Ideology
The Economics of Empire
Unimaginable Futures (Hitler:
More like Saddam or Bush?)
Neo-Conservatives
PACKING THE JUDICIARY WITH RIGHT
WINGERS
BUSH'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS
2003 - UNPACKED
Bush's Cronies
The Radical Mind of Dick Cheney:
An In-Depth Look at the Vice President
DEMOCRACY NOW!December, 2003
An interview with Spencer Ackerman (transcript)
Project
for A New American Century
"Rebuilding
America's Defenses" and the Project for the New American Century
by Bette Stockbauer
"Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD)"
is a policy document published by a neoconservative Washington think
tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Its pages
have been compared to Hitler's Mein Kampf in that they outline
an aggressive military plan for U.S. world domination during the coming
century. And just as Hitler's book was not taken seriously until after
his catastrophic rise to power, so it seems that relatively few Americans
are expressing alarm at this published document that is a blueprint
for many of the present actions of the Bush administration, actions
which have begun to destabilize the balance of power between the nations
of the world.
Scandals
BILL MOYERS ON THE REPUBLICAN
ELECTORAL VICTORY NOVEMBER 2002
A BRITISH VIEW OF THE REPUBLICAN
VICTORY NOVEMBER 2002
THEFT OF THE PRESIDENCY - FLORIDA ELECTION
SCANDAL
see: Corporate Elite
ENRON AND BUSH
CONNECT THE ENRON DOTS TO BUSH
Corporate Elite
The Holocaust and the Bush family fortune
Bush Ally Set to Profit from The War
on Terror
MAKING MONEY THE BUSH WAY
War/Militarism
Situation Excellent, I Am Attacking
Bush's speech to the U.N.
By William Rivers Pitt 9.25.03
OIL
BUSH PLANNING GLOBAL CEMETARY
BUSH'S WAR
HELEN THOMAS
USING FEAR
BUSH'S DISASTROUS NUCLEAR
POLICIES
Environment/Public Safety
BUSH STOPS EPA DISCLOSURES OF
ASBESTOS
BUSH'S NEGATIVE RECORD
SURVEILLANCE USA
WAR AGAINST WOMEN
WAR AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENT
Fighting Bush
Ramsey
Clark, Former U.S. Attorney General, Responds to Bush's Television Address
Sept 11,2003
VETERANS FOR
PEACE: ALTERNATIVES TO BUSH'S MILITARISM
A ONE MINUTE VIDEO ON BUSH
SOME CRACKS IN BUSH'S ARMAMENT?
IMPEACH BUSH,!
The Radical Mind of Dick Cheney: An In-Depth Look
at the Vice President
DEMOCRACY NOW! December, 2003
AMY GOODMAN: We're joined by Spencer Ackerman, assistant editor of
the "New Republic." Welcome to Democracy Now!.
SPENCER ACKERMAN: Good morning. Thanks for having me.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, it's good to have you. Why don't we start from where
you begin tracing the odyssey of Dick Cheney going back to the first
Bush.
SPENCER ACKERMAN: Well, what we wanted to figure out, when we undertook
this project, was why someone who many people thought in 2000, when
he became the Republican vice presidential nominee, would be a voice
of advocacy for stability and, in general, real politic like the first
Bush administration generally was, became someone who was so eager to
reverse what many consider in retrospect sort of the central aspect
of the Bush administration-- the first Bush administration's foreign
policy, which was essentially ending the Gulf War with Saddam Hussein
in power. And, the more we looked at Cheney's record in the Pentagon,
the more we saw that he wasn't within the mainstream in that first Bush
administration. He was more of its ideological outlier.
When it came time to formulate policy towards the Soviet Union during
the waning days of the Cold War, Cheney wasn't interested, like his
colleagues James Baker or Brent Scocroft or even the first President
Bush, in arms control or supporting Mikhail Gorbachev and sort of bringing
the Soviet Union to what some would call a soft landing. He wanted to
really press a very radical approach and sort of shock the system by
supporting uprisings in the rebellious Ukraine to create something of
an outpost in the region that he would hope would become something of
a linchpin for a democratic transformation. Similarly, support Boris
Yeltsin, who would then challenge the regime at its core. And you can
hear some of the overtones in the-- when you-- in the Iraq War today,
looking at that. There would be the end of that 40 years worth of ideological
confrontation that would be solved on the United States' terms if we
first found someone we could support, who would have our interests at
heart in this figure, that they would convince themselves is a world
historical figure, like Yeltsin, and similarly creating an outpost in
the region would then provide a foothold through which the ideological
problems of the region, communism, in so many words, as it was falling
down in the end of the 1980's, would then provide this sort of regional
positioning towards which the region would then sort of look more like
the United States and sort of an open liberal democratic region.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Spencer Ackerman, who is assistant editor
at the "New Republic." His piece is called "The Radical
Mind of Dick Cheney." So, you look at the last ten years. Talk
about Wolfowitz and Cheney.
SPENCER ACKERMAN: They had a very interesting relationship. Both men
have-- it's somewhat overlooked-- both men have, in fact, rather similar
backgrounds. They're both academics. They both spent their lives thinking
very seriously about defense policy. They both-- even something of a
meritocratic idea-- sort of finding bright, young intellectuals who
are willing to challenge the received wisdom and then placing them in
important policymaking places. And that came to its germination in the
first Bush administration. Cheney was secretary of defense. Paul Wolfowitz
was Cheney's policy director, the undersecretary of defense for policy.
And over that time, Cheney saw his policy shop run by Wolfowitz as less
of a 400-man unit that would think a about basing rights and weapons
procurement, and formulating military to military ties with other countries,
and more of an incubator for really strategic ideas. This was something
that Wolfowitz was very keen on. There was a document that comes out
of Wolfowitz's policy shop in 1992 called the "Defense Planning
Guidance," that was very controversial. It eventually becomes the
1993 "Regional Defense Strategy." That was the first time
a document for American policymakers spelled out circumstances under
which it would be justified to undertake preventive military action,
in this case to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
What does that sound like right now?
Similarly, Wolfowitz saw that, with this "Defense Planning Guidance,"
that with the end of the Soviet Union and the birth of what we now call
the Unipolar Moment, would be a unique opportunity for America to exercise
its ability to intervene in other moments of foreign policy crises with
a lot greater freedom than it would during this period of ideological
confrontation. Similarly, Wolfowitz advocated that if America shrinks
from its rather dominant role on the world stage, then the ideological
gains of the Cold War would be perhaps momentary and fleeting, and so
America needed to stay with its presence on the world stage, is what
it was, in order to encourage that these games-- particularly, he was
thinking more in Eastern Europe at this point. It would sort of be locked
in. And, finally, America had to retain its very robust military capabilities
to make sure that no rival emerged to challenge the United States over
this period.
And this was just simply not something that was really on the radar
in 1992. It was not something that anyone was really thinking about
at that time. People were expecting a peace dividend in the Cold War,
the 1992 election was all about domestic politics, domestic problems,
solving longstanding domestic issues. And, so, it caused a great deal
of controversy in the first Bush administration. When the White House
heard about it, they repudiated it. But, an interesting thing happened,
which is that Cheney, while he did accede to White House pressure and
sand down the edges and make sure it got leaked to the same people the
original draft got leaked to so that people could see it was no longer
quite so aggressive.
Nevertheless, he retained most of its key ideas, most importantly about
the necessity, at times, for preventive action and a forward-leaning
military presence and most importantly, this idea that American security
was really-- was really dependent on what he called zones of democracy.
Different areas around the world, which were former security threats,
which through American intervention could be transformed into sort of
democratic outposts. That's all retained in a January, 1993 document
called the defense plan-- I'm sorry, called the "Regional Defense
Strategy." And, so, it really shows that the-- the alliance between
Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney wasn't sort of a marriage of convenience.
It was really more of a meeting of two minds, people who really did
see the world in a very similar way, and were very eager to see that
their vision was implemented.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Spencer Ackerman. You talk about Dick
Cheney leaving his position as Defense Secretary to become head of Halliburton
and how he circumvent-- how his disgust with the CIA led him to hire
retired intelligence people, a policy he has carried on through this
day. Can you talk about the kind of brain trust he set up at Halliburton
to deal with the world, to deal with countries?
SPENCER ACKERMAN: Well, basically, he comes out of the-- out of the
first gulf war with a really acute sense-- and so does Paul Wolfowitz
and so do others who work in the Pentagon-- with a really acute sense
that in many very important respects the American intelligence establishment
has failed. It's failed to -- it's failed to see that the Soviet Union
had a bioweapons program, that we only found out about that in September
of 1992, because Boris Yeltsin just flat-out told us. And, you know,
that's the whole-- the Soviet Union was the whole reason, more or less,
that the CIA existed. So, how could they have missed something so important.
Very, very few analysts in the intelligence community accurately predicted
the invasion of Kuwait, and so on. There were several failures that
proved to be somewhat seminal.
And by the time Cheney gets to Halliburton, like-- like any businessman,
he wants to have the most accurate information he can, and so as he
hires people who have been former intelligence professionals and others
to sort of help him with his forecasting as he ran the company-- we
talked to one of them-- and this person told us that, in very florid
and not perhaps broadcastable language, how angry Cheney was at the
CIA, and how little faith he had in it. And, by the time that Cheney
becomes vice president, that's a deeply held belief that he carries
over with him. And it's what leads Cheney and his bureaucratic allies
to set up channels within the government to sort of second-guess, challenge,
outsource and almost replace the judgments of the established intelligence
community.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about his relationship with Ahmed Chalabi.
SPENCER ACKERMAN: Chalabi, in the 1990's, as he's-- as he goes through
his period where he falls out of favor with the Clinton administration,
and with the Clinton administration CIA, cultivates more and more contact
in Washington among conservatives. Importantly, Richard Perle and other
scholars and former defense officials and other government officials
who end up at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. And that's
where Cheney goes after his stay as Secretary of Defense and before
he becomes head of Halliburton, and through annual conferences that--
that AEI would set up in Beaver Creek and elsewhere, Cheney comes to
meet Chalabi. And it's at these conferences where Chalabi would be making
his case if only the U.S. would support the Iraqi National Congress
and its insurgents, a democratic Iraq could very easily flow out of
a very brief period of uprising and instability and the overthrow of
Saddam Hussein.
So, at that point, it becomes more and more enticing to more and more
people, the idea that you can be rid of this hideous dictator who seems
to be addicted to weapons of mass destruction, who seems to have regional
designs on the Middle East even after the Gulf War, and who seems to
be sort of a relentless enemy of the United States, replaced with a
democratic and free Iraq, which is sort of the bargain of all bargains.
And by the time that Cheney becomes vice president, not only does he
sort of keep an open line to Chalabi, but many of the people on his
staff, including his chief of staff, Scooter Libby, one of his foreign
policy advisers, John Hannah, another of his foreign policy advisers
who goes over to work in the Pentagon later on, Bill Rooney. A lot of
these people have established ties to Chalabi and other Iraqi exiles.
And they keep an open line within the vice president to listen to Chalabi
and solicit his advice on some cases, to sort of get Chalabi's perspective
on intelligence or get alternative intelligence analyses.
AMY GOODMAN: And the whole issue of Joe Wilson and the information--
that the information was false about the yellowcake uranium being sold
to Iraq. Can you talk about Alan Foley, the director of the CIA's nonproliferation
center and what Cheney and Scooter Libby and the others were doing with
him?
SPENCER ACKERMAN: Foley was perhaps one of the most impor-- he's retiring
now-- he ran one of the most important directorates at the CIA in this
day and age, which is about weapons proliferation. And, over the course
of 2002, there were several visits undertaken both by Cheney personally,
by Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, and then there were simply
reams of other-- questioning of documents that would come out of the
directorate to sort of, as people who work for Foley have made clear,
had the effect of something of a chill factor, that they got the impression
that Cheney and his office wanted intelligence reports to conform to
what they considered to be the proper conception of the threat, which
is Saddam Hussein having reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.
And with the Niger issue, a lot of that remains murky.
Basically, the CIA felt-- in early 2002, there's a report that makes
its way to Dick Cheney that appears to have originated with Italian
intelligence about Saddam seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, and
Cheney asks the CIA in early 2002, do you have anything to corroborate
this, do you have any further information, how accurate is it? The CIA
said they didn't know. They wanted someone to find out, because they
considered it of sufficient importance on its own merits and such importance
to the vice president that it deserved a fuller answer. They asked Joe
Wilson, who had been ambassador to several countries in Africa and had
been an African specialist on the Clinton National Security Council
to go to Niger and check it out.
Wilson went in March-- I'm sorry, in February of 2002, concluded that,
because of various bureaucratic strictures, because of the structure
of Niger, the uranium industry-- it's run by two French-led consortiums
in particular-- and because of the difficulties in spiriting away uranium
or making deals out in the open on uranium without attracting oversight,
most importantly by the International Atomic Energy Agency, such a deal
almost certainly did not occur. Wilson returns to the United States.
He briefs his CIA contact, and that sort of, is as far as he hears.
Cheney's office is adamant that they did not know about Wilson's trip,
that they did not know until they read about it in the papers just this
summer that this trip had occurred, and they thought that the CIA had
answered its ques-- had answered the questions from the vice president's
office in its entirety in 2002.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, you talk about Cheney citing a Zogby poll, opposing
those who said there was not support on the ground in Iraq, by citing
this poll to say that the Iraqi people were with the U.S. military.
Can you talk about that?
SPENCER ACKERMAN: This was one of the most bizarre statements Cheney
made, both before the war, during the war, and in the post-war. In August,
the Zogby organization tried to conduct the first scientific, as they
call it, understanding of Iraqi public opinion. And what they found
was decidedly not good for the United States. Sure enough, they found
overwhelmingly that the Iraqi people, as any oppressed people would
be, were overjoyed to be rid of Saddam Hussein, that did not translate
into an overwhelming endorsement of the coalition's occupation. Cheney
took the findings on television and spun it in a way that suggested
that that was exactly what Zogby had found, and it was used by Cheney
as way to vindicate the coalition action. Yet, Zogby, when you analyze
the poll, just paints such an overwhelmingly different picture, it's
very strange. Cheney had said that the American model of government
was the most popular among the Iraqis.
In fact, a breakaway plurality of 49% wanted a democratic state that
was guided by Islamic law. The closest choice to the United States model,
which was a secular and democratic Iraq, garnered, by contrast, only
21% support. Cheney had said that about two-thirds of Iraq-I'm sorry,
about 60% of Iraqis wanted to stay for at least another year. In fact,
what they had said was they wanted the United States to leave in a year.
And when you look at just the Sunni population of Iraq, that figure
is at 70%. About half of Iraqis said that they expected the United States
over the next five years to be harmful to their country. So, only--
only-- I think a fair reading of the poll would probably say that the
Iraqis have somewhat mixed to negative feelings at the point at which
Zogby conducted the poll about the American occupation. It was quite
far from the enthusiastic reception that Cheney told the public that
Iraqis had on "Meet the Press."
AMY GOODMAN: Spencer Ackerman, I want to thank you for being with us.
Spencer Ackerman is co-author of the piece, "What Dick Cheney Really
Believes, The Radical." You're listening to Democracy Now! Stay
with us.
To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, call 1 (800) 881-2359.
Situation Excellent, I Am
Attacking
By William Rivers Pitt
Wednesday 24 September 2003
"That's the spirit, George. If nothing else works, then a total
pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
-- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett, 'Blackadder Goes Forth'
There is not enough grammar in the entirety of the
English language to describe the incredible international humiliation
that has befallen the United States of America. That this humiliation
was brought down upon the American people by the man supposedly in charge
of the country is, in all honesty, no big surprise for those who have
been watching this all unfold. The layers of crushing embarrassment
have been building like river sediment for months upon months upon months.
On Tuesday, however, George W. Bush managed to completely obliterate
the hard-won standing the United States has earned within the global
community.
Never mind that the Iraqi seat was filled at the
United Nations by none other than the crawling kingsnake himself, Ahmad
Chalabi. Chalabi has been cheerleading for war in Iraq for years, and
became a boon companion of Donald Rumsfeld and the other neocon hawks
who cobbled the war together with a tapestry of lies and fear-mongering.
He was, in fact, Rumsfeld's hand-picked leader-in-waiting of Iraq as
early as 1997. Chalabi was convicted of 32 counts of bank fraud and
sentenced to 22 years imprisonment by a Jordanian court in 1992, and
yet this hand-picked sock puppet was George W. Bush's chosen exemplar
of a free and democratic Iraq. If you want to know one big reason why
the mainstream media reported so long and so erroneously about Iraq's
weapons capabilities, look to Chalabi, who was the main source for New
York Times reporter Judy Miller's horribly inaccurate reporting on the
matter. Where the Times goes, the others will follow. Thank you, Ahmad.
I hope the chair is comfortable. You are no more deserving of its accommodation
than the vile people who occupied it before you.
Never mind that the entire United Nations may as
well not have shown up in the first place. The pitch and tenor of Bush's
speech was not aimed at that body. It was directed at the mainstream
American media, whose reporting on these matters has been about as sharp
as a sack of wet mice. Yet even to that tone-deaf receiver, Bush failed
to complete the pass. He meandered off into a free-association rant
about sex slaves, somehow forgetting that his own citizens were waiting
to hear how he was going to get them out of the mess he so brazenly
threw them in to. Certainly, the matter of international slavery in
the 21st century is of deadly importance, but what connection it has
to the blood-and-guts catastrophe unfolding in the Middle East is still
hovering somewhere in space.
Never mind that in the first ten words of his speech,
George W. Bush once again tried to connect the nation of Iraq to the
attacks of September 11th. He failed to explain how a nation under near-total
occupation before the war, crushed by sanctions, devoid of weapons of
any merit whatsoever, unable to even launch a fighter aircraft in its
own airspace, and completely lacking in any connections to Osama bin
Laden or al Qaeda, could have managed to challenge the most powerful
nation on the face of the earth. These are mere details. Bush chose
instead to hew close to the bones of our beloved dead, to use them again
as an excuse and as cover for his terrible mistakes, lies and mismanagement.
The Iraq-9/11 connection has been so thoroughly debunked that Bush himself
was forced recently to publicly denounce it, while claiming shock that
anyone would think he'd try to make such a connection. Yet there he
stood before the judgment of the world, coughing up the same old hairball
on their carpet.
Never mind the rank absurdity of it all. There is
an old story of a French officer who, when thrown into an impossible
battle, sent a communiqué to his commanders: "Hard pressed
on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation
excellent, I am attacking!" That sad chestnut was on display before
the United Nations on Tuesday, with George W. Bush and the United States
of America standing in for the officer. Bush was at the United Nations
for one reason: He got his country into terrible trouble, in defiance
of virtually the entire international community, and was forced to come
begging for help. An ounce of contrition would have furthered the cause
of actually helping to repair the devastation in Iraq. An ounce of contrition
would have shown America to be the humble nation Bush promised us way
back in 2000. An ounce of contrition would almost certainly have motivated
the U.N. to leave aside wrangling, roll up its sleeves, and begin to
repair the damage that has been done. That ounce was not offered, and
the jut-jawed whipsaw President barefaced his way through what could
have been the most hopeful moment the Iraqi people have seen in 100
years. Situation excellent, I am attacking.
Never mind the 26,000 liters of anthrax, the 38,000
liters of botulinum toxin, the 500 tons of sarin and mustard gas and
VX gas, the 30,000 munitions capable of deploying this red death, the
mobile biological weapons labs, and the infamous 'yellow-cake' uranium
from Niger, that has so fantastically failed to materialize. All of
this is sitting on a White House web page called 'Disarm Saddam Hussein.'
This was the argument, the reason for war. None of it exists in any
coherent state. The administration's own hired-gun weapons inspector,
Dr. David Kay, has been tearing through Iraq to find all of these horrors
promised by Bush and the gang. His report, saying pointedly that the
stuff isn't there, was ready to be released on September 15th, but was
promptly buried by the administration.
Never mind all that. It comes down to this.
Over the last 227 years, the United States of America
went from a brawling, rebellious infant to the greatest democracy in
the universe. This nation spent oceans of blood, sweat and tears to
earn the respect of the world. Too often, it abused that respect by
abusing the world, but always managed to regain its standing within
the global community by the sheer force of its goodness, its ideals,
and its willingness to help other nations in need. When the attacks
of September 11th came, that global community responded to our essential
goodness by embracing us with a passionate ferocity that has no precedent
in the annals of human history. That standing is dust now, ground under
the heels of a pack of ideological extremists who would wrap the world
in flames if it profited them a few more ducats. The world sees this,
and has seen it for some time now. The United Nations was used on Tuesday
as a prop for a failing President's Fox newsbite writ large. It is a
shame and a scandal and a disaster beyond description that this great
nation has fallen so very low.
A moment will come on January 20th, 2005. It will
be cold in Washington D.C. A man who is not George W. Bush will raise
his hand and swear and oath to preserve, protect and defend the United
States of America. The words "So help me God" will be snatched
by the wind and carried across seas and mountains to the furthest corners
of the planet. When that happens, all of the Earth will be joined together
in the deepest and most profound exhalation of relief. When that happens,
George W. Bush will have become in his absence what he completely failed
to be with his presence: A uniter.
William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org.
He is a New York Times and international best-selling author of three
books - "War On Iraq," available from Context Books, "The
Greatest Sedition is Silence," available from Pluto Press, and
"Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism," available in August
from Context Books.
GEORGE W. BUSH
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
I attacked and took over two countries.
I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury.
I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not
easy!)
I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in
any
12 month period.
I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock
market.
I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
I am the first president in US history to enter office with a Criminal
record.
In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on
vacation by any president in US history (tough to beat my dad's, but
I
did).
>
After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided
over the worst security failure in US history.
>
I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president
in US history.
>
In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their
job.
>
I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any
other president in US history.
>
I set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a
12-month period.
>
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than
any president in US history.
>
I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president,
since the advent of TV.
>
I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than
any other US president in history.
>
I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused
to
intervene when corruption was revealed.
>
I cut health care benefits for war veterans.
>
I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously
take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the
record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
>
I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US
history.
>
I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any
in
US history.
>
Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US
history. (The poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron
oil tanker named after her).
>
I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the
Union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.
>
I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market
in any country in the history of the world.
>
I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military
occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the
United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.
>
I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the
history of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland
Security"(only one letter away from BS).
>
I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases,
more than any other president in US history (Ronnie was tough to beat,
but I did it!!).
>
I am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations
remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
>
I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove
the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.
>
I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of
congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US
history.
