http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0404290089apr29,1,4516177.column
Bush reaping the benefits of journalistic professionalism
Covering an inarticulate president
Why is the press protecting George W. Bush?
You heard me right, Russ. And Larry. And Byron. And all the rest of you folks who pen those jeering notes to me every day about anti-Bush bias in the Tribune's news reports.
Why is the Democrat-loving, Republican-hating, pond scum-swilling, lower-than-the-rug-on-the-floor, biased, liberal [curl upper lip when pronouncing] press protecting George W. Bush?
You don't believe it's happening? Well, then, tell me about the furor over W's speech last week to a joint meeting in Washington of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Newspaper Association of America.
You didn't hear about it?
That's the proof.
If the press were not protecting Bush, you'd have read in your Chicago Tribune--or Washington Post or New York Times or Wall Street Journal or USA Today--that he delivered one of the most confusing, inarticulate public addresses since ... well, some people would say since his press conference a week earlier.
As it was, those hopelessly biased reporters who cover Bush overlooked the mangled syntax, penetrated the rhetorical fog and extracted some usable lines from the dross and manufactured stories that had the president sounding, if not quite statesmanlike, then at least intelligible.
The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller led with Bush's response to a poll that showed the majority of Americans expect another terrorist attack in the U.S. before the November election. "Well, I understand why they think they're going to get hit again," Bush was quoted as saying. "This is a hard country to defend."
The Washington Post focused on his remarks about Iran's effort to acquire nukes. "The Iranians need to feel the pressure from the world that any nuclear weapons program will be uniformly condemned--it's essential that they hear that message," the president was quoted.
Neither The Wall Street Journal nor the Tribune carried a story about the speech per se, although the Tribune carried an Associated Press story that wove one quote from the speech into a story on the unexpectedly high costs of the Iraqi excursion. "The Iraqi people are looking at Americans and saying, `Are we going to cut and run again?'" the quote ran. "And we're not going to cut and run if I'm in the Oval Office."
I can't prove it, but I would bet that most of the editors and publishers went away from the speech wondering why Bush, who long ago proved that he is no extemporaneous speaker, hadn't ordered up an address for the occasion from his stable of White House speechwriters. I heard more than one of those in attendance say the same thing: "He wasted an opportunity."
But you didn't read about any of that, because the reporters, trained to seek meaning and the meaningful in any utterance by the president, focused on what could be understood.
Bush has benefited from this journalistic professionalism throughout his presidency. In a column almost two years ago, in July 2002, I quoted the complaint of a reader who claimed we had misquoted the president's statement in a press conference denying any "`malfeasance' in his business dealings prior to becoming president."
"The word that he actually used ... sounded to me something like `misfeance'--something which is not a word in any dictionary I've ever seen," the reader, Sean Barnawell of Chicago, wrote. "I feel the Tribune should not be in the business of `cleansing' what the president says in order to make him sound more articulate than he is."
I replied thus: "Ideally, we would have a president so articulate that we would never be in doubt as to what he said. In reality, we have one who regularly mispronounces. ... This confronts us with the question whether our purpose is to transmit to readers what the president means when he speaks out or to simply relate what he says. I have always felt that transmitting meaning is paramount. .."
And so "nuculer" becomes "nuclear" in the newspaper. And "misfeance," unknown to any dictionary, becomes "malfeasance," because an experienced White House reporter has learned to translate Bushspeak.
Bush benefits from the reporters' professionalism. And his cheering section jeers from the sidelines about journalistic "bias."
The investigation continues
In response to queries from outside the Tribune and within, let me assure you that the review of Uli Schmetzer's past work is going forward. My colleague Margaret Holt and I continue to read stories, marking those that seem to merit additional attention and turning them over to a researcher in the paper's editorial library for deeper investigation. Those that merit even deeper attention after that will get it. But it would be imprudent of me at this stage to suggest when the investigation will be finished.
----------
Don Wycliff is the Tribune's public editor. He listens to readers' concerns and questions about the paper's coverage and writes weekly about current issues in journalism. His e-mail address is dwycliff@tribune.com. The views expressed are his own.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it." - Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud (America's No. 1 Publicist in the 1920's)
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/response/
Mel Gibson’s Passion and Fascism’s Piety of Pain
By Matthew Fox
Many years ago, after finishing doctoral studies in Paris, I spent a semester at the University of Munster in Germany. While there I lived in a Dominican convent which housed about six other Dominicans, one of whom was old and very strange and never appeared during the day time at meals or for any other reason. He seemed only to go out at night. One day I was asked to go in his room to fetch a book and I was amazed to see the books on his bookshelf (including Mein Kampf). I was especially amazed by a “holy card” on his prie dieu (a place where one kneels to pray). This “holy card” was the most gory I had ever seen, with Jesus depicted as thoroughly bloodied, beaten, abused and victimized. I later learned that this Dominican priest with the gory holy card was a self-appointed “chaplain to the Nazi’s of Munster”. The year was 1970.
As I sat and watched Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ,” with its unrelenting emphasis on blood and gore I had a déjà vu experience as I vividly recalled this Dominican priest and his particular form of piety. Gibson set out his intentions for his film in an interview: “I want to push you over the edge, push you right over the edge, so you can stay there and hang out with and get to a higher plane… through the pain.” Piety as pain, pain as piety. This movie opens a door on fascist piety which is pain-driven.
The piety of fascism is inevitably a piety of pain and suffering (thus the complete fascination with redemption and total refusal to entertain grace and original blessing) and it manifests itself in full bloody form in this movie. Gibson is allegedly a member of Opus Dei, a secretive Catholic sect of wealthy men whose spirituality is deeply fascistic. Its founder, a Spanish priest named Escriva, whom the Pope rushed into canonization two years ago in record time, was a card carrying fascist who actually praised Adolph Hitler and who was also deeply sexist. Two of his Opus Dei members served on Franco’s cabinet. The present pope has taken this religious order under his wing (his own press secretary is a member of Opus Dei) and has appointed many Opus Dei bishops and cardinals (especially in Latin America after decimating the liberation theology and base communities there). They have constructed an $81 million edifice in Manhattan and are ensconced in the financial capitals of Europe, especially in Frankfurt, which is replacing Switzerland as the financial capital of Europe.
One Peruvian I met told about growing up in an Opus Dei household and how his father forbade him to be alone at any time with his mother and sisters. Thus as a boy he lived on the streets and never went home before 8pm, when his father would most likely be home from work. (Boys could not be alone in the house with females of any age—so much for sexual common sense.) In addition, the family prayed the rosary on their knees on upturned bottle caps and were expected to bleed. Piety of pain indeed. Not, alas, the pain of the world—the suffering of others that can be relieved by acts of compassion—but self-inflicted pain.
In many ways the film is a monument to sadomasochism. By emphasizing the worst eighteen hours of Jesus’ life and leaving most of his teachings out of the movie, Gibson makes Jesus a victim rather than a martyr while removing Jesus’ passion for justice and substituting the term “passion” to mean passive victim.
Our culture is deeply engaged in sadomasochism—understood here as the haves lording over the have-nots. How so? Let’s take contemporary capitalism and the world distribution of wealth and power as an example: In the 1960s, the overall income of the richest 20 percent of the world’s population was thirty times that of the poorest 20 percent. Today, it is 224 times larger! In the 1960s, the richest 20 percent held 70 percent of the world’s revenues; in 1999 it was 85 percent. Today the income of the richest 225 people in the world is equal to the income of 3 billion poor people. The income of the three richest people in the world is equal to the collective national incomes of the poorest forty-nine countries! It would take no more than 5 per cent of the overall annual sales of arms in the world to feed all the starving children, to protect them from dying of preventable diseases, and to make basic education accessible to all.
Yet Gibson’s Jesus shows none of the passion for justice that served as a corrective to the sadomasochistic tendencies of his own culture and times, and barely opens the door to issues of soul and society that could serve as correctives to our culture and times. Where is the compassion, human dignity, and love that lie at the very heart of Christ’s teachings? You don’t cure sadomasochism with more sadomasochism and by legitimizing it with religious sentiment.
Gibson’s rejection of Vatican II (which, among other things, apologized for the church’s long and sorry history of blaming Jesus’ death on the Jews and its primary role in fueling anti-Semitism over the centuries), gives one a sense of where his piety lies. I lived for one year, unknowingly, in Paris with a family that was “integriste” or extreme right wing Catholics who like Gibson would only attend Mass in Latin and who like Gibson rejected Vatican II. They said that “Vatican II was a Jewish and Freemason conspiracy.” Thoroughly anti-Semite, they denied that Jesus was Jewish.
Gibson tells us that people who object to his movie are actually objecting to the Gospels, but in fact the movie owes much more to the medieval practice of the Stations of the Cross which is a practice of meditating on Jesus’ trial, his carrying of the cross to his crucifixion and a nineteenth century nun’s visions named Anne Catherine Emmerich than it does to the Gospels. It is in the Stations of the Cross practice that we are told Jesus fell three times; that Veronica wiped his face with a veil; etc.—all scenes graphically depicted in the film. Mixing all of the gospels into one narrative, as Gibson does, is artistic license but it is not history. The gospels themselves lack historicity, as in their muddling of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and their bias against Judaism stems from the fact that they were written after the fall of the Temple, long after Jesus’ death. They also let Pontius Pilate off the hook (which this movie does in spades).
Religious imagery is not a private matter; it is a profoundly public matter. Medieval mystic Meister Eckhart said that “all the names we give to God come from an understanding of ourselves.” If we apply this insight to this film, we learn that the images Gibson gives to Christ reveal much about himself. As one viewer said, they reveal a tough childhood supposedly when his father must have taken him to the woodshed with a belt and a whipping. The point being that the God represented in this film is not a God whom I would want to worship in any form whatsoever or whom I could recommend others worship.
It is no wonder, then, that this film is being seen by so many Christian groups whose piety is built more on fear than it is on love and hope, more on sin than on blessing, more on victimization than on liberation. It provides a logical haven for fall/redemption religious world views. No wonder Gibson leaves out so much of the message of Jesus: It is not compatible with fascism which is about control and not justice, about power-over, not power-with (compassion).
It is one of the signs of our times that new generations born since the defeat of fascism in World War II (and the attempt to throw off fascism in the Catholic Church in the Second Vatican Council), know very little about fascism. I recently met a twenty-six year old college graduate who did not know what fascism was. It is a scandal that our Congress appropriates millions of dollars to build monuments to the heroes of World War II but apparently very little to educate youth (or itself?) about the lessons to be learned from the purpose of that war: To defeat fascism.
Susan Sontag has defined fascism as “institutionalized violence.” I would define it as authoritarianism, an authoritarianism that swamps all else--conscience, community, human rights, justice—and that in the process legitimizes violence. Fascism is a philosophy of disempowerment based on fear, power over (sadism), power under (masochism), victimhood, and scapegoating. Fascism seems to need religion and even religious piety to wrap around itself and render feelings of pious sentiment and self-righteousness. Its God is the God of Authoritarianism. (Cardinal Ratzinger, the present pope’s right hand man and current inquisitor general, is a devote of authoritarianism. It is in this context that the late theologian Dorothy Soelle wrote of a new “Christofascism” coming to the fore in our day.
Recently a political scientist, Dr. Lawrence Britt, wrote an article naming fourteen characteristics of fascism. He based his study on an examination of the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and Pinochet. (For the record, we need to remind ourselves that four of these men were Roman Catholics never excommunicated by their church—all except Suharto.) A summary of Britt’s points follow.
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism employing constant use of patriotic slogans, symbols, songs, flags.
2. Disdain for the recognition of human rights because security needs outweigh human rights which can be ignored.
3. Using enemies as scapegoats for a unifying cause.
4. Supremacy of the military.
5. Rampant sexism including more rigid gender roles and anti-gay legislation.
6. Controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security driven by a politics of fear.
8. Religion and Government are intertwined especially in rhetoric employed by its leaders.
9. Corporate power is protected—industrial and business aristocracies put government leaders into power and keep them there creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor power, which represents one of the few threats to fascism, is suppressed.
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts and hostility to higher education along with censorship of arts or refusal to support the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent Elections.
One does not have to be a paranoid to see these elements alive and well in the USA in 2004. To encourage this through pious film-making underscores the danger. Perhaps we can thank Mel Gibson for opening up possibilities to discuss fascism once again including its strange mix of politics and very strange religious notions. One wonders who will be the beneficiary of Mr. Gibson’s billion dollar profit on the crucifixion of Jesus? Will it lead to more Opus Dei bishops in North America? More mixing of right-wing politics and right-wing religion and right-wing media? Stay tuned.
In the multi million dollar campaign to get churches to support this movie, a four-color flyer was sent to most churches in the country that boasted the following headline: “Dying was Jesus’ Reason For Living.” It is difficult to imagine a slogan more contradictory to the facts of Jesus’ life or his teaching or indeed of that of the Christ who in John’s gospel says: “I have come that you may have life and have it in abundance.” Mel Gibson ought to read the great spiritual genius Ernest Holmes who writes: “The will of God is never toward suffering. Man must constantly reaffirm his belief in the Infinite Goodness if he expects to exclude the idea of evil from his thought….God’s Will is always toward Life and more Life…the life within you is God”. Holmes got Jesus’ message right. But the slogan Gibson invokes, “Dying was Jesus’ reason for living,” sick as it is, tells the true story about this film and the piety behind it. What we have here is a clear case of religion as necrophilia. From this movie we learn that necrophilia (love of death) is more important than biophilia (love of life).
Here lies the ultimate scare of the movie and its success. It speaks to and elicits from people in our culture a desire to wallow in necrophilia at the expense of biophilia. (I do not recall an ounce of biophilia much less humor in the movie.) I am reminded of the wise warning from Erich Fromm in his brilliant study on evil, An Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. He writes: “Necrophilia grows when biophilia is stunted.” And this is how evil is unleashed in the world. (Remember that the opposite of evil is not good; it is the Sacred.)
Russian Orthodox philosopher Nicolas Berdyaev warned about a “decadent humility” that “keeps humanity in a condition of repression and oppression, chaining its creative power.” And Rabbi Abraham Heschel reminded us that prophets do not become such from a life of asceticism but from passion for life. Clearly, a movie like this kills creativity and the prophetic spirit in its appeal to pain and gore.
The question of “who killed Jesus?” is a silly question in the sense that it was done 2000 years ago. NO ONE alive today killed Jesus. How could we? We were not there. We are fully capable of killing the Christ, however, that is the God-self (or Buddha nature) in all beings. We do this when we destroy rainforests, render species extinct, starve the children, refuse health care to the people, allow starvation and unjust distribution of the earth’s resources—in short when we ignore the teachings of Isaiah and Jesus and others about the need for justice and compassionate works. What a shame that Mel Gibson, with all his potential access to decent theologians and today’s contemporary scholarship about the healthy Jewish roots of the historical Jesus, chose to make a film based on false history, contradicting Gospels, anti-Semitic overtones, fascist piety and necrophilia. Hopefully, prophetic forces of biophilia will resist.
© 2004
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it." - Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud (America's No. 1 Publicist in the 1920's)
Mel Gibson’s Passion and Fascism’s Piety of Pain
By Matthew Fox
Many years ago, after finishing doctoral studies in Paris, I spent a semester at the University of Munster in Germany. While there I lived in a Dominican convent which housed about six other Dominicans, one of whom was old and very strange and never appeared during the day time at meals or for any other reason. He seemed only to go out at night. One day I was asked to go in his room to fetch a book and I was amazed to see the books on his bookshelf (including Mein Kampf). I was especially amazed by a “holy card” on his prie dieu (a place where one kneels to pray). This “holy card” was the most gory I had ever seen, with Jesus depicted as thoroughly bloodied, beaten, abused and victimized. I later learned that this Dominican priest with the gory holy card was a self-appointed “chaplain to the Nazi’s of Munster”. The year was 1970.
As I sat and watched Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ,” with its unrelenting emphasis on blood and gore I had a déjà vu experience as I vividly recalled this Dominican priest and his particular form of piety. Gibson set out his intentions for his film in an interview: “I want to push you over the edge, push you right over the edge, so you can stay there and hang out with and get to a higher plane… through the pain.” Piety as pain, pain as piety. This movie opens a door on fascist piety which is pain-driven.
The piety of fascism is inevitably a piety of pain and suffering (thus the complete fascination with redemption and total refusal to entertain grace and original blessing) and it manifests itself in full bloody form in this movie. Gibson is allegedly a member of Opus Dei, a secretive Catholic sect of wealthy men whose spirituality is deeply fascistic. Its founder, a Spanish priest named Escriva, whom the Pope rushed into canonization two years ago in record time, was a card carrying fascist who actually praised Adolph Hitler and who was also deeply sexist. Two of his Opus Dei members served on Franco’s cabinet. The present pope has taken this religious order under his wing (his own press secretary is a member of Opus Dei) and has appointed many Opus Dei bishops and cardinals (especially in Latin America after decimating the liberation theology and base communities there). They have constructed an $81 million edifice in Manhattan and are ensconced in the financial capitals of Europe, especially in Frankfurt, which is replacing Switzerland as the financial capital of Europe.
One Peruvian I met told about growing up in an Opus Dei household and how his father forbade him to be alone at any time with his mother and sisters. Thus as a boy he lived on the streets and never went home before 8pm, when his father would most likely be home from work. (Boys could not be alone in the house with females of any age—so much for sexual common sense.) In addition, the family prayed the rosary on their knees on upturned bottle caps and were expected to bleed. Piety of pain indeed. Not, alas, the pain of the world—the suffering of others that can be relieved by acts of compassion—but self-inflicted pain.
In many ways the film is a monument to sadomasochism. By emphasizing the worst eighteen hours of Jesus’ life and leaving most of his teachings out of the movie, Gibson makes Jesus a victim rather than a martyr while removing Jesus’ passion for justice and substituting the term “passion” to mean passive victim.
Our culture is deeply engaged in sadomasochism—understood here as the haves lording over the have-nots. How so? Let’s take contemporary capitalism and the world distribution of wealth and power as an example: In the 1960s, the overall income of the richest 20 percent of the world’s population was thirty times that of the poorest 20 percent. Today, it is 224 times larger! In the 1960s, the richest 20 percent held 70 percent of the world’s revenues; in 1999 it was 85 percent. Today the income of the richest 225 people in the world is equal to the income of 3 billion poor people. The income of the three richest people in the world is equal to the collective national incomes of the poorest forty-nine countries! It would take no more than 5 per cent of the overall annual sales of arms in the world to feed all the starving children, to protect them from dying of preventable diseases, and to make basic education accessible to all.
Yet Gibson’s Jesus shows none of the passion for justice that served as a corrective to the sadomasochistic tendencies of his own culture and times, and barely opens the door to issues of soul and society that could serve as correctives to our culture and times. Where is the compassion, human dignity, and love that lie at the very heart of Christ’s teachings? You don’t cure sadomasochism with more sadomasochism and by legitimizing it with religious sentiment.
