July 19, 2007
No longer available
see:
Olbermann: Special Comment: Scapegoat (video; transcript; Iraq)
Day: July 19, 2007
Olbermann: Special Comment: Scapegoat (video; transcript; Iraq)
The Rudy Giuliani 12 Step Program by the Hermit (video)
July 19, 2007
daily at
http://www.thehermitwithdavisfleetwoo…
the hermit is a production of
http://www.nocureforthat.com
theme music by $24
http://www.myspace.com/twentyfourthou…contact me:
http://www.myspace.com/davisisthehermit
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?i…
The Export of Democracy and Corporate Foreign Policy by Malcolm
Featured writer
Dandelion Salad
July 19, 2007
Many people(and most Iraqi’s) have made the conclusion long ago why the US/UK went into Iraq. Well, folks, some very interesting sources have come up with some astounding evidence.
George Schultz of the Bechtel Corporation stated on Frontline/PBS that he and future Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice personally asked George W to run for President. The same George Schultz that asked Ronald Reagan to run for President and served as Secretary of State when they won. The same George Schultz is currently on the Board of International Tax and Investment Counsel (ITIC). The ITIC is a Washington ‘think tank’ that was formed in 1993 to advise former Soviet countries on how they should run their affairs such as taxation, infrastructure, oil industry and the like(1).
Since the United States decided to export democracy, ITIC decided it should write a little paper on how to advise Iraqis regarding their oil business(2). The plan is to allot almost 80 percent of Iraqi oil production for ‘privatization’ by foreign oil companies(3). Working together, the IMF, US and UK government officials, with oil companies BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Total and ENI (Italy) began using all the pressure they could to secure an oil contract that suited them, maximizing profit and shielding themselves from any interference.(4)
The plan passed thru committee as of 13 July 2007, is supposed to be passed by the Iraqi Parliament and to be monitored by a cabinet level committee called the Panel of Independent Advisors as stipulated in the document· The bill specifically states the Panel is to include members of foreign oil companies. What the Panel achieves is that there will be no public oversight of this cabinet level committee or their policy decisions. In addition, the Panel becomes the decision-maker of last resort: ”In case the initial contract has serious discrepancies as compared to the model contracts and guidelines issued by the Federal Oil and Gas Council, the Federal Oil and Gas Council will make a decision on the contract relying on the opinion of the Panel of Independent Advisors….“(5) No surprise, ITIC also has nine board members from oil and oil service companies.
So if you think this is incredible, check this: when Bremmer landed in Baghdad 2003, one of his first actions was to say that no unions would be allowed in state run businesses. Despite this edict, the technicians and workers of the Iraqi oil industry did so anyway. Further, the Union being aware of this proposed oil bill have threatened a strike if it is passed by Parliament(6). Meanwhile, sandwiched between US pressure and sectarian factionalism within the Parliament, Maliki knows that either the Oil Bill will be passed or his tenure might be briefer than anticipated.(7)
During the week ending July 13, 2007, the proposed bill passed thru committee and will now be put to the legislature, and soon. The first deadline of June has already passed, but the new one is July. Same old song: exporting ‘democracy’ and taking your oil.
Remember Arbenz in Guatemala?
Footnotes:
1
www.iticnet.org/
2
Petroleum and Iraq’s Future: Fiscal Options and Challenges
by INTERNATIONAL TAX AND INVESTMENT CENTER (ITIC) in cooperation with: OXFORD ECONOMIC FORECASTING, TRANSBORDER, and Center for Global Energy Studies
Fall 2004
3
Muttitt, Greg: Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm
“The Iraqi government would be left with control of only the 17 fields that are already in production, out of around 80 known fields.” and “Running to hundreds of pages of complex legal and financial language and generally subject to commercial confidentiality provisions, PSAs are effectively immune from public scrutiny and lock governments into economic terms that cannot be altered for decades.”
4
Fisher, Becca CorporateWatch.org http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2912
“Shrouded in secrecy, the US and UK governments, big oil companies and the IMF pushed for the new oil law. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Total and Italian oil and gas company ENI have been working through a major lobbying organization, the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC). The document they produced amounts to a hymn of praise for the form of contracts, known as Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs), which are now written into the law.”
5
Council of Ministers/Oil and Energy Committee Draft Oil and Gas Law 15 February 2007
6
Ben Lando, UPI. Posted July 12, 2007.
http://www.alternet.org/story/56513/
“Opposition to American Oil Grab is Unifying Iraqis” “The oil law already faced opposition from Iraq oil experts — including two of the law’s three original willing to stop production and exports if the law gives foreign oil companies too much access to or ownership of the oil.”
7
International Herald Tribune, AP Report, 13 February 2007
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/13/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Oil.php
Al-Maliki tells aides U.S. benchmark deadline is June 30 or his ouster possible.
“ ‘Al-Maliki is committed to meeting the deadline because he is convinced he would not survive in power without U.S. support’, one of the associates said.
But standing in the way of forward movement is a recalcitrant Cabinet which al-Maliki has promised to reshuffle by the end of this week. So far, however, he is at loggerheads with the political groupings in parliament which are threatening to withdraw their support for the prime minister if he does not allow the blocs to name replacements for Cabinet positions.
The impasse amounts effectively to a threat to bring down the government if it does what the Americans reportedly are telling al-Maliki he must do to win continued U.S. backing.”
The Dangers of Bush and Al Qaeda By Elias Harfouche
Dandelion Salad
By Elias Harfouche
ICH
07/19/07 “Al-Hayat”
Those betting on a quick U.S. exit from Iraq and a change in President Bush’s Iran policy would do well to read the recent report from the U.S. intelligence community – reports that indicate a plan of using Iraq as a base of operations from which to launch attacks against regional threats to U.S. interests.
Six years after the attacks of September 11, U.S. intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda is as much a threat now as then, aided by the U.S. war on Iraq and the growth of fanatic movements. It also indicates that the U.S. is losing on several fronts against Al Qaeda – a group that has clearly reconstituted and reorganized itself over the past couple of years.
In addition to threats from Al Qaeda, the U.S. intelligence report identifies a danger from the Lebanese party Hizbullah, which has attacked U.S. targets in the past and is seen as probably attacking again should its interests be threatened or should its patron Iran be subjected to an American attack.
