, he may have to go. I can always pardon him later.
In the meantime, we move on other fronts. We're getting our TIPS program ready, where we're involving the American people in denouncing their friends and neighbors if they suspect terrorist connections or sympathies. One out of 24 citizens to start with, coming to a neighborhood near you. Sure, there will be folks settling old scores, and the FBI will have to waste a good deal of time, but the key point is that the public will be out there working for the Administration, even if they don't realize it. (Whatever else you can say about them, the Cuban and Soviet governments knew how to have a spy on every block, working for the central government. It worked for them, it can work for us. A win-win: We may just get tipped off about a terrorist, plus it'll be like having election-committeemen in every congressional district in America.)
And, where it counts, it's like we're waiting for Godot: for the other bin Laden shoe to drop. In the short run, with all the damage and disruption, the coming al-Qaida attacks will help us, of course, as every media outlet in the country will turn its attention to the terrorists. But, judging from what happened last time, the already weak economy probably will go into a tailspin, and I might get blamed for the deep recession that follows.
I've already taken heat for not alerting the country prior to September 11 when we knew the outlines of what was coming and what the targets might be. I'll just have to anticipate more criticism, even though we don't really have a firm idea this time where the terrorists will strike.
But I sure wish Osama would launch already. I'm not sure how much more scrutiny our business troubles can take. My ratings are sliding badly, too many GOP races in the upcoming election don't look good for us, the editorialists and pundits -- and some of them are even conservatives! -- are starting to pick on us big-time. Not even siccing Big John on them is scaring them off anymore; they're just not as frightened of Ashcroft as they used to be, especially as the courts keep overturning most of his anti-terrorist regulations and orders. There was even a conservative, Reagan-appointed judge the other day who admonished us to stay within the Constitution! Who does he think he is? But just his opinion is not a good sign for our side.
Meanwhile, we're getting ready for Iraq. We've got a new HQ in the area (so we can disengage from Saudi Arabia over time), and the final warplan is nearly ready, even though the Kurds and Iraqi Opposition keep objecting. It's just a question of when to go. Dick and the rest of the inner council can't decide whether it would help us or hurt us to attack before the November election. If D-day is the September 11th anniversary, we'll have to have toppled Saddam before the November election; otherwise, it'll be better to wait and finish it all off before the 2004 campaign begins.
All this stuff is all so damned complicated; I feel 20 years older already. I sure could use a cold one. I won't, of course, but I'm beginning to understand now why Bubba was so vulnerable to interns wearing thongs. #
By Bernard Weiner
[[ Dear Readers: This article was first published in December of 2001, in the wake of 9/11, when the grim outlines of police-state-like tactics were first starting to appear on the American horizon. It might be useful to compare and contrast -- whoops, it turns out there isn't much to contrast -- between then and now. Doing so may help us understand the forces we're facing and how to respond as Bush&Co. continue their move toward a more militarist society. At appropriate points, I've added [[ inside double brackets ]] some observations from our contemporary situation. Reading the essay this way might serve as a reminder that those of us warning then of the due-process dangers ahead faced epithets like "paranoid" and "conspiracists" -- much like those today who are connecting the dots that take us from Bush&Co.'s pre-9/11 knowledge and the Administration's manipulation of a frightened Congress and citizenry that have followed. -- BW ]]
*****
First, they came for the terrorists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a terrorist.
Then they came for the foreigners,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a foreigner.
Then they came for the Arab-Americans, and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't Arab-American.
Then they came for the radical dissenters, and I didn't speak up,
because I was just an ordinary troubled citizen.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
(Adapted from Pastor Niemoller's 1945 quote about the Nazis)
I've been steering clear of the F-word, because too many on the Left fling that term so carelessly that it soon loses its truth-punch. But things are happening, so quickly, in this country that are taking us closer to a brand of near-fascism that is frightening in its seeming acceptance by the American populace and in its implications for the future of American democracy.
The non-domestic corollary: America, already resented and hated for its arrogant attitudes and policies around the world, is behaving more and more like a mad bull on a Pax Americana rampage.
In short, we appear to be at one of those moments in American history where the executive branch, using the genuine need to respond to a terrorist attack of massive proportions, is badly overreaching in both domestic and foreign areas. (The first draft of Ashcroft's anti-terrorism law even recommended suspension of the rule of habeus corpus, which would have allowed for indefinite incarceration without charges or trials.) [[ In effect, Bush&Co. have been able to do exactly that to hundreds being interrogated for a connection to terrorism; when people are "disappeared" in third-world countries, we get all weepy-eyed and angry as mothers and wives bang pots & pans in the public squares, trying to find out what happened to their husbands and sons. Here, aside from civil liberties organizations, we remain basically silent. ]]
The Administration figures it can get away with its current actions, and assume even more power, because the Congress and the American people are frightened and willing to bend over backwards to make sure the President has the power he needs during "wartime." [[ Recent polls indicate that Americans are deeply troubled by giving the government, any government, that kind of unbridled power, but, given the current terrorist threat, seem willing to trade off SOME of their Constitutional protections for personal security. ]]
(Of course, there has been no official declaration of a State of War by the Congress, and the Bush Administration is not about to try to get one; doing so would give the legislative branch its rightful place in the balance-of-power arrangement the founders set up in order to prevent political mischief.) [[ Now Bush&Co. are moving quickly toward attacking Iraq, and not only has there been NO declaration of war by the Congress against that nation, but there has been NO discussion, NO debate, NO hearings by the appropriate committees in Congress. After the body bags start coming back, prepare yourself to listen to all the breast-beating in the Congress about how they should have tried to do something to prevent this unauthorized war. See below. ]]
Now, whether we're moving into the outskirts of fascism because the Bush Administration is merely confused and incompetent when dealing with issues of such moment is not clear. Equally plausible, especially given their ruthless, take-no-prisoners style as revealed in the Florida election chaos and beyond, is that they know exactly what they're doing: attempting to enforce a harsh interpretation of justice so as to more easily cram their far-right cultural and economic agenda through a complacent Congress and public, under the cover of "national security" and "homeland protection." (I grant that it's possible they sincerely believe they're doing so out of the best motives – protecting the American people from further terrorism – but, even if that were the case, the damage being done to the American polity and Constitutional system of government is incalculable.)
