![]() |

Home To The World's Best Liberal Thought And Humor

|
In This Edition
Greg Palast asks, "Has Someone Been Sitting On The FBI?"
Jim Hightower gives us, "The Hightower Lowdown."
Robert Parry says, "So Bush Did Steal The White House!"
William Thomas pulls no punches in, "The Politics Of Terror And Mass Persuasion"
Joe Conason tells it like it is in, "A Year Later, It’s Still A Sham."
Gene Lyons asks if this is a, "War On Terror Or War On Freedom?"
Ted Rall says, "The Smart Set Gets One Up."
Chris Floyd reports on, "A Thirsty Evil."
Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel find, "Guilty For 9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers."
Jan Lightfoot-Lane says, "Advocates, Thank The TV Show Called West Wing."
Don Hazen reports on, "The Belligerent Bunch: Rabid Journalists and Pundits Push Bush to Extremes."
Tucker Carlson wins the "Vidkun Quisling Award!"
Molly Ivins reports what's up, "Next On Growing List Of US Blunders."
Bryan Zepp Jamieson asks, "What’s A Libertarian To Do?"
And finally in "Parting Shots Hank Blakely gives us another adventure of dubya in, "Dunderball: A night at the Casino Disloyal" but first Uncle Ernie says, "The Devils In The Details."
This week we spotlight the cartoons of Clay Bennett with additional cartoons from Ted Rall, Steve Benson, Bush Toons, True Cards, Jack Curtin, Rob Davis, Chris Whitehouse, GWBush Art, Chadsux and Political Strikes.
Plus we have all of your favorite departments! Welcome one and all to "Uncle Ernie's Issues & Alibis." We hope you enjoy your stay! |

|
The thing that blows my mine is how we came to this. Sure we've had four other coup d' etats as well as the traitor Gerald Ford bringing unelected, losers into the White House but at least they knew they were illegal, immoral and traitors and acted accordingly. And with the exception of Jefferson none were ever reelected to office. Knowing the "Sword of Damocles" was hanging over their heads they tried their best to follow the law whenever possible. They knew one more act of treason would cause the country to revolt and bring them to the Headsman's Ax where they belonged to begin with, but not anymore.
With the Democrats going out of their way to help the traitor, Bush can do whatever he pleases knowing that Karl Rove has the Democrats eating out of his hand and bending over to have the Reich-wing shove it up their ass and then have them say, "Thank you sir can I have another!" So why shouldn't our Texas Prairie Monkey do whatever he feels like? Don't believe it, just look at the voting records. Listen to the rhetoric coming from the Dems. Oh we didn't get a chance to read it before we voted for it. Excuse me? You voted to rescind half the Bill Of Rights and you couldn't be bothered to read it first? Or my favorite "Well it only applies to foreigners(a lie). So the worlds longest surviving Republic is now going to have secret trials, by the military (who seem to think they must obey anything the smirked one says, yeah that's fair), where there is no appeal, where the prosecution can listen in on your defense strategy, where any evidence can and will be hid from the defense and where any two colonels can sentence you to death with no appeal. Sound fair to you? Oh and did I mention this applies to not only foreigners but to anybody Smirky says is guilty! That's me and you folks. Protest this bill and you can soon find yourself strangling on the end of a rope and nobody will ever know. See the Rolling Stones song below to get the picture, just drop the South from South America and you'll understand!
So if you thought the 'war' on terrorism was real, guess again. I know I said this last week but I'm going to say this again and again until in sinks in everybody's brain. We are not at war nor have we been at War since September of 1945. And the reason we're not at war as you have to have an enemy. For the sake of argument lets say Osama was behind the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. All the smirked one had to do was to go before Congress and ask them to declare war on him and his group. Congress would have given him his war no problem, so why didn't he do it? Simple really, because with the capture or death of Osama that would have been the end of it. Georgie boy wants a never ending war so he can have war powers, i.e. so he can cover his ass for his treason and sedition of his family, the Extreme Court and the RNC. The only way to do so is to be seen as the heroic figure leading the nation in time of war instead of the traitorous coward that he is.
To hide his treason he has appointed a couple of obviously evil people to take the heat and assume center stage for him. First there is Von Rumsfeld to carry out his orders around the world and become the front man and bad guy for his plans. Inside America we get that great loony-toon Asscroft who shouldn't be allowed on the streets must less in charge as the Attorney General. A man who's own state, where he had been Governor and Senator, voted over-whelmingly for a dead man rather than elect him again. What was Con-gress thinking when they allowed these monsters to take power? They were thinking that their corporate masters and church leaders told them to do it, "Hey we were only following orders mine Herr!"
I have two new rules for the new order after the revolution comes and goes. The first is a "Catch 22" rule. If you want to run for office and become a politician, you can't! The second gets you "Drawn & Quartered" on Public Television for taking bribes! Take that free trip from the Airlines or that "contribution" from the corporations and watch your intestines be pulled out on national TV. I guarantee that this will put an end to the crooks and thieves in Washington. For those CEO's that try to bribe our officials I offer slow strangulation on the end of a rope, confiscation of all properties and money to all involved. There are quite a few other ideas I've heard that make sense and should be added to the list but those are my own thoughts on ending this treason.
To answer the questions I ask at the beginning of this piece, it is only as hopeless as we allow it to become. We are only doomed if we sit and do nothing. Never surrender, never give an inch, make them pay dearly for you! Instruct your elected representative to over turn the Patriots Act and start Impeachments against all involved, Smirky, Asscroft, Antoni (light-fingers) Scalias Gang of Five and the rest of the traitors in office. Then round up all that had a hand in the coup d' etat and see that they are brought to justice for their crimes against humanity and the Constitution and peoples of the United States. This is the very least a true patriot can do. Waving a symbol doesn't make you a patriot, your actions to preserve and protect your Constitution will!
Until next time, Peace Y'all!
Chapter 3 of my new book "The Red King's Horror." is now viewing. I post a new chapter on the 1st of each month. It's that time of the year again. Time for a tale that has become a Christmas tradition all over the world, "Winky Tinky's Christmas Adventure," be sure and read it to the kids! Happy Holidays! ![]() 1943 - 2001
|

![]() Has Someone Been Sitting On The FBI? Introduction by Jared Israel Some thoughts concerning the Bush_Bin Laden family connection. We have written about this in 'BUSHLADEN'. (3) < In the transcript posted after this introduction, the BBC suggests that the Bush people suppressed the FBI's attempts to investigate the connections between the terrorist group, WAMY, and the Bin Laden family, because the Bushes and Bin Ladens have business ties. Many who are suspicious of the official 9_11 story hold a similar view. They see the moneymaking ties that have existed between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens as the reason Pres. Bush has gone easy on the Bin Ladens. This seems especially believable to middle and working class people, because for us a little money means a lot. Perhaps, in publishing 'Bushladen,' Emperor's Clothes has unwittingly fostered this view. But the Bushes and Bin Ladens are not middle class. Despite his attempt to project an image of 'just plain folks,' George Jr. comes from a family that has helped rule America since maternal great_grandfather George Herbert Walker worked with the Dulles brothers, at 1 Wall Street, to arrange financing for the German Nazi's during the late 1920s and early 1930s. (11) As for the Bin Ladens, Osama went to Afghanistan not as some lone fanatic, but rather as the representative of Saudi royalty, because his billionaire family is part of the ruling class of Saudi Arabia. The Bushes have known the Bin Ladens for years, for the same reason that you know and socialize with the people you work with in your English Department, your factory, your office or your Army barracks. And because people like the Bushes and Bin Ladens do not ever associate with people like you or me or the guy in the barracks, it is easy for them to view us as different, and lesser, and expendable, and really like nothing at all. Despite all the image_making hype. If you doubt this, consider how this sort of person sounds when trying his best to appear compassionate. The following is from Bill Clinton, explaining (in my opinion, lying) about how deeply distressed he was before he ordered the bombing of a Sudan medical factory in August, 1998. Clinton said: 'I didn t want some person who was a nobody to me, but who may have a family to feed and a life to live, and probably had no earthly idea what else was going on there, to die needlessly.' Consider the great distance from which this man views _ cannot help showing that he views _ ordinary people. Cannot help showing it even when he tries to sound compassionate: "A nobody to me." And, "May have a life to lead." Do you know anybody who may have a life to lead? For people in the milieu of the Clintons, and certainly, further up on the financial scale, the Bushes and Bin Ladens, making a few million dollars is nice, but not sufficient motive to determine strategic policy. The Bushes and Bin Ladens do not stick together because they are in some secondary business together. Rather, it is perfectly natural that they go into business together because they inhabitant the same social circles, which happen to be the controlling circles of the American Empire. Since they are part of those circles, and since both families have historically provided special services to the ruling forces, it follows that those families are a natural source of top level recruits for U.S. covert operations, such as Mr. Bush Sr., who headed the CIA, and Mr. Osama bin Laden, who was sent to Afghanistan in 1980 precisely to represent the interests of _ that is, as the top operative for _ the Saudi royal family, an important part of the U.S. Empire. As we have demonstrated in 'Gaping holes in the 'CIA_Vs._Bin Laden' Story,' (1) Osama is still working closely with the CIA. At the moment, he is providing a crucial service. He is making statements calculated to provoke mass revulsion in Europe and the North America. These statements are intended to morally justify the morally unjustifiable slaughter in Afghanistan. Moreover, Osama's statements divert public attention from the facts on the ground, which are that the U.S. is not trying to destroy the terrorists in Afghanistan. That is why Pres. Bush recently ordered (!) the Northern Alliance NOT to take the Afghan capitol, Kabul! Rather, the U.S. government is trying to re_form the moderate (read: manageable) terrorist forces among the Northern Alliance and Taliban into one U.S._controlled group, to use against the countries of the former Soviet Union, as well as Iran, China and so on. The purpose of bombing Afghanistan is to make clear to the terrorists in Afghanistan _ and also to independent_minded people in the surrounding countries _ that resisting U.S. control is counterproductive. The Bushes and bin Ladens do not 'cover' for each because they do business together. Rather, they do business together, and also 'cover' for each other, because they are part of what one