The recent report shatters the claims of Bush and his Administration that the war in Iraq has made America more secure. For over the past few years, Bush has claimed that two-thirds of Al Qaeda’s commanders have been killed or captured by U.S. forces, and that the war in Iraq has put extremist factions on the defensive. Bush has based his war on the claim that fighting terrorists abroad prevents them from posing a danger at home. But the report – released by the Bush administration itself – indicates that not only has Bush’s plan for Iraq failed to provide security and democracy for the Iraqi people, but also that it has failed to make Americans themselves any safer. No security exists for either the Iraqis or the Americans. These are the results of America’s open-ended war in Iraq – now entering its fifth year. The U.S. is now heaping criticism on Pakistani ruler Pervez Musharaf for the respite he granted Al Qaeda’s leadership when he committed to a truce with tribes on the Afghan-Pakistani border. This has not, however, spared Bush from the criticism of his own country’s Congress and media and from accusation of incompetence in and poor planning for a war that is becoming increasingly difficult to justify.
In any other circumstances, with any other administration, such a report would be a clear case for an American retreat from Iraq and from foreign conflicts like that with Iran. But this does not apply to the Bush administration, which seeks to cover up previous failures by embarking on yet more ill-fated adventures. And so the continuing security threat emanating from the American blunder in Iraq has led the Bush administration to oppose any call for an American withdrawal from the country.
This U.S. approach also applies to Iran – a country the report identifies as a threat due to its support for Hizbullah and its perceived role in sabotaging political and security developments in Iraq. The release of this report coincides with U.S. media leaks surrounding the internal debate within the Bush Administration over U.S. policy towards Iran. This debate seems to be shifting in favour of Vice President Dick Cheney, who is convinced that the administration cannot leave the situation with Iran due to his belief that no future administration – Republican or Democrat – will be capable of facing the coming danger from Iran.
The next few months in the Middle East will be critical, as Syrian President Bashar Assad stated recently – months that ought to be cause for concern for all of us, for President Bush’s toolbox of conflicts has not yet been put away.
© 2007 Media Communications Group
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
Democrats as Leviathan – Another Step Toward War with Iran By Joshua Frank
Dandelion Salad
By Joshua Frank
ICH
07/19/07 “Counterpunch“
It was a slumber party on Capital Hill. Democrats held an all-nighter on July 17 in an attempt to mollify the great antiwar sentiment that is raging across the land. But their attempt to challenge Bush’s war on Iraq was sanctimonious and superficial at best. Not only were the Democrat’s pleas to set a timetable for withdraw fully pathetic, so too was their moral indignation.
The Democrats certainly don’t contest Bush’s Middle East foreign policy, they embrace it. Just last week the Senate voted 97-0 in favor of moving toward war with Iran. So while the Democrats call for withdraw of our troops from Iraq in the future, they insist we must keep an eye on Iran, for the Iranians are opposing the occupation of Iraq by allegedly arming the Shia resistance.
But the uprisings in Iraq were foreshadowed long ago. The Shia make up 60% of the country’s population, so they were sure to gain power with the outing of Saddam Hussein. Iran, a Shia political stronghold, was certainly going to benefit with the fall of Iraq’s dictator who remained an archenemy of Tehran until his regime was toppled. The Democrats and Republicans most certainly knew this. Regardless, both political parties see the rise of the Shia as an opening for a confrontation with Iran.
Iran isn’t the first scapegoat for the prevailing resistance fighting US armed forces in Iraq. There was a time when we were told the death of Saddam would bring stability to the country. It didn’t happen. Nor did the deaths of his sons Uday and Qusay or the bloody murder of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Iraq remains in turmoil and will continue to be thanks to our illegal invasion.
The Democrats don’t really want to end the war despite their veneer of opposition. If they desired to end the war they would have halted its funding long ago. Likelise, if they really preferred to challenge the Bush falsehoods regarding Iran, they would do so. Instead the Democrats, including their top presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who voted in favor of holding Iran accountable for the killing of US soldiers, seem to want to handle Iran militarily.
The amendment, H.R.1585, written by Sen. Joe Lieberman, repeats the same round of vacant lies the neocons have been advancing for quite sometime. Iranian influence in Iraq is now becoming the accepted reason among American political elites as to why US forces are failing. The Lieberman amendment also claims that Iran is providing a safe-haven for al Qaeda fighters, even though the group is allegedly blowing up Iraqi Shias daily.
American soldiers aren’t being killed because of Iran; we are losing because there is no such thing as real victory for the US in Iraq. There is only death.
Like Iran’s non-existent nuclear arsenal, there is no evidence that Tehran is fudning the Shia resistance. Most Iraqi citizens owned automatic weapons under Saddam and most roadside bombs can be manufactured using household products found in most American garages.
The Democrat’s Senate sleepover was a fraud replete with staged confessions and overt hypocrisies. They don’t want to end the war; the Democrats want to extend it to Iran by making the case that the Iranians are behind the US catastrophe in Iraq. Washington is covertly setting the stage legislatively for a military confrontation with Iran. It’s our job to stop them.
Joshua Frank is the co-editor of DissidentVoice.org, and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the forthcoming Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press in March 2008. He can be reached through his website, BrickBurner.org.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
Insurgents form political front to plan for US pullout By Seumas Milne
Dandelion Salad
Leaders of Iraqi groups say attacks will go on until Americans leave
By Seumas Milne in Damascus
ICH
07/19/07 “The Guardian“
Seven of the most important Sunni-led insurgent organisations fighting the US occupation in Iraq have agreed to form a public political alliance with the aim of preparing for negotiations in advance of an American withdrawal, their leaders have told the Guardian.In their first interview with the western media since the US-British invasion of 2003, leaders of three of the insurgent groups – responsible for thousands of attacks against US and Iraqi armed forces and police – said they would continue their armed resistance until all foreign troops were withdrawn from Iraq, and denounced al-Qaida for sectarian killings and suicide bombings against civilians.
Speaking in Damascus, the spokesmen for the three groups – the 1920 Revolution Brigades, Ansar al-Sunna and Iraqi Hamas – said they planned to hold a congress to launch a united front and appealed to Arab governments, other governments and the UN to help them establish a permanent political presence outside Iraq.