FOREIGN POLICY
The hawks in the Administration seem to have convinced Bush that with the successes in Afghanistan – forgetting that perhaps as many as 20,000 Al Queda troops are holed up for the winter, in caves and in neighboring Pakistan – it's time to widen the war by going after Iraq, and maybe a few weaker states, such as Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, maybe even North Korea. (This plan may be put on temporary hold while the U.S. assays the military/political fallout from the quick-building war between Israel and the Palestinians.)
Why go to war against any of these countries? There is no evidence that any of the states named above has engaged in threatening activity – no bombs exploded on US soil or US assets abroad, no airplanes flying into tall buildings, no biochemical attacks launched – but, we are led to believe, these rogue states threaten America's vital interests merely by existing and, in some instances, by having weapons similar to ours.
Iraq may be a special case. Saddam Hussein, who Bush Sr. let stay in power, i s a truly vicious, monomaniacal dictator who has been known to dabble in biological weaponry and other weapons of mass destruction. Since he kicked out the U.N. inspectors, we don't know what mischief he's been up to. A good candidate, so goes hawk-logic, for getting his ass whupped by the US, provocation or not.
Were the US to bomb or invade Iraq to topple Saddam and install an opposition government, the current war coalition would collapse, and the worst stereotype of US foreign policy – of America as a giant bully not averse to arranging a Pax Americana with massive violence – would be verified in a good share of the globe. There might well be uprisings widely in the Muslim world, and probably the toppling of several key governments in the process, Pakistan and Indonesia being the top candidates – either by popular revolts or, more likely, by military coups. (Let us not forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.) [[ There is speculation that Saddam will resign and appoint one of his sons in his stead; it is hard to imagine that this ruse will stop the U.S. from attacking. ]]
But let us suppose that the US approach is successful, and that it is able to navigate its way through the negative foreign consequences flowing from that demonstration of high-tech warfare carried out against low-tech resistance. How would you feel living in a modern version of the Roman Empire, our armies abroad enforcing a peace on several continents at bayonet point?
DOMESTIC POLICY
Which brings us to what life would be like domestically in such a neo-imperialist arrangement. Even some right-wingers are reacting negatively to the alterations of our judicial and Constitutional system a la Bush and Ashcroft. There have been columns in the Wall Street Journal, William Safire's blistering attack on Bush as a would-be "dictator," ex-FBI officials willing to be quoted denouncing the Administration's more extreme policies, politicians such as right-wing Republican Bob Barr decrying Bush's policy excesses, editorials in the mainstream press chorusing that Ashcroft has gone way over the top. [[ Off the record, many GOP senators and Congress members -- especially conservatives anxious about giving too much power to big-government, which regularly has abused that authority -- express their revulsion at what the Bush Administration is doing to Constitutional guarantees. But they tend to keep silent in public, lest they be accused, in an election year, of being insufficiently "anti-terrorist." However, lately, a few GOP moderates have begun to speak out publicly, along with more Democrats. But virtually all of them tend to backpedal whenever Bush&Co. make growling noises. ]]
Unless you've been living in a cave – whoops!, wrong metaphor these days – you must have become acquainted with Ashcroft's way-out-there approach to civil liberties mostly, it is claimed, directed at non-citizens suspected of terrorism. That would be bad enough. But the wording of some of Ashcroft's orders – and Bush's setting up of secret military tribunals – is so vague and (deliberately?) sloppy that it wouldn't take much to blur the distinction between citizen and non-citizen. [[ Despite Ashcroft & Bush's protestations that such a thing would NEVER be allowed to occur, this is already happening, as several U.S. citizens have been whisked out of Constitutionally-guaranteed due process, and secreted away in military installations, and permitted no contact with lawyers or anyone else. They can rot there for years with no contact with the outside world. Did a judge or jury OK this? Nope, Bush signed a piece of paper authorizing the transfer. Bush&Co. thus becomes prosecutor, judge and jury. It's clear that this could happen to ANY citizen now. ]]
Already – shades of J. Edgar Hoover's COINTEL program of the 1960s-70s! – Ashcroft wants to begin more spying on US citizens, especially religious and political organizations. [[ Just recently, Ashcroft, by fiat, simply gave the FBI this authority to spy on any organizations -- just as under COINTEL decades ago -- including, in this new technological era, fishing expeditions into anyone's personal e-mail. ]]
In short, the foundations for officially-sanctioned neo-fascist policies are being contemplated and swiftly put into place. And, since Bush and Ashcroft, from the beginning, have made it clear that if you're not on the side of the war on terrorism, you're probably a supporter of terrorists, the way is clear for cracking down on dissent internally against US citizens. It's not outside the realm of speculation that in the near-future even writing analyses such as the one you're reading might be adjudged detrimental to the war effort and thus liable for prosecution – or to being "disappeared" into the judicial system, with all that suggests in the way of respect being paid to citizens' constitutional rights.
