The Dawn Of A New Democratic Party

I spent yesterday climbing to the summit of this bald bulb of a hill called Mt. Monadnock, which rises incongruously from the level plains of southern New Hampshire. The day was bright and clear with little wind, a perfect day for a hike. I reached the top in under two hours and paused to absorb the view. New England lay before me to all points on the compass, brown and prepared for winter. Here and there were lakes and houses. In the distance something burned, sending a column of smoke into the air.

The hard blue November sky was stitched with white lines that crossed each other in every direction, as if a deranged skywriter had decided to paint the air repeatedly with the letter 'A.' It took me a moment to understand what I was seeing: contrails from combat aircraft arriving and departing from various bases across the region. Even here, 4,000 feet above the world, the troubles that consume us hover above, close enough to touch.

Then again, that is the rub. Once upon a time this nation seemed above the world, of it but beyond its scalding touch. We were protected by two oceans, vast treasure, armed guardians, and thousands of atom-tipped missiles buried in the earth. One day the sky fell in, and we found ourselves somewhere we had not been for generations. We found ourselves in the middle of things. We found ourselves to be vulnerable.

A fundamental shift of comprehension has been fermenting within the minds of American citizens since September 11th. All of a sudden, the realization that each and every citizen has a stake in the actions and policies of this country has begun to take root. Simply, if justice fails, the common folk become targets. If economic privation goes unchecked, the common folk become targets. If extremism, American or otherwise, achieves too much power, the common folk become targets.

If a liberal, progressive agenda is to achieve purchase in today's climate, this basic truth must be seized upon and repeated over and over again. The fellow who only reads the sports page, who hasn't voted for twenty years, or who votes Republican because he likes his tax cut, needs to have a finger thrust into his face. He needs to be made to understand that the next intelligence failure, the next proxy war, the next arms deal, the next corporate bailout, could result in his shattered corpse lying in the dust.

This is brutal and cruel. It is also the truth. We are all on the firing line. We are the targets in this war. There are reasons for this that have nothing to do with people who hate our freedoms.

This is the most dangerous idea in the world for those currently in power in America. It is an idea that has taken a slow burn through the populace. If it flares alight, people will not shop. They will not tolerate excessive tax cuts for financially healthy corporations. They will demand solutions that do not involve carpet-bombing with B-52s. They will not stand for the dissolution of their constitutional rights. In short, they will demand actions that will reap actual results, instead of actions that give only the illusion of progress. They will want to move forward as progressives instead of backwards as conservatives. They will know that their very survival depends upon it.

Liberals and progressives must seize this time, must pour kerosene on that slowly burning idea, until it explodes into a pyre upon which will burn all of the sad, sorry, broken policies that brought us to this house of woe.

But who is to do it?

It has become an article of faith since January 20th, 2001, that the Democratic chieftains who walk the halls of power in Washington D.C. can not be trusted to fight for this agenda. When the results of the scandalous 2000 election were ratified in Congress, only the Black Caucus had the courage to turn their backs in protest. When religious extremist John Ashcroft stood for nomination as Attorney General, no true opposition was offered.

Today, as the 4th, 6th and 13th Amendments to the Constitution are disposed of, as Posse Comitatus is replaced by clandestine military tribunals that know no civil authority, the Democrats stand almost completely silent. Only the timely defection of Senator James Jeffords has allowed Democrats to thwart Republican thrusts into the Federal larder and our environmental inheritance. Had Jeffords not jumped, there would be no stopping the GOP.

Democratic Senator and Presidential hopeful John Edwards worked night and day to craft the abominable PATRIOT Anti-Terrorism bill, possibly the most invasive bit of work to come out of Washington since Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Perhaps he believes that we must destroy freedom in order to save it, but it is more likely that he succumbed to political cowardice and went along for the ride to ensure a safe trip to the primaries in 2004. He is certainly not alone in this.

On any other day, the anthrax sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy would be called assassination attempts. Today, these attacks are shrouded in the threatening veil of international terrorism, despite the fact that they almost certainly originated from the Ashcroftian wing of the American Right. Even after this most dire of threats, the Democrats stand mute. Bush enjoys approval ratings that would make Jesus Christ Himself blush, a formidable obstacle for Democrats who may feel in their gut that the nation is on the road to Hell. Their timidity is our catastrophe.