Abu Ahmad, spokesman for Iraqi Hamas said: “Peaceful resistance will not end the occupation. The US made clear it intended to stay for many decades. Now it is a common view in the resistance that they will start to withdraw within a year. “
The move represents a dramatic change of strategy for the mainstream Iraqi insurgency, whose leadership has remained shadowy and has largely restricted communication with the world to brief statements on the internet and Arabic media.
The last three months have been the bloodiest for US forces, with 331 deaths and 2,029 wounded, as the 28,000-strong “surge” in troop numbers exposes them to more attacks.
Leaders of the three groups, who did not use their real names in the interview, said the new front, which brings together the main Sunni-based armed organisations except al-Qaida and the Ba’athists, had agreed the main planks of a joint political programme, including a commitment to free Iraq from foreign troops, rejection of cooperation with parties involved in political institutions set up under the occupation and a declaration that decisions and agreements made by the US occupation and Iraqi government are null and void.
The aim of the alliance – which includes a range of Islamist and nationalist-leaning groups and is planned to be called the Political Office for the Iraqi Resistance – is to link up with other anti-occupation groups in Iraq to negotiate with the Americans in anticipation of an early US withdrawal. The programme envisages a temporary technocratic government to run the country during a transition period until free elections can be held.
The insurgent groups deny support from any foreign government, including Syria, but claim they have been offered and rejected funding and arms from Iran. They say they have been under pressure from Saudi Arabia and Turkey to unite. “We are the only resistance movement in modern history which has received no help or support from any other country,” Abdallah Suleiman Omary, head of the political department of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, told the Guardian. “The reason is we are fighting America.”
All three Sunni-based resistance leaders say they are acutely aware of the threat posed by sectarian division to the future of Iraq and emphasised the importance of working with Shia groups – but rejected any link with the Shia militia and parties because of their participation in the political institutions set up by the Americans and their role in sectarian killings.
Abd al-Rahman al-Zubeidy, political spokesman of Ansar al-Sunna, a salafist (purist Islamic) group with a particularly violent reputation in Iraq, said his organisation had split over relations with al-Qaida, whose members were mostly Iraqi, but its leaders largely foreigners.
“Resistance isn’t just about killing Americans without aims or goals. Our people have come to hate al-Qaida, which gives the impression to the outside world that the resistance in Iraq are terrorists. We are against indiscriminate killing, fighting should be concentrated only on the enemy,” he said. He added: “A great gap has opened up between Sunni and Shia under the occupation and al-Qaida has contributed to that.”
Wayne White, of Washington’s Middle East Institute and a former expert adviser to the Iraq Study Group, said it was unclear, given the diversity within the Sunni Arab insurgency, what influence the new grouping would have on the ground.
He added: “This does reveal that despite the widening cooperation on the part of some Sunni Arab insurgent groups with US forces against al-Qaida in recent months, such cooperation could prove very shortlived if the US does not make clear that it has a credible exit strategy.
“With the very real potential for a more full-blown civil war breaking out in the wake of a substantial reduction of the US military presence in Iraq, Shia and Kurds appreciate that the increased ability of Sunni Arabs to organise politically and assemble in larger armed formations as a result of such cooperation could confront them with a considerably more formidable challenge as time goes on.”
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
07.18.07 Uncensored News Reports From Across The Middle East (video; over 18 only)
Warning
This video contains images depicting the reality and horror of war and should only be viewed by a mature audience.
Selected Episode
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Two Lebanese Soldiers Killed at Nahr el Bared,” Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
Fateh Accuses Hamas of Torture,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
Olmert Under Fire for ‘Intolerable’ Failures,” IBA TV, Israel
Economy in Shambles in Gaza,” Saudi TV, Saudi Arabia
20 Died Since Mosque Siege in Pakistan,” Al Jazeera English, Qatar
Human Rights Violations in Iraqi Jails,” Baghdad TV, Iraq
Iran Treats Iraqi Victims,” Al-Iraqiya TV, Iraq
Families of AIDS Infected Children Drop Death Charges,” Abu Dhabi TV, UAE
Arrested Iranian-Americans’ TV interview Angers U.S.” IRIB2 TV, Iran
Israel’s Prisoners Release Divides Palestinians,” Dubai TV, UAE
Clone Wars: The Replication of Ruin From Iraq to Somalia by Chris Floyd
Dandelion Salad
Written by Chris Floyd
Thursday, 19 July 2007
The rough beast that is George W. Bush’s Terror War replicates itself with remarkable fidelity. Each new monstrosity it brings forth exhibits the same markings, the same structure: a weak, corrupt client regime maintained in office by the occupation army of a foreign power, in brutal conflict with an ever-growing opposition led by — but not limited to — religious sectarians. And each replication produces the same results: chaos, ruin, atrocity, suffering, repression and the spread of violent, virulent extremism.
This has been the pattern in all four of the Terror War’s “regime change” operation: the two direct U.S. interventions, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the two proxy wars, in Palestine and Somalia.
There was a slight mutation in the Palestine caper, of course; Bush and his Israeli allies relentlessly fomented a civil war in order to overthrow the elected Hamas government, but their Fatah proxies lost the battle in Gaza. It didn’t matter in the end, however: the defeat gave the Fatah client regime an excuse to declare a new, unelected “emergency government,” one entirely dependent on largess from America and Israel to survive.
see:
Kill Anyone Still Alive’: American Special Ops in Somalia by Chris Floyd
The Iran Daily Interview With Jonathan Cook by Amir Tajik
This is the full text of an interview, conducted by Amir Tajik, published in the English-language Iran Daily on 16 July 2007. Jonathan Cook is a British journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. He is the author of Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State (Pluto Press, 2006) and the forthcoming Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East.
You have declared that Israel’s attack on Lebanon’s Hezbollah was based on a prepared script. Which countries do you think contributed to this script?
I don’t think there is too much doubt about who was involved in writing this script. It was a cabal inside the Israeli and US political and security establishments. My guess is that the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was only marginally in the picture. There is a common misperception in the West that Israel is not only a democracy but that it is a normal regime in terms of its political structure. What isn’t appreciated is that the army and government are more like two “faces” of the same set of institutions, which is why the same personnel move so effortlessly between them. In the most important areas of life, the army is really in charge of the country.
We have quite a lot of evidence for how the script was drafted, a process that I describe in detail in my forthcoming book, Israel and the Clash of Civilizations.