Am I being overly paranoid? I hope to God I am, that I'm misreading what's happening. After all, Bush and Ashcroft and their spokesmen claim that their approach will NEVER overstep Constitutional bounds and everything will be handled fairly. Maybe you trust the government, especially this government, that much; I don't. These guys are playing political hardball, and they appear to be aiming at any institution and individuals that dissent beyond certain boundaries.
Those boundaries are being laid out clearly for the usual sources for dissent: the media and academia. Most of the big papers and networks are now owned by huge corporate conglomerates; Lynne Cheney's American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a well-financed conservative group devoted to curbing liberal tendencies on campuses, already has issued its first blacklist of professors it considers insufficiently "patriotic." Many will be fired or eased out, many more will tone down their criticism – as many journalists already have – and the message will be quite clear: Do not dissent too vocally. [[ Look what happened at the Ohio State graduation ceremonies recently, when Bush came to speak. The authoritative voice of the university's president announced that any students who turned their backs on Bush as a protest would face expulsion and arrest. Only a few continued their planned silent, turning-of-backs protest, and were immediately hustled outside to the waiting police. ]]
Two scary ramifications:
1. We're only in the first year of Bush's term; the damage he can cause to the Constitution and the body politic during the next three (or, God help us, seven) years is frightening to imagine. [[ Even more frightening, because Al-Qaeda elements inside our borders are planning another massive attack inside the U.S., frightening the population even more -- which fear Bush&Co. will attempt to manipulate once again, to give it even more extra-Constitutional control over thought, activity, dissent. ]]
2. The American people, for the most part, still appear to be lending strong support to Bush's interpretation of the war on terrorism, although cracks are starting to show up. [[ Nearly 4000 innocent Americans died on 9/11, and Bush&Co. had been apprised months in advance that an attack like that was coming and did nothing to prevent it. Many ordinary Americans are disgusted and angered by that behavior. In addition, there are the Enron, Halliburton, anthrax, Venezuela scandals, and probably many more, that are starting to cause stirs and ripples in the body politic. Dots are starting to be connected. ]]
So what is to be done? If there ever was a time for a rebirth of the Movement, this is the time... The US Senate is probably the place where most attention should go at the moment, given that the House is pretty well dominated by the Bush/Armey/Delay-led right-wing majority. The Democrats in the Senate, who rolled over too easily on the so-called PATRIOT anti-terrorism act, need backbone; hearing from their constituents, urging them to stand up for the Constitution and the balance-of-powers that rein in power-hungry executives, might actually work in stopping some of the more extreme actions to date, and to come, by the Bush Administration.
This struggle for peace and justice and respect for the Constitution will not be an easy one, if only because of the politicized nature of the Supreme Court majority. But it is one we must join, and, for the sake of our representative democracy, we must win. [[ That's even clearer today. If we can't stop them now -- or, at the very least, put sand in their total-control wheels -- it may not get any easier in 2004. ]]
By Bernard Weiner
With all the complicated scandals and maneuverings in the White House, it was time to seek out "Shallow Throat" again.
The disenchanted Republican mole, located high in the Bush Administration, previously had supplied us with the transcript of an inner-Cabinet meeting, which revealed how Bush&Co. had decided in the Summer of 2001 to take advantage of the terrorist attacks they knew were coming, and which did arrive on 9/11.
I needed the reactions of "Shallow Throat" as to whether we were on the right track in our opposition tactics to Bush&Co. I suspected that this mole -- who might well be agitated as the Administration veered even further into HardRight territory -- would be willing to decipher for us what was going on, and what is about to go down. And would keep us pointed where we needed to go.
I made the coded call. Later that evening, "Shallow Throat," wearing a wig and shades, joined me at a loud club, and, with the music blaring, we talked. What follows is the conversation transcribed from tape.
"I don't understand," I started out. "With Bush&Co. under all this heat about pre-9/11 knowledge, Enron, Halliburton, anthrax, neo-imperialism overseas, courts ruling against them, our allies openly disagreeing with their policies, and all the rest, they're behaving as if they don't care. Indeed, they're proceeding to carry out even more outrageous moves, such as enlarging the government's capabilties to spy on American citizens whenever and however it wants."
"You namby-pamby liberals still don't get it," said ST. "They want it ALL. They're going to push you, bully you, threaten you, lie to you, ruin you until someone pushes them back and says enough. Trying to accomodate them, as the Democrat party leaders tend to do, just encourages them. It justifies their by-the-throat, bullyboy strategy. All they respect is power. Present them with a unified opposition, which threatens them with painful consequences, and they'll back off, or, more likely, first try another way to get around you. But at least you'll have slowed them down and put some fear into them."
"Aren't they fearful about the current Congressional hearings on pre-9/11 knowledge?"