Gibson’s rejection of Vatican II (which, among other things, apologized for the church’s long and sorry history of blaming Jesus’ death on the Jews and its primary role in fueling anti-Semitism over the centuries), gives one a sense of where his piety lies. I lived for one year, unknowingly, in Paris with a family that was “integriste” or extreme right wing Catholics who like Gibson would only attend Mass in Latin and who like Gibson rejected Vatican II. They said that “Vatican II was a Jewish and Freemason conspiracy.” Thoroughly anti-Semite, they denied that Jesus was Jewish.
Gibson tells us that people who object to his movie are actually objecting to the Gospels, but in fact the movie owes much more to the medieval practice of the Stations of the Cross which is a practice of meditating on Jesus’ trial, his carrying of the cross to his crucifixion and a nineteenth century nun’s visions named Anne Catherine Emmerich than it does to the Gospels. It is in the Stations of the Cross practice that we are told Jesus fell three times; that Veronica wiped his face with a veil; etc.—all scenes graphically depicted in the film. Mixing all of the gospels into one narrative, as Gibson does, is artistic license but it is not history. The gospels themselves lack historicity, as in their muddling of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and their bias against Judaism stems from the fact that they were written after the fall of the Temple, long after Jesus’ death. They also let Pontius Pilate off the hook (which this movie does in spades).
Religious imagery is not a private matter; it is a profoundly public matter. Medieval mystic Meister Eckhart said that “all the names we give to God come from an understanding of ourselves.” If we apply this insight to this film, we learn that the images Gibson gives to Christ reveal much about himself. As one viewer said, they reveal a tough childhood supposedly when his father must have taken him to the woodshed with a belt and a whipping. The point being that the God represented in this film is not a God whom I would want to worship in any form whatsoever or whom I could recommend others worship.
It is no wonder, then, that this film is being seen by so many Christian groups whose piety is built more on fear than it is on love and hope, more on sin than on blessing, more on victimization than on liberation. It provides a logical haven for fall/redemption religious world views. No wonder Gibson leaves out so much of the message of Jesus: It is not compatible with fascism which is about control and not justice, about power-over, not power-with (compassion).
It is one of the signs of our times that new generations born since the defeat of fascism in World War II (and the attempt to throw off fascism in the Catholic Church in the Second Vatican Council), know very little about fascism. I recently met a twenty-six year old college graduate who did not know what fascism was. It is a scandal that our Congress appropriates millions of dollars to build monuments to the heroes of World War II but apparently very little to educate youth (or itself?) about the lessons to be learned from the purpose of that war: To defeat fascism.
Susan Sontag has defined fascism as “institutionalized violence.” I would define it as authoritarianism, an authoritarianism that swamps all else--conscience, community, human rights, justice—and that in the process legitimizes violence. Fascism is a philosophy of disempowerment based on fear, power over (sadism), power under (masochism), victimhood, and scapegoating. Fascism seems to need religion and even religious piety to wrap around itself and render feelings of pious sentiment and self-righteousness. Its God is the God of Authoritarianism. (Cardinal Ratzinger, the present pope’s right hand man and current inquisitor general, is a devote of authoritarianism. It is in this context that the late theologian Dorothy Soelle wrote of a new “Christofascism” coming to the fore in our day.
Recently a political scientist, Dr. Lawrence Britt, wrote an article naming fourteen characteristics of fascism. He based his study on an examination of the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and Pinochet. (For the record, we need to remind ourselves that four of these men were Roman Catholics never excommunicated by their church—all except Suharto.) A summary of Britt’s points follow.
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism employing constant use of patriotic slogans, symbols, songs, flags.
2. Disdain for the recognition of human rights because security needs outweigh human rights which can be ignored.
3. Using enemies as scapegoats for a unifying cause.
4. Supremacy of the military.
5. Rampant sexism including more rigid gender roles and anti-gay legislation.
6. Controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security driven by a politics of fear.
8. Religion and Government are intertwined especially in rhetoric employed by its leaders.
9. Corporate power is protected—industrial and business aristocracies put government leaders into power and keep them there creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor power, which represents one of the few threats to fascism, is suppressed.
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts and hostility to higher education along with censorship of arts or refusal to support the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent Elections.
One does not have to be a paranoid to see these elements alive and well in the USA in 2004. To encourage this through pious film-making underscores the danger. Perhaps we can thank Mel Gibson for opening up possibilities to discuss fascism once again including its strange mix of politics and very strange religious notions. One wonders who will be the beneficiary of Mr. Gibson’s billion dollar profit on the crucifixion of Jesus? Will it lead to more Opus Dei bishops in North America? More mixing of right-wing politics and right-wing religion and right-wing media? Stay tuned.
In the multi million dollar campaign to get churches to support this movie, a four-color flyer was sent to most churches in the country that boasted the following headline: “Dying was Jesus’ Reason For Living.” It is difficult to imagine a slogan more contradictory to the facts of Jesus’ life or his teaching or indeed of that of the Christ who in John’s gospel says: “I have come that you may have life and have it in abundance.” Mel Gibson ought to read the great spiritual genius Ernest Holmes who writes: “The will of God is never toward suffering. Man must constantly reaffirm his belief in the Infinite Goodness if he expects to exclude the idea of evil from his thought….God’s Will is always toward Life and more Life…the life within you is God”. Holmes got Jesus’ message right. But the slogan Gibson invokes, “Dying was Jesus’ reason for living,” sick as it is, tells the true story about this film and the piety behind it. What we have here is a clear case of religion as necrophilia. From this movie we learn that necrophilia (love of death) is more important than biophilia (love of life).
Here lies the ultimate scare of the movie and its success. It speaks to and elicits from people in our culture a desire to wallow in necrophilia at the expense of biophilia. (I do not recall an ounce of biophilia much less humor in the movie.) I am reminded of the wise warning from Erich Fromm in his brilliant study on evil, An Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. He writes: “Necrophilia grows when biophilia is stunted.” And this is how evil is unleashed in the world. (Remember that the opposite of evil is not good; it is the Sacred.)
Russian Orthodox philosopher Nicolas Berdyaev warned about a “decadent humility” that “keeps humanity in a condition of repression and oppression, chaining its creative power.” And Rabbi Abraham Heschel reminded us that prophets do not become such from a life of asceticism but from passion for life. Clearly, a movie like this kills creativity and the prophetic spirit in its appeal to pain and gore.
The question of “who killed Jesus?” is a silly question in the sense that it was done 2000 years ago. NO ONE alive today killed Jesus. How could we? We were not there. We are fully capable of killing the Christ, however, that is the God-self (or Buddha nature) in all beings. We do this when we destroy rainforests, render species extinct, starve the children, refuse health care to the people, allow starvation and unjust distribution of the earth’s resources—in short when we ignore the teachings of Isaiah and Jesus and others about the need for justice and compassionate works. What a shame that Mel Gibson, with all his potential access to decent theologians and today’s contemporary scholarship about the healthy Jewish roots of the historical Jesus, chose to make a film based on false history, contradicting Gospels, anti-Semitic overtones, fascist piety and necrophilia. Hopefully, prophetic forces of biophilia will resist.
© 2004
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it." - Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud (America's No. 1 Publicist in the 1920's)
Monday, April 26, 2004
Body Politics
Today's Feminist, It Turns Out, Looks Like a Lot of People -- Maybe a Million
By Hank Stuever
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 26, 2004; Page C01
Women were screaming and whooping as they got off the Orange Line deep down in the Smithsonian Metro station, and their happy, combative squeals bounced off the concrete corridors: It reminded you of the eighth-grade girls in PE class after that surprising upset victory against the boys in dodge ball, a noise that both enthralls and terrifies. Up the escalators and into the gray, slightly chilled Sunday midmorning, where there was --
Whoa.
Wouldja lookit.
A sea of pink. This was a lot of people already, and if you're surprised by the turnout, that could be because, like us, you've been watching the wrong channels of (or got confused by the cacophony of) the so-called American culture war. Perhaps you thought it was about Iraq, or gay marriage, or the FCC.
Your mistake. The March for Women's Lives, an impressive and congenial amassing of hundreds of thousands of abortion rights advocates held yesterday, succeeded where other lefty assemblages on the National Mall of late have stumbled: It felt both urgent and singularly focused on its cause, instead of coming at you jampacked with multiple issues and distracting freak shows.
This was a big multi-generational Vagina Monologue, starring everyone. The vibe of the day-long rally was at once good-humored and yet deadly serious. It was aggressive and even occasionally, almost delightfully, profane:
Not long after Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) welcomed the crowd and begged them to vote against President Bush this November, Lynda Carter (Wonder Woman! Always and forever! Her hair still dark brown and windblown, only she's in a white tennis visor this time, and a yellow windbreaker with pink top) took the mike and said the Amazing Amazon wouldn't stand for mixing church and state, and she'd escort the president "back to Texas."
Then a spoken-word poet stood onstage and waved her arms around and riffed on the Con-stitution, the coun-try, coun-ter-revolutions -- except in each of those c-words, please insert the naughty c-word. (The one we're not supposed to say in print.)
Now you're speaking the language of the modern movement. The only gift this White House administration has given the women's movement in the last four years, it seems, is a president surnamed Bush and vice president named Dick. This has meant limitless poster and T-shirt slogans, most all of them present yesterday. Lick it, stomp it, conquer it. Keep its laws off your body. Some of the elder women veterans of the abortion debate who marched tried to get into these more bawdy "Buck Fush"-type stylings of the day, but you could see them wince here and there.
And the young ones! Here was the 1990s "grrrl power" influence come to fruition on the new century's contentious poliscape. They have mastered the perfect combination of cute and powerful. Every obscene gesture or slogan or T-shirt comes with Magic-Markered flowers or bubbly lettering. There was a poster of an animated uterus with eyes and boxing gloves on each ovary, looking for a fight. Tight white and pink T-shirts, many of them declaring: "This Is What a Feminist Looks Like."
This is what a feminist looks like:
Like a Powerpuff Girl went to college and got tattoos and somehow managed to keep great skin. Like, with magenta stripes in her cascading curly hair. Walking around with a precious paper parasol, only with that pernicious c-word painted on top. Like the Mall had been turned into an enormous aisle of pink books filled with assertive heroines, a mixing of chick lit, "Charlie's Angels" and ferocious politics.
A Texas Republican comes into the White House, makes moves on an already humiliated welfare system, starts preaching an abstinence-only campaign. Of particular disdain to these Powerpuff Girls is the day last November, in the Ronald Reagan Building of all places, when the president sat onstage and (surrounded by nine, count 'em nine, white men in gray business suits -- Attorney General John Ashcroft, Sens. Rick Santorum and Orrin Hatch, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay -- you know, them) and signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. (The picture from this event seems especially tone-deaf to feminists: There wasn't one conservative woman who could have been up on that stage with those guys?)
It's that sort of climate that brought so many women out yesterday. They've had it.
Granted, a lot of them have always had it up to here with something. But there hadn't been an abortion-related demonstration of comparable size since before the 1992 election, and in listening to people in the crowd talk about why they were here, it felt as if 1992 might as well have been an ancient era. And Roe-vee-wade, 31 years ago and now its own evolved pronoun, even more ancient, and therefore more fragile.
And the guys! These could be, like, some of the best boyfriends and husbands ever. They all have perfect three-day stubble and look like Gideon Yago from MTV.
"I want all you guys to know your presence here will keep you safe in the upcoming feminist revolution," Gloria Steinem said from the stage at the post-march rally. (Steinem, who turned 70 last month and has grown her hair long again and was wearing a bright orange T-shirt with a star on one side and "Another Youth for Choice" on the back. She practically glowed as she looked out over the crowd and seemed to be almost gazing back at her life and career. The TV news stations were using the word "million" in reference to the turnout, calling it the largest in history -- even, she marveled, "Nineteenth-Century Fox.")
Many of the men were also wearing "This Is What a Feminist Looks Like" T-shirts. One Asian American guy had on a pink shirt that said "Cute Guys for Women's Lives," and he was cute, and they swooned and took pictures of him with their tiny cell phone cameras, then there was a guy in a shirt that read "Feminist Chicks Dig Me," then came a guy in a long pink sarong-style skirt with a white dress shirt and necktie and pink do-rag on his head.
Men chased toddlers across the long grass near the Museum of the American Indian, while their wives listened to the endless speeches from the directors and co-founders of the national organization for this and council for rights of that. There were guys on the make, who brought giant picnic lunches in backpacks, and offered women grapes in Ziploc bags and fresh-baked flat breads. Guys would hoist their girlfriends on their shoulders for a better view, or so they could wave their many signs. ("Leggo My Eggo" was a favorite.)
The march, you ask? The march sort of just happened, and it was more of a short stroll, up toward and then across the Ellipse, back down Pennsylvania, and past the brief row of antiabortion demonstrators standing behind the barricade gates with their huge pictures of fetuses. A guy with a megaphone kept chanting, "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do," over and over and over.
They marched back around to the Mall's east end, where a choir was singing about what the world would be like "if Ashcroft could get pregnant," then a rock band called Betty played a song, then the Indigo Girls, who introduced Whoopi Goldberg, who brandished a coat hanger, then introduced House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who was followed by Madeleine Albright.
Now throw Ted Turner up there. Now the movie actress Ashley Judd ("who was a women's studies major," Steinem effusively noted), then labor activist Dolores Huerta, still going strong, still making people chant "Si se puede," and Susan Sarandon, and Eleanor Smeal, all of them hoarse, exultant yelled-out voices.
Carole King came on just as the wind picked up, and reminded the crowd, a cappella, what it feels like when the earth moves under your feet. Such an old chestnut, this endless abortion debate, yet it all sounded somehow renewed.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Today's Feminist, It Turns Out, Looks Like a Lot of People -- Maybe a Million
By Hank Stuever
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 26, 2004; Page C01
Women were screaming and whooping as they got off the Orange Line deep down in the Smithsonian Metro station, and their happy, combative squeals bounced off the concrete corridors: It reminded you of the eighth-grade girls in PE class after that surprising upset victory against the boys in dodge ball, a noise that both enthralls and terrifies. Up the escalators and into the gray, slightly chilled Sunday midmorning, where there was --
Whoa.
Wouldja lookit.
A sea of pink. This was a lot of people already, and if you're surprised by the turnout, that could be because, like us, you've been watching the wrong channels of (or got confused by the cacophony of) the so-called American culture war. Perhaps you thought it was about Iraq, or gay marriage, or the FCC.
Your mistake. The March for Women's Lives, an impressive and congenial amassing of hundreds of thousands of abortion rights advocates held yesterday, succeeded where other lefty assemblages on the National Mall of late have stumbled: It felt both urgent and singularly focused on its cause, instead of coming at you jampacked with multiple issues and distracting freak shows.
This was a big multi-generational Vagina Monologue, starring everyone. The vibe of the day-long rally was at once good-humored and yet deadly serious. It was aggressive and even occasionally, almost delightfully, profane:
Not long after Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) welcomed the crowd and begged them to vote against President Bush this November, Lynda Carter (Wonder Woman! Always and forever! Her hair still dark brown and windblown, only she's in a white tennis visor this time, and a yellow windbreaker with pink top) took the mike and said the Amazing Amazon wouldn't stand for mixing church and state, and she'd escort the president "back to Texas."
Then a spoken-word poet stood onstage and waved her arms around and riffed on the Con-stitution, the coun-try, coun-ter-revolutions -- except in each of those c-words, please insert the naughty c-word. (The one we're not supposed to say in print.)
Now you're speaking the language of the modern movement. The only gift this White House administration has given the women's movement in the last four years, it seems, is a president surnamed Bush and vice president named Dick. This has meant limitless poster and T-shirt slogans, most all of them present yesterday. Lick it, stomp it, conquer it. Keep its laws off your body. Some of the elder women veterans of the abortion debate who marched tried to get into these more bawdy "Buck Fush"-type stylings of the day, but you could see them wince here and there.
And the young ones! Here was the 1990s "grrrl power" influence come to fruition on the new century's contentious poliscape. They have mastered the perfect combination of cute and powerful. Every obscene gesture or slogan or T-shirt comes with Magic-Markered flowers or bubbly lettering. There was a poster of an animated uterus with eyes and boxing gloves on each ovary, looking for a fight. Tight white and pink T-shirts, many of them declaring: "This Is What a Feminist Looks Like."
This is what a feminist looks like:
Like a Powerpuff Girl went to college and got tattoos and somehow managed to keep great skin. Like, with magenta stripes in her cascading curly hair. Walking around with a precious paper parasol, only with that pernicious c-word painted on top. Like the Mall had been turned into an enormous aisle of pink books filled with assertive heroines, a mixing of chick lit, "Charlie's Angels" and ferocious politics.
A Texas Republican comes into the White House, makes moves on an already humiliated welfare system, starts preaching an abstinence-only campaign. Of particular disdain to these Powerpuff Girls is the day last November, in the Ronald Reagan Building of all places, when the president sat onstage and (surrounded by nine, count 'em nine, white men in gray business suits -- Attorney General John Ashcroft, Sens. Rick Santorum and Orrin Hatch, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay -- you know, them) and signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. (The picture from this event seems especially tone-deaf to feminists: There wasn't one conservative woman who could have been up on that stage with those guys?)
It's that sort of climate that brought so many women out yesterday. They've had it.
Granted, a lot of them have always had it up to here with something. But there hadn't been an abortion-related demonstration of comparable size since before the 1992 election, and in listening to people in the crowd talk about why they were here, it felt as if 1992 might as well have been an ancient era. And Roe-vee-wade, 31 years ago and now its own evolved pronoun, even more ancient, and therefore more fragile.
And the guys! These could be, like, some of the best boyfriends and husbands ever. They all have perfect three-day stubble and look like Gideon Yago from MTV.
"I want all you guys to know your presence here will keep you safe in the upcoming feminist revolution," Gloria Steinem said from the stage at the post-march rally. (Steinem, who turned 70 last month and has grown her hair long again and was wearing a bright orange T-shirt with a star on one side and "Another Youth for Choice" on the back. She practically glowed as she looked out over the crowd and seemed to be almost gazing back at her life and career. The TV news stations were using the word "million" in reference to the turnout, calling it the largest in history -- even, she marveled, "Nineteenth-Century Fox.")
Many of the men were also wearing "This Is What a Feminist Looks Like" T-shirts. One Asian American guy had on a pink shirt that said "Cute Guys for Women's Lives," and he was cute, and they swooned and took pictures of him with their tiny cell phone cameras, then there was a guy in a shirt that read "Feminist Chicks Dig Me," then came a guy in a long pink sarong-style skirt with a white dress shirt and necktie and pink do-rag on his head.
Men chased toddlers across the long grass near the Museum of the American Indian, while their wives listened to the endless speeches from the directors and co-founders of the national organization for this and council for rights of that. There were guys on the make, who brought giant picnic lunches in backpacks, and offered women grapes in Ziploc bags and fresh-baked flat breads. Guys would hoist their girlfriends on their shoulders for a better view, or so they could wave their many signs. ("Leggo My Eggo" was a favorite.)
