"willfully ignorant"

[Somme]

...and here we go...

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_6592.shtml

do read.

 

[Pure]

Hey, maybe it won't be the socialists, but some of the conservatives that fix things!


Lack of Resolution in Iraq Finds Conservatives Divided

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: April 19, 2004 [...]

"In late May of last year, we neoconservatives were hailed as great visionaries," said Kenneth R. Weinstein, chief operating officer of the Hudson Institute, a center of neoconservative thinking. "Now we are embattled, both within the conservative movement and in the battle over postwar planning.

"Those of us who favored a more muscular approach to American foreign policy and a more Wilsonian view of our efforts in Iraq find ourselves pitted against more traditional conservatives, who have more isolationist instincts to begin with, and they are more willing to say, `Bring the boys home,' " Mr. Weinstein said.

Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative stalwart and the dean of conservative direct mail, said the Iraq war had created an unusual schism. "I can't think of any other issue that has divided conservatives as much as this issue in my political lifetime," Mr. Viguerie said.

Recent events, he said, "call into question how conservatives see the White House. It doesn't look like the White House is as astute as we thought they were."

Although Mr. Bush appears to be sticking to the neoconservative view, the growing skepticism among some conservatives about the Iraqi occupation is upending some of the familiar dynamics of left and right. To be sure, both sides have urged swift and decisive retaliation against the Iraqi insurgents in the short term, but some on the right are beginning to support a withdrawal as soon as is practical, while some Democrats, including Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the likely presidential nominee, have called for sending more troops to Iraq.

In an editorial in this week's issue of The Weekly Standard, Mr. Kristol applauded Mr. Kerry's stance.

Referring to the conservative commentator Patrick J. Buchanan, an outspoken opponent of the war and occupation, Mr. Kristol said in an interview on Friday: "I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan or any of the lesser Buchananites on the right. If you read the last few issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."

In contrast, this week's issue of National Review, the magazine founded by William F. Buckley and a standard-bearer for mainstream conservatives, adopted a newly skeptical tone toward the neoconservatives and toward the occupation. In an editorial titled "An End to Illusion," the Bush administration was described as having "a dismaying capacity to believe its own public relations."

The editorial criticized the administration as having "an underestimation of the difficulty of implanting democracy in alien soil, and an overestimation in particular of the sophistication of what is still fundamentally a tribal society and one devastated by decades of tyranny."

The editorial described that error as "Wilsonian," another term for the neoconservatives' faith that United States military power can improve the world and a label associated with the liberal internationalism of President Woodrow Wilson.

"The Wilsonian tendency has grown stronger in conservative foreign policy thought in recent years," the editorial continued, adding, "As we have seen in Iraq, the world isn't as malleable as some Wilsonians would have it."

The editorial was careful to emphasize that the war served legitimate United States interests and that violence against Americans in Iraq deserved harsh retribution. But it concluded: "It is the Iraqis who have to save Iraq. It is their country, not ours."

Some conservatives who focus on limited government and lower taxes said they were also worried about the political costs of an extended occupation of Iraq.

====
[The younger Mr. Kristol has reservations:]

Recalling a famous saying of his father, the neoconservative pioneer Irving Kristol, that a neoconservative was "a liberal who has been mugged by reality," the younger Mr. Kristol joked that now they might end up as neoliberals — defined as "neoconservatives who had been mugged by reality in Iraq."

 

[ruminator]

...and here we go...

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_6592.shtml

do read.

Does this cause it to rise above the level of conspiracy theory?

It's amazing how many can feebly attempt to dispute the issue when the outcome has been the realization of prestated goals to be achieved.

I jumped in front of the steamroller and yelled STOP!

 

[ruminator]

I'm not sure that I saw another neopopular term for the pnac'er exhiliration pioneers.

Are they all Vulcan, or is that distinct seperate definition?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hey, maybe it won't be the socialists, but some of the conservatives that fix things!


Lack of Resolution in Iraq Finds Conservatives Divided

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: April 19, 2004 [...]

"In late May of last year, we neoconservatives were hailed as great visionaries," said Kenneth R. Weinstein, chief operating officer of the Hudson Institute, a center of neoconservative thinking. "Now we are embattled, both within the conservative movement and in the battle over postwar planning.