According to reports in the US media, for more than a year before the war on Lebanon, Israeli commanders had been discussing an attack on Lebanon with the Pentagon, which at the time was decisively under the control of an ultra-hawkish group known as the neocons — American policymakers with close ideological ties to the Israeli right. It seems that both the US and Israel were agreed that they needed to find a pretext to attack Lebanon. It seems that both the US and Israel were agreed that they needed to find a pretext to attack Lebanon. The US had also made sure both to isolate Hizbullah before the attack by using a UN resolution to force Syria out of the country, and to encourage popular support for the pro-Washington government in Beirut by helping to engineer a “Cedar Revolution”. We also know from statements made by neocons close to Bush that, once Hizbullah had been crushed, they were planning some sort of strike on Syria.
see:
Jonathan Cook
Free Trade and Immigration: Cause and Effect by Jacob Hill
by Jacob Hill
Dissident Voice
July 19th, 2007
The just-taken Congressional action by The House leadership against enacting the free trade pact entered into by the Bush administration with Colombia represents a striking setback against President Alvaro Uribe and the US president. Nevertheless, it is a victory for probity, a blow against Bogotá’s scandal-ridden government, and a denouncement of Uribe’s indifference to human rights.
Although discussion of free trade and immigration issues has recently stalled in Congress, supporters on both sides of the aisle are attempting to revive the debate as perspectives continue to polarize.
The combination of free trade and heavy US subsidies has crippled the Mexican agricultural sector, causing impoverished former subsistence farmers to immigrate to the US by any means necessary.
Immigration is not the demon it is often portrayed as — nor is it devoid of any profound dangers to the well-being of the US, as pro-immigration forces insist.
Conservative policies of supporting free trade while restricting immigration are inherently incompatible.
In recent months, the US Congress has circumvented the will of President George Bush by delaying any action on free trade agreements with Peru and Panama. Moreover, the Congressional leadership has just decided to refuse to further discuss the Colombian free trade agreement at this time, damning one of President Alvaro Uribe’s most prized economic initiatives. Now, these issues, much like the immigration debate, will most likely not be revived until after the 2008 elections, if at all. In the meantime, it is vital that all parties involved examine the inextricable link between these two failed policies—immigration reform and expansion of free trade. As US concern over both immigration and free trade issues were reaching a fever pitch, the reality of how the latter impacts the former has not been adequately addressed. It is likely that the group most directly affected by these issues has been the rural, agrarian population of Mexico. Since 1994, the year in which the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect, immigration from Mexico to the U.S. has more than doubled, due, in large part, to the trade pact.
My Wake-up Call: Watch For Another 9/11-WMD Experience By Paul Craig Roberts
By Paul Craig Roberts
July 18, 2007
This is a wake-up call that we are about to experience another 9/11-WMD experience.
The wake-up call is unlikely to be effective, because the American attitude toward government changed fundamentally seventy-odd years ago. Prior to the 1930s, Americans were suspicious of government, but with the arrival of the Great Depression, Tojo, and Hitler, President Franklin D. Roosevelt convinced Americans that government existed to protect them from rapacious private interests and foreign threats. Today, Americans are more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to government than they are to family members, friends, and those who would warn them about the government’s protection.
Intelligent observers are puzzled that President Bush is persisting in a futile and unpopular war at the obvious expense of his party’s electoral chances in 2008.
In the July 18 Los Angeles Times (“Bush the Albatross”), Ronald Brownstein reminds us that Bush’s behavior is disastrous for his political party. Unpopular presidents “have consistently undercut their party in the next election.” Brownstein reports that “88% of voters who disapproved of the retiring president’s job performance voted against his party’s nominee in past elections. . . . On average, 80% of voters who disapproved of a president’s performance have voted against his party’s candidates even in House races since 1986.”
Brownstein notes that with Bush’s dismal approval rating, this implies a total wipeout of the Republicans in 2008.
A number of pundits have concluded that the reason the Democrats have not brought a halt to Bush’s follies is that they expect Bush’s unpopular policies to provide them with a landslide victory next year.
Could Rudy Giuliani Emerge as the Would-be Prince of Friendly Fascism? by Paul A. Donovan
by Paul A. Donovan
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
7/17/07
“Figuring some of the odds”
From July 6th to July 9th of 2007, Strategic Vision conducted a gallop poll out of 1,200 likely voters in the state of Pennsylvania that provided interesting yet predictable results. In overwhelming numbers, Republican and Democratic voters alike were dissatisfied with Bush’s handling of everything from the war in Iraq (20% approval rating), the economy (21% satisfied), and his overall performance (23% gave him the thumbs up). Hardly desirable statistics for George Bush or Republican presidential hopefuls.
However, when one examines such a poll, one can readily conclude that the level of Republican dissatisfaction with Bush’s performance provides the Democrats with an incredible opportunity to capitalize on the ominous shadow Bush is casting over the Republican Party. Increasingly, many Republicans have distanced themselves in rhetoric and practice from President Bush for this very reason. Recently, presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani tried to seek some shelter from Hurricane Bush by stating that America lacks the “strong, aggressive, bold leadership” of Republican legend Ronald Reagan. (It would be nice if the Democrats would finally stiffen their spines and take a tougher stance against Bush as well, considering they have voted for the war in Iraq, voted for mostly all war spending bills, and have not impeached a target as vulnerable as a beached whale. So let’s not go and pat our boys and girls in blue on the back for being much better than their pro-corporate brethren.)
Over the last seven years, President Bush has become a caricature of himself. The beady-eyed multimillionaire Texan, famous for dismembering his own businesses, the English language, the Constitution, Hurricane Katrina prevention and relief efforts, the Middle East, and everything else he has ever touched has appeared to the public as not only incompetent and corrupt but also profoundly stupid, but incorrectly viewed much of the time as solely responsible. Unfortunately, our preoccupation with Bush’s ridiculous idiosyncrasies has distracted us from the fact that Bush is hardly alone in calling the shots—no American president ever is. Right now he is merely the public face for the interests of the unelected government, the plutocratic and corporate elite, and in that sense the lightning rod for massive disenchantment with the more diffuse political quarters that actually control the nation.