The march, you ask? The march sort of just happened, and it was more of a short stroll, up toward and then across the Ellipse, back down Pennsylvania, and past the brief row of antiabortion demonstrators standing behind the barricade gates with their huge pictures of fetuses. A guy with a megaphone kept chanting, "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do," over and over and over.
They marched back around to the Mall's east end, where a choir was singing about what the world would be like "if Ashcroft could get pregnant," then a rock band called Betty played a song, then the Indigo Girls, who introduced Whoopi Goldberg, who brandished a coat hanger, then introduced House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who was followed by Madeleine Albright.
Now throw Ted Turner up there. Now the movie actress Ashley Judd ("who was a women's studies major," Steinem effusively noted), then labor activist Dolores Huerta, still going strong, still making people chant "Si se puede," and Susan Sarandon, and Eleanor Smeal, all of them hoarse, exultant yelled-out voices.
Carole King came on just as the wind picked up, and reminded the crowd, a cappella, what it feels like when the earth moves under your feet. Such an old chestnut, this endless abortion debate, yet it all sounded somehow renewed.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Sunday, April 25, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/opinion/25DOWD.html
The Orwellian Olsens
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: April 25, 2004
WASHINGTON
It's their reality. We just live and die in it.
In Bushworld, our troops go to war and get killed, but you never see the bodies coming home.
In Bushworld, flag-draped remains of the fallen are important to revere and show the nation, but only in political ads hawking the president's leadership against terror.
In Bushworld, we can create an exciting Iraqi democracy as long as it doesn't control its own military, pass any laws or have any power.
In Bushworld, we can win over Falluja by bulldozing it.
In Bushworld, it was worth going to war so Iraqis can express their feelings ("Down With America!") without having their tongues cut out, although we cannot yet allow them to express intemperate feelings in newspapers ("Down With America!") without shutting them down.
In Bushworld, it's fine to take $700 million that Congress provided for the war in Afghanistan and 9/11 recovery and divert it to the war in Iraq that you're insisting you're not planning.
In Bushworld, you don't consult your father, the expert in being president during a war with Iraq, but you do talk to your Higher Father, who can't talk back to warn you to get an exit strategy or chide you for using Him for political purposes.
In Bushworld, it's O.K. to run for re-election as the avenger of 9/11, even as you make secret deals with the Arab kingdom where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.
In Bushworld, you get to strut around like a tough military guy and paint your rival as a chicken hawk, even though he's the one who won medals in combat and was praised by his superior officers for fulfilling all his obligations.
In Bushworld, it makes sense to press for transparency in Mr. and Mrs. Rival while cultivating your own opacity.
In Bushworld, you can reign as the antiterror president even after hearing an intelligence report about Al Qaeda's plans to attack America and then stepping outside to clear brush.
In Bushworld, those who dissemble about the troops and money it will take to get Iraq on its feet are patriots, while those who are honest are patronizingly marginalized.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq, even as they increasingly merge the two in America.
In Bushworld, you can claim to be the environmental president on Earth Day while being the industry president every other day.
In Bushworld, you brag about how well Afghanistan is going, even though soldiers like Pat Tillman are still dying and the Taliban are running freely around the border areas, hiding Osama and delaying elections.
In Bushworld, imperfect intelligence is good enough to knock over Iraq. But even better evidence that North Korea is building the weapons that Saddam could only dream about is hidden away.
In Bushworld, the C.I.A. says it can't find out whether there are W.M.D. in Iraq unless we invade on the grounds that there are W.M.D.
In Bushworld, there's no irony that so many who did so much to avoid the Vietnam draft have now strained the military so much that lawmakers are talking about bringing back the draft.
In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by fighting a war that creates terrorists.
In Bushworld, you don't need to bother asking your vice president and top Defense Department officials whether you should go to war in Iraq, because they've already maneuvered you into going to war.
In Bushworld, it's perfectly natural for the president and vice president to appear before the 9/11 commission like the Olsen twins.
In Bushworld, you expound on remaking the Middle East and spreading pro-American sentiments even as you expand anti-American sentiments by ineptly occupying Iraq and unstintingly backing Ariel Sharon on West Bank settlements.
In Bushworld, we went to war to give Iraq a democratic process, yet we disdain the democratic process that causes allies to pull out troops.
In Bushworld, you pride yourself on the fact that your administration does not leak to the press, while you flood the best-known journalist in Washington with inside information.
In Bushworld, you list Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" as recommended reading on your campaign Web site, even though it makes you seem divorced from reality. That is, unless you live in Bushworld.
E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com
The Orwellian Olsens
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: April 25, 2004
WASHINGTON
It's their reality. We just live and die in it.
In Bushworld, our troops go to war and get killed, but you never see the bodies coming home.
In Bushworld, flag-draped remains of the fallen are important to revere and show the nation, but only in political ads hawking the president's leadership against terror.
In Bushworld, we can create an exciting Iraqi democracy as long as it doesn't control its own military, pass any laws or have any power.
In Bushworld, we can win over Falluja by bulldozing it.
In Bushworld, it was worth going to war so Iraqis can express their feelings ("Down With America!") without having their tongues cut out, although we cannot yet allow them to express intemperate feelings in newspapers ("Down With America!") without shutting them down.
In Bushworld, it's fine to take $700 million that Congress provided for the war in Afghanistan and 9/11 recovery and divert it to the war in Iraq that you're insisting you're not planning.
In Bushworld, you don't consult your father, the expert in being president during a war with Iraq, but you do talk to your Higher Father, who can't talk back to warn you to get an exit strategy or chide you for using Him for political purposes.
In Bushworld, it's O.K. to run for re-election as the avenger of 9/11, even as you make secret deals with the Arab kingdom where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.
In Bushworld, you get to strut around like a tough military guy and paint your rival as a chicken hawk, even though he's the one who won medals in combat and was praised by his superior officers for fulfilling all his obligations.
In Bushworld, it makes sense to press for transparency in Mr. and Mrs. Rival while cultivating your own opacity.
In Bushworld, you can reign as the antiterror president even after hearing an intelligence report about Al Qaeda's plans to attack America and then stepping outside to clear brush.
In Bushworld, those who dissemble about the troops and money it will take to get Iraq on its feet are patriots, while those who are honest are patronizingly marginalized.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq, even as they increasingly merge the two in America.
In Bushworld, you can claim to be the environmental president on Earth Day while being the industry president every other day.
In Bushworld, you brag about how well Afghanistan is going, even though soldiers like Pat Tillman are still dying and the Taliban are running freely around the border areas, hiding Osama and delaying elections.
In Bushworld, imperfect intelligence is good enough to knock over Iraq. But even better evidence that North Korea is building the weapons that Saddam could only dream about is hidden away.
In Bushworld, the C.I.A. says it can't find out whether there are W.M.D. in Iraq unless we invade on the grounds that there are W.M.D.
In Bushworld, there's no irony that so many who did so much to avoid the Vietnam draft have now strained the military so much that lawmakers are talking about bringing back the draft.
In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by fighting a war that creates terrorists.
In Bushworld, you don't need to bother asking your vice president and top Defense Department officials whether you should go to war in Iraq, because they've already maneuvered you into going to war.
In Bushworld, it's perfectly natural for the president and vice president to appear before the 9/11 commission like the Olsen twins.
In Bushworld, you expound on remaking the Middle East and spreading pro-American sentiments even as you expand anti-American sentiments by ineptly occupying Iraq and unstintingly backing Ariel Sharon on West Bank settlements.
In Bushworld, we went to war to give Iraq a democratic process, yet we disdain the democratic process that causes allies to pull out troops.
In Bushworld, you pride yourself on the fact that your administration does not leak to the press, while you flood the best-known journalist in Washington with inside information.
In Bushworld, you list Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" as recommended reading on your campaign Web site, even though it makes you seem divorced from reality. That is, unless you live in Bushworld.
E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com
Saturday, April 24, 2004
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040423.html
A Controversial Choice for the Position of Archivist of the United States:
Part of the Bush Administration's Secrecy Strategy?
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Apr. 23, 2004
On April 8, the U. S. Senate received the President's nomination for a new Archivist of the United States -- historian Allen Weinstein. For most Americans, this is an obscure post. But the Weinstein nomination has rightly been gathering increasing attention.
Indeed, within the archival and historical communities, the nomination has sent sirens screaming and bells clanging. No fewer than nine professional organizations that deal with government records have expressed concern -- faulting Weinstein for his excessive secrecy.
As I have argued in my latest book, President Bush has had a problem with excessive secrecy for quite awhile. As Governor of Texas, he made sure to block any later access to his gubernatorial records. As President, he has tried to seal off the government from scrutiny in numerous ways.
Such secrecy is not a partisan matter. Rather, it is an issue of good government versus bad government -- and secrecy smells of bad government.
Why is President Bush so eager to switch archivists? Bruce Craig of the National Coalition for History explains that the Administration is likely motivated both by "the sensitive nature of certain presidential and executive department records expected to be opened in the near future," and also by "genuine concern in the White House that the president may not be re-elected."
Craig also notes that "in January 2005, the first batch of records (the mandatory 12 years of closure having passed) relating to the president's father's administration will be subject to the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and could be opened."
Finally, Craig (like many others) also reports that there is White House concern about the release of the 9/11 Commission records.
Bush's Earlier Texas Trick To Hide His Gubernatorial Records
Texas has one of the nation's strongest public information laws. But Governor Bush wanted to keep his papers secret anyway. Accordingly, in 1997, he sought and obtained a change in Texas law to help him do so.
The new law allows the governor to select a site for his papers other than the Texas State Library -- as long as it is in Texas. But the governor must first consult with the state's library and archives commission to make certain any alternative arrangement satisfied the state's open access law.
When Bush became president-elect, however, he simply sent his papers and records with no consultation whatsoever to his father's presidential library at Texas A&M University -- known as the most secretive of all the existing presidential libraries.
The result was, in effect, to federalize the papers and records, placing them in a legal limbo where no one could have access. Bush Senior's presidential library is run by the Federal Government -- specifically, the National Archives And Records Administration (NARA).
But Peggy Rudd, Director and Librarian of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, refused to accept Bush's designation of his father's library as the repository for his papers. Eventually, she procured a ruling by the Texas attorney general, making Bush's gubernatorial papers subject to the Texas Public Information Act -- whereupon they were sent to Austin for processing.
Soon, however, Texas Governor Perry -- Bush's friend and hand-picked successor -- and the new attorney general found new exceptions in the state's information law that they claim give them the keys to the relevant filing cabinets. Good luck to those seeking access.
Now it appears Bush is doing what he did in Texas, on a national level.
Gutting the 1978 Presidential Records Act
This effort began on November 1, 2001, when Bush issued Executive Order 13233. The Executive Order drew loud objections from not only historians and archivists, but also members of Congress -- who were highly critical of the Order in hearings. In the end, however, the Republican leaders quelled the grumbling, and Congress took no action.
The Executive Order gutted prior law -- specifically, the 1978 Presidential Records Act. The Order granted all former presidents, as well as any persons selected by them, an unprecedented authority to invoke executive privilege to block release of their records. In addition, it granted the power to invoke executive privilege to present and former vice-presidents as well.
Moreover, it shifts the burden to the requester to establish why he or she seeks the presidential records. (In contrast, the 1978 law properly put the burden on the former president who seeks to withhold them.) And Bush's Order empowers a current president to block release of a former president's records even when the former president wishes to release them. Finally, it makes the Department of Justice available to represent, in litigation, any incumbent or former president seeking to withhold information.
The public interest group Public Citizen filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Both sides have filed for summary judgment. So far, the court has not ruled.
Bush should lose the suit. A President should not be able to overturn a statute with an Executive Order -- especially when he is doing so in a self-interested bid to protect the secrecy of his own records.
Bush's Move To Appoint A New Archivist Again Ignores The Law
Bush's earlier moves to ensure records secrecy bring us to the most recent such bid: The President's nomination for Archivist of the United States. The Archivist will head NARA, which administers the 1978 Presidential Records Act -- so even if Bush loses in his attempt to protect his Executive Order in court, he may still preserve his records' secrecy if he manages to appoint a sympathetic enough Archivist.
The Archivist is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. A 1985 law makes NARA an independent agency within the executive branch.
That law says that an "Archivist may be removed from office by the President" when he "communicate[s] the reasons for any such removal to each House of the Congress." But President Bush seems to have effectively removed the incumbent Archivist, John Carlin, without following this procedure.
Carlin was appointed by President Clinton. Carlin had long given the impression that he planned to remain in his post for at least ten years -- that is, until at least 2005. Yet in December 2003, Carlin resigned -- apparently due to Bush Administration pressure. However, he has said he will stay until his successor is confirmed, so there is no vacancy.
The law also says that the President must appoint the Archivist "without regard to political affiliations and solely on the basis of the professional qualifications required to perform the duties and responsibilities of the office of Archivist."
Clinton didn't follow this provision: Carlin was a former Democratic governor of Kansas with no archival experience. Neither has Bush. Allen Weinstein is hardly a political neutral. Although he is a registered Democrat, he has close ties with conservative Republicans, and has become something of a champion of their Cold War views.
Both Presidents ought to be faulted for politicizing our nation's archival records and our history. And Clinton's wrong does not create a precedent for Bush to follow.
The U.S. Senate Should Withhold Its Consent
Just as no president could fill a Supreme Court vacancy this close to an election, similarly, President Bush should not be able to now fill the Archivist post -- particularly given Bush's record as the most secretive president this nation has ever had.
Under the rules of the U.S. Senate, any Senator can place a hold on a nomination. Hopefully, one (or more) will do just that -- insisting that this post be filled only after the election, and then demanding that the president comply with the law in filling it.
If Bush should lose, a lame duck president's appointments, obviously, are easily rejected. But should Bush win reelection, the Senate still must require the president comply with the law -- and make a non-political selection of a qualified future Archivist. Not only does our past require it, so does our future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the President.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it." - Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud (America's No. 1 Publicist in the 1920's)
A Controversial Choice for the Position of Archivist of the United States:
Part of the Bush Administration's Secrecy Strategy?
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Apr. 23, 2004
On April 8, the U. S. Senate received the President's nomination for a new Archivist of the United States -- historian Allen Weinstein. For most Americans, this is an obscure post. But the Weinstein nomination has rightly been gathering increasing attention.
Indeed, within the archival and historical communities, the nomination has sent sirens screaming and bells clanging. No fewer than nine professional organizations that deal with government records have expressed concern -- faulting Weinstein for his excessive secrecy.
As I have argued in my latest book, President Bush has had a problem with excessive secrecy for quite awhile. As Governor of Texas, he made sure to block any later access to his gubernatorial records. As President, he has tried to seal off the government from scrutiny in numerous ways.
Such secrecy is not a partisan matter. Rather, it is an issue of good government versus bad government -- and secrecy smells of bad government.
Why is President Bush so eager to switch archivists? Bruce Craig of the National Coalition for History explains that the Administration is likely motivated both by "the sensitive nature of certain presidential and executive department records expected to be opened in the near future," and also by "genuine concern in the White House that the president may not be re-elected."
Craig also notes that "in January 2005, the first batch of records (the mandatory 12 years of closure having passed) relating to the president's father's administration will be subject to the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and could be opened."
Finally, Craig (like many others) also reports that there is White House concern about the release of the 9/11 Commission records.
Bush's Earlier Texas Trick To Hide His Gubernatorial Records
Texas has one of the nation's strongest public information laws. But Governor Bush wanted to keep his papers secret anyway. Accordingly, in 1997, he sought and obtained a change in Texas law to help him do so.
The new law allows the governor to select a site for his papers other than the Texas State Library -- as long as it is in Texas. But the governor must first consult with the state's library and archives commission to make certain any alternative arrangement satisfied the state's open access law.
When Bush became president-elect, however, he simply sent his papers and records with no consultation whatsoever to his father's presidential library at Texas A&M University -- known as the most secretive of all the existing presidential libraries.
The result was, in effect, to federalize the papers and records, placing them in a legal limbo where no one could have access. Bush Senior's presidential library is run by the Federal Government -- specifically, the National Archives And Records Administration (NARA).
But Peggy Rudd, Director and Librarian of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, refused to accept Bush's designation of his father's library as the repository for his papers. Eventually, she procured a ruling by the Texas attorney general, making Bush's gubernatorial papers subject to the Texas Public Information Act -- whereupon they were sent to Austin for processing.
Soon, however, Texas Governor Perry -- Bush's friend and hand-picked successor -- and the new attorney general found new exceptions in the state's information law that they claim give them the keys to the relevant filing cabinets. Good luck to those seeking access.
Now it appears Bush is doing what he did in Texas, on a national level.
Gutting the 1978 Presidential Records Act
This effort began on November 1, 2001, when Bush issued Executive Order 13233. The Executive Order drew loud objections from not only historians and archivists, but also members of Congress -- who were highly critical of the Order in hearings. In the end, however, the Republican leaders quelled the grumbling, and Congress took no action.
The Executive Order gutted prior law -- specifically, the 1978 Presidential Records Act. The Order granted all former presidents, as well as any persons selected by them, an unprecedented authority to invoke executive privilege to block release of their records. In addition, it granted the power to invoke executive privilege to present and former vice-presidents as well.
Moreover, it shifts the burden to the requester to establish why he or she seeks the presidential records. (In contrast, the 1978 law properly put the burden on the former president who seeks to withhold them.) And Bush's Order empowers a current president to block release of a former president's records even when the former president wishes to release them. Finally, it makes the Department of Justice available to represent, in litigation, any incumbent or former president seeking to withhold information.
The public interest group Public Citizen filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Both sides have filed for summary judgment. So far, the court has not ruled.
Bush should lose the suit. A President should not be able to overturn a statute with an Executive Order -- especially when he is doing so in a self-interested bid to protect the secrecy of his own records.
Bush's Move To Appoint A New Archivist Again Ignores The Law
Bush's earlier moves to ensure records secrecy bring us to the most recent such bid: The President's nomination for Archivist of the United States. The Archivist will head NARA, which administers the 1978 Presidential Records Act -- so even if Bush loses in his attempt to protect his Executive Order in court, he may still preserve his records' secrecy if he manages to appoint a sympathetic enough Archivist.
The Archivist is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. A 1985 law makes NARA an independent agency within the executive branch.
That law says that an "Archivist may be removed from office by the President" when he "communicate[s] the reasons for any such removal to each House of the Congress." But President Bush seems to have effectively removed the incumbent Archivist, John Carlin, without following this procedure.
Carlin was appointed by President Clinton. Carlin had long given the impression that he planned to remain in his post for at least ten years -- that is, until at least 2005. Yet in December 2003, Carlin resigned -- apparently due to Bush Administration pressure. However, he has said he will stay until his successor is confirmed, so there is no vacancy.
The law also says that the President must appoint the Archivist "without regard to political affiliations and solely on the basis of the professional qualifications required to perform the duties and responsibilities of the office of Archivist."