"Those of us who favored a more muscular approach to American foreign policy and a more Wilsonian view of our efforts in Iraq find ourselves pitted against more traditional conservatives, who have more isolationist instincts to begin with, and they are more willing to say, `Bring the boys home,' " Mr. Weinstein said.

Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative stalwart and the dean of conservative direct mail, said the Iraq war had created an unusual schism. "I can't think of any other issue that has divided conservatives as much as this issue in my political lifetime," Mr. Viguerie said.

Recent events, he said, "call into question how conservatives see the White House. It doesn't look like the White House is as astute as we thought they were."

Although Mr. Bush appears to be sticking to the neoconservative view, the growing skepticism among some conservatives about the Iraqi occupation is upending some of the familiar dynamics of left and right. To be sure, both sides have urged swift and decisive retaliation against the Iraqi insurgents in the short term, but some on the right are beginning to support a withdrawal as soon as is practical, while some Democrats, including Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the likely presidential nominee, have called for sending more troops to Iraq.

In an editorial in this week's issue of The Weekly Standard, Mr. Kristol applauded Mr. Kerry's stance.

Referring to the conservative commentator Patrick J. Buchanan, an outspoken opponent of the war and occupation, Mr. Kristol said in an interview on Friday: "I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan or any of the lesser Buchananites on the right. If you read the last few issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."

In contrast, this week's issue of National Review, the magazine founded by William F. Buckley and a standard-bearer for mainstream conservatives, adopted a newly skeptical tone toward the neoconservatives and toward the occupation. In an editorial titled "An End to Illusion," the Bush administration was described as having "a dismaying capacity to believe its own public relations."

The editorial criticized the administration as having "an underestimation of the difficulty of implanting democracy in alien soil, and an overestimation in particular of the sophistication of what is still fundamentally a tribal society and one devastated by decades of tyranny."

The editorial described that error as "Wilsonian," another term for the neoconservatives' faith that United States military power can improve the world and a label associated with the liberal internationalism of President Woodrow Wilson.

"The Wilsonian tendency has grown stronger in conservative foreign policy thought in recent years," the editorial continued, adding, "As we have seen in Iraq, the world isn't as malleable as some Wilsonians would have it."

The editorial was careful to emphasize that the war served legitimate United States interests and that violence against Americans in Iraq deserved harsh retribution. But it concluded: "It is the Iraqis who have to save Iraq. It is their country, not ours."

Some conservatives who focus on limited government and lower taxes said they were also worried about the political costs of an extended occupation of Iraq.

====
[The younger Mr. Kristol has reservations:]

Recalling a famous saying of his father, the neoconservative pioneer Irving Kristol, that a neoconservative was "a liberal who has been mugged by reality," the younger Mr. Kristol joked that now they might end up as neoliberals — defined as "neoconservatives who had been mugged by reality in Iraq."

Being one of those old school conservatives who says bring the boys home & favors small government & fiscal responsibility I wish they would change to Neo-liberal. There is nothing conservative about them and if they would take the religious far right with them when they clear out of the republican party I would be much obliged. I suppose we all have dreams

-Colly

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

ax-is-o-flog’- ic [ack-es-oh-FLAUG-ik] — noun (ameridiot)
[1] the practice of reaching a conclusion in absence of, or defiance to intelligence.

 

[ruminator]

ax-is-o-flog’- ic [ack-es-oh-FLAUG-ik] — noun (ameridiot)
[1] the practice of reaching a conclusion in absence of, or defiance to intelligence.

Welcome to Lit

Are you a flogic fan?

I think the definition you provided is quite appropriate these days.

along the lines of.....Messopotamia

 

[sweetnpetite]

While there may be a serious gap between perception & reality, the party has made no conspicuous moves to dispell this gap. In fact they seem, at the highest levels, to want to ignore it and hope it goes away. I think they have lost the confidence of middle aremica and simply refuse to believe that they have. It's a very bad place to have on blinders and I think it hurts thier chances of regaining the white house.