Thus, it falls to us. We must become the calcium in the withered Democratic backbone, and we must do it now.

Writing to these people is useless. Protesting against the President will bear no fruit. Letters to the editor go unread. Emails to like-minded friends amount to political masturbation. We are a people made too comfortable by pleasant arguments and debates. The day has arrived where action is demanded, else all that happens from here on out can be lain at our own feet. The document in question says We The People for a good reason.

Take heed of conservative successes. They ran for state representative positions, took over school boards, got jobs in local government and basically stormed the bulwarks of the Republican Party from the bottom of the walls. It took ten years, but they did it, and the Presidency of George W. Bush is but one reward they have reaped by their labors. The media is awash with the conservative viewpoint because they commandeered the dialogue after years of grass-roots work. This is another reward, one that ensures their continued success.

To overcome this, we must become it.

The only reason the Democrats moved to the right is because of the aforementioned conservative grass-roots revolution. The Party had nothing to counteract the surge of conservatism that blasted through Washington, no shock troops of their own, so they swung Rightward in order to survive. Now, the Parties are slowly becoming indistinguishable. They are not yet there, no matter what Ralph Nader says, but they are on their way and this can not be denied.

It has been argued that true progressives will never find a home in the Democratic Party, because it has sold too much of its soul in a hard tack to the right borne of defensive strategy and political expediency. This leaves two alternatives: either abandon the Party completely, or roll up some sleeves and clean out the Augean stables.

Despite its flaws, the Democratic Party is the best tool we have available for the propagation of the liberal, progressive agenda. The Party have faithful followers in every state, and unconquerable strongholds on both coasts. The Democratic political machine stands in every county in every state in the Union. There are doubtless men and women in the U.S. House of Representatives who would savor the chance to act upon principle, instead of from a core of self-defense, a chance we can give them if we get to work now.

The time has come to invade this Party, to storm the battlements from the ground up. The Democratic Party can again become a bastion of true liberalism, as the Republican Party has become a bastion of ultraconservatism, if American progressives take it over from pillar to post. If we take back the Party, if we change the dialogue coming from the media through the brute reality of our strident and unyielding voices, if we tend and nurture that flame of new comprehension blazing in every American breast, we can achieve all that our dreams have whispered.

Most within the Party will welcome this, I believe. Those who do not can be reminded of the wisdom spoken by an old politico named James H. Rowe: "The old bulls never quit until the young bulls run them out. The old bulls are dead."

Master the issues. Walk down to your local Democratic Party office and find work. Take as much responsibility as you can, and make it your office. Run for positions on your school board, or within your local government, or stand for election to your state congress. If you can not do these things, find someone who is doing them and dedicate your energies to their success. Run the old bulls out, and harness the young bulls to plow new fields. Make the Party a home for everyone who knows in their heart that things must change in this country before the targets can be stripped from our backs.

It will take time and patience. There is a window of opportunity to act in time for the 2002 elections, but the target should be 2004. Don't look to the Oval office, for working from the top down has bred a dizzying array of recent failures. Go from the ground up, one step at a time.

What a paradise we can make of this world if given the chance. The chance will not come on its own. We must make it, take it, demand it, fight for it tooth and nail.

Get to work.
© 2001 William Rivers PittWill Pitt.Com

OK. Let me try and understand this.

The reason terrorists hate us Americans so much is because of our Freedoms. That’s what the President says. So Attorney General John Ashcroft comes up with the only logical Christian solution: Eliminate our "Freedoms" and they won’t hate us any more. Simple. Why didn’t we think of this before? We might have avoided WW II! Perhaps even the American Revolution. Think of all the property, not to mention lives, that could have been saved!

Now we can see that Barry Goldwater’s infamous dictum, "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" - which by most accounts lost him the election - had more truth to it than met the eye at the time. We were so blind. But now we see. Goldwater was a prophet without honor in his own country.

Duuh! Gut the Bill of Rights and eviscerate the Constitution and presto chango oppressed peoples around the world living under despotic regimes supported and trained in domestic dissent suppression by the United States will have nothing for which to envy us. They’ll look at us with pity as equals. Like the rats regarded Jud in the musical "Oklahoma!" And what’s more, they’ll be correct! Totalitarianism in defense of national security is all right. I can see the bumper stickers now - "Another Fascist for Freedom!" "Another Totalitarian for Liberty!" "Another Compassionate Conservative for Total Annihilation!"