might call the same class, because they have therefore come to know each well, socially, and are deeply engaged in helping carry out the same monstrous world strategy. The transcript below is posted exactly as distributed by the BBC, including the note on "this transcript," which follows. If you wish to read more about the holes in the official 9_11 story, see FURTHER READING, after the transcript, or go to www.tenc.net, the Emperor's Clothes Website. Here's the transcript. __ Jared Israel * * * [Return to Introduction] This transcript is produced from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious errors. Has Someone Been Sitting On The FBI? GREG PALAST: The CIA and Saudi Arabia, the Bushes and the Bin Ladens. Did their connections cause America to turn a blind eye to terrorism? UNNAMED MAN: There is a hidden agenda at the very highest levels of our government. JOE TRENTO, (AUTHOR, "SECRET HISTORY OF THE CIA"): The sad thing is that thousands of Americans had to die needlessly. PETER ELSNER: How can it be that the former President of the US and the current President of the US have business dealings with characters that need to be investigated? (3) PALAST: In the eight weeks since the attacks, over 1,000 suspects and potential witnesses have been detained. Yet, just days after the hijackers took off from Boston aiming for the Twin Towers, a special charter flight out of the same airport whisked 11 members of Osama Bin Laden's family off to Saudi Arabia. That did not concern the White House. Their official line is that the Bin Ladens are above suspicion _ apart from Osama, the black sheep, who they say hijacked the family name. That's fortunate for the Bush family and the Saudi royal household, whose links with the Bin Ladens could otherwise prove embarrassing. But Newsnight has obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of other members of the] Bin Laden family for links to terrorist organisations before and after September 11th. This document is marked "Secret". Case ID _ 199_Eye WF 213 589. 199 is FBI code for case type. 9 would be murder. 65 would be espionage. 199 means national security. WF indicates Washington field office special agents were investigating ABL _ because of it's relationship with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, WAMY _ a suspected terrorist organisation. ABL is Abdullah Bin Laden, president and treasurer of WAMY. This is the sleepy Washington suburb of Falls Church, Virginia where almost every home displays the Stars and Stripes. On this unremarkable street, at 3411 Silver Maple Place, we located the former home of Abdullah and another brother, Omar, also an FBI suspect. It's conveniently close to WAMY. The World Assembly of Muslim Youth is in this building, in a little room in the basement at 5613 Leesburg Pike. And here, just a couple blocks down the road at 5913 Leesburg, is where four of the hijackers that attacked New York and Washington are listed as having lived. The US Treasury has not frozen WAMY's assets, and when we talked to them, they insisted they are a charity. Yet, just weeks ago, Pakistan expelled WAMY operatives. And India claimed that WAMY was funding an organisation linked to bombings in Kashmir. And the Philippines military has accused WAMY of funding Muslim insurgency. The FBI did look into WAMY, but, for some reason, agents were pulled off the trail. TRENTO: The FBI wanted to investigate these guys. This is not something that they didn't want to do _ they wanted to, they weren't permitted to. PALAST: The secret file fell into the hands of national security expert, Joe Trento. The Washington spook_tracker has been looking into the FBI's allegations about WAMY. TRENTO: They've had connections to Osama Bin Laden's people. They've had connections to Muslim cultural and financial aid groups that have terrorist connections. They fit the pattern of groups that the Saudi royal family and Saudi community of princes _ the 20,000 princes _ have funded who've engaged in terrorist activity. Now, do I know that WAMY has done anything that's illegal? No, I don't know that. Do I know that as far back as 1996 the FBI was very concerned about this organisation? I do. PALAST: Newsnight has uncovered a long history of shadowy connections between the State Department, the CIA and the Saudis. The former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah is Michael Springman. MICHAEL SPRINGMAN: In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. These were, essentially, people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to the US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the Inspector General's office. I was met with silence. PALAST: By now, Bush Sr, once CIA director, was in the White House. Springman was shocked to find this wasn't visa fraud. Rather, State and CIA were playing "the Great Game". SPRINGMAN: What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the CIA. They would then be returned to Afghanistan to fight against the then_Soviets. The attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 did not shake the State Department's faith in the Saudis, nor did the attack on American barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia three years later, in which 19 Americans died. FBI agents began to feel their investigation was being obstructed. Would you be surprised to find out that FBI agents are a bit frustrated that they can't be looking into some Saudi connections? MICHAEL WILDES, ( LAWYER) I would never be surprised with that. They're cut off at the hip sometimes by supervisors or given shots that are being called from Washington at the highest levels. PALAST: I showed lawyer Michael Wildes our FBI documents. One of the Khobar Towers bombers was represented by Wildes, who thought he had useful intelligence for the US. He also represents a Saudi diplomat who defected to the USA with 14,000 documents which Wildes claims implicates Saudi citizens in financing terrorism and more. Wildes met with FBI men who told him they were not permitted to read all the documents. Nevertheless, he tried to give them to the agents. WILDES: "Take these with you. We're not going to charge for the copies. Keep them. Do something with them. Get some bad guys with them." They refused. PALAST: In the hall of mirrors that is the US intelligence community, Wildes, a former US federal attorney, said the FBI field agents wanted the documents, but they were told to "see no evil." WILDES: You see a difference between the rank_and_file counter_intelligence agents, who are regarded by some as the motor pool of the FBI, who drive following diplomats, and the people who are getting the shots called at the highest level of our government, who have a different agenda _ it's unconscionable. PALAST: State wanted to keep the pro_American Saudi royal family in control of the world's biggest oil spigot, even at the price of turning a blind eye to any terrorist connection so long as America was safe. In recent years, CIA operatives had other reasons for not exposing Saudi_backed suspects. TRENTO: If you recruited somebody who is a member of a terrorist organisation, who happens to make his way here to the US, and even though you're not in touch with that person anymore but you have used him in the past, it would be unseemly if he were arrested by the FBI and word got back that he'd once been on the payroll of the CIA. What we're talking about is blow_back. What we're talking about is embarrassing, career_destroying blow_back for intelligence officials. PALAST: Does the Bush family also have to worry about political blow_back? The younger Bush made his first million 20 years ago with an oil company partly funded by Salem Bin Laden's chief US representative. Young George also received fees as director of a subsidiary of Carlyle Corporation, a little known private company which has, in just a few years of its founding, become one of Americas biggest defence contractors. His father, Bush Senior, is also a paid advisor. And what became embarrassing was the revelation that the Bin Ladens held a stake in Carlyle, sold just after September 11. ELSNER: You have a key relationship between the Saudis and the former President of the US who happens to be the father of the current President of the US. And you have all sorts of questions about where does policy begin and where does good business and good profits for the company, Carlyle, end? PALAST:
I received a phone call from a high_placed member of a US intelligence agency. He tells me that while
there's always been constraints on investigating Saudis, under George Bush it's gotten much worse. After
the elections, the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that
angered agents. I'm told that since September 11th the policy has been reversed. FBI headquarters told us
they could not comment on our findings. A spokesman said: "There are lots of things that only the
intelligence community knows and that no_one else ought to know.
|

|
The bombs seek to destroy terrorism's threat to our freedom, but our
government's propaganda is a threat to truth, which is the essential
underpinning of our freedom and democracy. During the past 40 years the
American people have learned, after the fact, that we were blatantly lied
to by top officials who ran the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and assorted
other military actions. But now, the White House and Pentagon are engaged
in the most massive, ambitious, and expensive wartime propaganda effort in
our nation's history.
Theirs is a double-barreled ploy: First, to suppress any independent
information coming out of the war itself. The NewYork Times reports that
Pentagon chief Don Rumsfeld has gone all-out in an unprecedented effort to
lock out journalists who are on the scene of the war, prohibiting any
contact with our troops and allowing our supposedly free press to see only
the officially sanitized version of what's happening. Rumsfeld and the
WhiteHouse have set up an around-the-clock war news bureau in Pakistan that
spoon-feeds the videos, photos, and "message of the day" that ends up on
the nightly news and in your morning paper.
The second ploy is even more blatantly propagandistic, with
White House operatives orchestrating news feeds, staging pro-Bush
extravaganzas, and organizing Hollywood executives to produce movies that
will sell the war to American audiences. Top White House media manipulator
Karl Rove has held two closed-door meetings with Hollywood big shots asking
them to help market the war, promising film footage, use of military
hardware and facilities, and other government support.
Something as big as war -- where life and death are at stake -- ought to
stand scrutiny in the light of day, without the artificial pushof marketing
gimmicks. Democracy requires truth ... not brainwashing.
The Fall Of Enron
Kenneth Lay basked in the limelight of his corporate success.
Indeed, he glowed with an inner confidence that slowly ebbed into arrogance
... then overflowed into raw hubris. He began to think that it was his
cock-a-doodle-doo that caused the sun to rise each morning.
And why not? He had taken a Texas natural gas firm and turned
it into mighty Enron, the biggest energy corporation in the world, drawing
more than $100 billion a year in gross income. Not that Enron produced any
energy. No, no, that was old thinking, and Ken Lay bragged that he was all
about "new economy" thinking. Basically, he ran a computerized roulette
wheel, buying and selling energy supplies that others produced. He asserted
that it's the trade that matters, not the product ... and he even intended
to begin trading in such "commodities" as water and weather.
Lay's face was on magazine covers, he bought the right to slap
Enron's name on Houston's taxpayer-financed baseball stadium, and he was
George W's top funder -- not only in his gubernatorial and presidential
runs, but also financing Bush's Florida recount and inauguration. In
return, Ken headed the energy transition team when Bush took the White
House, and he was poised to be a major player in George's administration.
