Free Web Hosting | free host | Free Web Space | BlueHost Review




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!




How We Should Rebuild The World Trade Center






The Devils In The Details.

By Ernest Stewart

Is it hopeless, are we doomed? Should we all just march ourselves down to the Concentration Camps, turn ourselves in and get it over with? Has the "Patriots Act" made us all slaves to the Junta?

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!
© 2001 Ernest Stewart




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.
© 2001 Award-winning investigative reporter Greg Palast writes, Inside Corporate America, fortnightly in the Observer (London), Sunday paper of Britain's Guardian. At http://www.GregPalast.com you can read and subscribe to Greg Palast's columns






The Hightower Lowdown

The Brainwashing War On Us

While the air in Afghanistan is filled with a cacophony of U.S. bombs, our airways here at home are increasingly filled with a cacophony of official propaganda.

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!
© 2001 Jim Hightower's latest book, "If The Gods Had Meant Us To Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates," is available in a fully revised and updated paperback edition.






So Bush Did Steal The White House

By Robert Parry

George W. Bush now appears to have claimed the most powerful office in the world by blocking a court-ordered recount of votes in Florida that likely would have elected Al Gore to be president of the United States.

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!"
© 2001 Robert Parry. In the 1980s, Robert Parry broke many of the stories now known as the Iran-Contra scandal for the Associated Press and Newsweek.





The Politics Of Terror And Mass Persuasion
by William Thomas

"Nothing would be what it is. Because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary-wise -what it is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?" - Alice in Wonderland

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
© 2001 William Thomas ... www.lifeboatnews.com ... willthomas@telus.net






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.
© 2001 Joe Conason.
You may reach Joe Conason via email at: jconason@observer.com.






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.
©2001 Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient of the National Magazine Award.





Quotable Quote

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.")
© 2001 Ted Rall





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.
© 2001 Chris Floyd




Myers, Bush & Von Rumsfeld making plans!



Guilty For 9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers
By Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel

Dedicated to the firemen of New York.

=======================================
INTRODUCTION TO SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

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://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/113wing/pa/html/wg_units.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20010408230859/
www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/hq/index.htm

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::
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
Backup at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nd923.htm

(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:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dn912.htm

(3) 'DEFENSELINK News,' "It Was Business as Usual, Then 'Boom'" By Jim Garamone, 'American Forces Press Service,' Sept. 13, 2001
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09132001_200109132.html
Backup at
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/def.htm

(4) 'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001, Pg. 5A, "Military now a presence on home front," by Andrea Stone. Web version is at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/military-home-front.htm
Backup at:
http:/.emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/usa-1.htm

(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:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/pentagon-timeline.htm Backup at
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/usa2.htm

(6) 'San Diego Union-Tribune,' 12 September 2001. Homepage at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/ Article at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/sd.htm

(7) Current DC Military weblink is:

http://www.dcmilitary.com/baseguides/airforce/andrews/partnerunits.html
Backup of the November 2001 web page at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcmil.htm
Backup of how the page looked on September 2001 at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcmilsep.htm

(8) 'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001 Web article at:
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2001/09/16/wcia16.xml Backup article at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/tel16.htm

(9) 'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001 To view this article on the Web, search for Article ID: 1075896 on:
http://www.denverpost.com
Backup article at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dp11.htm

(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:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbc911cover.htm

(11) Gen. Richard B. Myers at Senate confirmation hearing 13 September 2001 Full transcript at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/mycon.htm
This particular quotation was also reprinted by many mainstream media sources.

(12) 'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001. Full transcript at:
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1
Backup transcript at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm

URL for this article:
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
Alternative address is
http://emperor.vwh.net/indict/indict-1.htm
© 2001 Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel





Advocates, Thank The TV Show Called West Wing
By Jan Lightfoot-Lane

It's possible, that The West Wing TV Show derived their thanksgiving story idea, from an on line petition by our Maine grass-root groups, of Hospitality House Inc. and the Proud Lesbians of Poverty. I have not phoned the NBC Producers to confirm or deny if they are capable of independent thought.

(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.
© 2001 Jan Lightfoot-Lane





The Belligerent Bunch: Rabid Journalists and Pundits Push Bush to Extremes
By Don Hazen ... AlterNet

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 again.

There's no subtlety to their agenda. However, there must be subtlety to ours. The trick in smacking back is in knowing who "they" are, where they are, and particularly in smacking them without slaughtering the innocents they hide among. This requires a scalpel, not a sledgehammer, Bringing them to justice in a court of law would be ideal, and we should seek their capture, but these are suicidal, doctrinaire diehards, so blood will flow."

Rianne Eisler, a popular New Age theorist and author of the well-known "The Chalice and the Blade" was interviewed by Helen Knode in the LA Weekly:

"Knode: what's your solution to terrorism? How do we fight it? Eisler : There's a short-term strategy and a long-term strategy -- and they have to be simultaneous. In the short term, I'm afraid that military response against terrorist bases in nations that fund and support terrorism is necessary." " Unfortunately, failure to respond will encourage more terrorism. In the dominator mind, there are only those who dominate and those who are dominated. Nonviolence is equated with women, with what's despised, what's controlled and is legitimately, and easily, terrorized into submission."