>
I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
>
I withdrew from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by
default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
>
I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election
inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.
>
I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate
campaign donations.
>
The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of
my
best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy
frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron >Corporation).
>
I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US
history.
>
I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack
and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1) I am the
first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
>
I took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than
a
year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the
biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
>
I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people
of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world
peace and stability.
>
I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government contracts.
>
I set the all-time record for the number of administration appointees
who violated US law by not selling their huge investments in
corporations bidding for gov't contracts.
>
I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than
any
other president in US history.
>
In a little over two years, I have created the most divided country
in
decades, possibly the most divided that the US has been since the Civil
War.
>
I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less
than two years turned every single economic category heading straight
down.
>
>RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving
record has been erased and is not available).
>
I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during
time
of war.
>
I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug
use.
>
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away
to
my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
>
All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or
bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
view.
>
All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served
on
the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
>
Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP)attended regarding
public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
review.
>PERSONAL REFERENCES:
For personal references, please speak to my dad or Uncle James Baker
They can be reached in their offices at the Carlyle Group where they
are helping to divide up the spoils of the US-Iraq war and plan for
the
next one).
Note: this information should be useful to voters in the 2004 election.
Circulate to as many citizens you think would be helped to be reminded
about his record.)
VETERANS FOR PEACE: ALTERNATIVES TO BUSH'S MILITARISM
Veterans For Peace, Inc. August 20, 2002 438 No. Skinker St. Louis,
MO 63130 (314) 725-6005 - FAX vfp@igc.org www.veteransforpeace.org NEWS
RELEASE - NEWS RELEASE PATRIOTISM DEFINED BY VETERANS
"Wrapping myself in the flag and blindly following the lead of a man
who has never served into the morass of an endless war is not my way
of loving and serving my country." Korean War veteran Wilson Powell,
National Administrator of the St. Louis-based Veterans For Peace, during
an interview at their sixteenth annual convention in Duluth, Minnesota,
August 15-18, 2002.
Over two hundred attendees, including veterans of WW2, Korea, Vietnam,
the Gulf War, from 20 states across the country, shore to shore, gathered
in Duluth to listen to speeches, attend workshops and hammer out resolutions
addressing a range of issues that threaten the world with more violence,
ecological destruction and poverty. The veterans reaffirmed their commitment
to apply their collective experience, energy and diverse resources to
turning the U.S. away from the prospect of endless cycles of violence
promised by the current administration's policies.
Resolutions passed dealt with opposition to the pending war in
Iraq; the Israel/Palestine conflict and what we can do to help resolve
it; the assault upon our civil liberties, led by the US Attorney General
and Bush administration; respect for International Law by ratifying
the International Criminal Court; payment of US dues in support of a
viable United Nations; pursuit of a policy of peace, friendship and
reconciliation in Vietnam; cleaning up anti-personnel landmines and
abolishing their use forever; investigating the U.S. Navy's cover-up
of the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty during the 1967 war; closing
the School Of the Americas where foreign soldiers are trained and later
turned loose on their own populations (recently renamed the Western
Hemisphere Institute for International Security); holding President
Bush to his promise to end the bombing of the Puerto Rican Island of
Vieques in May, 2003; ending the partition of the two Koreas and withdrawing
US occupation forces, there since 1945.
The veterans voted unanimously to make Adam Shapiro an Honorary member
of Veterans For Peace. Adam is the New York Jew best known for his efforts
to mitigate the violence in Palestine in the face of severe censure
by his community back home.
The key resolution, passed unanimously, summarizing the veterans'
major concerns, reads as follows: The response of the US Government
to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has initiated policies
which have already restricted civil liberties through passage of the
Patriot Act and other repressive legislation, justified a military assault
against Afghanistan, promised endless war against many other countries.
We believe that the jingoistic brand of counterfeit patriotism generated
by the administration's actions and statements is stifling dissent and
threatens genuine national security for the people of this country.
The resulting massive increase in military spending threatens social
programs which should be serving to improve people's lives both here
and abroad. These actions, combined with our retreat from a host of
international disarmament, environmental and criminal justice treaties,
threaten democracy at home and diminish the prospects for peace and
stability in the world. Therefore, Veterans For Peace calls for an end
to endless US wars and insists that assaults upon our Constitutional
Rights be rescinded. Our government must stop functioning unilaterally
and become a responsible member of the community of nations. We commit
ourselves to the struggle of re-directing our government toward these
ends.
Veterans For Peace, founded in 1986, is a nationwide group of
men and women who have served in several wars and concluded that war
is a failed and counter-productive instrument of foreign policy. They
work to educate people to the real costs of war, in terms of civilian
lives as well as military, the destruction of cultures, the psychological
damage resulting from stresses inherent in such un-natural activities.
Many veterans go back to old battlegrounds to heal the wounds of war
on both sides by building hospitals, businesses and, best of all, genuine
friendships with former enemies. They frequently put their lives at
risk, once again, by visiting areas of actual and potential conflict,
seeking truth, offering friendship.
PR INSTEAD OF SUBSTANCE
Do read "The Selling of America, Bush Style" by Victoria De
Grazia in The New York Times Sunday, August 25, 2002. In stead
of alleviating poverty and injustice, instead of a Marshall Plan for
the Middle East, Bush turns to public relations. A new undersecretary
of state for public diplomacy and public affairs has since 9-11 mounted
"the largest public relations campaign in the history of foreign
policy" to market the USA image abroad.
BUSH PLANNING GLOBAL CEMETERY
Bernard Weiner | The Charnel House Future: Why Bush&Co. Must Be Stopped
Now http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.03C.bw.stop.htm
OIL
: [Sacramento Bee] Got oil? By Arianna Huffington - (Published October
21, 2002)
The Bush team's ridiculous and wildly inflammatory anti-drug ads are
still running in heavy rotation. You know the ads I'm talking about
-- the ones where middle-class teens admit their culpability for the
consequences of the drug trade. "I helped blow up buildings," says one
doe-eyed youth. So if that is legitimate logic, and our president says
that it is, I wonder if we might turn the tables on him by starting
a little ad campaign of our own to sabotage another misguided Bush campaign:
the War on Conservation.
The thought occurred to me after the startling announcement that the
administration was taking precious time off from an actual, necessary
war -- the one on terrorism -- to sue the state of California for daring
to require that carmakers put more energy-efficient models on the road.
Turning the letter of the Federal Clean Air act against its clear intent,
Department of Justice lawyers lined up on behalf of the administration's
friends in the hydrocarbon-loving auto-manufacturing industry and argued
that as long as California's cars are in compliance with the lax Federal
standard, the state cannot impose a tougher one. For those keeping score,
the Bush administration is in favor of states' rights when the states
want to weaken federal safety standards of any kind, and against states'
rights when the states want stronger measures. So how about using the
same shock-value tactics the administration uses in the drug war to
confront the public with the ultimate -- and much more linearly linked
-- consequences of their energy wastefulness? Imagine a soccer mom in
a Ford Excursion (11 miles per gallon city, 15 mpg highway) saying,
"I'm building a nuclear bomb for Saddam Hussein." Or a mob of solo drivers
toodling down the freeway at 75 mph shouting in unison, "We're buying
weapons that will kill American soldiers and sailors! Yahoo!" It's not
just a fantasy. Last week, talking to my friend Scott Burns, co-creator
of the "Got Milk?" campaign, I was delighted to hear that he already
had two ad scripts ready to go. The first one feels like an old Slim
Fast commercial. Instead of "I lost 50 pounds in two weeks," the ad
cuts to different people in their SUVs: "I gassed 40,000 Kurds," "I
helped hijack an airplane," "I helped blow up a nightclub," and then
in unison: "We did it all by driving to work in our SUVs." The second,
which opens on a man at a gas station, features a cute kid's voice-over
throughout: "This is George." Then we see a close-up of a gas pump.
"This is the gas George buys for his car." Next we see a guy in a suit.
"This is the oil company executive who makes money on the gas George
buys." Close up on al-Qaida training film footage: "This is the terrorist
organization supported by money from the country where the oil company
does business." It's followed by footage of 9/11: "We all know what
this is." And it closes on a wide shot of bumper to bumper traffic:
"The biggest weapon of mass destruction is parked in your driveway."
Pretty effective. Can the administration seriously deny that oil dollars
do, actually, finance a spreading slick of evil in the world today?
In Iraq, oil money has kept Saddam's repressive regime afloat. According
to a report just released by the CIA, Saddam has been spending his oil
money on weapons of mass destruction while starving and torturing his
own people. In Saudi Arabia, our second largest foreign supplier of
oil, the money you spend at the pump over here pays for a feudal monarchy
that gorges itself on excess while bankrolling terrorist mischief abroad
with its support of suicide bombers. Would it be so painful for us to
slow down the intravenous drip of oil that keeps these hideously anti-American
regimes alive? There are car companies with electric and hybrid cars
already on the market. And a little pressure on our wasteful ways could
unleash a new wave of good old American inventiveness. But instead of
applying the marketing skills it uses for its wrong-headed drug war
to the eminently worthwhile cause of saving energy, Bush Inc. has sided
with the Enrons of the world to stifle energy-saving technology and
keep America in an artificially prolonged state of dependence. Of course,
waiting for the Bush administration to get religion on energy conservation
would be about as fruitful as waiting for Saddam to welcome U.S. inspectors
to his palaces. It ain't gonna happen. Unless, that is, the public makes
it happen. Anyone willing to pay for a people's ad campaign to jolt
our leaders into reality?
BUSH'S WAR
Remarks by Bill Williams Fayetteville Peace Rally October 26, 2002
Too often the Congress of the United States seems to subscribe to the
notion that 100,000 lemmings can't be wrong. They seem to be less a
deliberative body and more of a herd. Yet all too rarely there is that
individual who is willing to step out of the crowd to say “No. That
is the wrong way. I will not go there”. Yesterday one such man was taken
from us when Senator Paul Wellstone died in an aircraft accident. Although
we send our condolences to his family and friends and neighbors in Minnesota,
the loss is really borne by every man and woman and child who longs
for peace on this tired old planet. His courage will light our path
through the dark days ahead. Thinking about Senator Wellstone today
leads us to think about patriotism not the blind obedience to whatever
power resides in the White House, but adherence to the higher principles
which have led Americans to devote their lives, their fortunes and their
“sacred honor” to the dreams of freedom embodied in this great Republic.
Let us agree today that a patriot is willing to take great risk perhaps
any risk to preserve and defend these ideals. A bumper sticker that
says “These colors don't run” does not make the driver a patriot. 36
years ago America was engaged in a war in Vietnam. Young men and women
from all over this land stepped forward to do their patriotic duty.
One of them was known to the United States Marine Corps as 1946319.
That young patriot was a kid who believed in the goodness of this country.
He believed that the President of the United States always held the
best interest of the people as his highest priority. He believed in
his country right or wrong. He was sometimes afraid afraid that he might
fail his fellow Marines, afraid he might stop a bullet. 1946319 is the
number on my dog tags in Vietnam. I was there because I volunteered
for the Marines and for combat duty. I'm a lot older now, but I still
believe in the fundamental goodness and wisdom of the people of this
great country. That is why I am so very glad to be with you patriots
today. 1946319 is a number I shall always remember; it described every
aspect of my life for four years, two months, 22 days 18 hours and 45
minutes. There is another number every American must always remember
58229. 58,229 names of American men and women, engraved on the black
granite of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. the Wall.
I expect that just like me, the men and women who are remembered there
believed in their country and wanted to do their part to protect it.
58,229 in a song or a poem we might call them forever young. The truth
is they are simply forever gone. Gone from their homes and their mothers
and their fathers and their sweethearts and their children and their
friends. Forever gone and with them their hopes and dreams. For us there
is only the loss. 58,229 young Americans were at least spared one pain.
They never knew how their leaders had abandoned them or what little
value the politicians in their homeland placed on their service. But
for nearly 3 million American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines
coming home was, in some ways, the hardest part. These people were patriots
who had done their duty as they were given the light to see it. They
came home to be reviled or perhaps worse, to be ignored. There were
other patriots in that time citizens who came forward to oppose the
war. They too were often reviled. Yet even though they must have been
afraid, they possessed a courage rooted in heartfelt belief. Because
they raised their voices in an endless chorus the United States of America
finally stepped back from that abyss. Decades have passed since that
time veterans are no longer “baby-killers” and protesters are no longer
“hippie cowards”. Today each of us should have a better appreciation
for the patriotism of the other. Veterans can offer thanks to marchers
for helping us see foreign adventures in a new light any of us can offer
thanks to veterans with the simple phrase, “Welcome home”. Another kind
of patriot is the person willing to step forward and run for public
office on a platform founded in strong personal belief. I am proud to
stand before you today with such a person Sarah Marsh. Ms. Marsh and
I might disagree as to which political party offers the best avenue
for change in this country, but surely we agree on the need for that
change. For war is not the only thing which threatens us indeed this
proposed adventure in Iraq is inexorably linked to problems with energy
and the environment. And as I salute Ms. Marsh for her willingness to
step up and run for office, I beseech her to avoid running against Democrats,
especially me, if she can. Consider this - if someone you loved were
stricken with a disease which could be fatal if not treated, would you
continue to report happily, “Gee, you're looking swell today”; or would
you gently take that person by the arm and say “It's time we get you
to a doctor”? Well ladies and gentlemen, this great country which we
all love has a terrible malady called war. It is time to cure that sickness
while she is still strong and vital. But the doctor's name is assuredly
NOT George W. Bush. To try to comprehend the ascent of George W. Bush
to the Presidency is to make a trip through Alice's looking glass seem
as normal as a ride on the cross-town bus. To set the tone for his administration,
Mr. Bush appointed the nation's leading xenophobe, John Ashcroft, as
Attorney General. To this moment the country's top law enforcement officer
is busily engaged in bending the Constitution to fit his own bigoted
view of the world. Mr. Ashcroft rules by fiat, often finding the law
a nuisance to be dealt with or even disregarded. To fulfill his campaign
promise to make the government of this country run like a business,
Mr. Bush has mostly just LET business run the country. Enron drafted
the Energy Plan, Condoleeza Rice, a member of the Chevron Oil Company
Board of Directors, is now the National Security Adviser and the White
House Chief of Staff was General Motors' chief lobbyist. Don't forget
that the Vice President is so deeply immersed in the oil business that
if you lit a match near him, he could serve as an eternal flame on the
altar of corporate greed. To be completely truthful, there were times
when even this group seemed almost able to rise to mediocrity. The high
point of the early days of the Bush administration came when the President
ordered a baseball diamond built on the White House lawn. Indeed for
a few hopeful moments it seemed he might become so enthralled with the
great American pastime that Mr. Bush might forsake politics for a career
as a Little League umpire, but alas, it was not to be. In early September
of 2001, just as Mr. Ashcroft was cutting anti-terrorism expenditures
in the Justice Department, a group of Saudis attacked the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon. In those first few hours, as Mayor Giulliani
trekked through the wreckage of Lower Manhattan, as men of all services
fought to save what lives they could in Washington and New York, President
Bush cut short his campaign engagements in Florida and dashed off to
... Nebraska. While the country teetered on the edge of panic and anchormen
were asking “Where is the President?”, Mr. Bush was winging his way
about the Great Plains. Why? Because the Secret Service told him to.
Do you suppose they could have kept Ronald Reagan away? Do you think
Jimmy Carter or George Herbert Walker Bush would have been content to
watch things unfold on CNN? And you can bet your last dollar that if
they had told Bill Clinton to stay away he would have been on the next
bus to D.C. before the Secret Service could have said “Where's the boss?”.
It only took a few hours before the political advantages became apparent
to the White House team. And so a man incapable of leading a troop of
Boy Scouts on an outing to McDonald's became our “war president”. In
a burst of international irrationality unrivaled in my memory, the United
States of America invaded the sovereign nation of Afghanistan because
we had been attacked by a group of Saudi Arabians. If you comprehend
the logic of this behavior, then surely you need professional medical
attention. But the fact is that Afghanistan, controlled by a repressive,
fundamentalist, totalitarian government seemed an easy, feel-good place
to lash out to feed our national appetite for revenge. Indeed the primary
problem our military faced in this God-forsaken place was finding bombing
targets which would make good video for the news clips. After a brief
period during which we bombed the Red Cross into complete capitulation
and put the pesky Canadians on the run, Afghanistan, that jewel of the
east, was ours. Of course Ossama bin Laden is still “wanted dead or
alive”, but if your heritage lies in “Read my lips, no new taxes” that
really doesn't seem to matter much. About the time we bombed an innocent
wedding party into oblivion it became clear that the media value of
Afghanistan was diminishing. That's when the President came up with
the “Axis of Evil” - Korea, because they are exporting arms technologies,
Iran because they have sponsored terrorism in the past and Iraq because
we REALLY dislike Saddam Hussein a lot. Never mind that the word “axis”
implies a level of cooperation which doesn't exist among these governments.
But the “Axis of Evil” thing really didn't sell that well, so the President
took off the summer to relax in Texas and campaign a bit around the
country. Then it was September the first anniversary of the terrorist
attacks was looming, Congress was back in session just before an off-year
election and Ossama bin Laden, a six-foot seven inch Arab was still
“wanted dead or alive”. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in
the world. Clearly it was time to get that bad guy Saddam Hussein and
wrap up his oil fields in the process. So the new plan became to make
Iraq an American colony for the next hundred years or until the oil
runs out, whichever comes first. Matters suddenly became urgent. We
needed to act in haste. Neither the Congress nor the United Nations
nor rational thought could be allowed to get in our way. Friends and
neighbors, as slowly as a sleepless night crawls toward the dawn yet
as surely as that daybreak must come, the truth about this administration
is being revealed. We have learned that a man might wrap himself in
the flag so that we cannot see who he is. We have learned that these
people will capitalize on the honest patriotism of decent Americans
for their own political interest why else would the President say it
is “unpatriotic” to vote against Enron's Energy Plan? Why else would
the Attorney General say it is unpatriotic to give accused terrorists
the right to legal counsel? Why else is anyone who dares oppose the
Administration labeled as “unpatriotic”? We have learned that this war
is not about patriotism, its about petroleum. Its not about patriotism
its about profits. Its not about patriotism, its about poll numbers.
Its not about patriotism, its about politics. So today, my friends,
let us lift our voices so they hear us in the board rooms of the corporations
and the secret places of the White House. Let every patriot join with
us to say “Peace is Patriotic”.
PACKING THE JUDICIARY WITH RIGHT WINGERS
Here's perhaps the scariest part of the new Republican majority: they
will try to pack the judiciary with right wing judges. This article
is by John Dean, former counsel to a certain Republican President. He
paints a scary picture of what's ahead for us all http://writ.findlaw.com/dean/20021108.html
Click here for more information West FirmSite Basic West Legal Directory
Profiles Both! -
--- DANGEROUS TIMES AHEAD AFTER ELECTION 2002: Despite the Nation's
Deep Divisions and Bush v. Gore, The President Plans On Filling The
Courts With Right Wing Judges By JOHN W. DEAN ---- Friday, Nov. 08,
2002
Election 2002 does not give the Bush-Cheney administration a mandate
to load the federal judiciary with right wing judges. The voters, after
all, had the economy and the war on their minds - not the federal courts.
But if you doubt it's about to happen, just sit tight and wait. The
headlines and accompanying stories two days after the election tell
the tale: The Los Angeles Times led with "Bush Gets Credit, Clout for
Leading GOP Sweep." Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal proclaimed "GOP
Sweep Gives A Boost to Bush - and Business." And The New York Times
reported that "Victorious Republicans Preparing A Drive For Bush Agenda
And Judgeship Nominees" Each of these leading news journals reports
that the Bush Administration will soon make a effort to pack the federal
courts with socially, economically and politically conservative judges.
Worse, these judges will be the type who view positions on the judiciary
as a prize opportunity to make their philosophy the law of the land.
The Bush-Cheney White House believes it has been reborn. In truth, Election
2002 has only given the GOP technical control. But that is all this
White House believes they need. So does much of the Republican news
media. The Administration Tried to Push Judges Without A Mandate Earlier,
Too It has been known ever since the early months of the Bush-Cheney
administration that the fact they do not even have a majority of public
support is, in their view, irrelevant. They have the power, and that's
all that counts. Recall that the Republicans lack a majority of popular
support (Gore-Lieberman had a half-million vote plurality over Bush-Cheney),
and were forced to gain control of the Senate by using Vice President
Cheney's tie-breaking vote. Nevertheless, following the 2000 presidential
election the Bush-Cheney presidency proceeded as if they had won office
by acclamation. The Bush-Cheney White House soon told the American Bar
Association committee that has been assisting in the selection of federal
judges since the Eisenhower administration to get lost. Without ABA
assistance, the White House quickly rolled out its initial gaggle of
conservative judicial nominees. But before the Bush-Cheney team really
got going, Vermont Republican Senator Jim Jeffords decided he had seen
enough to make his decision. In late May 2001, he bolted from the GOP,
declaring himself an Independent who was prepared to vote with the Democrats
to give them control of the Senate. With Democrats suddenly back in
control of the Senate, the Bush-Cheney White House was forced to retreat,
and to work with Congress to develop a legislative program. Yet they
continued to send hard right judicial nominees to the Senate, simply
stacking them on the Senate's doorstep for hoped-for confirmations.
September 11, 2001, of course, recast the Bush-Cheney presidency. Bush,
the former prep-school cheerleader, climbed atop the rubble of the World
Trade Center with a megaphone and found his voice. Meanwhile, Cheney,
the closed-door politician and military aficionado, headed underground,
clutching briefing books. There he perfected using his "hidden hand"
to run the Bush-Cheney government. For the Bush Administration, War
Is A Political Strategy As Well September 11th sent Bush's approval
ratings into the stratosphere, with some polls giving him a ninety percent
approval. Bush's Dick Morris, Karl Rove, had found political gold: George
W. Bush - war president. Rove advised the president (and everyone else)
to start talking war. They did, and it buried every other issue. War
presidents automatically win public approval. When Rove ran out of Taliban,
he substituted Saddam Hussein. Bush's approval has remained at about
sixty percent. Americans will be at war as long as Bush is in office
- whether the war is against Iraq, or is the indefinite "war on terrorism."
Without war talk, the White House might have been stymied by a Senate
controlled by Democrats, and Democrats threatening to take control of
the House as well. Try to imagine a Bush Administration without September
11, and it will become clear how thoroughly war has taken over the agenda.