But ... stuff happens. Some of the new ventures that Lay launched with
Enron ended up in the ditch, the company's stock price went into a dive ...
and then there's the little matter of the scandal. It's uncertain exactly
what shenanigans were being played, but Enron suddenly had to "re-adjust"
its earnings report recently because of more than a billion dollars in
losses from investments by secretpartnerships run by company executives --
losses they had kept off the books. Now the SEC is investigating, investors
are crying foul, and the company is being sold at a fire-sale price.
Some of the strutting peacocks of the "new economy" are endin up as
feather-dusters.
Technology Marches On!
The New York Times reports that Toyota and Sony have teamed up
to design this thing they call the Pod, which is about half car and half
pet. It's a car made to look like a living critter. Its headlights don't
merely turn on and off -- they "blink," like eyes. Its side mirrors look
like ears. And the front grill is a "mouth" that can turn up in a
happy-face smile or down in a frown. The antenna sticks out the back like a
tail.
Worse, the Pod "talks" to you. It fondly says goodbye when you get out,
which is fine, but it also scolds you angrily when it's not been washed,
which is not fine. Who needs this grief from a chunk of fiberglass and
computer chips?! If it gets angry over a little road dust, what'll it do if
it's low on oil?
That's not all the stuff that's coming at you. The Times tells us that the
gadgeteers have also "improved" the refrigerator. Did they add sensors to
tell you the cheese has molded or the lunchmeat has gone bad? No, that
would be too useful. Instead, we get the "screenfridge," which is a regular
fridge with a TV screen on the door. Good, now we won't have to miss any
annoying commercials when we get off the couch to get a beer! |

|
A document, revealed by Newsweek magazine, indicates that the Florida recount that was stopped last year by five Republicans on the
U.S. Supreme Court would have taken into account so-called "overvotes" that heavily favored Gore.
If those "overvotes" were counted, as now it appears they would have been, Gore would have carried Florida regardless of what
standard of chad – dimpled, hanging, punched-through – was used in counting the so-called "undervotes," according to an examination
of those ballots by a group of leading news organizations.
In other words, Bush lost not only the national popular vote by more than a half million ballots, but he would have lost the key state of
Florida and thus the presidency, if Florida’s authorities had been allowed to count the votes that met the state’s legal requirement of
demonstrating the clear intent of the voter.
The Newsweek disclosure – a memo that the presiding judge in the state recount sent to a county canvassing board – shows that the
judge was instructing the county boards to collect "overvotes" that had been rejected for indicating two choices for president when, in
reality, the voters had made clear their one choice.
"If you would segregate ‘overvotes’ as you describe and indicate in your final report how many where you determined the clear intent of
the voter," wrote Judge Terry Lewis, who had been named by the Florida Supreme Court to oversee the statewide recount, "I will rule on
the issue for all counties."
Lewis’s memo to the chairman of the Charlotte County canvassing board was written on Dec. 9, 2000, just hours before Bush
succeeded in getting five conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Florida recount.
Lewis has said in more recent interviews that he might well have expanded the recount to include those "overvotes." Indeed, it would be
hard to imagine that he wouldn’t count those legitimate votes once they were recovered by the counties and were submitted to Lewis.
The "overvotes" in which voters marked the name of their choice and also wrote in his name would be even more clearly legal votes than
the so-called "undervotes" which were kicked out for failing to register a choice that could be read by voting machines.
Misguided Articles
This new information indicating that the wrong presidential candidate moved into the White House also makes a mockery of the Nov. 12
front-page stories of the New York Times, the Washington Post and other leading news outlets, which stated that Bush would have won
regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling.
Those stories were based on the hypothetical results if the state-ordered recount had looked only at "undervotes." The news
organizations assumed, incorrectly it now appears, that the "overvotes" would have been excluded from such a tally, leaving Bush with a
tiny lead.
In going with the "Bush Wins" headlines, the news organizations downplayed their more dramatic finding that Gore would have won if a
full statewide recount had been conducted in accordance with state law. Using the clear-intent-of-the-voter standard, Gore beat Bush by
margins ranging from 60 to 171 votes, depending on what standard was used in judging the "undervotes."
Beyond the big newspapers’ false assumptions about the state recount, the news stories showed a pro-Bush bias in their choice of
language and the overall slant of the articles.
The New York Times, for instance, used the word "would" and even declarative statements when referring to Bush prevailing in
hypothetical partial recounts. By contrast, the word "might" was used when mentioning that Gore topped Bush if all ballots were
considered.
"A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots," the Times wrote, "reveal that George W. Bush would have won even if the
United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go
forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United State Supreme Court did not award
an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore."
Two paragraphs later, the Times noted that the examination of all rejected ballots "found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had
ordered a full statewide recount. … The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course
like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to ‘count all the votes.’"
Left out of that formulation, which suggests that Gore was a hypocrite, is the fact that Bush rejected Gore’s early proposal for a full
statewide recount. Bush also waged a relentless campaign of obstruction that left no time for the state courts to address the
equal-protection-under-the-law concerns raised by the U.S. Supreme Court in its final ruling on Dec. 12, 2000.
Note also how the Times denigrates as misguided Gore "partisans" those American citizens who concluded, apparently correctly, that
the U.S. Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush.
The headlines, too, favored Bush. The Times’ front-page headline on Nov. 12 read, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did
Not Cast the Deciding Vote." The Washington Post’s headline read, "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush."
Spreading Confusion
The pro-Bush themes in the headlines and stories were repeated over and over by television and other newspapers, creating a
widespread belief among casual news consumers that Bush had prevailed in the full statewide recount, rather than only in truncated
recounts based on dubious hypotheses.
Now, Judge Lewis’s memo undercuts both the tone and the content of those news reports. It is certainly not clear anymore that the
state-ordered recount would have favored Bush. It also appears likely that the interference by the U.S. Supreme Court was decisive.
Based on the new evidence, the major newspapers look to be wrong on both these high-profile points.
Beyond Gore’s narrow victory from the recoverable ballots, the news organizations concluded – but played down – that Gore lost
thousands of unrecoverable ballots because of flawed ballot designs in several Democratic strongholds. Gore lost other votes because
Gov. Jeb Bush’s administration disqualified hundreds of predominantly black voters who were falsely labeled felons.
The New York Times also reported that Bush achieved a net gain of about 290 votes by getting illegally cast absentee votes counted in
Republican counties while enforcing the rules strictly in Democratic counties. Though the new recount tallies did not include any
adjustments for these irregularities, the news organizations estimated that Gore lost tens of thousands of votes from these disparities,
compared to Bush’s official victory margin of 537 votes.
For months, the leading news organizations have been bending over backwards to protect Bush’s fragile legitimacy, possibly out of
concern for the nation’s image in a time of crisis. Yet, whatever the motivation for trying to make Bush look good, the evidence is now
overwhelming that Bush strong-armed his way, illegitimately, to the presidency.
In the days immediately after the election, Bush obstructed a full-and-fair recount in Florida, even dispatching hooligans from outside the
state to intimidate vote counters. When Gore pressed for recounts in the courts, Bush sent in lawyers to prevent the tallies. Then, after
losing before the Florida Supreme Court and the federal appeals court, Bush ultimately got a friendly hearing from five political allies on
the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Bush truly respected the precepts of democracy and what those principles mean to the world, he could have joined Gore in
demanding as full and fair a Florida recount as possible. He could have accepted the results, win or lose.
Instead Bush opted for the opposite course, deciding that his getting the White House was more important than the voters having their
judgment accepted, both nationally and in Florida. By refusing to hold Bush accountable for his key role in thwarting the voters’ will, the
major news organizations are not doing the cause of democracy any service.