Check it out, Ari, you Fleischer, you. Am I stating the argument accurately to this point? As you said recently, "People have to watch what they say ...." I wouldn't want to get it wrong.

OK. So now, if we outsource our manufacturing jobs to slave-wage Third World countries; compensate transnational corporations for "terrorist-induced" business losses with retroactive tax refunds, defense contracts and multi-million dollar bailouts; lay off millions of American workers; give tax breaks to the wealthy; privatize and loot the coffers of Social Security; and create a permanent "worldwide-war-on-terrorism" economy - why then, will we not forestall the plunge into global economic depression which was looming on the horizon even before 9/11?

Next, if we clusterbomb and bunkerbuster Afghanistan back to the Paleolithic, Vice President Dick Cheney and his buddies at Haliburton will rebuild it - adding a pipeline through it and Pakistan from the petroleum-rich Central Asian Republics (where National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and her Exxon colleagues have business interests) - then the G-8 countries’ "privileged" access to all the major sources of oil in the world will have been secured until the Final Rapture.

Am I getting it right so far?

Of course, in the interest of a stable global investment climate (not to be confused with industry-produced global climate change), the unelected, anonymous trade lawyers and technocrats of the U.S.-dominated World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) must achieve and maintain the power to over-ride for trade profitability purposes the democratically established labor, environmental and human rights laws in all the world’s sovereign nations. This goes without saying.

Then finally - and this is the clincher - if we follow War (excuse me, Defense) Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s scenario, which is also laid out in the Air Force’s "Vision 2020" Report, and project America’s nuclear-and-other-weapons-of-mass-destruction monopoly into space, why then we achieve "Full Spectrum Dominance" over the planet and become at the same time "Masters of Space." This is not my own megalomaniacal fantasy, mind you. This is the current, articulated official U.S. government policy. The world will at last be safe for American corporate investment.

Not so long ago, a certain member of the United States Senate summoned the press to denounce controversial demands by federal law-enforcement officials for invasive power. While conceding that some additional measures to curtail crime and terror might be necessary, he insisted that fundamental freedoms could not be compromised.

"These needs must be addressed, but the provisions must not destroy our constitutional liberties, including the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments," said the Senator. "But frankly, no amendment to the Constitution needs more protection than any other. They all must be respected and protected at the highest levels."

That impassioned spokesman for civil liberties was John Ashcroft.

At the time, Mr. Ashcroft was leading a bipartisan effort to protect the integrity of encryption software from what his group regarded as overly intrusive and commercially damaging regulation. It was one of the rare occasions in his public career when the Missouri conservative displayed any zeal for constitutional rights (other than those he believes are extended to gun owners under the Second Amendment). Even then, there were reasons to wonder about the sincerity of those fine phrases, which inspired not only civil libertarians but also generous campaign contributors in the computer industry and the top Republican lobbyists they?d hired to safeguard their interests.

Now he and his boss, George W. Bush, are raising the most serious threats to liberty since John Mitchell did the dirty work of Richard Nixon. With their proposals to abrogate the rights of suspected terrorists and their refusal to acknowledge Congressional authority in such matters, the Attorney General and the President are voiding the guarantees of liberty they swore to defend.

Back when he was under scrutiny by the Senate, press and public, critics of Mr. Ashcroft?s nomination mainly worried whether his religious piety would distort Justice Department policy on abortion rights, gay rights and kindred aspects of the ongoing culture war. Relatively little was said about his attitude toward civil liberties or the rights of criminal defendants. Enthusiastic endorsers of the Ashcroft nomination included William Safire, the libertarian New York Times columnist who is currently (and quite correctly) raising alarms about the administration?s "kangaroo court."

Yet Mr. Ashcroft?s record on civil liberties and the Constitution long ago betrayed his tendency toward the authoritarian, if not the dictatorial. As long ago as 1989, while governor of Missouri, he sought to abolish bail for certain defendants accused of selling drugs, an attempted abrogation of a basic right that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch denounced as "hysteria." And from there he went on to do worse.

Upon reaching the Senate, Mr. Ashcroft displayed an unseemly desire to deface the document he was sworn to uphold, in ways that inevitably would undermine individual liberty. During his six-year tenure, he introduced or sponsored at least seven constitutional amendments; by comparison, that isn?t too far short of the total number of amendments in the two centuries since the founders ratified the first 10, also known as the Bill of Rights.