The November 2002 Election Was Not A Bush-Cheney Referendum Rove also
got his boss to take another low risk, high reward effort to get control
of the Congress: Take the bully pulpit, and presidential road show,
on the campaign trail. Try to transfer your own solid popularity to
Republican candidates. It worked. Bush raised a staggering $140 million
for the midterm elections, and by barnstorming key races in the weeks
before the election, he made a difference. But what difference was it,
exactly? The difference was that the Republicans now have technical
control of Congress It was not that the Bush-Cheney presidency won a
new mandate to replace the one the Administration lacked in the 2000
election. The public won't weigh in on the Presidency again until 2004
- and it did not view this intermediate election as a referendum on
the Presidency. Notwithstanding the spin to the contrary, the nation
has not just held a plebiscite on the Bush-Cheney presidency. Polls
show exactly the opposite. The Polls Belie Any Claim of A Mandate for
the Bush Administration On November 4 of this year, the day before the
election, the Gallup organization asked voters if their vote for a local
candidate would (a) "be made in order to send a message you SUPPORT
George W. Bush," (b) "be made in order to send a message that your OPPOSE
George W. Bush," or (c) "will you NOT be sending a message about George
W. Bush with your vote?" Thirty-five percent were sending a message
of support, and eighteen percent were sending a message of opposition.
However, the bulk of the voters, forty-five percent, said they were
not sending any message to Bush whatsoever. With only a third of the
voters sending a message of support, the 2002 midterm is hardily a national
referendum on Bush. Interesting, even many of those voters who contribute
to Bush's high popularity rating plainly had no intention of weighing
in on him in this election; if they had, Gallup's number of voters sending
a positive message on Bush would have been much higher. A Nation Still
Divided - But Judicial Nominees of A Single Philosophy The margin of
the 2002 midterm vote was so thin it says exactly the same thing to
the nation that voters said in 2000. As Los Angeles Times political
analyst Ron Brownstein notes: "However the final races sort out, it
appears that the Republican advance Tuesday wasn't large enough to suggest
that they have decisively broken out of the 50-50 divide that has defined
American politics for the last half-decade." We are a divided nation.
And when all of the minority parties are added into the equation, the
Republicans - particularly the right-wing of the party - remain in the
minority. Nevertheless, Bush's hard right core constituency wants more
than anything else to pack the federal courts with those who share their
thinking, and are willing to impose it through the court system. These
judges are the most inappropriate conceivable in these times: They are
uniform in perspective and activist in imprinting that perspective on
the law. To keep his hard right constituency happy, Bush is scouring
the legal community for conservative judicial appointees. I promise,
you've seen nothing so far: Nominees to come will be, if anything, far
more objectionable than those already considered. Unfortunately for
everyone, this is a very dangerous, short-sighted political game. The
Dangers Of Majority Control, as Seen By Tocqueville and Madison Alexis
de Tocqueville, considered by many both on the right and the left to
be a perceptive and wise a commentator on American democracy, long ago
warned of the problems facing any majority. To make the point, he called
it the tyranny of the majority. "My greatest complaint against democratic
government as organized in the United States," de Tocqueville writes
in Democracy In America, ". . . is not the extreme freedom reigning
there but the shortage of guarantees against tyranny." (Quotation from
Mayer transl.) The French political observer and thinker noted that
when legislative, executive, and judicial branches think differently,
tyranny is checked. Yet conservative Republicans currently seek to impose
their philosophy by, in fact, controlling all branches: Not content
to dominate the executive and legislative branches, they will make their
bid for the judiciary, as well. But when a majority can control all
branches, de Tocqueville explained, there is a danger: "If ever freedom
is lost in America, that will be due to the omnipotence of the majority
driving the minority to desperation and forcing them to appeal to physical
force." This concern was not new to de Tocqueville; rather he drew from
the thoughts of founder James Madison. Madison explained in Federalist
No. 51 why a majority must be checked by the minority: "In a society
under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and
oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly said to reign as in a state
of nature." For this reason, the system was designed with checks and
balances. Today, their remains but one possible check on Bush effort
to pack the judiciary (or force other unacceptable programs through
Congress). This last check is the Democrats' final chance to keep control
of at least one branch. Will Democrats Employ The Only Check On The
Bush-Cheney Administration? Before Senator Jeffords bolted and gave
the Democrats control of the Senate, the Democrats showed great reluctance
to use this last remaining check: the filibuster. Former House Speaker
Newt Gingrich surmised, reflecting on the return of Republican control,
that Democrats simply can't keep saying "no." But now Democrats may
have to learn to do just that. Packing the judiciary is going to become
a truly high-stakes game when one or more of the aging conservative
Supreme Court justices step down. Never has that been more likely to
happen than during the next year. It will occur long before the presidential
race, so the argument can't be used that filling the high court must
be left to the next president. Meanwhile, there are presently sixteen
conservative Bush judicial nominees awaiting confirmation. It is possible
none of these nominees would ever have been approved. Yet now they are
all, at least, going to be processed, and doubtless some, if not all,
will be confirmed. Bush aides have said that given the changed situation,
the White House will resubmit the rejected nominations of Charles Pickering
of Mississippi and Priscilla Owen of Texas. Both Pickering and Owen
were earlier rejected for seats on the United States Court of Appeals
by the then-Democratically-controlled Senate. The GOP is still far short
of a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in favor of its nominations.
Will Democrats use the filibuster to prevent Bush from packing the judiciary
(and for other conservative initiatives)? I don't know. I do know if
they don't, we will have a tyranny of a technical majority, which is
- in truth - a minority that has the reins of government in its hands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President
of the United States.
HELEN THOMAS
[excerpted in summary] 82-year-old former United Press International
reporter reporting on American presidents Kennedy through Bush II: "I
have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war. Bush's
policy of pre-emptive war is immoral - such a policy would legitimize
Pearl Harbor. It's as if they learned none of the lessons from Vietnam.
Where is the outrage? Where is Congress? It's bombs away for Iraq and
on our civil liberties if Bush and his cronies get their way. Dissent
is patriotic!" "Helen Thomas offered a very powerful indictment of the
current behavior of the Bush presidency in her comments on the incoherence
and inconsistency of Bush's policies and the danger to civil liberties
of Bush's rhetoric," Asked to advise young journalists, Thomas pounced.
"Remind the politicians you interview that you pay them, that they are
public servants. Remember every question is legitimate. And don't give
up. There's always a leak. There's always someone who's trying to save
the country," she said. **********************************************
Published by the MIT News Office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2002 Journalist Helen Thomas condemns Bush administration
By Sarah H. Wright News Office Veteran journalist Helen Thomas brought
the grit and whir of a White House press conference to Bartos Theater
on Monday evening, speaking with passion about the media's role in a
democracy whose leaders seem eager for war. Actually, the 82-year-old
former United Press International reporter didn't just speak: she surged
into her topic, giving everyone present an immediate sense of the grumpy
wit and fierce precision that gave her reporting on American presidents
Kennedy through Bush II such a competitive and lasting edge. "I censored
myself for 50 years when I was a reporter," said Thomas, who is now
a columnist for Hearst News Service. "Now I wake up and ask myself,
'Who do I hate today?'" Her short list of answers seems not to vary
from war, President Bush, timid office-holders, a muffled press and
cowed citizens, pretty much in that order. Angered by what she views
as the Bush administration's "bullying drumbeat," Thomas referred early
and often to her own hatred of war, quoting from poets and politicians
to bear down on President Bush and his colleagues. Winston Churchill,
Alfred Lord Tennyson, Louis Brandeis, George Santayana, Abraham Lincoln,
Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr. all made appearances in
Thomas' sweeping portrayal of what she sees as the administration's
betrayal of both the character and will of the American people and the
principles of democracy. "I have never covered a president who actually
wanted to go to war. Bush's policy of pre-emptive war is immoral - such
a policy would legitimize Pearl Harbor. It's as if they learned none
of the lessons from Vietnam," she said to enthusiastic applause. Thomas
ignored the clapping just as she once ignored the camera flashes and
shouting matches of the Washington press corps. "Where is the outrage?"
she demanded. "Where is Congress? They're supine! Bush has held only
six press conferences, the only forum in our society where a president
can be questioned. I'm on the phone to [press secretary] Ari Fleischer
every day, asking will he ever hold another one? The international world
is wondering what happened to America's great heart and soul." Like
any star, Thomas, who resigned from UPI in 2000, appreciated her audience's
thirst to get the insider's view of our national leaders, and she gave
generously, in snapshots, though the Reagan and both Bush regimes were
cast in darker hues. "Great presidents have great goals for mankind.
During my years of covering the White House, Kennedy was the most inspired;
Johnson rammed through voting rights and public housing; Nixon will
be remembered for his trip to China and for his resignation; Ford for
helping us recover from Nixon; and Carter for making human rights the
centerpiece of foreign policy," Thomas said in an even, respectful tone.
She just sighed over Clinton, who "tarnished the Oval Office." Thomas'
mood became visibly more somber at the mention of Ronald Reagan's military
buildup and at the name Bush. Again and again, Thomas warned the MIT
audience, "It's bombs away for Iraq and on our civil liberties if Bush
and his cronies get their way. Dissent is patriotic!" After her talk,
Thomas participated in a panel discussion with MacVicar Faculty Fellows
David Thorburn, professor of literature, and Charles Stewart III, professor
of political science. Philip S. Khoury, dean of the School of Humanities,
Arts and Social Sciences, introduced the speakers. "Helen Thomas offered
a very powerful indictment of the current behavior of the Bush presidency
in her comments on the incoherence and inconsistency of Bush's policies
and the danger to civil liberties of Bush's rhetoric," said Thorburn.
He compared the lack of public awareness of an antiwar movement in 1965
and 1966 with the wide public debate about Iraq going on today. "An
aroused citizenry can instruct the government," he said. Stewart also
focused on the current public debate about Iraq, declaring that it may
be a "hopeful sign. The polls say Americans don't want to talk about
Iraq - they want to talk about the economy, about education. But the
press has continued to point out the important thing. Everyone knows
there's been a dance between the President and Congress over Iraq."
Thomas didn't let the press off the hook, though. "Everybody learned
the lessons of Vietnam, including the Pentagon. In Vietnam, correspondents
could go anywhere - just hop on a helicopter and report on the war.
Now we don't have that access. It's total secrecy. The media overlords
should be complaining about this. I do not absolve the press. We've
rolled over and played dead, too," she said. Asked to advise young journalists,
Thomas pounced. "Remind the politicians you interview that you pay them,
that they are public servants. Remember every question is legitimate.
And don't give up. There's always a leak. There's always someone who's
trying to save the country," she said. The talk was sponsored by the
MIT Communications Forum. Lanita J. Williams Boss of the Universe &
Queen of the Sky
BILL MOYERS ON THE REPUBLICAN ELECTORAL VICTORY NOVEMBER 2002
Bill Moyers¹ commentary on
NOW (11/8/02 8-9 PM on PBS Boston's WGBH 2)
Way back in the 1950's when I first tasted politics and journalism,
Republicans briefly controlled the White House and Congress. With the
exception of Joseph McCarthy and his vicious ilk, they were a reasonable
lot, presided over by that giant war hero, Dwight Eisenhower, who was
conservative by temperament and moderate in the use of power. That brand
of Republican is gone. And for the first time in the memory of anyone
alive, the entire federal government ‹ the Congress, the Executive,
the Judiciary ‹ is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George
W. Bush believes he now has a mandate. That mandate includes the power
of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own
lives. It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working
people to the rich. It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate
the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them
accountable. And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine.
Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life.
If you liked the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White
House, you will swoon over what's coming. And if you like God in government,
get ready for the Rapture. These folks don't even mind you referring
to the GOP as the party of God. Why else would the new House Majority
Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical worldview'
in American politics? So it is a heady time in Washington ‹ a heady
time for piety, profits, and military power, all joined at the hip by
ideology and money. Don't forget the money. It came pouring into this
election, to both parties, from corporate America and others who expect
the payback. Republicans outraised democrats by $184 million dollars.
And came up with the big prize ‹ monopoly control of the American government,
and the power of the state to turn their ideology into the law of the
land. Quite a bargain at any price. That's it for this week. For NOW,
I'm Bill Moyers. Tell us what you think. http://www.pbs.org/now/feedback.html
A BRITISH VIEW OF THE REPUBLICAN VICTORY NOVEMBER 2002
The Observer U.K. A dark week for democracy The stranglehold the far
Right has now taken on America will make it a more divided, reactionary
and illiberal country Will Hutton Sunday November 10, 2002 The Observer
The election in Georgia said it all. The Democrat governor, Roy Barnes,
had dared to remove the Confederate symbol from the state flag last
year. His Republican challenger wanted to bring it back, to honour,
he said, 300,000 Confederate 'veterans'. A Republican has not occupied
Georgia's governor's mansion since 1872. After last Tuesday, one does,
courtesy of wanting to celebrate a civil war fought to defend slavery.
Europeans do not understand the curious civilisation that the current
America is becoming, and the grip that a visceral and idiosyncratic
conservatism has on its national discourse. They especially do not understand
the undercurrents of an increasingly self-confident and subtle racism
that is its own variant of the forces that in Europe gave us Le Pen
and Pim Fortuyn. George Bush Jnr is a chip off the old multilateralist,
transatlantic establishment, runs the European argument. He may seem
hawkishly conservative but, in the end, he seeks UN resolutions like
other American Presidents. Even at home, his bark is worse than his
bite. Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Anyone who thinks the Tory party
is 'nasty' has not encountered contemporary American republicanism.
Georgia's Republican Party, for example, is now lead by Ralph Reed,
a long-time crusader against abortion, divorce and single parent families.
He would regard last week's vote in the House of Lords allowing unmarried
and gay couples to adopt as the work of Satan. He is part of US conservatism's
ideological hard core. Reed played every card he could. If the governorship
was to be won celebrating the Confederacy, the race for the Senate seat
would be no less shameless. The Democrat incumbent had lost three limbs
fighting in Vietnam, but was attacked for being unpatriotic - the worst
accusation in today's US - because he believed that unions should be
able to recruit in the newly established Department of Homeland Security.
And so one of American liberalism's darkest days was repeated across
the country. Minnesota and Missouri, long-time Democrat strongholds,
fell. Governor Jeb Bush, despite the Democrats insisting that justice
now be done for those infamous chads, won in Florida. As if to underscore
conservatism's ascendancy, the only Democrat gain was in Arkansas where
the Republican senator had suffered a messy divorce and his Democrat
challenger was even more pro-gun and pro-Bible than the incumbent. The
result is that the Republicans now control the Senate, House and the
presidency for the first time since President Eisenhower. The consolidation
of America as an ultra conservative country is going to take place rapidly.
Mr Bush may have offered a few tit-bits to show his credentials as a
'compassionate conservative', like his concern to reduce the price of
prescription drugs for the elderly, but the core of the Republican programme
is anything but. There will be radical tax cuts for the rich and the
corporations; a freezing of all efforts to stiffen regulation in the
wake of America's corporate scandals; moves to privatise the social
security system; and a roll-back of environmental protection. Abroad,
there will be the continued construction of a new international order
built around the prejudices of the American Right; unqualified support
for Israel, building the National Missile Defence System and tepid support
for the framework of international law and treaties. Nor do the Conservatives'
ambitions stop there. Following the ideas of the high priest of ultra
conservatism, Leo Strauss, they want to construct a republic of 'moral',
god-fearing citizens who adhere to traditional virtues, rewarding the
rich who can only have become rich through the virtue of hard work and
penalising the poor who are only poor because of their own fecklessness.
Above all, by now having the opportunity to pack the judiciary with
extreme right-wing judges, they intend to do away with the famous Roe
v Wade judgment that legalised abortion. This is the most fiercely reactionary
programme to have emerged in any Western democracy since the war, and
for which last Tuesday's vote, argue Republicans, is an explicit mandate.
Horseshit. George Bush has al-Qaeda and a low turn-out to thank for
his victory. The central message of his five-day tour of 15 key states
in the last week of the election was to play on Americans' fears about
terrorism, rallying them behind their national leader. When the electorate
voted locally, the Democrats had the edge, winning governorships in
four of the biggest industrial states - Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania
and Michigan. The Democrats I have spoken to are so traumatised by the
overall defeat that they dismiss these gains as irrelevant; I think
they are wrong. America is not a happy place. A generation of increasingly
conservative policies has shrunk the American middle and induced not
just fantastic inequality but a sharp decline in social mobility and
opportunity. The US's social contract, never more than minimalist, is
now threadbare. Consumer confidence is low; job insecurity high. American
capitalism is viewed with deep scepticism. Nor are the majority of Americans
social conservatives and closet racists; they do not want the clock
put back over women's rights, the environment and race. The trouble
was that this silent liberal majority was only prepared to voice its
preoccupations at state rather than national level, if it bothered to
vote at all. The Democrats had to find a way of voicing the concerns
of the mass of Americans while not undermining the President during
a national emergency, but to do that they had to have a powerful pitch
based on a liberal ideology as animating and dynamic as that of the
conservatives. They didn't and they lost. But the game isn't up. America's
conservatives, blinded by their ideology and in control of every lever
of government, will overreach themselves and the reality of what they
plan will become evident to all, stirring the apathetic voter and reminding
the best of America what it stands for. Last week represented the highwater
mark of American conservatism and, although it looks bleak, the beginnings
of the long-awaited liberal revival. Not just the United States, but
the world, needs it badly. In the meantime, despite its flaws, give
thanks to the European Union for partial shelter from the conservative
storm. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 Global
Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 90083 Gainesville,
FL 32607 (352) 337-9274 http://www.space4peace.org globalnet@mindspring.com
USING FEAR
The Boogie Man is coming'' Date: Friday, November 15, 2002 @ 17:29:43
EST Topic: Guest Editorial By Charles Sullivan YellowTimes.org Guest
Columnist (United States) (YellowTimes.org) -
Many of us can recall a time as children when we were gripped by irrational
fears. Those fears controlled many aspects of our young lives. One such
fear was our belief in the Boogie Man. While we never actually saw the
Boogie Man, we instinctively knew that he lurked in the dark recesses
of our room and meant to do us harm. His evil presence was palpably
felt and had a profound effect upon our mood, and our behavior. Sometimes
when my two sisters and I were especially rowdy -- presumably in a vain
attempt to frighten us into submission -- our parents warned us that
the Boogie Man was coming to take us away. Only our good behavior, our
compliance to our parents' wishes, could keep him at bay. As Michael
Moore aptly demonstrated in his documentary Bowling for Columbine, we
have a long national history of being afraid of Boogie Men. The first
white settlers to land here were afraid of everything. They feared the
vastness of the North American continent, the unbroken wilderness, wild
animals, Indians, and one another -- a whole cadre of Boogie Men that
continues to this day. Once again, especially since the events of September
11, 2001, we witness yet another attempt to frighten us into submission
by self appointed authority figures - George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld,
and John Ashcroft. These daring and fearless warriors have brought with
them a vast array of Boogie Men designed to frighten us into submission.
In the latest incarnation of evil they have brought us such notable
'golden oldies' as Osama bin Laden and their all time favorite whipping
boy, Saddam Hussein. And isn't it wonderful to see that bin Laden has
come back from the dead to make headlines again? Now, try not to be
too frightened. I have it on good authority (my parents told me when
I was twelve) that the Boogie Man isn't real. Neither is Santa Claus
or the Hamburglar. I know that this may come as quite a shock, but bear
with me. This is important. In order to justify their complete and utter
contempt for working people, education, the environment, health care,
rampant corporate corruption, the faltering economy, the falling stock
market, union busting, class warfare, racism and bigotry -- the Bush
regime has had to reintroduce the Boogie Man. This was tactically necessary
in order to justify the hugely bloated military budget that usurps funds
from worthwhile programs that would benefit the vast majority of American
citizens. These tremendous expenditures can only be justified in the
face of credible threats -- such as the Boogie Man. Bush's corporate
cowboys stand to make billions of dollars by waging perpetual war around
the planet. In fact, these paragons of virtue have been getting rich
for decades off the profits of crime, as well as the illicit overthrow
of democracy both at home and on foreign soils. What is the murder of
a couple million people, most of them brown-skinned, when there is money
to be made? We need that oil so that we can drive our SUV's to the mailbox.
What could be more just and right than blood for oil for such noble
purposes? Perpetual war is good for the ruling class; it puts countless
numbers of lazy poor folk out of their misery. We need that canon fodder
too. Of course, it is purely coincidence that so many retired generals
have found work as lobbyists for the defense industry. It is also purely
a coincidence that they pander expensive high tech weapons systems that
are not needed or required by the military, while the enormous expense
is foisted upon unsuspecting American tax payers. Meanwhile, thousands
of Vietnam and Gulf War veterans are suffering from mysterious health
maladies that are almost certainly caused by exposure to toxins such
as agent orange, biological weapons, and depleted uranium-tipped munitions;
sickness that the government refuses to acknowledge and treat, much
less pay for. Think of these sacrifices as necessary collateral damage
in support of the corporate oligarchy. We all need to make sacrifices
because the Boogie Man is coming. The jaws of capitalism are insatiable;
they require constant feeding of raw materials such as oil and human
flesh. But these selfless acts of courage -- including the bombing of
defenseless third world countries into oblivion -- on behalf of rich
white men are necessary. We should all feel proud to be an American;
we should all be grateful for the wisdom these intellectual and moral
giants bring to us; the enlightenment they provide us is truly wonderful.
Clearly, the 'compassionate conservatives' are men of great character.
We should praise them for restoring dignity and honor to the White House.
Their wit and wisdom is obviously blatantly superior to that of ordinary
people like us. They tell us there are Boogie Men out there. They tell
us they are all over the place. I saw it on the news. I read about it
in the newspapers. There were stories about it in Time magazine. So
it must be true. The Boogie Man is coming, and he may already be moving
among us. Beware! What was that noise over there in the dimly lit corner
of my office? Could it be the Boogie Man? No, it's just John Ashcroft
watching over me and keeping me safe. Isn't it great to be an American?
[Charles Sullivan is a wild forest activist, writer, muckraker, and
cabinetmaker who resides in rural West Virginia.]
SOME CRACKS IN BUSH'S ARMAMENT?
Here's a recent summary piece that helps put things in focus. Enjoy...