It turns out that the thousands of demonstrators who protested Bush’s Inauguration were closer to the truth when they shouted at his
motorcade, "Hail to the Thief!" |
|
The Politics Of Terror And Mass Persuasion by William Thomas Rightly or wrongly, Alice had it right. Or, as that great Yogi named Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Confuse people long enough (about 25 seconds for the average TV viewer) - and they will click channels, tune into less arduous distractions, and reset their brains to "snooz" control. It’s a time-tested formula. Everyone who runs a scam for personal, political or financial gain relies on their audience’s fractured attention to get away with story lines that seem absolutely compelling in the heat of some manufactured moment - but collapse into complete nonsense if we run the tape back and view it frame-by-frame. Take the events Sept. 11, 2001. Absolutely riveting video, relentlessly repeated. Authoritative news anchors looking dazed and grim, throwing out official statements like lifelines to millions of dazed and desperate viewers drowning in shock and disorientation. It couldn’t be real, but it had to be true. * * * So we bought it. Or most of it anyway. We didn’t ask why intelligence agencies who couldn’t catch a whiff of the most complex "hit" since the invasion of Normandy knew the names of 19 cremated hijackers and their renal-challenged ringleader within 48 hours of attacks that killed 50,000, no 25,000, no 6,000, no 2,500 people.. We didn’t ask how frightened young men who couldn’t fly Cessnas could navigate and steer heavy jets into their targets. Or why none of their names turned up on the passenger lists of the four airplanes they were supposed to have commandeered. (Total number of Middle Easterners among 257 passengers and crew: zero.) We didn’t ask what the United and American pilots (three of them military veterans) were doing while men armed with quarter-inch knives demanded death to fellow Americans, why their cockpit conversations were never released, why eight indestructible "black boxes" holding the keys to so many questions were rendered "inoperable" while hijackers’ paper passports escaped explosions and fire unscathed. We didn’t ask why a plane supposedly driven by its passengers into two separate crash sites in the Pennsylvania countryside came apart in mid-air. Or why the president of the United States remained more interested in the story of a pet goat than reports of airliners crashing into Manhattan skyscrapers and the Pentagon. We didn’t ask why U.S. forces were poised to attack across the Tajikistan border into Afghanistan in an assault announced last June - but could not scramble a single fighter to defend the U.S. capitol before three airliners hit their targets on a sunny morning in September. We didn’t ask why the CIA met with an ailing Osama bin Laden in an American hospital as the biggest British battle fleet since the Falklands sailed for waters off Afghanistan, why Washington gave the Taliban $43 millions in May, or why the FBI and Attorney General of the United States repeatedly ignored warnings and blocked investigations into the impending attacks. We didn’t ask what the CIA was doing in the upper echelons of Big Banks that profited hugely from "short-selling" United and American Airlines stocks in the final days before someone dialed 9.11 We didn’t ask why the head of the WTC arson investigation told reporters there were "explosive devices" in the building, why so few survivors were burned, or why New York firefighters were dragged away from Ground Zero just when the site was becoming safe and they were getting close to the bottom of things. * * * We did not ask because we were not told what had really happened. Like good Germans in Hitler’s heyday, we looked the other way when more than 1,100 not-quite-white people bearing Middle Eastern names were thrown into U.S. prisons, interrogated, abused, held without notifying their families or lawyers - without ever being charged with terrorist acts. We were sure it couldn’t happen to us. Anthrax held us enthralled. Instead of asking what a weaponized" strain of a decades old "Made In The USA" bacteria was doing in silent letter bombs, we clamored for risky antidotes and even more dangerous vaccines without stopping to consider that anthrax is not contagious, easily treated, rarely fatal - and that bee stings pose a far more serious threat to most Americans. Like frightened Germans after the Reichstag fire, we demanded that authorities "do something". They did. A Constitution generations of Americans had given their lives to defend was suspended. Laws were quickly passed permitting surveillance, assets seizure, arrest and detention of suspects" - without formal charges or judicial oversight. Evidence will be sealed. Special tribunals will hear these cases. Forcible quarantine and inoculations are next. A president who told Americans the day he "took" office - "If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator" - appointed himself supreme ruler of a his new Supreme National Security Council. A hundred thousand troops were called up for "internal security". And we said thank God, not realizing that soon perhaps we could be busted for that, too. * * * Everyone knows the score by now. FEMA is only for hurricanes, the Florida recount can wait, Timothy McVeigh blew up a big building with the same sort of fertilizer used to cover up his cohorts, Osama bin Laden is an ungrateful madman just like Saddam and Noriega and all the other thugs we’ve hugged, Bush’s "War on Drugs" is just as urgent and honest as his "War on Terrorism". And kids as precious as our own being blown up in Afghanistan should just get out of the way. We have to get bin Laden. Or maybe we don’t. It’s no longer clear. For sure, we have to topple the Taliban. What they’re doing to women must be stopped. But now our leaders say maybe it would be okay if they rule the southern half of the country and let us take the rest where the pipelines have to go through. Pakistan is our ally. They are sending troops to fight on the side of the Taliban. They have nukes. The general who heads their intelligence service sent $100,000 to a fanatic the FBI says led the suicide planes against Manhattan. But it’s okay now. The FBI complained and the general has resigned. * * * Already the vultures are gathering. On Oct. 10, 2001 U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain called on the Pakistani oil minister to get moving on the stalled Unocal pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to a Pakistani port. Selling oil and gas to China is back on the table she says, "in view of recent geopolitical developments." In the context of appeasing China, Chamberlain is an interesting name. In the context of Sept. 11, China’s ascension to the WTO before the WTC’s dust had settled seemed almost scripted. Like some kind of quid pro quo - you give us oil and a seat on the organization divvying up the world, we do something for you. What could that be? At least 15,000 Chinese Muslim troops have been sent to the defense of the Taliban. Some people think President Bush II’s second modern "crusade" is a contest between Allah and Christ. They are dangerously wrong. This war is being fought to reinstate the real "god" - gold, oil and drugs. You and I can switch to bicycles or electric cars. But militaries cannot convert to battery-operated battleships or B-52s. The hi-tech allied armed forces needed to keep a lid on people being ripped off - which includes just about everyone on the planet - is running out of oil. The world’s biggest remaining oil reserves are in the Caspian basin. A 20- billion barrel transfusion must begin flowing through 48-inch arteries just as soon as they can be laid across Afghanistan - and injected into the industrialized veins of increasingly desperate oil addicts. Forget global warming, catastrophic climate change, the oppressed women of Afghanistan, the starving millions shivering with the onset of winter, and millions more moderate Muslims who are beginning to believe that Osama bin Laden is right. We’re talking serious money here: $3 to $5 trillion worth of oil and natural gas, and hundreds of billions more in that other addiction supplied by a country called Afghanistan. An American administration intimately linked to the international drug trade and the banks that launder its dirty money has been beside itself since the Taliban declared poppy-growing against Shariah Islamic law. Maybe the mullahs were miffed at the CIA for cranking up Afghanistan’s heroin production to finance Osama bin Laden. Their decree was issued 19 months ago. The fields are fallow; 60% of U.S. heroin imports have been shut off. Junkies are having withdrawals almost as bad as the White House, where some $250 billion a year in illicit drug money waters Wall Street, Big Banks, and various Bushes. On the scale of national budgets, the only usable amounts of cash are in the drug trade. Everything else is a digital dream. If the drugs stop flowing, the world economy will instantly collapse. The "shadow" administration hopes Columbia can pick up the slack. But a few dedicated drug enforcement officials haven’t gotten the word. They keep cracking down on drug lords like Lehder linked to people with names like Cheney and Bush. All the details are in the lawsuits brought by a former Green Beret, a Contra drugs-for-arms dealer and smugglers gone straight. But the media ignores the news. * * * It’s imperative that the Taliban get turfed and fresh poppies planted. Don’t get confused. These aren’t the poppies for Remembrance Day. Though in a way they are. Americans have been conned into wars for oil and drug profits beyond their knowledge or imagination since the U.S. Navy tracked the Japanese carriers steaming toward Pearl Harbor, the Maddox fought phantom Viet Cong gunboats in the Gulf of Tonkin, and Iraqi soldiers ignored the incubator babies in Kuwait. The documentation is voluminous. Much it comes from government sources. Does anyone really believe the puppeteers behind the Sept. 11 attackers do not have a similar agenda? You decide. Search the Internet. Check the references in the back of this book. Cultivate independent news sources. Evaluate. Read the evidence presented in All Fall Down: The Politics of Terror and Mass Persuasion. See if it resonates. Ask yourself: "Who benefits? Who gains?" Well," says David Icke, "The Illuminati want a world government and army, a world currency and centralized global financial dictatorship and control. They want micro-chipped people and a society based on constant surveillance of all kinds at all times. And they want a frightened, docile, subservient, people who give their power away to the authorities" who can save them from what they have been manipulated to fear." That pretty well nails it down. * * * Ted Rall has traveled extensively through Central Asia. His cartoons are savagely astute. So is his analysis. Rall writes that the Sept. 11 attacks have provided Washington with "the perfect excuse to do what the U.S. has wanted all along - invade Afghanistan and install a puppet pipeline regime in Kabul." Amend that to: "puppet poppy pipeline regime." Michael Ruppert is a former LAPD investigator. He has submitted written testimony to the Senate Committee on Intelligence. After investigating the events leading up to Sept. 11, Ruppert responds, "I absolutely believe, at this moment, that the United States government had foreknowledge of the attacks and allowed them to occur." Dr. Len Horowitz, the man who wrote the books on Washington’s complicity in a cull, says of Sept. 11: "There is a conspiracy within our own government - a conspiracy of silence at minimum." After two solid months on this case, after evaluating gigabytes of corroborative information, after presenting the patterns formed by that evidence in this book, All Fall Down - I fully concur. There can be zero doubt that the attacks of Sept. 11 were foreseen and facilitated by agents and agencies within the United States government. I did not say, "initiated". I have no evidence of that yet. But in any courtroom worthy of that name, accomplices to mass murder are no different from those who pull the triggers. Or fly the suicide planes. * * * So what to do? In a media-branded "terrorist" camp in the British Columbia interior, where armed native warriors were preparing to defend their Shaman and their land against heavily armed tactical police, their leader pointed to the campfire we were sitting around and told me that he welcomed a massacre that would spark an uprising across Canada. Wolverine knew that provoking a heavy-handed response to one small band occupying ancestral lands would "scatter the embers" among the far-flung dry tinder of long-held resentments and rage. Osama bin Laden knows this too. The Iraqis, Jordanians and Saudis I met during the Gulf War were businessmen troubled by American terror from the skies. They come from a tribal people with long memories. Even the more moderate Koran they follow teaches the absolute obligation of the faithful to avenge the killing of innocents - unless acceptable reparations and apologies are made. Killing one million Iraqis - mostly children under the age of 15 - through bombings, radiations and epidemic-sparking sanctions…then bombing people with the lowest per-person calorie intake in the world and killing millions more in the coming cold of a mountain winter…is not a wise policy for anyone this side of such a vast gulf in history and perception. Not if we want to keep opening letters, boarding airliners and working in tall buildings. We certainly want to reduce the level of terror, certainly not escalate it," Noam Chomsky told a San Francisco peace rally. "There is one easy way to do that and therefore it is never discussed. Namely stop participating in it. That would automatically reduce the level of terror enormously." What else? Beyond that, we should rethink the kinds of policies, and Afghanistan is not the only one, in which we organize and train terrorist