Clinton didn't follow this provision: Carlin was a former Democratic governor of Kansas with no archival experience. Neither has Bush. Allen Weinstein is hardly a political neutral. Although he is a registered Democrat, he has close ties with conservative Republicans, and has become something of a champion of their Cold War views.
Both Presidents ought to be faulted for politicizing our nation's archival records and our history. And Clinton's wrong does not create a precedent for Bush to follow.
The U.S. Senate Should Withhold Its Consent
Just as no president could fill a Supreme Court vacancy this close to an election, similarly, President Bush should not be able to now fill the Archivist post -- particularly given Bush's record as the most secretive president this nation has ever had.
Under the rules of the U.S. Senate, any Senator can place a hold on a nomination. Hopefully, one (or more) will do just that -- insisting that this post be filled only after the election, and then demanding that the president comply with the law in filling it.
If Bush should lose, a lame duck president's appointments, obviously, are easily rejected. But should Bush win reelection, the Senate still must require the president comply with the law -- and make a non-political selection of a qualified future Archivist. Not only does our past require it, so does our future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the President.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it." - Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud (America's No. 1 Publicist in the 1920's)
Thursday, April 22, 2004
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001909054_earthday22.html
Reclaiming the vision of the first Earth Day
By Denis Hayes
Special to The Times
On the first Earth Day in 1970, 25 million people joined around the country to demand a safer, cleaner and healthier world, starting with the deplorable condition of many of their own neighborhoods.
Community activists articulated our collective outrage that day across the country. Charles Hayes, an African-American union leader who went on to represent one of the nation's poorest districts in Congress for 10 years, addressed a huge Chicago rally that day. "What we are discovering is that when poisons are thrown into the air by the steel mills, power plants and oil refineries, it is not just the workers in the plants, or the poor living in the shadow of the plants, who must breathe these poisons. It is all of us."
Freddie Mae Brown of Black Survival, in St. Louis, eloquently argued that the biggest environmental issues in her neighborhood were rats and lead paint.
Arturo Sandoval of La Raza told an Albuquerque Earth Day conference that "the humanity in all of us is being oppressed and destroyed by the very systems that we created to try to help us make life a little easier — to make it a little better."
You never see Hayes or Brown or Sandoval in the media's sepia-toned photos of the first Earth Day. Our collective memory is populated with white college professors, student radicals and dusty-footed flower children. Yet, thousands of events across the country were multi-hued and focused on a broad range of real-life issues: freeways dissecting neighborhoods; factories without pollution controls; tailpipes making our biggest cities unlivable.
Earth Day was also intensely political. Congress adjourned for the day — a Wednesday — so that members could go home and listen to their constituents. Some listened better than others. When Earth Day's organizers targeted the re-election of the "dirty dozen congressmen" that fall, seven were defeated and every American politician took note.
The impact of that first Earth Day was astonishing. In rapid succession, and with huge majorities, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and Superfund. Our anti-environment president, Richard Nixon, felt compelled to create the Environmental Protection Agency.
Thirty-four years later, our air is cleaner, our rivers no longer catch fire, the Great Lakes are returning to life and the bald eagle is no longer endangered.
However, the "movement" today is neither as strong nor as inclusive as it set out to be.
President Bush sees political value in trashing the environment — locally, nationally and globally. His anti-environmental policies generate huge campaign contributions, and his top political aides are convinced that the environmental movement lacks the muscle to force him to pay a price.
In truth, the environmental movement has been playing defense for the past three years, and it has been losing more often than it has been winning.
Environmentalists would be wise to discard the elitist values that characterize some green groups and reach out again to the original coalition of working people and poor people who stood together on that first Earth Day. Not just for this election, but from this day forward.
Childhood asthma rates are skyrocketing. In polluted parts of Harlem, more than a quarter of all children now have asthma, and the American Lung Association reports that asthma is now the leading chronic illness among children.
Many schools are in such desperate need of repair that they are an actual threat to our children's health and ability to learn. Shrinking school budgets mean that buildings are cleaned less frequently and ventilation systems are poorly maintained. Dust and mold build up, triggering asthma and allergies.
A lack of parks and a surplus of fast-food outlets in low-income areas have led to an epidemic of obesity. Nationally, the rate of obesity among American school-age children has doubled since 1980, from 8 percent to 16 percent.
The first Earth Day defined "the environment" as literally everything that surrounds us. We eat the environment. We drink the environment. We breathe the environment. In 1970, Earth Day included eagles and pesticides, but it went beyond those issues to talk about the overall quality of life. It was concerned with the health, diversity and resilience of all living things, including Homo sapiens.
We can and must reclaim that vision. By flexing our collective political muscle we can once again work together to fulfill that original promise to change the world. As it did 34 years ago, Earth Day can again provide common ground for all of us and find common cause with the people who live and work in those communities most at risk. Together, we can redefine the environmental movement as one founded on the belief that all of us deserve the same opportunity to live in healthy communities and are entitled to the same basic human rights.
Denis Hayes was national coordinator of the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. He headed the first International Earth Day in 1990. He is chairman of Earth Day Network. An environmental attorney, he is president and CEO of the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental philanthropy based in Seattle. This column represents his personal views.
Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company
Reclaiming the vision of the first Earth Day
By Denis Hayes
Special to The Times
On the first Earth Day in 1970, 25 million people joined around the country to demand a safer, cleaner and healthier world, starting with the deplorable condition of many of their own neighborhoods.
Community activists articulated our collective outrage that day across the country. Charles Hayes, an African-American union leader who went on to represent one of the nation's poorest districts in Congress for 10 years, addressed a huge Chicago rally that day. "What we are discovering is that when poisons are thrown into the air by the steel mills, power plants and oil refineries, it is not just the workers in the plants, or the poor living in the shadow of the plants, who must breathe these poisons. It is all of us."
Freddie Mae Brown of Black Survival, in St. Louis, eloquently argued that the biggest environmental issues in her neighborhood were rats and lead paint.
Arturo Sandoval of La Raza told an Albuquerque Earth Day conference that "the humanity in all of us is being oppressed and destroyed by the very systems that we created to try to help us make life a little easier — to make it a little better."
You never see Hayes or Brown or Sandoval in the media's sepia-toned photos of the first Earth Day. Our collective memory is populated with white college professors, student radicals and dusty-footed flower children. Yet, thousands of events across the country were multi-hued and focused on a broad range of real-life issues: freeways dissecting neighborhoods; factories without pollution controls; tailpipes making our biggest cities unlivable.
Earth Day was also intensely political. Congress adjourned for the day — a Wednesday — so that members could go home and listen to their constituents. Some listened better than others. When Earth Day's organizers targeted the re-election of the "dirty dozen congressmen" that fall, seven were defeated and every American politician took note.
The impact of that first Earth Day was astonishing. In rapid succession, and with huge majorities, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and Superfund. Our anti-environment president, Richard Nixon, felt compelled to create the Environmental Protection Agency.
Thirty-four years later, our air is cleaner, our rivers no longer catch fire, the Great Lakes are returning to life and the bald eagle is no longer endangered.
However, the "movement" today is neither as strong nor as inclusive as it set out to be.
President Bush sees political value in trashing the environment — locally, nationally and globally. His anti-environmental policies generate huge campaign contributions, and his top political aides are convinced that the environmental movement lacks the muscle to force him to pay a price.
In truth, the environmental movement has been playing defense for the past three years, and it has been losing more often than it has been winning.
Environmentalists would be wise to discard the elitist values that characterize some green groups and reach out again to the original coalition of working people and poor people who stood together on that first Earth Day. Not just for this election, but from this day forward.
Childhood asthma rates are skyrocketing. In polluted parts of Harlem, more than a quarter of all children now have asthma, and the American Lung Association reports that asthma is now the leading chronic illness among children.
Many schools are in such desperate need of repair that they are an actual threat to our children's health and ability to learn. Shrinking school budgets mean that buildings are cleaned less frequently and ventilation systems are poorly maintained. Dust and mold build up, triggering asthma and allergies.
A lack of parks and a surplus of fast-food outlets in low-income areas have led to an epidemic of obesity. Nationally, the rate of obesity among American school-age children has doubled since 1980, from 8 percent to 16 percent.
The first Earth Day defined "the environment" as literally everything that surrounds us. We eat the environment. We drink the environment. We breathe the environment. In 1970, Earth Day included eagles and pesticides, but it went beyond those issues to talk about the overall quality of life. It was concerned with the health, diversity and resilience of all living things, including Homo sapiens.
We can and must reclaim that vision. By flexing our collective political muscle we can once again work together to fulfill that original promise to change the world. As it did 34 years ago, Earth Day can again provide common ground for all of us and find common cause with the people who live and work in those communities most at risk. Together, we can redefine the environmental movement as one founded on the belief that all of us deserve the same opportunity to live in healthy communities and are entitled to the same basic human rights.
Denis Hayes was national coordinator of the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. He headed the first International Earth Day in 1990. He is chairman of Earth Day Network. An environmental attorney, he is president and CEO of the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental philanthropy based in Seattle. This column represents his personal views.
Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Kerry criticizes tying election to oil prices
April 20, 2004
BY MIKE GLOVER
LAKE WORTH, Fla. -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Monday blasted President Bush over a report that he struck a deal with Saudi officials to lower gasoline prices before the election.
The report came from journalist Bob Woodward, whose book about how the United States went to war in Iraq has created a furor. Woodward also contended that the Saudis were told about U.S. plans to attack Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell was.
Kerry, on a campaign stop in Florida, ripped Bush. ''If ... it is true that gas supplies and prices in America are tied to the American election, tied to a secret White House deal, that is outrageous and unacceptable to the American people,'' Kerry said. ''If this sounds wrong to you, that's because it is fundamentally wrong.''
CBS' ''60 Minutes'' reported that Woodward said Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, has promised Bush that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on Election Day.
''That's the Saudi pledge,'' Woodward told ''60 Minutes'' for a report on his book, Plan of Attack, to be released today. ''Certainly over the summer or as we get closer to the election they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.''
Asked if he could describe conversations between the White House and Bandar about lowering oil prices, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said only that Bandar had visited the White House on April 1 and pledged to protect the world economy from oil shocks. Bandar said Saudi Arabia would take actions to ensure that crude oil prices remain between $22 and $28 a barrel, ideally an average of $25, McClellan said.
Saudi foreign policy adviser Adel Al-Jubeir said Saudi Arabia doesn't interfere in elections and does ''not use oil for political purposes.''
Woodward also wrote in his book that Bandar was given advance information about U.S. plans to invade Iraq by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Bandar learned of the plans on Jan. 11, 2003, two days before Powell was told, Woodward said.
In a Jan. 11 meeting with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Bandar was shown a map laying out plans for attacking Iraq, Woodward writes in the book. The map was marked ''TOP SECRET NOFORN,'' meaning the classified material wasn't to be shown to non-U.S. officials, Woodward writes.
At the meeting, Bandar asked for assurances that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein wouldn't survive the war. Cheney responded, ''Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast,'' according to Woodward.
Woodward's assertion that Bandar was briefed on the war plans before Powell was ''not true,'' Bush supporter Ralph Reed said. Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, is Bush's campaign chairman for the southeastern United States.
AP, with Bloomberg News contributing
April 20, 2004
BY MIKE GLOVER
LAKE WORTH, Fla. -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Monday blasted President Bush over a report that he struck a deal with Saudi officials to lower gasoline prices before the election.
The report came from journalist Bob Woodward, whose book about how the United States went to war in Iraq has created a furor. Woodward also contended that the Saudis were told about U.S. plans to attack Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell was.
Kerry, on a campaign stop in Florida, ripped Bush. ''If ... it is true that gas supplies and prices in America are tied to the American election, tied to a secret White House deal, that is outrageous and unacceptable to the American people,'' Kerry said. ''If this sounds wrong to you, that's because it is fundamentally wrong.''
CBS' ''60 Minutes'' reported that Woodward said Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, has promised Bush that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on Election Day.
''That's the Saudi pledge,'' Woodward told ''60 Minutes'' for a report on his book, Plan of Attack, to be released today. ''Certainly over the summer or as we get closer to the election they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.''
Asked if he could describe conversations between the White House and Bandar about lowering oil prices, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said only that Bandar had visited the White House on April 1 and pledged to protect the world economy from oil shocks. Bandar said Saudi Arabia would take actions to ensure that crude oil prices remain between $22 and $28 a barrel, ideally an average of $25, McClellan said.
Saudi foreign policy adviser Adel Al-Jubeir said Saudi Arabia doesn't interfere in elections and does ''not use oil for political purposes.''
Woodward also wrote in his book that Bandar was given advance information about U.S. plans to invade Iraq by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Bandar learned of the plans on Jan. 11, 2003, two days before Powell was told, Woodward said.
In a Jan. 11 meeting with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Bandar was shown a map laying out plans for attacking Iraq, Woodward writes in the book. The map was marked ''TOP SECRET NOFORN,'' meaning the classified material wasn't to be shown to non-U.S. officials, Woodward writes.
At the meeting, Bandar asked for assurances that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein wouldn't survive the war. Cheney responded, ''Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast,'' according to Woodward.
Woodward's assertion that Bandar was briefed on the war plans before Powell was ''not true,'' Bush supporter Ralph Reed said. Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, is Bush's campaign chairman for the southeastern United States.
AP, with Bloomberg News contributing
Washington Post-ABC News Poll: War in Iraq and 2004 Elections
Monday, April 19, 2004
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone April 15-18, 2004 among 1,201 randomly selected adults nationwide. The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus three percentage points. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.
Poll Results
Friday, April 16, 2004
Why look how safe we are. Unguarded Iraq nuke materials pilfered
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3981804,00.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Some Iraqi nuclear facilities appear to be unguarded, and radioactive materials are being taken out of the country, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency reported after reviewing satellite images and equipment that has turned up in European scrapyards.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3981804,00.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Some Iraqi nuclear facilities appear to be unguarded, and radioactive materials are being taken out of the country, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency reported after reviewing satellite images and equipment that has turned up in European scrapyards.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
YEE HAW!!
Sing along folks to the tune of Beverly Hillbillies:
Come and listen to my story 'bout a boy named Bush.
His IQ was zero and his head was up his tush.
He drank like a fish while he drove a car about.
But that didn't matter 'cuz his daddy bailed him out.
DUI, that is.
Criminal record.
Cover-up.
Well, the first thing you know little Georgie goes to Yale.
He can't spell his name but they never let him fail.
He spends all his time hangin' out with student folk.
And that's when he learns how to snort a line of coke.
Blow, that is.
White gold.
Nose candy.
The next thing you know there's a war in Vietnam.
Kin folks say, "George, stay at home with Mom."
Let the common people get maimed and scarred.
We'll buy you up a spot in the Texas! National Guard.
Cush, that is.
Country clubs.
Nose candy.
Twenty years later George gets a little bored.
He trades in the booze, says that Jesus is his Lord.
He said, "Now the White House is the place I wanna be."
So he called his daddy's friends and they called the GOP.
Gun owners, that is.
Falwell.
Jesse Helms.
Come November 7, the election ran late.
Kin folks said "Jeb, give the boy your state!"
"Don't let those colored folks get anywhere near polls."
So they put up barricades so they couldn't punch their holes.
Chads, that is.
Duval County.
Miami-Dade.
Before the votes were counted all the five Supremes stepped in.
Told all the voters "Hey, we want our George to win."
"Stop counting votes!" was their solemn invocation.
And that's how little Georgie finally got his coronation.
Rigged, that is.
Illegitimate.
No moral authority.
Y'all come vote now.
Ya hear?
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/415309.html
Last Update: 14/04/2004 10:20
Expert: Iraq war's made flying more dangerous than ever
By Associated Press
SINGAPORE - The U.S.-led war in Iraq has made flying more dangerous than ever, by spurring Islamic militants to plot revenge attacks on civilian targets including commercial planes and airports, a terrorism expert warned Wednesday.
"After Iraq, the threat of terrorism has increased many hundreds of times," expert Rohan Gunaratna said at an aviation security conference in Singapore.
"The U.S. invasion of Iraq has given a new lease of life to these
organizations because terrorist groups depend on support," said Gunaratna, the author of a book on al-Qaida. "The grief and anger and suffering of Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere is being ably exploited by different terrorist and extremist groups."
Gunaratna warned of attacks on the aviation sector if security officials maintain routine measures. He urged aviation authorities to update and alter security measures "every few months" to prevent terrorism.
"If you don't change security measures, we're going to suffer another attack as Madrid has shown," he added, referring to the March 11 train bombings in Spain that killed over 190 people.
Gunaratna said there were between 30 to 40 al-Qaida-linked terror groups that could potentially launch an attack. He had predicted in January these groups would launch a major attack every three months.
Earlier at the conference, a Singapore official warned terrorists could use stowaways carrying explosives or weapons, or shoulder-fired missiles to bring down planes. He also said terrorists could send a bomb by cargo.
"Given the iconic status enjoyed by airports and airlines, it is paramount that all players in the global aviation industry continue to remain vigilant," the city-state's second minister for transport Balaji Sadasivansaid.
Singapore, a staunch U.S. ally, has placed air marshals on national carrier Singapore Airlines and sister company SilkAir and said it was developing a missile defense shield to prevent possible attacks from the sky.
In 2001, Singapore authorities said they broke up a plot by Islamic militants to fly a plane into the city-state's Changi Airport and blow up the U.S. Embassy here.
"We cannot afford to take any chances with our aviation sector, which accounts for as much as 9.2 percent of Singapore's gross domestic product," added Sadasivan. Singapore's GDP in 2003 was worth around 160 billion Singapore
dollars (US$95 billion).
Last Update: 14/04/2004 10:20
Expert: Iraq war's made flying more dangerous than ever
By Associated Press
SINGAPORE - The U.S.-led war in Iraq has made flying more dangerous than ever, by spurring Islamic militants to plot revenge attacks on civilian targets including commercial planes and airports, a terrorism expert warned Wednesday.
"After Iraq, the threat of terrorism has increased many hundreds of times," expert Rohan Gunaratna said at an aviation security conference in Singapore.
"The U.S. invasion of Iraq has given a new lease of life to these
organizations because terrorist groups depend on support," said Gunaratna, the author of a book on al-Qaida. "The grief and anger and suffering of Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere is being ably exploited by different terrorist and extremist groups."
Gunaratna warned of attacks on the aviation sector if security officials maintain routine measures. He urged aviation authorities to update and alter security measures "every few months" to prevent terrorism.
"If you don't change security measures, we're going to suffer another attack as Madrid has shown," he added, referring to the March 11 train bombings in Spain that killed over 190 people.
Gunaratna said there were between 30 to 40 al-Qaida-linked terror groups that could potentially launch an attack. He had predicted in January these groups would launch a major attack every three months.
Earlier at the conference, a Singapore official warned terrorists could use stowaways carrying explosives or weapons, or shoulder-fired missiles to bring down planes. He also said terrorists could send a bomb by cargo.
