Hell To Pay

It is one thing to coddle and court a corrupt energy company for political and financial gain. It is quite another to coddle and court a murderous terrorist-supporting regime, hindering anti-terrorism investigations in the process, for the purpose of exploiting valuable natural resources. The former cost a number of people their retirement funds. The latter has cost thousands of people their lives. One is criminal. The other is abominable. George W. Bush is deeply implicated in both. There will be hell to pay.
© 2002 William Rivers Pitt

What's In A Box?

Time to take another journey [Far-out space theme] into the Far, Far, Far-Out Frontiers of Free Enterprise.

Today, Spaceship Hightower invites you to visit ProductWorld, where you can see the most amazing things...assuming you have a powerful magnifying glass and a calculator. This is the world of convoluted consumerism, where customers will get lost unless they read all of the teeny-tiny print. Our escort is Consumer Reports magazine, which always helps you track the important small stuff.

Our first stop is at the trusted old brand-name, Kleenex, a product of the Kimberly-Clark corporation. Only, this is the "new" Kleenex, not the old. The old box said "Family Size––still 250 Tissues!" The new box says "Family Size." Period. Yes, indeed, check the small print and you'll find an unadvertised notice that the new family size shorts you 20 tissues, while charging the same as for the old box. A corporate spokeswoman was blunt about the switch: "It's an alternative form of a price increase," she explained. Oh. Thank you.

Let's move along to Sara Lee, whose products include its frozen, 37-ounce "Oven Fresh Dutch Apple Pie." On the box is an enticing banner that proudly proclaims "40% MORE FRUIT." Okay I'll bite. Forty percent more than what? More than a competitor's brand, you'd probably think. But, nooooo, the tiny type reveals to the inquiring consumer that the 37-ounce pie in Sara Lee's box has 40-percent more fruit than a 26-ounce pie would have.

But at least the pie has apples. Check out the coupon distributed by the fast-food chain, Panda Express. It offers $2-off on a family meal as part of its "Festival of Shrimp" promotion. "Luckily, we've got plenty of shrimp," the coupon exults, bragging about the "Tempting shrimp creations our chefs are wokking up." Sounds yummy...until you squint at the little notice at the bottom of the $2-off coupon that tells you: "Excludes Shrimp."

This is Jim Hightower saying...Never go shopping without your magnifying glass...and your skeptical attitude.
© 2002 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.

The Discreet Charm Of The Straight Spin
By Norman Solomon

If my memory is correct, it was a Jerry Lewis movie. More than 40 years later, I still remember the scenes of a grown man so gullible that he believed his television. What a laugh riot! The guy dashed out to shop every time a commercial told him exactly what to buy. Then he'd sit in front of the TV set, dyeing his hair and smoking cigars, awaiting further instructions.

It was quite funny -- to a 10-year-old, anyway. Even back then, it seemed incontrovertibly absurd to think that someone would be so credulous about televised messages.

Today, print journalists may roll their eyes at the mention of television. Those of us who write for newspapers are (ahem) rather more sophisticated and nuanced. But even someone who sticks to reading the news has probably gotten the authoritative word that Sept. 11 changed "everything."

And so, it was unremarkable when, on the last Sunday of 2001, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch flatly stated in an editorial: "The unspeakable, the unthinkable, the inconceivable horror of that day changed everything." Meanwhile, a couple of thousand miles away, Northern California's largest newspaper was even more over the top as the San Francisco Chronicle's front page proclaimed: "Attack on the U.S. changed everyone and everything everywhere."

When highly regarded news outlets are serving up wild hyperbole in the guise of sober analysis, you gotta figure that some screws in the nation's media machinery are seriously loose.

On the trail of jingo-narcissism, it's difficult to stay within shouting distance of television. In early fall, Pentagon reporters sought -- and got -- more frequent news conferences. "Let's hear it for the essential daily briefing, however hollow and empty it might be," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in the middle of October. "We'll do it."

Since then, Rumsfeld has regularly helped with the propaganda chores. Airing live on such cable networks as MSNBC, CNN and Fox, his performances have won profuse media accolades. A news report by CNN called him "a virtual rock star." A Wall Street Journal essay -- by TV critic Claudia Rosett, a member of the newspaper's editorial board -- described Rumsfeld as "a gent who in our country's hour of need has turned out to be one (of) the classiest acts on camera."

