Amplifications

by Phineas Dash

Morgan's commentary below on the still evolving prisoner abuse scandal are apropos but need to be balanced with the other side of what he said, and of what others are saying. As I'm sure he would agree. Though circumstances aren't deterministic, they can be powerful, and individuals can get swept up in them. The shadow, the dark side within us all, can be called forth when we least expect it.

As for the individual soldiers involved,one has signed a confession which details actions contrary to what some others are claiming, including the woman who said she was following orders. Or at least, complicate the picture with the ferocious enthusiasm of the abuse. Evil was loose.

But in general I must agree with what these columns have been insisting, that the tone and the expectation was set at the highest levels, apart from the shameful laxity and the clear violation of international law in the established procedures. That the Iraqis the Americans were supposedly saving turned into the enemy as soon as they passed through the prison gate (and up to 90% of them there by mistake and random sweeps, or just because they were young males), is a predictable outgrowth of the Bush and the Bushie attitude towards preemption, how we deal with our enemies, and how we are right and they are evil, less than human. That's the self-righteous tragedy we've been sucked into.

The bravado that comes from fear can be dangerous, as it turns so quickly to wanton cruelty which is cowardice. This is the rationale and expression at the most basic and brutal level for a policy that is more abstract and holy-sounding, but at its base is the same. America the offended innocent becomes America the bully. We can defend ourselves better than this.

Psychology
by Morgan Dash

Yes, this is how it works. We torture and humiliate prisoners, perhaps kill some. The Others are angry, they call us bestial. They decapitate one of Ours. Our leaders go on television and call Them "barbarians" and "animals." An angry Senator is angry because so much fuss is made over a few incidents of bad behavior against killers, rapists and insurgents who have probably killed some of Us.

We can treat them as less than human because They are less than human to Us---they are predatory animals we must kill before they kill us. And vice versa. There is truth to the killing part, of course. Some of Them are killing some of Us. Some of Us are killing some of Them. But thinking of each other as Other, as less than human, is the key to how these "excesses," these alternatives to good, clean, fair slaughter from distant silos, happen.

PBS Newshour had a group of psychologists to explain how good American boys and girls could engage in torture. Maybe this is why psychologist rarely appear on TV---neither they nor the anchors know how to do this right. The psychologists gave a number of plausible, somewhat plausible, and not very plausible explanations. The basic thing wrong with them was the assumption that those American boys and girls were acting on their own (which was today's mantra, helped by the carefully parsed testimony of the investigating General who said that according to the interviews he did no one ordered them to specifically do those specific acts. If you look at that closely, it's the rationalization of somebody whose internal report was made public, and he wants to keep his job.)

Whereas the attorneys for one of those charged, the young woman, said that she maintains she was specifically ordered to pose for those pictures. She was handed the leash, she was placed in those pictures, so that the photos could be used on entering prisoners, to make them talk or be subjected to the same horrifying humiliations.

But though the moderator repeated a few times that they weren't trying to prejudge the accused, that's exactly what they were doing. They were explaining why and how these soldiers invented these acts, performed them, and took pleasure in performing them. They even explained that taking "trophy photos" and not thinking they could be used against them later, was consistent with their analysis. So now we know WHY they are guilty, although of course we don't know IF they are guilty.

The psychological explanations were about context: put people in certain situations and they will behave in certain ways. Put people in charge of a prison and they will torture the inmates, as a Stanford experiment proved. I've heard this kind of explanation before, and I just don't buy it. Sure, put people in particular situations, and they are perhaps more likely to act in ways radically different from how they would act otherwise. And yes, people will generally react in predictable ways according to the roles they are assigned. But sometimes is not most of the time, and most of the time or generally, is not always. And it most definitely does not mean: has to happen. Can't do nothing about it.

The Stanford experiment said more about the willingness of rich college kids to torture other college kids than about human behavior, let alone the behavior of trained people selected for their jobs because of aptitude, attitude and proven skills, commitment and judgment. Certainly, poorly trained kids with no leadership, experience or understanding of what they're doing, left alone with only each other and the military structure to protect them in a place very far from home filled with people who might kill them, are likely to do what they believe they have to do to survive.

One of the accused soldiers was trained---as a mechanic. The woman involved claims she wasn't trained at all. As her lawyers say, no one has proved she did anything, except pose in the photos.

And in general terms, these experiments get their patina of determinism---the situation made me do it-from the fact that "everybody" in the experiment acts in a particular way. That everybody is a fraud. In one of the most celebrated experiments, I know this for a fact.

It was the famous electroshock experiment in New Haven in 1970, when test subjects were told to give shocks to people in another room when they gave wrong answers, and even when they heard them cry out in pain and beg them to stop, they did it anyway because they were told to. Every single one of them did this.

But every single one of who? Of the people who participated in the experiment. Why did they? Maybe for money. I was in New Haven in 1970, down on my luck, and I saw the ad in the paper soliciting people to participate in an experiment on learning or perception or something vague. It paid $25. It turned out to be this very experiment, although I didn't know it at the time.

I called the number. I asked about what the experiment would entail. The answer I got was very vague and maybe deceptive. It didn't pass my smell test. At the time I was suspicious about experimenters giving weird drugs. I guess I'd read about experiments like that recently. It never occurred to me I would be told to hurt someone else. So I've kicked myself since for not showing up for the experiment, because I know I would have refused.

I recently communicated my misgivings about this experiment to a social scientist who knows the study well. He claims that the test subjects were a good mix, not just students and indigents who really needed the $25. And he didn't much credit my objection that perhaps the kind of people who wouldn't have cooperated were the kind of people who wouldn't have participated at all. He also said that I couldn't know what I would do in those circumstances, even if I thought I did. Lots of people think they are "good people" but when told to do something questionable by authority figures in white coats, they could rationalize it and do it.

But that wasn't my point. It wasn't because I thought I was a good person. I had explained to him what I was like in 1970. I was battered because I had been fighting authority figures for several years-first in college, later in the job world, and between them the big one: the draft, the people who were trying not only to kill me but to force me to kill other people I did not want to kill. I went to considerable lengths to prevent them from putting me in that position, and I would have gone even further. There was absolutely no way it was going to happen.

So the idea that I would give painful electric shocks to strangers because I was told to by assholes in white coats dangling $25 in front of me, after what I'd been through and the attitude I had, was laughable, and remains preposterous. Not only would I have refused, it would have absolutely made my day to tell them to fuck off, and to walk out of there. Who knows, I might have busted up their idiot lab on the way out.

My point in telling him this was to suggest that in 1970 I wasn't an isolated case. It was just about a highwater mark for anti authority behavior. Do they really believe that Abbie Hoffman would have followed their orders? And the many people who were suspicious of authority were likely not to agree to participate in their stupid experiment anyway.

My point in repeating this story now is that circumstances can have a great influence on behavior, and they may very well force you to make choices, but they don't determine behavior. Perhaps there is a situation which can be replicated in an experimental situation that would prove me wrong, but I haven't seen it yet.

More to the point, according to relatives of one of the young Americans involved in the Iraqi prison nightmare, he did object. He took it to his superiors, he asked for clear instructions, he asked for the rules of the Geneva Conventions. Somehow this story is more credible to me than the one being told by the Bushies and their minions, and supported unwittingly by those psychologists.

But at least they didn't blame it all on testosterone. With women in the pictures and in command positions involved, that hoary notion is gone.

Bush, Iraq and Hell

"Tramp, tramp, tramp, they go, boys who will never be men, rejoicing patriotically in the nation that has thus sent them forth, badly armed, badly clothed, badly led, to be killed in some avoidable quarrel by men unseen." H.G. Wells
Anticipations 1902


Among the many consequences of the prisoner abuse scandal is that it tarnishes the reputation and pride of the American military. This probably was a factor in several high-ranking military officers going public with their dissent on how the war in Iraq is being handled. The Washington Post story can be found here. Now it's U.S. Army generals likening Iraq to Vietnam: tactical victories, strategic defeat and quagmire.