-Colly

While I am not really trying to full throttle reenter the fray, I just wanted to say that in my opinion, the democrats aren't really trying this year. I don't think they expect to win, nor do they necessarily want to win. Maybe they have a longer range plan, or maybe theres a worldwide conspiracy of who's really pulling the strings, but whatever the case if you really look closely they seem to be trying to throw the race without appearing to do so.

 

[Pure]

There have been democrats with appeal to middle america, including lately Clinton (possibly why Reps hated him). Kerry is awfully privileged, mandarin, to look middle american, but they don't necessarily want a look alike rather than a trustworthy figure.

I suppose, though, sweet, when any party fucks up, you can say it has a 'death wish'-- or it's just against impossible odds-- like the socialists in Germany in the 1930s, trying to keep fascism from growing and warlike policies from going ahead.

 

[Somme]

Mrs Edmonds

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
Sign up for the wire at:
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/headlines.php
Unanswered Questions : Thinking for ourselves.
Mapping the Real Deal


A Transparency Opportunity of a Life Time

By Catherine Austin Fitts
Co-Founder UnansweredQuestions.org

***********
April 25, 2004

Every once in a while an opportunity to shift the political landscape in radical and transformative ways comes along.

If those who find it energizing to do so take action today and tomorrow to bring sunshine to the Department of Justice's efforts to gag Sibel Edmonds and to express our objection, we can indeed attract much more positive energy to our efforts to bring forth freedom and peace.

The way that the Department of Justice stops sunshine is by terrorizing the people who would tell the truth.

The truth is like a jigsaw puzzle. We each have a piece. The truth emerges when we each provide testimony as to the piece we understand. Testimony under oath is the most powerful testimony. As all the pieces emerge, we learn the truth.

Our opportunity is extraordinary. Sunshine can shift these situations a lot. If a tiny portion of the time we spend marching and e-mailing is reinvested in protecting one truth teller and then another truth teller, the efforts for transparency will compound and we can shift significant power from those who stop it to our team.

Read the following Action Alert on what is happening and what each one of us may do to illuminate and prevent the Department of Justice acting in the interests of the White House and the National Security Council from persuading Judge Reggie Walton in DC Federal District Court tomorrow to silence Sibel Edmonds from telling her truth.

And have a beautiful Sunday!

Lots of love,

Catherine

To Read Action Alert On Line:

TO THE SOLARI ACTION NETWORK:
http://www.solariactionnetwork.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=912


***********
ACTION ALERT

Dear 9-11 activists and concerned citizens,

The following urgent action alert was forwarded to us from Catherine Austin Fitts in support of former FBI translator and 9-11 whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds, upon whom the DOJ is poised to place a gag order. There are five recommended actions. Please take the time to read Catherine's impassioned appeal below, and then take action today! We strongly urge your articipation. (Also, forward this email around to as many people and lists as you can.)

For 9-11 Truth,

Emanuel Sferios Webmaster, 9-11 Visibility Project
http://www.septembereleventh.org


***********
URGENT ACTION!

To ensure that the truth can be heard on 9-11, I need your support. On April 9, 2004 I publicly accused National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice of lying under oath before the 9-11 Commission. On Monday, April 26, the Department of Justice is going to be in court trying to silence Sibel D. Edmonds, an FBI whistle-blower who claims she has evidence regarding those lies.

The DOJ is attempting to quash her subpoena -- and therefore her testimony -- relating to a private lawsuit involving some 9-11 victims' family members (details linked below). This private lawsuit could potentially illuminate the Saudi role in and around 9-11. There is also concern that the DOJ and Judge Reggie Walton will take action in separate, pending litigation to subject Ms. Sibel to a gag order in the name of "national security." Both actions include gagging information that our government had specific warnings of the possibility of planes being used as missiles.

Now is the time to take a stand! I cannot stress enough how CRITICAL it is for the 9-11 Truth movement to stop the DOJ in this attempt to silence Sibel Edmonds. Our success hinges on supporting those inside the machinery of government who are willing to speak out. If we allow the government to gag Sibel Edmonds, we will be sending the wrong message to other potential truth-tellers. We need to let those on the inside know the movement will support them if they come forward.