Published on the last day of the year, Rosett's article was a fitting climax to a media season of slathering over the well-heeled boots of the man in charge of the Pentagon. During recent weeks, she noted approvingly, "in print and on the air, we've been hearing about Don Rumsfeld, sex symbol, the new hunk of home-front airtime."

Deep into the mass-media groove, the Wall Street Journal piece declared: "The basic source of Mr. Rumsfeld's charm is that he talks straight. He doesn't expend his energy on spin..." Now there's an example of some prodigious spinning. Actually, Rumsfeld -- who excels at sticking to the lines of the day -- is a fine practitioner of spin in the minimalist style, with deception accomplished mostly by what's left unsaid.

For some, Rumsfeld's dissembling style is a source of continual delight. "These briefings, beamed out live, have become, to my mind, the best new show on television," Rosett wrote. "It's a rare one that doesn't contain, at some point, some variation on his wry trademark reply when asked to discuss matters he'd rather not go into: 'I could, but I won't.'"

One of the subjects that Rumsfeld would rather not go into is civilian deaths in Afghanistan.

Several weeks ago, University of New Hampshire professor Marc Herold released a report calculating that 3,767 Afghan civilians had been killed by the bombing between Oct. 7 and Dec. 10. The report was ignored by major U.S. media.

In Britain, the report received a bit more attention. "The price in blood that has already been paid for America's war against terror is only now starting to become clear," an editor at the London-based Guardian wrote on Dec. 20. Seumas Milne explained that Herold's research was "based on corroborated reports from aid agencies, the UN, eyewitnesses, TV stations, newspapers and news agencies around the world."

Milne added: "Of course, Herold's total is only an estimate. But what is impressive about his work is not only the meticulous cross-checking, but the conservative assumptions he applies to each reported incident. The figure does not include those who died later of bomb injuries; nor those killed in the past 10 days (Dec. 10-20); nor those who have died from cold and hunger because of the interruption of aid supplies or because they were forced to become refugees by the bombardment."

As wars go, we are supposed to understand, this has been a noble one. Great men like Donald Rumsfeld have told us so. However, from a more informed and less credulous vantage point, buying such claims might seem absurd. But not funny like a Jerry Lewis movie.
© 2002 Norman Solomon writes a syndicated column on media and politics. His latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media."

No More Oval Office Taping

Of course, historians and the public would get a better picture of the human side of the presidency if there was a taping system in the Oval Office. But what president is going to chance it any more?
© 2002 Helen Thomas

Getting Osama

Daschle's one-liner about the GOP's belief in tax cuts as a cure for the common cold was ruefully funny. Besides making no literal sense, Bush's retort that "not over my dead body" would anybody raise taxes-something Daschle hadn't proposed-fell flat, only reminding us that neither wit nor arithmetic are his strong points. Clint Eastwood or Bruce Willis he ain't. Sad to say, he isn't even Mike Huckabee.
©2001 Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient of the National Magazine Award.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

In short, the news divisions of the media cartel appear to work against the public interest--and for their parent companies, their advertisers and the Bush Administration. The situation is completely un-American. It is the purpose of the press to help us run the state, and not the other way around. As citizens of a democracy, we have the right and obligation to be well aware of what is happening, both in "the homeland" and the wider world. Without such knowledge we cannot be both secure and free. We therefore must take steps to liberate the media from oligopoly, so as to make the government our own.
© 2002 Mark Crispin Miller

Snappy New Jeer: I admit it: I was wrong.

George W. Bush: he's the best nonpresident we've never had.
© 2002 Ted Rall, the cartoonist and columnist, is covering the Afghan war for The Village Voice and KFI Radio in Los Angeles. .

'Objectivity' RIP

Objectively speaking, you'd think there might be a story in there somewhere...
© 2002 Eric Alterman

Collateral Damage

Aloha
© 2001 Tally Briggs email Tally at: tally.briggs@usa.xerox.com

Black Hawk Down
Hollywood drags bloody corpse of truth across movie screens
By Larry Chin

True to its post-9/11 government-sanctioned role as US war propaganda headquarters, Hollywood has released "Black Hawk Down," a fictionalized account of the tragic 1993 US raid in Somalia. The Pentagon assisted with the production, pleased for an opportunity to "set the record straight." The film is a lie that compounds the original lie that was the operation itself.