"Given the iconic status enjoyed by airports and airlines, it is paramount that all players in the global aviation industry continue to remain vigilant," the city-state's second minister for transport Balaji Sadasivansaid.
Singapore, a staunch U.S. ally, has placed air marshals on national carrier Singapore Airlines and sister company SilkAir and said it was developing a missile defense shield to prevent possible attacks from the sky.
In 2001, Singapore authorities said they broke up a plot by Islamic militants to fly a plane into the city-state's Changi Airport and blow up the U.S. Embassy here.
"We cannot afford to take any chances with our aviation sector, which accounts for as much as 9.2 percent of Singapore's gross domestic product," added Sadasivan. Singapore's GDP in 2003 was worth around 160 billion Singapore
dollars (US$95 billion).
Saturday, April 10, 2004
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/04/09/120.html
'Dark matter'
This summer, the human race will pass a sinister milestone. It will come quietly, creeping like a thief in the night--a starless night, the sky blanked by a minatory shadow.
For while the world's attn will be turned this July toward the bloody carnage erupting in Iraq after the illusory turnover of "sovereignty" by the still-entrenched occupation force, & riveted by the flood of sewage pouring from the WH as the prez campaign reaches critical mass, the US will break a long-held taboo & launch the 1st weapon into the global commons of outer space.
It's a small step, a test satellite called the "Near Field Infrared Experiment," set for launch--by a Minotaur missile, no less--this summer from a NASA base in VA. NFIRE is part of the bush Regime's multibillion-dollar, crony-feeding boondoggle known as "missile defense." The satellite's primary mission is to gather data on the exhaust fumes of rockets in space, info that will then be used to help future space weapons differentiate more clearly between a target & its trailing plume.
But NFIRE is itself weaponized, carrying a projectile-packed "kill vehicle" that can destroy passing missiles--or the satellites of the US' military & commercial rivals, as ABC News reported last wk. This marks the 1st time in history that any nation has put a weapon in space, despite [AmeriCo]'s still-official policy against such a practice. And as Pentagon officials made clear in an eye-opening presentation to Congress in Feb, NFIRE's test is just the 1st spark of a conflagration that will soon set the heavens ablaze with [AmeriCo] weaponry capable of striking--& destroying--any spot on earth. As one top Pentagon official--opposed to this lunatic proliferation, thus remaining anonymous--said: "We're crossing the Rubicon into space weaponization."
The ABC report--largely ignored, except by the Irish Examiner & some specialist web sites--was strangely incomplete, however. It noted only that there is a $68mn appropriation for NFIRE buried in the 2005 military budget--lvg the implication that the proj is still on the drawing board.
But in fact, NFIRE is already operational. It began in 8/02 & has moved steadily toward its long-est'd Summer 2004 launch date, according to NASA & press releases from the private contractors involved. The Pentagon's own published specs for the mission state clearly: "The Generation 2 kill vehicle will be integrated into the near-field experiment payload" when the spacecraft launches in summer 2004. The Minotaur missile that will haul the weapon into orbit was ordered by the Pentagon in 1/03, Orbital Sciences Corpo reports. Doubtless there will more NFIREs burning in 2005 as well, but the weaponization of space is not some distant prospect: That dark future is now.
And the boys in Space Command are just getting warmed up. They wowed the salivating bushist faithful in Congress with highly detailed plans for a whizbang space arsenal led by the "Rods From God" --bundles of tungsten rods fired from orbiting platforms, hurtling toward earth at 3,700 meters/sec, accurate within a range of 8 meters & able to destroy even the most hardened targets, the Center for Def Info reports. They c/b launched at only a few minutes' notice at any target on the planet.
"God's Rods" will be accompanied by orbiting lasers, "hunter-killer" satellites, & space bombers that needn't bother with silly-billy legal worries about "overflight rights" from other countries, but can descend out of the ether to swoop down on any uppity nation that displeases the world-Caesar in Wash.
This belligerent Buck-Rogering, long a gleam in many a militarist's eye, gained relentless momentum with the arrival of rumsfeld as Pentagon war chief. In the late 1990s, while helping cheney & wolfowitz plot their "Project for the New American Century"--wholesale militarization of US policy, aggressive war (incl the invasion of Iraq even if Hussein was no longer there), "global dominance" of "vital energy resources," etc--rumsfeld also headed a "blue-ribbon panel" of the usual Establishment worthies looking into "the role of space in natl sec." Their conclusion? You guessed it: Rummy said [AmeriCo] must garrison the heavens to prevent a--wait for it--"space Pearl Harbor."
Oddly enough, over at PNAC, at about the same time, rummy/cheney were speaking openly about the possibility of a "new Pearl Harbor" that wld "catalyze the American people" into supporting their plans, which were published in 9/00. Space weaponization--via "missile defense"--was an essential part of the scheme. Once in office, they shoveled billions to their favored def cartels & fast-tracked space-weapon programs. Indeed, rice intended to crown these early efforts with a major speech enshrining the bush Regime's "top priority" for natl sec: "missile defense."
Unfortunately, the speech--scheduled for 9/11/01--had to be canceled due to the "new Pearl Harbor" that struck that day, the Wash Post reported last wk. But the plan & its long-standing priorities--invasion of Iraq, military control of Central Asia, space weaponization--con't w/o missing a beat, tho clothed now in the expedient rhetoric of a "global war on terror."
Of course, with each passing day, bush's PNAC centerpiece--the rape of Iraq--is actually breeding more terror, more hatred for [AmeriCo], more risk for the people he rules with such ignorant, blood-flecked insouciance. But this doesn't matter; what matters is the plan, the dominance. And so space too must be conquered, at any cost, until the whole world is under cosmic military occupation--a global Fallujah, seething with chaos & fury.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
'Dark matter'
This summer, the human race will pass a sinister milestone. It will come quietly, creeping like a thief in the night--a starless night, the sky blanked by a minatory shadow.
For while the world's attn will be turned this July toward the bloody carnage erupting in Iraq after the illusory turnover of "sovereignty" by the still-entrenched occupation force, & riveted by the flood of sewage pouring from the WH as the prez campaign reaches critical mass, the US will break a long-held taboo & launch the 1st weapon into the global commons of outer space.
It's a small step, a test satellite called the "Near Field Infrared Experiment," set for launch--by a Minotaur missile, no less--this summer from a NASA base in VA. NFIRE is part of the bush Regime's multibillion-dollar, crony-feeding boondoggle known as "missile defense." The satellite's primary mission is to gather data on the exhaust fumes of rockets in space, info that will then be used to help future space weapons differentiate more clearly between a target & its trailing plume.
But NFIRE is itself weaponized, carrying a projectile-packed "kill vehicle" that can destroy passing missiles--or the satellites of the US' military & commercial rivals, as ABC News reported last wk. This marks the 1st time in history that any nation has put a weapon in space, despite [AmeriCo]'s still-official policy against such a practice. And as Pentagon officials made clear in an eye-opening presentation to Congress in Feb, NFIRE's test is just the 1st spark of a conflagration that will soon set the heavens ablaze with [AmeriCo] weaponry capable of striking--& destroying--any spot on earth. As one top Pentagon official--opposed to this lunatic proliferation, thus remaining anonymous--said: "We're crossing the Rubicon into space weaponization."
The ABC report--largely ignored, except by the Irish Examiner & some specialist web sites--was strangely incomplete, however. It noted only that there is a $68mn appropriation for NFIRE buried in the 2005 military budget--lvg the implication that the proj is still on the drawing board.
But in fact, NFIRE is already operational. It began in 8/02 & has moved steadily toward its long-est'd Summer 2004 launch date, according to NASA & press releases from the private contractors involved. The Pentagon's own published specs for the mission state clearly: "The Generation 2 kill vehicle will be integrated into the near-field experiment payload" when the spacecraft launches in summer 2004. The Minotaur missile that will haul the weapon into orbit was ordered by the Pentagon in 1/03, Orbital Sciences Corpo reports. Doubtless there will more NFIREs burning in 2005 as well, but the weaponization of space is not some distant prospect: That dark future is now.
And the boys in Space Command are just getting warmed up. They wowed the salivating bushist faithful in Congress with highly detailed plans for a whizbang space arsenal led by the "Rods From God" --bundles of tungsten rods fired from orbiting platforms, hurtling toward earth at 3,700 meters/sec, accurate within a range of 8 meters & able to destroy even the most hardened targets, the Center for Def Info reports. They c/b launched at only a few minutes' notice at any target on the planet.
"God's Rods" will be accompanied by orbiting lasers, "hunter-killer" satellites, & space bombers that needn't bother with silly-billy legal worries about "overflight rights" from other countries, but can descend out of the ether to swoop down on any uppity nation that displeases the world-Caesar in Wash.
This belligerent Buck-Rogering, long a gleam in many a militarist's eye, gained relentless momentum with the arrival of rumsfeld as Pentagon war chief. In the late 1990s, while helping cheney & wolfowitz plot their "Project for the New American Century"--wholesale militarization of US policy, aggressive war (incl the invasion of Iraq even if Hussein was no longer there), "global dominance" of "vital energy resources," etc--rumsfeld also headed a "blue-ribbon panel" of the usual Establishment worthies looking into "the role of space in natl sec." Their conclusion? You guessed it: Rummy said [AmeriCo] must garrison the heavens to prevent a--wait for it--"space Pearl Harbor."
Oddly enough, over at PNAC, at about the same time, rummy/cheney were speaking openly about the possibility of a "new Pearl Harbor" that wld "catalyze the American people" into supporting their plans, which were published in 9/00. Space weaponization--via "missile defense"--was an essential part of the scheme. Once in office, they shoveled billions to their favored def cartels & fast-tracked space-weapon programs. Indeed, rice intended to crown these early efforts with a major speech enshrining the bush Regime's "top priority" for natl sec: "missile defense."
Unfortunately, the speech--scheduled for 9/11/01--had to be canceled due to the "new Pearl Harbor" that struck that day, the Wash Post reported last wk. But the plan & its long-standing priorities--invasion of Iraq, military control of Central Asia, space weaponization--con't w/o missing a beat, tho clothed now in the expedient rhetoric of a "global war on terror."
Of course, with each passing day, bush's PNAC centerpiece--the rape of Iraq--is actually breeding more terror, more hatred for [AmeriCo], more risk for the people he rules with such ignorant, blood-flecked insouciance. But this doesn't matter; what matters is the plan, the dominance. And so space too must be conquered, at any cost, until the whole world is under cosmic military occupation--a global Fallujah, seething with chaos & fury.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/04/far04011.html
April 6, 2004
Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts
Predict a Terrorist Attack by November
by Maureen Farrell
On Dec. 31, 2003, New York Times columnist and former Nixon speech
writer William Safire offered his standard New Year’s predictions. This
time, however, one item stood out. In addition to speculating on
everything from which country would next "feel the force of U.S.
liberation" to who would win the best picture Oscar, Safire predicted
that "the 'October surprise' affecting the U.S. election" would be "a
major terror attack in the United States." [Salt Lake Tribune]
While such speculation is hardly worth a trip to the duct tape store,
when combined with repeated assaults to our democratic process and
troublesome assertions from noteworthy sources, it warrants further
investigation.
In Nov. 2003, you might recall, Gen. Tommy Franks told Cigar Aficionado
magazine that a major terrorist attack (even one that occurred elsewhere
in the Western world), would likely result in a suspension of the U.S.
Constitution and the installation of a military form of government. "[A]
terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western
world -- it may be in the United States of America -- [would cause] our
population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize
our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass,
casualty-producing event," he said. [NewsMax.com]
Right around the same time, former Clinton administration official David
Rothkopf made similarly distressing observations. In a Washington Post
op-ed entitled, "Terrorist Logic: Disrupt the 2004 Election," he
described a meeting in which nearly 75 percent of the professional
participants (characterized as "serious people, not prone to hysteria or
panic") also foresaw another terrorist attack occurring on American soil
before the next election. "Recently, I co-chaired a meeting hosted by
CNBC of more than 200 senior business and government executives, many of
whom are specialists in security and terrorism related issues," he
wrote. "Almost three-quarters of them said it was likely the United
States would see a major terrorist strike before the end of 2004."
[Washington Post]
Saying that "history suggests that striking during major elections is an
effective tool for terrorist groups," Rothkopf explained why terrorists
will most likely target us soon. And though he and Safire made these
observations months before terrorists changed Spain’s political
landscape, they were not alone in thinking along such lines. "Even
before the bombings in Madrid, White House officials were worrying that
terrorists might strike the United States before the November
elections," USA Today reported, before commenting on how terrorists
could "try the same tactics in the United States to create fear and
chaos." [USA Today]
The New York Times also reported on the possibility that Al Qaeda would
try to "influence the outcome of the election" by striking U.S. oil
refineries. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned the Texas
oil industry of potential attacks by Al Qaeda on pipelines and
refineries near the time of the November presidential election," the
Times reported. [New York Times]
MSNBC, CNN and other news organizations also chimed in, raising concerns
about this summer's political conventions. "In the wake of what happened
in Madrid, we have to be concerned about the possibility of terrorists
attempting to influence elections in the United States by committing a
terrorist act," FBI Director Robert Mueller told CNN. "Quite clearly,
there will be substantial preparations for each of the conventions."
[CNN]
Right-wing columnists and pundits have since (surprise, surprise) tried
to capitalize on such fears. "If a terrorist group attacked the U.S.
three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American
electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most
aggressively antiterror party?" David Brooks opined in the New York
Times on March 16, [Libertypost.org
before Richard Clarke revealed that the Clinton administration was actually
more "aggressively anti-terror" than the bumbling Bushes. (Could that be
why the Bush administration refuses to turn over thousands of pages of
the nearly 11,000 files on the Clinton administration’s antiterrorism
efforts?)
Sean Hannity twisted things further. "If we are attacked before our
election like Spain was, I am not so sure that we should go ahead with
the election," he reportedly said. "We had better make plans now because
it’s going to happen."
And, of course, what usurpation of democracy would be complete without
Rush Limbaugh weighing in? "Do [the terrorists] bide their time and
wait, or do they try to replicate their success in Spain here in America
before our election?" Limbaugh asked, before revealing how "titans of
industry," and "international business people (who do not outsource, by
the way)" were "very, very, very concerned" that one true party forever
rule the Fatherland.
"They all were seeking from me reassurance that the White House was safe
this year, that John Kerry would not win," Limbaugh said. "Who do you
think the terrorists would rather have in office in this country --
socialists like those in Spain as personified by John Kerry and his
friends in the Democratic Party, or George W. Bush?"
Saying that a pre-election terrorist attack is not a question of "if"
but "when," Limbaugh concluded that should anyone but Bush occupy the
White House, the terrorists will have won. [RushLimbaugh.com]
Given the bizarre mind-melding between the government and media and the
Soviet-style propagandizing that's been taking place, one has to wonder:
Is there is any significance in the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity and David Brooks are all beating the same tom-tom? As former
White House insider Richard Clarke recently told Jon Stewart, "[There
are] dozens of people, in the White House. . . writing talking points,
calling up conservative columnists, calling up talk radio hosts, telling
them what to say. It’s interesting. All the talk radio people, the right
wing talk radio people across the country, saying the exact same thing,
exactly the same words."
Stewart noted that a 24-hour news network was also making observations
that were "remarkably similar to what the White House was saying."
Even though Andrew Card admitted that "from a marketing point of view,
you don't introduce new products in August," in May, 2002, Wayne Madsen
and John Stanton revealed that the government’s marketing preparations
for the war were already underway, with U.S. Air Force scientists
consulting with CNN "to figure out how to gather and disseminate
information." [CounterPunch.org]
In an article entitled, "When the War Hits Home: U.S. Plans for Martial
Law, Tele-Governance and the Suspension of Elections," Madsen and
Stanton delved into the more frightening aspects of what might be in
store. "One incident, one aircraft hijacked, a 'dirty nuke' set off in a
small town, may well prompt the Bush regime, let's say during the
election campaign of 2003-2004, to suspend national elections for a year
while his government ensures stability," they wrote. "Many closed door
meetings have been held on these subjects and the notices for these
meetings have been closely monitored by the definitive www.cryptome.org."
To make matters worse, if martial law is imposed, Air Force General
Ralph E. Eberhart will be able to blast through Posse Comitatus and
deploy troops to America’s streets. Gen. Eberhart, yu might recall, is
the former Commander of NORAD, which was in charge of protecting
America’s skies on Sept. 11. But instead of being scrutinized for
NORAD’s massive failures, he was promoted and now heads the Pentagon's
Northern Command. And, as military analyst William M. Arkin explained,
"It is only in the case of 'extraordinary' domestic operations that
would enable Gen. Eberhart to bring in "intelligence collectors, special
operators and even full combat troops" to bear. What kind of situation
would have to occur to grant Eberhart "the far-reaching authority that
goes with 'extraordinary operations’"? Nothing. He already has that
authority. [Los Angeles Times]
Which brings us to the inevitable (and most important) question. How
primed is the American public to accept suspended elections, martial
law, or whatever else the White House decides to "market"?
Consider, for a moment, what an invaluable propaganda conduit the media
was during the lead up to war in Iraq -- and just how weird things have
become since. Howard Stern insists he was targeted by Clear Channel and
the FCC after speaking out against George Bush [BuzzFlash.com]; former White
House Aide Anna Perez (who worked under Condoleezza Rice and served as
former first lady Barbara Bush’s press secretary) is slated to become
chief communications executive for NBC; and MSNBC featured a story
entitled, "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq" on its Web site
only to have it disappear down the Memory Hole in the course of a few
hours. [TheMemoryHole.org]
Moreover, last year’s Clear Channel sponsorship of pro-war/pro-Bush
rallies was so Orwellian, that former Federal Communications
Commissioner Glen Robinson remarked, "I can't say that this violates any
of a broadcaster's obligations, but it sounds like borderline
manufacturing of the news." [Chicago Tribune]
Meanwhile, the mysterious Karen Ryan (of "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan
reporting" fakery fame [Journalism.NYU.edu])
was featured in the New York Times. "Federal investigators are
scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid
people to pose as journalists, praising the benefits of the new Medicare
law. . . , " the Times reported.
Need more proof that something is amiss? As of Feb. 5, 2004, CBS News
was still reporting that one of the hijackers' passports was "found on
the street minutes after the plane he was aboard crashed into the north
tower of the World Trade Center," [CBS] and
for far too long, pundits have taken to spreading White House rumors
without checking facts --while denying any White House connection once
these rumors prove false.
And most baffling of all, whenever anyone does tell the truth, a bevy of
Stepford Citizens reveal that they’d rather hear lies. After Richard
Clarke spilled the Bush beans on 60 Minutes, for example, the mail was
overwhelmingly negative -- with some writing that Clarke should be tried
for treason and others asking CBS, "Why can’t you be 'fair and balanced’
like FOX?" (Perhaps those viewers are denizens of the Free Republic Web
site, where posters actually pondered the question: "Should the US have
elections if attacked?" [FreeRepublic.com]
The most bizarre example of the White House’s dysfunctional domination
of the media, however, occurred last week -- with the surreal
controversy involving David Letterman and CNN. In case you missed it, on
Monday, Letterman showed a video clip which featured a bored, fidgety
kid standing behind George W. Bush, who was giving a speech in Orlando.
