The Baggage Room

Obama: the Better Nightmare

2010-07-30T07:47:00.000-07:00

Paul Krugman's July 30, 2010, op-ed on Obama is spot on, as usual. Krugman has consistently positioned Obama further to the right than his supporters would like to see him. Krugman supported Clinton during the campaign because, among other reasons, Obama's campaign proposals for healthcare didn't go far enough. Krugman saw then that Obama was not the liberal many hoped he'd be--the liberal he otherwise promised to be in the campaign. See my TBR post "Obama No Liberal" for more on this.

Krugman is also right that Obama is not showing enough support for Elizabeth Warren to lead a new consumer protection agency. Though Krugman doesn't make it clear, he knows that Obama won't support Warren because Goldman and the like don't want her as a regulator because she is smart, capable, and she knows that the banks make a lot on credit cards and other forms of predatory lending. Obama doesn't support Warren because he knows she could change all this. In other words, Banks make a lot of money on types of irresponsible borrowing that really hurt our economy, and Warren understands this. As long as politicians are bought by the banks, as Obama is, this unsustainable consumer borrowing will be encouraged. Banks buy up politicians so they, the banks, can continue to suck the economic life out of our country, and this massive sucking sound gets rationalized as "fiscal conservatism" by Democrats and Republicans alike. The banks, of course, get rich from said life sucking.

If you doubt that Obama is bought by the banks, I suggest you read this HuffPost article by Bob Osterstag: "four out of [Obama's] top five [campaign] contributors were employees of financial industry giants, with Goldman Sachs at the top of the list." Moreover, "Goldman Sachs gave Obama four times more than they gave McCain."

So it becomes clear why the administration is blocking a Warren nomination: the administration, like so many in congress, is bought up by the banks, just like they are bought up by other business interests, and what is good for the country (Warren and checks on bad lending) is bad for business.

Krugman is also right to slam Mort Zuckerman for his claim that Obama is anti-business, an obviously absurd position. Here's something from the Harper's index that supports the claim that Obama is not just bought up by Big Finance but also by other status quo powers that be. The number is significantly smaller, but it does explain why Obama adopted a "drill baby drill" position right before the worst oil spill ever:

Total campaign contributions Barack Obama received from BP between 2004 and 2009: $77,051.
Number of politicians who accepted more in donations from BP during that period: 0.

People on the left have deluded themselves about Obama because he is smart, good looking, and seemed ethical-- and because the possibility of having a black president was extremely appealing. Obama has sold himself to business, and that is why he seems a lot like a Bush-redux.

Liberals have been fooled. It is not that surprising that we have been fooled. Obama said some very enticing things during the campaign, like what he said about the public option, a big issue for me: "any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [this] new public plan." He would later show us the real Obama: while making deals with big pharma and insurance companies before the healthcare fight really got going: "I didn't campaign on the public option."

So, like most politicians, Obama lies for political expediency, and these lies support the status quo of certain industries sucking the life out of our country in order to become rich. Bill Clinton fooled us too (campaign as liberal, lead from the right), but Obama has fooled us even more so.

What Krugman hasn't gotten right, hasn't come right out and said, is that Obama's pandering to the right, pandering to the true power of our country, goes beyond lying for political/big-business expediency. There are lots of laws being broken. Lots of crimes being committed and covered up. Certainly Goldman's government-supported illegalities would pile up if anyone did a really thorough investigation of all the secret twists and turns of the bailout, especially the particulars of the AIG-Goldman-Obama connection Osterstag makes clear.

But Obama is the top cop, and congress won't check or balance the administration's complicity in Goldman crimes because Goldman has bought congress too, GOP and Dems alike.

We don't even have to look hard for crimes that are not being investigated. As Krugman notes, torture is another area where Obama seriously let down progressives--where Obama is not just like Bush, but is protecting Bush. Since the Bush torture policy was obviously a war crime, the way Obama has let down liberals goes way beyond politics as usual, or Obama being forced to the right in order to "get things done in DC."

Like most liberal pundits, Krugman mentions "torture," but he doesn't take the obvious steps from torture to war crimes to the crime of not prosecuting a war crime to impeachment: the torture in question were war crimes, and the Bush administration should have been prosecuted, should have been impeached (at least), and avoiding this prosecution is itself a crime, an impeachable offense. As David Lindorff explains, Bush's torture policy was "in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, which as a signed set of treaties, are part of the law of the United States. Under those treaties, failure on the part of those up the chain of command to halt or to punish those who commit torture are themselves guilty of the crime of torture." Even the generally conservative U.S. News and World Report gets it:

First, waterboarding is torture. Second, torture is a war crime. Third, the United States is obligated to prosecute war crimes. The failure to prosecute war crimes committed by your own government is an offense of the same order as the original war crime.

Glen Greenwald sees this tendency to protect the Bush administration from being held accountable for some of its most extreme actions as a "growing part of the Obama legacy," but not even Greenwald seems to make the connection between this protection and an impeachable offense for Obama--though he does ask liberals why they aren't talking impeachment when Obama argues that a war-time president has the right to assassinate Americans without due process.

Even people I know, people close to me, people I know to be as left as me, seem to shudder if I make this connection, and treat what I see as a basic, simple, just and responsible position as something potentially crackpot, something that could only come from the right. It seems to me to be the big idea we liberals aren't supposed to talk about. We can't burst the bubble that Obama is basically a good guy, and our country, especially its liberal side, is not hyper-deluded. Only right-wing fanatics could whisper impeachment and Obama in the same breath.

This topic of Obama's crime of not prosecuting Bush remains unspeakable in liberal circles, despite how obvious the connection between war crimes and impeachment was for liberals when thinking about the Bush administration, and how obvious it is that not prosecuting a war crime is a crime if you are constitutionally entrusted as the top cop--that is, if you are president. David Lindorff is one liberal, who made a very thorough case for Bush's impeachment, agrees with me that Obama should also be impeached. Lindorff is the author of the book, The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing George W. Bush from Office. In an April, 2010, Counterpunch article, Lindorff writes the following:

Sadly, it is time to say, just 14 months into the current term of this new president, that yes, this president, and some of his subordinates, are also guilty of impeachable crimes--including many of the same ones committed by Bush and Cheney.

Obama may be a HUGE disappointment to liberals and lefties like me, but this president--who is quite willing to lie and commit crimes for political expediency (the crime of sweeping Bush's crimes under the rug is just one example of many)--is a whole lot better than the nightmarish alternative criminals he will be running against in 2012. So choose your liar, choose your criminal. Which nightmare do you prefer? Or maybe we could wake up and start seeing the reality of the crimes of our two business parties. Maybe we could wake up and start applying the law to presidents and the Goldmans and AIGs and Wellpoints and BPs of our world. If not, we are left asleep choosing between nightmares. Obama is the better nightmare, for sure, but a nightmare nonetheless.

Email to friends about WikiLeaks and Afghanistan

2010-07-27T11:25:00.000-07:00

Hi,

I'm hoping you'll be as grossed out by the Dems in power as I am after reading this article, "The WikiLeaks Afghanistan Leaks," by Glenn Greenwald. I heard Kerry this morning on NPR about how there was not anything new or important in the WikiLeaks Afghanistan documents, and no reason to compare them with the Pentagon papers--which he has, in the past, correctly argued were extremely important in stopping what I see as one of the US's three Big Crimes (along with slavery and what we did the Native American--as in my song "How Low and Why").

Besides revealing what we've always known (that Kerry is an ass hole who would never take a political risk, so much so that he couldn't beat Bush in 2004 even though even some of the GOP recognized that Bush was an idiot), we can also see what the strategy will be for those Dems in power: lie about the importance of the documents, and continue to lie about the necessity of the war in Afghanistan for US security. In other words, they will continue to lie about Afghanistan and its obvious comparisons to Vietnam, while sticking by their (very correct) positions that Vietnam was wrong, and that the Pentagon papers were helpful in exposing how deeply wrong that war was--and how the Democratic governments in power at the time had lied to us, or simply got it wrong, up to 68, the time period covered by the Pentagon papers. Johnson redux, in a way.

Of course, Nixon lied to us too about Vietnam, about the war and the significance of the Pentagon papers. He talked about how the leak of the Pentagon papers in 1971 endangered troops on the ground, etc. He also tried to win what was by then an obviously "unwinable" war. Obama is now Nixon redux too (he has been Bush redux on topics like state secrets, torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, pandering to big business, etc.). Obama will continue to lie about the war, or he will have Kerry do the lying.

They will also lie more about how the leak endangers troops, as if their support for this stupid and unwinable war hasn't already created a casualty list that is way too long. All for a war that is not only unnecessary. It also does the opposite of what it's supposed to do: it makes Americans less safe as South Asia becomes more of a hotbed for American hatred.

What endangers the US, what makes us less secure, is the hatred that develops from unnecessary wars of occupation (Vietnam, Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan are the big ones). What endangers troops on the ground is putting them in harm's way. Stopping the war would take troops out of harm's way, and these Wikileaks papers could help stop the war--if we all get a little more vocal about it. Stopping this war would at least slow down the rapid escalation of hatred for Americans around the world--not just the Muslim world.

Bush got us into Afghanistan and what has always been an unwinable war--especially with the Pashtun dominated Pakistani intelligence helping out the Taliban and al Qaeda all along. It's the Dems who are now in the spotlight, and Kerry's position on NPR this morning is just more politically expedient lying. These leaks reveal that the war, as many of us have known all along, is a bloody mess that will only make the US less safe in the long run. This war is not just wrong. It is a dumb war, and always was a dumb war. Fighting it negates history, as the Russians know all too well. It was started by a dumb president and now continued by a president who seems smart, but has consistently done very dumb things.

I will say "Fuck You Jerry Brown" as I vote for him

2010-06-11T12:17:00.000-07:00

Dear fellow Californians,

I am hoping all Californians who read this will pass on this post to Californians they know: left, right or center. We can all agree that Californians are all in deep deep shit given the general and severe dysfunction of our state, its $20B budget deficit. I see the upcoming Governor's race as a promise we are making to ourselves to continue to heap mountains more shit on ourselves daily for at least four years to come.

As I see it, a good start on these issues is this Huff Post article about California's ungovernability by San Diego Civic Leader Greg Mitrovich. It argues that California is ungovernable mainly because of the "direct democracy" system established in the reform era of the early 20th Century. This system worked at the time to undermine certain business interests that had a monopoly on state power, but it also eventually led to Prop 13 and and the two-thirds rule for raising taxes which Mitrovich and I see at the heart of our great state's dysfunction.

Prop 13 has become California's political "third rail" not just because it protects certain tax payers, especially those who voted for it back in 1978 and still live in the same houses. It also has considerable "vast corporate tax loopholes" most voters don't know about.

How is it in a country founded on "don't tread on me" and tea party tax revolts against unfair taxation, Tea Party types support Prop 13 even though it is obviously an unfair and arbitrary tax? Prop 13 mandates unequal taxes on properties of equal value. Need we say more?

Even Warren Buffet understands that Prop 13 mandates "wildly capricious" taxation. For example, I currently pay roughly many many times more what Warren payed in 2004 on taxes for his home he bought in 1970. Warren valued his home at $4M in 2004, and it is now listed at $10.3M (Warren's 2004 assessment of his home was a bit low, it seems).

My house is worth a small fraction of that, yet I pay many times the property tax!! Who would argue that is fair? As Buffet said, it is wildly capricious.

Why is Prop 13 deemed constitutional? What about that Equal Protection clause? Mitrovich argues that--as with Dred Scott and Gore v. Bush--the SCOTUS was simply DEAD WRONG in this case. The only thing supreme about the SCOTUS majority is their stupidity and myopia.

Here's another must-read article from the right-of-center Economist magazine arguing for radical change in "ungovernable" California. Business leaders in the Bay Area are working toward a constitutional convention, but Prop 13 is not part of their plan. Perhaps the only way they can get a constitutional convention or "con-con" is to pander to those who want Prop 13 to continue as CA's political "third rail." If it remains our third rail, we will find that we have been sitting on this rail all along.

Since the Gubinator took over, our state has gone from dysfunctional to idiotic. If Meg is seen from this liberal's perspective as a well-funded nightmare for California, Jerry Brown is certainly not some liberal wet dream. This article on Brown shows why the race for Governor is so bad it almost makes me support four more years of the idiotic and incompetent Gubinator. In all his phoniness and opportunism, Brown supports Prop 13, the law he signed back in 1978.

Brown, like Obama, is assumed to be liberal, even though much of his lasting impact has been the worst kind of right-wing, Jarvis-like crap California is uniquely known for. He even had a show in the 90s on KPFA (it sucked, by the way). Like W, Brown's career was made by his father, and his work in office shows that he is lazy, an opportunist in the extreme, dishonest, self-serving, incompetent and lacks insight. He's the Dems W. Bottom line, Brown is a HUGE mistake for Democratic California. I wish he had meditated on how self-serving his run for Governor is, and how much the true liberals of California needed him to NOT run. What an jerk.

And I will vote for him because Meg, to me, is obviously much worse. Both have ties to Goldman Sachs, by the way, but Meg's are much deeper, and she has much more of that "masters of the universe" mindset than Jerry. She's more like a Ross Perot buying her way into office. Let's hope she is as successful as Ross was.

So, as you can guess, I'm pretty upset about California's prospects. The "Golden" State is not looking so golden right now, and I see no way out of its extreme lack of gold ($20B deficit). Without a "con-con" that includes radical tax reform ... that gets rid of the "supermajority" required to raise taxes ... without more taxes collected, and more fair taxation of people and corporations (which the SCOTUS, with its aforementioned supreme wisdom, recently deemed were people too) ... we Californians will continue to be royally fucked, buried in our own feces, especially those of us who recently bought houses.

So let me send out a big fuck you to those Californians who have been in their houses for a long time and support Prop 13 because it is a good deal for them. You deserve the shit that gets piled on you because our state and local governments are broke. I wonder if Howard Jarvis still lives in the home where Jerry Brown use to have breakfast with him and discuss how best to implement Prop 13. I bet Howard's taxes are low. Fuck you Howard Jarvis, and Jerry Brown for dining with him. Meg, a New Yorker, has only lived in her posh Atherton home since 1998. I'm sure she can afford the taxes she pays, which are disproportionately higher than Warren's ... and disproportionately lower than mine. Fuck you Meg, and I hope you aren't able to buy your way into the Governor's mansion.

Oh, that's right, California doesn't have a Governor's mansion because its Governors, since Reagan, have been wealthy enough to afford better living conditions. Arnold has a private jet fly him up from Brentwood. Meg will probably stay in her Atherton mansion, while Jerry Brown may stay in his expensive Oakland Hills home he forgets to talk about when he lies about how he is not the son of extreme privilege.

Obama No Liberal

2009-12-13T12:18:00.000-08:00

This Rolling Stone article, Obama's Big Sellout, is really intended for anyone holding out that Obama is a liberal, a good guy, wise, etc. He's clearly not any of these. Let's not be fooled by his kind smile, obviously very high intelligence, nice family, and oratory skills anymore. You couldn't find a more suited person if your goal is to fool the liberals and centrists of America into voting for a right-of-center candidate after eight years of Bush. Not only do I feel duped; I feel enraged. Obama has the ethics of a ... well, a Bill Clinton.

Taibbi's article focuses on Obama and his mini Rubins and how they've fucked up our economy in so many ways. I imagine them as the ones at Greenspan's who's-who Ayn Rand book club meetings interrupting the free-market blather with side comments supporting a little more health care for the little man.

Here's another telling article--The Cheney Fallacy--this one by the mostly conservative mag The New Republic. TNR lists a variety of areas that Obama might have differed from Bush in the so-called "war on terror." TNR's politics are made clear when they list "interrogation" as one category, instead of "torture."

You will notice that Obama, despite many promises to be very different than Bush, is not significantly different at all--especially when it comes to the economy and the endless "war on terror" (a war on a form of fighting? how about a war on explosives? or on killing?). We should have known during the campaign when Obama position on wiretapping came out (not against the executive office breaking the law when it wants to as long as the law broken has something to do with a war with no possible ending).

We do see differences in health care. Bush II never would have even considered health care reform that would do anything but line the pockets of big pharma and the insurance companies more. Where else? Isn't it sad that it is so hard to come up with obviously distinct areas. Torture goes unpunished (and probably unchecked), rendition continues, Wall Street giveaways continues, insurance companies survive and continue to thrive ... Even land mines! We'd be better off with no health insurance companies and no land mines. The former is obviously more deadly.

For those of you out there who supported Hillary, you may feel some satisfaction that we duped Obama supporters are now having to eat our words ... well, all I can say is that chances are that the former NY Senator--a position that simply means "bought by Wall Street" (google Schumer and Wall Street)--would have been much the same. I wonder if she would have investigated Bush's crimes. I doubt it. Hard to imagine any Dem who could actually win the presidency while also actually upholding the constitution these days. This is probably because those in Wall Street don't want to make too many waves while their man (or woman) assist them in raking in billions. And because there are more Republicans on Wall Street than "limousine liberals" like the Rubin and his cronies.

I see no significant change I can believe in ... and I doubt my opinion will change, my rage will subside, by 2012. Of course, we are held hostage by the one-party system (two factions of the Business Party) and can only hope that the "Democratic" faction of the Business (Wall Street) Party will produce someone who will at least try to uphold the constitution while he or she shovels billions toward Wall Street. I grant that my Obama rage is one I'd choose over the eight years of Bush II rage I experienced, but we have to recognize how fucked we are when the senator we elect as president has one of the most liberal voting records while he was a senator--and then he turns out not at all liberal, bought by Wall Street and insurance companies like any Republican, as president. We're fucked. Wall Street wins. Insurance companies win. We can only hope that "the masters of the universe" will not be complete tyrants--that they may follow through on some of those "limousine liberal" ideas and allow some of them to become policies. Maybe the little man will get a little more health care.

I recently read an article in the Business-Party-friendly Economist magazine that argued that California is now ungovernable. It seems to me that our country should be seen as such--especially when "governable" means serving the interests of the demos.

2009-08-18T15:23:00.000-07:00

A letter to Harper's Magazine by Joseph Marguelies of Chicago. Harper's entitled it "Stress Position":

In “We Still Torture” [Criticism, July, 2009], Luke Mitchell notes that President Obama has preserved much more than he has rejected of his predecessor’s approach to post-9/11 detentions. This fidelity to the past is not confined to detentions; regarding domestic surveillance and state secrets, the differences between Bush and Obama are likewise insignificant.

There is nothing unusual about a president who fails to deliver on a promise of change. What is striking is that so many people—on both the left and the right—seem to believe, contrary to all evidence, that change has indeed come, and that Obama has adopted a set of policies diametrically opposed to those of the Bush Administration. For some, this misconception—an alleged end to a shameful epoch—has occasioned a sigh of relief; for others, like former vice president Dick Cheney, it has produced alarmist consternation. Why do so many see so much in so little?

As with much in politics, it is a problem of perspective. For the overwhelming majority of Americans, post-9/11 detention policy is necessarily remote. Shrouded in secrecy, it operates in a realm set apart from our daily existence and completely beyond our influence. It exists as a collection of evocative images and ideas—black sites, Guantánamo, terrorists, torture—that are entwined with the most powerful political symbols in American life: race, national security, and, the most elusive of all, “American values.”