Somalia: the facts

According to the myth, the Somalia operation of 1993 was a humanitarian mission, and a shining example of New World Order morality and altruism. In fact, US and UN troops waged an undeclared war against an Islamic African populace that was hostile to foreign interests.

Also contrary to the legend, the 1993 Somalia raid was not a "Clinton foreign policy bungle." In fact, the incoming Clinton administration inherited an operation that was already in full swing -- planned and begun by outgoing President George Herbert Walker Bush, spearheaded by deputy national security adviser Jonathan Howe (who remained in charge of the UN operation after Clinton took office), and approved by Colin Powell, then head of the Joint Chiefs.

The operation had nothing to do with humanitarianism or Africa-love on the part of Bush or Clinton. Several US oil companies, including Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips were positioned to exploit Somalia's rich oil reserves. The companies had secured billion-dollar concessions to explore and drill large portions of the Somali countryside during the reign of pro-US President Mohamed Siad Barre. (In fact, Conoco's Mogadishu office housed the US embassy and military headquarters.) A "secure" Somalia also provided the West with strategic location on the coast of Arabian Sea.

UN military became necessary when Barre was overthrown by warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid, suddenly rendering Somalia inhospitable to US corporate interests.

Although the pretext for the mission was to safeguard food shipments, and stop the "evil Aidid" from stealing the food, the true UN goal was to remove Aidid from the political equation, and form a pro-Western coalition government out of the nation's warring clans. The US operation was met with "surprisingly fierce resistance" -- surprising to US officials who underestimated Somalian resolve, and even more surprising to US troops who were victims and pawns of UN policy makers.

The highly documented series by Mark Bowden of the Philadelphia Inquirer on which the film is based , focuses on the participants, and the "untenable" situation in which troops were placed. But even Bowden's gung-ho account makes no bones about provocative American attacks that ultimately led to the decisive defeat in Mogadishu.

Bowden writes: "Task Force Ranger was not in Mogadishu to feed the hungry. Over six weeks, from late August to Oct. 3, it conducted six missions, raiding locations where either Aidid or his lieutenants were believed to be meeting. The mission that resulted in the Battle of Mogadishu came less than three months after a surprise missile attack by U.S. helicopters (acting on behalf of the UN) on a meeting of Aidid clansmen. Prompted by a Somalian ambush on June 5 that killed more than 20 Pakistani soldiers, the missile attack killed 50 to 70 clan elders and intellectuals, many of them moderates seeking to reach a peaceful settlement with the United Nations. After that July 12 helicopter attack, Aidid's clan was officially at war with America -- a fact many Americans never realized."

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Somalis were killed in the course of US incursions that took place over three months. In his book The New Military Humanism, Noam Chomsky cites other under-reported facts. "In October 1993, criminal incompetence by the US military led to the slaughter of 1,000 Somalis by American firepower." Chomsky writes. "The official estimate was 6-10,000 Somali casualties in the summer of 1993 alone, two-thirds women and children. Marine Lt. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who commanded the operation, informed the press that 'I'm not counting bodies . . . I'm not interested.' Specific war crimes of US forces included direct military attacks on a hospital and on civilian gatherings. Other Western armies were implicated in serious crimes as well. Some of these were revealed at an official Canadian inquiry, not duplicated by the US or other governments."

Bowden's more forgiving account does not contradict Chomsky's in this regard: "Official U.S. estimates of Somalian casualties at the time numbered 350 dead and 500 injured. Somalian clan leaders made claims of more than 1,000 deaths. The United Nations placed the number of dead at ``between 300 to 500.'' Doctors and intellectuals in Mogadishu not aligned with the feuding clans say that 500 dead is probably accurate.

The attack on Mogadishu was particularly vicious. Quoting Bowden: "The Task Force Ranger commander, Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison, testifying before the Senate, said that if his men had put any more ammunition into the city 'we would have sunk it.' Most soldiers interviewed said that through most of the fight they fired on crowds and eventually at anyone and anything they saw."

After 18 US Special Forces soldiers were killed in the final Mogadishu firefight, which included the downing of a US helicopter, television screens filled with the scene of a dead US soldier being dragged through the streets by jubilant Somalis. Clinton immediately called off the operation. US forces left Somalia in disgrace. Some 19,000 UN troops remained for a short period, but eventually left in futility.