I personally have sat in the court room alone for nine years. No one came. No one cared. It is a brutal and horrible experience. The DOJ lawyers laugh. The judges laugh. My own attorneys felt the isolation.

Going to rallies and marches may be more fun, but we MUST support the individuals who are confronting the system from the inside. We need to march into court and say "NO! You will NOT stop the truth from coming forward!"

Is Sibel Edmonds telling the whole truth? I have no idea. Is Sibel Edmonds a perfect person? Probably not. But this is irrelevant. Sibel Edmonds is taking the single most courageous act an insider could take -- to publicly testify to the piece of the puzzle that she knows, inside the very belly of the beast. And she is going up against EXACTLY THE SAME PEOPLE AND NETWORKS WHO ARE DOING THIS SAME THING TO ME.

Supporting Sibel Edmonds right now means supporting the principle of protection for whistle-blowers, and for government transparency. We need to stop the DOJ's efforts to terrorize the people who could bring out the truth, whether it is Sibel, me, or anyone who promotes transparency inside the machinery.

And it won't take much to turn the tide. The DOJ and the Courts desperately rely upon the appearance of the rule of law. They WILL back down if we confront them within the very court system they use to maintain the appearance of legitimacy. Don't underestimate the power of sunshine.

Here's what you can do to help. (Please do as many of these as you can.)


***********
#1. COME TO COURT ON MONDAY!

If you live in the DC area, please come to support Ms. Edmonds and to make sure the Judge and the DOJ know that the public insists on 9-11 transparency. The hearing will be held in the US District Court (3rd and Constitution Avenue), in Judge Reggie Walton's courtroom, on Monday, April 26, at 11:30 AM. Ms. Edmonds will be in front of the Constitution entrance at 11:00.

DC Court with map

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/location.html


***********
#2. EMAIL AND CALL THE INDIVIDUALS WHO MATTER

The Department of Justice budget is funded by the White House and the Congress. Please email John Ashcroft and cc Bush, Cheney, Rice, Frank Wolf (Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee), Roscoe C. Howard, Jr. (DC US Attorney), Peter D. Keisler (Assistant Attorney General), and Judd Greg (Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary).

Simply copy and paste the following sample text in your email, or use your own words.

-----

Dear John Ashcroft,

I have recently learned that the department of Justice is attempting to silence Sibel D. Edmonds, a former FBI translator who is attempting to tell the truth about 9-11. It is outrageous that my tax dollars are being used to prevent government transparency in what appears to be a 9-11 coverup. Does this administration have something to hide? Ms. Edmonds and any other government employees or contractors who want to tell the truth have a right to do so. The public has a right to know the truth!

Sincerely,

(your name)

cc: President George Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condaleezza Rice, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Frank Wolf, DC US Attorney Roscoe C. Howard, Jr, Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Chairman, Judd Greg


***### ***
EMAIL ADDRESSES

Copy and paste the following addresses into the "to" field:

AskDOJ@usdoj.gov, president@whitehouse.gov, vice.president@whitehouse.gov, dc.outreach@usdoj.gov, peter.keisler@usdoj.gov, mailbox@gregg.senate.gov

And please copy and paste my address into the "bcc" field so I can keep track of how many emails are sent:

catherine@solari.com

To email Frank Wolf, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, use this web-mail form if you are a Virginia constituent:

http://www.house.gov/wolf/email.html

To email the entire House Appropriations Committee, use this web-mail form:

http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.ContactForm


***### ***
PHONE NUMBERS

President George W. Bush Vice President Richard Cheney: 202-456-1111
Attorney General John Ashcroft: 202-514-2001
Assistant Attorney General Peter D Keisler: 202-514-3301
DC US Attorney Roscoe C. Howard, Jr.: 202-514-7566
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Frank Wolf: 202-225-5136
Senate Appropriations Committee: 202-224-7363
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the
Judiciary Chairman, Judd Greg: 202-224-3324


***********
#3. FORWARD THIS ACTION ALERT TO OTHERS

Please post this action alert to relevant lists and forward it to ten or more people in your network who are interested in seeing the truth emerge on 9-11. Also, contact your local media (use a google search to find their emails and phone numbers) and encourage them to cover the story.