The interview continues:

"Knode: But violence only breeds violence, you said it yourself. Eisler: If you've got a psychopath lunging at you with a knife, that's not the time to talk about peace and love. It's the time to defend yourself to save your life. The time to talk about peace and love, and to put them into action, is before that person becomes a psychopath. If we're to effectively address the festering problems that breed terrorism, we have to deal with the foundations of violence. We have to think of the long term. Any war on terrorism is doomed to fail, just like the war on drugs, unless we address the deepest historical, cultural, social, economic, political and psychic forces that produce terrorism. This is urgent in our high-technology age. "

Bill Moyers in a recent speech adds:

"[The terrorists] real goal is to get inside our heads, our psyche, and to deprive us - the survivors - of peace of mind, of trust, of faith; they aim to prevent us from believing again in a world of mercy, justice, and love, or working to bring that better world to pass... Let's face it: they present citizens with no options but to climb back in the ring. What's at stake is democracy. Democracy wasn't cancelled on the 11th of September, but democracy won't survive if citizens turn into lemmings. Yes, the President is our Commander-in-chief, and in hunting down and destroying the terrorists who are trying to destroy us, we are 'all the President's men.' But we are not the President's minions."

As Marc Cooper writes, "The left contains within it a broad spectrum of views, including on this war. Some honest and sincere, and I would add patriotic, leftists have raised questions and doubts about the prosecution of military action. And just as many, or more, have endorsed the use of force against Bin Laden and the Taliban." Writers like Mr. Beinart and Mr. Alter should know this. For them to claim otherwise tests the imagination.

Military action does not have to mean killing innocent Afghanis, who are clearly overjoyed to be freed from their Taliban oppressors. Civilians, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, are not a "nicety" to be dismissed as inconsequential "collateral damage." And any thinking dialogue should accept the premise that a significant difference exists between "blaming America" and trying to understand how American policies have affected the situation that created this threat. The current public debate needs more light and far less heat, as the future of the globe is at stake. Policy makers need to hear from and understand the wide range of thoughtful patriotic opinion that tends to be able to think short-term and long-term at the same time, a useful skill that is sorely misssing among the impulsive rants currently distorting public debate.
© 2001 Don Hazen



Dead Letter Office

Heil Bush,

Dear Propaganda Ansager Carlson,

Congratulations you have just been awarded the Vidkun Quisling Award for 2001. Your name will now live throughout history with such past award winners as Marcus Junius Brutus, Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, Vidkun Quisling and last year's winner Volksjudge Antoni (light-fingers) Scalia.

Without your help shilling for us, spinning the truth, telling out right lies and ignoring the real news, holding onto power after our Coup D' Etat would have been impossible. With the help of our mutual friends, the other "Media Whores," you have made it possible for all of us to goose-step off to a brave new bank account.

Along with this award there will be an Iron Cross 2nd class presented by our glorious Fuhrer Herr Bush at a gala celebration in der Fuhrer Bunker (formally the White House) on 12-15-2001. We salute you Herr Carlson, Sieg Heil!

Signed,
Deputy Fuhrer Cheney

Heil Bush






Empty Promise To The Pakistanis Next On Growing List Of US Blunders
By Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas -- Now is no time to quit worrying. Keep up that nail-biting, team. Foreign policy is like chess: It's necessary to think at least three or four moves ahead. According to The New York Times, the Pakistanis are deeply unhappy with us. They don't trust the Northern Alliance worth squat. Unhappy Pakistanis may strike you as no skin off your nose, but the problem is that Gen. Pervez Musharraf is not firmly in the saddle, as it were.

Since he took over in a coup, his support base is the military, and the Pakistani army has a lot of Islamic hard-liners. President Bush told Musharraf we would keep the Northern Alliance out of Kabul, but we couldn't stop them. Then they slaughtered at least 100 Pakistani fighters holed up in a school in the battle for Mazar-e Sharif.

From the Pakistani point of view, it looks as though their enemies in the alliance are taking over the whole country, and that the "everybody-in" government we promised them is a pipe dream.

If Musharraf falls to an Islamist coup, that puts 20 nukes in the hands of some loony mullahs, in turn causing India, also a nuclear power, to freak out. This is precisely the kind of unintended consequence of a military action we've seen before--remember the Khmer Rouge? So, much depends on how captured Pakistani Taliban fighters are treated, and apparently most of them are being sent to Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum--my personal fave among our Northern Alliance allies. He's the one who's changed sides nine times.

Then we have this claque of right-wingers here pounding the drum for war with Iraq. We haven't even got Osama bin Laden yet. Could we take this one step at a time?

Meanwhile back at the ranch, so much is coming down it's hard to keep track of it all. In the middle of everything else, zinging out of nowhere, sort of like U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's decision to prosecute Oregon doctors, comes an executive order from President Bush holding off access to Ronald Reagan's presidential papers.

The law says most presidential papers are to be opened five years after a president leaves office, and all but the most sensitive documents are to be opened after 12 years. Both national security and personal privacy are protected by the law.

Bush just ignored the law and issued an order giving himself and future presidents the power to withhold documents, even if the former leaders want them released.

Furthermore, the order says Americans will have to demonstrate a "specific need" to see the papers. Is the right to know what our own government has done with our money, our soldiers' blood and in our name a "specific need"? If you are wondering why civil libertarians are upset about Bush's order on military tribunals, since it only applies to non-citizens, try reading the thing. It applies to those we have "reason to believe" (but we don't have to produce any evidence) have committed acts of terrorism--or aided, abetted or conspired to commit acts--"that have caused or threaten to cause injuries or adverse effects on the U.S., its citizens, its national security, foreign policy or economy."

Broad enough for you?

That qualifies everyone from French farmers mad at McDonald's to Roman pickpockets. We already see the unhappy results, as Spain is now refusing to turn over eight suspected terrorists they arrested because they don't think they can get a fair trial here.

Don't put away those worry beads yet.
© 2001 Molly Ivins To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.






What’s A Libertarian To Do?
In the face of a corporate-sponsored dictatorship, they are at a loss

by Bryan Zepp Jamieson

Libertarians are a lot like liberals when it comes to social issues. Although libertarians like to pretend that liberals aren’t for freedom of speech, the right to own property, freedom of religion and freedom from oppressive government, the fact is we share all those traits in common.

