the not so secret meaning of "freedom"
by Theron Dash

Although he mentions democracy once in awhile, GW Bush stresses the word "freedom" as what he wants to bring to Iraq. Maybe that's because democracy would mean that the Iraqi people would decide for themselves what kind of a government they want. That's not exactly what the Bushies have in mind.

They didn't invade the country and cause so much grief, even to themselves, just to exchange an old dictator with an anti-American Muslim state, however democratically elected. They certainly won't stand for a government that decides to throw them out, lock, stock and military bases. Or one that denies American companies the lucrative oil and oil contracts. No, that's where freedom comes in.

Because freedom is not just another word for nothing left to lose. It's one of those big, nonspecific words that can mean what you want it to. Like, the American Dream. And in fact, these days they mean almost the same thing, at least to the Bushie people. Freedom in Iraq means the freedom of the Iraqi people to sell oil to America, and to spend the money on American goods and services. It means the freedom to host a big U.S. military base, and a huge American embassy, and lots of American corporations. And of course, lots of Walmarts and McDonalds. Maybe, eventually, if they're real good, a Disneyland!

Freedom means globalized American corporate capitalism. The freedom to choose from the fast food menu, the freedom to choose which of the 154 channels of insulting and desultory sameness you want to watch for the next fifteen seconds. Freedom to watch blonds squirm in tubs of snakes, or a fat-faced jerk say, "You're fired." The freedom to vote for the made candidate of your choice. All the freedoms we enjoy, and that the terrorists hate.

Of course you also get your bonus freedom of the press (except when it's spewing anti-American propaganda), your freedom of speech (unless you say something that suggests you might be a terrorist sympathizer) and whatever other freedoms are still permitted under the International Patriot Act. Because there's the same fine print you find in your credit card contracts---we reserve the right to change the rules at any time. Hey, you don't like it? In a free Iraq, love it or leave it. But you'll never be bored with freedom. No, one way or another, we'll keep you occupied.

the Real Blair Bush Story?

The headlines, the newscasts all stressed the same thing: Bush and Blair were of one mind on Iraq, still. Even the PBS Newshour reporter said something like it was a sunny spring day in Washington but there was no daylight between Blair and Bush.

But later in that same broadcast, interviews with three journalists---one from Italy, one from Poland, one from the UK---had a slightly different story to tell. Responding to questions, the Italian and the Polish journalist agreed that though the Iraq war was highly unpopular in their countries (as it still is in the UK), and even though their countries had both taken casualties (Italy has lost the most soldiers, after the U.S., and one kidnapped citizen murdered; both had sustained their first casualities and killed their first civilians in collateral damage since World War II), their governments were keeping their troops in Iraq.

But then, again in response to questions, they allowed that this was a commitment that expires on June 30, unless the UN takes charge. The Italian pointed out that in fact his government's position was precisely that of Spain. And the UK journalist confirmed that UN control was a condition of other European partners, which Tony Blair had been tasked to communicate to Bush.

So Bush's sudden interest in UN participation was not exactly his own bright idea. He apparently was told by his good buddy Blair that he'd truly be going it alone in Iraq starting in July if he doesn't cede control to the UN. Though Bush made all those noises, it remains to be seen how much control he is willing to give up, and what else as well---like contracts and oil revenues---to participating countries.

Unleash the CIA? Were You Born Yesterday?

by Theron Dash

The GOPers drumbeat concerning What Went Wrong that allowed 9-11 to happen is that Intelligence let the president down. No, not his intelligence, though that's a likely suspect, but the "Intelligence Community," the CIA and the FBI. Clearly they weren't "sharing information" effectively. And clearly, the Bushies need to deflect any criticism from themselves. But the intent is to build up the covert agencies, and arm them with Patriot Act Police powers, so they can read the riot act to anybody they please, without fear or favor of civil liberties, at home or abroad. And it's a real bad idea.

There's been a lot of talk about how diminished the CIA budgets had become, but little information on why that was so. It was because the CIA was running riot through the world for generations, especially since Nixon, out of control trying to rule the world.

It's all nicely outlined in a forthcoming book by Mahood Mamdani, an African political scholar who divides his time between Columbia University in New York and his hometown of Kampala, Uganda. He lays out what has reached the public in dribs and drabs over the years, but is strangely never discussed these days: how the post-Vietnam, Cold War CIA conducted a series of proxy wars, from southern Africa to Central America, attempting to bleed the Soviet Union dry in Afghanistan, and to weaken both Iran and Iraq by supporting both sides of their war. In the process, they created the terrorists they are now supposed to fight, and not just metaphorically created them: they recruited, trained and supplied them, including Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. They developed and unleashed all the horrors that now haunt us, including terrorist warfare, assassination and kidnapping; including financing warfare from drug money, and privatizing war with the help of the U.S. religious right.