***********
#4. THROW THESE PEOPLE OUT OF OFFICE -- VOTE WITH YOUR ATTENTION AND MONEY

While we wait until November to vote at the pools, we can vote in the marketplace with our media attention, bank deposits, and our purchases and investments. When we shift our market "votes" to local banks and local media, we break up the economic power that is running the federal government. Shift your bank deposits from a large bank to a well managed local credit union or community bank. Shift your media attention and subscriptions to media that is telling the truth about 9-11 and your local media. Let's use our consumer power to break up the banking and corporate cartel that is running our government to stop transparency and accountability.


***********
#5. PRAYERS AND MEDITATIONS

Our intention is for total transparency on 9-11. Keep believing and thinking, "May it be so!"


***********
MORE INFORMATION

Documents related to the hearing on Monday
http://www.septembereleventh.org/edmonds

My public letter to Condaleezza Rice
http://www.whereisthemoney.org/hotseat/condoleezzarice.htm

Judge Reggie B. Walton overseeing the case
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/walton-bio.html

Alert from Citizens Watch for Monday Hearing
http://www.solariactionnetwork.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=910

Stories about Sibel D. Edmonds

Laywers try to gag FBI worker over 9/11
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=515270

Lost in Translation
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml

Statement of FBI Whistleblower Sibel D. Edmonds and her Attorneys
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/articles/whistleblowerpr.html

We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/26/translator/index_np.html


**************
Catherine Austin Fitts is the President of Solari, Inc.( http://www.solari.com), a founding member of UnAnsweredQuestions.org ( http://www.unansweredquestions.org) and member of the Advisory Board of Sanders Research Associates ( http://www.sandersresearch.com). Ms. Fitts is former Assistant Secretary of Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner in Bush I and a former managing director and member of the board of directors of Dillon Read & Co. Inc.



If this "Mapping the Real Deal" was useful for you, you can leave comments and send a gift to Catherine Austin Fitts and Scoop Media through Affero: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=Catherine&p=Mapping_the_Real_Deal and receive future columns for free by e-mail - see... Free My Scoop to sign up.


**************
STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.

 

[Somme]

Taking a Closer Look at the Patriot Act
Where Are You Heading, America?

By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

The parallels with 1930s Germany are ominous . . .

Have you read the USA PATRIOT Act right through, and examined every one of its amendments to existing legislation? Has anyone done this, apart from its authors and a few agitated souls in media, academia and some Congressional offices? It is 342 pages long, and went through the legislative process of the United States like a hot knife through butter. Senators voted 98 to 1 for the Act, and the House endorsed it by 357 to 56, but not one of those who approved its terms could possibly have had time to read it and cross-reference its details before endorsing it. This was governance by misplaced trust, because the Patriot Act is potentially the most dangerous piece of legislation in US history.

The Act alters 15 Statutes. The prerogatives, personal authority and dominance of the president of the United States have been extended to include drastic and quasi-imperial powers that threaten the liberties of all Americans.

One reason the Patriot Act is worrying for foreigners is that US military expansionism and economic domination are drastically affecting the entire world. What is decided in Washington today is immensely important for every other capital tomorrow. We are all dependent in one way or another on US policies. Therefore it is appropriate rather than impertinent that the rest of the world should comment on US domestic matters that inevitably impact on every person on the globe.

Another reason for concern is that there are alarming echoes of the 1930s, when a semi-elected and eventually-appointed national figure amassed such power as to be unaccountable to the people of his country, and went on to create mayhem and chaos to the extent that the entire world was shaken to its foundations.

You question or deride the notion that there could be parallels between Bush and Hitler? Very well. But please read the Act before you finally make up your mind.

The Patriot Act is hideously reminiscent of the "Decree for the Protection of Nation and State" that became law in Nazi Germany in February 1933. Its provisions were described by John Toland, in his masterly "Adolf Hitler", as ostensibly innocuous while in practice destroying every reasonable humanitarian right formerly possessed by the German people. There were "Tribunals set up to try enemies of the state", and Toland observed that Hitler made his legislation (the "Enabling Act") "sound moderate and promised to use its emergency powers "only in so far as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures"." Does that sound horribly familiar? And who would decide whether a measure was "vitally necessary"? " Why, the man wielding total power, of course. ("Trust me!" is ever the cry of the incipient dictator.)