The responsibility for this war belongs to the Bush administration, not only in their willful ignorance and megalomania but in suppressing advice that was contrary to their fantasy. Nobody is immune to their viciousness: not a U.S. general who told them their occupation plans were unrealistic, any more than a CIA agent undercover who herself said nothing at all, or their record of questioning the patriotism of veterans who lost limbs (Max Cleland) or who were POWs (John McCain.)

As for the prisoner abuse itself, the Red Cross reports and internal Pentagon reports done many months ago show that the abuses were widespread and authorized. No one yet knows how far up the chain of command the authorizations for specific abuse policies go, but it's clear how far up the attitude goes that made them all but inevitable: to the very top, to George W. Bush.

Just today's example: in his address to military personnel he commends soldiers in Iraq who are kind and fair to "innocent Iraqis", referring to those met outside the prisons. For one-dimensional Bushies, capture and incarceration equals guilt, equals terrorist. Yet military officials themselves say that 70% to 90% of detainees in Iraq were incarcerated by mistake. Here's the story from the Financial Times of London.

The relationship of Iraq and terrorism to American Cold War policy in Iraq is summarized with stunning clarity in a new book by Mahmood Mamdani, "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim," which is described in a San Francisco Chronicle review we highly recommend.

As for Bush the great leader, yes, he is decisive. He is decisively leading America into the pits of hell.

Rumbles, Rituals and Rumsfeld

The spectre of possible scapegoating always makes us uncomfortable. Not that Donald Rumsfeld is innocent, just that he is singled out with such ferocious focus that if he goes, it might appear all is now right with the world. John Kerry got it right: we don't need a new Secretary of Defense. We need a new President. This administration must be taken off the stage.

For at the same time that Rumsfeld and Bush are trying to distance themselves from the prisioner photos, their Rabid Right lackeys on the talk media are justifying rough treatment as the way this war on terror has to be conducted. That is more credibly a reflection of this administration's beliefs and policies. It provides the clear answer to why the warnings from the Red Cross and others went unheeded from the very outset of the occupation. It is why Rumsfeld is more upset that he didn't realize the damage the photos would do than he is that he didn't care about the actual practices and their effects on the victims as well as the Iraqi public.

News reports are not emphasizing enough the indiscriminate as well as widespread use of these practices. The only conclusion that anyone can draw is that if these are meant to break the will of the enemy, then everyone in Iraq was the enemy.

The Senate hearing was political theatre, but theatre is where these matters receive their fullest focus. Donald Rumsfeld facing former prisoner of war Senator John McCain and his incisive questions in a quiet, calm voice, was the heart of it today. But the ritual here should be exposure, a common realization and shame, not blood sacrifice.

Stats for the day:

number of members of U.S. Congress, House and Senate.....550

number of pharmaceutical company lobbyists for
members of congress...........750

reason medical drug prices are so high, acc. to
pharmaceutical companies.........cost of research

percentage of money spent on marketing vs
money spent on research.........40%

people who pay for marketing and lobbying.....sick people

#1 most profitable company in San Francisco Bay area......Atlantic Richfield

contributing reason.... soaring gas prices


On the Kerry v-p front, seems a decision announcement is near, although maybe not till next month. No credible new names have emerged recently, except Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Our two cents?

Good choices: Richard Gephardt, Bob Graham

Acceptable choices: John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Gov. Ed Rendell of PA

Bad choices: Evan Bayh (too conservative), with Wesley Clark on the cusp because of his loose lips

don't know enough about: Bill Nelson (FLA), Tom Vilsack

We wouldn't mind being surprised by an inspired choice nobody is mentioning, which would be even more interesting in that it would show how disciplined the Kerry people can be in following Kerry's wishes to keep the process quiet, so as not to embarrass worthy possibilities who are passed over.

The problem is finding somebody who can be president, who can bring some electoral votes, who Kerry trusts, whose politics are acceptable, and who isn't drop dead dull. And what do you emphasize in this volatile time---foreign policy (Graham, Clark) or domestic agenda (Gephardt, Edwards)? And if you can't get everything in one person, what do you sacrifice? Do you look at other Senators from eastern states or CA with foreign policy credentials and media presence?

Maybe the most interesting thing to watch is whether the Kerry people have more creative imagination than the media, who haven't come up with a credible new possibility in months.

How about Ralph Nader?

By the way...Bush continues to lead slightly in national polls. Look for that to change quite soon.

The Beginning of the End

The evolving story of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners is like so much else to do with this war, tragic, heartbreaking, disgusting and predictable. Let loose the dogs of war---just what did you think it meant?

A few facts and observations emerging...The prison housed "detainees"---people picked up in sweeps, randomly in some cases, never even suspected of a crime---as well as a range of other kinds of prisoners. One of the official investigations by the military itself said that the prison had no real means of sorting and distinguishing its prisoners. This is one item to keep in mind as the excuse of "tough questioning" of terrorist suspects surfaces, though probably only on Fox news.

The main defense by the military and the Bushies is: a few rotten apples. Haven't we seen enough of blaming the bottom of the chain of command, the most expendable, to know that tactic for what it is? That same investigation saw the problem was structural, i.e. the responsibility of those in charge. The soldier who forced the investigation by turning in these photos said that he was ordered to obey military intelligence and continue these abuses, even after he told superiors about them (contra what the general in charge is now saying.) Seymour Hersh's story in the New Yorker maintains that this torture and these humiliations of prisoners began almost immediately and continued throughout the occupation.

The layers of responsibility---military, military intelligence, and civilian contractors---is just beginning to be scrutinized. But it's worth noting that civilian contractors in Iraq are beyond any law: they are beyond U.S. jurisdiction, yet aren't covered by military law and apparently not by international law.

A panel assembled on Charlie Rose was unanimous in believing that the acts were deliberate tactics, they were intentionally humiliating to Arab sensibilities, that Arabs know this, and that the last hope for an American led transition is gone. It's the My Lai of Iraq. Charlie Rose looked more shaken than we've ever seen him, at not only the enormity of what has happened, but the prospect of what will happen. This, said one panelist, is the tip of the iceberg.

The scrutiny will spread, perhaps even to Guantanamo, perhaps even to the same kind of thinking in the Patriot Act, which always was: you can trust us to know who the bad guys are, so no innocent person need fear these measures.

As for the men and women "grunts" who posed for the pictures: what happened to them, what they became and did, that's also part of the dogs of war. It was surreal seeing all this break just as James Hillman's book, "A Terrible Love of War" was published. It says all too well what this is about.

And it should tangentially put the lie to the idea that war is simply a result of male testosterone. There were women in those photos, smiling and thumbs up. The general in charge of the prison is a woman. (She says she was not permitted to visit the wing of the prison run by military "intel.")

The investigations showed that in addition to the abuse in the photos--male prisoners stripped, piled on each other, attached with electrodes--they were subjected to various forms of sexual intimidation, including forced masturbation. And that guards performed sex with women prisoners (we're not sure that the report actually said rape, but what else could it be.)

As these words hit cyberspace, the first reports are coming in of large explosions in Baghdad in the vicinity of the prison where the photos were taken, the prison where Saddam kept his torture chambers. This story of American torture there breaks as the Marines turned over Faluja to some of Saddam's generals.

It competes with the "feel good" story of the Halliburton employee who escaped his kidnappers, rescued by passing American troops. This young working class man was reportedly in Iraq because he needed the money to pay for medical care for his wife, because his health insurance didn't cover it. That's not the feel good part we don't suppose.

It's worth mentioning as well that the military investigation is months old, that Iraquis have been telling reporters for months of abuses in the prisons but only Arab media has paid any attention.

We are shocked but not surprised by any of this. We are saddened, and we are angry. We are all going to pay for this. There will be young Americans who never thought this was going to happen to them when they joined the national guard, who will die because of this. We will see terror here again, because of this. It's no longer just a matter of a horrendous failure in a faraway country. This is the beginning of the end of Americans in Iraq. What else it becomes remains for us to see.

Taking Fire

We'd like to think the Kerry campaign checks in here regularly, but not even the magic of seeing words looking like they've really been published in cyberspace has completely sucked us into grandiose delusion, at least not all of the time.