Through a Glass Lightly: 10 Hopeful Cracks in the Bush Facade By Bernard
Weiner The Crisis Papers Thursday, 4 December, 2002
Don't know about you, but I find myself caught right in the middle of
the glass half-empty/half-full way of looking at our current political
situation. In my last piece ("Shining Our Light on the Shadow Forces:
Open Letter to the Fledgling 'Movement'"), I talked about how things
are going to get worse before they get worse, and then even more worse,
and then things will start to get better. In my darker periods -- which
these days is most of the time -- I still believe this, that what is
about to come down from Bush&Co. in the next few years is going to be
horrendous, both for Americans domestically and for those in the way
of U.S. imperial moves abroad. Domestically, due-process Constitutional
protections, already in shreds thanks to Bush & Ashcroft, will nearly
disappear. Big Brother government will invade our privacy in virtually
every area of our lives, thanks to technological breakthroughs and the
magic word "terrorists." More citizens will be yanked off to the American
gulags, cut off from judicial review or even their attorneys. Internationally,
Bush&Co. will continue to march forward belligerently, arrogantly and
theateningly in their desire to bring "benevolent hegemony" to those
areas of the world rich in minerals and energy sources, thus stirring
up anti-U.S. rebellions and fueling more terrorism.
But rather than dwell on that awful picture, and what it presages for
the future -- the glass half-empty scenario -- let's search for any
hopeful signs that point to a way out of our current morass. In this
glass-half-full approach, consider these: 1. Big Brotherism. A number
of anti-big-government conservatives, appalled at the Constitutional
excesses of the Bush Administration and its Big Brother approach to
snooping on American citizens, have begun to rebel. A bit late, of course
-- since many of them supported those very excesses in helping get the
USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security bill passed -- but better
late than never. It almost boggles the mind to read that such rightwing
stalwarts as Dick Armey, Bob Barr, and Henry Hyde are about to join
forces with the American Civil Liberties Union, as consultants, to try
to rein in the police-state tactics of the Bush Administration. Politics
does indeed put one in the sack with the strangest bedfellows. (Incidentally,
the ACLU -- which is running TV ads in selected markets showing Ashcroft
taking scissors to the Constitution -- reports that it is being inundated
with new members, up 12% from last year at this time, and rising fast.)
In addition, such conservative/libertarian columnists as William Safire
and Pat Buchanan likewise are taking frontal potshots at the excesses
of this arrogant Administration and its approach to the Constitution.
Good on them! If the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party,
and the anti-war movement in general, are wise, they will welcome these
lapsed brethren into the anti-Bush&Co. fold and try to utilize their
conservative credentials to lure more such disaffected Republicans to
the cause of restoring Constitutional balance and due-process to our
polity. (I think the Democrats may have leaders with that kind of wisdom;
I'm not sure about some of the segments of the anti-war movement, still
locked into slogans and behaviors that are sure to alienate the great
middle-class of Americans, without whom no political movement can make
much progress.) 2. The Jeffords example. Given this relatively slight
but growing conservative opposition to Bush&Co. excesses, there may
be more leverage for leaning on such moderate GOP senators as Snowe,
Collins, Specter and Chaffee to "do a Jeffords" and become Independents,
thus blocking Bush&Co.'s total control of the U.S. Congress. It would
be a miracle if some or all of them were to bolt the party -- those
GOP moderates stand to benefit from the perqs of being part of the winning
side -- but if they did, it would make it easier for Democrats to head
off the more egregious policies of the Bush Administration. Surely these
GOP moderates are uneasy with (or even revolted by) some of those policies
and, with enough pressure from inside and outside the Senate, they might
be willing to consider such a patriotic move. There is talk amongst
some Democrats of trying to lure them over by promising them key leadership
positions and other blandishments -- not a bad strategy, if a bit obvious.
3. The Supreme Court. One can expect that some of the more outrageous
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act will
make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps as early as next year.
Given the growing revolt by conservatives against the more extreme aspects
of those bills with reference to civil liberties and privacy, it is
possible that the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority, might
rule that some of those provisions are unconstitutional. (One can imagine
that Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas would always rule for Bush&Co. --
they are, in a way, charter members of that Co. -- but Kennedy and O'Connor,
a shade more moderate, might join the more liberal four on questions
such as these. Let us not forget, many conservatives are worried about
the martial-law-type precedents established under Bush that would still
be in place were liberal Democratic administrations to retake the government
some day.) Already, we've seen several key court cases recently where
Bush&Co. have had their hands slapped. An appeals court has ruled that
the feds can not violate California law and turn over the oil-rich coastline
to companies wishing to drill. And the judge hearing the case against
Cheney's continuing refusal to make public who participated in shaping
the Administration's energy policies once again has ordered him, in
no uncertain terms, to turn over those papers and quickly. That's one
courageous judge. (It's not clear what penalties could be exacted against
Cheney if he chooses to ignore the court's order -- contempt-of-court
proceedings are not likely, but it's conceivable they could be ordered;
it's even possible that impeachment could loom somewhere down the line.
But, once again, the true face of Bush&Co, arrogantly deciding for themselves
what information should be seen by the American public will be made
manifest, and electoral consequences could ensue.) 4. The Esquire Article.
In case you haven't heard, a Bush Administration insider -- John DiIulio,
who was Bush's head of the faith-based initiative program -- sent a
long memo to Esquire writer Ron Susskind that takes a vivid peek behind
the corrupt, power-hungry mob in the White House. Among his bombshells:
"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on
in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got
is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm.
It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis...On social policy and related
issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and only a casual interest
in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking..." DiIulio made the obligatory
public backtracking a few days ago, after coming under heavy fire from
the Bushistas, but what he wrote stands as a most important critical
attack, all the more effective because it's not from a Democratic heavy
or an online progressive writer but from a conservative who continues
to support Bush as a leader. What he's saying is what many of us have
been asserting for quite awhile: that the extremist HardRight agenda
is what is driving the Bush&Co. engine, not policy that is intelligently
vetted in terms of what is good for the American people. And Karl Rove,
the Rasputin behind the throne, runs that domestic 24/7 political operation
-- just as Cheney runs the foreign policy wing, and probably much more.
In short, a major fissure has opened up in the Bush facade, and through
it the American people can get a clearer view of the ambitious, power-hungry
zealots in charge. Score one for our side. 5. "The Republican" charge.
Chuck Baldwin writes in "The Republican," a newsletter for the GOP faithful:
"Back in August, columnist Paul Craig Roberts asked the question, 'Is
a vote for Republicans a vote for a police state?' The answer seems
to be a resounding yes! The Bush administration seems determined to
turn our country into the most elaborate and sophisticated police state
ever devised." "Things are so bad," Baldwin goes on, "that outgoing
house majority leader Dick Armey said that under Bush the [Justice Department]
is 'out of control.' In fact, the conservative congressman is reported
to be seriously considering taking a position with the ACLU in order
to help fight the federal government's usurpation of constitutionally
protected liberties. Does that mean one must leave the Republican Party
in order to fight for liberty? Maybe so...The tyrannical tendencies
of old King George III of England cannot hold a candle to the Machiavellian
machinations of King George XLIII of the United States. Unfortunately,
there are few Paul Reveres around to sound an alarm. Unless contemporary
patriots act quickly, Republicans, not Democrats, will be the ones that
ultimately dismantle our constitution and trample our liberties." Again,
this invective was not spewed by the partisan enemies of the Bush Administration,
but by a fellow Republican, thoroughly angered by his realization that
his beloved party has been hijacked by far-right extremists, hell bent
for leather to turn this country into the exact opposite of what small-government
conservatives have been supporting for decades. Grounds for hope. 6.
Kissinger. This one is a bit convoluted, so hang with me here. It would
appear on the surface that Bush appointing Kissinger to chair the blue-ribbon
commission on how 9/11 happened means the results will be a whitewash
for Bush&Co. The ex-Secretary of State & National Security Advisor --
with blood all over his hands for his policies, and notoriously secretive
in defending all regimes from public scrutiny -- is regarded as a Bush
toady who will see no evil and report no evil in terms of what the Bush
Administration knew and when they knew it, and why they did nothing
to protect American citizens from the coming terrorist attackers on
9/11. But one friend suggests the following, and though it's hard to
swallow, it is a possibility. The shorthand version is: payback. Kissinger,
in this reading, is not totally Bush's man. Kissinger, who is like an
elephant that never forgets, may want to revenge himself on old enemies,
most notably Rumsfeld and, perhaps subconsciously, even the Bush family.
And so, with his own private resentments active, and with Democratic
vice-chairman George Mitchell prodding him from the sidelines, Kissinger
-- anxious to resurrect his image from that of potential war-criminal
back to the days of the brilliant, courageous Nobel Prize-winning statesman
-- may let some of the dirt reach the light of day. If and when that
smelly truth hits the fan, watch out! The American people, even in their
terrorist-fright, would not take kindly to leaders who, to further their
own political agenda, chose inaction in the face of knowledge of what
was coming -- leading to 3000 innocent American civilians dying. Out
of that kind of rage and disappointment are impeachment movements born.
7. Town Hall politics. Bush&Co. are trying to make war with Iraq an
inevitability, a fait accompli, a juggernaut that supposedly can't be
stopped by anyone, not allies, not the American citizenry. To accomplish
this end domestically, they pushed the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland
Security Act through Congress. But in town after town, city after city
-- 22 at last count, and 40 more pending -- municipal governments are
voting not to recognize the validity of unconstitutional behavior on
the part of the feds. As Nat Hentoff reported about the growth of the
work of these Bill of Rights Defense Committees, by and large these
resolutions are similar to the one passed unanimously by the Northampton
City Council on May 2, 2002, which required that: "Local law enforcement
continue to preserve residents' freedom of speech, religion, assembly
and privacy; rights to counsel and due process in judicial proceedings;
and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures even if requested
or authorized to infringe upon these rights by federal law enforcement
acting under new powers granted by the USA Patriot Act or orders of
the Executive Branch. "Furthermore, Federal and state law enforcement
officials acting within the City are asked to 'work in accordance with
the policies of the Northampton Police Department . . . by not engaging
in or permitting detentions without charges or [using] racial profiling
in law enforcement.' Also, "the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Office of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Massachusetts State police
[are to] report to the Northampton Human Rights Commission regularly
and publicly the extent to and manner in which they have acted under
the USA Patriot Act, new Executive Orders, or COINTELPRO-type regulations."
This includes "disclosing the names of the detainees held in western
Massachusetts or any Northampton residents detained elsewhere." This
is grassroots democracy at its finest, telling the over-reaching Ashcrofts
and Bushes that they've gone way beyond the line of legal, or even decent,
human behavior. Not a good omen for Bush&Co. (Why not try to get something
similar going in your town or city?) 8. Snoops in Bed. The U.S. Supreme
Court has agreed to hear a case concerning the sodomy laws. The hopeful
reasoning here goes something like this: If the court holds that the
Southern law making sodomy illegal is an unconstitutional invasion of
privacy in the bedroom, the maddog fanatics in the Bush base of fundamentalist
Christians will be outraged and consider withdrawing support from Bush.
If the court rules in favor of such laws -- which, remember, have reference
to heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior in the bedroom -- there
will be a mobilization within the libertarian right as well as in the
incensed gay community to have Congress pass laws overturning the court's
ruling. Bush will then have to take a stand on this hot issue, and whichever
way he goes, it doesn't bode well for him in 2004. 9. The Bush "mandate."
Bush&Co. spokesmen and supporters claimed after the results of the midterm
elections were announced that they would continue to use their "mandate"
given them by the voters in 2000 to push their programs through Congress.
But there was no mandate in 2000 -- since the will of the voters, who
chose Gore, was superceded by five members of the U.S. Supreme Court,
who halted the counting of citizens' ballots and installed Bush into
the White House -- and neither was there a mandate on November 5th of
2002. Only 40% of eligible voters actually cast ballots, and just slightly
more than half chose the GOP candidates. In other words, 21% of eligible
American voters chose the GOP. A swing of a few thousand votes here,
and another few thousand there, and the Democrats would be in control
of the Congress. (I've written elsewhere about the possibility of vote-tampering
in those key states where touch-screen voting was employed, with no
paper ballots and no exit polls to check those results against.) In
short, even if one believes the election results were on the up-and-up,
the victory for Bush&Co. was razor-thin. There is no "mandate" to do
anything but govern from the middle, but, figuring this is their one
chance to fashion the political scene for the next decade or two, Bush&Co.
are pretending that they won a massive victory that permits them to
push through their extreme greed-and-power agenda, and to hell with
you. 10. The Sin of Pride. Finally, and following from the last one:
There is in the post-election behavior of Bush&Co. no humility, no concession
to decency, only a mad dash for the goodies of profit and power. Domestically
and internationally, there is little but the willingness, even an eagerness,
to push anyone aside who gets in their way. There is, in this behavior,
what the ancient Greek dramatists called "hubris," a tempting of the
gods, who are prone to visit bad things on the heads of those mortals
who pretend they are like gods themselves. The punishment for those
who evidence overbearing pride and arrogance is to be brought low by
their own excesses, by their belief that they can get away with anything.
Pride goeth before the fall. Let it be so.
A VIEW FROM BRITAIN
Front page of today's Daily Mirror in London. http://www.mirror.co.uk/frontpages/
This link will show you today's front page - click on News on the left
column to see the full story.
A ONE-MINUTE VIDEO
Subject: wonderful 1-min. summary of Bush policies Date: Saturday, December
21, 2002 4:13 PM: http://www.dubyadubyadubya.com/
BUSH STOPS EPA DISCLOSURES
OZARK-WHITERIVER-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Sunday, December 29,
2002 3:20 PM Subject: Fw: White House Thwarts EPA Warning Just in case
you haven't figured out that the Bush EPA is totally bereft of any morality!
-tomaso ----------------------------------Subject: White House Thwarts
EPA Warning asbestos-insulation warning By Andrew Schneider St. Louis
Post-Dispatch
— The Environmental Protection Agency was on the verge of warning millions
of Americans that their attics and walls might contain asbestos-contaminated
insulation. But the White House intervened at the last minute, and the
warning never has been issued. The agency's refusal to share its knowledge
of what is believed to be a widespread health risk has been criticized
by a former EPA administrator under two Republican presidents, a Democratic
U.S. senator and physicians and scientists who have treated victims
of the contamination.
The announcement to warn the public was expected in April. It was to
accompany a declaration by the EPA of a public-health emergency in Libby,
Mont. In that town near the Canadian border, ore from a vermiculite
mine was contaminated with an extremely lethal asbestos fiber called
tremolite that has killed or sickened thousands of miners and their
families. Ore from the Libby mine was shipped around the world, ending
up in insulation called Zonolite that was used in millions of homes,
businesses and schools across America. A public-health emergency declaration
never had been issued by any agency. It would have authorized removal
of the disease-causing insulation from homes in Libby and also provided
long-term medical care for those made sick. Additionally, it would have
triggered notification of property owners elsewhere who might be exposed
to the contaminated insulation. Zonolite insulation was sold throughout
North America from the 1940s through the 1990s. Almost all of the vermiculite
used in the insulation came from the Libby mine, last owned by W.R.
Grace. Announcement thwarted In a meeting in mid-March, EPA Administrator
Christie Whitman and Marianne Horinko, head of the Superfund program,
met with Paul Peronard, the EPA coordinator of the Libby cleanup and
his team of health specialists. Whitman and Horinko asked tough questions,
and apparently received the answers they needed. They agreed they had
to make a declaration. By early April, the declaration was ready to
go. News releases had been written and rewritten. Lists of governors
to call and politicians to notify had been compiled. Internal e-mail
shows that discussions had even been held on whether Whitman would go
to Libby for the announcement. But the declaration never was made. Interviews
and documents show that days before the EPA was set to make the declaration,
the plan was thwarted by the White House Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), which had been told of the proposal months earlier. Both the
OMB and the EPA acknowledge that the White House agency was actively
involved, but neither agency would discuss how or why. "Contact OMB
for the details," EPA's chief spokesman Joe Martyak said. Said OMB spokeswoman
Amy Call: "These questions will have to be addressed to the EPA." Call
declined to say why the White House opposed the declaration and the
public notification. "These are part of our internal discussions with
EPA, and we don't discuss predecisional deliberations," Call said. Both
agencies refused Freedom of Information Act requests for documents to
and from the OMB. 'The wrong thing to do' Former EPA administrator William
Ruckelshaus, who worked for former Presidents Nixon and Reagan, called
the decision not to notify homeowners of dangers posed by Zonolite insulation
"the wrong thing to do." "When the government comes across this kind
of information and doesn't tell people about it, I just think it's wrong,
unconscionable, not to do that," he said. "Your first obligation is
to tell the people living in these homes of the possible danger. They
need the information so they can decide what actions are best for their
family. What right does the government have to conceal these dangers?"
What to do about Zonolite insulation was not the only asbestos-related
issue in which the White House intervened. In January, in an internal
EPA report on problems with the agency's much-criticized response to
the terrorist attacks in New York, a section on "lessons learned" said:
"We cannot delay releasing important public-health information. The
political consequences of delaying information are greater than the
benefit of centralized information management." 'Conflict of interest'
The OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs derailed the
declaration. That office is headed by John Graham, who formerly ran
the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. His appointment in 2001 was denounced
by environmental, health and public advocacy groups, who claimed his
ties to industry were too strong. Graham passes judgment over all major
national health, safety and environmental standards. Sen. Dick Durbin,
D-Ill., urged colleagues to vote against Graham's appointment, saying
Graham would have to recuse himself from reviewing many rules because
affected industries donated to the Harvard University Center. Thirty
physicians, 10 of them from Harvard, according to The Washington Post,
wrote the committee asking that Graham not be confirmed because of "a
persistent pattern of conflict of interest, of obscuring and minimizing
dangers to human health with questionable cost-benefit analyses, and
of hostility to governmental regulation in general." Repeated requests
for interviews with Graham or anyone else involved in the OMB decision
were denied. Whitman, Horinko and some members of their top staff were
said to have been outraged at the White House intervention. "It was
like a gut shot," said one of those senior staffers involved in the
decision. "It wasn't that they ordered us not to make the declaration,
they just really, really strongly suggested against it. Really strongly.
There was no choice left." Whitman vs. White House Staff members said
Whitman was personally interested in Libby and the national problems
spawned by its asbestos-tainted ore. The EPA's inspector general had
reported that the agency hadn't taken action more than two decades earlier
when it had proof that the people of Libby and those using asbestos-tainted
Zonolite products were in danger. Whitman went to Libby in early September
2001 and promised the people it would never happen again. "We want everyone
who comes in contact with vermiculite — from homeowners to handymen
— to have the information to protect themselves and their families,"
Whitman promised. Political pragmatists in the agency knew the administration
was angered that a flood of lawsuits had caused more than a dozen major
corporations — including W.R. Grace — to file for bankruptcy protection.
The suits sought billions of dollars on behalf of people injured or
killed from exposure to asbestos in their products or workplaces. Republicans
on Capitol Hill crafted legislation — expected to be introduced next
month — to stem the flow of these suits. Nevertheless, Whitman told
her people to move forward with the emergency declaration. Those in
the EPA who respect their boss fear that Whitman may quit. She has taken
heat for other White House decisions such as a controversial decision
on levels of arsenic in drinking water, easing regulations to allow
50-year-old power plants to operate without implementing modern pollution
controls and a dozen other actions that environmentalists say favor
industry over health. Newspapers in her home state of New Jersey ran
stories this month saying Whitman had told Bush she wanted to leave
the agency. Spokesman Martyak said his boss is staying on the job. Documents
reveal struggle In October, the EPA complied with a Freedom of Information
Act request and gave the St. Louis Post-Dispatch access to thousands
of documents — in nine large file boxes. There were hundreds of e-mails,
scores of "action memos" describing the declaration and piles of "communication
strategies" for how the announcement would be made. The documents illustrated
the internal and external battle over getting the declaration and announcement
released. One of the most contentious concerns was the anticipated national
backlash from the Libby declaration. EPA officials knew that if the
agency announced that the insulation in Montana was so dangerous that
an emergency had to be declared, people elsewhere whose homes contained
the same contaminated Zonolite would demand answers or perhaps demand
to have their homes cleaned. The language of the declaration was molded
to stress how unique Libby was and to downplay the national problem.
But many in the agency's headquarters and regional offices didn't buy
it. A Feb. 22 memo questioned the agency's claim that the age of Libby's
homes and severe winter conditions in Montana required a higher level
of maintenance, which in turn meant increased disturbance of the insulation
in the homes there. It's "a shallow argument," the memo said. "There
are older homes which exist in harsh or harsher conditions across the
country. Residents in Maine and Michigan might find this argument flawed."
In millions of attics No one knows precisely how many dwellings are
insulated with Zonolite. Memos from the EPA and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry repeatedly cite an estimate of between
15 million and 35 million homes. A government analysis of shipping records
from W.R. Grace shows that at least 15.6 billion pounds of vermiculite
ore was shipped from Libby to 750 plants and factories throughout North
America. Between one-third and one-half of that ore was popped into
insulation and usually sold in 3-foot-high kraft paper bags. Eventually,
the internal documents show, acceptance grew that the agency should
declare a public-health emergency. In a confidential memo dated March
28, an EPA official said the declaration tentatively was set for April
5. But the declaration never came. Instead, Superfund boss Horinko on
May 9 quietly ordered that asbestos be removed from contaminated homes
in Libby. There was no national warning of potential dangers from Zonolite.
And there was no promise of long-term medical care for Libby's ill and
dying. The OMB's presence is noted throughout the documents. The press
announcement of the watered-down decision was rewritten five times the
day before it was released to accommodate OMB language changes that
downplayed the dangers. The asbestos in Zonolite, like all asbestos
products, is believed to be either a minimal risk or no risk if it is
not disturbed. The asbestos fibers must be airborne to be inhaled. The
fibers then become trapped in the lungs, where they may cause asbestosis,
lung cancer and mesothelioma, a fast-moving cancer of the lungs' lining.
The EPA's files are filled with studies documenting the toxicity of
tremolite, how even minor disruptions of the material by moving boxes,
sweeping the floor or doing repairs in attics can generate asbestos
fibers. One doctor's warnings Dr. Alan Whitehouse, a pulmonologist who
had worked for NASA and the Air Force on earlier projects before moving
to Spokane, has not only treated 500 people from Libby who are sick
and dying from exposure to tremolite. He also has almost 300 patients
from Washington shipyards and the Hanford nuclear facility in Eastern
Washington who are suffering health effects from exposure to the more-prevalent
chrysotile asbestos. Comparing the two groups, Whitehouse has demonstrated
that the toxicity of the tremolite from Libby is 10 times as carcinogenic
as chrysotile and probably 100 times more likely to produce mesothelioma
than chrysotile. W.R. Grace has maintained that its insulation is safe.