The Somalia defeat elicited howls of protest and rage from the military brass, congressional hawks, and right-wing provocateurs itching for an excuse to declare political war on the "liberal" Clinton administration.

The "Somalia syndrome" would dog Clinton throughout his presidency, and mar every military mission during his tenure.

Today, as right-wing extremist George W. Bush occupies the White House, surrounded by his father's operatives, and many of the architects of the original raid, military fanaticism is all the rage. A global war "without end" has just begun.

What a perfect moment to "clean up" the past. Hollywood to the rescue

In promoting the film, producer Jerry Bruckheimer (who rewrote another humiliating episode of US military history with "Pearl Harbor") is seeking to convince Americans that the Somalia operation was "not America's darkest hour, but America's brightest hour;" that a bungled imperialist intervention was a noble incident of grand moral magnificence.

CNN film reviewer Paul Tatara describes "Black Hawk Down" as "pound for pound, one of the most violent films ever released by a major studio," from "two of the most pandering, tactless filmmakers in Hollywood history (Jerry Bruckheimer and Ridley Scott)" who are attempting to "teach us about honor among soldiers."

More important are the film's true subtexts, and the likely emotional reaction of viewers.

What viewers see is "brave and innocent young American boys" getting shot at and killed for "no reason" by "crazy black Islamists" that the Americans are "just trying to help." (Subtext one: America is good, and it is impossible to understand why "they hate us." Subtext two: "Those damned ungrateful foreigners." Subtext three: "Those damned blacks." Subtext four: "Kill Arabs.")

What viewers will remember is a line spoken by one of the "brave soldiers" about how, in the heat of combat, "politics goes out the window." (Subtext one: there is no need for thought; shoot first, talk later. Subtext two: it is right to abandon one's sanity, morality and ethics when faced with chaos. Subtext three: when the Twin Towers went down on 9/11, America was right in embracing radical militarism and extreme violence, throwing all else "out the window.")

In the currently lethal political climate, in which testosterone rage, mob mentality, and love of war pass for normal behavior (while reason, critical thinking, and tolerance are considered treasonous), "Black Hawk Down" will appeal to the most violent elements of American society. Many who have seen the film report leaving the theater feeling angry, itching to "kick some ass." In short, the film is dangerous. And those who "love" it are dangerous.

Considering the fact that Somalia is one of the targets in the next phase of the Bush administration's "war on terrorism," the timing of the film is no coincidence.

As Herbert London of the Hudson Institute said of "Black Hawk Down," "I would never deny the importance of heroism in battle, but just as we should recognize and honor heroes, we should also respect the truthfulness of the events surrounding their heroic acts. In the case of 'Black Hawk Down,' we get a lot of the former and almost nothing of the latter."
© 2002 Larry Chin is a freelance journalist.

Dead Letter Office

Heil Bush,

Dear Propaganda Ansager Walters,

Congratulations you have just been awarded the Vidkun Quisling Award for 2002. 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 Clarence (slappy) Thomas.

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 03-15-2002. We salute you Frau Walters, Sieg Heil!

Signed,
Deputy Fuhrer Cheney

Heil Bush

All The Problems That Come With Living In The Real World
By Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas -- Until a few days ago, it seemed there were only two ways we could possibly lose the war in Afghanistan at this late date. The first was if great numbers of Afghans starve to death this winter, thus canceling out the good we have done by getting rid of the Taliban and inciting a new wave of terrorists. The second would be an Islamist uprising in Pakistan, the overthrow of President Pervez Musharraf and war between India and Pakistan, thus rather more than canceling out any good we have done.

True, Al Qaeda seems to have leaked away at the end, like water dribbling out of cupped hands. First they were all holed up in Tora Bora and we were pounding the stuffing out of them and then . . . they weren't there. Since we suspected the Pakistanis would let them through, it can't have come as much surprise. We have learned a great deal about how deeply implicated the ISI, the Pakistani CIA, was in the Taliban government.

But now arises a third possibility for disaster that has an element beyond tragedy--ludicrous farce. The problem is Gen. Rashid Dostum, the warlord's warlord; a man who has changed sides nine times, including stints fighting for the Soviets, the Soviet puppets, the mujahedeen, the Taliban and now the Northern Alliance. This one is a classic.