But we offer not advice this time but assessment. We sense that Kerry supporters are getting nervous. The Bushies have had nothing but bad news for weeks, and Bush isn't falling, and may even have slightly risen in the popular vote polls. Kerry at times seems no longer visible, and we can't hear him, so it seems like he isn't saying anything. And on cable or in those battleground states, the waffle ads appear, and we're not talking about for the international pancake house.

So without commenting on the Kerry campaign's strategy per se, here are some thoughts... When soldiers in battle are on the screen, there are people who feel it unpatriotic to criticize the president, although in the supposed solitude of the voting booth, it might be a different story. Also, it's April going on May, and the election is in November; people polled may offer their opinions but how considered they are, who knows. There usually is a shift in the last month, and the pattern in recent elections has been that alot of voters don't really make up their minds until the last minute.

Politics is not really part of the mainstream culture in America. It's something everybody has an opinion on, but they know more about the candidates on TV talent shows. One outcome of Bush being in so much trouble the past month is that his face has been on the TV screen a lot more than Kerry's, and let's face it, a lot of people see TV with the sound off, or tuned out one way or another.

Kerry was on Hardball the other day and a few things he said suggested that consciously or not he's approaching this as a firefight. Right now he's outgunned---the Bushies are throwing $70 million going on $100 million in ad buys, they're attacking him from every official government podium they control as well as the ones they get because they are the government, and he's not even the official nominee yet. He's taking fire, firing back when he can, and basically showing that he's holding his position, they haven't touched him.

The convention gives him a stage, and an opportunity to define himself when more people will be watching. Then he's in the fight. When what passes for campaign rules kick in, and the parties have limits within which they can spend, he can go on the offensive effectively.

In the meantime he's doing what he can do: he's raising money for the campaign, he's targeting particular voting groups---college students for a week or so, manufacturing and other workers in key states for a week or so. He's speaking to 300 people at a time. Getting a feel for what people are concerned about, and what hits home with them.

Will it be enough? The Bushies are supposedly taking a page from the Clinton playbook and attempting to define Kerry in the spring, as Clinton ads did Bob Dole. This year has broken so many rules it's going to be difficult to talk realistically about precedents. Will these incredibly crude tactics work? Only if they make people stop listening. But events may well keep them listening. And after the conventions come debates.

What about the Nader factor? There was some polling that showed Nader might actually have correctly assessed that he's taking GOP votes as well as Dem. But other polls remain worrisome. The stakes get higher as Nader becomes the anti-war candidate. That's going to be a hard one. Somehow Kerry has to reassure people who don't really want to vote for Nader this time---who do believe that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush---but the war is getting to be too much. He's got to convince them that he can defuse it, bring the violence down to police level, without just walking away.

So for those looking for solace, hope, comfort: Kerry's most recent media appearances have been very good, which may not shift votes now but bodes well for the future. The media still falls for every Bushie stunt, but they've been looking for blood in the water, and they are not sensing weakness in Kerry. And as things get desperate in Iraq they might even move helplessly towards the guy who is making sense, who sounds like he knows what he's doing and isn't nuts.
The polls in the battleground states look better than the more general polls would suggest. And a poll of professional gamblers betting real money on the outcome has Kerry ahead by more than 30 points.

Other People's Children
by Theron Dash

The Bushies don't want you to see the flag-draped coffins. Somebody took a picture of some and sent them to the newspaper. That somebody worked for somebody who worked for the Bushies. That somebody got fired, and for good measure, so did that somebody's spouse. That's how we handle things down here at the ranch.

Now there are too many flag-draped coffins, and too many more soldiers needed here there and everywhere, so politicians are calling for the reinstatement of the draft. Black politicians are saying it, white ones too. Equal burden is the idea.

I've got a better idea: stop sending other people's children to die for your vanity, your political greed and religious delusions. Stop sending other people's children---because you sure as hell aren't sending your own---for any reason other than the absolutely necessary defense of their homeland.

The draft is involuntary servitude. The draft is slavery with a better chance of quick death or amputation. The draft the last time around did nothing to equal the burden. There was a draft when George II wasn't putting his smirk on the line, and when Dick Cheney had other priorities. The rich will always find a way, and so will the sort of rich and kind of powerful. The country will pay for yet another massive and punitive bureaucracy, and the FBI will be chasing sons and daughters of conscience instead of not catching terrorists. The draft plus the Patriot Act sounds like a real winning combination. Half a generation disappeared, no film at eleven.

Drafting more soldiers isn't the answer. Sending fewer soldiers on insane missions is the answer. When the country is truly threatened, you won't need a draft. If you do, the country is lost anyway. The draft is just another way of saying you just can't get good help anymore, can you, especially when you don't pay them enough to support their children, and they tend to get killed or wounded in a costly way (if you don't get away with warehousing them instead of providing medical care) before their term of service pays off your training investment. Turnover, that's the problem. All that dirt turning over, and all those flag-draped coffins we aren't ever supposed to see.

Earth Day: Do You Know Where Your Planet Is?

For a terrific Earth Day essay that the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times REFUSED TO PRINT, go HERE. (Find it: April 22, 2004)

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.

what must be said


There is much to be said about the current warfare in Iraq, especially in terms of political history. But for the moment, what must be said is that although everything that is happening now was foreseen in character, as part of the warnings against invading Iraq more than a year ago, it is in any case a cause for intense and bitter sorrow.

The names of Americans scroll by on the CNN and PBS honor rolls of the dead, the only time these names are mentioned, or probably ever will be: these young men and women from towns we know in Illinois and Pennsylvania, and places we've never been, in New Mexico and Florida. Perhaps we saw their faces once, heard their voices as they talked to the cameras about their tasks---standing strong, talking with intelligence and hope.

Their deaths are tragedies for all of us. They died for a mistake, a willfully arrogant mistake. Their faith and their hope were betrayed.

And they at least flash before the media imagination for a moment. Not so the hundreds of Iraqis, and not even the soldiers from the UK, Italy, Poland, Spain, Japan, the Ukraine, all of whom came under fire this week. We never hear of their deaths, not even the numbers of their dead and wounded, let alone names. So much for the pretense of a coalition. A coalition of cannon fodder.

Those young men and women who are still there, some of whom just arrived, jumping head-first into hell, and some who have been there for a weary year, days or weeks from going home, who now must remain, in more peril for their lives than ever. What kind of confidence can they possibly have in the people who are sending them to kill or be killed?

By and large they have not earned the enmity they face. That dishonor goes to others, most of whom have lived long lives in luxury, some of whom are in the morally repugnant class of those who supported the war in Vietnam yet avoided the dangers they advocated for others. They sit in the comfort of their U.S. homes and their deadly certainties, while innocents die for their lies. These are the sacrifices of this Good Friday. And there's nothing redemptive about any of it.

No Silver Bullet? Condi Got It All Wrong, Lone Ranger Complains

by Morgan Dash

In an exclusive American Samizat interview, the Lone Ranger (otherwise known as the Masked Rider of the Plains) broke his decades-long silence to complain about the misuse of his most famous symbol by National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice in her testimony before the 9-11 commission.

"'There was no silver bullet' that could have prevented 9-11-she said it several times," Lone said, his deep baritone voice rising in distress. "It makes a great soundbite, but what does it mean? She made it sound like my silver bullets were especially accurate or foolproof kinds of bullets, but that's nonsense. I never shot a silver bullet in my life. That wasn't the point."

In fact, the Ranger explained, it was quite the opposite. "I made my silver bullets to remind me that a life, like silver, is too precious to waste. Sometimes I would leave one behind with people I'd helped, so after I rode away, they would be reminded of the same thing. Those silver bullets got to be identified with me, so people knew what I stood for."

What he stood for was tolerance, fairness and a sympathetic respect for the rights of others. "I never killed anyone," he says, "not with a silver bullet or any other kind of bullet. That was true for all the stories in the Lone Ranger television series---and it was a very popular series for a long time." So popular, he points out, that it played on all three of the existing national networks in the 1950s and 1960s-including two of them at the same time. "A lot of children watched it, and I felt a special responsibility because of that," he recalls, "but about half the audience was made up of adults."