This potent symbolism guarantees popular interest in the debates surrounding our detention policy even as the policy’s remoteness means that people cannot intelligently evaluate these debates. Are the prisoners innocent men, wrongly detained and horribly mistreated? Or coddled terrorists committed to destruction and mayhem? Can they be tried in federal court or paroled into the United States? Or would they overwhelm our courts and disappear into the shadows only to strike again?

We are apt to forget that Americans rather recently attached inordinate significance to a junior senator’s dramatic allegations that Communists had infiltrated the State Department. McCarthyism and its attendant debates unfolded mostly at a symbolic level; today, the public’s passionate attachment to the course of detention policy is similarly untempered by reason.

Under such circumstances, people form opinions based on symbolic gestures from trusted voices. That is, when remote issues acquire symbolic significance, symbolic gestures substitute for actual change. In a recent speech at the National Archives, surrounded by our founding and most revered documents, President Obama announced that he had broken with the policies of President Bush and embraced the Constitution. The response was swift and predictable: obama reinstates rule of law. The details announced in the same speech, including Obama’s plan to hold prisoners indefinitely without charge or trial—the same policy so detested during the Bush Administration—were generally ignored. The symbolic gesture (the closure of Guantánamo) satisfied the portion of the public that trusts Obama and alarmed the portion that does not.

It makes no difference—to either group—that Guantánamo may be closed but immediately re-opened elsewhere, or that Obama has stepped into the footprint left by the forty-third president. Political change is usually just symbolic change, and that, for most, is enough.

Public Option Now!

2009-06-21T15:10:00.000-07:00

An email I sent to a bunch of friends and family today:

Greetings fellow Americans,

I have never tried to start a pass-along email before, but this issue seems so important that I hope you will excuse me for doing it now. Whether you see yourself as right, left, or centrist, I am hoping you will send this email to as many friends and family members you know who will consider reading up on what I see as the most important aspect of the healthcare reform that the Obama administration is currently trying to push through: what is known as the "public option."

I am hoping this email might encourage liberals and lefties like myself to learn even more, and back even more, the "public option" over an unrealistic "single-payer" system. Let's admit it: single-payer in the U.S. is just not going to happen in our lifetimes.

I am also hoping that some conservatives out there might be able to look beyond their usual dismissals of a public option as "socialized medicine" and take some time to at least understand better what they are fighting against--and, more importantly, to understand the difference between a "single-payer" or strictly public system and the private-public mix currently under consideration in Congress.

I am hoping our country will work toward a public-private mix, one that has a viable and complete "public option" for any American who wants it, and one where those desiring more or better healthcare would be free to purchase private insurance. Beyond seeing the establishment of a strictly public system as unrealistic in our country, I also see it as potentially unnecessary since people should be free to purchase private insurance for more or better healthcare than what the state can provide, even if the state is providing great care (as, I believe, it is morally obliged to do). The goal is to get every citizen of the state basic health care, and any private option should be just that: an option. It should be secondary and not get in the way of a viable, prevention-focused, womb-to-tomb public option.

As reported on June 20, 2009, a NYT/CBS poll shows that there is currently "wide support for government-run health" in our country: "Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers [known as 'the public option.'] The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector."

If you are worried about higher taxes, you should know that the average insured American family currently shells out $1000 per year for the cost of the uninsured. It is called a "hidden tax"--and this is just the cost of the uninsured. Just think what the "hidden tax" is for insurance companies' profits--companies like AIG who have recently received $173 Billion in a government bailout. After AIG received their first $80 Billion, "the company sent executives on a $440,000 retreat to a posh California resort." Later AIG would balk at the claims of AIG-insured passengers of the jet that was ditched in the Hudson. There's free-market efficiency for you!

Would you rather have an AIG bureaucrat between you and your doctor, or a government employee? Why are government employees so maligned? Soldiers, by the way, are government employees. Actually, given how much we tax payers have given AIG the only difference is that the AIG bureaucrat gets a much larger salary and a big fat bonus if he or she buys up some toxic asset and helping AIG become "too big to fail." Also, this report by the Commonwealth Fund argues that it is clear that the government does a better job at running its part of Medicare than the private sector does with its part, called "Medicare Advantage" (see this post by Maggie Mahar which lists the myriad ways Medicare Advantage amounts to an insurance company scam). As Paul Waldman argues, Medicare Advantage shows that "the government pays insurance companies more to provide a service it is providing to other enrollees for less."

The U.S. spends more for less in general, according to a World Health Organization report: "The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance.... The United Kingdom, which spends six percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th." In 2007, according to a report by the the National Coalition on Health Care, the U.S. spent $2.4 trillion or $7900 per person on healthcare, which constituted 17% of GDP. So we spent 17% of our GDP for a 37th ranking, while the U.K. spent 6% of its GDP to be ranked 18th. That is more than bad health care; that's bad business, fiscal irresponsibility. It's also immoral because that 17% of GDP, that $2.4 trillion, leaves 50 million Americans uninsured.

I think most would agree that our current insurance-company-based healthcare system does not work. It is in fact, broken. Very sick. A "sicko" in both senses: ill and also pervertedly immoral. The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies estimates that 18,000 Americans will die this year due to being uninsured. I know a 23 year old who is right now putting off a much-needed second heart surgery because she is worried she can't afford it, and she can't get insurance because of her pre-existing condition. What should she do? Yes, she could die if her heart valve fails due to the scar tissue from the first operation, one she received when she was six months old. If she doesn't get the operation soon, and she doesn't die, her life is at risk of being really hurt or ruined by a variety of health issues her heart problems could cause. 18K die each year, but how many millions of Americans' lives have been egregiously hurt or ruined by being uninsured?

Not only is this immoral; people like this person with a bad heart valve end up costing more over the span of their unnecessarily unhealthy lives. The same WHO report ranked the US 72nd in overall health. According to a report by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "promoting the health of young children, before five years of age, could save society up to $65 billion in future health care costs." What could we save by focusing on preventative health care in general?

You might ask yourself why the so-called "competition"of our current system has failed so miserably, and why basic healthcare is not a basic right like education--why the myths circulated about the Canadian system are so often accepted as fact. I ask why would anyone defend a system ranked 37th overall in the world by the WHO? Right above Slovenia, but way below number-one-ranked France. Even those liberals at BusinessWeek agree that "the French system--a complex mix of private and public financing--offers valuable lessons for would-be health-care reformers in the U.S."

Let's put away our usual prejudices about the French, the Canadian healthcare system, and knee-jerk reactions to government health care as "socialist" and take a serious look at a "public option" that would lay the foundation for the U.S. system to move toward where it has to go: a more viable and ethical "mix of private and public financing." It has to go there because we cannot afford our current "sicko" system: it is too expense in dollars, lives, and needless suffering. Health care should be a basic right here in the U.S., just like it is in every other advanced nation. It's obvious to almost anyone who has grown up in an advanced nation. Please pass this email on so we can get more people educated about what it means to support a "public option." We need a viable public-private system where health care is treated like a basic right.

Thanks for your time.

The Baggage Handler

A Brief History of Recent Failures to Uphold the Constitution

2009-05-14T15:30:00.000-07:00

When it comes to the many issues surrounding the US war crime of torture, one of the main political questions for me is who among American politicians should be investigated, prosecuted and, if found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, sentenced according to the law (impeachment, jail time, disbarring, censure, etc.).

It has been rather clear to me that Bush, Cheney, Tenet, Rice, Rumsfeld and several of their minions (Addington, Feith, Yoo, Bybee, etc.) should have been investigated back in 2004/2005 after Abu Ghraib broke--that is, after it became more and more clear that the Bush administration had authorized, rationalized and ordered crimes such as extraordinary rendition and torture.

Since then it has become clear that prosecution has been in order for years, especially after Obama's recent release of the so-called torture memos and the recent release of the Red Cross report. It has also become clear that many in congress and elsewhere, Democrats and Republicans, are now guilty of failing to uphold the constitution and should also be investigated and potentially prosecuted.

Condoleezza Rice's recent comment that "by definition if it was authorized by the President" any controversial interrogation technique is therefore legal suggests why Bush and his cronies should be in more trouble than they are currently in: they believed that they were above the law simply by Presidential decree. Dana Milbank reported on the Bush administration's post-Watergate move to return power to the President, but his report buys into Bush administration rationalizations that there is actually a constitutional theory that supports giving the power to the President to suspend the constitution. Milbank calls this theory a strong version of the "unitary executive theory," but even this executive-biased theory has to be stretched beyond all recognition to match Rice's imperial legal theory (irony: she will be teaching political theory at Stanford).

In 2005 it became clear that Bush and Co. had broken the Watergate-inspired FISA law by wiretapping US citizens without warrants. By early 2006, the focus of those interested in bringing the Bush administration to justice switched from lying us into war, war crimes and torture to warrantless wiretapping, which at the time seemed like a much clearer violation of the law since Bush and Co., in all their arrogance, admitted they were accountable. There was also an under-reported majority of Americans who supported impeachment for warrantless wiretapping. In January, 2006, Al Gore said on ABC News that warrentless wiretapping could constitute an impeachable offense.

To many, these areas of "high crimes" were all, by themselves, deserving of investigation, prosecution and even impeachment years ago. But from Abu Ghraib in 2004 to the mid-term election in late 2006, the Bush administration had nothing to fear because a Republican-led congress had no problem violating the law by ignoring calls for independent investigations. They felt no need to uphold the constitution, and the citizenry did not hold them accountable to their sworn oaths to do so. These violations of the law themselves deserve investigation: legislatures should not have a choice with respect to upholding the constitution. It is their legal obligation. This is also true for Democratic legislatures, including Pelosi, and our current Executive, who both share an "off the table" policy with regard to even investigation of these high crimes.

My argument has always been that deciding not to investigate, let alone prosecute, these obvious high crimes is itself a high crime. The oath that all of these politicians take when they begin their service to us citizens starts with the idea of upholding the constitution. It's very basic, very American. Of course, the idea is to have a system of checks and balances between three equally weighted branches of government, in a way that supports the rule of law (in order to avoid the rule of people and parties, dictators, kings and oligarchies). During 2004-2006, a GOP dominated executive, legislative and judiciary did not provide any hope for such checks and balances, but it did provide fertile ground for the executive's abuse of power in the form of assuming king-like powers to be above the law. GOP leaders even employed the anachronistic idea "sovereign immunity"--and our supposedly liberal President has followed suit and even gone further than the Bushies in some ways.

In November, 2006, there was cause for hope regarding investigations of GOP high crimes when a new, Democratic-led congress was elected. This hope was quickly dashed by the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, when she declared soon after assuming power, in contrast to the campaign promises of many in her party, that impeachment processes, including any investigations to see if prosecution would be warranted, were "off the table."

A little over a year later, in December, 2007, a reason came to light for Pelosi's "off the table" policy, an obvious betrayal of her duty to uphold the constitution. Pelosi had been briefed on "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" in September, 2002. As John Nichols recently points out, this was known in late 2007, but it has only recently become big news after the release of the pertinent CIA briefings notes, which do not explicitly mention waterboarding. Everyone is focused on waterboarding and whether Pelosi was briefed on them in September, 2002, because it is seen as an obvious form of torture, and even more obviously when used 83 times, as it was against Abu Zubaydah. The problem with this focus on waterboarding, according to the Physicians for Human Rights, is that all of the EITs are potentially torture:

The unprecedented analysis by Human Rights First and Physicians for Human Rights combines medical and legal expertise to comprehensively examine ten techniques widely reported to have been authorized for use in the CIA's secret interrogation program, including sleep deprivation, simulated drowning, stress positions, beating, and induced hypothermia. The Report —"Leave No Marks: 'Enhanced' Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality"— demonstrates the mental and physical consequences of the use of these techniques, and its title refers to the techniques' intended design, which is to inflict psychological trauma and pain without leaving physical scars. U.S. law requires an assessment of the physical and mental impact of an interrogation method to determine its legality. The report concludes that each of the ten tactics is likely to violate U.S. laws, including the War Crimes Act, the U.S. Torture Act, and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

Pelosi insistence that she was not briefed on waterboarding in September, 2002, is basically a claim that she was not briefed on techniques that would constitute torture, therefore she had no obligation at the time to report or investigate possible war crimes. The CIA claims Pelosi knew about waterboarding in 2002, but Pelosi claims she didn't know until 2003 and that the CIA lied to her then, saying it would be used, not that it had been in use for a long time. All of these complexities are moot: if Pelosi was briefed on EITs, she was briefed on possible war crimes, with or without waterboarding, and whether it was briefed as being done at the time or as a plan for the future. She was legally obligated to have done something in 2002 and should be investigated.

GOP leaders have recently called for investigations of Pelosi's role in approving torture, and have even gone so far as to say she was one of the authors of this policy. I agree with Robert Scheer when he argues that calling Pelosi an "author" of the policy is nonsense, but I go farther than calling her simply an enabler:

"She was neither the author of a systematic policy of torture nor has she been, like Cheney and most top Republicans in Congress, an enduring apologist for its practice. It is a nonsensical distraction to place her failure to speak out courageously as a critic of the Bush policies on the same level as those who engineered one of the most shameful debacles in U.S. history. But what she, and anyone else who went along with this evil, as lackadaisically as she now claims, should be confronted with are the serious implications of their passive acquiescence."
Pelosi silence after the 2002 briefing and her "off the table" policy certainly enabled the Bush administration to both continue torturing and avoiding prosecution. But "enable" seems too weak here. I would go with "accomplice" and suggest that she should be investigated and prosecuted if it is found that she failed in her duty to uphold the constitution."

Pelosi is also embroiled in the wiretapping crime. She admitted that she was briefed "a few years ago" on Bush administration illegal wiretaps of Representative Jane Harman and, again, chose to do nothing about it. Take a second and consider this: the Bush administration confesses to wiretapping (Watergate!) a leading Democrat (Watergate!), and they confess this to another leading Democrat, and she then decides not to do anything about it. Regardless if she was protecting herself or Harmon, how could she rationalize that it was okay not to do anything about this obvious high crime of subverting our democracy, one that is so much like the Nixon administration's bugging of the Democratic headquarters? It is important to ask if Harmon break the law with regard to AIPAC, but it is much more important to investigate the Bush administration for these crimes, and anyone who enabled them to get away with it, including Pelosi and Harman, who has now changed her tune on warrantless wiretapping.

These two examples of Pelosi enabling the Bush administration's criminal actions--wiretapping and torture--make Pelosi's "off the table" policy understandable: she was protecting herself from investigation and possible prosecution. This also makes Obama's decision to adopt the "off the table" policy more understandable: in addition to trying to create an environment better suited to passing the legislation he wants passed, he was probably also protecting the second highest ranking Democrat: Nancy Pelosi. Regardless of his reasons, his DECISION not to uphold the constitution seems to me be a high crime itself.

Obama's Duty to Prosecute

2009-04-23T15:13:00.000-07:00

Here are two articles that clearly spell out Obama's duty to prosecute those who committed or authorized war crimes in the form of torture:

"Obama Stands Nuremberg On Its Head" by Mike Farrell.

"Not the Better Part of Valor: Obama's Duty to Prosecute Torturers" by Marjorie Cohen.

Here's my response to the first article:

I am a graduate of the military’s SERE program, the well-documented source of torture techniques used by the CIA. For me, it is obvious that what the CIA did was torture, and therefore a war crime. SERE was set up to train soldiers and flyers to resist torture in case they ever found themselves captured. The whole idea of the program was to teach this type of “resistance” (the R in the name). The techniques used by SERE cadre came from Chinese torture techniques used in the Korean War (and from the sadistic imaginations of “hell week” trained cadre). We all knew these techniques were torture; that was the point.

The parallel with Nuremberg is not the severity of the crime; the parallel is that a war crime was committed and the legal question is whether someone should be held accountable for that crime if they were following orders. I am confident that the torturers in question were trained, as I was during SERE training, on the Geneva Conventions, and that they knew they were torturing. They also knew that they had a legal obligation not to commit war crimes, not to torture. My training made this abundantly clear.

I am not trained as a lawyer, but the question for me is whether Obama is putting himself above the law by *deciding* not to uphold the constitution when war crimes were obviously committed. It seems to me that Obama is legally obligated to uphold the constitution, and therefore legally obligated to prosecute potential war criminals, including the CIA agents, the lawyers who helped justify their crimes, and those who gave the ultimate orders: Bush and Rumsfeld.

I supported Obama in the election, so it saddens me to think that his *decision* to put himself above the law in this way may be an impeachable crime. Of course, it gets really messy if we consider that many democrats have been guilty of such crimes, of not upholding the constitution, for a while now (Pelosi and Reid) for not prosecuting these war crimes earlier: keeping such prosecutions “off the table” for political reasons. This is all unclear to me because I am not a lawyer, but Bush put himself above the law (with the help of Yoo and friends) by ordering torture (and wiretapping). I felt he should have been impeached for it long ago, and I feel he still should be prosecuted.

We need a big reminder that kings aren’t allowed here in the US. Presidents can’t *decide* whether or not to follow and/or uphold the law. If they *decide* not to uphold the law, to betray their oath (botched or not) for political expediency, they should be impeached. Doesn’t Obama, a constitutional scholar of sorts, understand what his duty is here? He has a duty to uphold the constitution first and foremost. He is not fit for the job if he doesn’t do his duty.

A letter to Robert Scheer on torture

2007-10-23T07:19:00.000-07:00

Dear Robert Scheer,

I am writing to thank you for your comments on torture last Friday, 10/19/07, on Left, Right & Center (LR&C)....

You mentioned the "Fort Hunt Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII" 10/6 article in the Washington Post. These state-side WWII interrogators seem convincing when they claim not to have done anything to unsettle the American myth that "we do not torture."

With respect to the issue of the use of torture by Americans in WWII, I wanted to draw your attention to a book review I read yesterday in the NY Review of Books. The book is After the Reich: The Brutal History of Allied Occupation by Giles MacDonogh and the article is "Cruel Allied Occupiers" by Patricia Meehan. It seems the Fort Hunt interrogators were the state-side exception when it came to US interrogators of WWII. From the book:

The Americans had used methods similar to those employed by the SS in Dachau. One of these was keeping the prisoner for long periods in solitary confinement.... Worse still were the mock executions.... More conventional methods of torture included kicks to the groin, deprivation of sleep and food, and savage beatings. When the Americans set up a commission of inquiry into the methods used by their investigators, the found that, of the 139 cases they examined, 137 had "had their testicles permanently destroyed by kicks received from the American War Crimes Investigation team."

In America's Anti-Torture Tradition, Robert Kennedy Jr makes the point that an anti-torture stance goes to the root of the American tradition, connecting it to George Washington and the American Revolution. But you have to wonder how complete his research is when he argues that Ike guaranteed the fair treatment of Germans. Perhaps he should read MacDonogh's book?

I'd be interested in what you think about these points on torture. I will be speaking on torture at Stanford's Center on Ethics in January. I know you are busy, but it would be great if you could make it. The time is yet to be determined. Thanks for your time.

Best wishes, Baggage Handler

My Answer to MoveOn’s ad: it’s clearly “General Betray Us”

2007-09-21T13:35:00.001-07:00

I’m not sure I can add much to Cindy Sheehan’s and Kieth Olbermann’s slamming of Bush and the yes-vote Dems on the MoveOn ad issue. Olbermann is particularly strong on the very American line between the military and politics. Sheehan is particularly strong on why support for MoveOn is critical, but also why MoveOn needs to distance itself more from the Dems and less from what she considers the real peace movement.