"Sure, they're worried, but figure as long as the hearings are in the political arena, they have enough leverage to lean on key senators and House members to make sure nothing really explosive comes out; in addition, as you're witnessing, they using their distraction-strategy, stories designed to deflect attention elsewhere. What they're really terrified of is a truly independent blue-ribbon commission composed of analysts and academics and folks of integrity that they might not be able to control or threaten. In short, they're frightened about the pre-9/11 truth coming out."
"What else gives them the willies?" I asked.
"They're nervous about hearings and investigations that might start connecting dots."
"Like what?"
"Enron, Halliburton, anthrax, pipelines, influence-peddling, pre-9/11 machinations, interesting things happening in Florida, etc. If American citizens are permitted to peek under those rocks, they're going to find some horrifying surprises, and their reactions might not be pretty."
"You mean, we'll find out that these individual scandals can be connected in some way to Bush&Co.?"
"It's a complex web these guys weave," said ST.
[ At this point, a waitress came over to check on our drinks. "Shallow Throat" seemed a bit nervous as she took our orders. ]
"But how to enter this web and figure out the threads?", I continued. "It's all there. Follow the greed. That's their vulnerable spot. Greedy for money, greedy for power, greedy for control. But they're sloppy at times; they've left clues around in their arrogance, thinking nobody would have the courage to challenge them because everyone knows they play for keeps."
I countered with: "But some Democrats -- and even some Republicans, like Sensenbrenner, Safire, Shelby, Specter, some moderates in the House and Senate -- are starting to develop spines, and are beginning to raise potentially embarrassing questions. Isn't this a hopeful sign?"
"The Administration gets whacked by some embarrassing revelation or another, a few of the more courageous stick their necks out a bit -- but quickly return to their hiding places when their patriotism is questioned or when the Administration heavies lean on them. There's no bloody follow-through! The only way you're going to get these guys is to build up oppositional momentum that never lets up. The far-rightists in the Administration and Congress are in this fight to the end; they figure this is their last, best shot to control American politics for the next decade or two. That's why they're so tough and mean; they fight dirty, and they know the other side, your side, doesn't want to get into that gutter."
"You're saying we should get down there and duke it out with them in the mud?"
"Not at all. The moral high ground is still available. I'm talking about momentum here. Each time the Bush Administration gets hit, don't take the distraction-bait (like the "reorganization" of the anti-terrorist program, which still leaves the real bad apples outside the new Cabinet department, to be overseen by the Ashcrofts & Rumsfelds of the Administration); don't back off, keep piling on more information, more revelations, more embarrassing questions. Spend the time to construct the political coalitions you're going to need; force the media to do significant investigative reporting; put unrelenting pressure on Congress."
"But there's no public clamor out there for bucking Bush on the 'war on terrorism' and some of these other things," I said, with a discouraged tone to my voice. "That's why the Democrats are so timid. That, and betting that Bush and the GOP are more vulnerable on non-war-related issues like health care, prescription-drug coverage, job creation, the economy, environmental pollution, and the like. You want them to confront Bush on war policy and risk being seen as insufficiently 'anti-terrorist' just prior to the upcoming November elections?"
"Look, it's not that difficult to figure out. Your side has the domestic issues the American people care about. And the Bush Administration is vulnerable on pre-9/11 knowledge -- for chrissakes, nearly 4000 people died while Bush and his cohorts did nothing in the face of all the warnings! -- and they're vulnerable on incompetent post-9/11 policy (global warming, Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, U.S. troops heading for combat all over the world, etc.)."
"So," I asked, "where's the entryway to this vulnerability?"
"Forget Bush; people realize he's a doltish front man and almost have pity for him as he stumbles around trying to act like a president. Focus on Cheney. He's in charge of so much and his ethical/financial vulnerabilities are massive. Ashcroft is a neofascist thug; even many of his GOP friends know he's gone way over the line in wrecking the Constitution and giving the federal government far too much power, which invariably will get abused. Get the fearful, anti-big-government conservatives on your side, at least as silent partners, and go get Ashcroft. He's ripe for the picking. Those are two good starters. If you do your job right, you might just rope in Karl Rove, too."
"What else can be done?"
"Get Colin Powell to resign. He's come thisclose a few times, especially when he got hung out to dry while they had him heading -- 'with all deliberate speed' -- to the Middle East. He knows what's going on inside the Bush White H ouse and how rotten it all is; he just needs one more example of how far beyond the political pale the Bush forces are willing to go, and, with some outise support, he's out of there. Give him that support. He's their halfway moral cover; get him out and make him feel better about himself. Maybe Christie Whitman will walk with him."
"What else?"
"Again, it's all logical: Defeat as many Republicans as you can in November. Good ones, bad ones, doesn't matter; take the House away from the far-right conservatives and deny a Senate comeback to the GOP. When that happens, the Democrats -- and a lot more moderate and decent conservative Republicans than you can imagine -- won't be so fearful anymore and the necessary cleansing actions can start: serious investigations, pointed questions, true opposition. You do that -- even though it hurts my own party (if the GOP hadn't been hijacked by American jihadists, I wouldn't be here talking to you) -- and I guarantee you that the Bush Administration will be on the slippe ry road to an inglorious end."
[ Just then, a young fellow, wearing earphones, seemingly moving to the music, came by our booth and seemed to want to hang around. We stared him down and he left. ]
"You seem flustered by that. You think he was trying to overhear?"