The Lone Ranger is still diffident about being called a hero, but he insists that his principles be fairly represented---and his silver bullet symbol is particularly important to him. "That malt liquor was bad enough," he said. " I guess you have to live with that kind of thing. But this was a real violation. It twists what I meant with the silver bullet. It was my statement in very violent times. Of course, the Old West doesn't hold a candle to today, but maybe that's why my message is needed."

After checking the interview tape, we turned back to ask a final question---but the Lone Ranger was gone.

Condi

She brought her scowl and teeth briefly flashing in a contorted smile to the 9-11 hearing, and the media build-up for it virtually guaranteed that if she didn't flat out fall on her face (and probably even if she did), then the Bushies would hail it as a great success and lots of people would agree.

The overall media reaction was as schizophrenic as anything else in national politics these days, but the 9-11 families---especially the three widows known as the Jersey Girls---seemed pretty near unanimous in being underwhelmed. Condi Rice, as the vast world now knows her thanks to the instant intimatizing media, tried to be gracious, acted as if her participation in the Bushies attempted character assassination of Richard Clarke had never happened, and she had never refused to testify in the first place...but basically she was on the defensive. And her defense sounded pretty narrow: none of my underlings (which must include cabinet officers, CIA etc.) gave me a paper entitled Threat Assessment indicating that al Quaeda operatives were going to highjack airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Such a defense, accompanied by evidence that there was a lot of information buzzing around to raise suspicions, and a lot of warnings (even if they weren't in reports from her deputies entitled Warnings!) of what did happen, but no actual evidence that anything in particular was done in response, tends to point to Condi Rice as the person who screwed up, at least in the sense that she had way too narrow a view of what her responsibilities were, if not her job description in the Bush bureaucracy, as National Security Advisor to the President.

This certainly was the view of the Jersey Girls on the talk shows, but care must be taken not to make Condi Rice the scapegoat here. The widows must resist what could be a psychological displacement, a kind of survivors' guilt, projecting onto the only woman in sight. Besides which, it leaves others off the hook---especially Dick Cheney and the other Nixon/Kissinger/Reagan Cold War/Hot Oil warriors---but also Sleepy George himself. Rice may be an exceptionally bright but exceptionally passive National Security Advisor, but she was working in a particular culture, best described by New Yorker writer Ric Hertzberger as "real men care about missile defense and Iraq," not skinny terrorists in shacks, miles away from a B-1 bomber or a decent restaurant.

Iraq now

The events of the last few days in Iraq were put in context on two PBS programs Friday. TV and press coverage of the killing of American mercenaries and display of their burned and dismembered bodies to cheering crowds in Fallujah has emphasized that city as an exception, the stronghold of Saddam sympathizers. But Charlie Rose interviewed two reporters in Iraq from establishment publications, and got a different view. These attacks, said Jon Anderson of the New Yorker, indicate "less a change in Iraq than in American perception of Iraq." John Burns of the New York Times agreed, and added that while most Iraqis don't participate, this is "a war of national resistance" in intent and scope.

They agreed that Fallujah is the sanctuary of the most intense resistance and aggressive violence, and that it will take a massive effort to control it, similar to Israeli military control of Palestine. But they insisted that even that would not end the insurgencies. Burns said that American officials in Iraq may believe this is an isolated instance (we heard one on TV right after the attack attributing it to a few folks who "don't get it") but they are "in denial" if they think the situation is soluble before the hand-over of power on July 1.

Deborah Amos, who has been covering the region since the early 1980s, told Bill Moyers that at best the hand-over will be cosmetic. The occupation is already turning over government agencies, like health and education, to Iraqi control. But the occupation headquarters is going to become the American Embassy---the largest anywhere in the world---and American "advisors" and a hundred thousand American troops will remain after July.

The killing of mercenaries-though no one calls them that (they usually called "security guards" or "private sector" employees)---highlights their presence in Iraq, largely ignored by U.S. media until now. Not even the Pentagon (CBS Pentagon correspondent David Martin told Charlie Rose) knows how many are there. But it seems that the Bushie strategy was to try to reduce official U.S. troop levels after July 1, and depend more on a combination of United Nations personnel and these mercenaries. Like the men killed, they are usually ex-military. Stories have surfaced of National Guard troops returning home from Iraq, where their finances are in ruin and their government pay is slow arriving, but where they are greeted by recruiters for private companies offering them at least double the money the government paid them, to return to Iraq as mercenaries.

The killings in Fallujah may have wrecked this plan. Private companies and the UN may not be eager to jump into situations like this. So even if there is a photogenic hand-over in July, there are elections supposedly scheduled for January. There will be plenty of time for chaos between.

John Dean of Watergate fame was also interviewed on Moyers' NOW, and he maintains in his new book that Bush II has committed impeachable offenses in knowingly lying to Congress in order to invade Iraq. He said that not even Nixon was so thoroughly committed to secrecy as Bush. He sees this secrecy as the other half of the Bush refusal to listen to allies or experts or anyone outside the inner circle of true believers, and the perceived base of the party---the rich and the Rabid Right.

All this and much more that is emerging about pre-9-11, is accelerating to a point that the political issues will have to be ratcheted up in order to keep up with reality. The Democrats are going to have to start talking very soon about the phony hand-over of power in Iraq, and it's going to have to be made clear to the American public---apparently reluctant so far to dump Bush---that if Bush is re-elected, the country faces the prospect of another presidential impeachment within a year of his re-Inauguration.

Lies and body bags. The tragedies multiply and begin to interact. In the meantime the federal deficit caused by the Bush tax cut and its warfare is driving down the U.S. dollar, inspiring OPEC to cut oil production so prices will rise and they get more dollars to make up for the value lost. To weak pro forma objections from the Bushies, and their generations of alliance with the Saudi ruling family.

Ordinary citizens pay for it, naturally, at the gas pump. Highlighting also the fact that decades during which we could have been preparing for the inevitable oil and energy crisis, as well as weakening if not forestalling global heating and the climate crisis---a crisis that in its various manifestations could very well make Iraq look like a weekend getaway---have all gone by in a haze of SUV commercials.

Iraq now. Pay later.

The Dash Report: The Cosmos
Week in Review

MORGAN DASH

We're short a brother for this week's report. Gabriel has lit out for
parts unknown. He just couldn't take it anymore. Who can blame him? The Bushies ads against Kerry seem to be working in the battleground states. It's so depressing to realize that all you still have to do is gloss up some clichés, like "liberal," "raise your taxes," "flip-flop" and those sheep in voters' clothing will fall for it. I may soon follow him myself.

PHINEAS DASH
The short term news is not all bad. Kerry's positives are down and negatives up in those states, but not by that much. Nationally, Kerry still has a slight lead. The electoral vote outlook is also pretty good. And Kerry has been relatively inactive-he hasn't even begun to hammer away on his best issues.

THERON DASH
What's driving me crazy is Nader. There's no doubt that he's articulate on the issues, and that Dems could use some of his trenchant analysis and nerve. I heard him recently and it's not a big wonder to me why people listen-he can be very persuasive, even on his latest tack of saying he's actually helping Democrats defeat Bush. But the best you can say is that it's a very dangerous strategy. All the numbers in all the polls show that Nader is still the margin of victory for Bush. Without him, Kerry wins.

CHRISTOPHER DASH
No wonder he's getting such respect from Republicans and conservatives. That Tucker Carlson on CNN was just so transparent in his attempt to fawn over him and egg him on to criticizing Kerry.

THERON DASH
Nader is meeting with Kerry this month, and though I hoped for some sort of deal---like Nader at least would not put himself on the ballot in the battleground states---I'm in complete despair about it now. It looks like the 2000 election will be a recurring nightmare. Who's going to cheer me up?

MORGAN
Wish I could. I think what finally got to Gabriel was the sneaking
suspicion that even if Kerry gets elected, he's not going to be able
to do much. The rabid right and the self-entitled Bush Lite Elite have no conscience, they don't believe in elections or governing, they don't care about the country or its people, and they certainly
don't care about the world or the planet. They'll just keep phonying up hate and conflict, and seizing power by whatever means necessary.