Now that I have stated the obvious in respect to Bush, what I find most interesting about the Strategic Vision poll is that 77% of Republicans noted that President Bush is not a conservative in the same “mode” as Ronald Reagan, which may come as a shock to many observers who still retain a modicum of sanity, for that is exactly what he is, an activist for corporate welfare, warmongering, and selling the people of this country a vision of the world upside down. Conservatives, of course, are always talking about the necessity to return to a world that never was, an Eden once upon a time of little or no government, where markets functioned smoothly to give everyone what s/he needed in perfect accordance with talent and merit, a society devoid of gross social injustice, wars, crime, or even monopolies. Apparently a capacity for astonishing delusions is a requisite in the conservative affiliation.
As I’ve stated Rudy Giuliani is currently attempting to disengage himself from Bush by identifying himself closely with the heritage of Republican patron saint Ronald Reagan—and slippery beast that he is, he’s momentarily succeeding. (Considering that Reagan had pretty much the same cast of malefactors in his administration—the Rumsfelds, the Perles, the Elliot Abramses, the Cheneys, Wolfowitzes, and the rest of the Neocon mafia, one could easily argue that, if alive, Reagan might be doing exactly what Bush is doing. To Bush’s credit he has not yet attempted to bankrupt this nation by reinitiating Reagan’s Star Wars project, in hope to zap terrorists from the cosmos, so maybe small differences do exist, but nevertheless slight.) In any case at this point 44% of Republicans support Rudy Giuliani as the most viable candidate for the Republican nomination, with southerner Fred Thompson slowly climbing to 16% in second place, John McCain in 3rd place at 10%, Mitt Romney at 6% in 4th place, and conservative Libertarian Ron Paul at only 2% in dead last. Given these margins it would appear that Giuliani has more than a fair chance of locking up the nomination, but as we will see, the road to the coronations is still far from wide open, and Giuliani, for all his enormous ambition, may end up with egg on his face.
Lovin’ Rudy is no easy task for some.
The current ranking is precisely what’s setting off the alarms in many Republican quarters. In the eyes of many conservatives, especially the radical religious right, the by now fabled law-and-order Mayor Rudy Giuliani, hero of 9/11, a man long groomed and equipped with neo-conservative visions and dependability to serve the class interests of big business, is also a man who fails the test as the top Republican choice in the realm of “moral values” and gun control, both treasured (and time-tested) components of the Republican faux populist agenda. The GOP’s top spinmasters, serving the real “party owners,” know that without them firmly in place their voting base could be severely shaken up and possibly seriously eroded by 2008.
As most readers know, many Republican voters hold close to the hope that Roe v. Wade will one day be overturned, and remain zealous in their belief that no American should be deprived of his “Constitutional right” to hoard large arsenals of hunting and combat weapons, not to mention a bewildering array of small arms munitions. (The explanation for this peculiar attitude in an age of extremely sophisticated weapons that include armored APCs, urban tanks, DU munitions, hunt helicopters, and an enormous repressive apparatus of police, paramilitary and mercenaries, not to mention the regular armed forces, is that one day isolated citizens may have to stand up to their government’s increasingly repressive policies or defend their homesteads against marauding hordes of barbarians in a society in which all semblance of civility has broken down—basically the survivalist’s Road Warrior scenario.) Of course, this is the same “red state” mentality that while fixated on such “moral issues” as abortion and gay marriage, seems oblivious to its own economic and even health interests, neglecting universal healthcare, digging its heels on Iraq, showing disdain and even hostility to environmentalist concerns, and paralysis in the face of deepening job insecurity.
It is important to recall here that while the Republican oligarchy loudly proclaim to care deeply about “moral values” they do so only for political expediency, as their main and true objective is always the maximization of profits and advantages at the expense of the public’s well being, since those constitute the material base for the perpetuation of their power and privileged lifestyles. And while Rudy Giuliani has every intention of ensuring that the upper brass of corporate America remain powerful and wealthy, his personal track record threatens to throw a huge monkey wrench in the base that keeps Republicans in power. The emerging question for the party’s kingmakers (and the media they influence) is whether Giuliani can charm the South, matching phony smile with phony smile and phony promise with phony promise with favorite son Alabama actor Fred Thompson, a man who by birth is able to effortlessly replicate their twisted sensibilities.
Even in 2007, as if time had stood still, voters in the Bible belt continue to refer to abortion as the paramount issue deciding their favor. Giuliani is keenly aware that this is the possible Achilles Heel of his candidacy. He recently provided an ambiguous buffer to the question:
“In my case, I hate abortion…but ultimately, because it is an issue of conscience, I would respect a woman’s right to make a different choice.”
The pro-life voting base was not fooled by Giuliani’s rhetoric. Bruce Wilson of New America recently stated in response to that very comment “to us, it’s the equivalent of saying, ‘I hate it when someone takes another person’s life, but ultimately homicide is a matter of personal conscience and I would respect their decision.” Wilson makes a very good point. Furthermore, when it comes to seducing the family values crowd, Rudy Giuliani’s ex-wives would probably attest to the fact that loving Rudy was no easy task. Therein lies the rub. Although from a purely economic standpoint, Giuliani’s is a Republican’s knight in shining armor, his personal moral track record and position on abortion (which he most likely adopted to be elected in New York – a heavily pro-choice state) are not sitting favorably with many in the GOP and that is not likely to change, or, rather, that is not likely to change unless the party makes a committed effort to rally behind him.
There is little doubt that the top echelons of the Republican Party would prefer a “less controversial” candidate to stir up the hopes of Bible belt voters and their lobbyists. However nobody seems to be making the cut and Giuliani, despite his less than ideal resume, may slither in as the Republican nominee for President in ‘08. He may slither in because the 2008 election may not prove to be a normal election at all. How come?
Two things make the Giuliani candidacy a possible success. One is the Democrats’ demonstrated cowardice and political ineptitude, which almost guarantees that if things go on as they are now, they will succeed in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They pretty much did that in 2004, as Kerry had for much of the campaign a commanding lead that he quickly dissipated in a series of displays of embarrassing opportunism and indecision. And then there’s the second and much uglier but nonetheless real possibility: that in the next 18 months America may be attacked again, either by Al-Qaeda, or by the US government itself in the most cynical false flag operation since the end of World War 2.