One Western diplomat, according to The New York Times, says Dostum has "a very checkered human rights record." Now that's diplomatic language. According to intelligence sources, the guy is brutal and corrupt, as well as untrustworthy--and according to the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, his soldiers' record of rape is ghastly. To have fought a war, costing who knows how many Afghan lives and at least several American lives, and a monetary cost of billions only to end up with Dostum in power is beyond bearing.

Dostum has been appointed deputy defense minister in the new Afghan government, `something of an unsavory trade-off," notes the Times. Yo. If he remains deputy defense minister--one of his rival warlords notes that Dostum is illiterate and incompetent to be deputy defense minister--we will presumably have to accept it as a necessary evil pursuant to Prime Minister Hamid Karzai's noble effort to create a true coalition government. (But let's spare the rape victims the lecture about necessary evil.) The trouble is, Dostum, on his record, is the cilantro of generals--he has a tendency to take over everything around him. He has already kicked up dust, threatening to boycott the new government because only two of his followers were given Cabinet posts.

Whoever said irony died on Sept. 11 should report to re-education camp immediately.

The administration and the media may be doing a significant disservice by oversimplifying this war. Black hats and white hats may make a good cowboy movie, but they have a downside in reality. During the culture wars of the Newt Gingrich era, conservatives liked to accuse liberals of "moral relativism," a deadly insult even though no one knew quite what it meant. Moral ambiguity is a fact of life, and to pretend it doesn't exist in Afghanistan will only lead to disenchantment. And disenchantment, in our case, usually leads to abandonment of whatever we've started because it's too messy. On "60 Minutes" recently, ex-Rep. Charlie Wilson referred to this as "our well-known attention deficit disorder."

We didn't stick around the first time to help Afghanistan get itself functioning, from which ensued a great tragedy. Unless we get a realistic grasp of just how difficult this is going to be, we are all too likely to give up prematurely again.

It seems to me it does no one any good to keep saying, "Our enemies are evil people who hate us because we are successful." That's certainly not the way they look at it-- and, at the very least, it is necessary to understand your enemy in order to fight him.

We have already reached such a pass with oversimplification that the words "root causes" are used as a scornful code for wussiness, as though trying to understand someone else's point of view is a weakness.

As many others have pointed out, we are probably dealing with at least two aspects of terrorism. One is the perverted holy-warrior fantasy of Osama bin Laden, and the other is the consequence of history and policy.

If you drive people off their land--say the Palestinians--and leave them to rot in refugee camps for three generations, you are going to get terrorism. If you further aggravate old wounds by sending settlers into Palestinian territory and ruthlessly occupy same, you will get more terrorism.

This is not a great mystery, nor is it caused by envy of American success. There is no weakness in re-examining policies that lead to terrorism--we'd be fools not to do so.
© 2002 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.

The Strange Case Of Zacarias Moussaoui:
FBI refused to investigate man charged in September 11 attacks
By Patrick Martin

The case of Zacarias Moussaoui raises many questions about the conduct of the FBI and other US intelligence agencies in the period leading up the September 11. It is the clearest example of the almost inexplicable refusal on the part of these agencies to take any action that could have prevented the bloodiest terrorist attack in American history.

Moussaoui was arraigned January 3 on six counts of conspiracy to commit murder and terrorism in the September 11 attacks. A French-born man of Moroccan Arab descent, Moussaoui refused "in the name of Allah" to make a plea, and a plea of not guilty was entered for him at the request of his public defender.

The 30-minute hearing in a federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia concluded with US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema setting a trial date for next October, despite defense protests that this would put jury selection around the first anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Defense lawyers suggested they would seek a change of venue from Alexandria, only a few miles from the Pentagon where 189 people were killed when a hijacked American Airlines jet slammed into the building on September 11. Brinkema indicated that she was not inclined to grant a change of venue, saying that a fair jury could be found in northern Virginia.

Four of the six charges against Moussaoui carry the death penalty, although he was arrested a month before the September 11 attacks and therefore could not have played any active role in the mass murder. Prosecutors have until March 29 to announce whether they will seek death sentences. Moussaoui would be the first French citizen to face the death penalty in the United States since the US Supreme Court restored the death penalty in 1976.

FBI refusal to act

Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota August 16 after officials of a flight school, the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, a suburb of Minneapolis, tipped off the FBI that he was seeking flight training on a Boeing 747 jumbo jet.