PHINEAS
Well, if you're looking for reasons to despair, I'll tell you what's getting to me. All this controversy over 9-11 and Iraq may be political dynamite, though we don't yet know whose face it's going to explode in. But I suspect the Bushies have one truly terrible advantage: in the end they don't fear an apocalypse, they welcome it. The rabid religious right that buys those Rapture novels and lines up for the Mel Gibson S&M movie truly believe in this imminent final battle of good against evil, and that they will be saved-and only they will be saved, and given eternal happiness.

That's why the most conservative Christians are in a working alliance with the most right wing Jews in Israel to drive out the Palestinians, so their interpretation of the apocalyptic prophesies can be fulfilled to the letter, specifically the conditions for the Second Coming. Of course, those same Jews would then be damned if they didn't convert, but it's an unholy alliance that works for them now.

So the Bushies can play their power games so they'll be comfortably rich while they wait for Apocalypse, and they'll use constant warfare to keep politics on the level of adrenelin---which is also their strategy in advertising, and that's all advertising is, pushing the glandular buttons. But they don't worry about the cost of conflict, they don't worry that they're pushing billions of people and all existing lifeforms on the planet closer to the end of it all---because that's what they are waiting for. They want it. And judging from the barbarism in Iraq, they're well on the way. Only it's the battle between two sides with the same self-delusion that they are the Good, which of course makes them both Evil.

MORGAN
Thank you, Mr. Sunshine. No wonder I need to spend most of my
day immersed in science fiction. Give me a galaxy far far away.
Any other items to brighten up the day?

CHRISTOPHER
Well, Wired Magazine says that all the studies so far of the electronic voting systems that will be used in 2004 show that they are flawed and can be subverted and misused, some pretty easily. And there are no studies showing they will work. But election officials are sticking with them anyway.

THERON
So between Nader and well-placed computer viruses, we're moving right along to the apocalypse. I hope Gabriel has lots of room.

PHINEAS
Let's fight the good fight first. Then we can all retire to somewhere
with health care.
MORGAN
Now that's science fiction.

9-11

by Theron Dash

The issue currently being joined thanks to Richard Clarke and the 9-11 Commission hearings is the Bush administration's culpability for ignoring Clinton administration warnings about al Qaeda's determination to attack, and for diverting attention and resources to conquering Iraq, leaving America vulnerable again to terrorism.

The strength of these charges and the stakes for the Bush administration are clear in the ferocity of the Bush counterattack, using the reflexive strategy of character assassination, the rabid right's answer for everything.

But what should be starting to dawn on people who are hearing for the first time the extent of the Clinton administration's concerns and activities regarding al Qaeda and terrorism---for example, the concentrated attention on possible attacks during the millennium celebrations---is what was going on that prevented the Clinton administration from acting more aggressively.

The answer would seem to be the partisan, ferocious, psychotic and essentially frivolous attempt to impeach President Clinton and remove him from office. Officials who should have been concentrating on protecting the nation were instead obligated to talk to lawyers, search and prepare preposterous volumes of subpoenaed materials, and to testify. Many went into debt, some were threatened with prosecution themselves, and the White House was all but paralyzed. Meanwhile, anything that Clinton attempted to do was derided as trying to change the subject and distract attention from the Whitewater investigations and impeachment.

In a real sense, the culpability of the rabid right and the Republicans in Washington for the deaths on 9-11 began with their attempt to do by cynical misuse of constitutional institutions what they could not do in the election: take power from Clinton and the Democrats. They embroiled the nation for years in this insane exercise. A minor real estate scam (at worst) and a sex scandal. Think of all we've been through since, including Enron.

Then after the impeachment failed, they stole the election of 2000 by suppressing votes in Florida and through their instruments on the Supreme Court, in particular the Justice whose lack of ethics becomes more apparent each day, Antonio Scalia.

After 9-11 they paid much more attention to using that tragic event to consolidate power, further their ideological and political agenda, win elections, and to carry out their plan to conquer Iraq, than they did to addressing either the problem of terrorism or homeland security. Their hands are dripping with the blood let at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the fields of Pennsylvania, and the scorched landscape of Iraq. Whatever bureaucratic, policy and human failures there were in both administrations that contributed---included this much-vaunted lack of imagination---this is their inescapable responsibility.

How the Bushies may be influencing the Democratic VP choice


Now that the basic lines of Bushwhack attacks against John Kerry are becoming clearer, they could very well be influencing the selection of the proposed Democratic vice presidential candidate.

Bushies are going after Kerry on foreign policy as weak on defense, and on domestic issues as a tax and spend liberal, and as a flip flopper on both. So now a strong, mature voice on foreign affairs, proven strength on military issues will add to the ticket. Senator Bob Graham of Florida has done well for himself this week with his strong media presence and direct challenges to the Bushies on 9-11, Iraq and defense.

Another interesting development in the past week or so has been the Republican Senators defending Kerry on defense---John McCain and Chuck Nagel, who are both Vietnam war vets. It's not that either is a possible vp choice---it just underlines that Vietnam service transcends party politics, and can be seen to do so by independent voters. Kerry may be inclined to have another Vietnam vet on the ticket with him, not only for political reasons but because they are people he seems most comfortable with. Former Senator Bob Kerrey is raising his TV profile this week as a principal interrogator on the 9-11 commission. He may be increasing his chances to be named v.p., the controversies over his war record notwithstanding.

The logic of having either Graham or Kerrey, or another strong and mature presence on foreign affairs, such as Joseph Biden of Delaware, is to lead the charge on foreign policy while John Kerry concentrates on the Democrat's perceived political strength of domestic issues---jobs, health care, environment---and an all-embracing vision of his presidency. This scenario would trump the telegenic advantages of youthful candidates and those whose strength is domestic issues---in other words, John Edwards, but also less well known "future of the party" figures like Evan Bayh. Plus, Kerry may have more confidence in the readiness of Graham, Kerrey and Biden to take over as President if necessary.

Graham of course comes from Florida, an important swing state, and a real battleground on many levels. Vetting would have to show how vulnerable he might be on flip-flop and free-spending image issues, for he would have to be at least not a liability where he doesn't have perceived strength.

Richard Gephardt remains in the running, as a mature leader whose strength is jobs, and the Midwest battleground. But without doing any tiresome research, our recollection is that he may have some differences with Kerry on foreign policy. And he doesn't solve what may be a perceptible problem, of split focus. If Kerry can concentrate on domestic issues and overall vision, leaving the trench warfare on foreign policy to the v.p. candidate except when or if big issues arise from events, he can refine his message, and keep a strong focus.

Another, different consideration that might be emerging from state by state polls is the need to make significant progress in Pennsylvania, which is polling as even. Without PA, it's hard to see how Kerry wins. We're not sure selecting a relatively novice governor, Ed Rendell, will help win the state. Knowing Pennsylvanians, they may be more upset by losing another governor (they lost the popular Republican Tom Ridge to Homeland Security) than by the honor of having one on the ticket. Teresa Heinz will probably be more important in PA than Rendell would be.

Polls among Democrats still show John Edwards as the prohibitive favorite, but though he's favored by a wide margin over other possible candidates named, he's about equal with no preference. So it looks like as his image fades from the TV screens, he won't necessarily be missed.

The GOPers could switch campaign tactics and attack Kerry as an elitist "not like us" stuffy easterner. But so far they've chosen to attack Kerry as a leader, which eventually should play to Kerry's strength (on a platform with Bush, he will blow him away in stature), but at least until the convention and the debates, the rationale for a young, touchy feely v.p. like Edwards is lessened.

So this week we'd say the favorite is Bob Graham: from the south, from Florida, good credentials, strong on foreign policy. He at least looks healthy these days---that will certainly be a consideration. But a less than perfect ticker didn't stop Cheney so it can't exactly be raised as an issue.

the bad of days

Before his public testimony to the 9-11 commission this week, Richard Clarke, former White House anti-terrorism advisor to several presidents including G.W. Bush, started a media firestorm with his blunt critique of the Bushies fumbling the war on terrorism and detracting from it with their obsession to invade and occupy Iraq.