So Hitler"s Decree and the Reichstag"s subsequent Enabling Act were never modified or repealed, because they gave the man who was served by a compliant and intensely patriotic legislature the instruments he needed to keep him in total control. This is the reason for Bush"s energetic campaign to prevent the Patriot Act being subject to the existing "sunset clause" whereby most of its more despotic provisions should lapse next year. It was passed by a compliant and intensely patriotic legislature : will it be repealed by one?

It is far from irrelevant that Hitler was appointed Germany"s Chancellor, in legal accord with the Weimar Constitution, by President Hindenburg in 1933, just as Bush was appointed president of the United States by the Supreme Court in December 2000. Shortly after Hitler came to power the chamber housing the Parliament, the Reichstag, was set ablaze. Hitler thought this an excellent opportunity to consolidate his dominance. As Toland records, he declared : "Now we"ll show them. Anyone who stands in our way will be mown down". Nobody died in the Reichstag fire, but it was Hitler"s 9-11, and it spawned the Patriot Act of its era.

Hitler"s sweeping Decree provided that ". . . restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, communications, and warrants for house-searchers, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."

The USA Patriot Act also restricts personal liberty "beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed". Every provision of the 1933 Protection of Nation and State Decree, save that of speech and press freedom, is mirrored in the Patriot Act which permits investigators, without having to show "probable cause", to obtain a subpoena to search anyone"s personal details held by their library, bank, credit card and insurance companies " in fact by any organisation or institution that keeps records.

This is Orwell"s Big Brother at work " but the Act is relished by those who advocate more and more state supervision and investigation of the private lives of ordinary US citizens. The Ashcroft Act (as it should be named) is accepted and even welcomed by countless millions of Americans who are kept totally unaware of its terms.

The Senate and House approved colossal extension of state control without any debate of consequence on the dangers to ordinary people posed by this modern version of the "Decree for the Protection of Nation and State". Only a tiny number of citizens have the remotest notion of the Act"s contents, because it is the intention of state-control freaks to avoid explanation and to repeat endlessly the mantras that "The Patriot Act defends our liberty" ; "It's essential law" ; "It's a law that is making America safer . . . It doesn't make any sense to scale it back," all of which comforting slogans were uttered by Bush in the Chocolate Ballroom in Hershey, Pennsylvania, on April 20.

But if an American dares criticize the president in vehement terms, and that fact is recorded in the minutes of a private meeting, then the FBI can place such information on a citizen"s action file. The citizen will never know about this, because the FBI"s subpoena cannot be challenged in court " and the target, the victim, to put it bluntly, is legally kept in ignorance about its ever being served. How"s that for a slam dunk against civil liberties?

It is not only in the Patriot Act and the Decree for Protection of Nation and State that the regime of Hitler and the administration of Bush strike parallels. There is the business of God :

"God heard the nations, scream and sing and shout :

"God punish England! God save the King!"; And God this, and God that, and God the other thing. "Good God!" said God. "I've got my work cut out"."

And there is no doubt God has got his work cut out, because some of the people who have quoted Him and assured the world that His support for them is their . . . well . . . God-given right, have been somewhat presumptuous in their approaches to the Deity.

Take Hitler, on February 1, 1933 :

"May God Almighty give our work His blessing, strengthen our purpose, and endow us with wisdom and the trust of our people, for we are fighting not for ourselves but for Germany."

And Bush on January 28, 2003:

"We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history. May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America."

Or Nazi propaganda master Goebbels on December 31, 1938, when he asked "May God hold His hand of blessing over Germany in the future."

Then there is the serving US army three star general Boykin who announced, without censure by his superiors, that ". . . our spiritual enemy [Islam] will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus". NBC News reported on October 15, 2003 that "Boykin routinely tells audiences that God, not the voters, chose President Bush. [Boykin asks] : "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? I tell you this morning [at a prayer meeting] that he"s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this"." Politicized to his revolving eyeballs, and energized by militant religious fundamentalism, Boykin would have fitted well into Hitler"s scheme of things. And how many followers does he have in the army?