"The atmosphere in the Administration is as bad as it's ever been. If you're not with them 150%, you're with the enemy. I have to watch my every move, everything I say. I don't believe anybody suspects me, yet -- my position gives me pretty good cover -- but anything could happen. I think I'd better take off now."
Shallow Throat squeezed out of the booth and started off, then turned and said: "Remember: follow the greed." #
by Bernard Weiner
Dear Georgie:
I thought I was the only guy facing a political/ethical firing squad. But you have topped me, my lad. The "I" word is beginning to be brought out of mothballs. Unless something major happens (another terrorist attack would help out a lot), you're about to join Bubba in the impeachment well.
When Enron went South and the press sharks came out to taste the blood, I just had to eat the bad publicity, declare bankruptcy, hunker down and try to ride it out. (So far, it's working; nobody's even asked me lately about Enron's connection to the oil pipeline now planned to go through Afghanistan to our dormant plant in India.)
You, my friend, are in a somewhat different position. I know you're trying to find a hunker place, but I'm afraid, given your rather lonely position at the top, there's really no place for you to hunk. And there are too many folks wanting your head -- on a plate -- and they're not all Democrats.
Sorry to say it, Georgie, but you have blown this 9/11 thing badly. Welcome to the club! The bullyboy tactics we've both used took us a long way and made us a lot of money, but we also had to run over a lot of people, friends and foes, on the climb to the top, and a good many of them aren't a bit sorry about the daggers being aimed our way by our enemies.
If I could publicly speak on your behalf -- if that would help and not hurt -- you know that I would. I'll forget your pretending that you aren't quite sure who I am: I know how the game has to be played. I know that if anything happens to me legally, you'll be there in the end with a presidential pardon. That's how the game is played, too. I give you scratch, you scratch my back. (Needless to say, after the private courier presents you this letter, read it and burn it -- DON'T SHRED IT!)
But, despite our similar circumstances, I can wiggle out of my tight spot, given enough time. But you -- you have real problems. I'm talking about the 9/11 coverup; you blew that one big time.
It seems the lawyers and press (you really need to take care of that Rather guy, teach him and the other journalists a good lesson) are starting to piece together the dots. You believed that you'd never get caught, that you could browbeat or frighten your would-be critics into averting their eyes -- a stance with which I'm certainly familiar -- but these beliefs meant that you weren't as careful in covering your tracks as you should have been. (Besides, how long did you think it would take before Daschle and Gephardt revealed that you and Dick had asked them to stay away from investigating pre-9/11 matters? The implication is not pretty.)
Having key members of the Cabinet abandon flying by commercial airliners in July of 2001 makes it appear, in retrospect, that you and they knew something about the upcoming use of hijacked commerical jets as possible terrorist weapons long before you chose to share that information with others. Now you say that you learned what was about to go down only in August of 2001, which certainly suggests that since the others, including key senators, knew in July, either you're lying or you weren't in charge and that whoever was in charge wasn't providing you key information. Not good, Georgie. Whether the pitcher hits the stone or the stone hits the pitcher, it ain't good for the pitcher.
Intelligence officials in France and Israel and the Philippines and Malaysia and here in this country had been talking for years about thwarted attempts by terrorists to use jetliners as weapons against icon structures (Eiffel Tower, et al.), our own intelligence commissions and CIA had warned of such impending attacks -- so your blaming the debacle on the lack of CIA/FBI sharing of information again means either you and your staff are incompetent or lying. Pitcher/stone again. Not good.
No, it's clear to me that you did what we all did: you had insider information and you used it to your advantage. (The same for those who bought all those put options on United and American airlines stocks in the days prior to 9/11. That's a hard one to explain away.) I commend you for it, but worry about the public-relations flap of not covering your backside more intelligently.
Your biggest problem is not the inevitable Democrat brouhaha about all this. Americans expect such partisanship. It's the fact that 4000 people died, and a lot of their relatives and other concerned citizens are middle-of-the-road ordinary Americans, conservatives and liberals, and they are angry and looking for someone to blame. Guess what? You're it. (And I'm it in the energy area.)
You can try to ride it out with bravado, blaming "partisan politics" and so on -- Dick's really good at that; you aren't so good, even coming across as so out-of-control the other day in your rambling discourse that journalists thought maybe you were coming mentally unglued or maybe had tipped the old bottle. But I don't think you'll be able to stem the rising demand for a full investigation. (Is that why Karen Hughes left so suddenly? She smelled what was about to make contact with the fan and got out while the getting was good?)
My advice would be to get in front of the story. 1) Get all the facts out -- everything, even the July Phoenix FBI memo warning about terrorists enrolling in U.S. flight schools, and the August Minneapolis FBI memo about the arrest of Massoui for suspicious behavior at a flight school -- and blame "the system" for failing to connect all the dots. Don't make it look like you're trying to hide anything.
2) There will be another terrorist attack as Al Qaeda regroups, or something like it can be "anticipated," if you get my drift. Be ready to move, a la 9/11; have plans ready to clamp down harder on dissent (those who question your tactics are supporting the terrorists, etc.), the press, Congress' asking embarrassing questions. Re-ratchet up the "war on terrorism" rhetoric, "homeland defense," "national security," and so on; put the Dems on the patriotic-silence routine. It's worked before and it's worth a try now, even though the American public is not as gullible as it once was.