armies. Rethink the policies that are creating a reservoir of support," Chomsky adds. Want to stop terrorism dead in its tracks? Stop looking the other way. Stop arming people with heavy grievances and their own agendas. Take out the training camps, from Fort Benning, Georgia to the Beka’a Valley. Give angry, hungry kids in refugee camps a home, a homeland, an education, a stake in a worthwhile future. Give them respect. Listen to what they are saying. Before they feel driven to say it with 30-pounds of explosives strapped to their chests. The biggest thing I learned before bullets started flying at Gustafsen Lake is that people with grievances just want to be heard. * * * Bill Moyers has another startling suggestion. Reduce our need for oil. In a keynote address to the Environmental Grantmakers Association on October 16, 2001 Moyers asked, "Do we want to send the terrorists a message? Go for conservation. Go for clean, home-grown energy." He said, "As for national security, well, it’s time to expose the energy plan before Congress for the dinosaur it is. Everyone knows America needs to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel. But this energy plan is more of the same: more subsidies for the rich, more pollution, more waste, more inefficiency... America's unchecked consumption of oil has become our Achilles heel. It leaves our economy dangerously vulnerable to price shocks. It invites environmental degradation, ecological disasters, and potentially catastrophic climate change." He's right. * * * Feeling used, enslaved, scammed, betrayed, lied to, burned out, bummed out. manipulated, screwed over, mind controlled, emotionally blackmailed, tantalized, toyed with, jerked around, ripped off, threatened, harassed, patronized, exhorted, extorted, attacked by powerful interests who keep telling you it's all "for your own good" and that there is no such thing as conspiracy at high and hidden levels? Take heart! In September, 2001 more than 50 million North Americans accessed the Internet from their homes. An online community of real flesh and blood brothers and sisters is coming together very quickly now. Nothing is hidden, all is being rapidly revealed. Despite the complacent complicity of media mesmerizers, the first mass-marketed war to come up against the worldwide web is being undone by hundreds of millions of people bypassing its contradictions and coercions to share solidarity and insights on the net. From North, South, East and West people of all persuasions are coming together in a rapidly coalescing consciousness. Each new participant brings another vital piece of personal perspective that is already forming a new world view that is inclusive, respectful, compassionate and celebratory of its differences and diversity. We can turn this around. We've all been traumatized. We’re all mad as New Yorkers. And we’re smarter and more generous than our fear and anger. People know what’s going on. Even those who don’t have access to alternative information sense that there is much more to motives and events than they are being told. By the grace of a wired world and the spirit within us all, we are joining together to pull the plug on cynical profiteers whose only god" is the payouts they receive in gold, oil and drugs. Here are some things we can do: Remember the children. Unplug all brainwashing broadcast machines within eye and earshot. If someone tries to sell you a box of bombs and flags. Just say, "Forget it. I'm not buying until I read the label." Buy only necessities. Do not sign up, do not subscribe, do not join the party line. It leads to a gulag. Then over a cliff. Do not look down. Try spreading your wings instead. Move always toward the light. Call home immediately. Remember that prayer is more powerful than any weapon or ill intention every devised. Listen to each other’s stories. There is more wisdom in personal experience than any agenda-serving "analysis". Hug someone you care about right now Whenever you feel love and gratitude, express it out loud. Do this often. The whole universe hears you. Every creature who benefits will bless you for your gift. Resist much. Obey little. Think for yourself. When they come with retina scans, wear contacts inscribed with your favorite slogan. THINK LIKE SOMEONE IN A COUNTRY OCCUPIED BY A FOREGIN POWER ACT LIKE SOMEONE SHARING A PLANET OCCUPIED BY A FOREIGN POWER REMEMER THAT YOU HAVE THE POWER We must depart the script prepared for us. Reality is consensual. We can all change our minds. If we stand together in the face of tyranny, if we laugh at fear and choose to walk away from this scam - it all falls down. Then we can build a saner, more compassionate, more joyful world together. -William Thomas All statements excerpted from Chapter 9 above are fully described and documented in:
ALL FALL DOWN: The Politics of Terror and Mass Persuasion by William Thomas
225 p. $30 inc.shipping free electronic updates, please include an email address |
A Year Later, It’s Still A Sham Exactly one year ago, in the corridors of a county office building in downtown Miami, a gang of imported Republican operatives tried to shove history toward George W. Bush. On the day before Thanksgiving 2000, the event described approvingly by the gentleman who now oversees the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal as a "bourgeois riot" stopped the recount of disputed ballots in Florida’s biggest county. Organized at the behest of former Secretary of State James Baker by a consultant whose reputation for dirty tricks dates back to the Nixon era, the "Brooks Brothers mob" embodied the iron will of the Bush campaign to win. As we now know, the 10,750 ballots that the G.O.P. goon squad sought to suppress would probably not have done damage to their cause. So concluded the newspaper consortium that reported the results of its lengthy, million-dollar examination of all the Florida Presidential ballots. According to their analysis, a hand recount by the four counties that were the focus of the Gore campaign’s legal strategy would still have yielded an exceedingly narrow victory for the Bush-Cheney ticket. And that is how—amid war in Afghanistan and overwhelming approval ratings for the Commander in Chief—the media consortium played their findings. But the National Opinion Research Center recount, which proved beyond any hint of doubt that thousands more Florida voters intended to elect Al Gore, has meaning only in a context ignored by those tardy accounting adjustments. Context is amply provided, along with clarity and color, by Jeffrey Toobin’s Too Close to Call, a book that deserves study by anyone who professes to care about American democracy. As Mr. Toobin explains, that nasty fracas on Thanksgiving eve was only the most violent expression of the Bush campaign’s thorough manipulation of the post-election process. Striving for fairness, Mr. Toobin doesn’t hesitate to draw attention to the grievous shortcomings of the Democratic campaign and its candidate. Mr. Gore comes off as a sincere but hapless figure, in thrall to the opinions of newspaper editors who never cared for him. Yet whenever Mr. Toobin takes his readers inside the back rooms, it is the ruthless character of modern Republicanism that stands out. Seizing upon their home-court advantage, the Republicans controlling the process in the Sunshine State cheated and lied. As Florida’s Secretary of State, Katherine Harris was required by law to ensure a full automatic recount of every ballot in every county, because the margin separating the candidates was less than one-half of 1 percent. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker continuously pointed to this statutory recount as proof that all the votes had been "counted and recounted." In fact, as Mr. Toobin reveals, some 1.58 million votes cast in 18 counties were never recounted as the law prescribed—an extraordinary violation that Ms. Harris and her aides knew but never mentioned, let alone remedied. If the mandated recount had been completed in a timely and lawful fashion, Mr. Gore might well have pulled ahead by a few votes in the first week, changing the entire complexion of the post-election struggle. "This subterranean story of the automatic recount," writes Mr. Toobin, "marked just the first time that Harris’s office performed heroic, if necessarily unsung, service to the Bush campaign." Sworn to uphold the law and conduct a fair election despite her allegiance to Mr. Bush and his brother Jeb, the Florida governor, Ms. Harris did the opposite. According to Mr. Toobin, her strings were pulled by Mac Stipanovich, the sharp corporate lobbyist placed in her office by the Bush campaign within two days after the election to be her "minder." A former Republican staffer and campaign manager, Mr. Stipanovich personified the formidable forces behind Mr. Bush, which have enjoyed the spoils of his triumph ever since. Following the 1999 legislative session in Tallahassee, Mr. Stipanovich told a local reporter, "I got everything. I don’t know what the poor people got, but the rich people are happy, and I’m ready to go home." There is much more in Too Close to Call that should embarrass Bush partisans, if they were capable of that healthy emotion. Indeed, there is much here to embarrass all of us, as our brave brothers and sisters again venture out under arms in the name of democracy.
We’re apparently beyond such embarrassment now, living in a media environment where a
questionable Presidential election generates about as much current buzz as the fate of Chandra
Levy. The story of the 2000 election remains as salient today as it was a year ago, however,
regardless of what the conventional idiocy may say. It tells us that our fundamental right to
self-government has been corrupted and still awaits restoration. And it tells us something we
need to remember about a President whose enthusiasm for government secrecy, military
tribunals and other such constitutional affronts was foreshadowed in his leap to the White
House.
|
War On Terror Or War On Freedom? By Gene Lyons Meeting with with congressional leaders from both parties shortly after the Supreme Court appointed him president, George W. Bush joshed that, "If this were a dictatorship, this would be a heck of a lot easier." Chortling at his own wit, he added, "Just so long as I'm dictator." In the wake of several new laws and decrees granting himself and Attorney General John Ashcroft the authority to serve as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner over anything they choose to call "terrorism," some skeptics have begun to wonder if Bush isn't one of those people who only says what he means when he pretends to be joking. Could be. As Mark Crispin Miller points out in his book "The Bush Dyslexicon," the only time Bush doesn't sound like somebody speaking a foreign language he learned in high school is when he's angry or teasing somebody. But what's important is that Bush and Ashcroft have used the September 11 outrage as a pretext to turn America into a country where government agents can monitor your communications and/or break into your home without a warrant. They can seize (or create) evidence of loosely defined subversive activity, arrest you without probable cause, imprison you indefinitely without notifying anybody, covertly monitor your conversations with your attorney (if you're allowed one), try you before a military tribunal, admit hearsay (what an enemy says you said), deny you the right to see the evidence against you or to confront your accusers, find you guilty and put you to death. All in complete secrecy and with no right of appeal. At a recent press conference, Ashcroft actually said the government's motive for concealing the identities of the 1000 foreigners being held in federal prisons is to protect their "rights and privacy." Sort of the way they did it in Buenos Aires and Moscow in the bad old days. Your reputation is always safe with the secret police. As for the rest of us, our patriotic duty is to trust that Bush knows best in the best of all possible countries, and get on with shopping. "We believe that when we have arrested violators of the law that we think have been associated with terrorists," Ashcroft explained "that that is a valuable component of defending the United States of America." Back when the flames were still visible at the World Trade Center, almost everybody thought so. Ashcroft's rallying cry was "the Constitution does not apply to terrorists." Few protested what sounded like bellicose hyperbole. As, indeed, the U.S Constitution does not apply to Osama bin Laden and his cohorts holed up in Afghan caves. Having declared holy war on the United States, one fervently hopes they're about to experience the martyrdom they seek. For that matter, few lost any sleep over those detained. A couple of months in an American federal prison wouldn't kill anybody; continuing lax enforcement of U.S. immigration laws certainly could. Those who decried "racial profiling" sounded like members of the crybaby culture mouthing phrases they'd heard on TV. As the star chamber powers have accumulated, however, it's not just the ACLU who's getting nervous. No less a conservative than New York Times columnist William Safire has sounded the alarm. "Misadvised by a frustrated and panic-stricken attorney general," he argued, Bush had seized "what amounts to dictatorial power." Cowed by terrorists, Americans "are letting George W. Bush get away with the replacement of the American rule of law with military kangaroo courts." Safire argues that the new policies mock not merely the Constitution, but the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Safire, who led cheers for Kenneth Starr, thinks that liberals won't speak up for fear of being called unpatriotic. He may be right for a change. If so, here's one liberal who thinks he may be understating the danger. So far, the most draconian policies apply only to aliens. But since their supposed rationale is to hide intelligence secrets and protect jurors from reprisals, the same logic would also apply to American citizens.