Where the trouble begins is that libertarians believe that government, and government only, is the crux of power in a society, and that it can be abused. That government is a crux of power and can be abused is beyond question, of course, but where the libertarian philosophy falls apart is in the faith that should government be severely curtailed or even removed altogether, no other faction will move in to replace it, and society will consist of virtuous anarchists, each content to leave the others all alone.

This assumes that no corporation will ever try to stick it to their consumers or the competition, and that if one was foolish enough to try, an aroused public would reject them and their dishonest ways. (Interestingly, these same libertarians get very huffy and indignant if anyone should suggest a boycott of any sort now. Especially if it’s Microsoft).

They also like to pretend that the religious community doesn’t have a totalitarian streak in them that would love to impose their beliefs on the entire culture. As with curbs on corporate power, they just smile, flutter their hands, and assure one and all that if people just say no, then they will go away. It’s kinda quaint, really.

Of course, and as I’ve mentioned many times, these very entities spotted the fatal flaw in libertarian reasoning and with glad cries, adopted the jargon as their own. Thus you have people running about saying that poor, weak, powerless, freedom-loving little entities like Enron and the Catholic church deserve all the rights and privileges afforded everyone else, and that in the name of freedom, they should be allowed to take on regular citizens, one-to-one, in a fair fight.

Libertarians generally supported Republicans because Republicans said they were for smaller government. Republicans meant smaller government for big businesses only, and felt the role of government was to help business in any way possible. For the people, well . . .

The Republicans have this contingent of religiously insane, led by such rabid sociopaths as Sun Myung Moon, Pat Robinson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell. These "faith-based" leaders gave the GOP the not-inconsiderable support of their followers in return for the opportunity to desecularize America. Libertarians had to squeeze their eyes tightly shut and pretend these religious totalitarians weren’t a growing and ever more influential part of party politics dating back to 1975, and ignore such things as the school prayer amendment and the various efforts at eliminating the right to choose.

It would seem difficult for a group of staunch civil rights advocates to ignore the fact that their allies are talking about such things as disenfranchising non-believers or requiring proof of devoutness before running for office, but the libertarians managed.

Now, of course, we have an illegitimate and authoritarian regime running the country, and there is a full-scale assault on civil constitutional rights going on across the board. And the libertarians have finally begun admitting that the new world order promised by the resurrection of the Bush regime hasn’t quite worked out the way they had hoped for. Instead of a Ferengii paradise, they are getting Germany, circa 1934.

On Usenet, a lot of the libertarians have pretty much dropped from sight, at least in the areas infested by us liberal types. The ones remaining tend to be a more psychotic branch of the family known as "anarcho-capitalists." They believe that the ONLY role of government is national defense, and get very annoyed if you ask them why they think all those weapons pointing OUT from American couldn’t be turned to point IN. They tend to believe that government has no business telling anyone how to do anything at all.

I came across one exchange where a liberal was taunting an anarcho-capitalist about some of the draconian rules pushed by Osama bin Ashcroft and Putsch, and the replies got pretty funny. The anarcho-capitalist in question was a rarity–a self-professed female. Nobody was quite sure that such existed. Anarcho-capitalists tend to be over-privileged technoturds with too much testosterone and not enough socialization, and come with the cold imperious arrogance that makes it easy to see the death camps at the other side of their dystopia. This supposed female was the same, using the same combination of bluster and disdain to support her points.

She argued that Ashcroft and Putsch indeed, had turned out to be awful, but then claimed it was all the fault of liberals. Liberals, she claimed, made it possible by supporting the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill.

I remember that quite well. I opposed it. So did most liberals that I know. The Democrats, characteristically, split down the middle on it, with liberals opposing it and moderates and right wingers supporting it. As I recall, it passed the House with support from some 40 Democrats.

Liberals on the net opposed it, and I remember that quite clearly, too. Some libertarians did, but the anarcho-capitalists weren’t even in the fight. They were off, spinning bizarre conspiracy theories about Vince Foster and Waco, and never even showed up for the Crime bill discussion.

One thing that fogs the picture is that there’s a lot of conservatives who like to call themselves libertarian. The old joke goes that a net libertarian is just a Republican who smokes grass, and that is often the case. However, they too have a distinguishing approach to the crime bill; they opposed it after it became law, because Clinton signed it. They were hors de combat prior to that, as well.

So the wackier libertarians are still so far out to lunch they’ve lost the picnic basket, trying to blame the one group that actually did oppose Clinton’s reining in of civil rights. They still believe that liberals are worse than Republicans because we understand that the role of government is to protect the interests of the people against other power groups, such as multinational corporations and the churches.

Still, among "mainstream" (for lack of a better word) libertarians there are signs of an awakening. The leading voice of libertarianism in America, the Cato Institute, came out with a stinging rebuke of Putsch’s energy plan today, calling it "not just nonsense, but nonsense on stilts." For the Cato Institute to actually oppose a plan that, on the face of it, deregulates the oil and coal industries, is an amazing turn about. Presumably, the people at the institute saw what happened to California in the early days of the Republican takeover this past winter, and realized that freeing business to be business might actually hurt the rights of people. We can hope, anyway.

It isn’t just the greedhead side of the party that is beginning to realize something has gone terribly wrong; I’ve been getting mail from Christian netizens who are harshly critical of Ashcroft and his efforts to Christianize America. On Usenet, however, the usual cross-swinging thugs are loudly applauding efforts to control Jews and other non-believers.

If the libertarians realize that without individual rights and liberties, the free market cannot function at all, and without constraints on the market, individual rights and liberties cannot exist, then they are well on their way to becoming allies.

