Summer Surprise

On the day that Amnesty International charged that the Bush-led war on terror has made the world a more dangerous and more repressive place, and Al Gore lambasted the Bush administration for dishonesty and incompetence, for bringing dishonor and disgrace upon the United States; and the day that new photos surfaced clearly showing prisoner abuse carried out by military intelligence and contractors, and perhaps most to the point, that a Zogby study (the only polling organization to correctly call the 2000 election) shows Kerry winning in an electoral vote landslide if the election were held today---by some amazing coincidence, Attorney General John Ashcroft held a press conference to announce that terrorists are planning to attack a high profile U.S. target this summer.

Was Ashcroft's announcement the result of new information? Not really. Here are excerpts from a Newsweek report: "Even as Attorney General John Ashcroft warned on Wednesday that Al Qaeda planned "to hit the United States hard" in the next few months, U.S. intelligence officials were privately divided about whether the government had obtained any fresh information that justified such an extraordinary public announcement.... Armed with what he called "disturbing" and "credible" intelligence from "multiple sources," Ashcroft appeared with FBI Director Robert Mueller and urged the public to increase its vigilance over the next several months, when a number of events, including an upcoming G-8 summit in Georgia and the political conventions, might present inviting targets."

"In his briefing, Ashcroft cited no specific new information other than a claim that was sent to an Arabic newspaper in London immediately after the March 11 Madrid bombing. In it, a shadowy group asserted that a major attack against the United States was '90 percent ready.' But the authenticity of the group-and whether it really spoke for Al Qaeda-was questioned at the time by some U.S. officials.

Although the U.S. intelligence community says it has been concerned for some time about the potential implications for the United States of the Madrid bombings, some U.S. counterterrorism officials told NEWSWEEK they were aware of no sudden surge in "chatter"-intercepts of terrorists communications-or other indicators of a possible imminent attack. "We're always getting new threat information, but I wouldn't point to a steep spike in chatter" said one U.S. official. Another counterterrorism official added: 'What we're seeing is a lot like what we've seen before.'"[END OF NEWSWEEK REPORT]

A few TV moments were allowed for local officials and law enforcement to shrug, and get angry at lack of specifics, lack of federal help as well as intel. But mostly the TV parrotheads provided the same tried and true echo chamber that got us into the war in the first place. (This also on a day that the New York Times announced a review of news stories that had been wrong about WMDs in Iraq, based largely on the same Iraqi exile sources that the Bushies were eagerly believing.)

CNN's political analyst said flat out, and MSNBC's Hardball essentially agreed, that a terrorist attack in America would cinch the election for Bush.

Ashcroft wasn't going to leave it up to the media toadies however. As Timothy Noah noted in Slate: "Ashcroft's supposition is that Bin Laden would like to influence our elections in the same way he influenced Spain's. What would "similar consequences" mean for the United States? Defeat for the hawkish incumbent at the polls, and an Iraq policy gone soft. Ashcroft all but said, 'Osama Bin Laden wants you to vote for John Kerry.'" (Noah's article can be found here http://slate.msn.com/id/2101319/)

On this, however, the polverts disagreed. On Hardball, Chris Matthews got an ex-CIA terrorist expert to agree that al Qaeda would hope that Bush wins, since he's the terrorist recruiter of their dreams. Then they all wondered if the "essentially irrational" al Qaeda leaders are sophisticated enough to understand the American reverse psychology that would rally round the incumbent if the country is attacked. Well, they are hard for Americans to figure out, these Arabs, but the obvious answer is: is the Pope Catholic?

Such is the character of the Bush administration that we are led to wonder whether this is just an obvious attempt to change the subject and get the media slobbering patriotically again, and use that rally round impulse to get the Bush poll numbers up, or whether there is more to it than that. How far will they go to help spring a summer surprise?

In the paragraphs below you'll find more about the Gore speech and the Amnesty report. Gore makes a compelling case for the immediate resignations of Rumsfeld and his top aides, and Condi Rice. He makes a very compelling case as well that the ultimate responsibility belongs to Bush and Cheney, and calls for their defeat. But because Ashcroft has played the terrorist threat card, it's now become necessary for the Democrats to insulate themselves somewhat against that possibility by introducing in the U.S. Congress articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney.


Gore v. Bush

He's starting to look and sound like a 21st century version of a 19th century political orator. The media can't handle it: they can deal only with false sincerity and their own irony and sarcasm, not righteous indignation. So they dissed Gore's speech, and what else is new? Among the reasons Gore didn't win 2000 in a landslide (Gore being one of them)was the media's bias against him, including the persistent circulation of unfair and untrue stories.

But if you haven't seen the speech in full on C-SPAN, you might not know that the anger that Gore expressed---a justified anger that as we noted a day or two ago was clearly the next step---was only part of a well reasoned bill of indictment, spoken in an even and at times soft-spoken voice.

This speech is likely to be an historic one. The prepared text can be found at www.moveonpac.org.

Here are some excerpts:

"George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world. He promised to 'restore honor and integrity to the White House.' Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation
as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon."