The move for impeachment will proceed in the country and the Congress, but you might be able to slow its growth prior to the upcoming elections, as citizens rally around our "wartime President," and possibly even slow down the Democrat election victory in Congress that seems just around the corner.
If you resign or are forced out, Dick becomes President (unless he's impeached, too) and things can proceed as normal. If that happens, Dick has to make sure IMMEDIATELY to appoint a Vice President of our business-friendly frame of mind. We don't want to risk Daschle or Gephardt or, God forbid, Colin Powell becoming President if anything should befall Dick of the damaged heart.
As I'm sure you and your father realize, we're playing for Big Stakes here. Not just money, although that's always a big one, but staying in control of the agenda and the goodie- and power-dispensary. You lose the momentum, and those controlling, taxing Democrats get back in, and we're all in deep doodoo.
So, Georgie Boy, I seriously recommend that you come up with something to get these impeachment-fodder stories off the front pages and leading the evening news -- dump all the documents into Congress' lap while you spin the "it's-the-system-that's-responsible" line, heat up Kashmir, stoke up the Palestinian war, invite another good old terrorist event in the U.S., and stop pussyfooting around with your/our domestic enemies. Sic 'em, boy. Bite them before they get anywhere near your jugular. #
By Bernard Weiner
If I jump now, with Karen Hughes just having left and with Democratic darts starting to hit the Administration's weak spots, it'll look bad. Like I'm deserting a ship that's started leaking badly.
Plus, people will think I'm doing it out of ambition, not wanting to be too tarnished by all the Bush administration's scandals, those already out there and others yet to be revealed. (I'm mostly kept out of the loop, but I suspect many of those transgressions are on the other side of the moral, and probably legal, fence.)
Sure I want to be President -- even Bush and Cheney know that, which helps explain why all the behind-the-scenes dissing of me and the State Department -- but I also enjoy feeling that I'm helpful in the world, often just by throwing cold water on some of the Wolfpack's most outrageous proposals. That Wolfowitz is like a dog on a bone in his determination that the U.S. dominate the globe; I think he should be checked out for rabies.
I'm tolerated. I speak my mind about drugs and sex and poverty, and sometimes even about war policy -- though I have to move real carefully here -- and they don't get rid of me. I'm their token, in a great many ways. See, we have an all-inclusive, diverse Cabinet -- look there's Colin Powell. See him? He's black. And he's even liberal. Ergo, the Administration can't be all bad. (I'm sure no liberal; I just look that way when measured against rightwing zealots like Ashcroft and Wolfowitz and DeLay. And I resemble a flaming intellectual when measured against our fearless leader, who knows how to mouth the right phrases and read speeches.)
I'm here partially because of my ties to Poppy and my contacts around the world -- I'm regarded as trustworthy by many international leaders -- but mainly I'm here for window-dressing and moral cover. And to keep me on the inside, busy and somewhat muzzled, so I can't become head of a GOP opposition movement. I know all that, and they know I know. It's just the complex po litical dance you have to dance, in order to be in a position to do some good -- or, in the case of this administration, to help stop some of the bad. But I have to choose my fights judiciously, or I won't have any clout.
But it's getting harder and harder to swallow a good share of the Administration's line. These guys -- who, of course, found convenient ways to escape serving in the military, from Bush to Cheney to DeLay and so on -- are preparing for "permanent war." It's insane. They figure with no other country to challenge the U.S. superpower, they might as well go take it all. Sure, we could take it, but then what do we have? A return to the Roman Empire, with our armies having to control everything thousands of miles from home, in a world that would resent and hate and attack us all the more, and nonstep dissent at home. (The most depressing thing about all this is that the Democrats in Congress haven't even called for a debate on attacking Iraq is a good idea, and what the ramifications might be. They're so scared of looking "unpatriotic" that they've become unpatriotic by remaining silent.)
Too many of our top officials have no military, or political, understanding of the complexities involved, just a desire to grab $ome while the getting is good. I believe in greed, too, as a positive motivating force -- but within some reasonable limits. These guys, and their corporate backers, can't see beyond their bank accounts. I keep trying to tell them that they can have a good share, and help others get a good share too -- thus bringing more consumers on line to buy stuff the corporations make -- but they just smile at me, like I'm a weak-brained kook or something.
The topper for me was my feeling of being hung-out-to-dry during my most recent Middle East mission. My God, I had to pretend that we weren't giving carte blanche to Sharon's -- I almost said Sherman's -- military campaign to wipe out the Palestinian Authority's infrastructure and political network. Come on! They had me galivanting all over the globe for nearly a week before finally permitting me to make my way to the Holy Land. Meanwhile, Bush is "ordering" Sharon to withdraw his troops immediately -- wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean? I coulda been killed hanging out there like that, twisting in the wind.
The Arab leaders are even more scared of Sharon than we pretend to be. None are going to risk irritating the guy, for fear he'll attack them and destroy them, probably in two days, without even having to use their nukes. But the Arabs sure made it clear that unless the U.S. acts forcefully to solve the Israel/Palestine puzzle, we're putting our credibility and political capital on the line in their area of the world. And nobody is going to even think about helping us attack Iraq -- as much as they want Saddam to be eliminated -- until the Palestinian issue is taken care of, once and for all.