Assuming, of course, that they can get over their paranoid suspicion that we still take our marching orders from Stalin. I just spoke to him (What? You REALLY thought he was dead? Uncle Joe? Our Uncle Joe?) And he said to tell you that we don’t take orders from him.

Honest.
© 2001 Bryan Zepp Jamieson



The Cartoon Corner

This edition we're proud to showcase the cartoons of Clay Bennett







To End On A Happy Note ...

Undercover Of The Night
M. Jagger/K. Richards

Hear the screams of Center 42
Loud enough to bust your brains out
The opposition's tongue is cut in two
Keep off the street 'cause you're in danger

One hundred thousand disparus
Lost in the jails in South America
Cuddle up baby
Cuddle up tight
Cuddle up baby
Keep it all out of sight
Undercover
Keep it all out of sight
Undercover of the night

The sex police are out there on the streets
Make sure the pass laws are not broken
The race militia has got itchy fingers
All the way from New York back to Africa

Cuddle up baby
Keep it all out of sight
Cuddle up baby
Sleep with all out of sight
Cuddle up baby
Keep it all out of sight
Undercover
Undercover
Undercover
Undercover of the night

All the young men they've been rounded up
And sent to camps back in the jungle
And people whisper people double-talk
And once proud fathers act so humble
All the young girls they have got the blues
They're heading on back to Center 42

Keep it undercover
Keep it all out of sight
Keep it undercover
Keep it all out of sight
Undercover
Keep it all out of sight
Undercover
Keep it all out of sight
Undercover of the night

Down in the bars the girls are painted blue
Done up in lace, done up in rubber
The John's are jerky little G.I. Joe's
On R&R from Cuba and Russia
The smell of sex, the smell of suicide
All these things I can't keep inside

Undercover
Keep it all out of sight
Undercover of the night

Undercover of the night
Undercover of the night

Undercover
Undercover
Undercover of the night
© 2001 M. Jagger/K. Richards






Activist Alerts

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." ... Edmund Burke



DEC. 12TH, WED. - ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SCOTUS DECISION

Washington, DC, East Front Capitol Steps, 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm

Protest the one year Anniversary of the partisan U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Protest rally to be held at the East Front Capitol Steps, directly across from the United States Supreme Court, and will include march along the U.S. Supreme Court sidewalk. Bring your signs and placards. No formal speakers schedule. Co-sponsored by Voter March and Citizens for a Legitimate Government.

New York City, Great Hall at Cooper Union, 6:00 to 8:00 pm

Distinguished list of speakers. Sponsored by Democrats.com. For more information and to purchase tickets, click on Rising from the Ashes: Towards Democratic Victories in 2002 and 2004 at http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=251

NEW BUGLIOSI AND PALAST VIDEO

Adam Sachs did an excellent job filming Vincent Bugliosi and Greg Palast at the Voter March - New York City event in July 2001. We highly recommend the new documentary video "Election 2000: The Stolen Presidency."

To order, you can go directly to http://www.DemocracyForThePeople.com or the link on the www.votermarch.org home page following the picture of Vince Bugliosi.

From the Voter March Events Calendar at http://www.votermarch.org/events.htm



TO: All Those Interested In A Candlelight Vigil Planned For December 12, 2001.

I have rewritten a suggested letter for requesting a Proclamation in recognition of the events of December 12th. I suggest the you get these written and in the mail as soon as possible. I have always requested these from the Governor of my state. I have tried to write this so as not to give the Republican Governors an excuse for not issuing you a proclamation. In Florida, the governors office issues very a very fancy proclamation that would rival the Declaration of Independence to organizations, groups requesting them. They are fantastic attention getters when trying to get media coverage for your event. When I send out my announcements to the local TV stations, Radio, Newspapers, etc, I always include a copy of the proclamation. Other suggestions would be to ask your Senators, your Mayor, to also prepare a similar proclamation. I ask all of them. The worst that can happen is that they will say no. If they say no, chalk it up on your little list of who NOT to vote for next time! Submit the wording for the proclamation below to your elected officials and ask them to prepare a proclamation for your event.

Proclamation

The National Candlelight Vigil- 2001 December 12, 2001

I hereby officially recognize and honor

The National Candlelight Vigil-2001 and I urge all citizens of ( Your State name )to join me in this recognition. The National Candlelight Vigil to be held on December 12, 2001, to remind citizens of the United States of America of the need for Voter Reform to and protest the one year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision. This Vigil will also remember those killed in the senseless criminal terrorist acts committed upon New York City, Washington, DC & Pennsylvania. These acts of terrorism killed U. S. citizens as well as citizens of many other nationalities.

As Governor of (State Name ) I commend The National Candlelight Vigil, 2001 for their dedication to people entitled to vote & in remembrance of those innocent people killed by acts of terrorism.


© 2001 G.A.G.

SUPPORT THE OREGON DEMOCRATS' PROPOSAL TO IMPEACH THE FELONIOUS FIVE!

Here's what you can do to help:

1. Write your members of Congress and urge them to support the Democratic Party of Oregon's resolution.

2. Contact your local and/or state Democratic Party office urging them to also support the resolution.

3. Contribute to the Democratic Party of Oregon. We plan to continue to promote this resolution and your contribution, no matter how small, will help us in this fight for democracy. Click on Democratic Party of Oregon to send your support today!


Supreme Injustice
by STEVE COBBLE

Lest we forget--just over six months ago, the Rehnquist Court stole an election in broad daylight. In fear of the truth, the Scalia Five intervened to block all votes from being counted, an action "unprecedented" (both historically and judicially) in US history. Though the June 12 "anniversary" went unnoticed by the media, we must never forget.