My disgust goes out mostly to the yes-vote or no-vote-at-all Dems.

One of the most important outcomes of the Senate vote on 9/20/07 to repudiate an ad from MoveOn.org that referred to Gen. David Petraeus as “General Betray Us” is a surprisingly neat division of the Democratic faction of the corporate party.

It seems to me that the “yes” voters would constitute the “fanaticism tolerant” faction of the Democratic faction (if not just the fanatical faction), whereas the “no” voters would simply be those who have to be a part of this faction, and this one-party system, in order to get elected.

I would be more disgusted by the charade of this Senate repudiation if this type of thing weren’t so common. To paraphrase a celluloid Colonel, America can’t handle the truth.

(Progressive voters, by the way, should scratch off any presidential candidate not clearly on the “no” list--even though I am not a Clinton fan. Feingold-Boxer for ’08?).

Democrats Voting to Condemn MoveOn.org:

Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Cardin (D-MD), Carper (D-DE), Casey (D-PA), Conrad (D-ND), Dorgan (D-ND), Feinstein (D-CA), Johnson (D-SD), Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Leahy (D-VT), Lincoln (D-AR), McCaskill (D-MO), Mikulski (D-MD), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Salazar (D-CO), Tester (D-MT), Webb (D-VA)

Demsocrats Who Voted ‘No’:

Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Byrd (D-WV), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sanders (I-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Stabenow (D-MI), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR)

Democrats Not Voting:

Biden (D-DE), Cantwell (D-WA), Obama (D-IL)

In addition to the Senate repudiation, the MoveOn ad has been the talk of right-wing news. The repudiation, however, has also galvenized MoveOn members like me, and thousands of non-members have emailed to show support:

"I'm currently in Iraq. I do not agree with this war, and if I did support this war, it would not matter. You have the RIGHT to speak the truth. We KNOW that you support us. Thank you for speaking out for being our voice. We do not have a voice. We are overshooted by those who say that we soldiers do not support organizations like MoveOn. WE DO. YOU ARE OUR voice."

"I have given a son to this country. My brother, my father, my uncle have all served honorably and bravely. I am a loyal American. I am outraged and sick to death of the tactics this administration uses to try to silence dissent to a war that is unjust, built and maintained on lies, political power, and greed. I was content to let others fight more loudly, but no more."
–Sharyn W., NC

"I am a prior soldier who served in Iraq for 13 months, and am now an expecting mom with a husband who is deployed in Baghdad. I don't think I can ever forgive the Bush administration for the lies that tricked America into this war and hurt my family so badly. I am ashamed of those American politicians who would condemn an organization for practicing the Freedom of Speech that so many soldiers have died for. "
–Danielle B., OH

"As a US Navy veteran and an Iraq war veteran of over a year I want to ask, What has happened to us? What has happened to our voice? Where is this country going with stopping free speech and free press? ... Every time I think of the long nights I had in Anbar remembering what I was fighting for, well here it is.... "
–Ahmad H., LA

MoveOn has also received record contributions for their next political ad, "Betrayal of Trust," another truthful, hard-hitting ad, this one about how the GOP's so-called support of our troops keeps them longer in Iraq by keeping their tours unreasonably long.

Regardless of any potential tactical blunder of the "General Betray Us" ad, of throwing such a corporate-media-syntonic bone to the rabid fanatics of the large right-wing faction of the corporate party, MoveOn’s position, clearly stated in the ad and backed up thoroughly on their web site, was to simply suggest the obvious truth: General Petraeus mislead the American people in 2004 with his Washington Post op-ed piece, and did the same during his recent testimony in congress. He has clearly betrayed us, his country, his duty, his profession, and the oaths he repeatedly took to serve the constitution and to tell the truth.

Paul Krugman had it right in his 9/3/2007 NYT Op-ed column, “Snow Job in the Desert,” which made an excellent comparison between Colin Powell’s WMD address to the UN and Gen. Petraeus’s then upcoming testimony to congress. In both cases, “the political and media establishments swooned” as the Generals presented doctored evidence in the attempt to make the Bush administration’s lies seem true, their folly seem reasonable, their folie seem sane. Both Generals have clearly betrayed the American people and their country by being followers and not leaders, by being overly loyal to their boss and their political careers.

The only solid evidence these two testimonies gave was for the fact that, since George Washington, generals more and more should stay generals and keep out of politics. Powell never ran for President, though a 2004 bid would have been welcomed because anyone is better than Bush. His UN address would have haunted him in the general elections, of course, but many Republicans are still making the same arguments he made to the UN, so he may have had a chance in the primaries.

Three things have struck me about the career of General Petraeus. First, Bush’s grand warrior didn’t see combat until he arrived in Iraq four years ago as a Major General (!). This veteran and Air Force Academy graduate knows that this is really unusual. Second, his military effectiveness there has come under considerable criticism (of course, in utter contrast to the administration’s obviously effective staging). And, third, there is a credible report that he wants to be president someday.

The latter makes more sense when you consider how inappropriate it is for an Army General to write any op-ed piece while in command during a war, and particularly one that was so blatantly partisan, one so blatantly timed to influence the elections, and one that can now be seen as so blatantly untrue. Beyond kissing Bush’s ass, few besides Gary Hart and Rachel Sklar have mentioned that this presidential election season op-ed can also be understood as the General writing his own report card for the job he had been doing in Iraq. The Democrats never should have allowed Petraeus to testify since they should have known he would once more be giving himself and Bush a B+ when they are obviously failing.

Rachel Sklar, however, is significantly off the mark in her Huffington Post piece. She states that the basic evidence against Petraeus is not “enough to damn the Petraeus report on its own, not by a long shot.” Her reasoning here strikes me as more swooning over uniforms, rank, and medals: “There are four stars on his shoulder that didn't get there by being on the sidelines.” No, he’s been in the game, but the game has only recently included war: he had only two stars before he saw combat at all. Kissing ass to Bush secured the other two.

Sklar includes most of the important evidence against Petraeus. She summarizes Krugman’s main two points: “(1) Petraeus, whose assertions are being so eagerly awaited, has been wildly wrong before; and (2) The publication of that op-ed so close to an election is suggestive of a political/partisan interest.” Actually, Krugman’s first main point is that Petreaus lied in 2004. In other words, Petraeus “betrayed us” in 2004. His second point is that the op-ed piece is much more than “suggestive” of inappropriate partisan politics.

When you combine his crass partisanship, the inappropriateness of the op-ed piece, the fact that Petraeus is clearly a Bush kiss ass with political ambitions, and Hart’s point that “(3) The credibility of the report [and the congressional testimony] is affected when the reporter has a stake in the outcome,” it seems to me that there is clearly more than enough evidence here to substantiate an answer to MoveOn’s question.

Moreover, this military fetish is itself a huge problem in our unbelievably militaristic nation: the swooning, the pedestal granted to the uniform, etc. Remember, we live in a country where “support our troops” means keeping them in Iraq to either die, get maimed, or suffer from PTSD (and then be neglected by the VA). According to the GOP (and too many in the Democratic faction of the corporate party), “support our troops” also means we have to kowtow to four-star generals even though they got their stars mostly by being kiss-ass politicians and liars—and not by being a great warrior.

Krugman is an economist and his 9/14/07 column “A Surge, and Then a Stab” simply asks us to follow the money when we think about the current state of the Iraq war. He makes it clear where the smart money is going: out of Iraq. Bush crony Ray Hunt and his Hunt Oil know this. The column also makes it clear that Bush and crew know this.

Petraeus is a member of Bush and crew. The plan seems to be to keep the money and blood flowing while hoping for something better—but, if that something better doesn’t come, Bush’s tenure is almost over (thank god!) and Cindy Sheehan, the peace movement, MoveOn, and even some Dems can be blamed like the peaceniks were for Vietnam. Bush has obviously been laying the groundwork recently for this type of revisionist history with his troubled, bizarre and hypocritical comparisons of Vietnam and Iraq. Laying the groundwork for right-wing revisionist history is the only explanation I can muster for this odd move. I don’t look forward to the Rambo equivalents of tomorrow where the hero is bemoaning the MoveOn ad.

SERE and American Torture: A Speech Given at the 8/18/07 San Francisco Protest of the American Psychological Association

2007-08-21T16:14:00.000-07:00

The military’s "sear" or "seary" program is S-E-R-E: Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape. It is a school designed to teach officers and special forces--particularly pilots and special forces--how to survive behind enemy lines, evade the enemy, resist interrogation and torture, and escape from a POW camp. The resistance portion of the training simulates the experience of being held prisoner and interrogated and tortured by enemy forces who do not observe the Geneva conventions. Since SERE interrogation techniques do not follow the Geneva conventions, since they are torture, they are only appropriately applied to SERE training. To apply these techniques outside of SERE would be a war crime.

In May 2004 I wrote a blog entry as a response to the Abu Ghraib atrocities. A couple lines from this blog entry were quoted by Stephen Soldz in his important article, "Shrinks and the SERE Technique at Guantanimo,” where he makes it clear what I had suspected back in 2004: that the resistance training I got during SERE could be and has been "reverse engineered" to teach torture rather than just teaching resistance to torture.

What is crucial about this revised, reverse-engineered SERE is that we have a government-sponsored, tax-payer-supported program that we know teaches US citizens to be torturers, and which has lead to the atrocities of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and more.

What is NOT new here is that Americans are using and teaching torture. US torture does not start with the Bush administration. What is new with Bush is the openness of his administration’s torture policy, and what Naomi Klein calls the “in-sourcing” of that policy. In-sourcing means US citizens are being taught to be torturers.

In Vietnam the US out-sourced much of the torture of the Phoenix Project, a complex of forty interrogations centers around South Vietnam, built and run by the CIA and the US military, but manned mostly with US-trained south Vietnamese interrogators. This complex of torture centers was responsible for the deaths of at least twenty thousand Vietnamese, and it tortured many thousands more. The training textbook for the Phoenix Project was the CIA’s 1963 training manual, the KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual, which has a whole chapter on “coercive techniques” and was the textbook for Phoenix Project training.

The CIA’s second interrogation manual also has a whole chapter on “coercive techniques”: The 1983 Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual. Both manuals “recommend arresting suspects early in the morning by surprise, blindfolding them, and stripping them naked. Suspects should be held incommunicado and should be deprived of any kind of normal routine in eating and sleeping. Interrogation rooms should be windowless, soundproof, dark and without toilets” (see “US Army and CIA Interrogation Manuals”). The manuals describe coercive techniques to be used "to induce psychological regression in the subject by bringing a superior outside force to bear on his will to resist."

The 1983 manual was the product of the US Army Foreign Intelligence Assistance Program, also called Project X. Both manuals were presented as evidence during the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1988. These hearings were the response to abuses by the CIA-trained death squads in Honduras. These death squads, and many others like them, trained in Panama at the US-run School of the Americas, also know as “the School of the Assassins,” and “the School of Coups.” Since the rise of Castro, the School of the Americas has been an anti-communist counterinsurgency training school taught by CIA and US military, and taught solely in Spanish. The curriculum included torture and other tools of counterinsurgency. In 2000, the School of the Americas was given the new Orwellian name, Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, and moved out of Panama to the US. The name and location has changed, but it is doubtful that the curriculum has.

When it comes to teaching torture, SERE seems to me like elementary school when compared to the graduate programs of the Phoenix Project, the School of the Americas, and the myriad CIA programs throughout the coldwar. The CIA has had torture expertise since its inception during WWII. Again, what is new is that US citizens are being taught to torture rather than out-sourcing to citizens of Latin America or South Vietnam, and that this administration is relatively open about torturing. What is old is that the US continues to produce world-class torturers and to be guilty of world-class war crimes. The CIA and US military learned from the Nazis and Japanese during and after WWII, and then field-tested in Vietnam and Latin America their pseudo-scientific and criminal research of the 1950s done on psychiatric patients and prisoners (See "Prisoner Abuse" below). What is new is that after 9/11 the Bush administration has basically demanded the right to torture openly and so far the American Psychological Association, congress, and much of the country has gone right along with it.

After Abu Ghraib, Bush had to choose a venue to make his ridiculous “We do not torture” speech. He chose Panama City, about an hour from the former home of the School of the Americas. Even if the “we” goes beyond his administration to the US in general, my basic point here is that “we do torture.” US torture doesn’t start with Bush and 9/11. It goes beyond SERE, and beyond Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. WE DO torture - WE DO secret prisons - WE DO rendition - WE DO abolish habeas corpus.

We need to come to terms with who WE are and what WE DO.

Thank you.

See also:

Prisoner Abuse: Patterns from the Past, U.S. National Security Archive, May 12, 2004:

"Throughout the 1950s and early ’60s, the CIA -- the lead agency doing interrogations at Abu Ghraib -- financed and conducted secret research on coercion and human consciousness, McCoy said. 'The scale of that research should not be minimized. By the late ’50s, it reached a billion dollars a year. The agency was providing the majority of the funding for a half-dozen leading psychology departments.'”

Investigate Bush's high crimes!

2006-11-25T08:08:00.000-08:00

The election is over and the Dems are already making me sick by avoiding the issue of impeachment, or by simply saying it will not be pursued in order to appease their increasingly right-wing constituencies. Pursuing impeachment was the main reason I wanted the Dems to win both houses.

See this article for more on the issue:

Breathing the "I" Word, by Elizabeth Holtzman

See these books for a lot more info on the how and why Bush should be impeached:

The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens, by Elizabeth Holtzman, with Cynthia Cooper.

Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, by the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky.

Don't let the Dems--now in power, but still bought up by right-wing/conservative interests--undermine the constitution by avoiding their sworn duty to uphold it. There is a VERY good chance Bush is guilty of impeachable crimes. If so, this president, and future presidents, need to be held accountable for "high crimes." Pelosi is making it clear that she won't do her duty, probably because her career is more important to her, and she sees impeachment as potentially damaging to her career. She feels she needs to be careful about these things.

Pelosi: "I said we'd be having hearings on the war, we'd have hearings. But I don't see us going to a place of impeachment," Pelosi said in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press. "Investigation does not equate to impeachment. Investigation is the requirement of Congress. It is about checks and balances." (see article). It seems like a bad idea to have determined where the hearings and investigations will go before you have them. In other words, hold the investigations, and then decide if impeachment is the appropriate course.

Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesperson: "impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it." Why does she have the power to decide not to investigate what obviously could be impeachable offenses? Her duty is to at least investigate these issues.

The long-term good of the country is better served by the Dems doing their duty and starting impeachment proceedings--or at least not deciding the outcome of investigations and hearings before they start. Watergate hearings didn't happen because of the Dems wanting to do what was right; the people had to push them. Now it is our turn to push. We need to push Pelosi and the rest of the careerists in the so-called Democratic Party. You can be sure that super careerist Senator Clinton won't be much better on this issue than Pelosi. I'll be supporting a Spitzer/Obama ticket in 2008, though Obama seems very much like a careerist too.

Please pass on these links so that the 53% of the Americans who think impeachment should be on the agenda know that it is not only possible, but that it is necessary. As with Nixon, it will be up to the people--ie, us--to push these too-conservative dems to do what is obviously the just thing to do.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins: A Review

2006-02-18T14:58:00.000-08:00

Listening to NPR recently, I heard John Perkins interviewed about his best-selling autobiography, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. The interview left me intrigued enough to buy the book, but I hesitated to click the "buy" button after I read the negative review by Publisher's Weekly on the book's Amazon.com page:

[Perkins'] claim to have assisted the House of Saud in strengthening its ties to American power brokers may be timely enough to attract some attention, but the yarn he spins is ultimately unconvincing, except perhaps to conspiracy buffs.

I guess Amazon.com doesn't necessarily want to sell this book. Size has its privileges. I ended up clicking the "buy" button because, as a liberal, I am wary of the usual right wing, knee-jerk claim of "conspiracy theory" for any corruption revealed as involving more than two people--and since I know Amazon.com is not to be trusted due to their right-wing sympathies, and the significant roll they play in what I see as the vast right wing conspiracy we call the media. I need to stop shopping there. I confess.

A quick read of Perkins' Confessions left me with profoundly mixed feelings, and they had nothing to do with whether or not the book is plausible. In fact, with respect to the story Perkins tells about his dealings as an international consultant for Chas T. Main during the 70s and early 80s, it does not seem conspiratorial at all. For this reader, Perkins' book provided what seems to be very plausible but incomplete explanations for how and why "less developed countries," or "LDCs" in the book, become indebted to the DCs that control international banking, and how this indebtedness makes some people very rich: a small group of the LDC elite, the elite of the engineering corporations that get paid on the front end (what Perkins refers to as laundered money), and the elite of the oil companies that get paid on the back end by being able to exploit the resources of the LDC that can't repay the loans.

Besides the superficiality of his explanations of the machinations of these scams, what turned me off the book the most has to do with what the book is—that is, what it is beyond being an expose of how these scams have played a central role creating what we euphemistically call "globalization." The book is an autobiography; more specifically, it is a confessional. Perkins wants to be forgiven in a bad way. I don't just mean his desire to be forgiven is strong, which it is: he wants to be forgiven in a way that I find borderline nauseating.

Perkins crime as an "EHM" or "economic hit man" was to create inflated economic forecasts for LDC leaders who were considering going into debt in order to modernize their country's infrastructure. The EHM's sales pitch was that a modernized infrastructure would allow the country's economy to grow in a way that would not only allow the LDC to pay off the debt, but to also have money left over for a better standard of living. This would lead the LDC out of poverty and allow it to graduate to DC—or so the pitch went. The sinister element of the pitch was the EHM's inflated economic forecast that would convince the head of state that taking on such a large debt was justified by a future of riches. As Perkins tells it, his role as an economic forecaster for an influential consulting firm was central to this world-shaping scam. For this reader who knows little about the history of international finance and the causes of third world debt, this story filled in some important holes in my education on these very important topics. I now feel that the importance of the massive engineering contracts that came out of these and other scams Perkins explains in his narrative, particularly Saudi Arabia, helps me to better explain, for example, why going to war with Iraq would be of so much interest to the current Bush administration—and also why keeping the focus off of Saudi Arabia, the source of so much funding for Jihadist education around the world and the home of fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, would be so important to them too.

Since I cared little about Perkins redemption and quite a bit about the machinations of the scam itself, the book left me wanting a great deal more detail on the particulars of these scams, and how the scams worked and didn't work in various countries. I wanted much more of Perkins' insider knowledge and what I imagine to be whistle-blowing. It is understood that the contractors involved—Halliburton, Brown and Root … The Usual Suspects—were fully paid for their work by the loans, but why would a financial institution be willing to give loans which they knew were not going to be paid off? Was it like the S&L scam? Were these loans somehow insured by the governments involved? If not, wouldn't this scam amount to a very expensive way to achieve the desired indebtedness and servitude? Isn't the IMF and the World Bank—and all the other banks involved—also interested in making money? At least in being solvent?