A religious crackpot utterly unsuited to be Attorney General, as
recently as 1997 Ashcroft appeared in a Phyllis Schlaffly-sponsored video
arguing that Bill Clinton was conspiring with other Democrats to hand over
the U.S. to a cabal of "international bankers." It doesn't take a psychic
to know where he and Asa Hutchinson, his running buddy at DEA, would like
to take this thing. Shoot, I could write Ashcroft's speech myself. Didn't
the Taliban traffic in heroin? They did. Don't the NARCOTRAFFICANTES of
Latin America finance terrorism? They do. So why not merge the "war on
terrorism" with the "war on drugs" into a righteous crusade against
America's deadliest enemies? Think Bush would object? Ponder the
consequences. If the Congress and the courts, backed by strong public
opinion, don't stop them now, you can kiss your constitutional freedoms
goodbye.
|
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." ... Hermann Goering
The Smart Set Gets One Up By Ted Rall Notes From The War Economy DUSHANBE, Tajikistan: My fixer -- no self-respecting Westerner does Central Asia without one, without a local to smooth his way -- tried to take me to the Hotel Dushanbe. But I'm no sucker. I didn't let the big rooms or working boilers seduce me. "Take me to the Hotel Tajikistan!" I insisted to Sadullo. An anguished look crossed Sadullo's face: "But it's ... cheaper." In Tajikistan, as back home in Manhattan, cheap means bad. But here in the waning days of the Afghan war rush, the Hotel Tajikistan is THE place to be. Dushanbe, the worn-out capital of the most-failed of former Soviet Republics, sight of a not-unlike-Afghanistan civil war during the '90s, is the jumping-off point for anyone who wants to get into Afghanistan, a country with no international airport. And the Hotel Tajikistan has become a Scene: There are more "journos" in the lobby than in the entire New York Times building. When you catch Christiane Amanpour and the rest of the talking heads broadcasting from the roof of the Islamabad Marriott in Pakistan, know this: People who don't know jack about this part of the world go to Pakistan to get into Afghanistan. You would, too, if you looked at a map; the Khyber Pass offers the best geographical connecter between Afghanistan and the outside world. But the Pakistani-Afghan border has been closed since U.S. bombs started falling; the closest thing to actual action is interviews with Afghan refugees at camps in Peshawar and Quetta. Tajikistan has received remarkably little coverage in America's new war, as cable TV news calls it. When the Taliban still ruled, the Tajik-dominated Northern Alliance used the country as a supply line -- opium paste and emeralds out, guns in. Even when the Islamic State of Afghanistan controlled just 5 percent of the country, the Alliance ran a regular helicopter shuttle between Dushanbe and Faizabad, Afghanistan. Now, that chopper and government-sponsored journalist convoys have become the only reliable ways in and out of the land of the mujaheddin. "Are you with a relief agency?" a thinned-lipped 50ish lady from Seattle asks me in the elevator, obviously sizing up my suitability for a middle-of-nowhere one-nighter. "Journalism," I reply, "talk radio and The Village Voice." "Ohhhh," she says. We both know what that "oh" means. The aid agency workers, mainly Christians and retro-granola types, consider the journalists vultures of the lowest order, gleefully snapping pictures of gore and cruel acts. The laptop and video-feed set look at the aid workers with a mix of pity and contempt, for they believe their efforts are both pointless (feeding a few thousand while millions starve) and self-interested (converting Muslims to Christianity). Naturally, both are right. The rea l winners here are the Afghans and Tajiks sufficiently educated in English and the ways of the marketplace to exploit the army of expense-account-funded scribblers and proselytizers in their midst. The Northern Alliance charges $550 for a one-way helicopter ride that takes 20 minutes; to increase revenue they sell twice as many tickets as there are seats and let Darwinistic fisticuffs work out the difference. The same experience, minus the double booking, cost just $130 a year ago. English/Dari/Pashto translators go for more than $100 a day in a nation with an average monthly income of $1.40. Even a 20-mile taxi ride, at most a buck a year ago, will set back the accounting department at CNN $40 or more. According to the Afghan embassy, more than 1,000 journalist are running around inflating the Afghan economy; every day, roughly 40 to 80 more enter the country. The war hasn't been completely gentrified, however; the car convoy, which travels some of the worst mountain roads anywhere on the planet "for eight or nine hours, or maybe three days," according to my fixer, costs a mere $400 per car. Before the war you could've done the same thing for $80. "I just hope the Taliban hold out at Kunduz," I overheard a guy from German Channel 4 say in the elevator here at the hotel. Many residents of Dushunbe feel the same way.
(Ted Rall, a syndicated cartoonist for Universal Press Syndicate, is author of the new books "2024" and "Search
and Destroy.") |
|
A Thirsty Evil By Chris Floyd Are you a terrorist? If you don't know, you'd better find out fast. Because Uncle Sam's made a list and he's checking it twice -- "40 to 50 countries" targeted for possible "U.S. action," according to America's securely-located vice president, Dick "Chicken Hawk" Cheney. As the man says, a hard rain's a-gonna fall. So here's a simple test to check your moral worthiness and see if you can escape God's -- sorry, Bush's -- all-devouring wrath. Have you ever gone out for a beer and bought a Stella Artois instead of a Bud? Then you, my friend, have engaged in a conspiracy to cause "adverse effects" to the economy of the United States. And that makes you one of the evildoers. So says the great Oval Object in his latest executive order, in which he grants himself the power to have anyone he designates as a terrorist to be tried by secret military tribunals and executed without appeal. Bush's dread edict -- which of course takes effect without any input from that useless appendage of a bygone era, the U.S. Congress -- covers anyone who "causes, threatens to cause" or even "has as their aim" to cause "adverse effects" on, among other things, the American economy or U.S. foreign policy. As always, Bush alone retains the right to decide who is and who is not a terrorist, just as he alone decides what constitutes an "adverse effect" on the United States. Could be a bomb, a boycott, a protest, a tariff -- or the wrong beer: it's his call. The edict gives him the power to seize any non-U.S. citizen, in any country on earth, and to subject him or her to secret summary justice. There is no outside check or oversight of this exercise of universal dominion, and no legal recourse for the accused -- not even to the laws of their own country. Never has a single person in the history of the world laid claim to such absolute power -- and commanded the military might to back it up. For we should also note that Bush now has the authority to launch attacks against any nation he chooses, at his own discretion, without a vote by Congress or that other withered appendage, the United Nations. And if you don't like it, pal, you can tell it to the judge. The military judge. Just before he puts a bullet in your brain. No Direction Home But what about malcontents in what Bush now calls "the Homeland?" Hey, we got it covered. The U.S. government now has the power to prosecute any public expression of dissent as an act of "domestic terrorism," thanks to the super-duper new "U.S.A. Patriot" Act passed, in the dead of night, by Congress late last month -- a law which most of the dangling legislative appendages freely admit they never read before the vote. Under the new law, you are a "domestic terrorist," subject to 25 years in prison, if you engage in acts intended to "influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion." Which is, of course, the very definition of public protest: the attempt to force policy changes on reluctant governments through an unsettling display of popular will. In this case, the Imperial Executive has delegated power to his most faithful minion: Attorney General John Ashcroft. It is Ashcroft -- the only senator in U.S. history to be rejected by voters in favor of a dead man -- who will now define the limits of freedom in America. And Ashcroft -- a prissy religious crank like his boss -- has gone about his task with Christian zeal. (After all, your true believers know there is a higher law than that secular humanist rag, the constitution.) For example, just last week, Ashcroft stripped prisoners of the ancient right to confer with legal counsel in private, conferring upon himself the power to monitor any such conversation whenever he sees fit. This also applies to people being held without any charge at all -- and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, in that category now. We don't know the exact number, because Ashcroft no longer tells anyone -- including the Appendages -- how many people he's holding, or why he's holding them, or who they are, or where they might be, or what he's going to do with them. But not to worry; he's taking good care of his nameless captives. Why, only one has died in custody so far. At least that we know about Because Ashcroft's not telling. Bullet Points The terrorist attacks on American liberty are coming so fast these days you can't keep track of them all, and so your inundated Eye is reduced to making mere lists of a few recent developments: Bush insiders begin pushing the idea of using regular Army troops to "keep order" among the general populace -- the kind of thing that once drove terrorist leaders like George Washington and Patrick Henry to violent rebellion. A rightwing group founded by the vice president's wife, Lynn Cheney, issues a list of dozens of academics it considers "short on patriotism" for making critical comments about American policy. The group plans more "naming and shaming" of individuals who are "out of step" with the "Homeland." Ashcroft orders the interrogation of an additional 5,000 young Arab men who entered the country legally during the past two years. With a straight face, Ashcroft denies singling out anyone on the basis of race, creed, or national origin.
And finally, some good news: Billy Bush, radio DJ and the president's
first cousin, finds work after being canned by a small Virginia radio
station for low ratings. He's been hired by CNN. |

|
Guilty For 9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers By Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel Dedicated to the firemen of New York.