Was it the worst Supreme Court decision in US history, as American University Constitutional scholar Jamin Raskin has suggested? Considering that Raskin is a staunch civil rights advocate, the very thought that he would rank Bush v. Gore lower than both the Dred Scott and Plessy rulings is instructive. Nor does Raskin stand alone in his opinion of this judicial coup.

Justice John Paul Stevens: "One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. I respectfully dissent."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "In sum, the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States. I dissent." And related is the unsigned per curiam decision of the Scalia 5, a transparent attempt to try to avoid history's scarlet letter.

Hendrik Hertzberg, former presidential speechwriter: "The election of 2000 was not stolen. It was expropriated."

David Kairys, Temple University: "We had a constitutional crisis, and it was Bush v. Gore. History will not be kind."

Suzanna Sherry, Vanderbilt University: "There is really very little way to reconcile this opinion other than that they wanted Bush to win."

Jeffrey Rosen, legal scholar: "They have...made it impossible for citizens of the United States to sustain any kind of faith in the rule of law as something larger than the self-interested political preferences of William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor."

Randall Kennedy, Harvard University: "But we should also insist that there be no confirmation for Scalia-like champions of the right-wing agenda. The Supreme Court has hurt its own reputation by wrongly intervening to ensure the victory of George W. Bush. Those who abhor what the Court did should say so and say so loudly and clearly."

Jesse Jackson and John Sweeney: "But if it comes down for justices to the 14th amendment and the promise of equal protection, one can only hope for the sake of the country that they consider how not counting all the votes mirrors too closely the habits of heart and mind that brought us slavery and segregation--the original sins of our nation that the equal protection clause sought to repair."

And, of course, Vincent Bugliosi, prosecutor of Charles Manson and author of several bestselling true-crime books, in The Betrayal of America: ". . . the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law.... [The Court searched] mightily for a way, any way at all, to aid their choice for president, Bush, in the suppression of the truth, finally settling, in their judicial coup d'État, on the untenable argument that there was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause..."

Recent polls indicate the public's growing dissatisfaction with the results of the Scalia Five's decision. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center and Princeton Survey Research Associates (June 13-17) showed George W. Bush's job approval rating at just 50 percent, down six points from March; the New York Times survey with CBS News (June 14-18) put the rating at 53 percent, down seven points from March. And Democracy Corps's Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll (June 11-13) found that 48 percent of likely voters think the nation is currently on the "wrong track." Perhaps most tellingly, 25 percent of voters in the Democracy Corps poll said that the phrase "not really elected President" describes Bush "very well," with another 15 percent saying that it describes him "well"--in other words, six months after the Scalia Five coup, 40 percent of likely voters still believe Bush was not really elected President.

What then, is to be done?

The least we can do is know our own history, and to understand that what the Injustices did was an insult to the dreams and ideals of Lexington and Concord, Valley Forge and Jefferson and Paine, Gettsyburg and Lincoln and Douglass, Selma and King, Seneca Falls and Anthony, Delano and Chavez, Flint and Debs and Lewis. We can bear witness to injustice, in the nonviolent protest tradition of Thoreau, Gandhi, King, Havel, Robinson, Chavez.

The Scalia Five's judicial coup came down on the second Tuesday last December. So, on the second Tuesday of July, July 10, 2001, the Tuesday after the Pro-Democracy Convention in Philadelphia, the Tuesday between Independence Day and Bastille Day, the Institute for Policy Studies and friends are calling for a peaceful, nonviolent vigil at the Supreme Court building, at noon.

On July 10--and each Tuesday at noon from then on--let's gather at the scene of the crime, and bear witness to the truth. The Scalia Five won't be there; but we should be.

Bring a candle or a bell, like the Czechs a decade ago. Bring a copy of the Voters' Bill of Rights, or the US Constitution. Send an e-mail to all your friends, with your favorite quote from this list. Bring Pablo Neruda's and Marge Piercy's poems. Bring the next generation, so they will never forget. Bring your commitment to restore, rebuild, and expand American democracy. The Supreme Court cheated. Democracy lost. For now.
©2001 STEVE COBBLE


Send $100 or $1000 to The Heritage Foundation or Other Right-Wing Groups

This ultra-conservative group needs donations! Lend them a helping hand by sending them a few $100 or $1000 bills ... Confederate ones! Click here to print or download the bills. Send them to other right-wing groups as well!

And if you still want to annoy the Heritage Foundation, you can always go to their online donation form as soon as you try to leave the page, a pop-up window appears asking why you decided not to donate. Give them an explanation, but remember to be polite!


TO OUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS

We, the undersigned voters, know that our cherished democracy is endangered from within by the grave and potentially fatal flaws in our voting systems exposed by the Presidential Election of 2000.

As our elected representatives, you have the duty, the opportunity, and the privilege to correct these flaws and to restore fair and honest elections throughout our nation. To this end, we charge you to construct and pass a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS, which shall include:

Strict enforcement and extension of the Voting Rights Act to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters and require full investigation and criminal prosecution of any offenders;

Standardized, easily understandable federal election ballots

Funding to replace old and unreliable voting machines to ensure that every vote is counted fairly and accurately

Genuine campaign finance reform that bans campaign contributions from special interests

Replacement of the Electoral College with a majority-rule election, or substantial reform of the Electoral College to allow for proportional representation

Measures to increase voter participation by eliminating bureaucratic hurdles to voter registration and turnout, including language barriers, physical barriers, archaic equipment, and lack of resources

Enactment and enforcement of a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS will restore trust in our government and encourage participation in our democratic processes. The linchpin of a democracy is the process by which we select our representatives and leaders. The right to vote is our defining right as citizens of this nation. We call upon our elected representatives to protect our Constitution from abusive exercise of government power by enacting a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS.

We pledge our full and constant support for enactment of a VOTERS BILL OF RIGHTS.