Among the many "improvements" Mr. Ashcroft suggested was an amendment that would allow future amendments to be passed more easily. And, of course, he was always a leading advocate of the so-called flag-burning amendment, which would make desecration of the American flag a federal offense. Showing the same opportunism he now employs to seize unwarranted power, he tried to ram the flag-burning amendment through the Senate two years ago during the U.S. intervention in Kosovo, when he hoped patriotic fervor would overwhelm libertarian opposition.

That danger is far greater today, when patriotism is mingled with fear and fury. The Attorney General and the White House weren?t satisfied by the instantaneous passage of the "U.S.A. Patriot Act," which greatly expanded their surveillance and detention capacities. The act?s quick approval, virtually without debate, only made Mr. Ashcroft contemptuous of the elected representatives who jumped at his command. He has ignored several letters from Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, about civil-liberties issues raised by the "war on terrorism."

And until last week, he brushed aside bipartisan requests that he appear on Capitol Hill to explain himself. Evidently, the Attorney General was just too busy to answer questions from that other branch of the government. (Busy with what would be a good question, since the Justice Department has very little to show in the form of evidence or indictments.)

If Senate Democrats wanted to spend all their time investigating their opponents like another political party I could name, the Bush administration provides a growing list of suspects. The spectacular collapse of the Houston-based Enron Corp., whose stock was valued as high as $63 billion last spring when California officials accused it of rigging a phony "energy crisis" to drain hundreds of millions from that state's electrical ratepayers, could keep an infinite number of congressional committees busy indefinitely.

Think of it this way: The Whitewater real estate deal involved a total investment of about $200,000, roughly the cost of modest Hillcrest fixer-upper. The Clintons lost $45,000, not quite enough to buy a new SUV with all the trimmings. Whitewater itself never cost the taxpayers a dime, but the demise of Jim McDougal's Madison Guaranty S&L reportedly cost the taxpayers maybe $65 million. Probing this fathomless mystery required months of House and Senate hearings, and kept Kenneth Starr and his sleuths busy for six years, at the end of which poor, sick McDougal had died in prison, and all Starr had to show for his trouble was a stained dress and a ruined reputation.

Now Republicans are reminding us what a real financial scandal looks like. With the value of its stock plunging from $94 a share to 26 cents, the cost of the Enron implosion is roughly ONE THOUSAND TIMES greater than McDougal's finagling. It'll be interesting to see if it receives ten percent of the attention. Once the seventh largest firm in the Fortune 500, the self-styled "World's Greatest Company" controlled about 25% of the nation's natural gas and electrical generating capacity. It's now filed the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. As they love to remind us, they do things big in Texas.

Enron was also George W. Bush's single largest campaign contributor, ponying up $2 million to the Texas Republican over the years. Bush and Enron CEO Ken Lay were tight, attending many a fundraisier and ballgame together. Lay and his wife, who cashed in stock options worth $150 million at the peak of the market, have given $793,110 to the GOP since Daddy Bush was president. Both Presidents Bush, father and son, turned up for the gala opening of the Houston Astros' Enron Field last spring. A reader suggests they re-name the joint "Stock Fraud Park."

That kind of money buys more than access. It also buys power. Back in 1993 when the Washington press turned McDougal into Public Enemy #1, he was living in a mobile home on Social Security payments. Not so the Enron crowd. As Salon's Andrew Leonard points out, the Bush administration is packed with Enron connections. Top White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey was an Enron consultant. Secretary of the Army Thomas White and U.S. Trade representative Robert Zoellick worked for the company. White House political guru Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Lewis Libby owned huge chunks of the now worthless stock. James Baker, who masterminded Bush's post-election operations in Florida, joined Enron after the first Bush administration. So did Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher. It was a key 1992 regulatory ruling by Wendy Gramm, wife of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm and currently a member of the company's see-no-evil, hear-no-evil board of directors, that exempted Enron from federal scrutiny, making it easier for executives to cook the books, hiding huge speculative debt behind nonexistent profits-crony capitalism at its worst.