It is necessary to ask therefore, if Al Queda carries out another terror attack on American soil, who will the average American voters elect to “protect them?” The likes of Hilary Clinton or Barak Obama, who keep showing that they can’t take a firm stance against our criminally bellicose foreign policy, or New York’s “9-11 superhero”? I think the answer here should be obvious to anyone who knows how the public at large will respond, especially when properly primed by the corporate media. Many of us on the Left are not giving this variable the focus it truly deserves, and it should not be overlooked.
Unfortunately, many Americans still affix all the blame for the disasters we have experienced over the last seven years on the Bush administration. They have not yet realized that it is a class issue rather than just an issue of who happens to occupy the White House board of directors at any given time. Class is the most important issue to focus upon here, not just the current political regime. The public must learn that nearly all the apples in the barrel of the ruling elite of this nation are rotten to their very core, and that, as Chomsky suggests, if there’s a difference between the parties, it is entirely unintended and a product of the melancholy fact that with a superpower as huge as the United States, even slight differences can have enormous consequences.
Will Giuliani Make the Final Cut on American Idol?
Regardless of the abortion issue’s liability to Rudolph Giuliani’s candidacy, let’s not forget that Giuliani was Time Magazine’s 2001 “Person of the Year”. Giuliani’s reputation as the hero of 9-11 may be enough to overcome his ambivalence about abortion and endear him to the Religious Right. Some may argue that the 9-11 hero factor isn’t compelling enough to carry him to victory. However, when one factors in the hypocrisy and indecisiveness of the Democratic front-runners, it certainly levels the playing field a bit for the former Mayor of Gotham City. Besides, Giuliani is a Catholic, and certainly wouldn’t be above making backend deals to over turn Roe V. Wade if elected – I doubt this would trouble his conscience very much, particularly since he doesn’t seem to have one.
What is frightening for blue America is that Rudy Giuliani has been very open and effusive in his praise of Ronald Reagan. He sees the “Gipper’s” socioeconomic policies as the core of his vision for America, which in reality would mean little more than destroying lives in the name of privatization. Giuliani in a recent Republican debate stated,
“What we can borrow from Ronald Reagan … is that great sense of optimism.”
Giuliani is certainly not alone in his desire to grab the Reaganite mantle, but we should all be scared out of our shorts by this definition of optimism. Giuliani’s personal track record in NYC definitely proves to the homeless, street artists, immigrants, people of color, municipal workers, and other indigenous urbanites, (with the exception of the corporations and commuters) that he will take extraordinary measures to create the illusion of progress—even if these involve a destruction of civil and workers’ rights.
As Ralph Nader notes, “former Mayor Giuliani is the oligarchs’ mayor, while he bullies the powerless, he kowtows to the NY stock exchange“. By nature Giuliani is the perfect suckup kickdown.
Indeed. much like his professed idol, Ronald Reagan, Giuliani has built his career by pandering to Wall Street, and showboating to the public via radio, and television. For example, Giuliani takes credit for decreasing crime rates in New York. Yet he fails to mention that towards the end of David Dinkin’s tenure as NYC mayor crimes rates had been decreasing exponentially both locally and across the nation. What Giuliani can take credit for is terrorizing pushy squeegee men and the urban poor by making their living conditions far worse, criminalizing their existence, marginalizing their presence with “broken window” intimidation tactics such as “zero tolerance”, and kicking them off welfare by boosting “workfare.” Under his rule, workfare recipients were forced in the most brutal urban weather conditions to pick up trash to earn their welfare money. Giuliani argued that workfare “restored the dignity” of people on welfare. If welfare recipients, many of whom contend with far greater difficulties than any middle class American could imagine, missed a day of work they were unceremoniously thrown off welfare, probably winding up homeless near St. Anne’s Church in the Bronx, chemically dependent, and as a result, vulnerable to a lethal spiral of unemployment and addiction.
Real, hard-to-shake, demeaning poverty is an old and persistent epidemic that has always afflicted the most vulnerable among us: those who lack decent education, access to safe living environments, are usually in the “wrong” race or gender category, and more importantly can’t find decent jobs. It boils down to a question of access in this country. Either you manage to afford the requisite platforms that this society demands for “access” to the bounty, or you suffer the inhumanity of the “free-market”. (And even with the right credentials it’s not a certainty you will get a decent job in today’s Darwinian economy, or any job for that matter, but that’s another story.)
In essence, as it has been since its inception, the free market is only free for those who have money to pay for it, while the corporate structure is subsidized by the very same people who have limited, or no access to it. A staggering 60% of private medical research is funded by taxes, via research in US government supported facilities—NIH, university labs, etc., but those findings are then routinely turned over to private firms for “exploitation” in the market at prohibitive prices. This while many taxpayers cannot afford proper health care or essential drugs. (Big Pharma is so concerned about its vulture image that it has set up the usual solution to its “image problem”—a p.r. campaign—Partnership for Prescription Assistance fronted by TV host Montel Williams—promising free or “affordable drugs” to anyone who can’t pay the extortionate prices. At best the program promises far more than it can or is willing to deliver, help to the public not being its real object; at worst it is a complicated tegument with more hoops than anyone would like to negotiate, akin to qualifying for welfare.)
How to Beat Giuliani & his ilk:
So how do things stand? The next President of the United States of America will be Rudy Giuliani if we don’t do more to pressure the Democratic Party leadership to adopt a tough leftwing stance, as Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has been doing all along. This lofty and indispensable goal of transforming the watered down version of the GOP can be realized by demanding each Democratic candidate stop dead in their tracks, call for the impeachment of George W. Bush, and Universal Healthcare for all Americans. When I say universal health care I mean the real thing–none of this Massachusetts state-mandated smokescreen nonsense. Cindy Sheehan is already employing this extremely clever tactic as you read these words. Sheehan is threatening to run against Nancy Pelosi in California if Pelosi doesn’t put impeachment back on the table. These are the type of activist tactics we need to adopt across the boards. The left wing must follow through in direct action that casts the centrists in a negative light and endangers the only thing they respond to, a threat to their incumbency and privilege. The bottom line is we need more pressure…Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore can’t do it all by themselves. Ask yourself what the majority of the Democratic Party really represents if not the lesser of the two evils, and therefore, as a vote squandering mechanism, the biggest obstacle to a renewal of American electoral politics?