Doctor Johnson observed pithily that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", but he might have added that Christian piety is the first recourse of the western politician with tendencies to totalitarianism. It is, after all, a weapon against which it is difficult to argue in a Christian country in which many millions regard the man at the top as little short of a deity. Remember Britney Spears" loyal declaration that "I think we should just trust the president and go along with whatever he says"? This is what many millions of Americans support, without doubt or question.

Just as Hitler rejoiced to the sound of thousands of happily-duped citizens screaming "Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!", so did Bush last week welcome the orchestrated chants of "four more years! four more years!" during his recent political tour, during which the Winona (Wis) Daily News of May 8 reported that : "Hundreds of soldiers from Fort McCoy, all wearing white T-shirts with an American flag on the front, enthusiastically cheered the president, especially his remarks about the war on terror. "I will never relent in bringing justice to our enemies. I will defend the security of America, whatever it takes," Bush said to enthusiastic chants of "Four More Years!""

Who sent these soldiers to cheer for Bush? Were they on official duty at the time of their attendance at a political function? Who provided transport for them to go to the Republican rally? If Bush visits soldiers on duty, as commander-in-chief, then it is proper they should pay respect to him. And if soldiers want to attend a Republican Party supporters" mass meeting as individuals, that is their right as citizens. But when they are publicly and jubilantly highlighted as soldiers by the organizers of a partisan electioneering jamboree it appears that they are being used in a political propaganda operation, just as was the crew of the aircraft carrier USS Mission Accomplished.

According to the La Crosse Tribune: "Servicemen and women from Fort McCoy filled an entire bleacher section. The soldiers, who wore T-shirts with American flags on the front and the wording, "I am an American soldier" on the back, drew lots of applause from the rest of the crowd. When Larry Gatlin of the Gatlin Brothers stopped to let the soldiers sing a line of "America the Beautiful" solo "America, America, God shed His grace on thee" people responded with huge applause.

It"s back to Boykin"s militant God, again, and this time linked with stage-managed, football-game, strident patriotism to get votes for Bush. You might think that the Bush vote-shenanigan was appropriate use of the time of American soldiers (and of US taxpayers" money), but, even if you believe that it was, you may care to bear in mind sinister memories of other places, years ago, when massed ranks of soldiers behaved and chorused in similar fashion.

Have you seen the film of Hitler"s 1934 Nuremberg Rally made by Leni Riefenstahl? (It was a classic of its time. She died last year, aged 101.) The Nazi Storm Troopers wore crisp brown shirts rather than casual white T-shirts, of course, but the same enthusiasm, the same emotional, excited, starry-eyed devotion, was on public display. The army was politicized, and followed the chief politician, the charismatic Adolf Hitler, whose soldiers sang the Horst Wessel Song ("Flag high, ranks closed, the Storm Troopers [Brownshirts] march with silent solid tread"), which is set to the tune of the Christian hymn 'My God, How Great Thou Art'.

What goes around, comes around, and reappears in the enthusiastic chorus of "America the Beautiful, God shed His grace on thee" by hundreds of happy-clappy, US soldiers at a party political rally arranged to whip up support for a travelling politician. Sure, they were wearing T-shirts, not Brown Shirts, but just like the young Storm Troopers of seventy years ago they cannot differentiate between a commander-in-chief, in which appointment the incumbent is deserving of deference, and a cheapjack gobbet of political slime who was taking them for a ride in the interests of maintaining power. And why should they? How could they? They are, after all, taught to revere the great leader, and when their superiors encourage them to join in politics, who are they to question them? (Orders are orders . . . )

The American author William Shirer lived in Germany in the 1930s, and produced his definitive and terrifying "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" in 1959. Among other things he traces the policy of Hitler regarding the German army in which "it became obvious that Nazi propaganda was making headway . . . especially among the younger officers." Before Hitler came to power the German defence minister, General Groener, "requested soldiers to refrain from politics and to serve the state aloof from all [political] party strife." No chance, of course, because Hitler knew he could expect absolute obedience from all sections of the military, to whom he promised glory in patriotic defence of the interests of the Nation.