His conduct aroused suspicion: his attitude was belligerent, he was evasive about his personal background, he declined to speak French with an instructor who knew the language, and he paid the $6,300 fee in cash. He insisted on training to fly a jumbo jet despite an obvious lack of skill even with small planes. The prospective student reportedly did not want to learn how to take off or land, only how to steer the jet while it was in the air.

The instructor and a vice president of the flight school briefed two Democratic congressmen from the Minneapolis area in November about their repeated efforts to get the FBI to take an interest in Moussaoui’s conduct. Their accounts were first reported in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, then in the New York Times December 22.

The vice president of the flight school, who briefed Minnesota Congressmen James Oberstar and Martin Sabo, said it took four to six phone calls to the FBI to find an agent who would help. The instructor became so frustrated by the lack of response that he gave a prescient warning to the FBI that "a 747 loaded with fuel can be used as a bomb."

Investigation blocked in Washington

Moussaoui was detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on charges of violating the terms of his visa. Local FBI investigators in Minneapolis immediately viewed Moussaoui as a terrorist suspect and sought authorization for a special counterintelligence surveillance warrant to search the hard drive of his home computer. This was rejected by higher-level officials in Washington, who claimed there was insufficient evidence to meet the legal requirements for the warrant.

FBI agents tracked Moussaoui’s movements to the Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma, where he logged 57 hours of flight time earlier in 2001 but was never allowed to fly on his own because of his poor skills. This alone should have set off alarm bells, since a confessed Al Qaeda operative, Abdul Hakim Murad, had trained at the same school, as part of preparations for a suicide hijack attack on CIA headquarters. Murad testified about these plans in the 1996 trial of Ramzi Ahmed Yusef, the principal organizer of the 1993 World Trade Center car-bombing.

Several of the September 11 hijackers had either enrolled in or visited the Oklahoma flight school, as a more thorough investigation determined in the aftermath of the suicide hijackings.

On August 26, FBI headquarters was notified by French intelligence that Moussaoui had ties to the Al Qaeda organization and Osama bin Laden. Even this report did not spur the agency to action. A special counterterrorism panel of the FBI and CIA reviewed the information against him, but concluded there was insufficient evidence that he represented any threat, despite his refusal to answer questions and the French allegations. Moussaoui was not even transferred from INS detention to FBI custody until after September 11.

The French warning arrived on the day after the first two suicide hijackers purchased their one-way, first class tickets for flights on September 11. More tickets were purchased on August 26, 27, 28 and 29, while the FBI was refusing to pursue a more intensive investigation into Moussaoui or search his computer.

The New York Times commented December 22 that the Moussaoui case "raised new questions about why the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies did not prevent the hijackings."

FBI officials responded indirectly to this criticism, flatly denying the account of the warning given by the flight school personnel. "The notion of flying a plane into a building or using it as a bomb never came up," one senior official to the Washington Post January 2. "It was a straight hijacking scenario that they were worried about."

This issue is of critical importance, and the flight school instructor, unlike the FBI, has absolutely no reason to lie. In the wake of September 11, FBI Director Robert Mueller flatly declared that the FBI had no indication that terrorists were seeking to use hijacked airliners as flying bombs. His assurances were accepted uncritically by the American media. The account given by the flight school shows that these assurances were lies.

A security stand-down

The Moussaoui case is only one of a number of indications that the US government had ample warning that a major terrorist operation was under way in the United States and yet did nothing to preempt or block it.

* The governments of at least four countries—Russia, Germany, Israel and Egypt—gave Washington specific warnings of terrorist attacks in the United States involving the use of hijacked airplanes as weapons, in the months leading up to September 11.

* The US government itself had multiple indications of the danger of suicide hijackings, based on its own investigations into other terrorist attacks attributed to Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network.

* The US government was monitoring the electronic communications of bin Laden and his associates during the extensive period of advance planning which preceded the September 11 attack.

* Several of the September 11 hijackers, including Mohammed Atta, the alleged ringleader, were under direct surveillance by US agencies as suspected terrorists during 2000 and 2001.Yet they were allowed to travel freely into and out of the US and eventually carry out their plans.