The next day, CNN also ran that clip, but anchor Daryn Kagan returned
from commercial break to inform viewers, "We're being told by the White
House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video."
Later, a second CNN anchor said that the boy was at the rally, but
wasn't necessarily standing behind George W. Bush.
"That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was
there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the
videotape," Letterman said on Tuesday.
"Explanations continued through Wednesday and Thursday, with Letterman
referring to "indisputable" and "very high-placed source" who told him
that the White House had, in fact, called CNN. "This is where it gets a
little hinky," Letterman said on Thursday, rehashing the back and forth
nonsense that played like a bad SNL sketch. "We were told that the White
House didn’t call CNN. That was the development the other day. So I’m
upset because I smell a conspiracy. I think something’s gone haywire. I
see this as the end of democracy as we know it; another one of them
Watergate kind of deals. And so, I’m shooting my mouth off and right in
the middle of the show, I’m handed a note that says 'No no no no, the
White House did not contact CNN. The White House did NOT call CNN.’ So
now I feel like "Oh, I guess I’m gonna do heavy time.’
"Ok, so now it gets a little confusing. So, the next day I’m told, 'Oh,
No. The White House DID contact CNN. . . . They WERE contacted by the
White House. They were trying to SHUT CNN up because they didn’t want to
make these people look ridiculous because they were big Republican fund
raisers and you know, I’m going to disappear mysteriously. In about
eight months, they’ll find my body in the trunk of a rental car.
"So now, we’re told, despite what everyone says. . . that this
high-ranking, high placed unidentified source says, "No No The White
House did call them."
Although he displayed his customary wit and joked throughout his
explanation, unless Letterman's acting skills extend far beyond those
displayed in Cabin Boy, there's no doubt that Letterman was serious when
he asserted that "despite what everyone says" the White House was
involved in this fiasco.
Meanwhile, CNN apologized and accepted the blame, letting the White
House off the hook.
While the Letterman episode is a lesson in abject absurdity, nearly two
years ago, Madsen and Stanton warned that following a major terrorist
attack, seditious web sites would be blocked (something that is already
happening to howardstern.com) and "the broadcast media would similarly
be required to air only that which has been approved by government
censors." (How will we know the difference?)
Though it seems surreal that people are actually wagering that another
terrorist attack will occur on our soil by November (and it’s even more
bizarre that on-air personalities are calling for the suspension of
elections), the fact that this un-elected gang who barreled into power
and forever changed the course of a nation, is so completely
untrustworthy makes the situation even more disturbing. On Sept 11,
2003, William Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News asked, "Why don’t we
have the answers to these 9/11 questions?" [The Philadelphia Daily News] before addressing a
variety of concerns, which, thanks to the 9/11 commission, are finally
making their way into our national consciousness. And now that another
whistle blower, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, has come forward, saying,
"'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qaeda would attack cities with
airplanes," [The Independent]
it’s clear we’ve been under attack for quite some time. [BuzzFlash.com]
But before the Madrid bombings; before Richard Clarke’s revelations;
before more whistleblowers peeked out from under the muck, David
Rothkopf made everything oh-so-clear. Writing about the "military
officers, policymakers, scientists, researchers and others who have
studied [terrorism] for a long time," he explained how the majority of
experts he spoke to not only predicted that the pre-election assaults
would "be greater than those of 9/11," but that any act of terrorism
would work in the President's favor. "It was the sense of the group that
such an attack was likely to generate additional support for President
Bush," he wrote.
Citing how "assaults before major votes have [traditionally] benefited
candidates who were seen as tougher on terrorists," Rothkopf catalogued
events in Israel, Russia, Turkey and Sri Lanka before explaining the
symbiotic relationship between terrorists and hardliners. "So why would
[terrorists] want to help [hardliners] win?" he asked. "Perhaps because
terrorists see the attacks as a win-win. They can lash out against their
perceived enemies and empower the hard-liners, who in turn empower them
as terrorists. How? Hard-liners strike back more broadly, making it
easier for terrorists as they attempt to justify their causes and their
methods."
William Safire’s and David Rothkopf's and three out of four experts'
speculations aside, there are those who believe that the Bible predicts
the ultimate battle between good and evil and that George Bush is doing
God’s work. But then again, the Bible also says that "the truth will
make you free."
And according to Bible Code author Michael Drosnin, there is another,
more mystical way to look at Biblical text, and he contends that the
Bible also predicts, you guessed it, that there will be another
terrorist attack in America in 2004.
Personally, I don’t give much credence to predictions, but when this
many people peer into the crystal ball and see Al Qaeda gearing up for
our presidential election, I take note -- especially given what’s
transpired since the last stolen election. [EricBlumrich.com]
So, what the heck. If others can do it, I can, too. So I’ll go out on a
limb a make a prediction of my own: If the truth continues to seep out
about the way the Bush administration has failed us, suspending the
election may be the only way Bush can win.
My darkest fear is that G.W.'s handlers believe this, too.
* * *
BuzzFlash Note: We're not sure what to make of this, but a BuzzFlash
Reader who works for the U.S. Government recently sent us this note:
"When I attempted to purchase a [BuzzFlash] premium on-line, I have
received the message from our 'computer police' that this site is
considered a HATE site and I am not allowed to purchase this material
online using government computers." Go figure. If anyone can verify this
information, we'd be exceptionally grateful.
Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in
helping other writers get television and radio exposure.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change
April 6, 2004
Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts
Predict a Terrorist Attack by November
by Maureen Farrell
On Dec. 31, 2003, New York Times columnist and former Nixon speech
writer William Safire offered his standard New Year’s predictions. This
time, however, one item stood out. In addition to speculating on
everything from which country would next "feel the force of U.S.
liberation" to who would win the best picture Oscar, Safire predicted
that "the 'October surprise' affecting the U.S. election" would be "a
major terror attack in the United States." [Salt Lake Tribune]
While such speculation is hardly worth a trip to the duct tape store,
when combined with repeated assaults to our democratic process and
troublesome assertions from noteworthy sources, it warrants further
investigation.
In Nov. 2003, you might recall, Gen. Tommy Franks told Cigar Aficionado
magazine that a major terrorist attack (even one that occurred elsewhere
in the Western world), would likely result in a suspension of the U.S.
Constitution and the installation of a military form of government. "[A]
terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western
world -- it may be in the United States of America -- [would cause] our
population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize
our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass,
casualty-producing event," he said. [NewsMax.com]
Right around the same time, former Clinton administration official David
Rothkopf made similarly distressing observations. In a Washington Post
op-ed entitled, "Terrorist Logic: Disrupt the 2004 Election," he
described a meeting in which nearly 75 percent of the professional
participants (characterized as "serious people, not prone to hysteria or
panic") also foresaw another terrorist attack occurring on American soil
before the next election. "Recently, I co-chaired a meeting hosted by
CNBC of more than 200 senior business and government executives, many of
whom are specialists in security and terrorism related issues," he
wrote. "Almost three-quarters of them said it was likely the United
States would see a major terrorist strike before the end of 2004."
[Washington Post]
Saying that "history suggests that striking during major elections is an
effective tool for terrorist groups," Rothkopf explained why terrorists
will most likely target us soon. And though he and Safire made these
observations months before terrorists changed Spain’s political
landscape, they were not alone in thinking along such lines. "Even
before the bombings in Madrid, White House officials were worrying that
terrorists might strike the United States before the November
elections," USA Today reported, before commenting on how terrorists
could "try the same tactics in the United States to create fear and
chaos." [USA Today]
The New York Times also reported on the possibility that Al Qaeda would
try to "influence the outcome of the election" by striking U.S. oil
refineries. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned the Texas
oil industry of potential attacks by Al Qaeda on pipelines and
refineries near the time of the November presidential election," the
Times reported. [New York Times]
MSNBC, CNN and other news organizations also chimed in, raising concerns
about this summer's political conventions. "In the wake of what happened
in Madrid, we have to be concerned about the possibility of terrorists
attempting to influence elections in the United States by committing a
terrorist act," FBI Director Robert Mueller told CNN. "Quite clearly,
there will be substantial preparations for each of the conventions."
[CNN]
Right-wing columnists and pundits have since (surprise, surprise) tried
to capitalize on such fears. "If a terrorist group attacked the U.S.
three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American
electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most
aggressively antiterror party?" David Brooks opined in the New York
Times on March 16, [Libertypost.org
before Richard Clarke revealed that the Clinton administration was actually
more "aggressively anti-terror" than the bumbling Bushes. (Could that be
why the Bush administration refuses to turn over thousands of pages of
the nearly 11,000 files on the Clinton administration’s antiterrorism
efforts?)
Sean Hannity twisted things further. "If we are attacked before our
election like Spain was, I am not so sure that we should go ahead with
the election," he reportedly said. "We had better make plans now because
it’s going to happen."
And, of course, what usurpation of democracy would be complete without
Rush Limbaugh weighing in? "Do [the terrorists] bide their time and
wait, or do they try to replicate their success in Spain here in America
before our election?" Limbaugh asked, before revealing how "titans of
industry," and "international business people (who do not outsource, by
the way)" were "very, very, very concerned" that one true party forever
rule the Fatherland.
"They all were seeking from me reassurance that the White House was safe
this year, that John Kerry would not win," Limbaugh said. "Who do you
think the terrorists would rather have in office in this country --
socialists like those in Spain as personified by John Kerry and his
friends in the Democratic Party, or George W. Bush?"
Saying that a pre-election terrorist attack is not a question of "if"
but "when," Limbaugh concluded that should anyone but Bush occupy the
White House, the terrorists will have won. [RushLimbaugh.com]
Given the bizarre mind-melding between the government and media and the
Soviet-style propagandizing that's been taking place, one has to wonder:
Is there is any significance in the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity and David Brooks are all beating the same tom-tom? As former
White House insider Richard Clarke recently told Jon Stewart, "[There
are] dozens of people, in the White House. . . writing talking points,
calling up conservative columnists, calling up talk radio hosts, telling
them what to say. It’s interesting. All the talk radio people, the right
wing talk radio people across the country, saying the exact same thing,
exactly the same words."
Stewart noted that a 24-hour news network was also making observations
that were "remarkably similar to what the White House was saying."
Even though Andrew Card admitted that "from a marketing point of view,
you don't introduce new products in August," in May, 2002, Wayne Madsen
and John Stanton revealed that the government’s marketing preparations
for the war were already underway, with U.S. Air Force scientists
consulting with CNN "to figure out how to gather and disseminate
information." [CounterPunch.org]
In an article entitled, "When the War Hits Home: U.S. Plans for Martial
Law, Tele-Governance and the Suspension of Elections," Madsen and
Stanton delved into the more frightening aspects of what might be in
store. "One incident, one aircraft hijacked, a 'dirty nuke' set off in a
small town, may well prompt the Bush regime, let's say during the
election campaign of 2003-2004, to suspend national elections for a year
while his government ensures stability," they wrote. "Many closed door
meetings have been held on these subjects and the notices for these
meetings have been closely monitored by the definitive www.cryptome.org."
To make matters worse, if martial law is imposed, Air Force General
Ralph E. Eberhart will be able to blast through Posse Comitatus and
deploy troops to America’s streets. Gen. Eberhart, yu might recall, is
the former Commander of NORAD, which was in charge of protecting
America’s skies on Sept. 11. But instead of being scrutinized for
NORAD’s massive failures, he was promoted and now heads the Pentagon's
Northern Command. And, as military analyst William M. Arkin explained,
"It is only in the case of 'extraordinary' domestic operations that
would enable Gen. Eberhart to bring in "intelligence collectors, special
operators and even full combat troops" to bear. What kind of situation
would have to occur to grant Eberhart "the far-reaching authority that
goes with 'extraordinary operations’"? Nothing. He already has that
authority. [Los Angeles Times]
Which brings us to the inevitable (and most important) question. How
primed is the American public to accept suspended elections, martial
law, or whatever else the White House decides to "market"?
Consider, for a moment, what an invaluable propaganda conduit the media
was during the lead up to war in Iraq -- and just how weird things have
become since. Howard Stern insists he was targeted by Clear Channel and
the FCC after speaking out against George Bush [BuzzFlash.com]; former White
House Aide Anna Perez (who worked under Condoleezza Rice and served as
former first lady Barbara Bush’s press secretary) is slated to become
chief communications executive for NBC; and MSNBC featured a story
entitled, "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq" on its Web site
only to have it disappear down the Memory Hole in the course of a few
hours. [TheMemoryHole.org]
Moreover, last year’s Clear Channel sponsorship of pro-war/pro-Bush
rallies was so Orwellian, that former Federal Communications
Commissioner Glen Robinson remarked, "I can't say that this violates any
of a broadcaster's obligations, but it sounds like borderline
manufacturing of the news." [Chicago Tribune]
Meanwhile, the mysterious Karen Ryan (of "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan
reporting" fakery fame [Journalism.NYU.edu])
was featured in the New York Times. "Federal investigators are
scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid
people to pose as journalists, praising the benefits of the new Medicare
law. . . , " the Times reported.
Need more proof that something is amiss? As of Feb. 5, 2004, CBS News
was still reporting that one of the hijackers' passports was "found on
the street minutes after the plane he was aboard crashed into the north
tower of the World Trade Center," [CBS] and
for far too long, pundits have taken to spreading White House rumors
without checking facts --while denying any White House connection once
these rumors prove false.
And most baffling of all, whenever anyone does tell the truth, a bevy of
Stepford Citizens reveal that they’d rather hear lies. After Richard
Clarke spilled the Bush beans on 60 Minutes, for example, the mail was
overwhelmingly negative -- with some writing that Clarke should be tried
for treason and others asking CBS, "Why can’t you be 'fair and balanced’
like FOX?" (Perhaps those viewers are denizens of the Free Republic Web
site, where posters actually pondered the question: "Should the US have
elections if attacked?" [FreeRepublic.com]
The most bizarre example of the White House’s dysfunctional domination
of the media, however, occurred last week -- with the surreal
controversy involving David Letterman and CNN. In case you missed it, on
Monday, Letterman showed a video clip which featured a bored, fidgety
kid standing behind George W. Bush, who was giving a speech in Orlando.
The next day, CNN also ran that clip, but anchor Daryn Kagan returned
from commercial break to inform viewers, "We're being told by the White
House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video."
Later, a second CNN anchor said that the boy was at the rally, but
wasn't necessarily standing behind George W. Bush.
"That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was
there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the
videotape," Letterman said on Tuesday.
"Explanations continued through Wednesday and Thursday, with Letterman
referring to "indisputable" and "very high-placed source" who told him
that the White House had, in fact, called CNN. "This is where it gets a
little hinky," Letterman said on Thursday, rehashing the back and forth
nonsense that played like a bad SNL sketch. "We were told that the White
House didn’t call CNN. That was the development the other day. So I’m
upset because I smell a conspiracy. I think something’s gone haywire. I
see this as the end of democracy as we know it; another one of them
Watergate kind of deals. And so, I’m shooting my mouth off and right in
the middle of the show, I’m handed a note that says 'No no no no, the
White House did not contact CNN. The White House did NOT call CNN.’ So
now I feel like "Oh, I guess I’m gonna do heavy time.’
"Ok, so now it gets a little confusing. So, the next day I’m told, 'Oh,
No. The White House DID contact CNN. . . . They WERE contacted by the
White House. They were trying to SHUT CNN up because they didn’t want to
make these people look ridiculous because they were big Republican fund
raisers and you know, I’m going to disappear mysteriously. In about
eight months, they’ll find my body in the trunk of a rental car.
"So now, we’re told, despite what everyone says. . . that this
high-ranking, high placed unidentified source says, "No No The White
House did call them."
Although he displayed his customary wit and joked throughout his
explanation, unless Letterman's acting skills extend far beyond those
displayed in Cabin Boy, there's no doubt that Letterman was serious when
he asserted that "despite what everyone says" the White House was
involved in this fiasco.
Meanwhile, CNN apologized and accepted the blame, letting the White
House off the hook.
While the Letterman episode is a lesson in abject absurdity, nearly two
years ago, Madsen and Stanton warned that following a major terrorist
attack, seditious web sites would be blocked (something that is already
happening to howardstern.com) and "the broadcast media would similarly
be required to air only that which has been approved by government
censors." (How will we know the difference?)
Though it seems surreal that people are actually wagering that another
terrorist attack will occur on our soil by November (and it’s even more
bizarre that on-air personalities are calling for the suspension of
elections), the fact that this un-elected gang who barreled into power
and forever changed the course of a nation, is so completely
untrustworthy makes the situation even more disturbing. On Sept 11,
2003, William Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News asked, "Why don’t we
have the answers to these 9/11 questions?" [The Philadelphia Daily News] before addressing a
variety of concerns, which, thanks to the 9/11 commission, are finally
making their way into our national consciousness. And now that another
whistle blower, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, has come forward, saying,
"'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qaeda would attack cities with
airplanes," [The Independent]
it’s clear we’ve been under attack for quite some time. [BuzzFlash.com]
But before the Madrid bombings; before Richard Clarke’s revelations;
before more whistleblowers peeked out from under the muck, David
Rothkopf made everything oh-so-clear. Writing about the "military
officers, policymakers, scientists, researchers and others who have
studied [terrorism] for a long time," he explained how the majority of
experts he spoke to not only predicted that the pre-election assaults
would "be greater than those of 9/11," but that any act of terrorism
would work in the President's favor. "It was the sense of the group that
such an attack was likely to generate additional support for President
Bush," he wrote.
Citing how "assaults before major votes have [traditionally] benefited
candidates who were seen as tougher on terrorists," Rothkopf catalogued
events in Israel, Russia, Turkey and Sri Lanka before explaining the
symbiotic relationship between terrorists and hardliners. "So why would
[terrorists] want to help [hardliners] win?" he asked. "Perhaps because
terrorists see the attacks as a win-win. They can lash out against their
perceived enemies and empower the hard-liners, who in turn empower them
as terrorists. How? Hard-liners strike back more broadly, making it
easier for terrorists as they attempt to justify their causes and their
methods."
William Safire’s and David Rothkopf's and three out of four experts'
speculations aside, there are those who believe that the Bible predicts
the ultimate battle between good and evil and that George Bush is doing
God’s work. But then again, the Bible also says that "the truth will
make you free."
And according to Bible Code author Michael Drosnin, there is another,
more mystical way to look at Biblical text, and he contends that the
Bible also predicts, you guessed it, that there will be another
terrorist attack in America in 2004.
Personally, I don’t give much credence to predictions, but when this
many people peer into the crystal ball and see Al Qaeda gearing up for
our presidential election, I take note -- especially given what’s
transpired since the last stolen election. [EricBlumrich.com]
So, what the heck. If others can do it, I can, too. So I’ll go out on a
limb a make a prediction of my own: If the truth continues to seep out
about the way the Bush administration has failed us, suspending the
election may be the only way Bush can win.