The roles of commercial banks is left particularly unclear here. Patricia Adams writes in Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World's Environmental Legacy that commercial banks were making a lot of profit from third world loans during the 70s and early 80s, which was when Perkins was involved in the EHM game:

A Salomon Brothers report showed the thirteen largest U.S. banks had quintupled their earnings from $177 million to $836 million during the first half of the 1970s, with the most spectacular part of the increase coming from the Third World loans. By 1976, Chase Manhattan Bank was earning 78 per cent of its income abroad, Citibank 72 per cent, Bank of America 40 per cent, First Boston 68 per cent, Morgan Guaranty 53 per cent, and Manufacturers Hanover 56 per cent. The Banque Nationale de Paris (BNP), one of the world's largest banking houses, was thought to be profiting more from its various affiliates in Africa than from its extensive branch network in France. In absolute terms, Nigeria alone came to account for up to 20 per cent of BNP's after-tax earnings in the late 1970s. A 1982 bank survey reported that international lending had been more profitable than domestic lending for two out of three banks.

Was the World Bank losing money on third world loans while the commercial banks were making money? What about the IMF? How did the banks make money on these types of ventures, if they did? If they didn't, why were these institutions interested in making so much money up front for the Halliburtons of the world, and on the back end for the Exxons? These type of questions of globalization are not asked, or are left unanswered here. With Paul Wolfowitz at its head, it is not hard to imagine that the World Bank is so corrupt that it does not act as a proper financial institution guided by the invisible hand of capitalism but as a money laundering broker for the likes of the Halliburtons and Exxons with the likes of Cheney at its head. Yet this is where Perkins confession fall short. His broad strokes are suggestive, but need some detail to back them up. Like me, most of his readers will not be bankers. If this scam was so common, how has it gone undetected? Has it gone undetected? If it has been detected before and this international banking history beginner is just ignorant, is this book just about Perkins wanting redemption?

Also, he fails when it comes to holding individuals responsible, or, again, he leaves out the details. Why? Perkins barely mentions Bush Jr. He only mentions the obvious about Cheney. My guess is he could do a lot more here if he wanted to. Why doesn't he want to? Perkins mentions Bush Sr. and makes a convincing if only suggestive case that this part-owner of The United Fruit Company and former head of the CIA would be a mover and shaker within the corporatacracy's scam involving the likes of "banana republics," but why only suggestive? Perkins has the expertise and the experience to do a much more in-depth and damning expose of the machinations of international banking and loans to third world countries, and the collusion of corporations and government leaders. If his role was so central to the crimes of the corporatacracy, wouldn't redemption require more with respect to exposing the details of the scam, and at least some of the more significant players?

Indeed, it seems to this reader that Perkins is less interested in exposing the crimes and criminals of globalization than he is in redemption—and, to be blunt, in achieving some fame while receiving redemption (or fame as some form of redemption). Not surprisingly for such a confession, the character of the author is central. In this case, too much so. Perkins desire for some kind of redemption from his reading audience is a major failing of the book, where at times it gets almost unreadably mawkish and—surprisingly for someone who portrays himself as so Bond-like and worldly—naïve. For example, in a November 2004 interview with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, Perkins said the following:

And that's why I wrote the book, because our country really needs to understand, if people in this nation understood what our foreign policy is really about, what foreign aid is about, how our corporations work, where our tax money goes, I know we will demand change.

What "we" could he possibly be talking about? He seems to have been watching too much Oprah. In E. L. Doctorow's The Book of Daniel, Daniel wonders why his father seems constantly surprised by what they both see as the evil of the United States, and Daniel poignantly asks what it will take for his father to stop being surprised. Does Perkins actually think that his broad-strokes revelation, though probably significant, is such a ground-breaking surprise that it will actually lead to some kind of meaningful reform, or revolution?

Do I sense a bit of messianic narcissism at play here? Does he think that those who--like myself, mostly ignorant about the history of international finance--will read the book, learn something about the criminal machinations of globalization, and then will be spurred into action by their surprise and disgust? Unlike Daniels father, I'm not surprised. I've read Chomsky and Zinn. I subscribe to FAIR. Moreover, most American readers will either not care, reject what he has to say as a conspiracy theory, or, sad to say, believe in the rightness of the manifest destiny he decries and see this scam as a clever means of achieving it—even rationalizing that these LDCs at least got some infrastructure and a hard lessen in capitalism out of the deal. The "we" he refers to mostly will either not be surprised or will not care that the CIA killed Omar Torrijos. Invading Panama didn't seem to surprise the "we" too much, and that was rather blatant.

The scam of the book itself is that Perkins sells his belief in the inherent goodness of his reader as a way of seducing the reader into paying him back with some redemption. He wants the reader to see him as good, and in return he at times patronizingly treats the reader like a member of one of his tours down the Amazon: "like me, you want to be good too … let me show you how." When Goodman asks why he didn't write the book sooner, and what was the nature of the bribe he took not to write it, Perkins responds:

I think I, you know, I’m a good person overall, and I think my story really shows how this system and these powerful drugs of sex, money and power can seduce people, because I certainly was seduced.

He eventually answers the question with more confessions about taking pay as a consultant, and then not having to do any work. Being worldly, he understands this as a bribe to keep quiet.

Perkins repeatedly uses the seduction of the "sex, power, and money" this "system" could offer him as an excuse for his part in the crimes. Though the sex is left a bit vague, the power and money seem clear enough. He only briefly alludes to the sex since, as he makes clear (as if he were running for office), he's become a family man since he left the ranks of EHMs. He even attributes the ultimate completion of his transformation from hit man to liberal righteousness to his desire to want a better world for his daughter. You see: this is ultimately a family values confessional.

One thing a messianic narcissist can't attain while in the ranks of the covert EHMs is fame. So it seems Perkins has traded in the EHM's international sex for the international fame a best-selling author will enjoy. He'll still make money, and even enjoy the power the NYT's best seller list affords. He'll give lectures, and tours of the Amazon. But his messianic narcissism doesn't stop there: a visit to any of Perkins' web sites shows how he has moved from EHM to some bathetic mixture of new-age guru and modern-day Rousseau, confessing his corruption while spouting platitudes about the noble savage—as if the reader needs some reformed corporatacracy criminal to tell her or him how to be a good liberal:

The Prophecy of the Condor and Eagle' can be taken at many levels—the standard interpretation is that it foretells the sharing of indigenous knowledge with the technologies of science, the balancing of yin and yang, and the bridging of northern and southern cultures. However, most powerful is the message it offers about consciousness; it says that we have entered a time when we can benefit from the many diverse ways of seeing ourselves and the world, and that we can use these as a springboard to higher levels of awareness. As human beings, we can truly wake up and evolve into a more conscious species.

Perkins is a would-be prophet of the Good News to follow the corrupt capitalism he describes, a reader of the signs of the ages. I hope my awakening comes with a good dose of fame, sex, money, and power. Perhaps I can get a good start by joining one of the study groups in my neighborhood this would-be-Guru hopes to set up for discussions of his Confessions via his web site www.dreamchange.org. A grassroots movement that, unlike the rhizomatic roots of grass, very much has a center, a leader, the hero who has come back from the darkside to tell the rest of the rebel hoard how to be enlightened. Ugh. Patriotism is not this scoundrel's refuge. Like so many boomers before him, he has found his Oprah redemption in front of a fawning audience, albeit a redemption that seems shaky enough to lead to compulsive-sounding assurances that he is, "you know … a good person." Goodman's show is open to reformed right-wingers lamenting the error of their ways and the evils of capitalism, in a way giving them some kind of redemption if it leads to more ammunition against the vast right wing conspiracy—a small price to pay, it would seem, though it is hard to imagine needing more ammunition with Bush Jr. as president. This book might be better relocated out of the politics section and into the New-Age or self-help sections, or some combination of the two so popular among boomers recovering from some form of disenchantment.

Bush Broke the Law

2006-01-18T12:27:00.000-08:00

President Bush admitted to personally authorizing thousands of illegal wiretaps, and he doesn't plan to stop. Circumventing the Constitution is serious business. Impeachable business even.

This is a big moment. People from across the political spectrum are standing together to protect the rule of law and the principles that are core to our identity as Americans.

Please sign this MoveOn.org petition to show Congress that Americans want a thorough investigation of the president's secret wiretapping program?

Consider it a vote against an imperial presidency, which was the idea behind my 2004 EP cover above. The problem was clear then; now it is blatant. Don't let this "man for no season" get away with it. See my Wednesday, Septermber 1, 2004, blog to see where this phrase comes from, or visit the "music" page on my web site to hear the song.

Saudi Arabia: the Real Front in the GWOT

2006-01-16T15:02:00.000-08:00

Kudos to the L.A. Times for its Sunday 1/17/06 fornt-page headline article on the less-than-enthusiastic efforts of the Saudi government to fight terrorism. To see why I am so happy to see this change, check out my very first baggageroom.com blog from April 2004 on how Saudi Arabia's involvement with both terrorism and the Bush administration is grossly under-reported.

Here's a surprising statistic pointed out by the LA Times: "U.S. counter-terrorism and intelligence officials confirm an aggressive role by Saudi fighters in the insurgency in Iraq, where over the last year they reportedly accounted for more than half of all Arab militants killed." I think they meant "foreign Arab militants killed." The LA Times also gives the statistic of 61% of the foreign Arab fighters in the insurgency are Saudi. Regardless, this statistic shows how the hatred of the US in Saudi Arabia is extremely deep. As if we needed to be shown this.

A couple reminders. First, Bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers from 9/11 are all Saudis. I believe that all of the hijackers were greatly influenced by the state-sponsored brand of Jihadist Islam they have there, Wahhabism--or they were all simply Wahhabis. Part of the centuries-old power arrangement between the house of Saud and the Wahhabis is a considerable tax paid out by the House of Saud to the Wahhabi clerics (thousands of Imams, most seething with hatred for the US). By maintaining the house of Saud in power, we maintain a constant flow of huge amounts of money into the hands of Jihadist fanatics intent on spreading their form of fanaticism around the world via their religious schools called "madrases."

Second reminder: al Quaeda are the enemy of secular politicians such as Sadaam Hussein. The question is not whether Saddam and al Quaeda were linked. They were: they both wanted to wipe the other off the face of the earth. What I'm getting at here is that this is yet more evidence that Iraq was never an appropriate response to 9/11 (as if we needed more!). The fact that such a bold lie could pass as even somewhat reasonable testifies to the depth of ignorance and stupidity in this country (as if electing Bush twice wasn't enough evidence itself).

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two countries that are often reported as our partners in the GWOT, are both seething with US hatred. The leaders may be in bed with the US, but the populations of these countries mostly hate the US. Their leaders probably hate the US too, but are too connected with US money and arms to show this hatred. The House of Saud and Musharraf are in similar positions: they have to maintain good relations with the US leadership in order to maintain their dictatorial grips on power, while somehow dealing with populations that mostly seethe with hatred for them and the US. Al Quaeda, by the way, can't stand the House of Saud or Musharraf, and not just because they are in bed with the US. As with Saddam, the reason is more primary: bin Laden sees them all as infidels, the primary obstacles to achieving the type of Islamic state he would like to see around the world, but particularly in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

What the LA Times article makes clear is that SAUDI MONEY POSES MUCH MORE OF A THREAT TO THE US WITH RESPECT TO TERRORISM THAN IRAQ EVER DID! Obviously, Bush's ties to House of Saud make him a particularly dangerous person to have as president. Let's get serious about national security: get rid of Bush, and stop the flow of American money to Saudi Arabia. Junk your Hummers people!!

National Security My Ass: Impeach!

2005-12-23T23:44:00.000-08:00

Bush claims that he and his office disregarded FISA because he needed to be able to move fast (cell phone numbers changing all the time) and because the constitution allows him to in order to protect national security. The "act fast" idea seems to be subverted by the fact that FISA was set up for such fast action: an application for a warrant can be submitted 72 hours AFTER the fact under FISA. But I am not an expert on the workings of the FISA court, so it is hard for me to know. One expert, however, seems to have quit his job as a judge on the FISA court out of protest: Judge James Robertson. The specifics of the judges action are still unclear.

With respect to acting in the interest of national security, there are many issues to consider. John Dean, Nixon's former lawyer and an expert on issues of impeachment, recently stated that "Bush is the first president to admit to an impeachable offense." Dean's comparison of Bush and Nixon is a must-read when considering these issues of Bush's breaking the FISA laws, national security, and impeachment. With impeachment talk finally being discussed in the media, it is informative to note what paragraph 2 of Nixon's second article of impeachment states:

-- "RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment are to be exhibited to the Senate:

Article 2

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

2 He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance." --

It is not hard to imagine the Bush lawyers reading this and thinking that rationalizing using the NSA's wiretapping abilities on US citizens would be a simple matter of arguing that Bush's law breaking, unlike Nixon's, was in the service of national defense. This may be why Bush feels he can be the "first president to admit an impeachable offense"—because he thinks national security concerns trump what are otherwise impeachable offenses.

Of course, Bush's lawyers are the same guys who believe that the president's power cannot be too great: he can use torture whenever he wants, and he can listen to any phone conversations he wants. In fact, I see no limit to what they believe the presidents powers are during a time of crisis. Basically, for them, 9/11 made Bush king indefinitely. This type of rhetoric is particularly shrill with respect to Cheney and his crew, particularly his new chief of staff, David Addington.

If Nixon had used the FBI to wiretap US citizens, and then had been able to argue it was for national security, this aspect of this article of impeachment, it seems, would not have held up. He may have still been impeached, but this aspect of his impeachment—the one that applies so directly to the recent high crimes—might not have been included in the articles of impeachment.

What seems clear, however, is that FISA was a direct response to Nixon's criminal-imperial wiretapping. It seems clear that this law is intended to go beyond Nixon's crime—that is, intended to protect these civil liberties even in times of crisis. In other words, it is intended to not allow the president to wiretap US citizens without a warrant--even during a time of crisis. Therefore, Bush has been working under different laws than Nixon was working under. These laws are called FISA and he and his office have admitted to breaking the law.

It seems odd that, given Bush and Co.'s claim to care so much about national security—caring so much that they would risk obviously breaking the law—that the 9/11 Commission gave the administration such bad grades on its national security report card. Thomas Kean, the former chairman of the commission, and former GOP Governor of New Jersey, put it pretty clearly, as the Washington Post reported:

-- "Look at this report card!" he demanded. "There are too many C's, D's and F's in this report card!" Kean was standing on a stage in the Ronald Reagan Building in front of a giant poster grading the federal government's response to the 9/11 commission's recommendations. And the results weren't pretty: Five F's, 12 D's, two incompletes and only one A, which translates to a grade-point average of 1.8. "Our leadership has been distracted in this country," Kean protested, citing the "scandalous" failures to improve emergency communications or get security money to highest-risk areas. "We're frustrated at the lack of urgency in addressing these various problems." --

What is even more regrettable is that the fact that the Bushies don't do national security well is so seldom brought up.

So, wiretapping is so important to Bush and Co. that they risk what many consider to be impeachable offense, but they don't seem to care enough about national security to work on the broad and basic issues the commission has deemed important, such as making sure that first responders have an easy way to communicate with each other—the type of thing that would have seriously paid off in the response to the attacks on the World Trade Center, and the response to Katrina.

I think it is hard to avoid the obvious: Bush and Co. don't care all that much about national security. They have done little to secure the southern border since 9/11 ("Come on in Al Qaeda, but use the back door!") Bush and Co. got a "D" for the national security efforts concerning Saudi Arabia, one of the hot-beds of the type of Jihadism behind Al Qaeda (15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi). I'd give them an "F" for what I consider to be their pandering to the Saud regime.

If they care so much about securing the US against Jihadist attacks like 9/11, why do they put so little emphasis on capturing Osama Bin Laden, and so much emphasis on Iraq and Saddam Hussein? The latter has made Iraq a hotbed of Jihadist terrorism, and therefore made us less secure. It seems to be turning Iraq into another Iran—and therefore making us less secure. It wasn't close to being either a Jihadist hotbed or Iran-like before the invasion. Moreover, troops and money continue to be diverted away from operations in Afghanistan while Iraq tours are extended and the Iraq bill climbs into the stratosphere. What does Bush and Co. care about?

If Bush and Co. don't care about national security enough to get a decent grade on the 9/11 Commission's report card, why do they risk using the NSA illegally?

Again, it might be useful to look at why Nixon used the FBI to wiretap US citizens. Basically, Nixon used the FBI to further his causes, increase or secure his power, and to subvert the power of his domestic political enemies—mostly liberals and leftists who deserve credit for clearly seeing him as the very dangerous man he was.

But the media is reporting that Bush is only using this "program" to spy on terrorists and their abettors. This CLAIM by Bush and Co. is being accepted as FACT by the irresponsible, lap-dog media. Leaving aside, for now, the egregious year-long withholding of this major story by the NYT, it is clear that, almost invariably, the report is that Bush and Co. used the power of this wiretapping "program" to hunt suspected terrorists and those who assist the terrorists. Why is this accepted as fact, especially when this administration so obviously doesn't care enough about national security to, for example, secure ports?

How do those who are reporting the president's claim as a fact know this to be true? They can't. The NSA is commonly known as the most secret agency in the executive branch. Besides the nickname of "The Big Ear," it is jokingly referred to as "No Such Agency." Since there is no way for these reporters to know how this "program" was used, the report should be that Bush and Co. CLAIM to have only used it on suspected terrorists and their helpers. How could anyone outside the NSA and Bush's closest circle know how Bush and Co. are using this illegal "program"? Again, it is impossible for them to know this. It will be impossible for everyone else to have a good idea of what has gone on with this felony, not without a THOROUGH AUDIT of NSA activity involving US citizens.

But lets return to the wiretapping itself. Bush and Co. claim the program has been directed toward terrorists and their abettors. So who would qualify as a terrorist or, more to the point, an abettor? When Bush was asked about the initial wiretapping story that ran in the New York Times, he had this to say: "It was a shameful act, for someone to disclose this very important program in time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy." Is the NYT on the list of what Bush, Gonzales and crew would consider fair game for their wiretapping since they are, according to Bush, abetting terrorists?

Of course, given the rhetoric of the white house since 9/11, particularly from Cheney, anyone who challenges the power of the white house on its approach to what they call the Global War on Terror (GWOT), or Iraq, or recently the legality of wiretapping US citizens, is helping the terrorists. This could mean that in their absolute-power-corrupted minds, they are justified wiretapping anyone who thinks Bush and Co. are on the wrong course, anyone obstructs or who disapproves of the president—which would mean at least 56% of the US population according to a mid-December CNN poll.

What is key here is that, according to Bush and Co., they get to decide which laws to follow. Why would there be any limits to whom they would apply their programs? In their eyes, who would have the right to question their authority on anything during a time of crisis? When are we not in a time a crisis? The Jihadist types aren't going away any time soon.

Bush might have used the NSA instead of the FBI because the FBI was too busy wiretapping liberal political groups—in the interest of national security, of course.

Anyone who remembers Bush's general reception pre-9/11 knows that he was headed for a fall without the sea changes of the breaches in national security that occurred that horrible day. 9/11 allowed Bush to do two things he really wanted to do: invade Iraq and win in 2004 (or sort of win). Thanks to the cooperation of the former journalistic home of Judith Miller, Bush and Co. cheerleader during the build up to the invasion, the story of this Bush felony wasn't published until well after the election. It seems we need a THOROUGH AUDIT of the NYT too!

A lap-dog press, an imperial presidency, The Big Ear turned on US citizens—how more obvious can the Orwellian characteristics of our situation be?