September 11 took place amid a virtual stand-down of the security forces which permits no innocent explanation. The circumstances of the terrorist attacks deserve the most serious and conscientious investigation. Both the Bush administration and the Democrats and Republicans in Congress have rejected any such probe, suggesting that to question the role of the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies is unpatriotic.

But the facts which are known so far point to the conclusion that officials at the highest levels of the US government knew that a major terrorist attack was under way and made no serious effort to prevent it. The political motive can be inferred: they permitted an attack to go forward—whether they knew its full dimensions or not—in order to provide the necessary pretext for carrying out a right-wing agenda of military intervention abroad and attacks on democratic rights at home.
© 2002 Patrick Martin

The Cartoon Corner

This edition we're proud to showcase the cartoons of Don Wright

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

THE PETITION

We, the people, do hereby demand that Congress investigate the following actions taken by George W. Bush and his administration, and call for the IMPEACHMENT of Bush, John Ashcroft, the five members of the Supreme Court who violated State's Rights to select Bush, every member of the administration who also served in George H.W.Bush's administration, and every person who has executive and monetary ties to the oil industry.

The Republican Party spent $40 million of our tax dollars trying to crucify Bill Clinton for his sexual activities, and there has barely been a whimper but one is finally emerging -- about GWB's desecration of the very foundations of our democracy. We, the people, demand investigation of the following crimes of treason -- with the intent to impeach:

1. Tampering with the 2000 presidential election process, e.g. hard plastic inserts causing "no vote" in the Gore column of Florida ballots. (Cited by Diane Feinstein.) We demand investigation and imprisonment of all those in the State of Florida who participated in this obstruction and the blocking of recounts in Florida.

2. Violation of State's Rights by the last and final bastion of law in the United States â€" the Supreme Court. Violated State's Rights to recount, and Florida State Law that automatically requires a recount in close elections. We demand impeachment of all "Justices" who desecrated our democratic process and appointed Bush to the White House.

3. John Ashcroft, to gain office, said he would not let his personal beliefs interfere with his position that wields power of the laws of our nation. Investigate and impeach for violating State's Rights by overturning the will of the people of Oregon that allows assisted suicides.

4. Investigate and impeach John Ashcroft for implementing laws that are so vague in describing "terrorist" that they potentially violate the civil rights of citizens and residents of our country, thus destroying the tenets of democracy that made this country great.

5. Investigate and imprison members of our "intelligence" who met with bin Laden in July 2001. Since bin Laden was, even then, a "war" criminal, investigate why he was MET WITH and NOT ARRESTED. Impeach the final authority who directed the visits.

6. Intelligence members have stated that Bush TOLD them to back off from bin Laden to NOT investigate him and his cohorts. Investigate and IMPEACH the final authority who directed that surveillance of bin Laden and his cohorts be stopped prior to the attacks.

7. Members of our "intelligence" placed PUTS on United and American airlines two days before the attacks sent the stocks plummeting. Although software supposedly tracks abnormal trading, the 1200% gain in PUT activity on those two airlines was not revealed. Investigate and imprison all who profited from these puts. Investigate and IMPEACH the final authority who gave notice that the event would happen.

8. Bush has attached his unpopular agenda items to his so-called "war" bills, and has used the "war" as an excuse to undermine every tenet of civil rights inherent in our democracy. Compile a list and remove his agenda items, as well as every "law" that erodes and violates our civil rights. Note that every participant in this agenda commits TREASON and is a TRAITOR to this great nation.

9. Bush is buying up every satellite image of Afghanistan â€" with our tax dollars. His daddy didn't do this, and reviews of satellite photography after the Kuwait "war," where GHWBush didn't bring in Hussein, showed that there was NO enemy presence in Kuwait - hence our soldiers died from "friendly fire." Investigate and impeach anyone who endeavors to maintain exclusivity and secrecy in our democracy. Democracy works by keeping WE, THE PEOPLE, informed of all actions of our politicians, in order that we may more properly select who will REPRESENT us. SECRETS are TREASON to democracy.

10. Bush has by Executive Order hidden all presidential papers -- that BELONG to WE, THE PEOPLE. His order locks other presidential records, including his daddy's and Reagan's. The order has a "double lock" on it, so that if either the creating or the sitting president says "no" to releasing the records, they remain locked from the public. We, the people, demand that Congress act in unison to destroy this "Executive Order." We demand investigation of what the Order seeks to hide, and full revelation to the people.