My darkest fear is that G.W.'s handlers believe this, too.
* * *
BuzzFlash Note: We're not sure what to make of this, but a BuzzFlash
Reader who works for the U.S. Government recently sent us this note:
"When I attempted to purchase a [BuzzFlash] premium on-line, I have
received the message from our 'computer police' that this site is
considered a HATE site and I am not allowed to purchase this material
online using government computers." Go figure. If anyone can verify this
information, we'd be exceptionally grateful.
Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in
helping other writers get television and radio exposure.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040406/ap_on_el_pr/iraq_poll_3
Poll Says Bush Is Losing Support on Iraq
Mon Apr 5,11:13 PM ET
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Public approval of President Bush (news - web sites)'s handling of Iraq (news - web sites) has slipped to a new low — alongside his overall job rating — after last week's grisly deaths of four contractors in Fallujah, a poll says.
Still, a majority supports his decision to use military force in Iraq, says the poll released Monday.
Four in 10, or 40 percent, approve of the way Bush is handling Iraq, while 53 percent disapprove. That's down from six in 10 who approved in mid-January, according to the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
Bush's overall job approval is at 43 percent, a low point for his presidency, down from 56 percent in mid-January. In the new poll, 47 percent disapproved of Bush's job performance. Bush's job approval soared to 90 percent after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and remained in the 70s for almost a year after that.
Public support for the decision to use military force in Iraq has not changed. The poll found that 57 percent think the United States made the right decision to use military force — about the same as in early February.
"People are sticking to their guns on whether this was the right decision, but they're beginning to feel a little more wary about how long our troops are exposed to these dangers," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "While they think this was the right thing to do, they don't think Bush is handling it very well."
Kohut suggested the drop in Bush's overall approval rating may be caused by a combination of domestic and overseas concerns. Public interest in high gas prices rose to 58 percent who said they were following the story very closely, compared with 47 percent who felt that way in mid- March.
"He's got bad news out of Iraq, interest in gasoline prices is soaring," Kohut said. He added that the effect of last Friday's report of more than 300,000 new jobs may not be evident in polls yet.
The poll of 790 adults was taken Thursday through Sunday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Half of those polled, 50 percent, said the United States should keep troops in Iraq until a stable government is formed there, while 44 percent said the U.S. should bring troops home as soon as possible. In January, 63 percent said the United States should keep troops in Iraq until there is a stable government.
Poll Says Bush Is Losing Support on Iraq
Mon Apr 5,11:13 PM ET
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Public approval of President Bush (news - web sites)'s handling of Iraq (news - web sites) has slipped to a new low — alongside his overall job rating — after last week's grisly deaths of four contractors in Fallujah, a poll says.
Still, a majority supports his decision to use military force in Iraq, says the poll released Monday.
Four in 10, or 40 percent, approve of the way Bush is handling Iraq, while 53 percent disapprove. That's down from six in 10 who approved in mid-January, according to the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
Bush's overall job approval is at 43 percent, a low point for his presidency, down from 56 percent in mid-January. In the new poll, 47 percent disapproved of Bush's job performance. Bush's job approval soared to 90 percent after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and remained in the 70s for almost a year after that.
Public support for the decision to use military force in Iraq has not changed. The poll found that 57 percent think the United States made the right decision to use military force — about the same as in early February.
"People are sticking to their guns on whether this was the right decision, but they're beginning to feel a little more wary about how long our troops are exposed to these dangers," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "While they think this was the right thing to do, they don't think Bush is handling it very well."
Kohut suggested the drop in Bush's overall approval rating may be caused by a combination of domestic and overseas concerns. Public interest in high gas prices rose to 58 percent who said they were following the story very closely, compared with 47 percent who felt that way in mid- March.
"He's got bad news out of Iraq, interest in gasoline prices is soaring," Kohut said. He added that the effect of last Friday's report of more than 300,000 new jobs may not be evident in polls yet.
The poll of 790 adults was taken Thursday through Sunday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Half of those polled, 50 percent, said the United States should keep troops in Iraq until a stable government is formed there, while 44 percent said the U.S. should bring troops home as soon as possible. In January, 63 percent said the United States should keep troops in Iraq until there is a stable government.
Sunday, April 04, 2004
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript314_full.html
Bill Moyers interview with JOHN DEAN/"Worse Than Watergate"
BILL MOYERS: You could barely keep up with the news about the 9/11
Commission this week. So tonight, we're going to talk to someone with a
long
range perspective...remember Watergate?
WATERGATE HEARINGS: "What did the President know and when did he know
it?"
BILL MOYERS: 1973: The Watergate hearings mesmerized the nation and
brought
down a President of the United States, Richard Nixon. The star witness
was a
thirty-three year old John W. Dean.
JOHN DEAN: I began by telling the president there was a cancer growing
on
the presidency, and if the cancer was not removed, the President
himself
would be killed by it.
BILL MOYERS: John Dean came to the White House in 1970 as Counsel to
the
President, joining a team that included the equally young Dick Cheney
and
Donald Rumsfeld.
When burglars hired by the Nixon Campaign for Re-election were caught
breaking into the offices of the Democratic National Committee, Dean's
role
was to see that they got their "hush money" and kept their mouths shut.
When
the conspiracy began to unravel and it appeared he would be made the
fall
guy, Dean agreed to co-operate with the investigation Richard Nixon
fired
him in April 1973. Two months later, he made his dramatic appearance
before
the Senate committee investigating the scandal.
After five days of his testimony and cross-examination, there was no
doubt
that the cover-up started at the top, with the president himself.
To escape impeachment, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. John Dean
pleaded
guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice and served four months in
prison.
Returning to private life, he began a successful career as an
investment
banker, lecturer and author. His books include three on the Nixon
administration - and now, this one, with the title: WORSE THAN
WATERGATE:
THE SECRET PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE W. BUSH.
BILL MOYERS: John Dean joins me now to talk about secrecy in the White
House.
Welcome to NOW.
JOHN DEAN: Thank you, Bill.
BILL MOYERS: Let's start with the news of the day. This morning we
learn
that President Bush has kept thousands of pages of secret documents
from the
Clinton years from being turned over to the commission investigating
the
9/11 attacks. What do you make of that?
JOHN DEAN: Well, I think it's very typical. I think it's very
consistent
with his pattern. It goes all the way back to when Cheney put together
his
Energy Task Force, for example, and put a shroud over that and has
refused,
adamantly, to release any information from that. This is just more of
that
pattern where this White House has decided they're going to take total
control of information.
And, they did it with the Joint Inquiry on Capitol Hill into 9/11. As
John
McCain said they were slow-walked and stonewalled on Capitol Hill by
the
administration. The families of 9/11 then urged that there be a
commission
created which we now have. And they've done the same thing. And brought
it
right into their own campaign.
BILL MOYERS: But these documents deal with al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden,
the
Clinton team's reaction to the terrorist attack. Why wouldn't they want
the
Congress the investigating commission to have that kind of information
if
they're trying to put the whole story together?
JOHN DEAN: Well, I'm not sure they want the whole story together.
There's
always a situation that when you deal with an investigation you can
either
be aggressive or you can be passive. You can be offensive or defensive.
They've decided to put them self in a defensive posture on this.
And I'm not sure that they haven't been forced to do it because they
have
something that they really don't want out about the way they've handled
it.
Mr. Clarke, his testimony indicates that they might have some things
that
they don't really wanna reveal to the public.
BILL MOYERS: Their efforts to stonewall, as you say, the investigations
have
failed. This is out today about they're holding back the documents from
the
Clinton years to the commission. But political pressure, public opinion
have
forced the testimony next week of Condoleezza Rice.
JOHN DEAN: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: So it's not working, is it?
JOHN DEAN: Well, it doesn't work.
They've obviously made a political decision that they cannot refuse to
let
Miss Rice testify. So he's agreed to let her do so. But there's still
more
information we don't know.
And he's also put, they put tight limits on her testimony. She's gonna
do 2
1/2 hours. That isn't a lot of testimony. That's really not a lot at
all.
BILL MOYERS: If Condoleezza Rice asked you to help her prepare for that
testimony, what advice would you give her?
JOHN DEAN: Well, I'd say give lots of opinions. Because opinions aren't
perjurious.
BILL MOYERS: They're not?
JOHN DEAN: No. They're not.
BILL MOYERS: Perjurious meaning?
JOHN DEAN: You're convicted of perjury for a false statement.
BILL MOYERS: Give me an example.
JOHN DEAN: Well, I'll give you an example with Clarke. Clarke has said
that
he can't believe that Bush is running on his record of terrorism.
That's
pure opinion. You can't be convicted for perjury on offering an opinion
like
that.
BILL MOYERS: You finished this book when? Back in January?
JOHN DEAN: I finished it in late-January.
BILL MOYERS: So, you actually finished the book before the last month
of
intense activities and disclosures, right?
JOHN DEAN: I did. But the pattern has been so consistent. And I wrote
the
book because no one's talking about these things. Now more with this
issue
has come up. But I, at times, felt sort of like a CIA analyst where I
would
take this fact, that fact, taking my inside knowledge as you could do
as a
former insider. And piecing it together and seeing patterns and
understanding what they're really doing. And that's what this book lays
out.
BILL MOYERS: You write that the administration has tried to block,
frustrate
or control any investigation into 9/11 using, quote, "well-proven
tactics
not unlike those used by the Nixon White House during Watergate." What
tactics?
JOHN DEAN: Stall. Stall. Stall.
We knew that at the Nixon White House. Some of these are time-tested
tactics. When the Congress put together its joint inquiry, a joint
inquiry
itself was self-defeating because it's much more difficult for a joint
inquiry with its size, the lack of attention its staff can give to a
group
that large. It gets diffuse.
BILL MOYERS: So when you testified in Congress in the 70's there was a
Senate Investigating Committee and a House Judiciary Committee, right?
JOHN DEAN: Right. Separate committees. Exactly. And they can get much
more
focused. So it was very effective. And Cheney and Bush were very
involved.
They didn't want any of the standing committees to do it. They put them
together. And that was one of the first signs I saw that they're just
playing it by… I think they found an old playbook down in the basement
that
belonged to Richard Nixon. And they said, "Well, this stuff looks like
it
works."
BILL MOYERS: Be specific with me. What is worse than Watergate?
JOHN DEAN: If there's anything that really is the bottom line, it's
taking
the nation to war in a time when they might not have had to go to war
and
people dying. That is worse than Watergate. No one died for Nixon's
so-called Watergate abuses.
BILL MOYERS: Let me go right to page 155 of your book. You write,
quote,
"The evidence is overwhelming that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney
have
engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an
impeachable offense."
JOHN DEAN: Absolutely is. The founders in the debates in the states. I
cite
one. I cite one that I found, I tracked down after reading the Nixon
impeachment proceedings when Congressman Castenmeyer had gone back to
look
to see what the founders said about misrepresentations and lying to the
the
Congress. Clearly, it is an impeachable offense. And I think the case
is
overwhelming that these people presented false information to the
Congress
and to the American people.
BILL MOYERS: John, I was, as you know, in the Johnson White House at
the
time of the Gulf of Tonkin when LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam on the
basis of misleading information. He said there was an attack in the
Gulf of
Tonkin. It subsequently turns out there wasn't an attack.
Many people said then and have said that LBJ deceived the country and
concealed the escalation of the war. You even say in the book that he
hoodwinked Congress. Are you saying that that was not an impeachable
offense
but what is happening now is?
JOHN DEAN: No. I'm saying that was an impeachable offense. In fact, it
comes
up in the Nixon debates over whether the secret bombing would be an
impeachable offense. That became a non-high crime or offense because
Nixon
had, in fact, told privately some members of the Congress. Johnson
didn't
tell anybody he was - the game he was playing to my knowledge.
And these are probably the most serious offenses that you can make when
you
take a country to war, blood and treasure, no higher decision can a
President of the United States make as the Commander-in-Chief. To do it
on
bogus information, to use this kind of secrecy to do it is intolerable.
BILL MOYERS: After Congress delegated the authority to the President to
go
to war, it said, "Only, however, if you meet these two conditions. As
you
prove to us, you come back to us and determine that Iraq was involved
with
terrorism with al-Qaeda. And that there are weapons of mass
destruction."
And you say that Bush did not satisfy those two requirements?
JOHN DEAN: He did not. He explained. Had he merely sent his very
general
letter saying, "This is what I've determined." Keeping it very broad,
not
how he determined it or why he deterined it, he might have been all
right.
But he accompanied that with an explanation of how he had done so. And
it's
a bogus explanation.
BILL MOYERS: Secrecy always accompanies war. Presidents can't do their
job,
frankly, in war, without secrecy. Citizens come to take their
government's
word that secrecy is essential.
JOHN DEAN: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: Is the war on terrorism going to confirm people in the
tolerance of secrecy?
JOHN DEAN: The Bush-Cheney secrecy started long before 9-11. Started
long
before there was war. There has been only an acceleration and a use,
and to
me, an abuse, of secrecy using 9-11 as an excuse to make things secret
that
have no business being secret. This is what presidents do.
BILL MOYERS: You're especially agitated in here by what you call the
dirtiest of dirty tricks, the role of the government in revealing that
Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plane Wilson, was a covert CIA
agent.
JOHN DEAN: As dirty a trick as I've ever seen, bar none.
BILL MOYERS: Dirtier than Nixon's?
JOHN DEAN: Dirtier. Nixon put no hits out on anybody that I nor did he
pick
on his enemies' wives. And this clearly was a dangerous leak. This
woman,
they knew she was at the CIA. They may or may not have known how much,
how
deeply involved she was. But there was always that risk when you reveal
the
identity of a CIA agent, particularly who's an operative.
BILL MOYERS: And you're satisfied this came from within the
administration?
JOHN DEAN: There's no doubt in my mind. Where else could it have come
from?
Who else has privy to that kind of information? Who else tried to fan
the
fires once it got out there? They were after Wilson for telling the
truth
about whether or not Saddam Hussein had uranium from Africa. And it was
not
a true statement that the President was relying on in this effort to go
to
war.
JOHN DEAN: We don't have all the details. There's a grand jury that's
now
investigating that. Which, incidentally, Bill if that grand jury
doesn't go
beyond just the staff, and talk to and somehow get statements from both
the
President and the Vice President as to what they knew and when they
knew it
because this has been kept buried. And it has all the scent, but not
quite
the smell yet, of cover-up going on in there.
BILL MOYERS: In fact, you claim that this potentially involves a
criminal
conspiracy. Help me to understand that.
JOHN DEAN: Well, if it takes very little to create a criminal
conspiracy. If
you and I agree here this morning that we're gonna rob a bank, and you
say,
"Well, that sounds good to me," and I don't really tell you I go out
and do
it, you're just as guilty as I am. And it doesn't-- and oh, you can
join a
conspiracy as it goes along.
Obstruction of justice is probably one of the broadest, most
ill-defined
federal offenses I know of. I learned about it the painful way. I never
had
thought I wasn't trained as a criminal lawyer. I learned my criminal
law the
hard way. In fact, that was my one mistake. You needed, in that
particular
presidency, to be a very good criminal lawyer.
But, the point I'm making is that, you know, they have walked into a
potential situation by not trying to flush it out right away. And Bush,
for
example, saying, "I don't think they'll ever catch the leaker." That's
sending signals. Keep it you know, keep your head down.
BILL MOYERS: It's potentially a criminal conspiracy, isn't it, because
two
or more officials are involved?
JOHN DEAN: That's right.
BILL MOYERS: And the WASHINGTON POST has said, without identifying
anybody,
that there were at least two officials involved in this leak.
JOHN DEAN: That's right.
BILL MOYERS: You and I both worked for Presidents who were obsessed
with
secrecy. I mean, Lyndon Johnson could be paranoid about leaks. And you
write
in your book that of all the Cold War Presidents, none was more
secretive
than Nixon who, himself, admitted he became almost, quote, "a basket
case
with regard to secrecy." But you go on to write that when it comes to
secrecy, quote, "never before have we had a pair of rulers like Bush
and
Cheney." What do you mean by that?
JOHN DEAN: The Nixon approach as opposed to this White House is much
more
open government. Nixon wanted to, he wanted to share. It's really
during
Watergate when he finds himself in very bad straights that he really
becomes
so secretive. But as I say, and I record in this book chapter by
chapter and
fact by fact, we've never seen secrecy like this.
BILL MOYERS: Why do you think the press has not been talking about it?
JOHN DEAN: I don't know. I find as I discuss in the book, that the
media
decided to give the Bush Administration a pass. One of the immediate
after-effects of Watergate and having watched Presidencies before and
after.
After Watergate, a President was presumed to be doing the wrong thing.
Now,
he wasn't given the benefit of the doubt. Before, he was.
BILL MOYERS: Vietnam has to be an event--
JOHN DEAN: Vietnam--
BILL MOYERS: Vietnam and Watergate. Those were the two--
JOHN DEAN: No question that they are Watergate and Vietnam are very
related
in many ways. But so after Watergate, you have this very questioning
media.
You have a lot of investigative journalism. And this really runs right
through the Clinton Years. And somehow, almost like a switch was hit.
When
the Bush Administration came into office somebody hit that switch. And
no
longer is there that doubt. No longer is that questioning.
BILL MOYERS: You say secrecy is out of hand.
JOHN DEAN: No question. It's out of hand because it's never been as
severe.
When these people moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they closed the
doors, they pulled the shades, and they put, in essence, a gag order
out.
BILL MOYERS: John, what do you think about the fact that the
commission, the
9-11 Commission, has agreed to allow the President and the Vice
President to
appear together before them, with only one staff member present to take
notes? What's behind that?
JOHN DEAN: I just think that is so evident of the lack of George Bush's
knowledge as to what's going on.
BILL MOYERS: How so?
JOHN DEAN: Well, he needs Cheney there to be the man who can get into
depth.
He's as good as his script.
BILL MOYERS: But of course it would also mean that they can keep their
story
straight.
JOHN DEAN: It can do that.
BILL MOYERS: You know, there is no way that we're not gonna be accused
of
Bush-bashing. Part of the temper of the times is that journalistically
it's
inevitable, I think, in this polarized country today. But what's beyond
that? What is at stake here?
JOHN DEAN: Well, I'm not interested in Bush bashing. I'm really only
interested in the truth getting out, people understand a very complex
and
sensitive issue. And that is secrecy.
In fact, I rely, if you notice in the book on every chapter I start
with
somebody who is of Mr. Bush's party, talking and complaining about his
excessive secrecy. This isn't a partisan issue for me.
This isn't an issue of Republicans versus Democrats. This is an issue
of
good government versus bad government. This is an informed electorate
and an
uninformed electorate.
And I don't think there are any options here. And it's not to me, if
the
truth is bashing, I'll take the charge. If when I see people making
wild and
baseless charges, I find that to be bashing.