If it is discovered that Bush and Co. did not break the law in the interest of national security, if they used the NSA for the security of their powerbase, then the conditions of Nixon's impeachment article number 2, paragraph 2, will be met. This would, it seems to me, give clear grounds for impeaching Bush. Of course, I heard the sentence for breaking the FISA law is five years. Does he need to be impeached if he is already in jail? I don't think so.

Let's do ourselves a favor and lock up Bush and his arrogant cronies. Let's get real America. Bush is not good on national security. Read the 9/11 Commission's report. He sucks at national security. Remember: he was warned about OBL in 8/01. We all know he's a moron surrounded by seriously demented, power-crazed ass holes. My god: we can do much better.

Velvet Revolution's "Voting in the US"

2005-11-25T11:52:00.000-08:00

From Velvet Revolution (www.velvetrevolution.us):

1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold

2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_company.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886

5. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitrakis/ 031004fitrakis.html

6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee.

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php ? name=News&file=article&sid=26
http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php

7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates.

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm
http://theindependent.com/stories/052700/new_hagel27.html

8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.

http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

9. Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020evotestates/pfindex.html

10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
http://www.diebold.com/solutions/default.htm

11. Diebold is based in Ohio.

http://www.diebold.com/aboutus/ataglance/default.htm

12. Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as consultants and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/301469.shtml

13. Jeff Dean was Senior Vice-President of Global Election Systems when it was bought by Diebold. Even though he had been convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree, Jeff Dean was retained as a consultant by Diebold and was largely responsible for programming the optical scanning software now used in most of the United States.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0312/S00191.htm
http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

14. Diebold consultant Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years.

http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.

http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2638.html
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/26/loc_elexoh.html

16. California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebold's claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it! (See the movie here: http://blackboxvoting.org/baxter/baxterVPR.mov .)

http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190

17. 30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml

18. All -- not some -- but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html
http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm
http://www.rise4news.net/extravotes.html
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=950
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm

19. The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President's brother.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/7628725.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10544-2004Oct29.html

20. Serious voting anomalies in Florida -- again always favoring Bush -- have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation.

http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/story/0,10801,97614,00.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/tens_of_thousands.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/110904.html
http://uscountvotes.org/

NOTE: Please copy the above list and distribute freely!
LET THE FACTS BE KNOWN! Thank you!

Want a cheap, fair, reliable, and efficient alternative? It exists! Check out the Swiss Voting System at http://www.swissvs.org

DECEMBER 2004 GALLUP POLLS
1 in 5 Americans believe the elections were fraudulent. That's over 41 Million Americans. You are NOT alone!
WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT
Get educated. Tell your friends what's going on.
Go visit http://VelvetRevolution.US

Governor For Sale

2005-09-15T11:21:00.000-07:00

From Harper's Index, August, 2005:

"Number of Pepsi products plainly visible in a May TV ad for Arnold Schwarzenegger : 5."

From www.arnoldwatch.org:

"Governor Schwarzenegger should pull a political commercial off the air that promotes the junk food products of his campaign donors, consumer advocates said today. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) called on Schwarzenegger to return the quarter-million dollars he received from companies featured in the ad, and for the corporations to pay the market value of the advertising to the state because it is improper for the governor to use public office to sell corporate products.

The TV ad, released in May, features Schwarzenegger talking to people in a lunchroom, and places Pepsi and Arrowhead Water in prominent spots next to the governor for 1/3 of the ad. Donors connected to Pepsi Co. and Arrowhead Water's parent company, Nestle, gave the governor a total of $279,800 in campaign contributions. Also recognizable on-screen are Ruffles, Sun Chips, Cheetos and a SoBe Beverage, all brands owned by Pepsi.

View the ad at: http://www.JoinArnold.com

The practice, known as "product placement," is unheard of in political advertising. In fact, political ads typically avoid using logos because companies may not want to be associated with a particular candidate or issue. However, studios receive significant payments for featuring a product in a film or television show."

Katrina and Bush IV

2005-09-07T16:40:00.000-07:00

From Moveon.org:

Timeline

Friday, Aug. 26: Gov. Kathleen Blanco declares a state of emergency in Louisiana and requests troop assistance.

Saturday, Aug. 27: Gov. Blanco asks for federal state of emergency. A federal emergency is declared giving federal officials the authority to get involved.

Sunday, Aug. 28: Mayor Ray Nagin orders mandatory evacuation of New Orleans. President Bush warned of Levee failure by National Hurricane Center. National Weather Service predicts area will be "uninhabitable" after Hurricane arrives. First reports of water toppling over the levee appear in local paper.

Monday, Aug. 29: Levee breaches and New Orleans begins to fill with water, Bush travels to Arizona and California to discuss Medicare. FEMA chief finally responds to federal emergency, dispatching employees but giving them two days to arrive on site.

Tuesday, Aug. 30: Mass looting reported, security shortage cited in New Orleans. Pentagon says that local authorities have adequate National Guard units to handle hurricane needs despite governor's earlier request. Bush returns to Crawford for final day of vacation. TV coverage is around-the-clock Hurricane news.

Wednesday, Aug. 31: Tens of thousands trapped in New Orleans including at Convention Center and Superdome in "medieval" conditions. President Bush finally returns to Washington to establish a task force to coordinate federal response. Local authorities run out of food and water supplies.

Thursday, Sept. 1: New Orleans descends into anarchy. New Orleans Mayor issues a "Desperate SOS" to federal government. Bush claims nobody predicted the breach of the levees despite multiple warnings and his earlier briefing.

Friday, Sept. 2: Karl Rove begins Bush administration campaign to blame state and local officials—despite their repeated requests for help. Bush stages a photo-op—diverting Coast Guard helicopters and crew to act as backdrop for cameras. Levee repair work orchestrated for president's visit and White House press corps.

Saturday, Sept. 3: Bush blames state and local officials. Senior administration official (possibly Rove) caught in a lie claiming Gov. Blanco had not declared a state of emergency or asked for help.

Monday, Sept. 5: New Orleans officials begin to collect their dead.

Katrina and Bush III

2005-09-07T14:50:00.000-07:00

This time the focus is on Barbara Bush, the mother and sensitivity mentor for George Jr., as reported in the The Independent/UK:

"Barbara Bush, the former first lady, courted controversy by pointing out that many of the people forced out of their homes by Hurricane Katrina 'were underprivileged anyway.' Mrs Bush, who joined her husband, George, on a tour of the Houston Astrodome, said: 'And so many of the people in the arena here were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them. What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.'"

Katrina and Bush II

2005-09-02T11:26:00.000-07:00

Bush on ABC's Good Morning America soon after Katrina hit:

“I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But those levees got breached. And, as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded.”

This statement is so grievously wrong. See Charles Cutter's excellent commentary from yesterday, 9/1/05: "Katrina Disaster? Just Blame Bush."

Katrina and Bush I

2005-09-01T14:43:00.000-07:00

As millions of Americans deal with devastation and unimaginable loss in the hurricane hit areas, I wish I could say I was surprised to read in the 9/1/05 LA Times that an unnamed House Republican strategist sees in this disaster opportunity for the GOP and Bush:

"It gives us cover … Now everything is going to be about putting together a relief package quickly."

The cover is needed, it seems, due to Bush's falling job approval rating, at a low 45% on Tuesday, 8/30/05--not to mention a disasterous unjustified war likely to transform into civil war, and fuel prices rising to record highs.

But Bush has not had a good start at this new angle for gaining political capital: the LA Times reported that the "conservative Manchester Union Leader of New Hampshire has already criticized Bush for giving a speech about Iraq on Tuesday in San Diego, even as the death toll mounted from Hurricane Katrina."

As with Bush's delayed actions and displays of concern with the Indian Ocean tsunami, the sincerity of feeling behind this delayed response also seems questionable, especially as the opportunities for photo ops and vacuously articulated speeches mount. For sure, Bush has his sites on, once again, trying to convince the American public that he is presidential by APPEARING to be presidential—or appearing to be presidential to those who want or need to see him that way, which is probably around 45% of the nation, that same 45% who think he is doing a good job overalll, and who must have to work hard to maintain this fantasy, especially when there is little evidence of him caring about much other than winning elections and securing his neo-con victories.

Since any deep knowledge of Bush's actual level of care for the victims of Katrina seems as elusive as discovering the sincerity of the Christian beliefs he claims to possess, we might look to Bush's leadership with respect to the security provided for those victims—that is, what did Bush do to secure the victim's part of the homeland from natural disaster prior to Katrina? The answer here is much the same as with 9/11, that other time when Bush had such a grand opportunity to appear presidential despite shameful performance with respect to the matter at hand.

Instead of his usual apathy and inactivity when it comes to real issues of security (see "Railroading Security" below), there are clear signs that the executive branch actively hindered efforts to secure these regions from such disasters by blocking much-needed funding for much-needed Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) projects. Moreover, Bush's support for phony security issues, the war in Iraq, was a major factor in displacing these funds away from these much-needed projects. As billions are being spent in Iraq in weeks, the ACE got a very small fraction of the 250 million it claimed to need to finish its work in these areas.

According to Will Bunch, in his article, "Did New Orleans Catastrophe Have to Happen?", written for the Editor and Publisher: "In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain." As this article shows, the neglect, the displacement of funds away from real security-enhancing projects goes on and on. Furthermore, it is clear that the one third of Mississippi and Louisana's National Guard currently in Iraq would provide more security at home at this point, especially since they are risking their own lives fighting in a war that has already, and will continue, to stir up Jihadist terrorists worldwide. We should support our troops, and the recovery victims, by bringing them home.

I just heard on NPR that a New Orleans official has called FEMA's response so far "a national disgrace." Under Clinton, FEMA was a cabinet-level agency. It is now part of Homeland Security. Given the fact that DHS is grossly under funded--primarily due to the cost of the war in Iraq, and a grossly mismanaged budget and government in general, including Bush's unwillingness to back off of tax cuts for the wealthy—what money is in DHS coffers has mostly been used for terrorism-related projects (again, see "Railroading Security" below for an example of how Bush neglects DHS in general, an agency he had to be pushed into forming). The Bush administration has clearly neglected FEMA, even after 2004, the worst year for hurricanes on record. 2005 seems to be vying for this title now that Katrina is the most expensive natural disaster on record, beating out Andrew of 1992.

What is clear is that disaster preparedness of the kind so needed before and after the crisis caused by Katrina has been a low priority for the Bush administration. Bush is neglecting his job. He is so clearly a terrible leader.

Just as we will never hear Bush apologize for the lives lost in Iraq, we will never hear him apologize for the lack of leadership he has shown with respect to preparedness for Katrina—that is, the millions of lives lost, ruined, or terribly disrupted that would not have been had proper leadership been in place. A good leader will say "the buck stops here." We all know we will never hear Bush say this.

Instead, we will see Bush standing in the rubble, hugging fellow Republicans, while making speeches expertly prepared to raise his approval ratings in order to gain "political capital." He won't be making speeches about "Iraqi freedom" for a while. Only in a country where "support our troops" means support a war and President responsible for the deaths of hundreds of troops could a president who cut funding for the specific disaster preparedness (the very disaster preparedness which would have saved lives when Katrina hit)—could that president seek "political capital" via grandstanding during belated recovery efforts. He should be ashamed of himself, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for letting him get away with it -- if he does.

Please support the Red Cross's recovery efforts here.

A letter to Lewis Lapham, editor at Harper's

2005-08-05T17:29:00.000-07:00

Dear Lewis Lapham, Harper's editor,

Though a big fan of yours, I am writing to lodge a complaint about your August, 2005, "Notebook" piece, "Moving On." An otherwise stellar contribution is marred by the omission of Nixon's crime regarding the deaths of millions of southeast Asians--a crime, as you know, committed after his election in 1968 by continuing and expanding the criminal and stupid hostilities in Indochina. Given your usual sensitivity when dealing with such topics, mentioning his crime of killing "58,000 American soldiers in Indochina" without mentioning the even larger crime of killing millions of Indochinese seems out of character to this loyal reader.

Just after the point in your piece where this omission of the major aspect of Nixon's war crime should be, you claim that "thirty-one years later, the Bush Administration commits crimes of a much larger magnitude." This seems to be a rather difficult argument to maintain even with respect to the somewhat misleading statistic you give. Nixon, of course, had a good deal of responsibility for a large portion of the 58,000 American deaths, but Johnson and Kennedy should be given proportionate blame too. More to the point, it seems clear to me that Nixon's tens of thousands of American deaths are of "a much greater magnitude" than Bush's 1802 American deaths as of April 3rd, 2005.

With respect to the millions of non-American deaths you failed to mention--even considering Nixon's proportionate blame in this respect too--your argument that Bush's crimes are of a much larger magnitude seems to be way off, even "weightless," to use a word you use later in the piece to decry the usual nature of the messages of our media. The very lack of a historical context--that lack that scares you and me so much in our Forrest Gump country, in what you call "America's child mind"--is what this particular omission and the subsequent argument seem to suggest.

Obviously the recent ascendancy of the now-dominant Forrest Gump ideology we and the rest of the world suffer under has a lot to do with the ascendancy of our Forrest Gump president. Actually, he is more a Nixonian crook than a stupid-is-as-stupid-does bumpkin--and, as you so insightfully wrote not long ago, a very American and very dangerous form of huckster. Bush's war crimes, however, have yet to reach the near holocaust-scale of the U.S.-Vietnam war. What worries me most is the absence in our culture of any widespread consciousness of this particular BIG CRIME in our collective past--much like what I would hope many Germans grapple with. It is this very cultural disavowal your omission ironically reproduces, while your essay so cogently analyzes some of the cultural forces at work that produce the kind of media conditions that allow an ahistorical ideology of simplistic fantasies and disavowal to become dominant, as Goebbels and Rove certainly know.

Also, Bush's war crimes--certainly less lethal than those of Nixon, Johnson, or Kennedy--seem more the crime of a group than the crimes of Nixon, who seemed more the mob boss than just an unlikely figurehead. So Bush's crimes would be more the crimes of something more widespread than just his deeds, or the deeds of the current version of Republican White House mafia. I would argue that Americans have more shared responsibility for Iraq than Cambodia, but the latter is still larger in scale. I see a more direct criminal responsibility now as more widespread: a more vocal hard-right minority (still a minority as Miller's Ohio piece shows) making more public decisions, and more access to information. But this access competes with what might be a more naturalized and more resilient right-wing ideology founded on the coupled fantasies of American intrinsic goodness and American superiority.

While we--those who work to be part of "the reality-based community"--do the important work of subverting Bush and the destructive and dangerous cultural fantasies and disavowal on which his power feeds (all in the hope of working toward some kind of reality-based liberal democracy), I believe it is crucial that liberals and leftists not get blinded by our justified rage at the current administration, and maintain a reality-based historical context. I think we can do this work of subversion without reductive and simplistic claims like Bush is the worst president we have ever had. I would still reserve that title for Nixon because, again, I see his continuation of the war in Indochina as being a major part of America's most recent BIG CRIME, one that seems overwhelmingly larger than either Watergate or Iraq, and one to which I feel inescapably connected as an American, even though I was born a month before the mostly bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident. Pro-slavery and pro-expansion presidents of the past might also compete for this title since they would be complicitous in two other BIG CRIMES of our nation's brutal infancy. Certainly times are tough now, but we have surely seen worse. For example, American's aren't killing each other as much as before: no civil war, no labor massacres, uprisings seem less frequent, and a repeat of something like Kent State seems unlikely.

What our current Robber Barron president represents in a broader sense, I believe, should be our focus now, and it is something that should be put into historical context--that is, it should be subverted without losing sight of the hard-core corruption and brutality that is so much a part of American history. As you know, Bush, his mafia-like administration, and the cultural ideology of right-wing fantasies-disavowal they represent are more of a continuation of our history than an anomaly.

Email to a friend

2005-08-01T15:46:00.000-07:00

Hi,

I think this photo of Bush holding the phone upside down is a lot better than the dancing Hillary cartoon, which seemed a bit too Republican for my taste (it showed Bush as normal in comparison to Hillary). With respect to said photo, however, we have to be on the watch for doctored photos and phony Bushisms: the internet is full of 'em.

As for the Hillary cartoon, forgive me when it is hard for me to laugh about certain things: it seems all too scary to me that Bush has been in office for so long, and will be for years to come. Hillary would seem like a godsend at this point. A la Woody in Annie Hall, my hatred for Bush has reached such heights I have to come up with a new word to describe it. Beyond "disdain"; beyond "loathing." Check out my blog to get a better sense of the far reaches of my enmity.

I've been writing some anti-Bush songs, and coming up with some bumper stickers that I hope will help me to feel less ... vulnerable, disgusted, surrounded, etc. (see below). I have the two top bumper stickers for you when you are ready to add them to your vehicle's bumper (and risk damage to said vehicle in "the OC", GOP and SUV packed as it is). I've got my "support wise & ethical policy" on my Volvo. It is just one in my neighborhood ... compared to countless "support our troops." So this veteran feels a bit ... unsupported ... and at risk of vehicular damage.

I wrote an anti-Bush song called "so wrong" on November 5, 2004. It will be on the next CD, out in January, 2006. I'm thinking of including the "so wrong" bumper sticker in the CD ... to make sure my sales are limited to liberals in the future. Actually, I'll probably do it since it wouldn't really matter anyway given my sales. Maybe I should try to sell bumper stickers instead of CDs (and give away the CDs with the bumper stickers!).

The one on the bottom is a new idea I just thought of. Do you think I should get it printed? I was thinking of giving it to ... That would go over well, I'm sure. It would be great to vandalize a few OC SUVs with it. Ooohh, just kidding. You know I wouldn't do that....

The Monomaniacal Karl Rove's Revolution

2005-06-25T08:37:00.000-07:00

A recent statement by Karl Rove:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

His motives seem rather transparent, and typical. When being attacked, he goes on the defensive, usually lying while he does it. Rove is monomaniacal: all he seems to care about is how to win more power for himself and others, particularly W. This comment attempts to put liberals on the defensive in a political climate where Rumsfeld was (finally!) roundly criticized in a Senate hearing by Edward Kennedy, who listed several "gross errors and mistakes" (see "The Quagmire of Iraq" in May, 2005) by the administration, Rumsfeld in particular: "In baseball, it's three strikes, you're out ... What is it for the secretary of defense? Isn't it time for you to resign?" He should have said a lot more, and it was very late in coming--but still felt good to hear.

Ample evidence of Rove's monomaniacal nature can be found in the film "Bush's Brain." One of the most disgusting examples (there are many) is from the 2000 primary season when Rove got Bush to share the stage with some other raving right-wing lunatic in South Carolina ready to malign a 5-year veteran of the Hanoi-Hilton, John McCain. The subject of this lunatic's rant was McCain's supposed lack of support of veterans as a Senator, despite the fact that McCain has been a stalwart supporter of vets since his return from Vietnam. McCain would say to Bush on Larry King that he should be ashamed of himself. Very true (a truism even), but it probably wasn't Bush's idea. It was classic Rove, as "Bush's Brain" makes clear. Bush, by the way, would cut the VA budget after entering office. McCain would strangely support Bush in 2004. McCain should be ashamed of himself for that.

Anyone who has seen "Bush's Brain" knows that Rove is monomaniacal and lacks anything most people would call moral decency. In fact, it is only the cultish, zombie-eyed true believers who think he really cares about those who died in 9/11, or securing the homeland, when he made his recent comments about conservatives and liberals (see "Terror War(ning) as Political Hay" in June, 2004, posts below). Did he care about John McCain's sacrifices as a Naval officer when he maligned his record? What does Rove value beyond power? Should anything this modern-day Machiavelli says be taken out of the context of his monomaniacal desire for power?