On April 3 of this year, the company wrote a letter to Whitman again
insisting that its product was safe and that no public-health declaration
or nationwide warning was warranted. Dr. Brad Black, who runs the asbestos
clinic in Libby and acts as health officer for Lincoln County, Mont.,
says "people have a right to be warned of the potential danger they
may face if they disturb that stuff." Martyak, chief EPA spokesman,
argues the agency has informed the public of the potential dangers.
"It's on our Web site," he said. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., is sponsoring
legislation to ban asbestos in the United States. She said the Web site
warning is a joke. "EPA's answer that people have been warned because
it's on their Web site is ridiculous," she said. "If you have a computer,
and you just happened to think about what's in your attic, and you happen
to be on EPA's Web page, then you get to know. This is not the way the
safety of the public is handled. "We, the government, the EPA, the administration
have a responsibility to at least let people know the information so
they can protect themselves if they go into those attics," she said.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BUSH'S NEGATIVE RECORD
American Politics Journal Jan. 16, 2003
Panic, Shock Grip Bush-Rove Team at 1600 Pennsylvania Junior Bush's
political aides, handlers and tutors -- caught off guard by plummeting
public opinion -- huddle in secret! 66% of Americans not likely to vote
to re-elect Junior! Worse yet, hardly anyone is paying attention to
the White House tax or health scams… By Jeff Koopersmith Jan. 16, 2003
-- WASHINGTON (APJP) --
It isn't much of a surprise to me > > that George W. Bush's poll numbers
are circling the drain. One need only > > look to the left, the right,
up, or down to realize that almost nothing > > is going well America.
But then you'd have to have been off the planet > > for a couple years
not to know that since the former Texas governor took > > office as
the putative "President" of the United States at the wily > > invitation
of five members of the United States Supreme Court, things > > have
been going down hill. > > > > Let's take a look. > > > > The economy
is tanking. > > > > Corporate leaders, including Vice President Cheney,
are facing > > investigations for the worst kinds of thievery from their
stockholders. > > > > The United States is loathed by most foreign populations
and nearly all > > governments around the world, including our allies
-- and yes, together > > with Great Britain, despite the masquerade
from British Prime Minister > > Tony Blair. > > > > Unemployment has
nearly doubled in the past 18 months, and huge layoffs > > in the near
future have already been announced. > > > > United Airlines is the first
of many major air carriers to go into > > bankruptcy. > > > > The Bush
"Administration" -- egged on by heretofore high approval > > ratings,
largely the result of what they see as a gift from God (those > > events
of September 11, 2001) -- has not found a single shred of > > evidence
that Saddam Hussein has or is planning to use "weapons of mass > > destruction"
against the United States or anyone else save for a few > > "empty"
warhead that "could" have contained some sinister stuff before > > being
discarded. > > > > Mr. Bush has failed in his promise to catch or kill
Osama bin Laden. > > Not a single important Al Qaeda member has been
to trial or punished. > > > > Meanwhile, the Attorney General, John
"Southern Partisan" Ashcroft, is > > engineering the arrest of American
citizens, among others, without due > > process of law -- and locking
"illegal combatants" up in Cuba beyond the > > not-so-vigilant eyes
of America's media. > > > > And, of course, all the news you hear, see
or read about all of the > > above -- and so many other issues and events
-- is controlled by a > > handful of corporate CEOs who back the ideals
of the Bush family, the > > Republican Party, and extremist ultra right
wing ideologues. > > > > News programming has become a twenty-four hour
a day sham. Talk radio > > is dominated by Neo-fascist commentators,
and more than 80 million > > Americans get ALL their news from talk
radio according to recent surveys. > > > > When liberals or progressives
attempt to present their points of view > > they are shouted down, ignored,
smirked at by television and radio hosts > > -- or see the programs
that they host cancelled > > > > Medical care is so costly that an average
family of four pays more than > > $12,000 a year in premiums -- not
including pharmaceutical care. Drug > > prices have skyrocketed and
the White House sits by, promising > > pharmaceutical "aid" to seniors
but doing nothing to deliver on the > > promise. Americans in the super
majority are begging for > > government-sponsored health care -- and
not a single source is reporting > > this phenomenon. Drug companies
gave more money to right-wing > > candidates last year than any other
sector of industry. > > > > The White House has sent more than 100,000
young Americans off to the > > Middle East to prepare for a war that
the entire world, free or > > otherwise, opposes. > > > > And it does
n0ot help that George w. Bush looks and acts like a buffoon, > > sneering
and smirking, thumbing his nose at all foreign leaders asking > > him
to take an attack on Iraq more slowly and definitely more seriously.
> > > > The Attorney General spent more than $25,000 to cover the naked
bosom of > > the bronze statue of Blind Justice outside his office --
probably the > > most expensive burkha in history. And Mr. Ashcroft
is down on his knees > > praying to Jesus every morning -- in although
representing a > > nonsectarian justice system and a nation with a Constitution
that > > clearly and literally separates church from state. > > > >
Mr. Bush has decided that giving minorities extra points on college
> > admission scores is "unconstitutional" and is filing an amicus curiae
> > brief to this effect in the Supreme Court -- even while paying lip
> > service to fair and ethical treatment of unfairly treated black
and > > Hispanic citizens. > > > > Interest rates are about to skyrocket
-- and the last bubble of wealth, > > personal real estate values, is
about to burst. Personal bankruptcies > > are at all-time highs, but
the White House is busy pressuring Congress > > to make certain that
working people cannot declare bankruptcy in any way > > that will free
them from debt so that they might make a fresh start. > > > > In Mississippi
and many other southern states the rate of illiteracy > > among minorities
is over 65%. > > > > Mr. Bush has proposed tax cuts that help the wealthy
and largely ignored > > and insulted the working poor by giving them
a tax cut that will not > > even cover their annual cable televisions
bills. > > > > Progressive leaders are concentrating on driving people
out of their > > SUVs -- when they might better spend their time and
money driving the > > Vice President from office for the crimes he committed
while Chairman of > > Halliburton, an oil services company which not
only overstated its > > profits under the tutelage of Cheney-hired Arthur
Andersen (itself a > > convicted felon) but also traded with Iraq under
a Cayman Island > > corporation cooked up by Cheney and his board after
Cheney lobbied > > Congress hard to insert loopholes in Iraqi sanctions
to allow such "oil > > bidniss" on a more regular basis. > > > > The
homeless are being driven out of one city and into another rather >
> than being provided with food and shelter as one would do for any
> > pathetically poor stranger. > > > > HMOs persist on denying medical
care to the mentally ill and instead out > > them on the streets to
be raped, murdered and maimed. > > > > The chasm between rich and poor
in America is widening to 19th Century > > proportions. Union strength
has been decimated to such an extent that > > collective bargaining
has become an inside joke on Washington's K Street > > > > The White
House has now shut down all the streets surrounding it and > > placed
batteries of surface to air missiles around its perimeter. > > > > The
Vice President hides out in bunkers, ostensibly to be able to save >
> the Republic if and when Washington is attacked by some unnamed source.
> > > > We are about to spend $2 trillion of OUR money on a war for
which we are > > unprepared and from which we may not be able to extricate
ourselves. > > > > In short, the nation has gone partially insane --
and television news > > has utterly failed to notice. --
SURVEILLANCE
'Big Brother' Is No Longer a Fiction, ACLU Warns in Report U.S. Newswire
January 15, 2003
The United States has now reached the point where a total "surveillance
society" has become a realistic possibility, the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) warned in a report being released today. "Many people still
do not grasp that Big Brother surveillance is no longer the stuff of
books and movies," said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU's Technology
and Liberty Program and a co-author of the report. "Given the capabilities
of today's technology, the only thing protecting us from a full-fledged
surveillance society are the legal and political institutions we have
inherited as Americans," he added. "Unfortunately, the September 11
attacks have led some to embrace the fallacy that weakening the Constitution
will strengthen America." The ACLU said that its report, "Bigger Monsters,
Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society," is an
attempt to step back from the daily march of stories about new surveillance
programs and technologies and survey the bigger picture. The report
argues that even as surveillance capacity grows like a "monster" in
our midst, the legal "chains" needed to restrain that monster are being
weakened. The report cites not only new technology but also erosions
in protections against government spying, the increasing amount of tracking
being carried out by the private sector, and the growing intersection
between the two. "From government watch lists to secret wiretaps --
Americans are unknowingly becoming targets of government surveillance,"
said Dorothy Ehrlich, executive director of the ACLU of Northern California.
"It is dangerous for a democracy that government power goes unchecked
and for this reason it is imperative that our government be made accountable."
A recent illustration of the danger, according to the ACLU report, is
the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, which seeks
to sift through a vast array of databases full of personal information
in the hunt for terrorism. "Even if TIA never materializes in its current
form," Steinhardt said, "what this report shows is that the underlying
trends are much bigger than any one program or any one controversial
figure like John Poindexter." Steinhardt said that Americans haven't
yet felt the full potential of the new technology for invading privacy
because of latent inefficiencies in how government and businesses handle
information. "Database inefficiencies can't be expected to protect our
privacy forever," said Steinhardt. "Eventually businesses and government
agencies will settle on standards for tying together information, and
gain the ability to monitor many of our activities -- either directly
through surveillance cameras, or indirectly by analyzing the information
trails we leave behind us as we go through life." (In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.) © : t r u t h o
u t 2002
WAR AGAINST WOMEN
This was the NY Times' editorial for1/12. They recognize that Bush has
a war against women! If you want to comment the President's e-mail is
president@whitehouse.gov, and the comment phone number is 202-456-1414.
The War Against Women January 12, 2003 The War Against Women. Running
for the White House in the fall of 2000, George W. Bush did not talk
about ending the right to abortion. To avoid scaring off moderate voters,
he promoted a larger "reverence for life" agenda that also included
adoption and tougher drunken driving laws. Voters were encouraged to
believe that while Mr. Bush was anti-choice, he was not out to reverse
Roe v. Wade. Yet two years into the Bush presidency, it is apparent
that reversing or otherwise eviscerating the Supreme Court's momentous
1973 ruling that recognized a woman's fundamental right to make her
own childbearing decisions is indeed Mr. Bush's mission. The lengthening
string of anti-choice executive orders, regulations, legal briefs, legislative
maneuvers and key appointments emanating from his administration suggests
that undermining the reproductive freedom essential to women's health,
privacy and equality is a major preoccupation of his administration
— second only, perhaps, to the war on terrorism. • As the 30th anniversary
of the Roe decision approaches, women's right to safe, legal abortions
is in dire peril. President Bush's assault on reproductive rights is
part of a larger ongoing cultural battle. If abortion were the only
target, the administration would not be attempting to block women's
access to contraceptives, which drive down the number of abortions.
His administration would not be declaring war on any sex education that
discusses ways, beyond abstinence, to prevent pregnancy and sexually
transmitted diseases. Scientifically accurate information about contraceptives
and abortion would not have begun disappearing from federal government
Web sites. A big thrust of Mr. Bush's aggressive anti-choice crusade
has been to undermine the legal foundation of the Roe decision by elevating
the status of a fetus, or even a fertilized egg, to that of a person,
with rights equal to, or perhaps even exceeding, those of the woman.
This desire to recognize the personhood of zygotes is part of the rationale
behind the Bush policy prohibiting federal financing for research on
all new embryonic stem-cell lines, despite the hopes that this research
could lead to breakthroughs in treatments for diseases like Parkinson's,
cancer and diabetes. Tommy Thompson, the secretary of health and human
services, was following the same drumbeat when he made "unborn children"
rather than pregnant women eligible for coverage under the Children's
Health Insurance Program. Mr. Bush has begun packing the judiciary with
individuals whose hostility to Roe v. Wade matches his own and that
of his famously anti-choice attorney general, John Ashcroft. In Congress,
he backs a radical measure called the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act,
which would further reduce the already thin availability of abortion
services. It would allow government-supported health care providers
to decline to include abortion in their reproductive health services.
The providers could even forbid their doctors from mentioning abortion
as a legal option to female patients. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Bush is also
a strong supporter of the other pending anti-choice initiatives, including
the ban on so-called partial-birth abortions. Like so much of the president's
policy on this issue, the ban masquerades as a modest initiative that
has wide popular support — eliminating already rare late-term abortions
— while its actual effects are far more sweeping. This effort to criminalize
certain abortion procedures would actually restrict a woman's right
to choose abortion by the safest method throughout pregnancy. So concluded
the current Supreme Court, hardly a bastion of liberal abortion rights
sympathizers, when it rejected an earlier version nearly three years
ago. The effects of the new anti-choice agenda are also affecting women
abroad. On his very first day on the job, the president reimposed the
odious global "gag" rule first instituted by President Ronald Reagan,
then lifted by President Bill Clinton in January 1993. It bars health
providers receiving American family planning assistance from counseling
women about abortion, engaging in political speech on abortion or providing
abortion services, even with their own money. The War Against Women
(Page 2 of 2)In resurrecting the gag rule, the new president broadcast
a disdain for freedom of speech to emerging democracies, while crippling
the international family planning programs that work to prevent hundreds
of thousands of infant and maternal deaths worldwide each year.Most
Americans would be shocked at the lengths American representatives are
going to in their international war against women's right to control
their bodies.Last year, Bush administration delegates to the United
Nations Special Session on Children tried to block a plan to promote
children's well-being and rights, taking offense at language promising
"reproductive health services." This same crackerjack delegation also
opposed special efforts to help young girls who are victims of war crimes
— which most often means rape. The delegates were worried that the measure
would be construed to provide these victims with information about emergency
contraception or abortion.The administration's anti-choice obsession
has also prompted it to freeze millions of dollars in financing for
valuable programs run by the World Health Organization and the United
Nations Population Fund to advance reproductive health and combat H.I.V.
and AIDS. • Last summer, the president withdrew his support for Senate
ratification of a women's rights treaty that requires nations to remove
barriers of discrimination against women in areas like legal rights
and health care. Just last month, at a United Nations' population conference
in Bangkok, the American delegation made an embarrassing, and ultimately
unsuccessful, attempt to block an endorsement of condom use to prevent
AIDS. On the surface, the Bush administration's war against women's
rights is a series of largely unnoted changes. It is intended to look
that way. In reality, it is a steady march into the past, to a time
before Roe v. Wade, when abortion was illegal and pregnancy was more
a matter of fate than choice.People can debate whether Mr. Bush's various
efforts to dismantle Roe and block women's right to choose around the
globe flow from his own deeply felt moral or religious beliefs, or merely
cater to extreme elements within his party. What is important is the
actual impact of the presidential assault: women's constitutional liberty
has been threatened, essential reproductive health care has been denied
or delayed, and some women will needlessly die.
BUSH'S WAR AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENT
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/4972281.htm Bush has made more
than 50 policy changes on environment BY SETH BORENSTEIN Knight Ridder
Newspapers WASHINGTON
- Halfway into his four-year term, President Bush has significantly
altered the nation's environmental policies, often without attracting
much notice. A handful of his most controversial policies have made
headlines, notably his abandonment of an international treaty on global
warming, approval of a federal dump for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain
in Nevada and his proposal to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. But Bush's administration has slipped a number of major
policy changes under the public's and the media's radar by quietly issuing
executive orders that don't require congressional approval, making announcements
late on Fridays, rewriting highly technical environmental regulations
and muzzling dissent within the administration. Knight Ridder asked
three dozen experts in the environmental-protection and business communities
to assess the administration's environmental record at midterm. They
cited more than 50 major changes in policy, including: * Dramatically
stepping up drilling for oil and natural gas on public land. * Loosening
environmental restrictions on logging and mining on federal property.
* Easing rules that require environmental impact assessments before
thinning national forests, starting certain military activities such
as bombing practice and building major transportation projects such
as airports or highways. * The Bush administration is cleaning up 31
percent fewer Superfund sites per month than the Clinton administration
did, and polluters are paying 64 percent less in fines per month than
they did during the late 1990s, according to a Knight Ridder analysis
of settlements published in the Federal Register. * Rejecting a worldwide
treaty to curb global warming and pushing a comprehensive energy plan
that stresses reliance on fossil fuels, which cause global warming and
air pollution. * Proposing to weaken the cornerstone air and water pollution
laws enacted in the late 1960s and early 1970s. * Proposing to slash
air pollution from power plants by 70 percent and to limit diesel engine
emissions. Environmental-protection groups and many ecologists call
the Bush's record deplorable. "The administration has been like carbon
monoxide, hard to detect and deadly with respect to the environment,"
said David Wilcove, a Princeton University ecology professor. Business
interests, conservative think-tank experts and administration officials
argue that the president's approach brings refreshing innovation while
cutting back excessive regulation. "Environmentalists have expected
the worst from the outset," said James Huffman, the dean of the Lewis
and Clark Law School in Portland, Ore. "The administration does deserve
credit for challenging some of the unfounded and ill-supported environmental
orthodoxy rooted in extreme caution, uncertain science and a rigid reliance
on command and control regulation." Many experts who are considered
moderates - including some former Republican environmental officials
who served the president's father, former President George Bush - are
more restrained but voice disappointment. The administration "has been
negative toward the environment," said Russell Train, who headed the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality
for Republican Presidents Nixon and Ford. He co-chaired Conservationists
for Bush in 1988. "That's what you hear all the time, relaxing this
regulation, that regulation." The administration has embraced "a new
way of thinking that is results-oriented," said White House spokesman
Scott McClellan. "It's based on working in a cooperative way . . . .
Environmental protection and economic growth can go hand in hand." Many
industry representatives are well placed to influence environmental
policy. More than two dozen political appointees have backgrounds in
the energy, chemical, timber, agribusiness and mining industries. According
to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the oil and gas industry
gave nearly $17 million to Republicans in 2002 and $1.9 million to the
Bush campaign. The forestry industry gave $3.2 million to Republicans
in 2002 and nearly $300,000 to Bush's campaign. The administration's
environmental policies can be grouped into five categories: changing
fundamental laws; rolling back Clinton administration policies; making
new proposals; altering the rules governing the use of federal lands;
and coping with global warming. A review of its record in each category
follows. CORNERSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS In the past year, the administration
has proposed altering the nation's three fundamental anti-pollution
laws or changing the way they're administered. The three are the Clean
Air Act of 1970, the Clean Water Act of 1972 and the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, and most experts say the changes would weaken the
laws. In late November, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency
permitted more than 17,000 old coal-fired utilities, oil refineries
and other factories to expand or renovate without installing pollution-control
equipment, as the agency previously had required. Another major change
- an attempt to thin fire-prone forests and to speed construction of
highway and airport projects - would weaken the 1969 law that requires
the government to file environmental-impact statements before such projects
can proceed. That proposal requires congressional approval. Earlier
this month, the administration issued rules that would remove up to
20 million acres of isolated wetlands from federal protection under
the Clean Water Act. The EPA also rewrote the definition of what legally
can be dumped in waterways as "fill" material to include waste from
mines and other sources. A federal judge called that decision "an obvious
perversity" of the 1972 Clean Water Act. REPEALING CLINTON RULES Toward
the end of its eight years in power, the Clinton administration issued
a flurry of environmental regulations that some considered booby traps
for Bush. The new president postponed, repealed or reduced many of these
regulations. Clinton's last-minute maneuvers helped produce the Bush
administration's first environmental stumble. After EPA Administrator
Christie Whitman halted a Clinton rule reducing the amount of arsenic
allowed in drinking water, a public uproar forced her to reinstate it.
Another Clinton rule called for phasing out snowmobile use in Yellowstone
and Grand Teton national parks, starting this winter. The Bush administration
canceled that rule, proposing instead to allow up to 1,100 snowmobiles
a day in both parks combined. On an average day, about 840 snowmobiles
total thunder through the parks, and the number reaches 1,650 on busy
weekends. The Bush administration also canceled a Clinton rule preventing
companies that cause "significant irreparable harm" from mining any
more public land. The Bush Department of Energy replaced a Clinton rule
requiring new air conditioners to be 30 percent more efficient with
one that requires only 20 percent improvement. TAKING THE INITIATIVE
The administration has proposed several initiatives that promise to
clean the environment in nontraditional ways. Most dramatic is the Clear
Skies proposal to cut emissions from all power plants by 70 percent
by 2018. Mimicking a pollution credit-trading system that cut acid rain
in the 1990s, the president's plan would cap overall emissions and allow
more efficient utilities to trade rights to pollute with less efficient
ones, so long as the cap is met. The administration also greatly increased
funding to clean up industrial "brownfields," or waste sites in urban
areas, and proposed a modest improvement in gas mileage standards for
sport utility vehicles, a move environmentalists criticized as too little
but which was the first hike in fuel economy standards since 1975. In
addition, Bush's EPA has taken modest steps to reduce soot emissions
from diesel engines, which experts say is probably the nation's biggest
air-pollution problem. FEDERAL LAND USE The president's energy policy
emphasizes drilling for oil and natural gas on public lands. Congress
has not approved the most-noted proposal, for oil drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. Drilling and prospecting for minerals increased
dramatically in 2001 on federal land in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New
Mexico and Montana. Oil rigs towered over the outskirts of national
parks such as Canyonlands and Arches in Utah. In addition, while the
administration bought out an oil company's leases to prevent it from
drilling off Florida's coast, it still favors drilling for oil off California's
shores. Other initiatives have made it easier for the mining industry
to get minerals from federal lands and for the timber industry to take
trees from federal forests. GLOBAL WARMING The administration's most
controversial decision - abandoning the Kyoto Protocol, which would
require the United States to reduce the "greenhouse gas" emissions that
contribute to global warming - was more symbolic than substantive. The
Senate had rejected the treaty 97-0 in a nonbinding resolution in 1997,
so it was already dead. In a related step with greater consequences,
Bush reneged on a campaign pledge to reduce power plant emissions of
carbon dioxide and three other pollutants. Carbon dioxide is the leading
cause of global warming. The administration has opposed Senate proposals
to regulate carbon dioxide, including a new bipartisan one sponsored
by his political rivals Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman,
D-Conn. Instead, the Bush administration has promoted voluntary efforts
to curb greenhouse gas emissions and has supplied money for research
and technology. Most environmental groups and scientists call this a
do-nothing approach; Bush's supporters say it avoids penalizing the
U.S. economy. RESULTS It will take years to determine whether the president's
policies result in cleaner air, land and water. Early indicators showed
an increase in polluted waterways from 2000 to 2001, though it could
be due to better monitoring. Smog violations rose slightly from 2000
to 2001, then increased by more than 30 percent in 2002. The increases
in smog are partly due to abnormally warm weather. In 2001, the United
States reduced its emissions of gases that lead to global warming for
the first time in a decade. The Energy Department officials attributed
the reduction to the sluggish economy. *** The Toronto Star January
19, 2003 http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035776823765&call_page=TS_Columnists&call_pageid=970599109774&call_pagepath=Columnists
Scenes from a parade of blithering men of power By MICHELE LANDSBERG
Welcome to the imperial edition of this column, in which we cast a wondering
glance at men of power who seem to be parading naked while the world
admires their finery. George Bush, Emperor of all the World, for example,
was exposed by a small boy named David, who applauded from the sidelines
as the great man marched toward battle against Iraq. We've heard many
preposterous reasons for waging war against Iraq, and most Canadians
have bridled at every one of them. They all sounded like trumped-up
excuses, including the "weapons of mass destruction" bit. But it was
little David Frum who put it out there for all of us to see. "Here's
an assignment. Can you sum up in a sentence or two our best case for
going after Iraq?" asked David's boss at the White House, where he was
a speechwriter. Pardon me? They were looking for reasons to explain
an unprovoked war, and they asked a speechwriter, who obliged with the
"axis of evil" strategy? How astounding. First you decide to launch
a senseless, dangerous, murderous attack, and then you cast around for
snappy phrases to justify it. This has been a matter of public record
since Frum cheerfully described the incident in his recent book, but
few have so much as murmured a comment. This goes way beyond nakedness;
it's an emperor without clothes parading before a speechless public
and mainstream media with no guts.