As some of you know already know, the Universal Healthcare House bill H.R. 676 would mean Medicare for all Americans and is currently being endorsed by candidate Dennis Kucinich. He also has a plan to end the war in a reasonable and immediate fashion (HR 1234) that doesn’t cater to the energy corporations – yet he is written off as unelectable because the media pay him hardly any attention and most Democrats (I’m speaking about the rank and file now) are still mesmerized by the “ABB” syndrome, which places “winning” above all other considerations. Moreover, you won’t see corporations—for good reason—throw tens of millions of dollars at him as they have with Clinton and Obama, and even Edwards. The Democratic politicians must know that we want HR 676 endorsed; it is already on the house floor. They must also know we will not accept any of this pseudo-universal healthcare, as we see in Massachusetts – sorry Dems, we aren’t fooled by state mandated-insurance, which leaves the present system intact and is still unaffordable to those most in need.
Many who argue that it is too late in the game for impeachment fail to realize that such bold action would expose the criminal Bush regime and its laundry list of crimes, thereby crippling the rightwing hopefuls and exposing Giuliani, who is currently dutifully mirroring the George W. Bush agenda. If the Democrats would actually develop a spine, and Bush were impeached, it would be more difficult for Rudy Giuliani to be victorious running on a nearly identical Reaganite/Bush platform. The only thing keeping Giuliani afloat is that the public doesn’t seem to realize that a Republican icon like Reagan does not differ in substance from George W. Bush, they just happened to occupy the Oval Office at different moments in history.
On the other side of the deliberately blurry political spectrum, the Democratic frontrunners are using the standard triangulation methods made infamous by Bill Clinton and his cabal to corner their voting demographics. Their legendary lack of principle, of course, does not render them totally blind to the developing undercurrents in the American polity.
Accordingly, they have altered some of their earlier positions, such as voting for the second Iraq spending bill of 2007, because they are responding, however reluctantly, to the outcry of the “Netroots” who say the Democrats are too soft on Bush. It is important to note here, that Clinton and Obama were some of the last to vote the correct way. The Democrats, at least, need to learn that being a leader requires you to distinguish yourself from the pack by being one, by responding to the people’s needs, and not simply implementing policies designed to co-opt what they perceive as popular demand while still by catering to those with large bank accounts.
After a long period of complicit indifference and lethargy, Americans are beginning to demand accountability from their elected representatives and as fundamentalist free-market contradictions continue to pile up, the people will increasingly demand real action, hold their feet to the fire, from our hypocritical representatives (Dennis Kucinich is naturally excluded from this roster of hardcore opportunists). Currently, all branches of the US government, from the president on down, and certainly the US Congress, enjoy “socialized” healthcare paid for by taxpayer money. I don’t see members of Congress complaining about the best care our tax money can buy. The hypocrisy is simply astounding.
If the Democrats continue on their suicidal unprincipled path, they will simply not inspire enough people to come out and vote. The outcome will likely be a victorious Rudy Giuliani (assuming he gets the nod). If you are shaking your head “no way” – see you election day when Rudy Giuliani will stand before America, and ring in another four years of policies nearly identical to the Bush White House. These people only differ in name, and in infinitesimal degrees of hypocrisy, corruption, and arrogance. Faces change alright, but the unelected plutocratic government’s policies remain on course.
Can we trust the redeeming angel?
There is always the possibility that Al Gore will swoop in for the great American popularity contest, but in the end, nothing will change unless we force these so-called leaders to change their policies. We can attempt to change their policies by demonstrating and uniting around core issues such as healthcare, writing elected officials, talking to friends and family about the issues, getting angry, and getting involved, and—most importantly—contemplating extra-electoral actions such as strikes, including vast consumer strikes (I know in a nation like America that sounds totally counterintuitive, if not loony, but we’re talking survival here).
If we fail to act in a decisive way we will reap what the criminal elites have sown – one nation, under god, and indivisible in our crimes against one another and the world. The old maxim of “United We Stand Divided We Fall” is truer than ever. The elite classes who own the lion’s share of this nation’s wealth need to know that our eyes are open this time, and that we won’t be fooled. Let’s get out there and prove it. For starters, just do an Internet search for H.R. 676 and sign up with one of many grass roots organizations supporting universal health care. Or join an organization pushing for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney or a group advocating an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. People like Giuliani can go on performing plastic smiles for the camera, but the reality we working people of America live through doesn’t match up to the so called fair and balanced truth we hear on the major news networks.
The working people of America can’t wait for Giuliani to be in power for us to take serious political action. My warning to those listening is that Mayor Giuliani is the true face of Bertram Gross’s “Friendly Fascism”, which amounts to a corporatist culture, in which the state and the corporations are fused, and work together to smother opposition, whether via legal or illegal practices. In the case of a Friendly Fascist government, or a fully matured plutocracy, it is often not necessary to display open force when writing laws inimical to the public.
For those that don’t believe Guliani is a would-be ruler in the same vein as Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, Giuliani’s communications director, Crystine Lategano, notes that Giuliani has more than a passing kinship with one of the most influential rightwing think tanks, the Manhattan Institute. As the Wiki notes, “The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is an influential New York City-based free market think tank established in 1978…The Institute, [is] known for its advocacy of free market-based solutions to policy problems, supports and publicizes research on taxes, welfare, crime, the legal system, urban life, race, education and immigration among others.Their message is communicated through books, articles, interviews, speeches, op-ed’s and through the institute’s quarterly publication City Journal, targeted at policymakers, politicians, scholars and journalists.”
Conservatives like Giuliani are true believers in the dogma of the free-market, as are most Democrats, only the difference lies in the details. The Republicans advocate small government, to police the unruly, uncooperative, and unappreciative “leftist cranks” of America, if we are to adopt Barak Obama’s terminology for the left, but unlike their equally capitalist cousins, the Democrats pander to a broader range of socio-economic demographics. As has been noted elsewhere, they’re the “good cop” in the “bad cop, good cop” routine developed by the elites to fool the unwashed. In keeping with this vision, the Democrats are the channel for the ruling class’ (forced) concessions to the masses, the venting valve to social pressures that might otherwise tear the system asunder.