BOYCOTTS


Top twenty Republican donors with global consumer brands:

1 Philip Morris - $4,554,732
2 BP (ARCO) - $1,865,458
3 Am way - $1,729,500
4 News Corp - $1,204,950
5 Enron - $1,146,615
6 Citigroup – $1,079,225
7 MCI Worldcom - $1,074,608
8 Federal Express (FDX Corp) - $1,057,550
9 Pfizer - $1,051,225
10 Chevron Texaco - $862,056
11 Bristol-Myers Squibb - $848,556
12 Revlon Group/ MacAndrews & Forbes - $761,000
13 Limited Inc - $750,000
14 Glaxo-Wellcome - $702,795
15 Walt Disney - $663,625
16 Anheuser-Busch - $663,025
17 Archer Daniels Midland - $660,000
18 Microsoft - $644,816
19 Coca Cola - $610,875
20 Schering-Plough - $600,685



"Lie" isn't an adequate word for what Republicans say. We need a new term; I propose anti-truth, as in, "There are lies, damned lies, and Republican anti-truths." Like matter and anti-matter, Republicans and the truth just can't occupy the same space. What they say goes all the way through and past "untrue" into the realm of turning reality inside out, tying a knot in it, and yanking hard.
M.E. Cowan




CONTRIBUTING LINKS



















Parting Shots...



Dunderball: A night at the Casino Disloyal
By Hank Blakely

It was a cold, gray mornin' at Number 10 Downin', and Tony Blair was screamin' at me.

Where the hell do you get your nerve?" he shouted, right in my face, "How dare you waltz in here and blame us for sabotaging your bloody coalition. Just who the hell do you think you are!"

I felt I was on pretty solid ground there: "Bush...George Bush," I said firmly.

Just so's he'd know, I took out my Salvatore Ferragamo wallet (black leather with Gancini hardware ) to show him my ID. But it didn't seem to help, 'cause he slapped it outta my hand, grabbed the lapels a' my Ermenegildo Zegna suit (two-piece cashmere), and went right on screamin' on me.

"I've done every bloody thing I could to help you put over this four-star cock-up your bloodthirsty cretins call a war," he said, wavin' his arms 'round all excited and all. "I've talked myself bleeding blue in the face advising your tragically mis-informed subalterns - to say nothing of having to spin your own breath-taking misapprehension of the situation - to say nothing of having to weasel up a rationale for the demise of Lord only knows how many hundreds of hapless souls you've blasted to flinders - to say nothing of downplaying your idiotic hand-over of Kabul and Kandahar to those Northern Miscreants. The only thing I haven't done so far is run your bloody presidency for you!"

This made me seriously disturbed. "I ain't askin' you to run my presidency, Tony, I -"

"Well," he shouted, "Don't you think it's time someone did?".

From here on the conversation kinda deteriorated into personalities. But the upshot was Tony convinced me nobody on his side was responsible. Which was puzzlin', 'cause I was positive there was nobody responsible on our side.

I hadda come up with somethin', and I mean quick. My professional reputation was on the line.

You see, lotta people don't know this, but in addition to bein' the chief Honcho a' Nation Number One, I am also a top-flight espionager. I'm classified "000," or "Triple Zip" for short. My ratin' gives me a license to be Extremely Firm and I don't hesitate to use it unmercilessly. Now all that was put in Double Jeopardy by a unknown political sabotager.

"Well, gee, Tony," I said, "somebody sure has underminded us. My beautiful coalition's comin' apart faster than a Tallahassee election return. I gotta get to the bottom a' this, and fast...", I had a sudden thought, "Hey, why don't I just call John Ashcroft , and -"

Tony looked like he'd smelled somethin' bad. "Oh, please," he said, throwin' up his hands again, "Not chuffing Ashcroft. That blithering idiot couldn't find his arse if you set it afire and gave him a map." Then he thought a' somethin'. "No, no, my boy," he said, pickin' up the phone, "MI6 are the buckos for this job."

* * * * * *

An hour later we was joined by two grimly healthy-lookin' fellas from the British Secret Intelligence Service. Tony did the intros: "'W'? This is 'M'. 'M'? 'W'. 'W'? 'Q'. 'Q'? 'W'. 'W'? 'M' and 'Q', from MI6. 'M' and 'Q'? 'W', from the USA."

It was kinda like floatin' in tomato soup.

After Tony 'd filled 'em in, M said he'd got a tip from French intelligence that mentioned a shadowy guy known only as "Monsieur Inconnu." Seems this fella was supposed to be a master a' messin' stuff up. His present wheres wasn't known, but M's people had turned up some leads in Monaco.

M said he'd get some operatives on it right away, but I stopped him right there. I am, after all, a Triple-zero and I firmly believe in the ol' maximum that says "If you want a job done yourself, then you should have someone...that is, you'd be better off if you did it...or...well, hell, you know what the ol' maximum is.

So I took over the investigatin'. Q give me some nifty spy gadgets (which I unfortunately forgot to take with me). And M give me a contact in Monaco - the owner of the Monte Carlo Casino, a certain Madame "R.G."

"Argy?" I asked. "R. G.," he said. "Right," I said, "Argy."

He wrote it down for me.

I looked at my Cartier watch (Stainless Steel, "Tank Francaise"). It was gettin' late. Our business now conclusive, I left Number 10. My trusty ol' vintage Jaguar XK150 ('61 Drop Head Coupe, walnut interior, with optional Rust Guard undercoatin') was waitin' outside. I took the parkin' ticket off the windshield and drove back to the hotel.