BUSH'S NUCLEAR POLICIES
This article is an advance copy - it will appear in the San Francisco
Examiner. It examines the results of Bush's nuclear bullying, withdrawal
from the major anti-nuclear treaties we have signed, and the sudden
spreading of nuclear capability, worldwide, that has resulted.
Sowing the Wind Foreign Policy In Focus 776 words By Conn Hallinan
When the Bush Administration threatened North Korea with nuclear weapons
last year, it did more than ignite the present standoff in North Asia,
it opened a Pandora's Box of proliferation. The genesis of the present
crisis goes back to the Administration's 2001 Nuclear Policy Review
(NPR), which proposed using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations,
including Libya, Syria and North Korea. While the North Koreans have
caught flak for withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement,
it was, in fact, the U.S. that violated the Treaty by making the threat
in the first place. Under the 1968 Agreement, signed by 188 nations,
nuclear powers agreed never to threaten non-nuclear nations unless those
countries were in alliance with another nuclear power. That pledge was
the heart of the Agreement: signers agreed not to develop nukes so long
as they were never threatened with such weapons by the major powers.
In spite of the insular and rigid nature of the North Korean regime-and
anyone who describes its enemies as "beasts in human skin steeped in
misanthropy to the marrow of their bones" is a tad odd-it is George
Bush, not Kim Jong Il, who thumbed his nose at the international community.
Washington, not Pyongyang, has dismantled the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty, the Strategic Arms Limitation Agreements, and is preparing to
violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by testing its new "bunker
busting" nuke. How did this happen? It happened because the spineless
Democrats remained silent while the Bush Administration briskly demolished
one treaty after another. And it happened because the United Nations
Security Council is so cowed by the U.S. that it failed to challenge
the Nuclear Policy Review as a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Where will this lead? How about a nuclear arms race in Asia? North Korea
is not the only proliferation problem on the Korean peninsula. In March
1994, the head of the South Korean National Security Planning Agency,
Suh Su-Joong, revealed that former President Roh Tae Woo had approved
a covert nuclear weapons program. South Korea has also successfully
tested a mobile missile launcher and has more than 24 tons of plutonium
on hand. There are at least two other countries in Asia that can produce
nuclear weapons within months if they so choose- Japan and Taiwan. According
to the CIA, Taiwan, Israel and the then apartheid regime in South Africa
tested a nuclear weapon over the South Atlantic on Sept. 22, 1979. We
can assume the Taiwanese didn't throw away the blueprints from that
test and can recreate it any time it wishes. And in May of last year,
Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yasuo Fukuda, said that Japan was considering
abandoning its long-term opposition to nuclear weapons. In the face
of Korean and Chinese alarm, the government backed away from the statement,
but experts agree it would be easy for Japan to build nuclear weapons.
How about nuclear weapons in South America? Early this month, Brazil's
Minister of Science, Roberto Amaral, said that Brazil could not afford
to renounce any form of scientific knowledge, "whether the geome, DNA
or nuclear fission." Brazil's 1988 constitution forbids nuclear weapons,
and the left-wing government of President Luiz Inacio da Silva quickly
distanced itself from Amaral's remarks. However, Brazilians are well
aware of the inequality that the Non-Proliferation Treaty enforces on
the world. Back in September, Da Silva himself said that "If someone
asks me to disarm and keep a slingshot while he comes at me with a cannon,
what good does that do?" Both Brazil and Argentina have nuclear programs
dating back to the 1950s and, during the period of their respective
military dictatorships, pursued nuclear weapons research. Both countries
have also signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but Brazil has cause
to be jumpy, given the Bush Administration's attitude toward left-wing
regimes in Latin America. Republican heavyweight Rep. Henry Hyde, chair
of the House International Relations Committee, calls Brazil, Cuba and
Venezuela a Latin "axis of evil" and says Da Silva is a "pro-Castro
radical." Constantine Menges, President Reagan's Security Director for
Latin American Affairs and former National Security Council member,
says this "new axis" is linked to Iraq and Iran. Talk like that ought
to make everyone nervous these days, particularly with right-wing extremists
like John Bolton, Otto Reich and Elliot Abrams heading up the Administration's
Latin America policy. If Brazil decides to take this "axis" stuff seriously,
it may indeed decide to go nuclear. If Brazil builds a bomb, so will
Argentina. "Sow the wind, reap the storm" goes the old dictum. The Bush
Administration has been sowing nuclear threats since early last year,
and we are reaping the results of that policy.
BUSH'S STATE OF THE UNION 2003s
Published on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
An Annotated Overview of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George
W. Bush’s State of the Union Address by Stephen Zunes http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0129-09.htm
"This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th
century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built
armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate
the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no
limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism
were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great
alliances, and by the might of the United States of America…. Once again,
we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all
mankind. And we accept this responsibility."
The attempt to put Baathist Iraq on par with Nazi Germany and Soviet
Russia is ludicrous. Hitler’s Germany was the most powerful industrialized
nation in the world when it began its conquests in the late 1930s and
Soviet Russia at its height had the world’s largest armed forces and
enough nuclear weapons to destroy humankind. Iraq, by contrast, is a
poor Third World country that has been under the strictest military
and economic embargo in world history for more than a dozen years after
having much of its civilian and military infrastructure destroyed in
the heaviest bombing in world history. Virtually all that remained of
its offensive military capability was subsequently dismantled under
the strictest unilateral disarmament initiative ever, an inspection
and verification process that has been resumed under an even more rigorous
mandate. By contrast, back in the 1980s, when Iraq really was a major
regional power and had advanced programs in weapons of mass destruction,
the United States did not consider Iraq a threat at all; in fact, the
U.S. provided extensive military, economic and technological support
to Saddam Hussein’s regime.
"America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these
dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter
and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm."
There is nothing in the UN Charter about the unilateral disarmament
of a member state. By contrast, articles 41 and 42 of the Charter –
reiterated in the final article of UN Security Council 1441 – make clear
that the UN Security Council alone has the authority to authorize the
use of force to enforce its resolutions. It should also be noted that
there are over ninety UN Security Council resolutions currently being
violated by governments other than Iraq, most of them by such U.S. allies
as Morocco, Israel and Turkey. The United States has blocked the United
Nations from enforcing these resolutions, however. "We're strongly supporting
the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control
nuclear materials around the world." The IAEA has received very little
support from the Bush Administration. For example, the U.S. has blocked
the United Nations from enforcing UN Security Council resolution 487,
which calls on Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard
of the IAEA. In addition, administration spokespeople have repeatedly
belittled the organization and its effectiveness.
" We're working with other governments to secure nuclear materials
in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning
the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass
destruction."
The Bush Administration has actually blocked efforts to strengthen
international treaties preventing the spread of biological and chemical
weapons and successfully instigated and led an effort to remove the
highly-effective director of an international program overseeing the
destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles around the world. In addition,
the Bush Administration has cut funding for programs to remove nuclear
materials from the former Soviet Union and rejected a proposed treaty
by Russia that would have destroyed thousands of nuclear weapons, insisting
that they instead simply be put into storage. Finally, the Bush Administration
has rejected calls for a nuclear-free zone for all the Middle East.
"We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as
they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians,
like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine
their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations
to live in freedom."
It was the United States, through its Central Intelligence Agency,
that overthrew Iran’s last democratic government, ousting Prime Minister
Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. As his replacement, the U.S. brought in
from exile the tyrannical Shah, who embarked upon a 26-year reign of
terror. The United States armed and trained his brutal secret police
– known as the SAVAK – which jailed, tortured and murdered tens of thousands
of Iranians struggling for their freedom. The Islamic revolution was
a direct consequence of this U.S.-backed repression since the Shah successfully
destroyed much of the democratic opposition. In addition, the repressive
theocratic rulers that gained power following the Islamic Revolution
that ousted the Shah were clandestinely given military support by the
U.S. government during the height of their repression during the 1980s.
As a result, there is serious question regarding the United States’
support for the freedom of the Iranian people.
"Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated
framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know
that that regime was deceiving the world, and developing those weapons
all along. And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program
to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will not
be blackmailed."
Indications are that North Korea kept its commitment during the 1990s
but ceased its cooperation only recently. It is widely believed that
North Korea decided to renege on its agreement as a direct result of
last year’s State of the Union address, when President Bush declared
North Korea to be part of an "axis of evil" along with Iraq and Iran.
Seeing the United States prepare to invade Iraq and increase its bellicose
rhetoric against Iran and themselves, the North Koreans apparently decided
that they needed to create a credible deterrent in case they were next.
They have offered to end their nuclear program in return for a guarantee
that the United States will not invade them.
"America is working with the countries of the region -- South Korea,
Japan, China, and Russia -- to find a peaceful solution, and to show
the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation,
economic stagnation, and continued hardship. The North Korean regime
will find respect in the world and revival for its people only when
it turns away from its nuclear ambitions."
Actually, the United States has been at odds with North Korea’s neighbors,
taking a far more hard-line position toward the communist regime than
those who have far greater grounds for concern about any potential threat.
Perhaps more significantly, given that the United States has good relations
with other countries that have developed nuclear weapons in recent years
– such as India, Pakistan and Israel – and has demonstrated hostility
toward North Korea well prior to the start of its nuclear program, the
North Koreans may have reason to doubt that curbing their nuclear ambitions
will make much of a difference.
"Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula
and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator,
with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with
great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region
and threaten the United States."
There was a very real threat of Iraq dominating the region in the 1980s.
During this period, however, the United States provided Saddam Hussein’s
regime with military, economic and technological assistance, even as
it invaded Iran and its internal repression and support of terrorism
was at its height. Now that the country is only a fraction of its once
formidable military prowess and it has little direct access to its oil
wealth, it is hard to imagine how it could realistically dominate the
region again, much less threaten the United States.
"Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave
Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter
contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The
108 U.N. inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden
materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors
is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show
exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out
for the world to see, and destroy them as directed."
UNMOVIC director Hans Blix and IAEA director Mohamed El-Baradei have
expressed concerns that Iraq was not sufficiently forthcoming in some
potentially key areas, though they also noted areas where there had
been a high level of cooperation in some other areas. This is far short
of "utter contempt." Similarly, their mission is far from being a scavenger
hunt, given the extensive records from the eight years of UN inspections
during the 1990s. It is noteworthy that the UNSCOM inspectors did not
find any more hidden materials during their last four years of operations
despite expanding the scope of their searches. Though these inspectors
were withdrawn under pressure from President Bill Clinton in late 1998
before they could complete their job, satellite surveillance and other
intelligence gathering since then has given this new round of inspections
– which have an even tougher mandate regarding the timing and extent
of their searches – a good idea of where to look and what to look for.
Furthermore, they have equipment that can detect radioactive isotopes
and other telltale signs of WMD development at a great distance from
their source. It is noteworthy that after insisting that Iraq’s four-year
refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors to return was cited as grounds
for an invasion, the Bush Administration has suddenly challenged the
inspectors’ effectiveness since they resumed inspections. Furthermore,
the United States has yet to put forward any proof that Iraq currently
has any banned weapons.
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological
weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough
doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material.
He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. The United Nations
concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more
than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions
of people to death by respiratory failure."
This is like saying that a man has enough sperm to impregnate several
million women. Theoretically true, but if you don’t have sufficient
delivery systems, it simply cannot be done. There is no evidence that
Iraq has any delivery systems that can effectively disseminate biological
weapons in a way that could endanger large populations.
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve
agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold
thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence
that he has destroyed them."
This figure is far higher than most independent estimates. The former
chief weapons inspector for UNSCOM stated that at least 95% of Iraq’s
chemical weapons had been accounted for and destroyed by 1998. With
the embargo preventing the import of new materials, satellites eyeing
possible sites for new production, and the return of UN inspectors,
it is highly dubious that Iraq could develop an offensive chemical weapons
arsenal, particularly since virtually all of their ballistic missiles
capable of carrying such weapons have also been accounted for and destroyed.
In addition, if Saddam Hussein’s possession of chemical weapons is really
such a major concern for the U.S. government, why did the United States
send Iraq tons of toxic chemicals during the 1980s, even when it became
apparent that they were being used for weapons?
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s
that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program,
had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different
methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."
True. What the president failed to mention is that in 1998 the International
Atomic Energy Agency also reported that Iraq’s nuclear capability had
been completely dismantled. More recently, IAEA director El-Baradei,
in his January 27 report to the UN Security Council, reported there
was no evidence to suggest that Iraq had resumed its nuclear program.
" Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
As "60 Minutes" and other independent investigations have revealed,
these aluminum tubes also have commercial applications. The IAEA has
investigated the matter and has reported that there is no evidence to
suggest they were intended for a nuclear program.
"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths,
spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of
mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible
use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or
attack"
This is hardly the "only possible explanation." The most likely reason
for a country in a heavily-armed region within missile range of two
nuclear powers to pursue weapons of mass destruction is for deterrence.
Even the CIA has reported that there is little chance that Iraq would
use WMDs for offensive purposes in the foreseeable future. By contrast,
so says this CIA analysis, there is a far greater risk that Saddam Hussein
would use whatever WMDs he may possess in the event of a U.S. invasion,
when deterrence has clearly failed and he no longer has anything to
lose.
"And this Congress and the America people must recognize another
threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and
statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids
and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and
without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to
terrorists, or help them develop their own."
Reports from the State Department, the CIA and other intelligence agencies
have found no credible proof of any links between the Islamist al Qaeda
movement and the secular Iraqi government. In fact, they have been at
odds with each other for many years. Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism
peaked in the 1980s, when the U.S. dropped Iraq from its list of states
sponsoring terrorism in order to make the regime eligible to receive
U.S. military and technological assistance. Furthermore, most biological
weapons – the only WMDs threat that Iraq realistically might possess
at this point – do leave fingerprints and could easily be traced to
Iraq.
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam
Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and
shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19
hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam
Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into
this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never
comes."
Again, there is no evidence of any connection between Saddam Hussein
and Osama bin Laden, who has called the Iraqi dictator "an apostate,
an infidel, and a traitor to Islam." Iraq has never threatened nor been
implicated in any attack against U.S. territory and the CIA has reported
no Iraqi-sponsored attacks against American interests since 1991. It
is always easy to think of worst case scenarios, but no country has
the right to invade another on the grounds that the other country might
some day possess weapons that they might decide to pass on to someone
else who might use these weapons against them.
"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons
has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his
own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how
forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their
parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued
other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock,
burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric
drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil
has no meaning."
The use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi armed forces against Kurdish
villages took place in the 1980s when the U.S. was backing Saddam Hussein’s
government. The U.S. even covered up for the Halabja massacres and similar
atrocities by falsely claiming it was the Iranians – then the preferred
enemy – who were responsible. Human rights organizations have indeed
reported torture and other human rights abuses by the Iraqi regime and
did so back in the 1980s when the U.S. was supporting it. As a result,
one can only assume that this professed concern about human rights abuses
is insincere, particularly since the Bush Administration is currently
sending military and police aid to repressive regimes such as Indonesia,
Uzbekistan, Colombia, Egypt and others that are guilty of similar human
rights abuses. If President Bush really thinks that this constitutes
evil, why does he support governments that engage in such crimes?
"We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam
Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for
the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him".
To invade Iraq without authorization of the United Nations Security
Council would be direct violation of fundamental legal norms and would
make the United States an international outlaw. A unilateral U.S. invasion
and the repercussions of such an act of aggression would be a far greater
threat to the safety of Americans and the peace of the world than maintaining
the current UN strategy of rigorous inspections, military sanctions
and deterrence.
"Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the
peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling
in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In
those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training
has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America,
and America believes in you."
No doubt the thousands of armed forces personnel currently assembling
in that region do believe in America. Hopefully, America will believe
in them enough to not abandon them as they did the veterans of the previous
war against Iraq who suffer the debilitating effects of Gulf War Syndrome
without the support and recognition of the government that sent them
into combat. It is also ironic to hear such high praise of the men and
women readying for combat from a man who – despite his support for the
Vietnam War – refused to fight in it, instead using family connections
to get into a National Guard unit from which he was AWOL for much of
his time of service. In addition, it is Orwellian to claim that an army
poised to bomb and invade a sovereign nation are there to "keep the
peace." The best way American servicemen and servicewomen can keep the
peace would be to refuse to obey any illegal orders of their commander-in-chief
that command them to fight in an illegitimate war.
"We seek peace. We strive for peace... If war is forced upon us,
we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every
way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight
with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we
will prevail."
The palpable eagerness of the Bush Administration to go to war belies
any claims of seeking peace. Iraq has neither attacked nor threatened
the United States, so it cannot be said that war is being forced upon
the country. Virtually all of America’s allies oppose this threat of
war. In the United States, the Catholic bishops and every mainline Protestant
denomination have gone on record declaring that a U.S. invasion would
not constitute a just war, a sentiment echoed by religious leaders around
the world. The U.S. record of sparing the innocent in its recent wars
has been quite poor, with upwards to 5000 civilians killed in the first
Gulf War, an estimated 500 civilians in Yugoslavia and approximately
3000 civilians in Afghanistan. Most scenarios predict a far higher level
of civilian casualties in a U.S. invasion of Iraq, particularly should
American troops have to seize Baghdad – a city of five million – by
force.
"And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan,
we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies --
and freedom".
The United States has spent only a miserly amount of money for food,
medicine and other humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan relative to
the billions of dollars spent to bomb that country. Despite greater
political pluralism in Afghanistan under the post-Taliban regime, most
of the country is not enjoying freedom, but is subjected to the abuse
of war lords, opium magnates and ethnic militias that have gained in
power since the U.S. intervention.
"Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of
our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the
world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in
the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we
sacrifice for the liberty of strangers."
The character and resoluteness of the American people is worthy of
praise. Unfortunately, the United States government has frequently used
its military and economic power to suppress liberty, such as supporting
the overthrow of democratically-elected governments in countries like
Guatemala and Chile while backing scores of dictatorial regimes throughout
the world. The United States has also used powerful international financial
institutions to force poor countries to weaken environmental and labor
laws to enhance the profits of U.S-based multinational corporations.
"Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right
of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize
is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity."
What would God think of a government that supplies more weapons, training
and logistical support to more dictatorships and other human rights
abusers than any other? If freedom and liberty are indeed the will of
God, the foreign policy of the Bush Administration is nothing short
of blasphemy.
Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the
Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.
He is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project and
is the author of the recently released book Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East
Policy and the Roots of Terrorism www.commoncouragepress.com
Making Money, the Bush Way
by Robert Scheer La Times February 19, 2002
You have to hand it to George Bush the senior for hustle. Back in 1998,
he took at least $80,000 in stock from Global Crossing in return for
speaking for the company in Tokyo. The payment was made as the company
was about to go public and the stock's value quickly multiplied 175-fold
to $14 million. Maybe some congressional committee will turn up how
much of that stock the former president sold before the company went
belly up a few weeks ago.
But that score was nothing compared with the elder Bush's own global
crossings as a highly paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, a $12-billion
equity investment firm heavy into the defense and energy games. Carlyle's
chairman, Frank Carlucci, who was Reagan's Defense secretary, is a close
friend of the current secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, his Princeton wrestling
partner. The Carlyle company roster also includes top vets of the first
Bush administration, led by ex-Secretary of State James Baker--a political
gunslinger who worked hard on George W. Bush's postelection campaign
to secure Florida's electoral votes and the White House. In fact, the
government alums in the Carlyle Group are so well connected internationally
that, until Sept. 11, the group was even trusted to invest the funds
of the Bin Laden family--although not those controlled by the family
black sheep, who is charged with slaughtering several thousand innocents
using Saudi recruits and money. The elder Bush himself is well connected
with the Saudis, having fought the Gulf War to save the royal kingdom
from being gobbled up by wicked Saddam Hussein.
Last year, after George W. assumed the presidency, grateful Saudis
welcomed his Poppy and his colleagues from the Carlyle Group who were
in town to sign new contracts based on oil wealth. Hey, fair is fair:
Bush the senior had saved the sheiks' bacon and now they give him a
slice.
Most former presidents putter around their presidential libraries,
getting in a game of golf or two while they shuffle papers for their
memoirs. Then there's Jimmy Carter, trying to atone for sins he didn't
commit in office by becoming a carpenter for the poor, and poor Bill
Clinton who still has to prove to right-wing talk show nuts and their
spokespersons in Congress that his wife didn't steal the White House
silverware. Nothing like that for George, who has returned to the spirit
of his early days, when he used the connections of his family name to
strike it rich in the Texas oil fields. This time, the big prize lies
in the defense budget. With his son the president defending the biggest
military buildup since the darkest days of the Cold War by pointing
to the grim work of Saudi-sponsored terrorists, no weapons system is
too gaudy or implausible to be embraced with bipartisan fervor. That's
fortunate for the buddies of the president's father over at Carlyle,
who have invested heavily in military equipment without military purpose.