"More disturbing still was their [Bush administration] frequent use of the word "dominance" to describe their strategic goal, because an American policy of dominance is as repugnant to the rest of the world as the ugly dominance of the helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners has been to the American people. Dominance is as dominance does.

Dominance is not really a strategic policy or political philosophy at all. It is a seductive illusion that tempts the powerful to satiate their hunger for more power still by striking a Faustian bargain. And as always happens - sooner or later - to those who shake hands with the devil, they find out too late that what they have given up in the bargain is their soul.

One of the clearest indications of the impending loss of intimacy with
one's soul is the failure to recognize the existence of a soul in those over whom power is exercised, especially if the helpless come to be treated as animals, and degraded... There is good and evil in every person. And what makes the United States special in the history of nations is our commitment to the rule of law and our carefully constructed system of checks and balances."

What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of random acts by "a few bad apples," it was the natural consequence of the Bush Administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances.
The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th."

He [President Bush]has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name."

How dare they blame their misdeeds on enlisted personnel from a Reserve unit in upstate New York. President Bush owes more than one apology. On the list of those he let down are the young soldiers who are themselves apparently culpable, but who were clearly put into a moral cesspool. The perpetrators as well as the victims were both placed in their relationship to one another by the policies of George W. Bush.

How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney
Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the
world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison."

In my opinion, John Kerry is dealing with this unfolding tragedy in an
impressive and extremely responsible way. Our nation's best interest lies in having a new president who can turn a new page, sweep clean with a new broom, and take office on January 20th of next year with the ability to make a fresh assessment of exactly what our nation's strategic position is as of the time the reigns of power are finally wrested from the group of incompetents that created this catastrophe."

The abhorrent acts in the prison were a direct consequence of the culture of impunity encouraged, authorized and instituted by Bush and Rumsfeld in their statements that the Geneva Conventions did not apply. The apparent war crimes that took place were the logical, inevitable outcome of policies and statements from the administration."

"Moreover, the administration has also set up the men and women of our own armed forces for payback the next time they are held as prisoners. And for that, this administration should pay a very high price."

In December of 2000, even though I strongly disagreed with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to order a halt to the counting of legally cast ballots, I saw it as my duty to reaffirm my own strong belief that we are a nation of laws and not only accept the decision, but do what I could to prevent efforts to delegitimize George Bush as he took the oath of office as president.

I did not at that moment imagine that Bush would, in the presidency that ensued, demonstrate utter contempt for the rule of law and work at every turn to frustrate accountability...So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands.

I believe we have a duty to hold President Bush accountable - and I
believe we will. As Lincoln said at our time of greatest trial, "We - even we here - hold the power, and bear the responsibility."


The Amnesty Report

Much of Al Gore's speech was a brief on the conduct of the U.S. war in Iraq and on the prisoner abuse scandal. The Amnesty International Report dealt more broadly with the global war on terror, but the patterns are consistent.


Here's the beginning of an Associated Press report, which can be found along with other information here at the Amnesty USA site.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=1B232FA21B96AA9B85256EA0004F265C :

The U.S.-led war on terror has made the world a more dangerous and repressive place, Amnesty International said Wednesday in a report Washington dismissed as "without merit."

The international human rights organization singled out the United States and Britain for detaining terror suspects without trial, under legislation introduced after the Sept. 11 attacks. It also accused other nations,including the Philippines and China, of using security legislation to crack down on political opposition.

"The 'war on terror,' far from making the world a safer place, has made it more dangerous by curtailing human rights, undermining the rule of international law and shielding governments from scrutiny," said Irene Khan, Amnesty International's secretary general, launching the organization's annual report in London.

"The great supporters of human rights during the Cold War now quite readily either roll them back in their own countries or encourage others to do so and turn a blind eye.

"What would have been unacceptable on Sept. 10, 2001, is now becoming almost the norm," she said.

The report said most of the 1,200 foreign nationals -- mostly Muslim men of Arab or South Asian origin -- detained in the United States during inquires into the Sept. 11 attacks were either deported, released or charged with crimes unrelated to terrorism by the end of 2002.
In Britain, the 11 foreign nationals still in custody at year's end were either asylum seekers or recognized refugees, the report said.
Amnesty said the detention by the United States of 600 foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba was a "human rights scandal" and called on America to release or charge those imprisoned there.

Spokesman Rob Freer said Amnesty has repeatedly requested access to Guantanamo, as recently as last week, but received no reply.

"Children are among them, the elderly are among them and undoubtedly there are people who were picked up for being at the wrong place at the wrong time," Freer said. "

Money isn’t everything: Political Update

From an historical point of view, the good news for John Kerry is that he is virtually tied with the incumbent President in the spring before the election, and in some polls has a lead beyond the statistical margin of error. The good news for President Bush is that after all the terrible and shocking news of the past month, he is still virtually tied with his challenger.

So the situation is still fluid. When the photos from Iraqi prisons stop coming or at least stop being so newly shocking, and when general Iraq exhaustion sets in, while Bush makes his weekly speeches on Iraq, and the trappings of a transition begin to appear, his downward job approval plunge could stop. He has bottomed out so far at around 42%. If he goes below 40%, he's toast. If he stays and slowly improves, Bush is still in the running. The next month may tell the tale.