The Bushwhackers responded in their usual way, though with more desperation than usual: they attacked Clarke's judgment, veracity, memory, sanity, and of course his motives. Only their calm-voiced communications director was anywhere near effective. The rest were shrill and confused, with Condi Rice looking and sounding like a wounded animal, and some White House flack comparing parts of Clarke's book to the X-Files. At first they tried to deny that any meeting took place between G.W. "Bring me the head of Saddam" Bush and Clarke, in which Bush instructed Clarke to find a connection between Iraq and al Qeda on 9-12. But by the end of the day enough independent corroboration has surfaced that this wasn't tenable any longer.

Clarke's critique is devastating in its details beyond the soundbites, as his testimony will likely reveal. Apart from his credibility (also attested to by independent interviewees), his account is of a piece with the revelations of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, including President Clinton: The Bushies were out to invade Iraq from the moment they took over. Though her revelations have been mostly overlooked, former Pentagon officer and staunch conservative Karen Kwaitkowski offers three reasons for this neo-con Rabid Right obsession, two of them having to do with the likelihood that, once sanctions were lifted, Iraq would be making big oil deals with European companies rather than the U.S. companies who finance and employ them, and the other was the one we offered some months ago: because they wanted a U.S. military base in the region, and it was becoming more difficult to keep the one in Saudi Arabia. (She says because of problems with the Saudis, but we wonder whether it wasn't to support the Saudi royal family, who felt vulnerable to internal dissent galvanized by the presence of the American base.)

This was the biggest story in a day of bad news for the Bushies. (For instance, former President Jimmy Carter attacked their Iraq policies with unusual bluntness, and yet another Republican Senator claimed that the evidence doesn't support the White House claim that Senator John Kerry is weak on defense.) But it was an even worse news day for America.

That's because of the Israeli assassination of the founder of the Palestinian Hamas. Israelis were spinning it as the elimination of their equivalent of Osama bin Laden. The Palestinians saw it as the assassination of a revered spiritual and political leader. Much of the world may simply have seen it as a helicopter hovering to fire a missile and blow apart an old man in a wheel chair as he left morning services at a mosque.

The assassination was roundly condemned by the United Nations and individual nations including Japan and Great Britain. But not by the Bush administration. Condi Rice even parroted the Israeli line that Hamas is a terrorist organization, therefore... it goes without saying that according to the Bush doctrine of good v. evil, any act of violence is permitted by those the Bushies designate as Good against that which they call Evil.

This is the outcome of absolutism, and of any violence-including pre-emptive war against a state that might be a threat in the future---justified by that absolutism. Israel can get away with this because the Bush administration actions have made such warfare legitimate. Notwithstanding the terrible violence inflicted on innocent Israelis by suicide bombers and terrorist attacks, which may have been promoted by the man they assassinated, the logic of absolutism doesn't stop at killing the worst. And the logic of violence that this absolutism unleashes makes it nearly impossible for the Bushies to morally condemn this action.

Apart even from the morality, and even from the escalation of violence which breeds more and greater violence, the Israeli action was politically catastrophic. The anger and depth of outrage it unleashed will have consequences for years to come. Palestinians declared that Israel had opened the doors of hell, and there is every reason to believe them. Specific threats were made against the United States for the first time, and they had better be taken seriously. If al Qeda and similar terrorist networks haven't already been deeply involved in Palestinian causes, it is very likely they will be now, and their expertise and resources will be eagerly sought.

At best the Bush administration blew this one by not keeping closer tabs on the Israeli government, even apart from the tacit encouragement and essentially the permission their own policies provide. At worst they were actively complicit. Then again, for all we know, it's all part of the plan to hasten the end of days, so the righteous may be lifted up, as the second coming comes to Jerusalem (maybe in a movie theatre showing "The Passion"), which the Bushies must hope will be before election day.

But assuming that doesn't quite come to pass, we may have just seen the precipitating event of the next deadly terrorist attack on America.

That was the weak that was

As bad a week as it arguably was for John Kerry's campaign, it was a worse week for the Bush administration. Kerry capped a week of less than nimble responses to the Bush attack machine with a line so bad that it went directly into a Bush ad. Then Kerry went off for a week's R&R, despite the unrelenting Bushwhacking. But it soon appeared this was a brilliant piece of strategy, as it left Bush all alone on the stage, self-destructing.

The Bush Medicare bill, which was supposed to be a brilliant political move to take away a campaign issue from the Democrats, has been a flop from the start, and now it's getting worse. Almost immediately after passage, the Bush administration admitted that it would actually cost a third more than they said it would. Now a veteran and respected non-political appointee says the Bush people threatened to fire him if he told members of Congress before the vote how much the bill would really cost. Now a Republican Member of Congress charges that the Bushies first tried to bribe him (with campaign support for his son's run to succeed him in Congress) and then they threatened him, in order to get his vote. All this (and more) will be investigated by various administrative and legislative officials, and could lead to criminal charges.

Politically, seniors never did buy that this was true prescription drug coverage or improved Medicare, and of course they're right. But these scandalous revelations are putting a lot of pressure on the major senior political organization, the AARP, which backed the bill. They must be feeling like the former Spanish government right about now.

There was no good economic news either. Gasoline prices continue to rise, but wages and employment don't. It turns out that the Bushies have even outsourced their campaign logo garb, to a country that Bush has forbidden the U.S. to trade with. Hmmmm. Kosovo is causing problems again, and thanks to the crisis precipitated by Bush policies, the first American soldier died in Haiti.

But the big theme for the week was the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, and the attempt to 1)link Iraq with the war on terror, 2) position Bush as the stalwart leader 3) position Kerry as weak on defense.

The problem with linking Iraq and the war on terror is that 1) some recalcitrant allies are linking them but not to Bush's advantage, and 2) at the moment neither is going very well.

The week started with the fall of the Spanish government that supported Bush, replaced by a government openly hostile and resentful of being implicated in Iraq. Following Spain's announcement that they plan to pull their troops out of Iraq, the prime minister of Poland (which is part of the Coalition of the Willing but Duped) complained his government had been misled about WMDs, and there was some noise from South Korea about pulling their troops. Another UN inspector, Hans Blix, says not only that there weren’t WMDs, but that terrorism is worse now because of the invasion of Iraq.

The only prospect for a war on terror success this week rests at the moment in the hands of Pakistani troops. After high profile arrests and charges, holding people for years without charges, and with other police and judicial power any dictator would envy, the Bush people have failed to convict terrorists, and quietly had to drop charges against a chaplain accused of espionage at Gitmo.

Things are not going to get any better very soon, as the 9-11 commission goes public, and several Clinton administration officials will testify that they warned the Bushies well before 9-11 that al Qeda was the number one threat to American security. Plus there's a new book coming out which should have some impact, The House of Saud, The House of Bush by Craig Unger, which details extensive relationships over the years, including more than a billion smackers flowing from Saud to Bush businesses, and the curious flights from America of suspicious Saudis immediately after 9-11, made possible (when no one else in the country was allowed to fly) by the Bushwhackers.

The week also saw several large explosions in Iraq, one of which was seen on split screen with VP Dick "Halliburton? Never Heard of Them" Cheney, talking up Bush success and trashing Kerry. Cheney's trashing was almost immediately countered by none other than Republican John McCain, who said that John Kerry is not weak on defense, don't be ridiculous. McCain carries a lot of weight with independents, so this attack at least appears to have been blunted.

George W. "Bunker Mentality" Bush ended the week with a speech recycled from pre-war, minus any embarrassing references to WMDs. Even TV reporters, to their credit, didn't let him get away with it completely.
Just listen to this rhetoric, though:

"There is no neutral ground - no neutral ground - in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery and life and death," Mr. Bush said.
"The war on terror is not a figure of speech," Mr. Bush said. "It is an inescapable calling of our generation. The terrorists are offended not merely by our policies - they are offended by our existence as free nations. No concession will appease their hatred. No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands."

What can you say about it? It is absolutist, frightening, and insidiously brilliant. If you apply much of it narrowly to the most fanatical of the terrorists, it is even close to true. And that's why it is so pernicious, because Bush has shown by his deeds that it doesn't so apply. He means it much more broadly. In rhetoric and intent, it is fully as fanatical as anything a fundamentalist terrorist could say.