Facing a sure deluge of class action lawsuits from investors and employees- 21,000 retirement pensions have also vanished--Enron has fired its Chief Financial Officer, its Treasurer and its top lawyer. Arthur Anderson, the accountancy firm which signed off on the bookeeping will have much to answer for. Critics tell the Washington Post that Enron executives confronted skeptics with a combination of Texas arrogance and incomprehensible jargon of the kind taught in the nation's finest business schools. Anybody who suspected funny business simply didn't understand "derivative instruments which eliminate the contingent nature of existing restricted forward contracts."

TALOQAN, Afghanistan -- You only have to be in this country for a few minutes to understand what an entire presidential administration seated behind faux cherry desks in D.C. hasn't figured out yet: The last thing this country needs is more bombs. Bombing is redundant; death by airstrike too pointless to be cruel.L

God must have been in a serious funk when He created this geographic leftover between Central and South Asia. Not only did He stick the Afghans with the world's hottest deserts and its coldest mountains, he gave them just two natural resources: rocks and dust. And then, just because He's both ornery and omnipotent, He also gave them neighbors who hate each other so much they won't even touch each other with guns and knives; they let the Afghans do it for them.

The posturing in Bonn notwithstanding, it's impossible to imagine that Afghanistan will ever be able to unify behind a single political ideal, much less put aside AK-47s in favor of road-paving equipment and textbooks. Cultural shortsightedness spawned by millennia of warfare virtually guarantees that the Af ghans will never get their act together. Afghanistan remains a primitive, tribal, agrarian society with values and infrastructure straight out of the 12th century.

"We should nuke this whole country and start from scratch," a New Yorker named David told me over fatty kababs at the bazaar. And he's a libbie, toiling for a couple of NGO charities here.

Nonetheless, we Americans could learn a lot from the Afghans and their medieval society. Even the most well-traveled visitors here are instantly struck by the way Afghans help one another. To some extent it's self-motivated; helping to push someone's truck out of a ditch gets you moving sooner if it's blocking your way. But the truth is, everyone jumps to the assistance of anyone who needs it without being asked. If you drop a heavy load, a dozen men will rush up and offer not only to assist, but also to carry the item themselves. And no, they're not grabbing your wallet as they do it.

As you read this, you're thinking that Americans also help each other in a pinch. But we don't. If we lived like Afghans, you'd stop the instant you saw a broken-down vehicle on the side of the road. So would the car behind you. Afghans don't need an auto club; they have each other.

The tribal system, so detrimental to building an effective multiethnic state, offers tremendous support to people struggling to survive in impossibly difficult times. My translator Jovid's rented adobe-walled box on the outskirts of town here, which would normally house six people, is currently home to 15. Three of them, an old man and his two children, are refugees from neaby Kunduz who walked here after an errant American bomb destroyed their neighborhood. Four more are distant relatives who moved in after four years of drought made farming impossible.

The rest are orphaned children, not even distantly related to Jovid's family. The orphans are from the neighborhood; their mothers starved to death after their fathers died in battle. There are few orphanages in Afghanistan; there's no need for them. "Someone just takes them in," Jovid replied when I asked him what happens to most orphans. Just to be clear, Jovid's family is desperatly poor. Still, it would never occur to them not to feed a hungry person.

After years of reading about a country rigidly divided between a Tajik north and a Pashtun south, in which the Christian minority was ordered by the Taliban to wear identifying badges -- for their own protection -- I was astonished to discover an altogether different reality. Uzbeks, Daris and Pashtuns not only tolerate one another, they almost all speak each other's languages and partake of various elements of each other's cultures. Tajiks wear Pashtun clothing, Uzbeks eat Turkmen food and Tajiks marry Uzbeks.

While different kinds of Americans live in strictly segregated, monochromatic cities and neighborhoods and can't even stand to hear each other's music, Afghans of all ethnic stripes live side by side in a truly blended nation. This partly explains why yesterday's Taliban can shave, trade his turban for a Hindustani cap, and become Northern Alliance -- to jump from a Pashtun- to a Tajik-dominant culture isn't that hard. Afghans make war all the time -- it's what they do best -- but they fight out of loyalty to a commander or a warlord. They don't shoot each other merely because of the color of their skin. We Americans, who most assuredly know better, do.

And while we've all been treated to vague references to the Afghan tradition of "hospitality to strangers" -- mainly to explain the Taliban willingness to eat American lead on behalf of their guest Osama bin Laden -- it's something you have to experience personally in order to fully appreciate. To be offered a meal in a home here means that you'll be treated to the equivalent of a Thanksgiving dinner by people who can scarcely afford the minimum caloric intake to get them through the day.