I must say that I understand a little bit what George Mitchell must have gone through in Northern Ireland. But those two sides had battled each other "only" for 800 years; we're talking, in a sense, thousands of years here. And it ain't gonna be easy. Sharon and Arafat, by this time, are like two crazed animals, pawing the earth, seeing nothing but the other guy about to strike and, at this point, wanting nothing but victory, total domination. Sharon thinks he can bludgeon his way into a Greater Israel, Arafat thinks he can suicide-bomb his way into a Greater Palestine. They're both starkers.
If we ever get to genuine peace talks -- and it may not happen in my lifetime, another reason to consider getting out, before I'm slapped with the image of a big-time loser -- we'll probably spend months talking about the correct shape of the negotiating table....
Well, got to end this now. More meetings, more troubleshooting in the Mideast -- the Saudi plan is moving again: Arafat may want to sign something while he buys time to rebuild his political and military structure, Sharon wants to find new ways to move away from a possible Palestinian state. I'm going to find myself buried in this Administration, which has its eyes only on attacking Iraq and global control. I gotta get out of here, soon.#
For awhile, it looked like the Bush Administration was invincible. In the wake of the horrific 9/11 crimes against humanity, nobody seemed to have the courage to put up much of a fight when Bush quickly responded in ways that never would be accepted in normal circumstances. This band of mean-spirited, greedy, determined power-seekers ran roughshod over the Constitution, the institutions of democracy, over real and imagined "enemies" abroad, etc. Instead of governing from the middle and seeking consensus in this new struggle -- which would have been appropriate anyway, given that Bush lost the presidential popular vote by half-a million ballots and reached his office only through a political maneuver on the Supreme Court -- Bush behaved as if he had an enormous mandate and didn't need to consult anybody, on anything. It was full speed ahead in enacting long-range tax cuts for the wealthy, ignoring Congress, making secret anything that might prove embarrassing or potentially criminal, freezing out Democrats, retrenching on environmental progress, behaving like a rampaging cowboy in foreign affairs, etc. etc.
The point here is not to examine the details of Bush's program, but to indicate that such arrogant behavior cannot, and will not, continue forever. Every action carries within itself an opposite reaction. Bush&Co. is behaving like a secret corporation, motivated by greed and the desire for monopoly power, and is so outrageous in its open assaults that even those normally in support find their mouths hanging open in astonishment at times, both at the ignorance of the man in charge and in some of the policies they're expected to champion.
The cracks already are starting to show in domestic policy, with moderate Republicans and most Democrats joining forces more often these days to stop some of the more reckless and dangerous policies propounded by Bush&Co. Even the quiescent Democrats -- forced into silence lest they be considered unpatriotic during "wartime" -- are starting to locate their spines, and are beginning to offer more in the way of opposition.
In foreign policy, the veteran team surrounding Bush thought itself unchallengeable as well, representing the only superpower in the world. Until it started to falter again and again, when running up against the many-layered complexities of the real world, as opposed to Bush&Co.'s simplistic black-and-white-you're-with-us-or-with-the-terrorists point of view. They've managed to alienate most of Europe, many of their reluctant allies in the Muslim world (Cheney batting zero on his recent trip is a good example), and now, as a result of its unconscionable and sloppy meddling in the internal affairs of Venezuela, a good share of Latin America as well.
In short, in areas domestic and foreign, Bush&Co. are showing signs of inconsistency, incompetency and behavior unbefitting the "leader of the free world." And beginning to suffer some defeats, finally. Consider: No drilling in the Arctic Refuge, federal and state courts slapping Ashcroft's hands for over-reaching in his police-state desire to control everything and everyone, large public rallies in the streets against Bush policies, editorials from normally-Republican newspapers starting to get critical; Bush's approval ratings slipping fast. When the final unraveling comes, when critical mass occurs and the whole deck of cards begins to collapse -- fed by the discovery of all sorts of embarrassing and possibly criminal secrets currently being hidden by the administration -- the end-slide is going to be fast and vicious. Resignation or impeachment is not out of the question.
So much convoluted politics in the Middle East, so much history, so much violence and hatred. It's all so confusing. So once again I turn to the noted reference series for answers that can help me make the turmoil and tragedy easier to figure out.
Q. Why can't there be at least a cease-fire between the Palestinians and the Israelis?
A. Your question rests on an assumption that either or both sides want peace. Maybe the majority of both peoples would be amenable to peace, if it came with enough justice and security, but the leaders have other agendas -- and right now, because of all the wanton slaughter, have been able to bring a good section of their frightened, angry peoples along with them. In so doing, the Middle East is living in a soul blackout, and there's no estimate on when moral power will be restored.
Let's get it straight. Sharon doesn't want a viable, truly independent Palestinian state next to Israel. Never has, never will. He's willing to accept a pseudo-"Palestinian state" on his border, but it would hardly be considered a viable country, rather something more like a collection of bantustans amidst all the Israeli settlements on the West Bank and Gaza. Each of those little Palestinian enclaves effectively would then have to deal with Israel on their own, ensuring Israeli domination and control of the area -- in short, continued hegemony over land promised to the Palestinians for their state. That's why Sharon has spent the past several weeks utterly and totally destroying the Palestinian political and actual infrastructure. Whatever Arafat will eventually be President of, this Israeli views goes, it won't be worth having. And, Israel believes, it will have bought itself a good block of time until it once again has to worry about a unified, majorly re-armed Palestinian enemy.