Returning to his comments, the first part of the statement carries the biggest lie: Rove and Bush are not conservatives (see "A Letter to Conservative Voters" in September, 2004, below). They are part of what might be called the "reactionary revolutionary right" (RRR). And let's give some thought to how Bush, Rove and Wolfowitz saw the 9/11 attacks. They saw the savagery, certainly, and they did prepare for war, without a doubt. But the war that Bush and Wolfowitz most wanted, and the war that has cost so many lives and created so much more hatred of the U.S. abroad, had nothing to do with the attacks.

More importantly, this war has made our homeland obviously less secure. The war in Iraq, as predicted by many, has proven much more difficult than the twisted intellect of Wolfowitz and crew ever imagined, and, predictably, than they continue to tell the nation. In fact, they look naive and stupid in retrospect (see "Quagmire" below), and they continue to tell lies about US success there: "mission accomplished" is among the most disgusting, but Cheney's recent "insurgency in its last throes" gives it some competition on the disgust meter. Like Enron, the executives in the White House are telling the share holders outrageous lies in a coordinated attempt to keep their stock inflated.

As Tim Dickerson's "Railroading Security" gives evidence for (see blog entry by the same name below), homeland security has been neglected by Bush and crew. Homeland security initiatives, for the most part, had to be pushed on them. They were much more concerned about winning the next election, and with the revolution at home and abroad. The revolution abroad is mostly about securing U.S. hegemony. A crucial part of this goal is securing control of the flow of oil to the U.S. (while lining the pockets of Bush's cronies). Does anyone really take seriously the "let's spread democracy" crap? For the most part, the Bushies are not interested in conserving the status quo. One example of the few things they are interested in conserving, related to the conservation of their power, is Bandar Bush's family--as long as the house of Saud is instrumental to getting what Bush and Co. want.

The revolution at home, unlike their efforts abroad, is going well for these zealots. The RRR is becoming more and more the standard bearers of the right, and the criminal-capitalist offspring of the old Rockefeller right are loving the corporate-welfare-and-deregulation ride the RRR and its cultish followers are providing. In turn, Bush's "real base"--as he says in Moore's film to a room full of the very wealthy, all in white tie or ball gowns--is providing all sorts of corporate support, particularly media support, for such revolutionary changes as the grotesque undermining of executive office institutions like the EPA, FCC, FERC, and SEC. Wolves guarding the hen houses of the U.S. linfrastructure is conventional these days. More significantly, important things like having an energy policy independent of the "special interests" of energy corporations is still just a pipe dream of pragmatists. The relative non-issue of Social Security is Bush's agenda (his lame attempt to push the economic pedal to the medal while lining the pockets of the financial wing of his base).

Modern-day Goldwater-Republicans have moved the fanaticisms of that presidential candidate into the mainstream, making Nixon seem to the cultish (ridiculously) a candidate for the tag "liberal" ("he did go to China"). One of the most remarkable achievements of the RRR, in fact, has been to help the maligning of a word all of the forefathers would have been proud to hear used to describe themselves: "liberal." The change in the use of this term alone is ample proof of how un-conservative this movement can be, and how the RRR is in fact winning the culture wars. Sad times.

So the RRR saw the savagery of 9/11 ... and Rove smiled because he knew that this meant a chance to make his incompetent cohort seem presidential--which, just prior to 9/11, had been a serious challenge since Bush's "election." After 9/11, all Bush had to do was to say the word "evil" a lot, and amp up his phoney cowboy imitation. Wolfowitz smiled because he saw 9/11 as an opportunity to satisify his obsession to go to war with Iraq, and an opportunity to establish his "preemption" policy as the standard. More generally, it is hard not to understand Wolfowitz as perceiving 9/11 as an opportunity to aggressively pursue his grand schemes of preserving US hegemony.

The administration went into Afghanistan with a force that equalled their enthusiasm for this war-- a war which so far has been the only aspect of their response to even resemble a "war on terrorism." It was a very small force. They knew enough about Soviet/CIA history to know that Afghanistan could be a hornet's nest, and it didn't really have anything they wanted (pipeline potential, maybe, but no oil). For political reasons, they would have liked to pick up Osama along the way ("dead or alive," said this unconvincing would-be John Wayne). Bin Laden, however, had been paid by the CIA to fight the Soviets back in the 80s (which meant the US helped him transport his fanatical enthusiasm to kill infidels from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan). Unlike any US force, CIA or otherwise, OBL really knew the area, and had the support of the local Afghans and Pakistanis. And Pakistan's dictator was and still is forced to deal with sympathetic zealots all around him. Like Saddam was, Musharaf is worried about his hold on power, and the Islamists all around him would prefer something akin to what Iran has. A hornet's nest, indeed, but also a huge threat to U.S. security (lots of potential al Qaeda members in that region).

Because the small U.S. force sent to fight the Taliban were really good at what they do (this veteran is quite confident about that, excluding the AF disaster with the Canadian troops), they were able--with the help of shifty warlords we probably should have excluded from the fighting with more of our own troops--to topple the fanatical, terrorist-supporting Taliban, but unable to do much damage at all to al Qaeda and the like, the first-order enemy. To actually make a dent on the type of terrorism behind 9/11, it seems Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would have to be two top targets of US aggression. We all know that wouldn't happen. And we all know a "war on terrorism" is about as viable as a "war on drugs" when "war" is understood in conventional terms of troops, planes, ships and weapons. Fighting terrorism has to go way beyond war, Mr. Rove.

In 2004, Rove smiled again as he was once again able to get his man into office by (sort of) winning the election. Again, he would do it by maligning a Vietnam vet who bravely served his country, and keeping out of the public eye how Bush avoided any brave service, and even defrauded the government by not fully serving his commitment after a very expensive stint in pilot training (see the blog entry on the Dan Rather debacle below). With "the savagery of 9/11" somehow transformed into "I'm a war president" (in a war against a dictator anyone who cared knew hated and felt threatened by al Qaeda)--with this transformation, spin graduated to revolution.

The RRR are now a major world force. I still say Nixon was the most distructive president this nation has experienced, especially since so many southeast Asians and Americans died under his watch. But Bush may be even worse since he represents this seachange victory of the right. Bush is more the face of, an epiphenomenon of, something much more significant than the man himself: a cultural revolution, put on steroids by 9/11, and promoted and sustained by corporate media and an electorate more easily-swayed, ignorant, and naive than cynical.

Right-leaning democrats (which is most democrats from where I sit) mostly were in support of the RRR and its spin-based revolution, few challenging Bush and crew on their bold-faced lies--few even mentioning that the war in Iraq was not at all connected to 9/11, few making clear that Saddam had no connection to al Qaeda, and few arguing that, after it was made crystal clear, Bush and crew should be held accountable for their WMD lies. There were no Iraqis on those planes. Almost all were Saudis (see two entries on Saudi Arabia in April, 2004, below). Iraq is not the issue with 9/11. Never was.

Liberal democrats "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war," but were naive enough to grant Bush the power to choose which war--that is, to choose a war that had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush and crew chose to USE this tragedy as a way of getting what they could not justify otherwise: a war with Iraq that they hoped would lead to greater control over vast amounts of oil. War profiteers on a grand scale. The fact that they used 9/11 in this way, I argue, is one of the many BIG CRIMES of this administration (see torture blog entries in April and May, 2004, and the "war criminals" entry in June, 2004, below).

The crime of the democrats with respect to 9/11 was letting Bush and Rove get away with the crime of shamelessly using 9/11 to push their unrelated agenda in Iraq. Those democrats who are guilty with respect to this crime should be voted out of office. There are more shameless crimes to come with the RRR, unfortunately. Democrats can honor the victims of 9/11 best by "going to war" against those who would use their tragedy to further their own twisted and unrelated agenda. They can atone for their crimes of omission by taking the political risk of standing up against the RRR. Unfortunately, such a stand is a political risk in a culture where the tag of liberal might be grounds for libel. A sad cultural state, indeed.

The Quagmire of Iraq

2005-05-16T15:54:00.000-07:00

Recommended reading: "The Quagmire" (of Iraq) by Robert Dreyfuss.

"Bush says freedom is flowering, but as the Iraq war drags on, it's beginning to look a lot like Vietnam."

"The war in Iraq has killed more than 100,000 and cost nearly $200 billion--and now the country is on the verge of exploding into full-scale war."

"The three major forces--Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds--are threatening to blow the country apart."

Some important points:

- Bush is lying (surprise, surprise).

- The Shiites, the most powerful force due to large numbers, have many factions, and (surprise) some are rather reactionary fundamentalists a lot like their supportive Shiite neighbors in power in Iran: hardly the type of people the US would want in power in Iraq, you'd think, especially after Bush Sr. abandoned the Iraqi Shiites to the brutality of the Sunni Republican Gaurd after the first Gulf War.

- Many Kurds want an independent Kurdistan in the north, and see multi-ethnic Kirkuk as their "Jerusalem."

- Signs of Kurdish brutality towards minorities, particularly towards Sunni's, ("ethnic cleansing" mentioned in the article) are being reported in the north. Saddam, a Sunni, killed tens of thousands of them, many with a weapon of mass destruction: poison gas.

- If an independent Kurdistan is established, Turkey would feel pushed to invade. Syria and Iran wouldn't be too thrilled either. Violence toward Kurdish Turks has a long history.

- If neighboring Sunni countries see a Shiite takeover, or a growing and violent movement for an independent Kurdistan, they will probably increase or start direct or indirect military support to Sunni fighters.

Bush 4/05: "The establishment of a free Iraq is a watershed event in the global democratic movement."

Bush 2/05: "Freedom is on the march in Iraq. These are exciting times. We're making progress there."

LBJ, 11/67: "We are inflicting greater losses than we are taking. We are making progress."

Railroading Security

2005-05-16T15:15:00.000-07:00

From "The Breifing by Tim Dickinson," Rolling Stone Magazine, May 19, 2005, pg. 42:

"According to the Deaprtment of Homeland Security, the nation's top priority should be protecting America's railways from terrorist attacks. But when the District of Columbia recently ordered trains loaded with chlorine gas and other 'ultra-hazardous' materials to steer at least two miles clear of the nation's capital, the department sided with the rail company CSX Transport, which went to federal court in April to block the D.C. measure. In its court filing, Homeland Security argues that the city's action poses a threat to 'national security, public safety, public health and a strong economy.' The former head of CSX, John Snow, now serves as treasury secretary in Bush's cabinet."

The 1984 Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal killed 3800 people when an ultra-hazardous gas leaked from one of its plants. People were found dead up to five miles from the site of the leak, according to tropmed.org.

This seems to say a lot the priorities of Bush and Co.: ultra-hazardous, but plain to see for those who will look.

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room

2005-05-16T14:49:00.000-07:00

For Roger Ebert, this film is "not a political documentary. It is a crime story. No matter what your politics, 'Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room' will make you mad...."

My short take on the film: a smart movie about really screwed up people in a dangerous and criminal business culture. The bottom line: the film shows how the criminality of this culture goes way beyond Enron. Not just Enron, but all the institutions involved were culpable to varying extents: really big banks, accounting firms, legal firms, investment analysts, the white house, FERC, SEC, etc., etc.

The film is a penetrating look at a microcosm of criminal capitalism American style. One that, unfortunately--despite the ever-vigilant policing of our looking-out-for-the-little-people executive branch--is surely still macrocosmic, still pervasive, though some in the cult of free markets refuse to admit this, and stand steadfastly to their fundamentalist distortions of Econ 101 combined with Darwin-lite. The lesson is simple: much more, much stronger, and much smarter regulation required.

Policing: the job of the executive branch. What a laugh! Adam Smith would be appalled by the criminal, welfare-based types of "free" markets the Enrons of the world represent. Since we still have wolves guarding the hen house (e.g., the FERC case with California; Bush as the top law enforcer of the country), it can only get worse than it was when Enron was dancing its Wall Street dance and going way beyond having Arthur Andersen cook their books. We need more Elliot Spitzers. A lot more. Just like we needed more Eliot Nesses back when Capone and Co. were making their millions (chicken feed compared to, say, Lou Pai's hundreds of millions (formerly Enron's EES CEO), or to what Cheney stands to make in his lifetime as he consults the likes of Halliburton on how to get away with even more than it ever could before).

Here's a joke Jeff Skilling told during the California energy crisis, with a big grin: "What's the difference between the Titanic and California: the Titanic went down with the lights on." What a card! He's so funny I almost forget about the ridiculous energy rates millions had to pay then, including me—that is, how Enron simply stole A LOT of money from me and millions of other Californians. I didn't cry when he was in handcuffs. I smiled when I saw Ken Lay in handcuffs.

The California energy debacle, as presented in this film, is a great example of why the cult leaders, the radical fundamentalists of free markets, want pervasive deregulation. Guess what: it allows criminal corporations to make more money. And guess what: this is really BAD for the economy in general. Just like having lots of debt, and huge deficits, etc., etc. Bush and Co. is REALLY BAD for the economy Republicans! Admit it! The idea of the fiscally conservative Republicans is obviously an amazing example of Orwellian myth creation.

Just think of all the effort put into, for example, dealing with debt, whether it is the government paying it off or corporations hiding it in fake entities. Nothing is produced when so much effort is put into getting away with as much as possible, and too much money is spent on gaming the system rather than producing something valuable. Unregulated capitalism doesn't work. It can, however, work on the microcosmic level and, for example, make the Lou Pais and the Rockefellers of the world astronomically rich. And this is why it is supported by that class of people. Yes, I used the word "class." Bush has been part of that class since the beginning; Cheney has clawed his way into it. Every other class pays the bills when little of value is produced and so much money is made by very few people.

Bush and "Kenny Boy" have more in common than just being buddies: for me, this story of Enron provides a few important parallels of the type of mindset--and the type of tactics--we also see in the cultish White House: ponzi schemes (e.g., privatizing social security), accounting blatantly intended to mislead, HUGE deficits, lots of reliance on over-the-top PR, lots of hard-core bullying tactics, the upper echelons populated by high priests of the cult of free markets with lots of pseudo-Darwinian theories, etc. One significant difference: the white house has more of a righteous sense of doing God's work, or at least uses that PR spin to the utmost (I refuse to see Bush's faith as anything but opportunistic). The Enron crew really were mostly about making a lot of money. And they liked strippers. And company jets. And macho motorcycle trips. Lou Pai sold his five million shares of Enron stock for $353 million--obviously well before the fall, and just after divorcing his wife and marrying one of his stripper girlfriends. According to the film, he is the second biggest landowner in Colorado. Except for the stripper part (what about intimacy Lou?!), Pai, it seems, was clearly the smartest guy in the room.

Jeff Skilling, a truly twisted organism, as the film makes abundantly clear, saw himself as no less than a genius, and, I'm sure, a genetic wonder. His favorite book was some lame business cult book with "DNA" and "survival" in the title. He applied its teachings to set up a ruthless peer-analysis system that required 15% of the human resources of Enron be terminated each year. I bet that got results! Look at their efficiency! I'm sure it fostered a lot more ... criminality since the pressure demanded results. Get that Californian power plant to shut down; just pay them off. Get that Andersen accounant to sign off, and the lawyers too. Let's get the banks in on this. How about some Nigerian barges?

This company makes great reality TV in this film--but a lot weirder. Skilling, however, proved not too fit, and I loved seeing the genetic ubermensch handcuffed. A natural glitch perhaps? Actually, Skilling didn't seem so bright when, not long before the fall, he let his anxiety get the best of him and called an analyst who asked for some basic cash flow numbers an "asshole"--on a conference call. Duh. Some red flags went up, and the stock price … plummeted. Actually, it didn't really plummet until he left the company out of the blue. Another real smart move. "No really: my family needs me." In the film he gets compared to a Jim Jones who refuses to drink the Kool Aid after he has just handed it out to everyone else. I love that one.

There's a lot of outrageous stuff here. Prepare yourself to be disgusted by the grandiosity of the Enron schemes when you see it. Think of the massive power plants in India: a grand monument to the inefficiency of this brand of criminal capitalism. Try not to think about how this mess has hurt the US economy in general. It's too painful. Try not to think about what this says about America in general. Our leader, formerly just an altar boy, is now the Pope of this cult. Also keep in mind that, really, there was nothing Bush could do during California's energy crisis. Let the markets take care of themselves (and Kenny Boy). Survival of the fittest. Only the weak argue otherwise.

Comparing CBS's Dan Rather and NYT's Judy Miller

2005-01-18T16:48:00.000-08:00

A letter I wrote today to writer-scholar-activist George Monbiot, whose blog is highly recommended:

Hello George,

In your "Media Fairyland" piece, I wish you had said something about the parallel between the CBS Rather/Bush story and the NYT Judy Miller/WMD story.

It seems to me that Miller was reporting a lot of lies about WMD fed to her by Ahmad Chalabai. Unlike the CBS story which was basically true, the NYT WMD story, as we all know, was basically false: Iraq had no WMD. The CBS story basically claimed the obvious: Bush used his connections to avoid the war, and then didn't serve out his commitment. I am a 9-year veteran of the Air Force. I can't imagine the AF records not being able to show definitively and positively that I was where I was supposed to be during my commitment. Moreover, my father and brother, both veteran pilots, have told me that they would never dream of missiong a flight physical. Missing a flight physical like that would seriously damage any regular officer's career--that is, any flyer not in some "champagne" squadron.

One of the big problems with what went down in the media with the CBS story is that crappy reporting on the right seems to go on without people losing their jobs, without consequences. Why would Miller (or the administration) trust Chalabai, a criminal on the lamb from Jordanian officials, and an obvious opportunist playing several sides at once? Blatantly bad reporting on Miller's part. The Miller stories helped propell the US into a grossly unethical, illegal, unnecessary, and stupid war. Why is she still on the NYT payroll? Not to mention the Valerie Plame outing, and the forged yellowcake documents. Why weren't the journalists reporting the Niger-yellowcake stories fired from their jobs, if not accepting forgeries as fact is what is required to keep your job? Why doesn't the NYT lose credibility over the Miller-Chalabai articles when CBS does over the Rather-Bush story? Again, and as you know, the basic idea of the CBS story was ... correct! Bush received favored treatment to get into the Texas ANG, and then didn't complete his commitment--a commtiment that is supposed to be payback to US taxpayers for the very expensive costs of pilot training. What is so obvious is that Bush did not feel compelled by any duty to fulfill this commitment. We do live in a "fairyland" where someone who lacks this kind of sense of duty is President, and where the media and its audience seem so blind to the right-wing bias so clearly exposed when we compare the fate's of Miller and, for example, CBS producer Mary Mapes.

Thanks again for another great article.

Best wishes,

Eric Anders

George Monbiot's reply the next day:

"Yup. Spot on. G."

An update from 8/05: see Ariana Huffington for more on Judy Miller. Great stuff.

Oxfam's Tsunami Relief

2004-12-30T13:11:00.000-08:00

Oxfam is a great place to donate for tsunami relief.