Take the 80,000-lb Crusader howitzer cannon designed to defeat the tanks
of the Soviet army in a conventional war in Central Europe. As a candidate,
even George W. Bush made fun of the antiquated weapon as he campaigned
on the principle of a leaner, more efficient military built for modern
wars. But perhaps nobody had told him that the Crusader is being built
by a defense contractor called United Defense, owned by the Carlyle
Group. Clinton, on the advice of the Pentagon, was set to bury the weapon
as a Cold War artifact. Now Bush the younger has embraced it--and Carlyle
suddenly found the confidence to take United Defense public after holding
off for a decade. No biggie. What's $11 billion for the Crusader in
a defense budget designed to grow to $451 billion by 2007? Only a bleeding
heart pinko pacifist would point out that $11 billion is what this "education"
president is planning to spend on educating the nation's poor children
under next year's Title I appropriation. But hey, child poverty is not
the Carlyle Group's business.
Florida's flawed "voter-cleansing" program
Secretary of State Katherine Harris hired a firm to vet the rolls for
felons, but that may have wrongly kept thousands, particularly blacks,
from casting ballots.
By
Gregory Palast
- - - - - - - - - -
December 04, 2000 | If Vice President Al Gore is wondering
where his Florida votes went, rather than sift through a pile of chad,
he might want to look at a "scrub list" of 173,000 names targeted to
be knocked off the Florida voter registry by a division of the office
of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. A close examination
suggests thousands of voters may have lost their right to vote based
on a flaw-ridden list that included purported "felons" provided by a
private firm with tight Republican ties.
Early in the year, the company, ChoicePoint,
gave Florida officials a list with the names of 8,000 ex-felons to "scrub"
from their list of voters. But it turns out none on the list were guilty
of felonies, only misdemeanors. The company acknowledged the error,
and blamed it on the original source of the list -- the state of Texas.
Florida officials moved to put those falsely
accused by Texas back on voter rolls before the election. Nevertheless,
the large number of errors uncovered in individual counties suggests
that thousands of eligible voters may have been turned away at the polls.
Florida is the only state that pays a private
company that promises to "cleanse" voter rolls.The state signed in 1998
a $4 million contract with DBT Online, since merged into ChoicePoint,
of Atlanta. The creation of the scrub list, called the central voter
file, was mandated by a 1998 state voter fraud law, which followed a
tumultuous year that saw Miami's mayor removed after voter fraud in
the election, with dead people discovered to have cast ballots. The
voter fraud law required all 67 counties to purge voter registries of
duplicate registrations, deceased voters and felons, many of whom, but
not all, are barred from voting in Florida.
In the process, however, the list invariably
targets a minority population in Florida, where 31 percent of all black
men cannot vote because of a ban on felons. In compiling a list by looking
at felons from other states, Florida could, in the process, single out
citizens who committed felons in other states but, after serving their
time or successfully petitioning the courts, had their voting rights
returned to them. According to Florida law, felons can vote once their
voting rights have been reinstated.
And if this unfairly singled out minorities,
it unfairly handicapped Gore: In Florida, 93 percent of African-Americans
voted for the vice president.
In the 10 counties contacted by Salon, use
of the central voter file seemed to vary wildly. Some found the list
too unreliable and didn't use it at all. But most counties appear to
have used the file as a resource to purge names from their voter rolls,
with some counties making little -- or no -- effort at all to alert
the "purged" voters. Counties that did their best to vet the file discovered
a high level of errors, with as many as 15 percent of names incorrectly
identified as felons.
News coverage has focused on some maverick
Florida counties that decided not to use the central voter file, essentially
breaking the law and possibly letting some ineligible felons vote. On
Friday, the Miami Herald reported that after researching voter records
in 12 Florida counties -- but primarily in Palm Beach and Duval counties,
which didn't use the file -- it found that more than 445 felons had
apparently cast ballots in the presidential election.
But Palm Beach and Duval weren't the only
counties to dump the list after questioning its accuracy. Madison County's
elections supervisor, Linda Howell, had a peculiarly personal reason
for distrusting the central voter file: She had received a letter saying
that since she had committed a felony, she would not be allowed to vote.
Howell, who said she has never committed a
felony, said the letter she received in March shook her faith in the
process. "It really is a mess," she said.
"I was very upset," Howell said. "I know I'm
not a felon." Though the mistake did get corrected and law enforcement
officials were quite apologetic, Howell decided not to use the state
list anymore because its "information is so flawed." She's unsure of
the number of warning letters that were sent out to county residents
when she first received the list in 1999, but she recalls that there
were many problems. "One day we would send a letter to have someone
taken off the rolls, and the next day, we would send one to put them
back on again," Howell said. "It makes you look like you must be a dummy."
Dixie and Washington counties also refused
to use the scrub lists. Starlet Cannon, Dixie's deputy assistant supervisor
of elections, said, "I'm scared to work with it because of lot of the
information they have on there is not accurate." Carol Griffin, supervisor
of elections for Washington, said, "It hasn't been accurate in the past,
so we had no reason to suspect it was accurate this year."
But if some counties refused to use the list
altogether, others seemed to embrace it all too enthusiastically. Etta
Rosado, spokeswoman for the Volusia County Department of Elections,
said the county essentially accepted the file at face value, did nothing
to confirm the accuracy of it and doesn't inform citizens ahead of time
that they have been dropped from the voter rolls.
"When we get the con felon list, we automatically
start going through our rolls on the computer. If there's a name that
says John Smith was convicted of a felony, then we enter a notation
on our computer that says convicted felon -- we mark an "f" for felon
-- and the date that we received it," Rosado said. "They're still on
our computer, but they're on purge status," meaning they have been marked
ineligible to vote.
"I don't think that it's up to us to tell
them they're a convicted felon," Rosado said. "If he's on our rolls,
we make a notation on there. If they show up at a polling place, we'll
say, 'Wait a minute, you're a convicted felon, you can't vote. Nine
out of 10 times when we repeat that to the person, they say 'Thank you'
and walk away. They don't put up arguments." Rosado doesn't know how
many people in Volusia were dropped from the list as a result of being
identified as felons.
Hillsborough County's elections supervisor,
Pam Iorio, tried to make sure that that the bugs in the system didn't
keep anyone from voting. All 3,258 county residents who were identified
as possible felons on the central voter file sent by the state in June
were sent a certified letter informing them that their voting rights
were in jeopardy. Of that number, 551 appealed their status, and 245
of those appeals were successful. Some had been convicted of a misdemeanor
and not a felony, others were felons who had had their rights restored
and others were simply cases of mistaken identity.
An additional 279 were not close matches with
names on the county's own voter rolls and were not notified. Of the
3,258 names on the original list, therefore, the county concluded that
more than 15 percent were in error. If that ratio held statewide, no
fewer than 7,000 voters were incorrectly targeted for removal from voting
rosters.
Iorio says local officials did not get adequate
preparation for purging felons from their rolls. "We're not used to
dealing with issues of criminal justice or ascertaining who has a felony
conviction," she said. Though the central voter file was supposed to
facilitate the process, it was often more troublesome than the monthly
circuit court lists that she had previously used to clear her rolls
of duplicate registrations, the deceased and convicted felons. "The
database from the state level is not always accurate," Iorio said. As
a consequence, her county did its best to notify citizens who were on
the list about their felony status. "We sent those individuals a certified
letter, we put an ad in a local newspaper and we held a public hearing.
For those who didn't respond to that, we sent out another letter by
regular mail," Iorio said. "That process lasted several months."
"We did run some number stats and the number
of blacks [on the list] was higher than expected for our population,"
says Chuck Smith, a statistician for the county. Iorio acknowledged
that African-Americans made up 54 percent of the people on the original
felons list, though they constitute only 11.6 percent of Hillsborough's
voting population.
Smith added that the DBT computer program
automatically transformed various forms of a single name. In one case,
a voter named "Christine" was identified as a felon based on the conviction
of a "Christopher" with the same last name. Smith says ChoicePoint would
not respond to queries about its proprietary methods. Nor would the
company provide additional verification data to back its fingering certain
individuals in the registry purge. One supposed felon on the ChoicePoint
list is a local judge.
While there was much about the lists that
bothered Iorio, she felt she didn't have a choice but to use them. And
she's right. Section 98.0975 of the Florida Constitution states:
"Upon receiving the list from the division,
the supervisor must attempt to verify the information provided. If the
supervisor does not determine that the information provided by the division
is incorrect, the supervisor must remove from the registration books
by the next subsequent election the name of any person who is deceased,
convicted of a felony or adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect
to voting."
But the counties have interpreted that law
in different ways. Leon County used the central voter file sent in January
2000 to clean up its voter rolls, but set aside the one it received
in July. According to Thomas James, the information systems officer
in the county election office, the list came too late for the information
to be processed.
According to Leon election supervisor Ion
Sancho, "there have been some problems" with the file. Using the information
received in January, Sancho sent 200 letters to county voters, by regular
mail, telling them they had been identified by the state as having committed
a felony and would not be allowed to vote. They were given 30 days to
respond if there was an error. "They had the burden of proof," he says.
He says 20 people proved that they did not belong on the list, and a
handful of angry phone calls followed on Election Day. "Some people
threatened to sue us," he said, "but we haven't had any lawyers calling
yet."
In Orange County, officials also sent letters
to those identified as felons by the state, but they appear to have
taken little care in their handling of the list. "I have no idea," said
June Condrun, Orange's deputy supervisor of elections, when asked how
many letters were sent out to voters. After a bit more thought, Condrun
responded that "several hundred" of the letters were sent, but said
she doesn't know how many people complained. Those who did call, she
said, were given the phone number of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement
so that they could appeal directly to it.
Many Orange County voters never got the chance
to appeal in any form. Condrun noted that about one-third of the letters,
which the county sent out by regular mail, were returned to the office
marked undeliverable. She attributed the high rate of incorrect addresses
to the age of the information sent by DBT, some of which was close to
20 years old, she said.
Miami-Dade County officials may have had similar
trouble. Milton Collins, assistant supervisor of elections, said he
isn't comfortable estimating how many accused felons were identified
by the central voter file in his county. He said he knows that about
6,000 were notified, by regular mail, about an early list in 1999. Exactly
how many were purged from the list? "I honestly couldn't tell you,"
he said. According to Collins, the most recent list he received from
the state was one sent in January 2000, and the county applied a "two-pass
system": If the information on the state list seemed accurate enough
when comparing names with those on county voter lists, people were classified
as felons and were then sent warning letters. Those who seemed to have
only a partial match with the state data were granted "temporary inactive
status." Both groups of people were given 90 days to respond or have
their names struck from the rolls.
But Collins said the county has no figures
for how many voters were able to successfully appeal their designation
as felons.
ChoicePoint spokesman Martin Fagan concedes
his company's error in passing on the bogus list from Texas. ("I guess
that's a little bit embarrassing in light of the election," he says.)
He defends the company's overall performance, however, dismissing the
errors in 8,000 names as "a minor glitch -- less than one-tenth of 1
percent of the electorate" (though the total equals 15 times Gov. George
W. Bush's claimed lead over Gore). But he added that ChoicePoint is
responsible only for turning over its raw list, which is then up to
Florida officials to test and correct.
Last year, DBT Online, with which ChoicePoint
would soon merge, received the unprecedented contract from the state
of Florida to "cleanse" registration lists of ineligible voters -- using
information gathering and matching criteria it has refused to disclose,
even to local election officials in Florida.
Atlanta's ChoicePoint, a highflying dot-com
specializing in sales of personal information gleaned from its database
of 4 billion public and not-so-public records, has come under fire for
misuse of private data from government computers. In January, the state
of Pennsylvania terminated a contract with ChoicePoint after discovering
the firm had sold citizens' personal profiles to unauthorized individuals.
Fagan says many errors could have been eliminated
by matching the Social Security numbers of ex-felons on DBT lists to
the Social Security numbers on voter registries. However, Florida's
counties have Social Security numbers on only a fraction of their voter
records. So with those two problems -- Social Security numbers missing
in both the DBT's records and the counties' records -- that fail-safe
check simply did not exist.
In its defense, the company proudly points
to an award it received from Voter Integrity Inc. on April 1 for "innovative
excellence [in] cleansing" Florida voter rolls. The conservative, nonprofit
advocacy organization has campaigned in parallel with the Republican
Party against the 1993 motor voter law that resulted in a nationwide
increase in voter registration of 7 million, much of it among minority
voters. DBT Online partnered with Voter Integrity Inc. three days later,
setting up a program to let small counties "scrub" their voting lists,
too.
Florida is the only state in the nation to
contract the first stage of removal of voting rights to a private company.
And ChoicePoint has big plans. "Given the outcome of our work in Florida,"
says Fagan, "and with a new president in place, we think our services
will expand across the country."
Especially if that president is named "Bush."
ChoicePoint's board and executive roster are packed with Republican
stars, including billionaire Ken Langone, a company director who was
chairman of the fund-raising committee for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's
aborted run against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Langone is joined at ChoicePoint
by another Giuliani associate, former New York Police Commissioner Howard
Safir. And Republican power lobbyist and former congressman Vin Weber
lobbies for ChoicePoint in Washington. Just before his death in 1998,
Rick Rozar, president of a Choicepoint company, CDB Infotek, donated
$100,000 to the Republican Party.
(Alicia Montgomery, Daryl Lindsey and Anthony
York contributed to this story.)
Scandal America
The scandal that has left the credibility of American politics in shreds
By Andrew Gumbel
25 January 200
When you think of Texas and melodrama, you tend to think of Dallas.
But the Texan city that's currently providing all the prime-time intrigue,
back-stabbing and sudden reversals of fortune – on a colossal,
improbably scale – is Houston. And, in contrast to the adventures
of JR, Sue Ellen and friends, this is for real. Houston today is a city
living on its nerves. The lawyers, accountants and political lobbyists
who used to enjoy long lunches and fat cigars together are at each other's
throats. Thousands of well-to-do families with appearances to keep up
and mortgages to pay off have been thrown into destitution. The golf
courses are deserted, the country clubs sombre as a funeral party.
The very emblems of the city are at risk, from the ball park to the
ballet, because the corporation that bankrolled them all and made Houston
proud has sunk into a vortex of bad debts, lawsuits, rip-offs extraordinaire,
and scandal reaching into the furthest corners of national politics.
It has been just over a month since the energy trading company Enron
– once America's seventh largest corporation and the emblem of
the new economy, George Bush style – filed for bankruptcy following
revelations of major accounting irregularities and the overnight collapse
of investor confidence. But the fall-out is just beginning.
In the past 48 hours, the man who symbolised Enron's meteoric rise
by hobnobbing with presidents and steamrollering every conceivable government
regulation out of his way, company chairman Kenneth Lay has been forced
to resign. The FBI has been all over Enron's corporate headquarters
because of allegations of wholesale shredding of incriminating documents,
even after the company was ordered to stop doing it.
Suddenly, the Enron name has been transformed from a badge of pride
into a cancer eating away at everything it touches. Flagrant conflicts
of interest and the whiff of legalised bribery abound at every turn.
Most recently, the man who succeeded Mr Bush as Texas governor, Rick
Perry, has been flailing around for days over the question of how he
came to name the outgoing head of Enron's Mexico operations to the main
state energy regulation body in apparent violation of even Texas's notoriously
lax guidelines on public appointments. (The commissioner has now stepped
down.)
The chief justice of Texas's state Supreme Court, meanwhile, has gone
through verbal hoops to explain how he and seven of his fellow judges
accepted almost $100,000 in electoral campaign money from Enron over
the past eight years, even as they presided over cases in which Enron
had a direct interest in the outcome. Intriguingly, Chief Justice Tom
Phillips argues that the real impropriety would be to return the money.
"To return contributions now from one group years after they were made,"
he said in a formal statement that must rank as one of the great classics
of weaselly self-justification, "could signal that the justices had
prejudged any dispute against Enron that might come before us."
Enron's spectacular collapse has now begun to shake the very foundations
of American politics. We are not, after all, just talking about some
relatively obscure financial transaction that may or may not have involved
the man currently occupying the Oval Office. We are talking about the
one-time darling of the stock market, the symbol of everything bright
and hopeful in corporate America, being revealed as the perpetrator
of a grand accounting hoax, in which a handful of senior executives
made themselves inordinately rich while sticking it to their rank-and-file
employees and, in effect, paying the politicians and regulators to look
the other way.
We are talking about a company that managed to insinuate itself into
every level of public life, from the sponsorship of local political
races in Texas to the hiring of corporate consultants who went on to
take prominent roles in the Bush White House. We are talking –
perhaps most significantly – about a generalised system of corporate
influence-peddling and back-scratching spreading far beyond Enron, a
system that has reached epidemic proportions in American public life
and which, with Enron's fall, is now being widely exposed as a public
outrage and a gigantic scam. Anybody who doubts this – anybody
who thinks that the scandal is just an ordinary political one that will
leave as little mark on George Bush's presidency as the dodgy Whitewater
land deal ultimately did on Bill Clinton's – need look no further
than the extraordinary list of people who have already been tainted,
embarrassed or otherwise caught with their pants down, even at this
relatively early stage.
The rot is spread deep and wide: to the federal judge who, until a
sudden change of heart this week, saw no reason to recuse herself from
46 Enron-related cases even though she has disclosed "long-standing
friendships" with two of the lawyers representing Enron, including one
who was best man at her wedding; to the Republican Senator from Texas,
Phil Gramm, who happily worked to lift federal regulations on energy
trading even as his wife Wendy served on Enron's board of directors;
to the hundreds of congressmen on both sides of the aisle who have been
taking Enron money (three quarters of the Senate and almost half of
the House) and who now have to try to launch congressional investigations
into the debacle even as they seek to avoid any taint of personal wrong-doing.
That is not to mention the White House itself, where no fewer than
35 administration officials have declared that they owned Enron stock
at some point, in some cases running into the hundreds of thousands
of dollars, and several senior figures, including the US Trade Representative,
Robert Zoellick, and the White House economic adviser, Larry Lindsey,
who served as paid Enron consultants before entering government. Mr
Lindsey has been particularly active in blending his political and his
commercial interests. For much of 2000 he remained on the Enron payroll,
even as he was in charge of the economic platform on which Mr Bush was
running for president. And late last year, before the catastrophic nature
of Enron's problems became public, he took it upon himself to conduct
an investigation into the possible wider economic fallout of a major
energy company – he insists he had no particular one in mind –
going bankrupt overnight.
At least until recently, it was never much of a secret that Enron would
be a major policy player in the Bush administration. The new president
was on first-name terms with Enron's chief executive, Kenneth Lay (he
called him Kenny Boy), and was widely known to share his deregulation-happy
philosophy. Indeed, part of the reason Mr Bush had some trouble filling
the post of Energy Secretary was that Washington insiders believed Mr
Lay would be the de facto holder of that office.
The precise extent of Enron's influence over the past year is now a
matter for congressional investigation. The White House has disclosed
that there were at least six meetings between Enron and administration
officials ahead of the energy plan unveiled by Vice President Dick Cheney
last May. And Mr Cheney made efforts to help Enron collect a $64m debt
on an energy project in India on a recent state visit.
Perhaps more significantly, just about every energy-related decision
to come out of the administration has reflected Enron's priorities:
the push to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration;
the encouragement of mining and logging on public lands; the determination
to resist conservation policies; and the unilateral decision to withdraw
from the Kyoto Protocol on curbing global warming. The energy plan echoed
Enron's line on 17 key points, including a favourable assessment of
electricity deregulation – a policy that has earned Enron billions
of dollars but which has played havoc with consumer markets, notably
in California. Even the economic stimulus package now under consideration
in Congress, a package supposed to pull the country out of recession
and lift the grim post-11 September mood, offers Enron tax breaks and
other concessions worth $254m – more than any other company.
The scandal would be bad enough if it was just about Enron, but it
goes deeper than that, to a whole nexus of political and economic interests
which, in common with Mr Bush and to some degree in concert with him,
used Texas as a springboard to broaden their influence on the national
and international stage. The recent revelations about Enron – the
hidden debts and offshore subsidiaries, the years of unpaid taxes and
the brutal manner in which employees were barred from selling company
stock at the crucial moment of meltdown, leaving their retirement packages
virtually worthless – have sucked in at least two other major institutions.
The first is Arthur Andersen, the Big Five accounting firm responsible
for auditing Enron, which knew of its client's troubles at least as
far back as last February but kept defending Enron's erroneous financial
statements and even took the extraordinary decision to shred hundreds
of Enron documents when it became clear the jig was up. Yesterday, David
Duncan, the former Andersen partner who has been blamed for the shredding,
refused to testify before Congress, citing the Fifth Amendment. Jim
Greenwood, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on
oversight and investigations, told him: "Enron robbed the bank, Arthur
Andersen provided the getaway car, and they say you were at the wheel."
The second, less well known institution is the Houston-based law firm
Vinson & Elkins, which did $455 million in legal work for Enron
last year and is a familiar player in corporate lobbying circles in
Austin, the Texas state capital. V&E has not been accused of any
ethical lapses to date, but it has been shown up for its spectacularly
bad judgement. In October it conducted an investigation into Enron's
finances following a warning letter written to Mr Lay by a company vice
president, Sharron Watkins, expressing fears that the company was on
extremely shaky ground. V&E, who were consulted by Mr Lay against
Ms Watkins' advice, approvingly described Enron's network of affiliates
and secret partnerships as "creative and aggressive". "No one has reason
to believe that it is inappropriate from a technical standpoint," the
V&E report added, neglecting to notice that the creative accounting
had kept some $600 million of debt off the company balance sheet (a
"false and misleading" practice, according to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, which is also investigating).
What could prove most damaging to Mr Bush is the fact that all these
companies were part of a close-knit corporate culture whose dominance
in Houston, Texas's business capital, went unquestioned for years. Andersen
successfully lobbied to lift the ban on audit firms acting as consultants
for their clients, and promptly went to work for Enron. V&E, meanwhile,
serviced them both and joined in their various lobbying efforts to lift
all kinds of government regulations on business. Crucially, all three
companies were massive donors to Mr Bush's various campaigns. Enron
has given more than $500,000 since Mr Bush's first run at Texas governor
in 1994. V&E gave $335,000, and Anderson another $230,000. No fewer
than five individuals from the three companies, including Mr Lay and
a managing partner from Andersen laid off last week for his role in
the document-shredding debacle, were named as "Pioneers" by the 2000
presidential campaign team because they each raised more than $100,000
for the Bush coffers.