BILL MOYERS: Are there any sour grapes here? I mean could it be said
that
your White House career ended in disgrace, while the young Cheney and
Rumsfeld went on from one success to another, not only in business, but
in
government? Is there something about-- of an old blood feud here?
JOHN DEAN: Not for me, anyway. Not in the slightest. Bill, this is a
book I
could have never planned on writing. I had written a number of columns.
And
it just kept getting worse and worse and worse.
And I said, "Nobody's speaking to these issues." I have no grudge
against
any of these people at all. I'm just I'm deeply disappointed in them.
Deeply
disappointed. And a bit frightened by them.
BILL MOYERS: You-- how so?
JOHN DEAN: That they absolutely won't, you know, what the world opinion
is,
is irrelevant to them. What the Americans' opinion, other than their
base,
is irrelevant.
They're on their own wavelength, and not listening. And they're men of
zeal,
while I think in their hearts they believe they're doing the right
thing.
This is the most dangerous kinda situation.
When you move in secrecy and you're not taking outside advice, when you
get
that bunker mentality, which I'm sure you saw in the Johnson
administration,
we saw in the Nixon White House. This is when you make bad decisions.
BILL MOYERS: I haven't seen you for many, many years. But I have noted
that
both of us are somewhat zealots ourselves about secrecy. And I know
mine
comes out of realizing too late what the price - that democracy really
does
die behind closed doors.
JOHN DEAN: Absolutely. Well, you know, Bill, I don't come at this as a
partisan. I mean I really left those days long behind me. I'm a
registered
Independent. I vote for both Republicans, I vote for Democrats. I vote
for
the issues.
And you know, I didn't wanna get in the mix of a partisan thing. But I
do
think these are issues that must be on the table.
BILL MOYERS: You say in here that even more so than Nixon, they come
after
their enemies list, the people on their enemies list. I mean we see
what's
happening to Clarke. What's gonna happen to you again?
JOHN DEAN: You know, they can't hurt me at this point. I'm damaged
material
already.
BILL MOYERS: The book is WORSE THAN WATERGATE: THE SECRET PRESIDENCY OF
GEORGE W. BUSH, by John W. Dean. Thank you for joining us on NOW.
JOHN DEAN: Thank you, Bill.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Bill Moyers interview with JOHN DEAN/"Worse Than Watergate"
BILL MOYERS: You could barely keep up with the news about the 9/11
Commission this week. So tonight, we're going to talk to someone with a
long
range perspective...remember Watergate?
WATERGATE HEARINGS: "What did the President know and when did he know
it?"
BILL MOYERS: 1973: The Watergate hearings mesmerized the nation and
brought
down a President of the United States, Richard Nixon. The star witness
was a
thirty-three year old John W. Dean.
JOHN DEAN: I began by telling the president there was a cancer growing
on
the presidency, and if the cancer was not removed, the President
himself
would be killed by it.
BILL MOYERS: John Dean came to the White House in 1970 as Counsel to
the
President, joining a team that included the equally young Dick Cheney
and
Donald Rumsfeld.
When burglars hired by the Nixon Campaign for Re-election were caught
breaking into the offices of the Democratic National Committee, Dean's
role
was to see that they got their "hush money" and kept their mouths shut.
When
the conspiracy began to unravel and it appeared he would be made the
fall
guy, Dean agreed to co-operate with the investigation Richard Nixon
fired
him in April 1973. Two months later, he made his dramatic appearance
before
the Senate committee investigating the scandal.
After five days of his testimony and cross-examination, there was no
doubt
that the cover-up started at the top, with the president himself.
To escape impeachment, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. John Dean
pleaded
guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice and served four months in
prison.
Returning to private life, he began a successful career as an
investment
banker, lecturer and author. His books include three on the Nixon
administration - and now, this one, with the title: WORSE THAN
WATERGATE:
THE SECRET PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE W. BUSH.
BILL MOYERS: John Dean joins me now to talk about secrecy in the White
House.
Welcome to NOW.
JOHN DEAN: Thank you, Bill.
BILL MOYERS: Let's start with the news of the day. This morning we
learn
that President Bush has kept thousands of pages of secret documents
from the
Clinton years from being turned over to the commission investigating
the
9/11 attacks. What do you make of that?
JOHN DEAN: Well, I think it's very typical. I think it's very
consistent
with his pattern. It goes all the way back to when Cheney put together
his
Energy Task Force, for example, and put a shroud over that and has
refused,
adamantly, to release any information from that. This is just more of
that
pattern where this White House has decided they're going to take total
control of information.
And, they did it with the Joint Inquiry on Capitol Hill into 9/11. As
John
McCain said they were slow-walked and stonewalled on Capitol Hill by
the
administration. The families of 9/11 then urged that there be a
commission
created which we now have. And they've done the same thing. And brought
it
right into their own campaign.
BILL MOYERS: But these documents deal with al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden,
the
Clinton team's reaction to the terrorist attack. Why wouldn't they want
the
Congress the investigating commission to have that kind of information
if
they're trying to put the whole story together?
JOHN DEAN: Well, I'm not sure they want the whole story together.
There's
always a situation that when you deal with an investigation you can
either
be aggressive or you can be passive. You can be offensive or defensive.
They've decided to put them self in a defensive posture on this.
And I'm not sure that they haven't been forced to do it because they
have
something that they really don't want out about the way they've handled
it.
Mr. Clarke, his testimony indicates that they might have some things
that
they don't really wanna reveal to the public.
BILL MOYERS: Their efforts to stonewall, as you say, the investigations
have
failed. This is out today about they're holding back the documents from
the
Clinton years to the commission. But political pressure, public opinion
have
forced the testimony next week of Condoleezza Rice.
JOHN DEAN: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: So it's not working, is it?
JOHN DEAN: Well, it doesn't work.
They've obviously made a political decision that they cannot refuse to
let
Miss Rice testify. So he's agreed to let her do so. But there's still
more
information we don't know.
And he's also put, they put tight limits on her testimony. She's gonna
do 2
1/2 hours. That isn't a lot of testimony. That's really not a lot at
all.
BILL MOYERS: If Condoleezza Rice asked you to help her prepare for that
testimony, what advice would you give her?
JOHN DEAN: Well, I'd say give lots of opinions. Because opinions aren't
perjurious.
BILL MOYERS: They're not?
JOHN DEAN: No. They're not.
BILL MOYERS: Perjurious meaning?
JOHN DEAN: You're convicted of perjury for a false statement.
BILL MOYERS: Give me an example.
JOHN DEAN: Well, I'll give you an example with Clarke. Clarke has said
that
he can't believe that Bush is running on his record of terrorism.
That's
pure opinion. You can't be convicted for perjury on offering an opinion
like
that.
BILL MOYERS: You finished this book when? Back in January?
JOHN DEAN: I finished it in late-January.
BILL MOYERS: So, you actually finished the book before the last month
of
intense activities and disclosures, right?
JOHN DEAN: I did. But the pattern has been so consistent. And I wrote
the
book because no one's talking about these things. Now more with this
issue
has come up. But I, at times, felt sort of like a CIA analyst where I
would
take this fact, that fact, taking my inside knowledge as you could do
as a
former insider. And piecing it together and seeing patterns and
understanding what they're really doing. And that's what this book lays
out.
BILL MOYERS: You write that the administration has tried to block,
frustrate
or control any investigation into 9/11 using, quote, "well-proven
tactics
not unlike those used by the Nixon White House during Watergate." What
tactics?
JOHN DEAN: Stall. Stall. Stall.
We knew that at the Nixon White House. Some of these are time-tested
tactics. When the Congress put together its joint inquiry, a joint
inquiry
itself was self-defeating because it's much more difficult for a joint
inquiry with its size, the lack of attention its staff can give to a
group
that large. It gets diffuse.
BILL MOYERS: So when you testified in Congress in the 70's there was a
Senate Investigating Committee and a House Judiciary Committee, right?
JOHN DEAN: Right. Separate committees. Exactly. And they can get much
more
focused. So it was very effective. And Cheney and Bush were very
involved.
They didn't want any of the standing committees to do it. They put them
together. And that was one of the first signs I saw that they're just
playing it by… I think they found an old playbook down in the basement
that
belonged to Richard Nixon. And they said, "Well, this stuff looks like
it
works."
BILL MOYERS: Be specific with me. What is worse than Watergate?
JOHN DEAN: If there's anything that really is the bottom line, it's
taking
the nation to war in a time when they might not have had to go to war
and
people dying. That is worse than Watergate. No one died for Nixon's
so-called Watergate abuses.
BILL MOYERS: Let me go right to page 155 of your book. You write,
quote,
"The evidence is overwhelming that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney
have
engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an
impeachable offense."
JOHN DEAN: Absolutely is. The founders in the debates in the states. I
cite
one. I cite one that I found, I tracked down after reading the Nixon
impeachment proceedings when Congressman Castenmeyer had gone back to
look
to see what the founders said about misrepresentations and lying to the
the
Congress. Clearly, it is an impeachable offense. And I think the case
is
overwhelming that these people presented false information to the
Congress
and to the American people.
BILL MOYERS: John, I was, as you know, in the Johnson White House at
the
time of the Gulf of Tonkin when LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam on the
basis of misleading information. He said there was an attack in the
Gulf of
Tonkin. It subsequently turns out there wasn't an attack.
Many people said then and have said that LBJ deceived the country and
concealed the escalation of the war. You even say in the book that he
hoodwinked Congress. Are you saying that that was not an impeachable
offense
but what is happening now is?
JOHN DEAN: No. I'm saying that was an impeachable offense. In fact, it
comes
up in the Nixon debates over whether the secret bombing would be an
impeachable offense. That became a non-high crime or offense because
Nixon
had, in fact, told privately some members of the Congress. Johnson
didn't
tell anybody he was - the game he was playing to my knowledge.
And these are probably the most serious offenses that you can make when
you
take a country to war, blood and treasure, no higher decision can a
President of the United States make as the Commander-in-Chief. To do it
on
bogus information, to use this kind of secrecy to do it is intolerable.
BILL MOYERS: After Congress delegated the authority to the President to
go
to war, it said, "Only, however, if you meet these two conditions. As
you
prove to us, you come back to us and determine that Iraq was involved
with
terrorism with al-Qaeda. And that there are weapons of mass
destruction."
And you say that Bush did not satisfy those two requirements?
JOHN DEAN: He did not. He explained. Had he merely sent his very
general
letter saying, "This is what I've determined." Keeping it very broad,
not
how he determined it or why he deterined it, he might have been all
right.
But he accompanied that with an explanation of how he had done so. And
it's
a bogus explanation.
BILL MOYERS: Secrecy always accompanies war. Presidents can't do their
job,
frankly, in war, without secrecy. Citizens come to take their
government's
word that secrecy is essential.
JOHN DEAN: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: Is the war on terrorism going to confirm people in the
tolerance of secrecy?
JOHN DEAN: The Bush-Cheney secrecy started long before 9-11. Started
long
before there was war. There has been only an acceleration and a use,
and to
me, an abuse, of secrecy using 9-11 as an excuse to make things secret
that
have no business being secret. This is what presidents do.
BILL MOYERS: You're especially agitated in here by what you call the
dirtiest of dirty tricks, the role of the government in revealing that
Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plane Wilson, was a covert CIA
agent.
JOHN DEAN: As dirty a trick as I've ever seen, bar none.
BILL MOYERS: Dirtier than Nixon's?
JOHN DEAN: Dirtier. Nixon put no hits out on anybody that I nor did he
pick
on his enemies' wives. And this clearly was a dangerous leak. This
woman,
they knew she was at the CIA. They may or may not have known how much,
how
deeply involved she was. But there was always that risk when you reveal
the
identity of a CIA agent, particularly who's an operative.
BILL MOYERS: And you're satisfied this came from within the
administration?
JOHN DEAN: There's no doubt in my mind. Where else could it have come
from?
Who else has privy to that kind of information? Who else tried to fan
the
fires once it got out there? They were after Wilson for telling the
truth
about whether or not Saddam Hussein had uranium from Africa. And it was
not
a true statement that the President was relying on in this effort to go
to
war.
JOHN DEAN: We don't have all the details. There's a grand jury that's
now
investigating that. Which, incidentally, Bill if that grand jury
doesn't go
beyond just the staff, and talk to and somehow get statements from both
the
President and the Vice President as to what they knew and when they
knew it
because this has been kept buried. And it has all the scent, but not
quite
the smell yet, of cover-up going on in there.
BILL MOYERS: In fact, you claim that this potentially involves a
criminal
conspiracy. Help me to understand that.
JOHN DEAN: Well, if it takes very little to create a criminal
conspiracy. If
you and I agree here this morning that we're gonna rob a bank, and you
say,
"Well, that sounds good to me," and I don't really tell you I go out
and do
it, you're just as guilty as I am. And it doesn't-- and oh, you can
join a
conspiracy as it goes along.
Obstruction of justice is probably one of the broadest, most
ill-defined
federal offenses I know of. I learned about it the painful way. I never
had
thought I wasn't trained as a criminal lawyer. I learned my criminal
law the
hard way. In fact, that was my one mistake. You needed, in that
particular
presidency, to be a very good criminal lawyer.
But, the point I'm making is that, you know, they have walked into a
potential situation by not trying to flush it out right away. And Bush,
for
example, saying, "I don't think they'll ever catch the leaker." That's
sending signals. Keep it you know, keep your head down.
BILL MOYERS: It's potentially a criminal conspiracy, isn't it, because
two
or more officials are involved?
JOHN DEAN: That's right.
BILL MOYERS: And the WASHINGTON POST has said, without identifying
anybody,
that there were at least two officials involved in this leak.
JOHN DEAN: That's right.
BILL MOYERS: You and I both worked for Presidents who were obsessed
with
secrecy. I mean, Lyndon Johnson could be paranoid about leaks. And you
write
in your book that of all the Cold War Presidents, none was more
secretive
than Nixon who, himself, admitted he became almost, quote, "a basket
case
with regard to secrecy." But you go on to write that when it comes to
secrecy, quote, "never before have we had a pair of rulers like Bush
and
Cheney." What do you mean by that?
JOHN DEAN: The Nixon approach as opposed to this White House is much
more
open government. Nixon wanted to, he wanted to share. It's really
during
Watergate when he finds himself in very bad straights that he really
becomes
so secretive. But as I say, and I record in this book chapter by
chapter and
fact by fact, we've never seen secrecy like this.
BILL MOYERS: Why do you think the press has not been talking about it?
JOHN DEAN: I don't know. I find as I discuss in the book, that the
media
decided to give the Bush Administration a pass. One of the immediate
after-effects of Watergate and having watched Presidencies before and
after.
After Watergate, a President was presumed to be doing the wrong thing.
Now,
he wasn't given the benefit of the doubt. Before, he was.
BILL MOYERS: Vietnam has to be an event--
JOHN DEAN: Vietnam--
BILL MOYERS: Vietnam and Watergate. Those were the two--
JOHN DEAN: No question that they are Watergate and Vietnam are very
related
in many ways. But so after Watergate, you have this very questioning
media.
You have a lot of investigative journalism. And this really runs right
through the Clinton Years. And somehow, almost like a switch was hit.
When
the Bush Administration came into office somebody hit that switch. And
no
longer is there that doubt. No longer is that questioning.
BILL MOYERS: You say secrecy is out of hand.
JOHN DEAN: No question. It's out of hand because it's never been as
severe.
When these people moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they closed the
doors, they pulled the shades, and they put, in essence, a gag order
out.
BILL MOYERS: John, what do you think about the fact that the
commission, the
9-11 Commission, has agreed to allow the President and the Vice
President to
appear together before them, with only one staff member present to take
notes? What's behind that?
JOHN DEAN: I just think that is so evident of the lack of George Bush's
knowledge as to what's going on.
BILL MOYERS: How so?
JOHN DEAN: Well, he needs Cheney there to be the man who can get into
depth.
He's as good as his script.
BILL MOYERS: But of course it would also mean that they can keep their
story
straight.
JOHN DEAN: It can do that.
BILL MOYERS: You know, there is no way that we're not gonna be accused
of
Bush-bashing. Part of the temper of the times is that journalistically
it's
inevitable, I think, in this polarized country today. But what's beyond
that? What is at stake here?
JOHN DEAN: Well, I'm not interested in Bush bashing. I'm really only
interested in the truth getting out, people understand a very complex
and
sensitive issue. And that is secrecy.
In fact, I rely, if you notice in the book on every chapter I start
with
somebody who is of Mr. Bush's party, talking and complaining about his
excessive secrecy. This isn't a partisan issue for me.
This isn't an issue of Republicans versus Democrats. This is an issue
of
good government versus bad government. This is an informed electorate
and an
uninformed electorate.
And I don't think there are any options here. And it's not to me, if
the
truth is bashing, I'll take the charge. If when I see people making
wild and
baseless charges, I find that to be bashing.
BILL MOYERS: Are there any sour grapes here? I mean could it be said
that
your White House career ended in disgrace, while the young Cheney and
Rumsfeld went on from one success to another, not only in business, but
in
government? Is there something about-- of an old blood feud here?
JOHN DEAN: Not for me, anyway. Not in the slightest. Bill, this is a
book I
could have never planned on writing. I had written a number of columns.
And
it just kept getting worse and worse and worse.
And I said, "Nobody's speaking to these issues." I have no grudge
against
any of these people at all. I'm just I'm deeply disappointed in them.
Deeply
disappointed. And a bit frightened by them.
BILL MOYERS: You-- how so?
JOHN DEAN: That they absolutely won't, you know, what the world opinion
is,
is irrelevant to them. What the Americans' opinion, other than their
base,
is irrelevant.
They're on their own wavelength, and not listening. And they're men of
zeal,
while I think in their hearts they believe they're doing the right
thing.
This is the most dangerous kinda situation.
When you move in secrecy and you're not taking outside advice, when you
get
that bunker mentality, which I'm sure you saw in the Johnson
administration,
we saw in the Nixon White House. This is when you make bad decisions.
BILL MOYERS: I haven't seen you for many, many years. But I have noted
that
both of us are somewhat zealots ourselves about secrecy. And I know
mine
comes out of realizing too late what the price - that democracy really
does
die behind closed doors.
JOHN DEAN: Absolutely. Well, you know, Bill, I don't come at this as a
partisan. I mean I really left those days long behind me. I'm a
registered
Independent. I vote for both Republicans, I vote for Democrats. I vote
for
the issues.
And you know, I didn't wanna get in the mix of a partisan thing. But I
do
think these are issues that must be on the table.
BILL MOYERS: You say in here that even more so than Nixon, they come
after
their enemies list, the people on their enemies list. I mean we see
what's
happening to Clarke. What's gonna happen to you again?
JOHN DEAN: You know, they can't hurt me at this point. I'm damaged
material
already.
BILL MOYERS: The book is WORSE THAN WATERGATE: THE SECRET PRESIDENCY OF
GEORGE W. BUSH, by John W. Dean. Thank you for joining us on NOW.
JOHN DEAN: Thank you, Bill.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)