It's not the sentences that are important to Bush and his Hidden Persuaders, it's the words: concession, appease, accommodation. He's not wishy-washy, he's 100% for war. It's war, and nothing else. It isn't criminal behavior, that isn't really supported by communities or peoples or whole religions. It isn't criminal behavior and fanaticism in response to massive oppression, because if it were, something would have to be done about that oppression that we sponsor and cause. Or the physical conditions that we impose and allow. But no---that would be appeasement, concession, accommodation. Let us turn your country into a parking lot for Halliburton, or die. This is civilization. The rest is communism---sorry, I mean terrorism.

The Associated Press reported this week that "the United States has begun training and equipping armies in parts of Africa that U.S. officials see as an inviting refuge for terrorists as well as a long-term source of oil." Mali, Mauritania, and "Marines are preparing for missions in Niger and Chad."

That’s the agenda. It’s the oil stupid.

But remember that string of absolutes---part Jehovah, part Tarzan: me good, they evil. Since I, George W. "Crusader" Bush am good, anybody who opposes me is evil. Is an appeaser.

Is against civilization. Is against YOU. Might as well be a terrorist, cause there is no neutral ground--no neutral ground.

Plus, if you vote for me, George W. "Burning" Bush, it will make you part of the coalition of the Good. Me Good. Vote for Me. You Good. Vote for anybody else, you're Evil, you'll rot in hell, and when the Rapture comes, screw you. (Actually, we'll screw you a lot sooner than that.)

So the United States of Bush is Good. Everything about it is Good, everything they do is Good, right? Makes it all insultingly clear doesn't it?

Linking terrorism and Iraq is itself insidious, even apart from the failure to concentrate on protecting against terrorism that the Iraq adventure represents. The current rationalizations for war in Iraq (which come down to this: do you think we’re better off without Saddam or not?) debase what’s left of this country’s honor. America goes to war when it has to. America was told it had to go to war to defend itself against WMDs. Now we’re told that this didn’t really matter. That the fact that the U.S. didn’t allow the UN inspectors to finish looking for weapons and instead launched an invasion on either flimsy grounds or false pretenses, doesn’t matter. President Bush took this nation to war, and committed our grandchildren to paying for its consequences, without the informed consent of the American people and the U.S. Congress.

And they impeached Clinton for lying about oral sex.

I wonder when the press will get around to calling this a "scandal-riddled administration"?


The week ends with peace demonstrations in cities across North America and around the world. Not everyone believes that the test of leadership is making like the Old Testament Jehovah in the comfort of the Fortress White House, and sending young men and women from small towns and inner cities to go die, kill, maim and get maimed, some physically, and nearly all psychologically for life, so that Bush and his buddies can get even richer and more powerful.

This is not bravery. It is cowardice. This is not strength. It is the most shameful weakness.

The TV War

It's hard to know who is winning the TV war. It's hard to know even how to fight it.

But we can observe. Cheney talking about the Bush success in Iraq on split-screen with the fiery ruins of the latest bombing can only be described as cognitive dissonance.

Earlier, John Kerry spoke out against the Bush Iraq policy. Newspapers covered both speeches, and other talk of the day, with relative fairness and completeness. But not all television did.

CNN showed very little of the Kerry speech. It didn't show the presence of former Secretary of State Albright or the former Army Chief of Staff with him on the stage. Other cable TV reports continued the theme of how high the conflict is at this stage of the campaign, without dealing much with substance.

The issue that won't go away is the "foreign leaders" statement. Sec of State Powell and other Bushies tried it out on Sunday, cynically playing the card Kerry dealt them by pretending that by not naming names of leaders who are anxious for a regime change in the U.S., it must mean Kerry is lying. Even though they know he can't betray confidences, and most leaders aren't going to go public while they still have to deal with the Bushies.

They got traction on it, and took it a step farther, as Theron indicated. Cheney has since repeated the implication several times that not only is Kerry not being honest and forthcoming, but hinting darkly that he's promised things he shouldn't to foreigners he shouldn't be dealing with.

It didn't help that Howard Dean linked the failures in Iraq to the terrorist bombing in Spain. It's not Kerry's view, but it enabled Ed Gillespie, GOP National Committee chair, to piggyback Dean's comment on the ongoing smear to Kerry's honesty and patriotism, this time explicitly using the T word: "We cannot allow presidential candidates or their surrogates to become mouthpieces for terrorists. Blaming freedom-loving people for these attacks is not the way to defeat the scourge of global terror."

Kerry didn't help himself this week by getting quoted saying that he voted for the $89 billion appropriation for Iraq and the U.S. military before he voted against it. It just plays into the Bush theme of flip-flopping, however accurately it describes the legislative process of voting conditionally (if Bush cut back on tax cuts to the very wealthy to pay for this) before voting against final passage when conditions aren't met.

And someone should have told him not to make a speech on military policy wearing a pink tie.

It's hard enough being perfect on the campaign trail, and fighting an attack machine that has tons of money and absolutely no scruples, which takes the greatest delight in the successful lie. But the Kerry campaign also has to take into consideration the way these things are covered on TV. The emphasis on conflict, the corporate media bias, and the sheer idiocy.

Speaking of Rudi Bactiar, the CNN Headline News anchor who chirps and emotes incongruously throughout prime time: it's hard to believe that this person can help determine the fate of the planet. But there you are. I guess Kurt Vonnegut isn't surprised, and Joseph Heller wouldn't be.

Today Rudi demanded of a Washington Post reporter on the phone, doesn't Kerry have to name those names of foreign leaders who said they support him? The reporter repeated the retraction of the Boston Globe reporter who incorrectly quoted Kerry in the first place, and mentioned that Cheney upped the ante even more by saying that these leaders had "endorsed" Kerry, which clearly they haven't. But Rudi was not deterred by this kind of quibbling. Shouldn't these European leaders Kerry was talking about be named? she insisted.

So we've gone from a reporter's mistake, to "foreign leaders," to foreign leaders endorsing Kerry, to Rudi deciding they are European leaders. And from unsubstantiated charges to lying to being unpatriotic to being a mouthpiece for terrorists. And that's from Sunday to Wednesday.

It turns out that Kerry has been making those policy statements we suggested he should go ahead and make (including one today, Thursday). It's just that nobody is covering them as such. But Kerry has to talk about this foreign leaders flap. For one thing, it will definitely be covered. He has to lay out this whole scenario, from the cynicism--and why the Bushies know he can't name names---to the smears. It's exhibit A. If he tells it like this, it will help him. If he ignores it, it may stick in people's minds and hurt him, or it could even get worse. He has to call them out on it...And find another color tie.

A Spainyard in the Works
by international correspondent,
cousin Lemuel Dash

The probable result of the new government in Spain will be a "smart" anti-terrorist policy.

The general concern over the Iraq adventure included a significant European concern that this was a diversion from the real enemy. Saddam was evil but wasn't setting up cells inside your country and getting ready to blow up your citizens. Ex-patriate Muslim fanatics were and still are. Many European countries have significant Muslim populations. The vast majority are good citizens. They should be allies in avoiding being blown up. But you have to allow them to be allies, and give them a realistic stage to express themselves. Having a very public war on a sectarian regime (however brutal and despotic) but comprised of Muslims, was not the best step forward.

Look for a more holistic, legal, and finessed approach to terrorism. But not a retreat from defeating terror and advancing civil society.

A little instant history: The Popular Party treated Basque national aspirations with a contempt inherited from Franco. The political wing of ETA has been calling for negotiations not armed struggle for about ten years. The PP resisted any dialogue. The result was the targeted terror of ETA over the past years. The Socialists may not be so dogmatic. They have significant support in the North. So watch this space.... This could be a Historic Moment where Basque national aspirations are recruited into a pan-European effort to defend the continent. Or maybe not.

On a broader front: The wheel is finally in spin and the possibility of real New World Dynamic could be forthcoming. Maybe better than a New World Order. Maybe not. Stay tuned

Lemuel
P.S. Suggested Reading: here

the reign in Spain

It looks bad: terrorists attack, Spain votes their government out. But it's not that simple, and that's obvious even to experts like us who have never even been there.