The electoral numbers right now are beginning to be quite grim for Bush, as Kerry pulls ahead in many of the "battleground" states, and some states the polverts (political experts) thought were safe for Bush are coming into play. Independents are swinging away from Bush but not yet in a committed way towards Kerry. Bush is experiencing some erosion of Republican support, but likely only a bit of it will go to Kerry. However, a strongly conservative third (or would it be fourth?) party candidate could still emerge and siphon off some of that discontent.

So far Kerry has been working "on the ground" in key states, getting local coverage and sounding mostly domestic policy themes. The only national news he's made recently is the proposal to postpone accepting the Democratic nomination until the Republican convention, so that spending and money-raising limits won't kick in six weeks before the Bushies face those limits. We expect this idea to go away in a few days, but it does indicate that the Dems are being surprisingly successful in raising money. Spending six weeks more cash on campaign ads may not be either necessary or all that useful. According to a recent study, voters overwhelmingly declared they were ignoring ads (which should be taken with a grain of salt, since the idea of ads is to connect negative or positive emotions, the more unconscious the better) but also that they thought Kerry's ads (which are almost solely biographical) are more negative than Bush's (which are almost completely negative.) They are probably thinking (if they are thinking) of the anti-Bush ads run by move on.org and other unaffiliated groups. They have no spending limits.

Eventually Kerry is going to have to take the national stage, and make a compelling case for himself. His problem may be that his support is so soft that any "success" that is not obvious and abject failure in Iraq will motivate a rally round the president feeling. He has to make people feel good, feel positive, about their choice of him, without making them feel guilty for abandoning a president in "wartime." The convention is the natural and traditional stage for this. It will be the first look many voters take. He has to sound a resonant theme, which doesn’t rely on advertising.

Fortunately we know someone who has figured out exactly how to do this, and perhaps one day soon we will divulge this information. If you’re a Kerry campaign honcho, email for details to bilko@tidepool.com.

The Spy Who Loved Us


Thirty-three million dollars later, America's best Iraqi friend and Our erstwhile Chosen Iraqi Leader is being accused of spying for Iran. In a remarkable chorus of newspaper and magazine reports cited by Tim Russert in his Meet the Press interview of Ahmad Chalabi, the guy who reputedly convinced the Bushies to sound the alarm that Saddam was ready to launch nuclear missiles filled with anthrax into every sandbox and corporate headquarters in America, was a conduit for disinformation promulgated by Iran. Its aim was to goad America into attacking Iraq and toppling Saddam. Good thing cooler heads prevailed. Didn't they?

With narrowed eyes and furtive brow, Russert played the indignant American to Chalabi's cool denials. You lied and innocent Americans bought it. It's all your fault! What a show!

If indeed these charges are correct, what sweet revenge for both Iran and Iraq. For it was the U.S. government, reputedly in tandem with Israel, that tried its best to make the Iraq-Iran war last longer, with more destruction. The idea was to ruin both countries, much as the war in Afghanistan had destroyed that country and depleted the Soviet Union, leading to its self-destruction---all helped mightily by U.S. covert aid, arms and other meddling.

It was in order to help Afghanistan fight the Soviets that the U.S. trained and armed an obscure Saudi rich boy named Osama bin Laden, and supported him in using Islam as a rallying rationale for organized armed violence. His first foray into his new business was financed by the CIA.

When the Iran-Iraq war broke out, Israel converted supported Iran while the U.S. pretty openly support Iraq (while selling, or at least trying to sell arms to Iran secretly. Remember Iran-Contra?) It was the U.S. that provided Saddam with WMDs, including chemical weapons and anthrax. The U.S. trained Iraqis to use these weapons, and helped target attacks on Iran and the Kurds. This was the Reagan administration, with Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, who is described by Mahmood Mamdani in his new book, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, as "a central figure in Reagan's effort to court Saddam."

Then came former CIA director George Bush I, who as President invaded and defeated Iraq, but did not attempt to overthrow Saddam or occupy the country. Occupation, he thought, was a quagmire that couldn't succeed. His son George II apparently believed with some passion that this was a major failure of the old man, maybe even a cowardly one. He was going to set things right, and as Carl Bernstein discovered in interviews for his book, Little George didn't so much as ask the kind of advice of Big George that former presidents would ask of predecessors of the opposite party. This likely was also the view of Cheney, Rumsfeld and others, making them easy marks for any guy with the right foreign accent who would tell them what they wanted to hear. And they didn't even have to stick his face in the toilet or set the dogs on him.

Chalabi denied the stories and made some sense in his interview. Such is the fraught atmosphere in Washington, and this administration and its supporters' proven willingness to say or do anything to grab or maintain power, plus the proven ability of the establishment press to be gulled and stampeded into huge choruses of panicked bullshit, and/or to see and pitch things according to their own interests, that it's impossible to know at this moment whether or not Chalabi is being set up.

Of course Chalabi and whether he ever really loved us like he said he did, is entirely irrelevant. The incompetent and immoral fanatics running the U.S. government are responsible for these actions. It may take awhile for the media and much of the public to forget their own complicity long enough to hold them responsible.