When an emergency arose that required me to go out into the night (Afghans never go out after dark, due to the armed rapists and brigands roaming the streets), my hosts insisted that a car and driver be found to take me. Armed to the teeth and willing to risk their lives had I been attacked, they accompanied me to my destination. It was only days later that I inadvertently discovered that they had paid $50 - more than a year's salary - for that car.

Crusades are messy, bloody affairs, and it's often hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

Exhibit A: Afghanistan, where the United States just suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the wily Russians. Happily for the White House, neither the media nor the American public understand what just happened. They continue to cheer on the president, who is mighty thankful he is leading a jolly little war against Muslims instead of having to explain to voters why the economy is nose-diving and hundreds of thousands are losing their jobs.

The Northern Alliance is not a merry band of pro-American freedom fighters battling the wicked Taliban, but a Russian front organization run by leaders of the revived Afghan Communist party. It has also reopened the heroin trade the Taliban had shut down.

The Alliance proclaimed itself Afghanistan's legitimate government last week. Moscow recognized the Alliance, and rushed "advisers" and troops into Afghanistan.

On Sept. 11, Alliance forces were a mere 10,000 men. A month later, it fielded 30,000 with an array of Russian armour and artillery. It's likely regular troops from neighbouring Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan - all Russian satellite states - were sent into Afghanistan.

OIL AND GAS RESOURCES

Russia now dominates Afghanistan, thus reversing its historic defeat of the 1980s, shutting the U.S. and Pakistan out of Central Asia, and ensuring future Russian control of the Caspian Basin's oil and gas resources. Bush was too busy trying to "smoke out" outlaws Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar to notice his new best friends, the Russians, had drygulched him and grabbed the lion's share of Afghanistan.

The much ballyhooed Afghan unity conference in Germany last week, hailed by the U.S. and UN as a "breakthrough" and the beginning of a viable "democratic" government in Afghanistan, was a farce. The U.S., UN, and Europe are waiting to shower tens of millions in aid on a "new," non-Islamic Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance realize they need a few women and some toothless royalists to create the illusion of a multi-party government in order to cash in on western aid. Armed, supplied and guided by the Russian Army and KGB, the Alliance remains the real power in Afghanistan.

Last week, hundreds of Taliban prisoners of war were reportedly massacred in the Mazar-E-Sharif fort by soldiers of communist warlord Rashid Dostam, assisted by U.S. and British special forces, and air strikes by U.S. warplanes. Our side says the prisoners tried to break out and had to die. Some more neutral observers claim the prisoners were murdered en masse. Amnesty International is calling for an investigation. U.S. troops also watched while 140 Taliban prisoners were executed in southern Afghanistan. The U.S has been using fuel-air munitions that rights organizations claim are inhumane weapons that should be banned.

Last week, bin Laden's holy war syndrome seemed to infect the White House. Bush proclaimed a new jihad against Saddam Hussein, warning Iraq was next on his hit list. Saddam was moved into the terrorist column by Bush for allegedly planning to produce weapons of mass destruction to threaten his neighbours. The president forgot to mention Israel and India, who have also threatened their neighbours with nukes. While Bush was preaching a new crusade against Iraq, other high administration officials were warning that Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Somalia and even Pakistan might be added to Bush's jihad list. A decade ago, this would have been called warmongering. Now, the frightful Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. are being used to justify all sorts of adventures abroad, and the curtailment of civil rights and free speech at home.

Bush's anti-Muslim crusading policy is being advocated by a group of Dr. Strangeloves, hardline "neo-conservatives" - the Washington chapter of Ariel Sharon's far-right Likud party. They want to use America to destroy all of Israel's enemies and block peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

RESTRAINT

Sensible Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the administration's sharpest mind, Secretary of State Colin Powell, are trying to restrain the Sharonistas, who seem dangerously close to convincing Bush to launch a crusade against much of the 1.2-billion-person Islamic world. They failed with clever Bill Clinton, but are succeeding with the unworldly Bush.

America's European, Asian and Muslim allies are horrified by the dire threats emanating from Washington, but so far no one has dared to publicly break ranks and tell the president to holster his sixguns and simmer down. America is not refighting World War II.