The former PLO terrorist Arafat at one time may have been willing to consider a two-state deal, but when it became apparent over the decade since the Oslo agreement that Israel had no intention of following through and granting Palestine anything close to justice and territorial/political integrity, he began to re-think: Maybe it's time to pressure Israel through a re-activation of the intifadeh, except this time with a more violent component. Plus, Arafat, who likes to think of himself as the one true leader of the Palestinian people, was being pressured by the extreme Palestinian nationalists like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who believed they could, and would, militarily drive Israel into the sea. These groups (with Osama bin Laden out there as a spiritual force, belittling Arafat as a corrupt individual who couldn't lead his people into anything but poverty and ruin), and the other Arab states not lifting much of an open finger in helping the Palestinians, fueled Arafat's desire to reclaim his leadership status in the Arab Middle East. All this may help explain his support for the suicide-bombing campaign, the one weak link in the Israeli security armor. Absent the Israeli reaction to those bombings, Arafat probably would have become even more irrelevant as a Palestinian leader -- but Sharon turned him into a hero among Palestinians and ordinary Arabs throughout the region.
Q. Is Arafat gambling that the other Arab states will be forced to come in on the Palestinian side, for a final, all-out Arab-Israeli war?
A. He may be putting all his chips on this last hand, but, if so, he'd have been better off cashing in while he could. No Arab state, at least as presently governed, will do anything to provoke the Israelis to attack their countries. These Arab states may agree with the Palestinian cause, and may even do things under the table to aid the Palestinians, but they know what would happen to them if they openly attacked Israel, the strongest and most-determined military regime in the neighborhood: They'd be wiped out, either by the Israelis immediately or, after military defeat, by their own people as a result of having their governments overthrown. Which gets us back to the phrase "as presently governed": Several of these "moderate" Arab rulers -- in, say, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, etc. -- might be overthrown anyway by Islamicist mobs, if Israel continues its brutal campaign on the West Bank, with nobody willing or able to stop them.
Q. The United States, the United Nations, the Pope, worldwide opinion, etc. is opposed to Israel's current military campaign. Why isn't this enough to get Sharon to back off?
A. It must be clear by now that the U.S. -- having inflated anti-terrorist rhetoric for its own war -- is in no position (even if it wanted to) to dictate to Sharon that he should stop in his campaign to break the back of Mideast terror networks. Sharon right now is the tail that's wagging the dog. Since Bush has no intention of getting further sucked into the Mideast quagmire, and neither the U.S. or U.N., despite all their calls for a cease-fire, seems interested in building a serious international coalition to force a ceasefire and political negotiations, the Israeli military campaign will continue until Sharon feels he's caused as much damage as he can to the Palestinians' capacity to govern a destroyed infrastructure.
Q. But surely both sides can see that the other side isn't going to disappear and that military solutions will never get them what they want -- peace, security, control of their own territory -- so why can't they call a halt in the violence and get back to the political negotiating table?
A. Of course they know that, but they don't want to accept that. Each believes, if they keep the military pressure up just a little while longer, the other side will capitulate and simply vanish. Of course it's insane, but that's what is going on. Plus, see Answer #1 above. Plus: Ever see two boys fighting in the school yard? "You started it first!" "No, you did!" "No, you started it!" And so on. Until someone comes along and separates them, and forces them to some serious reflection -- in this case, to recognize that going over the history again and again of who started what when is not productive -- they will continue in this everlasting cycle of historical blaming forever.
Both sides also know roughly what the final solution will look like: something like the Saudi proposal, with Israel being recognized as a legitimate state with normalized relations with its Arab neighbors; Israel pulling out of the Occupied Territories, including abandoning its settlements; a viable Palestine state being created out of the contiguous territory in the West Bank and Gaza (and perhaps even part of Jordan); a shared Jerusalem, presided over by an international body; perhaps international peacekeepers in between the two equal states; Israel permitting a certain limited number of Palestinians to return to their ancestral homes and farms inside Israel and paying reparations to others not permitted to return, etc. But knowing what the ultimate solution will look like and being able to get there are two very different things.
Q. What will it take to get on the road to that final peace settlement? Will Sharon and Arafat have to go?
A. Unless the United States and United Nations and other interested international parties intervene to help develop the mechanisms for peace -- and there's no real movement beyond rhetoric in this area -- and unless the two sides themselves come to realize the futility of their present behavior patterns, one can expect nothing but continued slaughter for years and years. At that point, new leaders will emerge, probably younger, who will have the courage to say, finally, enough is enough, and let's sit down and seriously talk. But that means untold amounts of carnage, hatred, revenge cycles, suicide bombers, colonial repression, and so on. That's why the current moment needs to be seized in the name of peace. If the old warriors cannot make the peace -- and it certainly doesn't look like they can at the moment -- others will have to do it for them. Devoid of a current movement toward peace, all we can expect is a continuing slide into moral darkness and slaughter on a scale heretofore unthinkable. #
Bernard Weiner, a poet and playwright, has previously contributed "The 'War on Terrorism' for Dummies," and "The Middle East for Dummies." Holder of a Ph.D. in government & international relations, he has taught at San Diego State University and Western Washington University.
|
|
|