From MoveOn.org: "Oxfam is already scrambling on the front lines to fight off starvation and disease -- and beginning to rebuild. Because Oxfam has worked for years with grassroots groups in the hardest hit areas, they were able to mobilize local leadership to help survivors immediately after the tsunami hit. And Oxfam will be there for the long-term, helping communities recover and regain their ability to meet basic needs. Oxfam needs to raise $5 million immediately to provide safe water, sanitation, food, shelter, and clothing to 36,000 families in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India. Your contribution can make this possible."

Maturity Should Be an Election Issue

2004-10-28T11:04:00.000-07:00

A video containing Bush's real message to the American middle and "working" classes.

Reactionary Attrition?

2004-10-14T13:53:00.000-07:00

After publishing a horrible obituary marking the death of the philosopher I admire most, Jacques Derrida, the NYT has published a very readable, straightforward, and beautiful eulogy written by the world-renowned scholar Mark C. Taylor, professor of humanities at Williams College.

The NYT would be wise to take seriously Taylor's version of the Derridean axiom, "There can be no ethical action without critical reflection" before it again publishes such a debased and inaccurate obituary of someone so revered by so many. This, however, is probably too much to ask from an institution too often reactionary in character.

What Derrida Really Meant

October 14, 2004

By MARK C. TAYLOR

What makes Jacques Derrida's work so significant is the
way he brought insights of major philosophers, writers,
artists and theologians to bear on contemporary problems.

Excerpt from the article:

"... There can be no ethical action without critical reflection.

During the last decade of his life, Mr. Derrida became preoccupied with religion and it is in this area that his contribution might well be most significant for our time. He understood that religion is impossible without uncertainty. Whether conceived of as Yahweh, as the father of Jesus Christ, or as Allah, God can never be fully known or adequately represented by imperfect human beings.

And yet, we live in an age when major conflicts are shaped by people who claim to know, for certain, that God is on their side. Mr. Derrida reminded us that religion does not always give clear meaning, purpose and certainty by providing secure foundations. To the contrary, the great religious traditions are profoundly disturbing because they all call certainty and security into question. Belief not tempered by doubt poses a mortal danger.

As the process of globalization draws us ever closer in networks of communication and exchange, there is an understandable longing for simplicity, clarity and certainty. This desire is responsible, in large measure, for the rise of cultural conservatism and religious fundamentalism - in this country and around the world. True believers of every stripe - Muslim, Jewish and Christian - cling to beliefs that, Mr. Derrida warns, threaten to tear apart our world.

Fortunately, he also taught us that the alternative to blind belief is not simply unbelief but a different kind of belief - one that embraces uncertainty and enables us to respect others whom we do not understand. In a complex world, wisdom is knowing what we don't know so that we can keep the future open."

LA Times "Truth Shading" III

2004-10-14T13:51:00.000-07:00

To the editor:

Though your article "Rivals Choose Their Numbers Wisely" distorts the balance of spin used by each side in favor of the incumbent, and the fact that Bush repeatedly lied about John Kerry's record, I did appreciate that you did have a separate article on the same page, "Bush 'Not Concerned' About Bin Laden in '02," describing the blatant lie Bush told about how he had never said he was "not concerned" with Bin Laden. What I regret about this separate article, however, is that you failed to state plainly that this is a blatant lie.

One of the reasons Bush tells such blatant lies is that he knows that most of the electorate won't read the paper to do any fact checking after the fact, and that the papers will generally avoid using the words "blatant lie" even when that is the truth of the matter. What Bush also counts on is this strange deferential treatment he has gotten throughout his term in office, where the media avoids holding him accountable for what is for many his recurring and obvious deceitfulness.

I found one specific of your article "Rivals Choose Their Numbers Wisely" particularly frustrating. In two previous letters to the editor, I have argued that the job loss figure Kerry has given throughout the debates (1.6 million jobs lost) is correct, contrary to several claims made by your paper that this is somehow dishonest. Yes: this figure represents private sector job loss only -- because that is all that matters! The issue at hand is the health of the private sector. Government job gains are irrelevant. Government job increases do not reflect the health of the economy, especially when they are paid for by increasing record deficits. There was considerable job creation in the government during the depression!

Eric Anders
Los Angeles

LA Times "Truth Shading" II

2004-10-09T14:35:00.000-07:00

To the editor:

As with the VP debate in your article "Rivals' Bold Assertions Are Debatable" from three days ago, today's post-debate fact-checking article—"Kerry, Bush Beat Around the Truth in Debate" (10/9/04)--is egregiously skewed in favor of the current administration. Once again, you present the "beating around the truth" in last night's debate as being balanced between the two candidates--but then, contrary to your headlines and the general claims in the opening of the article, what you show clearly describes a huge imbalance in dishonesty between the two candidates.

For Kerry, the only concrete example you give of actual dishonesty is better explained as sloppy: his suggestion that "sneak and peak" started with the Patriot Act. Does anyone really question that the Patriot Act goes too far in the name of security?

The job loss figure Kerry gave, contrary to the claims made by your paper, is the correct figure for the private sector, which was the issue at hand. Government jobs were not at issue, especially when these jobs are paid for by increasing the deficit and do not reflect the health of the economy at all. In other words, the issue was the state of the economy; there was considerable job creation in the government during the depression!

You also suggest that Kerry was dishonest when he claimed he had shown how he would pay for his campaign promises, and how he would do this while not raising middle-class taxes and cutting the Bush deficit in half in four years. LAT also suggests that cutting back on tax breaks to the rich and closing loop holes to corporations is not enough to do justify such claims. This is debatable, making Kerry's claims debatable, not false or misleading.

Kerry has given several accounts of how his numbers add up, and they add up much better than the numbers the Bush administration have given. Bush administration numbers in the past have, on several occasions and as we all know, added up to big lies, and his campaign-promise numbers add up the same way. Even the conservative Economist, who openly supported W four years ago, argues that Bush's numbers don't add up as well as Kerry's. The Economist did a poll of 100 of the world's top economists asking which candidate's platform is more economically sound. Kerry came out way on top. Kerry is much more honest when it comes to numbers, and much more fiscally conservative, and yet Kerry is the only one mentioned as dishonest on this score in your piece.

More to the point here: Is this all you could come up with for Kerry during the whole debate? All I have is "sneak and peak." If so, we have on our hands one of the most honest candidates in US history. I'm sorry, but this does not rate for me as "beating around the truth." Not even close.

With John Edwards in your piece on the VP debates, all I could come up with was a slight exaggeration, if that: 88.5% of coalition casualties are US, not the 90% stated by Edwards (and by Kerry last night too). "Sneak and peak" and 1.5% exaggeration. Cheney and Bush, on the other hand, lied about extremely important issues of national security.

Just as with the VP debates, LAT bends over backwards to present the "truth shading" as balanced when it is clearly not. With the democrats I see no evidence of outright dishonesty presented in your articles; with the Republicans I see clear evidence of bold-faced lies. With the democrats their slight exaggeration and sloppy or vague claims are actually very close to the truth and not really misleading: the Patriotic Act does impinge citizen's freedoms, and very close to 90% of the so-called coalition's casualties are US casualties.

The Republican's bold-faced lies, on the other hand, are extremely misleading--dangerous even. Their lies support the dangerous myths that they have done a good job at securing the US against terrorist when they clearly have not. As I wrote in my previous letter, this administration was deaf to terror warnings before 9/11, resisted the 9/11 commission and the establishment of a department of homeland security after the attacks, never dealt with Saudi Arabia (or Iran) as a serious geographic base of Islamic terror, have yet to do even the most obvious safeguard of compiling and putting into action a terrorist watch list, redirected massive resources needed for attacking al Qaeda away from operations in South Asia to the Persian Gulf, and in so doing enraged a huge chunk of the Islamic world and alienated our traditional allies, etc., etc.

Their lies give the impression that the Iraq war has been a good thing for our country, that the US economy is doing well, that this administration has been a good thing for the middle class—-all gravely untrue.

One of the bold-faced lies you reported was Bush's claim that 75% of al Qaeda's total membership had been captured or killed. You write that, at best, this has happened for only 67% of al Qaeda's known leaders. There is a huge difference between "known leaders" and "membership" in al Qaeda, a difference that could be in the millions--while sympathy with it's goals is clearly in the hundred millions and growing fast as billions around the world see US forces using serious force in Iraq every day. Bush's claim might lead us to think that 75% of the "war on terror" is done, which is a grave distortion of the truth: the threat to the US from Jihadist terrorists has grown substantially since 9/11, not decreased--growth in sympathy with Al Qaeda and, even more so, in reaction to the insane invasion of Iraq.

In his article "Al Qaeda--Not Iraq--Is the Real Threat," Charles V. Peña, director of defense policy studies at the conservative CATO Institute, writes:

The "truth is that the al Qaeda terrorist threat does not emanate from Iraq. Al Qaeda has grown from a relatively small group of radical Islamic extremists to a larger ideological movement in the Muslim world. The threat now goes beyond al Qaeda to include a growing number of radical Muslim groups that share at least some of al Qaeda's ideology, but many of which are not directly connected to or formally affiliated with al Qaeda…. ending the U.S. military occupation of Iraq would go a long way towards stemming the tide of growing radical Islamic extremism."

Bush's 75% claim is not "shading the truth" or "beating around" it; this is one of several bold-faced lies told by Bush and Cheney during the debates. These lies endanger a largely confused electorate about what threatens the US, and therefore puts us all at risk. By not reporting these bold-faced lies as such is irresponsible, making the LAT complicitous in those dangers being increased due to its complicity in the deepening of these confusions. As I said in my previous letter, the stakes are too high for the fourth estate to "beat around the truth" in general--and in particular when it comes to the balance between the dishonesty of each candidate.

Eric Anders
Los Angeles

Bush Apologists Are Not "Balanced"

2004-10-08T15:42:00.000-07:00

To the producers of "Left, Right, and Center" (LRC):

I've listened to LRC for a long time now, and I was really disappointed by today's show (10/8/04). Please try harder to find someone on the right who is not deranged. Axis-of-evil Frumm was bad, but this guy May....

More to the point, the show will only work if you have someone centrist as moderator, evidenced by today's show. May clearly botched the job. If you lose Bob Sheer because of what happened on the show, you will lose this listener for sure. I wouldn't blame Bob Sheer for leaving the show given May's foolish and offensive antics. Appalling.

Why do the LRC producers seem to think that the right must be represented by a Bush apologist? Does Bush represent all of the right? Certainly not those "Rockefeller" Republicans who hold high the value of fiscal responsibility.

History will probably look back and see this period, our time, as rather troubled, and the Bush administration as an abomination of our so-called democracy. If the truth is that Bush himself is deranged, and that the US is going through a particularly dark period, would responsible journalism require such apologists for journalistic balance? Would an imaginary LRC show in Hitler's Germany require an apologist for Hitler? Though Bush-Hitler comparisons are usually irresponsible for obvious reasons, both for me cleary fall into the deranged category and therefore they and their policies are not worthy of journalistic representation.

It seems to me that NPR could take the journalistic risk of having someone from the right who is not an idiot, who does not compulsively apologize for the lies and misdeeds of Bush and crew--someone who would see Bush as an embarrassment to the right, while supporting rightist values and policies. These people do exist, and you will find links to related articles and sites at my "Letter to Conservatives" post below.

I never thought I'd want to hear Bill Buckley or someone like him on a show so much. John Dean?

Eric Anders
Los Angeles

LA Times "Truth Shading" I

2004-10-06T13:12:00.000-07:00

To the editor of the LA Times:

Your article from 10/6, the day after the VP debates, "Rivals' Bold Assertions Are Debatable," was flagrantly unbalanced since your article presents the "truth-shading" by the two debaters as being balanced between the two. The subtitle claims "both are guilty" but the evidence used in your article actually shows is that the truth shading by Edwards was minor at worst--while Cheney's flat out lies were, as ever, egregious.

The article claims "Cheney never flatly asserted that Iraq was complicit in the Sept. 11 plot" but then goes on to give one clear example of how he flatly asserts the connection, a connection he has obviously made countless times. What does he have to say exactly for it to meet your mark of "flat assertion"? "Hussein planned 9/11"? Who doesn't know that the Iraq war is more accepted by Americans if they mistakenly see it as part of a war on terror? Machiavellian Cheney knows this well and has obviously used the lie of a Iraq-9/11 connection very many times, and without any moral reservations, even as tens of thousands die in this illegal war, and the war does nothing to fight those who threaten us, and even makes the US more and more vulnerable to Islamic extremism.

Cheney, as you reported, also lied about capturing or killing "thousands of Al Qaeda" members—another egregious lie with national security at stake, as if the Bush administration has really cared as much about securing our country from terrorists as securing its hold on power. Two American myths: the Bush administration is good on security and Iraq is connected to 9/11. They were deaf to terror warnings before 9/11, resisted the 9/11 commission and the establishment of a department of homeland security after the attacks, never dealt with Saudi Arabia as a serious "geographic base" of Islamic terror, have yet to do even the most obvious safeguard of compiling and putting into action a terrorist watch list, redirected massive resources needed for attacking Al Qaeda away from operations in South Asia and Osama bin Laden to the Persian Gulf, and in so doing enraged a huge chunk of the Islamic world and alienated our traditional allies, etc., etc.

Now, what did Edwards lie about? He said that the US has suffered 90% of the coalition casualties, and the actual figure is 88.5%. Yup: he's a liar all right. And why do you even entertain Cheney's blatant lie that the figure ought to be closer to 50%? The issue was "coalition" deaths, not deaths in general. Even if deaths in general were the issue, that figure would be a lie since it is obvious that--not even counting Iraqi combatant deaths--many more Iraqi civilians have died than American combatants in this war, by a factor of twelve or more as of today (www.iraqbodycount.org).
Why does your paper, and so many other news organizations, seem to bend over backward for this administration? Given the radical nature of this administration and its cult-like following, I think it is way past the time that news media in general need to radically reconsider their conception of journalistic balance. The world is relying on our fourth estate to do just this. The stakes are too high not to do so.

Eric Anders
Los Angeles, CA

A letter to conservative voters

2004-09-14T16:47:00.000-07:00

Hello conservative voters,

I am a liberal. My guess is that most conservatives would not be too moved if they heard me go on and on about how Bush is, quoting one of the conservative authors below, "a dangerous, profligate, moralizing radical."

So I am sending these articles with the hope that the conservatives who do read them might be more open to the anti-Bush views of other conservatives, and other Republicans ... more open to their pleas not to vote for Bush this November.

Both liberals and conservatives agree that this time around the stakes are extremely high. Let's try and get these articles out there so at least there can be some more thought and exchange on whether George W. Bush or John F. Kerry is the better person for the job.

Obviously, I believe Kerry is by far the better choice, but for this letter I will defer to the conservatives below to make arguments in that direction.

Thanks for your time, Eric Anders

**************

Why conservatives must not vote for Bush, by Doug Bandow

"A Reaganite argues that Bush is a dangerous, profligate, moralizing radical -- and that his reelection would be catastrophic both for the right and for America."

**************

Anti-War Republicans: A Telling Shift in Allegiance, by Eileen McNamara

**************

Rock-ribbed Republican -- and anti-Bush, by Michelle Goldberg

The newest, most outspoken critics of the war on terrorism and Iraq are conservatives.

**************

The Conservative Case Against George Bush, by William Bryk

**************

Some Web Sites to explore ......

Republicans Against Bush

Another "Republicans Against Bush" web site

And even more Republicans Against Bush

Find a Republicans Against Bush group near you

Republicans For Kerry

Conservatives for Kerry

Conservatives Against Bush

Mothers Against Bush (and mothers are always right)

Arab-American Republicans Against Bush

Homosexual Republicans Against Bush

NH Republicans who want other NH Republicans to "skip Bush"

More Conservatives Against Bush

... And More Conservatives Against Bush

... And More Conservatives Against Bush

Terror War(ning) as Political Hay

2004-06-03T18:25:00.000-07:00

On May 26th, Daniel Schorr's NPR commentary "Terror War as Political Hay" suggested many things about the Bush administration's use of the "war on terror" and terror warnings as "political hay," but as usual stopped short of saying that Bush and Co. has been lying all along about the U.S. war in Iraq being the "central front in the war on terror." Bush recently repeated this lie at my alma mater, the US Air Force Academy.

Schorr reminds us that most Americans think that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks, even though anyone who is the least bit knowledgeable about these matters knows there is no connection whatsoever. Schorr does not make it clear that the Iraq-9/11 connection is one of the BIG LIES of Bush and Co. Instead of calling Bush's repeated assertions that the war in Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror" (or his treatment of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq as a given) simply what they are--bold-faced lies--Schorr calls these assertions an "ideological fixation," suggesting that Bush and Co. actually believe their own lies. Wrong. These are simply lies made by people who know they are lying.

With regard to terror warnings, Schorr points out that Bush's claim about Iraq being the "central front in the war on terror" contradicts Ashcroft's and Mueller's recent dire warning that Al Qaeda plans a major attack on the U.S. this summer. Schorr's point is a good one: if the war in Iraq is so central, does that make the fight against Al Qaeda a marginal concern?

But this is not Schorr's central concern when it comes to the recent terror warning. Rather, Schorr points out that Bush's popularity has been steadily dropping as the situation in Iraq gets worse for U.S. forces in Iraq, and for the administration. Bush's approval rating on Iraq is at 40%, an all-time low, while the U.S. public's disapproval of his handling of the Abu Ghraib scandal is at a "dramatic 57%" (I think Schorr means dramatically high, but 57% seems dramatically low to me).

Schorr ends his commentary by simply pointing out that, when it comes to "dealing with terrorists," Bush leads Kerry 52 to 39% in the polls. Thus, "intended or not," Bush is helped politically when dire terror warnings are issued at press conferences by members of the Bush administration.

Schorr refrains from saying out right that the warning was not based on increased intelligence "chatter," that the warning, in other words, was issued to raise Bush's approval ratings as the election draws nigh.

But Schorr must have written his commentary before we learned that Tom Ridge, the director of Homeland Security, was informed about the supposedly raised terror threat at the same time as the rest of us were. Let's make this clear: Ashcroft and Mueller issued the warning at a press conference and Ridge did not know about it. Prior to announcement, Ridge was actually playing down the threat level. But now, after some damage control among the members of the board of Bush and Co., Ridge and Ashcroft have come out saying that the Justice Department and Homeland Security are now on the same page.

Again, Ridge is the director of Homeland Security. Wouldn't Ridge have been in the loop if the threat were real?

We might also ask why Ashcroft, our attorney general, would be giving such news conferences, and not Ridge? The FBI is part of Justice, and they supposedly found the new intelligence ... which, by the way, has since been seriously called into question, if not completely discredited. We might also ask why the terror alert level was not raised when Ashcroft and Mueller discovered all this evidence of dire threats? Ridge, it would seem, should have some say in terror alert levels. That's his department.

The answer, it seems to me, is pretty clear: Bush and Co. are, as Schorr suggests, using terror warnings to make political hay. It is difficult to fathom how irresponsible this is--how unethical this is, how hateful. If the U.S. is attacked, I hope those who are attacked have not been in any way dulled by Bush and Co.'s cries of wolf.

Another impeachable offense, it would seem.

I wish the 52% who think Bush is better on terror than Kerry would think about a few basic ideas. The war in Iraq is not part of the war on terror. The U.S. war in Iraq has been fanning the flames of Arab and Muslim hatred of the U.S., and increases U.S. insecurity with respect to Jihadist terror.