* * * * * *

Like always, I'd used the standard Triple-Naught tricks a' the trade, leavin' behind a few tell-tale indicators to let me know if anybody'd been in the room while I was gone. As usual, I just stuck a few hairs in the door jamb and sprinkled a little talcum powder (Helene Curtis, Premium) 'round the room. Accidentally, I spilled the powder all over the floor. Fortunately the maid vacuumed it up while I was gone. Unfortunately her cleanin' also removed all a' my tell-tales, so I didn't know whether nobody 'd got in there or not.

I shoulda remembered that little problem from the last three or ten times it's happened to me.

But I didn't much care, 'cause I was bone-weary, what with Tony screamin' at me all day. I slept like a log, and only had a few of the dreams about bein' shot, knifed, poisoned, electrocuted, strangled, beaten, tortured, hung or tossed out a window - a better night than most.

I awoke refreshed and optimismal. I was ready for danger. Was danger ready for me? It usually was.

* * * * *

It was a cool night in Monte Carlo. The casino was hummin' and people was crowded together thicker 'n flies on a horse's heinie. First thing I seen is a bunch a' men standin' in a circle in the center a' the main room. After a time I could see they was gathered 'round a shapely woman whose face was turned away from me. I figured this must be "Madame R.G."

She was wearin' a sparklin' red sequin dress, and somethin' about her - maybe the way the dress and its contents moved 'round like Jell-O on a trampoline - minded me a' someone I couldn't quite recall. Then she turned, and I was sudden gut-struck.

"Madame R.G." was nobody else but Roulette Gemeinshaft. Roulette, the Bomb de Paree , the toast a' ever' casino and gamblin' hall from Antwerp to Zanzibar. Roulette, who knew ever'thin' about ever'body ever'where - a regular gold mind a' information.

Roulette and me 'd had what you might call a "history." Once we'd painted the town red. Now we was gonna go back and add white and blue to it.

She come over to me, cool as French ice.

Up close, I could see what she was wearin' wasn't so much a dress as it was more like she'd been painted with glue and had somebody toss sequins at her 'til she'd hollered "stop."

And like maybe she'd hollered a minute too soon.

"Georjie!" she grinned, "Zo, you haff cahm bahk to drahv me krahzy wanz morr, heh?"

In all the time I known Roulette, I don't reckon I ever understood more'n ten words she'd said.

But we didn't need words, her and me. With one arm I pulled her to me roughly, her dark eyes flashin' like a short circuit, her lips shinin' like a wet cherry Life-Saver, her fine bosom huffin' like a racehorse. I looked deep into her eyes. "Bush. George Bush," I said, and then I give her a big smooch right on her forehead.

Because I am a devil with the women.

Oh, she put on like she didn't like it, pushin' me away, poundin' her fists on me, tryin' a' knee me in the non-publics. But she didn't fool me. She wanted me. She wanted me bad. And if experience was any guide, that was how she was gonna have me.

When we was once again discomposed - and she was through kickin' me - I told her about the coalition saboteur. She agreed to help, and said we'd talk about it over dinner.

* * * * *

The Casino's dinin' room was quite impressant: soft lights and low music, waiters glidin' 'round like they was on wheels, and all that. But the room wasn't all high-toned and sophistry. Right off I could see the place was a din a' espionage. 'Round the room I recognized professional spies from just about ever' nation you could name. I took some quick mental notes a' the scene - like all good Triple-Zilches, I don't need no paper or pen to remember stuff; I can go mental anytime.

The waiter sat us at a special table on account a' Roulette was his boss. Ever'thin' was agreeably special. I'm not a fussy man, but I do like for my surroundin's to be high-toned. I appreciated how the Lenox glassware (goblet-style, platinum-trim) gleamed in the candlelight. I admired how the Royal Worcester plates (gold-accented, Regency Stripe, #749424) was set off on the deep-blue Le Jacquard tablecloth (100% Egyptian cotton damask, 300 thread-count).

The Gorham silverware ("Buttercup" design, Sterling, Macy's third floor - in the rear ) was polished perfect. And the table... I couldn't be sure about the table, so I took out my pocket flashlight and crawled underneath it to get a better look. Just as I thought, it was a Alden custom-built ("Alden, the choice of fine restaurants everywhere"), and it looked like it had the old oak veneer they - but I don't wanna bore ya with too much detail.

I lit Roulette's Gauloise with my Ronson ('84 model, black anodized case ). "So, Georjie," she said, (and here I'm kinda translatin' her) "Tell me more about this man who is sabotage your little coalition."

"I don't know much about him," I said, "Just that his name is - excuse me," I said, "There's a coupla guys over there I gotta talk to."

These was two fellas from the Mossad - Israel's crack intelligence service. I told 'em what I was up to about the saboteur, but all they could talk about was how it was probably the Palestinians' fault. On my way back to my table, a busboy dropped a tray full a' dishes, and in a flash them Mossad boys had pulled their table over and was down behind it, guns drawn, lookin' ever'where at once.

When I got back to Roulette, I continued, "Alls I know is that the guy's called "Monsieur Inconnu."

She looked disappointed. "That is not much help, my Georjie. 'Inconnu' is French for the meaning 'unknown'. I will need to know more than that." She pronounced it like "Ann-con-yew." French.

"Well," I said, "He's 'sposed to be a master a' messin' stuff up, and - 'scuse me 'nother minute, willya, babe?" I went over to a coupla guys from Force 17, Palestinian intelligence. They told me they was sure the Israelis was to blame. While we was talkin', somebody's cell phone went off somewhere, and damned if them boys wasn't down behind their table with their guns out before I could blink a eye.

I don't know why them two peoples don't get along. Y' ask me, they is a awful lot alike.

When I got back to Roulette, the waiter was ready for the wine orders. "I'll have the 1969 Vichyssoise, please," I told him, lettin' Roulette know I heard that was a pretty good brand.

