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

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!

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

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

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

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!

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.