Spain has been dealing with terrorists for 35 years. The U.S. is a neophyte by comparison, yet lectures everyone else on the subject. No Spanish government can relent in its efforts to protect its citizens from terrorists.

That Al Queda was said to possibly be involved in the latest attack may have just been the last straw for a populace that was overwhelmingly against their government's involvement in the Iraq war. They were put in the position of again swallowing its consequences, and they rebelled. They have enough to deal with. That's as plausible an explanation as any other.

The timing was unfortunate but the idea of "letting the terrorists dictate the election" works both ways. Should voters who want to make a statement against the Iraq war and get their country out of it, be prevented from doing so because it would look bad following a terrorist attack?

It's worth mentioning that a new poll shows a surprising 45% of Americans surveyed said that if another terrorist attack happens on U.S. soil, it would incline them to vote against Bush. That was about double the percentage of those who said it would incline them to vote for Bush.


In the meantime, the Bush attack machine which is outspending Kerry by something like 20 to 1, may be having an effect. Polls show Kerry is beginning to be defined as not having strong convictions. Perhaps people who believe TV advertising get the country they deserve, but that's no comfort for the rest of us who live here.

Kerry, who now has sufficient votes to be the nominee, can't depend on this cornucopia of Bush mistakes to continue. Somehow he has to keep from being defined by the Bushies and their collaborating media parrotheads, so that people will still be paying attention at convention time. That long heralded series of policy pronouncements might help, but they ought to get going on it.

the usual subtext

by Theron Dash

Sometimes I can't believe how naive my brothers can be. They think this flap the Bushies are keeping alive about Kerry not naming the "foreign leaders" he said were rooting for him to win, because he can't betray confidences, was just a clever little double-bind opportunity. Phineas for one knows better, he's the oldest, he can just about remember v.p. Richard Nixon's red letter red-baiting days.

First of all, it turns out that Kerry didn't even say "foreign leaders." The reporter who said so has since listened to his tape again and corrected it. Kerry said "more" leaders. Here's the story.

But the coordinated chorus of Bushies, not just Powell and the White House flacks but v.p. Dick "Undisclosed Location" Cheney, demanded to know who these leaders are, has the same old subtext. Why doesn't he name names? What's he afraid of revealing? Like maybe these leaders are...Osama bin Laden?

You think this is paranoia? Check out the Washington Times sometime, that print equivalent of Fox News, which covers the Kerry campaign with headlines like, Terrorists Favor Kerry, and a bit more subtly, Arab-Americans Favor Kerry.

It's subliminal red-baiting, since the above-ground stuff isn't working anymore. Delete "red" and insert "terrorist." Terrorists sympathizer, favored by enemies of America. You can almost see Nixon's dark scowl.

It's clear as a bell in this Cheney statement at a campaign event in Arizona:
"But it is our business when a candidate for president claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders. At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to them that makes them so supportive of his candidacy."

They have to resort to suggestion at the moment, since they can call Kerry liberal all they want (the equivalent of radical in the 60s, Communist in the 50s and on) but they can't make him a Dukakis. They're looking for this year's Willie Horton, and if they can't find one they'll sow some doubt, some foreign phantoms to give voters the Willies. It's not just a double-bind, it's a subtextual smear.

Kerry has to call them on it. Ask them why they're so interested, and just what are they trying to imply? It's another thinly veiled attack on his patriotism. I apologize for my brothers. They don't always understand that these guys haven't had a new idea since 1950.

noted

An Annenberg survey shows that a majority of American voters (most Democrats plus many independents) disapprove of the Bush campaign using imagery from 9-11. This is a major blow for the Bush strategy.

Three more disasters for Bush last week and over the weekend: Kerry exposed the so-called "manufacturing czar" as an industrialist who had exported jobs to China (more or less) even before the appointment was made public, and it was then quickly withdrawn; more evidence that the Bushies cooked the books on Medicare; and the post-terrorist attack election in Spain which swept the pro-Bush government out of office and installed the socialist party, which will withdraw Spain from the Iraq occupation.

One Kerry problem developed: after he'd adroitly handled his Bushies are liars and crooks comment made privately but while still partly miked (he refused to apologize, and Bushies have to shy away from repeating liars and crooks when so many stories are appearing that cast them in exactly that light) an old assertion resurfaced, that some foreign leaders told him privately that they are hoping Bush is replaced. Bushies say tell us who they are (which obviously he can't, as these were private and presumably confidential conversations) and when he doesn't they are outright suggesting he's lying. It's a neat double-bind, and Kerry probably shouldn't have said it, but then the new leader of the Spanish government said in public that he hopes Kerry wins. That's not a trend the Bushies would like to see expand, so continuing to keep this issue alilve could be very risky.

are we this dumb now?
by Theron Dash

What's happening to Washington Week in Review? To PBS? To intelligent reporting and analysis? Are we this dumb now?

Washington Week, despite Paul Newman's flattering intro (which seems to have been missing lately...hmmm), has been getting progressively duller and unwatchable (as opposed to dully progressive, which describes...well, not us.) This used to be a fairly painless half hour update on the conventional wisdom in Washington, with the occasional insight and bit of real reporting. Now it's like a televised coffee break, in which unimpressive parrotheads giggle and mouth cliches, ingratiating themselves with each other and saying little or nothing new, trenchant or insightful.

Maybe the plethora of other news analysis shows on cable have depleted the ranks so they're forced to rely on lesser lights, but it's becoming embarrassing. Plus there's this giddy self-referencing hewing to a jockular theme, as in Friday's campaign coverage, about how both candidates are going negative so early, isn't it crazy, my god can they keep this up, what'll it be like in October? Shouldn't somebody go positive at some point? was one of the piercing questions. This was after they played a negative Bush ad and the counter-charge part of the new Kerry ad, neglecting to play, and therefore to notice, that the rest of the ad, most of it in fact, was positive.

It's not like there wasn't more to talk about, like the salon story about the Pentagon mentioned in the last post. Why is nobody else even mentioning that story?

But back to the dumbing down question. Frontline continues to be pretty damn good, but some other PBS docus I've seen are really puzzling, and maddening. I happened to catch a fellow named Wells on C-Span the other day---I've lost my notes on it already---talking about his research on human origins based on DNA, and it was pretty fascinating. He played excerpts from his docu aired on PBS, which I saw, but it drove me nuts to the point that I began hating this guy and his research. Which makes me even madder now that I realize I might have missed something interesting and important, all because people can't make a decent docu anymore.

That docu did the same thing as another very worthy project, "The Elegant Universe," a Nova production, about tne new physics, specifically string theory. In both cases some of the visuals were amazing. In the physics programs, the computerized visualizations and animations really helped with some of the concepts, such as Einsteinian curved space and gravity wells, and atomic structure (I liked how the nucleus pulsed like it was on speed) but it did what the Wells docu did: it made a point, then immediately repeated it, then repeated it again. Then came back to it, adding all the points onto the new point. Like the narrator's off-camera voice would say, " Einstein theorized that space is curved." Then picture of a scientist, and he says: "According to Einstein, space is curved." Cut to the narrator-host sitting somewhere very picturesque, or in the middle of a clever computer simulation (an elevator to infinity, for example) and he turns and looks at the camera and says with a perfectly straight face, "Einstein said that space is curved."

Did you get that? Well, don't worry. In about five minutes, they're going to repeat it all again.

Do they really think that because this stuff is hard, that the best way to approach it is blugeon your head with repetition until you're half dead, and then you'll be able to follow it? The sad part is that when the second half of the Elegant Universe program finally got to string theory and played it straight, it was fascinating and pretty easy to follow.

Are we really this dumb now? Are our attention spans so short, or just blugeoned into insensibility by endless repetition accompanying fast cut fancy movement images? What a waste of talent and money, and I might add, my time. Give me the twenty minutes of actual stuff, and save the rest for the pledge drive.

And can those Washington parrotheads. I'd rather hear Paul Newman talk about the news.