======================================= Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon. On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city. The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed. Air Force officials and others have tried to explain away the failures: "Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'" --'Newsday,' 23 September 2001 (1) Using information from the mass media and official Websites, we will show that this is a lie. Some of what happened on 9-11, such as planes flying into buildings, is unusual. But most of what happened, such as commercial jets flying off-course, transponder failures and possible hijackings, are common emergencies. We will show that these emergencies are routinely handled with expert efficiency based on clear rules. The crash of the first hijacked jet into the World Trade Center made it clear the United States was faced with an extraordinary situation. This should have intensified the emergency responses of the air safety and defense systems. The whole country was aware. For example, at 9:06 AM the NY Police broadcast: " 'This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon.'" --'Daily News' (New York) 12 September 2001 (2) 'American Forces Press Service' reported that ordinary people working at the Pentagon worried they could be next: "'We were watching the World Trade Center on the television,' said a Navy officer. 'When the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, 'The World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.'" --'DEFENSELINK News', Sept. 13, 2001 (3) U.S. air safety and air defense emergency systems are activated in response to problems every day. On 9-11 they failed despite, not because of, the extreme nature of the emergency. This could only happen if individuals in high positions worked in a coordinated way to make them fail. Such operatives would almost surely have failed if they tried to disrupt and abort routine protection systems without top-level support. The failure of the emergency systems would be noticed immediately. Moreover, given the catastrophic nature of the attacks, the highest military authorities would be alerted. Acting on their own, the operatives could expect that their orders would be countermanded and that they themselves would be arrested. The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict hierarchies, would never have been contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the supreme U.S. military command. This includes at least U.S. President George Bush, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers. In the following summary of evidence we will demonstrate probable cause for charging the above-named persons with treason for complicity in the murders of thousands of people whom they had sworn to protect. The summary of evidence covers the following areas: * Andrews Air Force Base and the myth of 'no available planes;' * The air safety/air defense systems and the myth that they were not prepared; * The actions of George Bush on 9-11 that clearly violated his positive legal and constitutional obligations and demonstrated consciousness of guilt; * The testimony of General Richard B. Myers at Senate hearings on his nomination as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In these hearings, the contents of which were reported accurately by one lone journalist, General Myers attempted to cover up what had happened 9-11 when he was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He offered three mutually contradictory cover stories and demonstrated consciousness of guilt; * The cover story floated by CBS evening news, September 14th. Until that time, officials reported that no planes had been 'scrambled' to intercept the hijacked planes. But following Gen. Myers disastrous Senate testimony, CBS broadcast an improved version of 9-11. In the new script, fighter jets from Otis and Langley Air Force Bases did try, but failed, to intercept the hijacked planes. This is now presented as the official NORAD story and has been repeated uncritically by media and government officials alike. We will demonstrate that this cover story is both weak and incriminating. SECTION 1, PART 1: Why did no fighter jets 'scramble' to protect Washington D.C.? LIE #1: 'NO COMBAT READY FIGHTERS WERE STATIONED NEAR THE PENTAGON' As noted, Andrews Air Force base is 10 miles from the Pentagon. The media has mainly avoided talking about Andrews. An exception is 'USA Today,' the second-highest circulation newspaper in America. On one day it published two contradictory stories to explain the failure to scramble jets from Andrews prior to the Pentagon crash: FIRST 'USA TODAY' STORY: "Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed." --'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001 (4) SECOND 'USA TODAY' STORY: "The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed." --'USA TODAY' September 17, 2001 (5) Both stories are false. Only one newspaper told the truth. That was the 'San Diego Union-Tribune': "Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said. "But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon..." --'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (6) Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It hosts two 'combat-ready' squadrons: * the 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter Wing (FW-113), equipped with F-16 fighters; * the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped with F/A-18 fighters. These squadrons are served by hundreds of full-time personnel. THE 121st FIGHTER SQUADRON, 113th FIGHTER WING ".as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Colombia. [They] are full partners with the active Air Force" --DC Military (7) THE 321st MARINE FIGHTER ATTACK SQUADRON (VMFA-321) "In the best tradition of the Marine Corps, a 'few good men and women' support two combat-ready reserve units at Andrews AFB. "Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 321, a Marine Corps Reserve squadron, flies the sophisticated F/A-18 Hornet. Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 49, Detachment A, provides maintenance and supply functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness. " --DC Military (7) So Andrews AFB had at least two 'combat-ready' squadrons. The above quotes are from www.dcmilitary.com, a private Website authorized by the military to provide information for members of the armed forces. We discovered it 24 September. A month later we found that the address had been changed and the Andrews information posted in the smallest type size. Similarly, the official Andrews AFB Website has been 'down' since mid-September. Fortunately, it can still be accessed by going to www.archive.org and entering www.andrews.af.mil . On the Andrews main page, front and center there is a direct link to DC Military. The information on the Andrews Website confirms the information on DC military. We urge everyone to check these links and download the pages as soon as possible because they may be moved or removed yet again. For Andrews, go to www.archive.org and then enter www.andrews.af.mil [Note: a few days after this Emperor's Clothes article was posted, the www.andrews.af.mil website went back up with the note: "This Page was last modified September 12, 2001." The new Andrews website no longer links to the most relevant information regarding 9-11. The most relevant web pages "cannot be found." Fortunately, they are still available through www.archive.org. The original addresses (now dead) are: http://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/113wing/pa/html/wg_units.html and http://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/hq/index.htm The direct links to the archives of these pages are:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010306223457/
http://web.archive.org/web/20010408230859/
We also have a backup copies of the pages at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcandr.htm http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcandr2.htm ] Our research has been carried out mainly by volunteers. Newspapers and TV news departments have full-time research staffs. The important media have bureaus in Washington DC, just a few miles from the Andrews airbase. Why haven't newspapers and TV news programs reported the truth: that Andrews job was to protect DC? This failure is especially striking because some media did report that fighters scrambled from Andrews, but only after the Pentagon was hit. Thus they were aware that Andrews was supposed to defend D.C.: For example: " Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC." --'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001 (8) And: "WASHINGTON - .an audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience as a large black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon. Terrorism suddenly was at the doorstep and clearly visible through the big glass windows overlooking the Potomac River. Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base and other installations and cross-crossed the skies. "A thick plume of smoke was climbing out of the hollow center of the Pentagon. Everyone on the train understood what had happened moments before." --'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001 (9) And: "It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC." --NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001 (10) The media should have demanded to know the truth about why fighter jets assigned to protect Washington didn't scramble an hour BEFORE the Pentagon was hit. Besides fighters, tanker planes and AWACS were also readily available.(An AWACS is a flying communication center equipped with radar which can scan at least 250 miles. This is almost the full distance from the West-Virginia/Ohio/Kentucky border, where American Air Flight 77 turned around before flying back to DC.) Both General Myers and Vice President Cheney admit that these planes did not go into the air over Washington until after the Pentagon was hit. Here is General Myers, testifying 13th September: "When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked." --Gen. Richard B. Myers at Senate confirmation hearing 13 September 2001 (11) And Richard Cheney on 'Meet the Press': "VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft. "MR. RUSSERT: And you decided?' "VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time." --NBC, 'Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) 16 September 2001 (12) As we shall see, Mr. Cheney's statement that "the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft" is a lie. Publicly available FAA documents prove that fighter jets routinely intercept commercial aircraft under certain designated circumstances without requiring or asking for approval from the White House. Summary of evidence is CONTINUED IN SECTION I, PART II FOOTNOTES:
(1) 'Newsday' 23 September 2001, "Air Attack on Pentagon Indicates
Weaknesses" by Sylvia Adcock, Brian Donovan and Craig Gordon
Web version at::
(2) 'Daily News' (New York), 12 September 2001, Wednesday, NEWS
SECTION; Pg. 24: 'THE TRAGIC TIMELINE The sad events of the day.'
the full text is available at:
(3) 'DEFENSELINK News,' "It Was Business as Usual, Then 'Boom'" By
Jim Garamone, 'American Forces Press Service,' Sept. 13, 2001
(4) 'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001, Pg. 5A, "Military now a presence on home front," by Andrea Stone.
Web version is at:
(5) 'USA TODAY,' September 17, 2001 Monday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 5A,
"Shoot-down order issued on morning of chaos," by Jonathan Weisman, Washington
Web version is at:
(6) 'San Diego Union-Tribune,' 12 September 2001. Homepage at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/ Article at: (7) Current DC Military weblink is:
http://www.dcmilitary.com/baseguides/airforce/andrews/partnerunits.html
(8) 'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001 Web article at:
(9) 'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001
To view this article on the Web, search for Article ID: 1075896 on:
(10) 'NBC Nightly News,' "Attack on America," (6:30 PM ET) 11
September 2001, "Tuesday President Bush returns to White House on Marine
One," Anchor: Tom Brokaw, Jim Miklaszewski reporting.
See transcript at:
(11) Gen. Richard B. Myers at Senate confirmation hearing 13 September 2001
Full transcript at:
(12) 'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001.
Full transcript at:
URL for this article: |

|
(The URL of the actual on-line petition is:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?love)
No matter where the idea sprung from, its art
imitating life. Its a form of educating the public.
Its ironic when a fictional program educates better
than our schools. This dramtic entertainment showed
any thinking person, there is more than one way to
view poverty. There being more than one approach is
such a great lesson.
In today's unwise jargon, to appear as less of a
bigot, both republicans and democrats no longer must
say those lacking adequate pay are lazy scum's. When
putting down the financially poor one simply exclaims
"those people making bad decisions." It makes the
speaker sound nearly compassionate.
Yet upon close scrutiny the self-thinker would ask,
What? A millionaire never made a wrong educated guess?
Inquire of Oprah and Bill Gates. I believe they will
admit to a few blunders, because they are human.
But the delightful part about using this code is you
can still blame the poor, without most liberals
figuring what you have done until you out of lecture
ear shot. Oh, did I blow that one for some of you?
Good!