The CIA materially aided Saddam Hussein, and the U.S. supplied him with WMDs including chemical and biological weapons, and training in their use. They supplied him with satellite images to help him target "his own people" for chemical attacks, and then tried to get the UN to look the other way. Among those involved in all of this, on a policy or operational level, were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other Nixon-to-Reagan-to- Bushies, I and II. (Which is not to say that Carter and Clinton were blameless. Their policies and approvals of CIA operations contributed to the reign of disorder and death.)

One official reason that CIA and FBI were limited in the information they could share was that the FBI had to follow rules in the U.S. that protect citizens in court cases, whereas the CIA didn't have the same constraints on how they gathered their information elsewhere. Another possible reason---and a situation that came up more than once---was that suspects the FBI wanted to prosecute were working for the CIA---"assets" in spyspeak.

Now let us praise the Patriot Act for allowing federal government police to deny rights by uttering the magic words, "terrorist," before any bothersome proof has to be produced. Actually, all it takes is "suspicion of" to do it, as thousands being held without charges would attest, if they could be heard. But of course we don't have to worry about our government abusing their powers in their heroic efforts to protect us. And you can stop those unpatriotic thoughts right now, if you know what's good for you.

And this selfsame Patriot Act will break down the walls between the FBI and CIA so they can share information, and that's going to make us safer. Unfortunately, the 9-11 commission is showing that the FBI couldn't effectively share information without walls, within the agency, and neither could the CIA.

Maybe they need better computers, and a better culture, and maybe more money to pay for them. But we can't afford a CIA powerful enough to create our next generation of deadly enemies. Or a powerful FBI at war with dissent.

The Prince...

"A prince should...have no other aim or target, nor take up any other thing for his study, but war and its organization and discipline."
----Niccolo Machiavelli

Kevin Phillips says the patron saint of the Bush family is Machiavelli, though it's likely G.W. would wonder if that isn't the guy who played shortstop for the Brooklyn Dodgers for part of a season in the 1940s. John Dean says that the real president in matters of policy is Dick Cheney, and that his greatest skill is convincing G.W. that he's the president. Dean says G.W. is a terrific Head of State, which is a bit more than a figurehead of state but not a lot. Or, maybe he's just the Prince.

This Prince had a few goals for his so-called press conference Tuesday: be resolute, hit the Churchill buttons, don't smirk, don't back down on anything, but have a humble manner. Talk war---make a few offhand-seeming comments that are mildly surprising, almost generous; but be sure to subtly impugn the patriotism of anyone who opposes you. Niccolo would have been proud.

This Prince is a war president. He has to be---it's the only kind of president he is capable of being. If he wasn't blowing up things, killing and maiming people at long distance, throwing around the present power of the U.S. (while running through the country's resources like a multiple drug addict in a casino), he wouldn't be a Leader, he wouldn't be president at all---he'd be his own vice-president, trotted out to get pictures taken with foreign leaders, and sent to present merit badges to visiting Boy Scouts. He'd most certainly not be the Prince.

Did it ever occur to you that what might make the Prince of Darkness so dangerous would be that he believes---or consciously adheres to the belief--that he is the Prince of Peace?

Way back when, Bush's speechwriter came up with the line, "axis of hatred," already a sublime oversimplification, a bit of inflammatory rhetoric that is basically unforgiveable. But the Bushies weren't satisfied, they wanted something more "Biblical." Thus was "Axis of Evil" slouched into the language, by the worst who are full of passionate intensity.

Us good. They evil. Us love freedom. Them hate freedom. It's just that simple. Which is why it was important that Bush not admit any mistakes. Which is why any recognition of complexity, attempt to deal with the real needs of others in the dynamics of the moment, is in the Bushie lexicon, flip-flopping. (It's also hypocrisy, but what else is new?)

Do you get it yet? It might sound like: in this particular situation, what America is trying to achieve is good for the people of Iraq, good for the Middle East and the world, and good for American interests. So what's not to like? Except the body bags, which causes your prince to have a royal stomach churn, aren't you impressed that he can admit feelings just like the commoners have?

But it's heard like: America, we're good people, so we do good things. If we aren't completely good, then we must be evil. But we can't live with ourselves if we think we're evil. So we want to believe the Leader who tells us what we do is good. All of it. We're Soldiers of God, fighting those fanatics who believe they are soldiers of God fighting the infidels who believe they are....etc.

So we'll get back to politics, including Realpolitik, soon enough. But for the moment, isn't it strange? We apparently have a United States that is firmly divided in half, which is so archetypal it's scary. Those driven by the shadow profess themselves the guardians and champions of the light? Is this Biblical enough for you? It's practically a description of the anti-Christ from the Apocalypse of John, which should be more familiar to Bush's supporters than his opponents---they're the ones waiting for, hoping for and perhaps working for the Apocalypse. In that prophesy, the anti-Christ claims to be the Messiah. Maybe it's more psychology than prophesy. The Prince of Darkness may be Unconsciousness unchained. Maybe that's how it works, throughout history, and to end history.