11. Bush has requested power to "quarantine" American citizens in the event of a smallpox (or communicable disease) breakout. He has refused to discard American supplies of the smallpox virus. History has proven that quarantines do NOT WORK. Should he accuse bin Laden of threatening with smallpox, and then mandate a nation-wide inoculation, he will set the "bio-terrorism" in motion himself, as there are always people who become sick from the vaccine, and the American people today already have massively corrupted immune systems. Recall Ford's attempt to force inoculations for Swine Flu - and that he killed people. Every person with a weakened immune system has the potential of contracting the disease, and then contagion will have been set in motion - with only blame on, but no action from, bin Laden. Ensure that Bush cannot in ANY way cause or allow to be done the releasing in ANY FORM of any virus or anthrax that can harm we, the people.

12. People have already been concerned that FEMA would have totalitarian powers if a national emergency were declared. Bush has now sought the same power for himself. He has stripped all rights from "foreigners" (racism) the diversity of which made this nation great. With quarantine powers, he can strip all rights from citizens -" WE, THE PEOPLE, and prevent movement within the country. (Read this as Hitler's Germany.) He can imprison (quarantine) people in stadiums. Entire cities could be herded into unsheltered, unhealthy environments. He has taken the power to turn hospitals into prisons. WE, THE PEOPLE demand that Congress overturn this Executive Order, for it does NOTHING to stop terrorism.

13. Bush has set in motion SECRET military tribunals, once again declaring "needs of security." He has made it law that a person's home is not longer his castle, and it can be entered and searched without a warrant. He has made it a law that one is no longer innocent until proven guilty. One now only needs to be "suspected." One now has no guarantee of a fair and democratic trial. One can be tried by a secret military tribunal and be executed â€" in total secrecy. This constitutes a police state and NOT a democracy. We, the people, DEMAND that this power be stripped away and never set in motion. We demand that Bush be IMPEACHED for granting himself "unusual powers" for a "war" that is phony - and not declared by Congress, and for further destroying the character of America in the world community.

14. Bush is buying all satellite images of Afghanistan, he has locked down presidential papers, and he wants to conduct secret executions â€" to prevent the airing of any testimony that might incriminate him and his role in the attacks used to set in motion all of these assaults on American citizens. We, the people, demand IMPEACHMENT for his destruction of the ELECTION PROCESS and his intent to grant himself FULL DICTATORIAL AUTHORITY.

15. The anthrax distributed in the mail - and sent only to Democrats -is the variety held by our own military. We, the people, demand investigation of our own military and administrative authorities who have command over U.S. supplies of anthrax. Imprison all who participated in its release, and IMPEACH the highest authority.

16. Bomber pilots are saying that they are being prevented from bombing military complexes in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld declared the "anonymous" pilots to be "royal thumb suckers." Rumsfeld tripped over his own lies as he first denied the charges with that idiotic remark, and then admitted it when someone rephrased the question. He stood LAUGHING at some of the questions. Excuse me, did someone say this was about "war"???? Investigate WHY the military is under such discretionary control, and the reasons for it. IMPEACH all who are calling the orders in this phony "war."

17. We, the people, demand an investigation into who controls the news media so that it is not screaming from the headlines, and at the top of the hour, about these acts that are TREASON to our nation. The news media's purpose is not to amuse and deceive.

18. Investigate "profiteering through government" during this time of assault upon the American people via permission by you in Congress who have failed in your purpose to represent WE, THE PEOPLE. You have handed BILLIONS of our tax dollars to Corporations â€" letting these corporations "take the money and run" â€" even as individuals lose their jobs, and will wind up working for $6 an hour to pay for the massive government debt being created by Bush - and yourselves! STOP and REVERSE these handouts.

19. Investigate WHY Congress has cooperated so fully in Bush's destruction of our democracy under the pretext of "war." If there has been any threat, or collusion to deceive the American people, IMPEACH all who participated.

20. Investigate the role of OIL in this entire charade, and the monies paid by "religious" influences who also seek destruction of American rights and freedoms. Clean up our government, beginning with your own apologies to the American people - and to the world. We could FEED the world with the BILLIONS that Bush is giving to war barons and corporations. This is a dark hour in our history, and each of you need to bring all of these TREASONOUS and TRAITOROUS acts into the LIGHT.

Representing We, The People,

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.