Yes this Thanksgiving show, of the West Wing, was seen
by millions of people. It did not attack their
mind set. It did reiterate the findings a newly
released study, commissioned by the National Public
Radio, The Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard
University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
The study revealed most Americans "don’t know what are
the faces of the poor." And to quote the Catholic
News, "and too many don’t care."
Why should they care, if those in the slightly upper
economic classes can think those below them are
inhuman irrational thinkers who brought all this bad
luck upon themselves?
The West Wings plot clearly said the American
people do not want to be informed of inhumane living
condition of an additional 4 million people
inadequately paid to afford rent, mortgage, food,
heat, or cooling, and medical. The shows premise was
the sitting president could not change the
miscalculated poverty threshold formula used since
1963, and hope to be re-elected.
Each of the top aides wanted to place the formula
which used food instead of the more costly rent, as a
basic’s of judging which of the working poor, did not
earn enough to pay their bills. The show was void of
words the public did not want to hear. It did not
judge that judging the financially poor was bad, as
the Catholic news did with The study found that most
Americans "don’t know what are the
faces of the poor." And to quote the Catholic News,
"and too many don’t care."
The beauty about studies, are wait a decade and
another one will come along, and contradict those
conclusions, by inspecting other facts.
The hi-light of the aspect of the West Wing was they
had this dilemma, How to make it appear to the voters
the administration were assisting those new found
people, who made bad decisions, and still get
President Burton re-elected. Or how to get the agency
redesigning the poverty formula to wait to after the
election. It seemed insurmountable.
Bush will not have this ethical problem. For even if
his administration found 15 million hidden poor folks,
either they will be ignored as they are now or
inadequately designed or operated programs will be put
in place, as they are now.
Or Bush will use the solution the TV fictional
characters came up with. Another top aide said no
problem, repackage the poor. The enlarged number of
poor could be justified by demanding to the effect "I
am applaud this problem was not corrected on the watch
of those who came before us."
Yes, this episode of West Wing failed to show the
faces of the poor. Yet the idea of there being more
poor folks and education was effectively sent to
millions. The story line, exemplified, if society
changes our point of view, the problem is erased.
And the Thanksgiving program, was seen, and understood
by countless more people than will hear of the NPR,
Kaiser, Harvard study.
No matter where this story line leaped from, this
advocate of the poor, deeply thanks the producers of
the award winning show, for educating America. And
hopes this and other shows will in the future, give a
voice to the poor. |

|
A rabidly pro-war cadre of journalists and pundits have become cheer-leaders for an aggressive
and expansive war, and increasingly draconian domestic policies, following the terrorists attacks of
Sept. 11. As the Bush administration rapidly expands law enforcement power and national security
authority, a phalanx of white male commentators with magazines of opinion like the New Republic
and the Weekly Standard have become a steady bellicose chorus, flirting with macabre doomsday
scenarios. Their voices urge the administration to escalate the battle beyond Afghanistan and to
use more force.
By calling for Bush to step up the war effort, curtail civil liberties, consider torture, and imagine the
deaths of tens of millions of Muslims, these writers and TV personalities have dominated the
intellectual debate. By grossly distorting the positions of critics, they have helped to give Bush a free
ride and undermine healthy discourse. This pundit group has upped the ante for the Bush
administration, either pushing it further to the right, or providing it with cover to keep pushing the
envelope -- no matter how far the Bush administration goes in expanding security power and
remaking the international landscape, the war boys will still be calling for more.
Surprisingly, the Washington Post Op-Ed page has become what may be the friendliest
environment to many of these writers. It used to be that the Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed page was
the most reactionary and predictable of the national print press. But it now has stiff competition, as
Michael Massing notes in the Nation: "Since September 11th, the Washington Post Op-Ed page has
been a playpen for columnist-commanders. No fewer that seven regular contributors compete to
offer the toughest, manliest views on the conflict. William Kristol has used the page to attack Colin
Powell, George Will to thumb his nose at the State Department and Robert Novak to deride the CIA."
Massing adds that the most ferocious of the bellicose boys writing for the Post is Charles
Krauthammer, who expresses "contempt for the administration's food drops and concern for civilian
casualties." "Why have we not loosed the B-52s and the B-2s to carpet-bomb Taliban positions?"
Krauthammer asks. Evidently six weeks of relentless bombing is not enough. War expansion is a
major goal of the belligerent bunch, and now a defacto goal of the Post, "since the paper has run at
least a dozen columns demanding the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein, yet not a single one has
bothered to consider how daunting the task might be," writes Massing. Nor has the Post considered
what an attack on Iraq's impact might be on civilian populations.
No doubt this steady drumbeat for war in the corridors of the capital has its effect on the policy
makers, as most of the warrior pundits appear regularly on TV and are quoted by newsmen like
Wolf Blitzer on CNN.
The far-right hysteria put forth by these militants of the chattering class strengthens the position of
the right in the Bush administration. One result, for example is Bush's support of the Ashcroft plan
for the establishment of kangaroo military courts to jail or execute non-Americans. President Bush
admitted that this plan would involve "dismissing the principles of law and the rules of evidence"
that provide the foundation for the U.S. legal system. As conservative columnist William Safire
explains in the NY Times, the Bush kangaroo court can conceal evidence by citing national security
and make up its own rules. It can find a defendant guilty even if a third of the officers disagree, and
execute the alien with no review by any civilian court. In an Orwellian twist, Bush's order calls this
Soviet style abomination : "a full and fair trial."
Fox News Network the most conservative of the cable news operations has also sounded a steady
pro-war drumbeat. Here's their star prime-time "go to guy," Bill O'Reilly: "The US should bomb the
Afghan infrastructure to rubble -- the airport, the power plants, their water facilities, the roads. The
Afghans are responsible for the Taliban. We should not target civilians, but if they don't rise up
against this criminal government, they starve, period."
Perhaps the most disturbing of the B-Boy habits is their uncontrolled lust for revenge -- revenge for
the actual events of 9/11 and for theoretical future attacks. In fact, doomsday scenarios, like
terrorists exploding a nuclear bomb in D.C. seem to have been conjured up by the writers
themselves to instill fear and justify their positions. The rabid Krauthammer's revenge fantasies are
primarily focused on Iraq. As Jonathan Scchell reports in the November 26th issue of The Nation "In
a 'total war' Krauthammer offered that the distinction of civilian casualties was a 'nicety' that the US
could no longer afford. He wanted to know 'if we (the U.S.) were still ready to 'wipe Iraq off the face of
the earth.'" Krauthammer believes that "if we are not prepared to wage total war we risk disaster on
a scale we have never seen and can barely imagine."
Beyond even Krauthammer, Greg Esterbook at the New Republic fantasized about the destruction of
an entire region:. "If an atomic device were ever to go off in DC, in the twenty four hours that followed,
a hundred million Muslims would die as US nuclear bombs rained down on every conceivable
military target in a dozen Muslim countries." Even though the fantasies are in response to a potential
attack, this kind of apocalyptic fantasy, "if enacted, would be a crime outside all human experience
and would blacken the name of the U.S. in human memory forever," as Schell points out.
It is difficult to grasp the depths of pent-up, vengeful emotions that have been unleashed by the
terrorists attack in September. It is astonishing, that these pundits can make no meaningful
distinction between criminal terrorists and suspected terrorists without a portfolio, or between hated
despots and the population they oppress. "If the terrorists are Muslims, then all Muslims must pay,"
seems to be the credo.
The more-militant-than-thou epidemic has even spread to the news weeklies: The normally liberal
Jonathan Alter (Newsweek) has apparently caught the disease, raising the spectre of torture as a
way to address the problem of terrorism. "OK, not cattle prods or rubber hoses," Alter writes, "at
least not here in the United States, but something to jump-start the stalled investigation of the
greatest crime in American history" In another piece, Alter urged a "left stuck in a deep anti-American
rut" to can it, because it's "kill or be killed." In addition, Massing points out that the Washington
Posts's Richard Cohen, their "in-house liberal," seems to have joined in the conservatives in an
effort to "prove his mettle."
As with Alter pouncing on "reactionary left-wingers," pundits and columnists have red-baited critics,
distorting their positions. With their belligerence, and with the cooperation of their editors , they have
shifted the debate so far to the right that any sensible critic gets labeled a pacifist or even a traitor. A
prime example of this is Atlantic Editor, Michael Kelly, writing in the Washington Post: "American
pacifists are on the side of future mass murders of Americans," they are "objectively pro-terrorist,"
"evil" and "liars."
The disease isn't limited to the predictably conservative Rupert Murdoch controlled Weekly
Standard, either, or even to the newly belligerent Post. The third hot bed of militance is the
historically liberal New Republic (which has always been a unswerving supporter of Israel) . Under
editor Peter Beinart's stewardship, The New Republic "has enthusiastically and rather
unconditionally supported the new patriotism," according to Marc Cooper, writing on Working For
Change. "As ardent a militarist as he (Beinart) has become, his favored target seems be the
American Left."
Beinart has kept up a stream of steady attacks on dissidents, arguing that the Left's professed
concern over maintaining civil liberties in times of national emergency is disingenuous. In another
of his signed columns, Beinart writes: "What distinguishes leftists from other Americans, then, isn't
their commitment to civil liberties, but their lack of commitment to the anti-terrorism efforts with
which those civil liberties may conflict."
It truly seems like a dark time for debate and dissent in America. Many patriotic critics, who offer
complex, nuanced responses, have been shut out of the discourse, despite their willingness to
promote military response.
In their war-hungry screeds, the belligerent right seem to be responding to an imaginary leftist drive
to sit quietly and do nothing. None of them seem to have heard voices like Texas populist Jim
Hightower, who writes:
"On the military front, the United States has no choice but to go after the bastards.
Terrorism ain't beanbags. The ruthless mass murderers smacked our nation and all
of civilization right in the face, and turning the other cheek only means we'll get
smacked aga |