Using terror warnings to make political hay is so reprehensible ... it is hard to see straight as I write. Obviously, false warnings gravely increase our homeland insecurity. When it comes to getting their way, Bush and Co. seriously don't seem to care how many lives they put in harms way, Iraqi or American.

War Criminals

2004-06-03T12:03:00.000-07:00

It is hard to believe that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell did not know about the torturing at Abu Ghraib prior to the publication of the photos. According to Seymour Hersh, Rummy not only knew, but encouraged zealous measures of attaining intelligence through his direct orders. In case you missed it, here is Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that, if this is so, they are all guilty of war crimes. Powell has a history of trying to cover up war crimes.

Powell's history with My Lai, and some more funky stuff related to Abu Ghraib below.

In "Bush: Dumb Like A Bullet ... Is Dubya both a bumbling simpleton *and* a shrewd manipulator who smirked at tortures in Iraq?", Mark Morford gives us a great read that ties together some articles that cover otherwise grossly under-reported topics.

In that bastion of liberal values, The NY Post, we can read that the sex-capades of the MPs in Abu Ghraib weren't merely a routine part of the sadistic war crimes committed against Iraqi inmates. Rather, it seems that the sanctioned sadism of the prisons environment actually turned the MPs on ... and they made some Abu Ghraib pornos ... that, along with more evidence of extreme prisoner abuse, are now being kept from public view.

In a previous post ("On American Abuse of Prisoners 1"), I tried to link some of the sadism of Abu Ghraib to my experience with the "training" at the US Air Force Academy. It is interesting to note that this Academy is also under investigation for many unreported rapes. I dated one of my female classmates after we graduated, and she confirmed my suspicion that sexual abuse and rape were much more common there than than the official story led us to believe. It seems that where you have sanctioned sadism, supposedly in the service of some higher good ("training" future officers, saving American lives in Iraq), aggressive (and what might normally be transgressive) sexuality seems to be let loose.

But back to the war criminals in higher office. If Rumsfeld gave the order, he is most likely guilty of a war crime. If he knew, he is at least guilty of purgery. Jail, not just impeachment, should be in his future ... but won't be, as we all know.

And Bush probably knew too. Or, he was told and didn't do anything about it. He may have forgotten, or not understood completely, but this won't hold up in court.

Yes, Powell knew too, and he makes it clear that Bush knew. Before we start respecting Powell because he doesn't get along with Rummy, and is kept out of the loop with the leaders of Bush and Co., we might consider that he is implicated in yet another cover up of a war crime, as he was with My Lai.

Disgusting stuff.

On American Abuse of Prisoners II

2004-05-11T13:39:00.000-07:00

The people who committed these crimes at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- the junior officers and enlisted personnel, the contractors -- should be tried and then punished if they are found guilty of war crimes. But the chain of command should be punished as well--and all the way to the top, which is Bush, not Rumsfeld. Why doesn't the buck stop with the military's commander-in-chief? A year ago Bush was playing it up big on the deck of that battleship. As expected, he only takes credit for what he sees as the good things the military does, while hiding coffins at Andrews AFB from the media. The buck should stop with Bush, the leader of the military, not his secretary. Of course, it is clear that Bush and Co. won't accept this buck at all. And I will be surprised if Rumsfeld resigns, since he is one of the two primary players in this oligarchical madhouse.

They are all guilty of war crimes, just as the generals in charge of the Nazi concentrations camps were. Had Hitler lived, he would have been tried at Nuremburg and held responsible for the holocaust, even if he had claimed not to have had a hands-on style of leadership, and claimed not to have known about the crimes--as Bush asserts. Just yesterday, Rumsfeld claimed that he didn't know about the prisoner abuse until only a week ago. Blatant lie: Powell, the Red Cross, and many generals all knew. Given his very hands-on style of running things, there is no way that Rumsfeld didn't know of something like this for over a year. That's how long ago the first reports started coming in.

Shades of Iran-contra: Republicans saying they didn't know about it, that this wasn't how they led, and an imbecile in charge claiming he didn't know. We should recall that Bush and Co. started their term by, among other things, undermining the International Criminal Court, the very court that would try them for these war crimes. The war itself is illegal -- a war crime. It is hard to get troops to take the Geneva Convention seriously if the war they are involved in doesn't respect international law, and the leaders themselves have repeatedly avoided backing international legal institutions--the Geneva Conventions in particular.

Bush and Co. have a history of disrespecting the Geneva Conventions. A USA Today article claims that Rumsfeld hasn't even admitted that what happened at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and in Afghanistan violate the Geneva Conventions. But here he betrays his knowledge of the conventions when it comes to US POWs. The double standard supports the dehumanization of Iraqi POWs.

Leadership was the problem with the prisoner abuse, along with a criminally absurd ideological backdrop: thinking of these Iraqi people as "terrorists" (though most of them are innocent according to the LA Times today, 5/11, front page), as guilty before proven innocent, even though this war, despite the Orwellian twists of Bush and Co., obviously has nothing to do with fighting terrorism and again is itself a crime of which Bush and Co. are guilty. Anyone fighting the US occupation of Iraq is labeled a "terrorist." In Afghanistan, when the US employed Bin Laden to help fight off the Soviet occupation, he and his band of Jihadists were called "freedom fighters," and Bin Laden was praised by the US and given LOTS of money.

I imagine that these junior officers and enlisted people felt their actions were justified (at least partially) because they believed they were in a war connected to 9/11. But the connection between the war in Iraq and the "war on terror" is one BIG LIE, among many others, that sets up an ideological backdrop which encourages these types of abuses. As "terrorists," the Iraqis can easily be rationalized as sub-human.

The Bush administration is directly culpable for this lie, and for this ideological backdrop, as is the media for not being more critical of all the obvious lies (the words "Bush lies about ..." are nowhere to be found in the popular media since 2000, even though his lies are well documented elsewhere). There is so much confusion out there that the media could do a lot more to clear up, rather than pandering to Bush and Co. For example, few Americans realize that Al Qaeda and Saddam were mortal enemies, and that Saddam, a Sunni, imprisoned many Sunni Jihadists. Saddam would usually just kill the Shiite Jihadists, since, as with the Wahhabis and Al Qaeda, he seemed to hate Shiites more than he hated Americans (see "The Saudi Paradox" by Princton Professor Michael Doran).

To say Saddam and Bin Laden somehow worked together is a blatant lie. They despised almost everything the other stood for. Maybe they had common anti-Shiite, anti-American, and anti-Isreal interests at certain times (though not at other times: see photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the late 80s), but they hated and feared each other as much as they hated and feared the US. Again this lie, the lie that we are fighting "terror" in Iraq, is directly related to the abuse at the prison, as these soldiers mistakenly believed that what they were doing was a part of "protecting America against terrorism." Total BS: the US-Iraq war clearly makes the world much more dangerous for Americans with respect to Jihadist or Islamic terrorism. The focus Bush and Co. put on secular Saddam blurs what should be a focus on Jihadists.

Al Qaeda has wanted regime change in Iraq (and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.) for decades. So the US has at least twice had common interests with Bin Laden: Afghanistan and Iraq. If we follow Bush's logic of guilt-by-association, doesn't this make us guilty of terrorism? Here's a dangerous thought: if we wanted to bring the "war on terror" to the middle east, then Saudi Arabia--home of 15 of the hijackers, and home of the state-sponsored form of Jihadist Islam, Wahhabism, which all of the hijackers and Bin Laden followed--would seem a more likely target. Not that I would support such a war either. Bush and Co., however, are too entangled with Saudi oil not to protect Saudi Arabia from such a simple (and simplistic) conclusion (see House of Bush, House of Saud, by Craig Unger). Why the media doesn't investigate the Saudi-Bush connection, the Saudi Jihadists of the Wahhabi faith and their state-sponsored dissemination of their Jihadism (see Doran), and the connection of all this to 9/11, I cannot for the life of me figure out.

Generally speaking, a "war on terror" is a stupid and untenable idea, one that fits in with W's simplistic world view (Good/Evil, Freedom/"Terra"), a world view he is unfortunately succeeding at selling with the help of greedy media conglomerates with editors who certainly know better, or should. His ulterior motive of toppling Iraq (revenge for Father's loss to Clinton, oil grab, and I don't know what else compels him to sacrifice so many lives -- but certainly not democracy in the ME) is also being sold as connected to this war on terror. How this bunch of single-minded "neo-cons" gets away with all of this is amazing to me. More terrifying and tragic than amazing, really.

Hopefully this will be the beginning of the end of the "neo-con" oligarchy ... but don't hold your breath. Forty-five percent of the US population seem intent on following this or some similar type of "evil" weirdness. We seem to be living during a time when denial and extreme ideology is still as much a part of the American scene as when we killed millions of southeast Asians to protect them from communism. If I were religious, I'd ask God to help us, and protect the rest of the world from our weirdnesses. But I'm not, so I just write really long posts to vent.

On American Abuse of Prisoners I

2004-05-04T11:15:00.000-07:00

I was just listening to the reports from Iraq and was reminded of my own training to be both a guard and a prisoner of war at the Air Force Academy during the summer program called S.E.R.E. ("seary": survival, evasion, resistance, escape).

The "resistance" and "escape" part of the training, lasting about a week or so, took place in a very elaborate mock POW camp in the mountains above the Academy. When I went through the program as a new sophomore (just after recovering from a broken jaw with six weeks of wires and very little food), the POW part of the training came after the survival and evasion parts, which amounted to two weeks of even less sustenance than I received while my jaw was wired shut. So I was already delirious, but I remember a variety of sadistic abuses, often in the form of mind games and humiliation. It was a horrible experience, but I imagine it might have prepared me to be in the position some of the Iraqi prisoners have unfortunately found themselves in.

A year after I went through the training as a prisoner, I was chosen to be a guard in the POW camp to facilitate the training of the class one year behind me. Whatever training we guards-to-be may have gotten on how to play the mind games, to humiliate, to be the sadists they wanted us to be, this training paled in comparison to what happened the year we spent venting our pent up hostilities on the members of the class behind us, since we spent the whole year "training" them to be cadets. Our pent up hostilities exploded during our year of inflicting abuse, which ended with a "hell week" that put hundreds in the hospital and provoked congress to terminate the very old tradition of hell week. This year-long "training" is really an extended course on the type of sadism that permeates the Academies, and has done so since well before my grandfather was hazed in 1924 during his "plebe" year at the Naval Academy.

I have no recollection of learning the Geneva Conventions and their rules on the treatment of prisoners during my training. We probably got it though. I just don't remember. I do remember learning about the "Stanford syndrome," where a mock POW camp was created at Stanford and the people involved in this unethical experiment ended up delusional about the reality of the environment and their role in it--i.e., they started believing they were in fact guards in a prison, and the people they were treating so sadistically deserved what they were getting. The prisoners fell into similar delusions, though of the masochistic kind. I remember being surprised and ashamed when I discovered that I was not as immune to this syndrome as I thought I would be.

I find it ironic and tragic that people might believe Rumsfeld's line that the abuse Americans are dishing out to Iraqi prisoners is somehow un-American. The kind of sadism that we are hearing about is actually a rather standard and traditional part of military training. I imagine that most Americans are vulnerable to the fantasies that torturers are only to be found among Nazis, or (in the racist version of these fantasies) in Latin American, Japanese or Vietnamese prison camps. I was disturbed by how familiar the photo of the strutting, smiling female guard with naked Iraqi men behind her was for me. It reminded me of my very American "training."

I was reminded of how I had to learn to "resist" the torture inflicted on my by my captors. In order to learn how to teach this lesson, to teach "resistance," someone, the teacher, has to become an expert in torture. The US has many such experts. Many of them, as many of you know, work at what is known as the Army's "School of the Americas," recently given the Orwellian name of the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation." As Mary Turck puts it in her article:

"What do Col. Byron Lima Estrada of Guatemala, Lt. Josê Espinoza Guerra and General Juan Orlando Zepeda, both of El Salvador, and General Juan López Ortiz of Mexico have in common?

They are all murderers. They were all trained at the School of the Americas. Because of them, and because of thousands of others like them, many people call the U.S. Army's School of the Americas the "School of Assassins."

And what do Panama's Manuel Noriega, Argentina's Leopoldo Galtiere, Peru's Juan Velasco Alvarado, Ecuador's Guillermo Rodriguez, and Bolivia's Hugo Banzer have in common? They have all been dictators in their countries, and they were all trained at the School of the Americas. Because of them, and others, many people call the U.S. Army's School of the Americas the "School of Coups."

The School of the Americas (SOA) is a military training school for Latin American soldiers. SOA is an official program of the U.S. government, funded by the government and run by the U.S. Armed Forces since 1946. SOA graduates have long been implicated in terrorism, human rights violations, coercion, and atrocities committed against civilian populations across Latin America."

You can see the rest of the article at the web site below. My basic reason for sending this article is to give everyone a sense of how very American it is to torture, humiliate, terrorize, and not follow the Geneva Convention--which means how American it is to commit war crimes. There is a well-documented history of this for those who aren't blinded by their patriotism and their delusional John Wayne Americas.

What seems so scary now is that Jihadists around the world now have an even stronger case that the U.S. invasion of Iraq, led by a former oil man, is a racist, power grab, "naked aggression" (as Bush senior said of Iraq years ago), an illegal occupation with the goal of gaining more control over Arab resources, the second largest known oil reserves in the world. I am embarrassed that a year ago I was fooled into believing the WMD threat was real, and that I wasn't more against the invasion then. Perhaps my "training" clouded my judgement. Excuses, excuses.

Saudi Arabia - some grossly under-reported topics

2004-04-12T10:55:00.000-07:00

Dear (various liberal-leaning members of the press),

I am writing because I am hoping someone will take the lead on a story that I feel is grossly under-reported:

Saudi Arabia, Bush's connection to it, and its connection to terrorism via Wahhabism.

The basic questions:

Has President Bush been avoiding putting pressure on Saudi Arabia due to his and his family's long-term connection to Saudi Arabia?

The complexity of this topic, of course, is great, but the basic question of why so little media attention has been put on Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism is unbelievable ... and dangerous. Al Qaeda is Wahhabi. All of the hijackers were Wahhabis--a brand of Islam that is unfortunately infused with Jihadism and hatred for the West, US, Jews, and Shiites.

Could someone please write an article or do a show on how the Wahhabis get money from the House of Saud, and use this money to spread a particularly virulent form of anti-Western hatred to other Muslim countries?

Again, this stuff is so complicated. According to Michael Scott Doran("The Saudi Paradox"), Assistant Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Wahhabis hate the Shiites as much, if not more, than they hate Americans and Jews. Bin Laden didn't really care all that much about Palestine and hated Sadaam, Mubarek, etc.

Doran also points out that the interior minister of Saudi Arabia, Prince Nayef, is beholden to radical Wahhabi clerics, and he is the one the Bush administration ultimately relies on to ferret out terrorists in Saudi Arabia. This is a criminal irony, and it seems that Bush's motivation is to avoid putting any kind of pressure on the Sauds and Saudis to do something serious about Saudi terrorists, and about Wahhabism or internal terrorist cells.

Any so-called "war on terrorism" that does not engage seriously with Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism is a joke. Serious engagement does not have to include invasion, as suggested by John Baer in his book, Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude. Baer seems to forget that "Our Soul" would not buy much crude, and his hawkish, CIA-style "solutions" are reactionary at best.

Please report on the Saudi's, Wahhabism, and House of Bush's connection to the House of Saud (see Craig Unger's book House of Bush, House of Saud : The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties). Bin Laden and fifteen highjackers are Saudis and Wahhabis! US money funds the house of Saud, which has been beholden to Wahhabism since the 18th C. Indirectly the US funds Al Qaeda and their Wahhabi cronies. Bush claims the primary front of the war on terror is in Iraq. What an obvious and grotesque lie, though never mentioned as such by the press. Saudi Arabia will prove to be the most dangerous hot-bed of terrorism--as if 15 of the 19 hijackers didn't already show this.

I've listed some references and possible guest speakers for the show below.

Sincerely,

Eric Anders

In The Baggage Room At Greyhound -- by Allen Ginsberg

2003-05-24T15:07:00.000-07:00

I

In the depths of the Greyhound Terminal
sitting dumbly on a baggage truck looking at the sky
waiting for the Los Angeles Express to depart
worrying about eternity over the Post Office roof in
the night-time red downtown heaven
staring through my eyeglasses I realized shuddering
these thoughts were not eternity, nor the poverty
of our lives, irritable baggage clerks,
nor the millions of weeping relatives surrounding the
buses waving goodbye,
nor other millions of the poor rushing around from
city to city to see their loved ones,
nor an indian dead with fright talking to a huge cop
by the Coke machine,
nor this trembling old lady with a cane taking the last
trip of her life,
nor the red-capped cynical porter collecting his quar-
ters and smiling over the smashed baggage,
nor me looking around at the horrible dream,
nor mustached negro Operating Clerk named Spade,
dealing out with his marvelous long hand the
fate of thousands of express packages,
nor fairy Sam in the basement limping from leaden
trunk to trunk,
nor Joe at the counter with his nervous breakdown
smiling cowardly at the customers,
nor the grayish-green whale's stomach interior loft
where we keep the baggage in hideous racks,
hundreds of suitcases full of tragedy rocking back and
forth waiting to be opened,
nor the baggage that's lost, nor damaged handles,
nameplates vanished, busted wires & broken
ropes, whole trunks exploding on the concrete
floor,
nor seabags emptied into the night in the final
warehouse.

II

Yet Spade reminded me of Angel, unloading a bus,
dressed in blue overalls black face official Angel's work-
man cap,
pushing with his belly a huge tin horse piled high with
black baggage,
looking up as he passed the yellow light bulb of the loft
and holding high on his arm an iron shepherd's crook.

III

It was the racks, I realized, sitting myself on top of
them now as is my wont at lunchtime to rest
my tired foot,
it was the racks, great wooden shelves and stanchions
posts and beams assembled floor to roof jumbled
with baggage,
--the Japanese white metal postwar trunk gaudily
flowered & headed for Fort Bragg,
one Mexican green paper package in purple rope
adorned with names for Nogales,
hundreds of radiators all at once for Eureka,
crates of Hawaiian underwear,
rolls of posters scattered over the Peninsula, nuts to
Sacramento,
one human eye for Napa,
an aluminum box of human blood for Stockton
and a little red package of teeth for Calistoga-
it was the racks and these on the racks I saw naked
in electric light the night before I quit,
the racks were created to hang our possessions, to keep
us together, a temporary shift in space,
God's only way of building the rickety structure of
Time,
to hold the bags to send on the roads, to carry our
luggage from place to place
looking for a bus to ride us back home to Eternity
where the heart was left and farewell tears
began.

IV

A swarm of baggage sitting by the counter as the trans-
continental bus pulls in.
The clock registering 12:15 A.M., May 9, 1956, the
second hand moving forward, red.
Getting ready to load my last bus.-Farewell, Walnut
Creek Richmond Vallejo Portland Pacific
Highway
Fleet-footed Quicksilver, God of transience.
One last package sits lone at midnight sticking up out
of the Coast rack high as the dusty fluorescent
light.

The wage they pay us is too low to live on. Tragedy
reduced to numbers.
This for the poor shepherds. I am a communist.
Farewell ye Greyhound where I suffered so much,
hurt my knee and scraped my hand and built
my pectoral muscles big as a vagina.

May 9, 1956