For a long time, it all seemed so cosy. The lawyers, accountants, corporate
lobbyists and political operatives all lived in the same swanky Houston
neighbourhoods. They all played golf together, sat on the boards of
the same charities, went to the Enron-sponsored Houston opera, had their
cancer treated at the Enron Clinic and watched ball games at the city's
proudly named baseball stadium, Enron Field. They enjoyed power lunches
at Tony's (house speciality: truffle-scented baby hen) and took frequent
lobbying trips to Austin and Washington. After all, the politicians
seemed so willing to do their bidding: for a few hundred thousand dollars
in campaign contributions, tax breaks and business opportunities opened
up like Ali Baba's cave of treasures in the Arabian Nights. When Mr
Bush took office a year ago, their prospects only looked sweeter. After
all, the whole direction of the Republican Party had shifted markedly
towards the energy industry (both Bush and Cheney are former oilmen)
and towards Texas (thanks partly to the president, but also to such
influential Texan figures as Senator Gramm, the House Majority Leader,
Dick Armey, and the House Chief Whip, Tom DeLay).
Clearly, the companies overreached, and the system they exploited so
effectively is now turning to bite them on the backside. The Enron meltdown
may be having a traumatic effect on those who chose to get caught up
in the headiness in the first place, but it also feels like a long-anticipated
vindication to the few watchdogs brave enough to have kept an eye on
the orgy of political spending over the years and to denounce the effective
sale of American democracy to the highest bidder.
"Their attitude was, they throw money like most others take a piss,
two or three times a day, wherever it lands they don't care, it's going
to do them some good somewhere," said a characteristically colourful
Jim Hightower, a former Texas politician turned populist author and
radio commentator. "What's going on now has ripped the mask off the
whole corrupt system. These are delicious times, to see them squirm
like this."
There is almost certainly more to come, and one place to look for signs
of trouble could be Halliburton, the oil company that Vice President
Cheney ran for five years before jumping back on to the election campaign
trail. Like Enron, Halliburton's shares have been in free fall since
last summer, losing 75 per cent of their value – the reason being
the looming threat of an astonishing 260,000 asbestos-related lawsuits.
Like Enron, Halliburton has been a generous political donor, funnelling
almost $500,000 to congressional candidates in the past four years,
much of it to support representatives who wanted to limit the ability
of workers to sue companies for asbestos exposure. And of course it
has close ties to the Bush administration – aside from the Cheney
connection, its board includes Lawrence Eagleburger, who Secretary of
State under the first President Bush.
This scandal season will almost certainly not result in an easy political
"gotcha!" – a clear instance of illegality with the power to bring
down a senior politician. The Enron debacle is likely to be too murky,
too wrapped in swirls of obsfuscation, for any realistic chance of that.
In any case, the point is not what political leaders may have done illegally.
The point is how much they are being seen to get away with perfectly
legally under the present set of campaign finance rules. It is the shamelessness
of the system that is likely to anger the public most effectively. And
that will be the biggest liability of all for the man in the Oval Office.
Connect
the Enron Dots to Bush
by
Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times December 11, 2001
Enron
is Whitewater in spades. This isn't just some rinky-dink land investment
like the one dredged up by right-wing enemies to haunt the Clinton White
House -- but rather it has the makings of the greatest presidential
scandal since the Teapot Dome.
The
Bush administration has a long and intimate relationship with Enron,
whose much-discredited chairman, Kenneth L. Lay, was a primary financial
backer of George W. Bush's rise to the presidency.
It
was Enron that provided the model for the administration's trickle-down
attempt to revive an economy that's been in steep decline during Bush's
tenure. That model gives the fat-cat corporate hotshots everything they
want in return for bankrolling political campaigns. Not to worry about
the rest of us because, hey, what's good for Enron is good for America.
That it hasn't been is now painfully clear.
What
did Enron get in return for its contributions? It got its way on deregulation,
for one thing. Remember when the administration refused to assist California
and other states during the energy crisis, and consumers paid the steep
price?
So
greedy was Enron that it locked its own workers into a pension plan
based on inflated company stock values and suspect hidden partnerships,
while the top leadership led by Lay made out like bandits.
Bush
should be called as a witness in the congressional hearings scheduled
to unravel this mess. One thing that should come up in the hearings
is then-Gov. Bush's October 1997 telephone call on behalf of Lay to
then-Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge to help Enron crack into the tightly
regulated Pennsylvania electricity market.
"I
called George W. to kind of tell him what was going on," Lay told
the New York Times about the 1997 phone call, "and I said that
it would be very helpful to Enron, which is obviously a large company
in the state of Texas, if he could just call the governor [of Pennsylvania]
and tell him [Enron] is a serious company, this is a professional company,
a good company."
Since
we now know Enron lacked those virtues, it's clear Bush was used to
sell a bill of goods to the unsuspecting Pennsylvania folks.
That
Lay was instrumental in Bush's rise to the presidency is indisputable.
Since 1993, Lay and top Enron executives donated nearly $2 million to
Bush. Lay also personally donated $326,000 in soft money to the Republican
Party in the three years prior to Bush's presidential bid, and he was
one of the Republican "pioneers" who raised $100,000 in smaller
contributions for Bush. Lay's wife donated $100,000 for inauguration
festivities.
As
governor, Bush did what Enron wanted, cutting taxes and deregulating
utilities. The deregulation ideology, which George W. long had adopted
as gospel, allowed dubious bookkeeping and other acts of chicanery that
shocked Wall Street and drove a $60-billion company, seventh on the
Fortune 500 list, into bankruptcy.
This
emerging scandal makes Whitewater seem puny in comparison; clearly there
ought to be at least as aggressive a congressional inquiry into the
connection between the Bush administration and the Enron debacle. Facts
must be revealed, beginning with the content of Lay's private meeting
with Vice President Dick Cheney to create the administration's energy
policy.
What
was Lay's role in the sudden replacement of Curtis Hebert Jr. as Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission chairman? As the New York Times reported,
Hebert "had barely settled into his new job this year when he had
an unsettling telephone conversation with Kenneth L. Lay, [in which
Lay] prodded him to back ... a faster pace in opening up access to the
electricity transmission grid to companies like Enron." Lay admits
making the call but in an unctuous defense of his influence peddling
said, "The final decision on [Hebert's job] was going to be the
president's, certainly not ours." Soon after, Hebert was replaced
by Texan Pat Wood, who was favored by Lay.
Other
questions: Was there any conflict of interest in the roles played by
key Bush aides? Political advisor Karl Rove owned as much as $250,000
in Enron stock. And economic advisor Larry Lindsay and Trade Representative
Robert B. Zoellick went straight from Enron's payroll to their federal
jobs.
There
are other Enron alum in the administration, including Army Secretary
Thomas White Jr., who, as an Enron executive, held stock and options
totaling $50 million to $100 million.
We
have a right to know whether the Enron alums in the administration were
tipped off in time to bail out with profit the way Lay and the other
Enron top execs did, while their workers and stockholders--and eventually
U.S. taxpayers--are being left holding the suddenly empty bag.
Robert Scheer writes a syndicated column.
Articles Impeaching: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft
Vote to Impeach. org
January 15, 2003
Articles of Impeachment
of
President George W. Bush
Vice President Richard B. Cheney
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
and
Attorney General John David Ashcroft
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers
of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
--Article II, Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States of
America.
Acts which require the impeachment of President George
W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald
H. Rumsfeld; and Attorney General John David Ashcroft include:
1) Ordering and directing a proclaimed "pre-emptive",
or "first strike" war of aggression against Afghanistan causing thousands
of deaths indiscriminately, a major proportion non combatants, leaving
millions homeless and hungry and installing a government of their choice
in Kabul.
2) Authorizing daily intrusions into the airspace of
Iraq by U.S. military aircraft in violation of the sovereignty of Iraq
and aerial attacks on facilities and persons, on the soil of Iraq, killing
hundreds of people indiscriminately, initially falsely claiming self
defense though over a period of eleven years not a single U.S. aircraft
has been struck or damaged by gunfire from Iraq, but later admitting
the targeting of defense installations in Iraq, as war preparations
they ordered progressed.
3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks
on civilians, civilians facilities and locations where civilian casualties
are unavoidable.
4) Threatening Iraq with proclaimed "pre-emptive",
or "first strike" attack and a war of aggression by overwhelming force
and military superiority including specific threats to use nuclear weapons
while engaged in a massive military build-up in nations and waters surrounding
Iraq.
5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of
Iraq by belligerently proclaiming an intention to change its government
by force while preparing to assault Iraq in a war of aggression.
6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations,
summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions
of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners
to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments
and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing
U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the
First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
7) Authorizing, directing and condoning bribery and
coercion of governments and individuals to cause them to act in violation
of their duty and the law, including to maintain and tighten enforcement
of economic sanctions against Iraq which continue to increase the death
rate of infants, children and elderly persons; to attack and kill designated
groups, or persons; to permit use of land, facilities, territorial waters,
or air space for U.S. attacks on Iraq; to vote, abstain in a vote, or
publicly proclaim support for a U.S. or U.N. attack on Iraq; to defect
from Iraq, or to falsely accuse it of weapons concealment to break down
opposition to a U.S. war of aggression; and to reject ratification of
the Treaty creating an International Criminal Court, or reject its jurisdiction
over the United States.
8) Making, ordering and condoning false statements
and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals
and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign
governments with false information; concealing information vital to
public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions
and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in
order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to
U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks by the U.S.
9) Violations and subversions of the Constitution of
the United States of America in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes
against peace and humanity and war crimes in "pre emptive" wars, first
strike attacks and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and
other nations by assuming powers of an imperial executive who is not
accountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary
and the people of the United States to prevent interferences with the
unlawful executive exercise of military power and economic coercion
against the international community.
10) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the
United Nations and international law in an attempt to commit with impunity
crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats
of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers
of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion
and other corrupt acts and by rejecting, violations and frustrating
compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international
law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise
of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.
Ramsey Clark
Former Attorney General of the United States of America
January 15, 2003
Downing The Diplomats
Jim Lobe writes for Inter Press Service,
an international newswire, and for Foreign
Policy in Focus, a joint project of the Washington-based Institute
for Policy Studies and the New Mexico-based Interhemispheric
Resource Center.
No sooner were the guns silenced in Baghdad
than they opened up back in Washington with a blistering volley by Newt
Gingrich on the State Department.
The former House Speaker's sweeping attack on Colin Powell's turf
-- especially the department's Near East Bureau -- marks the boldest
and most demagogic move yet by the neoconservatives who surround Pentagon
chief Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. This maneuver
was designed to gain control of policy and marginalize -- if not purge
-- their perceived enemies in the government bureaucracy.
Speaking at Neocon Central, otherwise known as the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI), Gingrich charged that the State Department was systematically
subverting President George W. Bush’s policy in the Middle East and
should be radically transformed. He singled out the Bureau of Near Eastern
Affairs -- long seen by the neocons as a bastion of anti-Israel, if
not anti-Semitic, Arab lovers -- by suggesting that its appointees to
the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq loomed as major threats to Bush’s
regional agenda.
"The people the State Department has sent to Iraq so far represent
the worst instincts of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs," he declared.
"They were promoted in a culture of propping up dictators, coddling
the corrupt and ignoring the secret police. They have a constituency
of Middle East governments deeply opposed to democracy in Iraq. Their
instinct is to create a weak Iraqi government that will not threaten
its Syrian, Iranian, Saudi and other dictatorial neighbors. This is
the exact opposite of the president’s stated goals."
The harshness of the attack reminded some of the "Who Lost China"
debate that helped launch Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy 50 years ago.
"Frankly, my mind goes back to the 1950s and what was considered a vicious
and unjustified and wrongheaded purge of the China hands in the State
Department," said Richard Murphy, a career diplomat who served as head
of the Near Eastern bureau under Reagan and has since been based at
the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "I think it is designed
to scare people into thinking that anyone who challenges the right wing
is going to suffer for it." Richard Armitage, Powell's Deputy, had a
different take on Gingrich's speech: "It's clear that Mr. Gingrich is
off his meds and out of therapy," he told a USA Today reporter.
"I’ve never seen a wholesale attack on America’s entire diplomatic
establishment like this," said Charles Kupchan, a National Security
Council officer under Clinton who teaches at Georgetown University.
"This is fundamentally about ideology and the efforts of the neocons
to institutionalize their victories over the moderate and liberal internationalists."
Indeed, Gingrich, stressing that Powell himself was not a target,
framed his attack in ideological terms, claiming that the State Department’s
worldview -- one of "process, politeness and accommodation" was not
compatible with the worldview of the Pentagon and presumably Bush himself,
one of "facts, values and outcomes."
He went on to blame the State Department for failing to reduce popular
opposition to Washington policies in Turkey, South Korea, Germany, France
and other ally countries. In contrast, he applauded the performance
of the Pentagon in lining up U.S. Gulf allies -- as if they were not
part of the Near East Bureau’s "dictatorial" constituency -- behind
the Iraq invasion. "The last seven months have involved six months of
diplomatic failure and one month of military success," he said. "The
first days after military victory indicate the pattern of diplomatic
failure is beginning once again and threatens to undo the effects of
military victory...."
He called Powell’s planned trip to Damascus "ludicrous" and the State
Department’s commitment to the "Quartet" -- the European Union, United
Nations and Russia, as well as the United States -- to implement its
"road map" for Israeli-Palestinian peace a "clear disaster" and "a deliberate
and systematic effort to undermine the president’s policies."
While Gingrich has a reputation for shooting from the hip, the fact
that a written summary of his remarks were provided in advance to The
Washington Post, which obligingly featured them on its front page,
makes it clear that the attack was premeditated and probably cleared
by top Pentagon officials whose war with the State Department has moved
into high gear.
Gingrich is a member of Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board and is close
not only to the Pentagon chief himself, but to Deputy Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz and the powerful former Board chairman, Richard Perle who,
like Gingrich, perches at AEI as a senior fellow.
Adding to the notion that Gingrich was not only speaking for himself,
Frank Gaffney, the director of the ultra-hawkish Center for Security
Policy, told CNBC Tuesday night, "There is a strong degree of concern
[in the Pentagon] that the president’s direction is not faithfully implemented
by the State Department. I’m delighted that Gingrich is bringing this
into the public domain."
The neocons -- particularly those like Perle and Undersecretary for
Defense Policy Douglas Feith who have strong ties to the right wing
of the Likud Party in Israel -- appear to see victory in Iraq as an
opportunity to push the State Department and its Near East bureau out
of the game once and for all.
For them, the Quartet and any diplomatic re-engagement with Syria
are seen as clear dangers to transforming the region according to their
wishes. The road to an acceptable Israeli-Palestinian settlement runs,
they think, not only through the domination of Baghdad, but through
Damascus, Tehran and even Riyadh, as well.
Now that the CIA has been sufficiently cowed to go along with weak
evidence about weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda connections
in Iraq, only the State Department and its regional experts lie in the
way.
As with much of neocon ideology, Gingrich's assertions of State Department
responsibility for diplomatic failures were questionable at best. He
blamed diplomatic gaffes with Turkey on the State Department, failing
to recognize that Wolfowitz played a highly visible and central role
in trying to line up Ankara’s support for the war.
Nor did Gingrich take into account the impact on foreign opinion of
various statements by his comrades-in-arms, including Bush’s early reference
to the anti-terrorism war as a "crusade," not to mention Rumsfeld’s
allusions to "so-called occupied territories," "old Europe" or Wolfowitz’s
tactless suggestion that "we need an Islamic reformation."
"Gingrich and company should look at themselves in the mirror," Kupchan
said. "If you ask who is it who has set most of the world against the
United States, it’s not the [State] Department; it’s the Pentagon and
the neo-cons."
Published: Apr 23 2003
Bush Ally Set to Profit From the War on Terror
Antony Barnett and Solomon Hughes
The Observer
Sunday 11 May 2003
James Woolsey, former CIA boss and influential adviser to
President George Bush, is a director of a US firm aiming to make millions
of dollars from the 'war on terror', The Observer can reveal.
Woolsey, one of the most high-profile hawks in the war against Iraq
and a key member of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is a director
of the Washington-based private equity firm Paladin Capital. The company
was set up three months after the terrorist attacks on New York and
sees the events and aftermath of September 11 as a business opportunity
which 'offer[s] substantial promise for homeland security investment'.
The first priority of Paladin was 'to invest in companies with immediate
solutions designed to prevent harmful attacks, defend against attacks,
cope with the aftermath of attack or disaster and recover from terrorist
attacks and other threats to homeland security'.
Paladin, which is expected to have raised $300 million from investors
by the end of this year, calculates that in the next few years the US
government will spend $60 billion on anti-terrorism that woul not have
been spent before September 11, and that corporations will spend twice
that amount to ensure their security and continuity in case of attack.
The involvement of one of the most prominent hawks in Washington with
a company standing to cash in on the fear of potential terror attacks
will raise eyebrows in some quarters.
In 2001 US Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz sent Woolsey to Europe,
where he argued the case for links existing between Saddam Hussein and
al-Qaeda. He was one of the main proponents of the theory that the anthrax
letter attacks in America were supported by Iraq's former dictator.
More recently Woolsey told CNN about Saddam's attempts to produce a
genetically modified strain of anthrax. He told the US broadcaster:
'I would be more worried over the mid to long term about biological
weapons, because the chemical gear, we're - I think we're pretty well
equipped to deal with. But there have been stories that Saddam has been
working on genetically modifying some of these biological agents, making
anthrax resistant to vaccines or antibiotics.'
Little evidence was provided for the Iraq link to the anthrax attacks
and the FBI is now investigating a lone US scientist whom it believes
was responsible. But Woolsey's assertions added to a political atmosphere
in which spending on equipment designed to protect individuals and firms
from terror was predicted to mushroom.
One of Paladin's first investments was $10.5m in AgION Technologies,
a firm devising anti-germ technology that it hopes will 'be the leader
in the fight against bacterial attacks initiated by terrorists on unsuspecting
civilian and military personnel'.
Woolsey is not alone among the members of the Pentagon's highly influential
Defence Policy Board to profit from America's war on terror.
The American watchdog, the Centre for Public Integrity, showed that
nine of the board's members have ties to defence contractors that won
more than $76bn in defence contracts in 2001 and 2002. Woolsey's fellow
neo-conservative, Richard Perle, had to resign his chairmanship of the
board because of conflicts of interest, although he remains a board
member.
The hawks and their money
DICK CHENEY, Vice President
Cheney once ran oil industry giant Halliburton whose subsidiary,
Kellogg Brown & Root, has won lucrative contracts in post-Saddam
Iraq. The Defence Department gave KBR exclusive rights to a $90m contract
to cater for the Americans who are working on rebuilding Iraq. KBR
also won a lucrative contract to repair Iraq's oilfields.
DONALD RUMSFELD, Defence Secretary
Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of European engineering giant
ABB when it won a £125m contract for two light water reactors to North
Korea - a country he now regards as part of the 'axis of evil'. Rumsfeld
earnt $190,000 (£118,000) a year before he joined the Bush administration.
RICHARD PERLE
An influential member of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, Perle
is managing partner of venture capital company Trireme, which invests
in companies dealing in products of value to homeland security. It
sent a letter to Saudi arms dealer Adnan Kashoggi arguing that fear
of terrorism would boost demand in Europe, Saudi Arabia and Singapore.
GEORGE SHULTZ, ex-Secretary of State
Shultz is on the board of directors of the Bechtel Group, the largest
contractor in the US and one of the favourites to land lucrative contracts
in the rebuilding of Iraq. Shultz is chairman of the the advisory
board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a fiercely pro-war
group with close ties to the White House.
© Copyright 2003 by TruthOut.org
Ramsey Clark, Former U.S. Attorney General, Responds
to Bush's Television Address
Dear VoteToImpeach Member:
Sunday night, September 7, President Bush told the American public and
the world to expect more of the same from his administration. More crimes
against peace and humanity, more deaths and destruction, more debts
and poverty. He wants everyone to help.
President Bush has spent $79 billion attacking Afghanistan and Iraq
and seeks $87 billion more for another year of violence. What he calls
"one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history"
has taken more than 30,000 Iraqi lives, destroyed "tens of billions"
in facilities essential to life, electricity, water supply, sewage disposal,
according to Paul Bremer, and left the whole country destitute, in turmoil,
growing violence and rage. Thousands perished in Afghanistan where the
destruction remains unrepaired, the people disoriented and impoverished,
the highway from Kabul to Kandahar is impassable and violence is mounting.
U.S. casualties in Iraq alone have reached 300 dead, 1200 with disabling
injuries, and a total of 6000 returned to the United States in body
bags, on stretchers, or sick in body or mind. U.S. soldiers are being
killed at a growing rate, now 1 or 2 a day.
In the meantime, 2 1/2 million jobs have been lost in the U.S., 1.3
million families slid below the impossibly low poverty line of $17000
a year for a family of four. U.S. government deficits have erased a
surplus of $590 billion and created a debt of $400 billion, a trillion
dollar loss, with deficits of $400 billion plus expected for the next
several years at least.
Not content with his crimes against peace, wars of aggression, crimes
against humanity, assassination, summary execution, torture and illegal
and secret detentions, President Bush boasted "...and we have captured
or killed hundreds of Saddam loyalists and terrorists... seizing many
caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition. We have carried
the fight to the enemy... the surest way to avoid attacks on our own
people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans."
That means more wars of aggression. More summary execution and assassinations.
More arbitrary arrests, more illegal detentions and disappearances.
Guantanamo is a symbol to the world of President Bush's contempt for
human rights: torture, suicides, secret detention, military trials,
an execution chamber waiting. Guantanamo should be returned to Cuba
now -- a century late.
U.S. forces must be withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. These must
be our last foreign military interventions. U.S. companies must be barred
from profiting from contracts for "rebuilding Iraq" which
the U.S. destroyed. Ten percent of the U.S. military budget at the 2003
level should be paid into a U.N. fund for the next decade to compensate
Iraq and Afghanistan for U.S. crimes against them, to be used as they
choose.
We are virtually guaranteed more of the same unless President Bush is
impeached for his high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
To take back the Constitution and save our country Vote to Impeach now.
This vote is an unmistakable message from the American people. The world
and the present Administration will understand this message. It means
we do not accept the crimes President Bush has committed in our name
and will not permit their repetition.
Sincerely,
Ramsey Clark
Forward this message to your friends and colleagues who may have not
yet cast their ballot for impeachment at www.VoteToImpeach.org, and
invite them to visit VoteToImpeach.org <http://www.votetoimpeach.org/>
and become active and vocal members of this important national movement
to impeach George W. Bush.
At this critical time, please give your generous support to the movement
to Impeach George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, John Ashcroft and Donald
Rumsfeld. To make a contribution to the Impeachment Campaign online
through our secure server, or for information on how to write a check,
please visit the Impeach Bush online donation page. <http://www.votetoimpeach.org/donate.htm>
|