For nearly three weeks now, I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to arrange for U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to stop by my office and answer a few questions. Really, they're very quick, painless questions. Enjoyable, almost. He can even have an attorney with him. This time. I don't suspect Mr. Ashcroft of any criminal wrongdoing; indeed, I have no knowledge that he has done anything wrong at all. But based upon his age, gender, ethnicity, and religious beliefs, I believe that Mr. Ashcroft could assist me in my efforts to help eradicate terrorism.

Here are just a few of the questions I'd like to have Mr. Ashcroft answer:

Residence: I'd like to know where Mr. Ashcroft now lives, and every other place he's ever lived in this country. I'd like to know who he lives with, and personal information regarding them, and I'd like any other information that would assist in locating Mr. Ashcroft in the future.

Telephone Numbers: I'd like all telephone numbers used by Mr. Ashcroft, anyone in his family, and any close associates, including the President. That includes private lines, cell phones, pagers, beepers, and the hot line to the Kremlin. Just curious.

Travel: I'd like to know what foreign countries Mr. Ashcroft has ever visited in his life, the dates of those visits, and the reasons he went there. I'd also like to know every place he's ever visited in this country, especially big cities and landmarks, the dates, and why he went there. In particular, I'd like to know whether he has ever visited Missouri, South Carolina, Afghanistan, or Mississippi. If he's planning to leave the country after this interview, I'd like to know where he plans to go, who he plans to contact, and for what reasons. Just wondering.

Work Life: I'd like to know everything there is to know about Mr. Ashcroft's job, including who he associates with, the types of work he does, and how long he plans to stay in the position. What sorts of books does he read? Legal documents? Constitutional amendments?

Knowledge of Weapons: I'd like to know whether Mr. Ashcroft believes in the right to keep and bear arms, whether he has a concealed weapons permit, and whether he or anyone he knows has access to guns or to any explosives or harmful chemicals, or has any training in the development or use of such weapons.

If anyone in the Department of Justice has training in the handling of firearms or any other such weapons, I'd like to know their names, their phone numbers and addresses, the types of weapons they have training in and access to, and their relationship to Mr. Ashcroft. I'd also like to know if he knows of anyone, say, over at the Pentagon, or from his days in the Senate, who is capable of developing any biological or chemical weapons such as anthrax.

Regarding the Events of Sept. 11, 2001: I'd like to know Mr. Ashcroft's private political views on United States foreign policy, and whether he, or anyone he knows, thinks any aspect of it is inappropriate. Does he work with or have any kind of personal relationship with anyone who has ever, for any reason, been accused by any person of having committed an act of terrorism? Did he ever fly a plane into the World Trade Center? (I doubt it, but you gotta check these things.)

Reaction to Terrorism: I'd like to know whether Mr. Ashcroft has ever lauded the cause of people who seceded from and declared war upon the United States of America. Has he ever visited Fort Sumter? Has he ever spoken with individuals or organizations sympathetic to the cause of secessionists? Does he believe that not-quite-random acts of violence committed for political purposes, such as the death penalty, are appropriate? Does he believe, due to the tenets of his religion, that certain groups of people, such as homosexuals, do not deserve legal protection from acts of violence directed against them because of who they are? Does he have any association, such as an honorary degree, from institutions that promote such beliefs based upon religious doctrine? Are these institutions tolerant of individuals, organizations, or civilizations with differing beliefs?

Of course, I'm sure Mr. Ashcroft will understand that even though a number of people who look very much like him have been detained without charges for indefinite periods recently, his cooperation in answering these questions fully, truthfully, and eagerly is entirely voluntary. As I'm sure he knows, I have only his best interests and my personal concern about his future at heart. Plus, he has information I think might be useful for my own reasons. Much of it I've already obtained on my own initiative, through reading his e-mail, listening to his phone conversations, interviewing his neighbors, and rooting through his garbage. But I'd like to see what he says. Just curious.

I'm sure that where Mr. Ashcroft comes from, having a government agent ask these sorts of invasive, personal questions, without any sort of public accountability, is, quite frankly, horrifying. Where he comes from, asking questions like this is associated with the worst kinds of abuses of governmental power. But heck, I'm not even going to keep a file, or keep his name on any sort of list. Or anything. I just want to know. Since he has nothing to hide, I'm sure he'll help out.