"Thank you, Monsieur," said the waiter, "And would Monsieur like salt and pepper with his glass of potato soup?"

I hate French waiters. I purely do.

"All right, Mr. smarty pantalons," I said, brissin', "Why don't you suggest somethin' you think I'd like?'

"I regret, Monsieur," he said, "But we have no 'Wild Turkey'"

I mean, really hates 'em.

And I could see Roulette didn't much like him neither, 'cause she was rollin' her eyes the way y' do when somebody's bein' real stupid. I'm always amazed by people can't do their jobs right.

I hadda excuse myself again when I spotted some Saudi agents. They told me they didn't have no idea who the guy was either, but they was currently detainin' and torturin' a coupla thousand or so suspects for other crimes, and they'd be glad, as they put it, "to throw a few more on the grill" for me. I told 'em "no thanks" and went back to my conversation.

"See," I said, "What's so bad about this 'Mr. Unknown' is he's got us by the soft n' tenders. Whoever he is - 'scuse me again, would ya?"

I went over to talk to some guys from the Pakistani ISI. They assured me they would do ever'thin' they could to find out who the guy was. I'd a' felt more assured, though, if they hadn't been wearing ties with bin Laden's picture on 'em.

While we was talkin', Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani President, come over, lookin' all concerned. "George," he said, "Any word on when the bombing will stop?"

"Sorry, Mushie," I said, "Nobody's told me nothin' yet."

He looked depressed, " Okay, but you'll be sure to let me know...."

"The minute they decide - as soon as they tell me about it." I reassured him.

When I got back, Roulette said she'd had a coupla thoughts. "It seems to me," she said, "that there is very little agreement as to who is and who is not what you are call the terrorist, no?"

"No," I said, " - I mean 'yes'. Some says it's anybody uses guns stead a' politics, others say we gotta make an exception for 'freedom fighters', but nobody can tell me the difference. Plus, practically ever' one a' the coalition has been involved in some kinda terrorism, one way or 'nother."

Just talkin' about it was bringin' me down again.

"The worst part," I said, "Is that nobody's in it for the same reason. The Saudis is scared a' the Taliban; the Russian's don't care about the Taliban, but the Chechens is drivin' 'em buggy. The French got terrorism comin' out their butts; and the Italians - 'specially that nut job Berlesconi - just wanna go back and finish the Crusades."

"It is true, this is not good," she understated, "And then too your chief ally, the British, are not good at telling the difference either. All of their 'terrorists' seem always to turn out to be heroes - especially the time they had their biggest defeat by terrorists."

"Oh yeah? I said, "When was that?"

"In 1776," she said. Sounded familiar, but this was no time for history.

"I think I can be of a little perhaps help," she said. "I think I see now how this M'sieu Inconnu functions. Like M'sieu bin Laden, he delegates a great deal of power to his subordinates, but his genius is that, unlike M'sieu bin Laden, M'sieu Inconnu provides little or no overall policy direction, and reveals his true self to no one. Thus everything that happens can only be the result of a struggle between competing factions. It is impossible to discern the true goals of such an organization, and under such conditions the definition of "terrorist" becomes very - how you would say - 'portable' and completely defeats any attempt to achieve the consensus."

"Well, that's terrible!" I said, "If that's true, we'll never get this guy!"

She lit another Gauloise, and looked thoughtful. "Well, of course, it is also true that what cannot be identified cannot be defeated - except of course, from within"

Then she smiled and said, "But in any case, the good news is that you may be much closer to finding M'sieu Inconnu than you think. In fact I believe him to be in this very casino!." She pointed to a hallway on the other side of the dining room. "If I do not make the mistake, I think you will find him in the room at the end of that hall."

I was up like a shot, a man unsprung. I hightailed it to the entrance of the hallway, and dis-holstered my Beretta 92FS Elite (with the heavy but slightly shortened slide ). Then as a way a' limberin' up - and showin' anybody who might be watchin' that I was a real Zero-three-times-over, I tossed the gun back and forth lightnin' quick between my hands, just the way I seen Alan Ladd do it.

Then I picked it up and went into the hallway.

I was pretty cool, considerin' the danger I was facin'. By the time I'd got halfway down the hall, I'd only shot out two lights and winged one waiter - a lot less collaterals than usual.

Turned out the room at the end a' the hall was the Gent's bathroom. I stood outside, gathered my breathin', then burst through the door, holdin' my gun out in front a' me in tripod position. Just like Alec Baldwin.

At first I thought the room was empty, but then I saw him.

He had his gun out too.

And then I understood.

The traitor is always the one you least suspect. The one you're certain you can count on. And sometimes you can't be sure, even when you've caught him. But there was no mistakin' who it was this time. I finally had the man who was sabotagin' our every move - the greatest flaw in our ointment.

And of course it was the one man I most hated and feared.

I curled my lip in a sneer. "Bush," I said, "George Bush."

Then I shot the mirror.
© 2001 Hank Blakely



Last Week's Mini-Poll Results

George W Bush is a


Traitor 12%
Seditious Traitor 24%
Monster 12%
All of the above! 52%






Email: issues@uncle-ernie.com

You Are Visitor
***

since 2/1/2001



Issues & Alibis Vol 1 # 38 © 11/30/2001

Issues & Alibis is published in America every Friday. We are not affiliated with, nor do we except funds from any political party. We are a non-profit group that is dedicated to the restoration of the American Republic.

In regards to copying anything from this site remember that everything here is copyrighted. Issues & Alibis has been given permission to publish everything on this site. When this isn't possible we rely on the "Fair Use" copyright law provisions. If you copy anything from this site to reprint make sure that you do too. We ask that you get our permission to reprint anything from this site and that you provide a link back to us. Here is the "Fair Use" provision ...

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."