Consistent with this “kinder face” of the ruling class, the Democrats advocate that government should do more to pick up where the market falls short, although they rarely express discontent with capitalism itself (oops, sorry, “the Free Enterprise System). I suppose the laws of supply and demand are only sacrosanct when we are dealing with household appliances, and not so useful when the market—to continue to present a civilized face—needs the help of socialist programs such as Social Security, Medicare, the public library, public education, roads, and a large number of other municipal services to make society livable. Still, and despite the fact that government programs such as Medicare have been shown to be far more efficient than private setups, the establishment propaganda is unrelenting in badmouthing such options.
Meanwhile, as we continue to cut and underfund worthy programs, and misallocate (if not downright steal) public money, as we have seen in Iraq by the likes of Cheney’s Halliburton, we rarely hear a peep from politicians—including Democrats—or the corporate media about the obscene allocations to killing and destruction in the name of our sacred mythologies. The misnamed “defense budget” (how’s that for Orwellianism) is now inching up to a trillion dollars, and that figure may soon be reached and exceeded if another major “Al-Qaeda” attack materializes.
What we have here then is a continuous slide toward “crony” or “gangster” capitalism, and who better than Giuliani to run gangster capitalism, being that his father was a convicted mafia muscle man that served time in Sing Sing? We certainly don’t wish to blame by association, but it may be true that, more often than not, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Given his longstanding unregenerate opportunism Giuliani’s track record calls for legitimate suspicion.
Let Giuliani win, and 2008 could easily become George Orwell’s 1984 in full blossom. Some people believe that things have to get worse in America before they get better. The question remains how much worse are we willing to let them become before things are beyond repair? Do we need to wait for 100 million people to not have health insurance as opposed to 50? Will it take a war with Iran and possibly Venezuela for us to be fed up with self-righteous “preemptive wars” against countries our leaders cannot prove are a legitimate threat to “our way of life”? Do we need more infringement on our civil liberties by the Patriot Act? (Another truly Orwellian term in itself). Would it require energy corporations to damage the ozone layer further to really heat things up for the public? How much will we stand before we take a stand, and demand the same from our out of touch elected officials? If they cannot serve the needs of the people, than they are no longer any use to the people. The middle classes, who serve as a buffer to the wealthy, are beginning to feel the systemic burn and are starting to wake up in small numbers. However, the public needs to realize that our problems are not a mere question of White House personnel. At bottom, our interests as a nation do not, cannot, and will never coincide with that of the corporate class. It’s a systemic issue. In the words of Martin Luther King, “maybe it’s time we move towards a Democratic Socialism.” If so, maybe Giuliani, should he be the winner in 08, will be the last step toward the implantation of barbarism with a “human face.” Or the final wake-up call to turn the tide.
Bush’s Wooden-headedness Kills By Ray McGovern
By Ray McGovern
consortiumnews.com
July 18, 2007
President George W. Bush is convinced, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that he is on the right course in the war in Iraq and the struggle against terrorism. He says he will not change his mind.
Thus, we are at an historic moment; and we would be well advised to see what light historians might shed on our current predicament in Iraq and the basic (but unanswered) question as to why so many people resort to terrorism against us.
Historian Barbara Tuchman addressed the kind of situation we face at this juncture in our country’s history in her best-selling book, “The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam.” (Had she lived, she surely would have updated the book to take Iraq into account.)
Tuchman wrote: “Wooden-headedness…plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts.”
Tuchman referred in this context to Philip II of Spain (who ruled in the 16th century) as the Nobel-laureate woodenhead of all time: “No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential excellence.”
Comparisons, I know, can be invidious, but Philip amassed too much power and drained state revenues by failed adventures overseas, leading to Spain’s decline.
Sadly, Tuchman, who died in 1989, cannot opine as to whether history will see George W. Bush as having displaced Philip as supreme woodenhead. Bush would have a good shot at it, it seems to me.
In her book, Tuchman emphasized that courtiers can reinforce the ruler’s certitude, as was the case with Philip, and is the now the case with George.
And if the courtiers are really good at it, they are awarded the Medal of Freedom—as was the case with former CIA director George Tenet, former Army General Tommy Franks, and former U.S. proconsul in Baghdad Paul Bremer—each of whom richly deserved a Heck of a job, Brownie-type salute.
As Tuchman pointed out: “Once a policy has been adopted and implemented, all subsequent activity becomes an effort to justify it…Adjustment is painful. For the ruler it is easier, once he has entered the policy box, to stay inside. For the lesser official it is better…not to make waves, not to press evidence that the chief will find painful to accept. Psychologists call the process of screening out discordant information ‘cognitive dissonance,’ an academic disguise for ‘Don’t confuse me with the facts.’”
Bush’s genius is that he knows this instinctively—without having to take Tuchman’s book to read in Crawford. And, by all signs, he likes it that way. That is why he has assembled a truly amazing array of sycophants around him, whose only pedigree is loyalty to George W. Bush.
And that is precisely why we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), in our first Memorandum for the President (Feb. 5, 2003), closed with this admonition: “After watching Secretary Powell today [giving his speech at the U.N.], we are convinced that you would be better served if you widened the discussion beyond violations of Resolution 1441, and beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”
Our views, and those of others—like Scott Ritter, who knew more about what had happened to Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” than virtually anyone—made no dent in the wooden head.
Not that the president really believed there were such weapons there. If he did, he was badly misled by Vice President Dick Cheney, who was well aware that the “evidence,” such as it was, was bogus.
Senior White House officials told my former colleagues at CIA eight months before the war that they needed to focus on “regime change,” not WMD. And the White House did not wish to hear any more about the absence of WMD from CIA’s super-source, who happened to be the Iraqi foreign minister, whom CIA operations officers had “turned” to work in place for us.
Latest Ooga Booga! Nuke Secrets Stolen (video) + National lab worker accused of stealing secrets
JULY 19, 2007 MSNBC
National lab worker accused of stealing secrets
Contract employee allegedly stole classified information, tried to sell it
NBC News
Updated: 42 minutes ago
WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors on Thursday accused a low-level contract worker at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory — birthplace of the nuclear bomb — with stealing highly classified information about how to make enriched uranium, a key ingredient in nuclear weapons.
The suspect was allegedly caught trying to sell it to someone he thought was representing another country, someone who turned out to be an undercover FBI agent. Federal officials will not say which country the agent was pretending to represent.
Federal officials told NBC News that the suspect worked as a contract employee at East Tennessee Technology Park, located on the Oak Ridge reservation.
Dandelion Salad 