Hitler relied on the discipline that is instilled in all soldiers to ensure that their loyalty centered on him, and him alone. In an uncanny replay of history, the 21st Century US military is being manipulated through its members" instinctive patriotic feelings to believe that it is Bush and only Bush who can save the nation from unknown horrors. The strategy is identical : link patriotism and religiosity with the loyalty of gullible people who are inherently deferential to authority, or have been encouraged to be so, and you have the recipe for power, especially over those who know nothing about the outside world.

Do you think that the average American is well-informed about the world? It appears not to be the case. In fact it seems that the average American citizen has been thoroughly deceived by the very person they have been taught to revere.

It is terrifying that millions of down-to-earth, ordinary, decent people in the US believe that torture of Iraqis is permissible and even admirable, because of "what happened on 9-11". Take, for example, one particular supporter of the woman soldier, Lynndie England, who was photographed grinning at a heap of naked Iraqis. The Independent (UK) reported that the justifier of torture was "Mrs Gainor, [a] good-natured woman [in Lynndie England"s home town], who works for an internet company". She was "even more explicit in her defence of Ms England. She said: "We are not there [in Iraq] for a tea party. We are there because they blew up 5,000 of our people." She was then asked if she believed Iraq was involved in the terror attacks of 11 September 2001, and replied "They were definitely involved . . . "."

In that ignorance we see an eerie and disturbing picture of compliance with authority and unquestioning acceptance of what the powerful ones " the all-knowing, the benevolent, far-sighted Big Brothers of the masses " desire to be seen as a threat to complacency and normality. It is not just that the figure of 5000 is wildly wrong, it is that the statement "[the Iraqis] were definitely involved [in 9-11]" is contrary to demonstrable fact. But the continual linking by Bush, and his supporting propagandists, of 9-11 with "the just war" on Iraq has convinced half of all Americans, including this poor benighted soccer-mom defender of US torture, that the war on Iraq was necessary to punish those responsible for 9-11. Selling of the attractive lie about Iraqi responsibility for terrorism directed against America has become more urgent since it became obvious that other justifications for war, such as tales of "imminent threat" from nuclear weapons, "thousands of tons of chemical agents" and so forth, have been shown as the product of the Bush administration"s group psychosis, which is defined as "severe mental derangement, especially when resulting in delusions and loss of contact with external reality".

Enormous damage has been done. Much of the American public now begs to hear such declarations as "I will defend the security of America, whatever it takes" that Bush makes, time after time, to emotional audiences. A cheerleader for torture such as the seriously psychopathic Senator James Inhofe is considered patriotic when he declares "these prisoners [tortured in Abu Ghraib], they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands, and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals. I am outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human-rights violations while our troops, our heroes, are fighting and dying." Little wonder Mr and Mrs Average American are attracted to the notion that true patriotism and moral decency are exemplified by the grotesque amorality preached by such as he. Inhofe is in need of urgent psychiatric treatment and a dose of morality therapy, but this does not alter the fact that what he says has a great deal of appeal to a surprising number of people.

The willingness of millions of Americans to believe what is comfortable and good and patriotic, in defiance of evidence that what has been taking place in Iraq is uncomfortable and evil and nationally disgraceful, is shown by the supportive yellow ribbons displayed in the hometown of the grinning sadist, Lynndie England. Direct, undeniable evidence of wickedness is ignored, derided or explained away. The facts are not patriotic ; they are not what America should be about ; they are not NICE; therefore they cannot be accepted. The Nazi propaganda chief, Goebbels, was an expert at such manipulation. He and Inhofe are a lovely pair.

It is in the interests of furthering state control over any population that a threat to the nation be presented and described, repeatedly and in simple terms (soundbites ; quick video clips), with the overlying message that the looming menace can be neutralized and "normality" restored only by constant vigilance and action on the part of a kindly and all-seeing " and all-powerful " overlord. Of course it is the responsibility of government to deter, detect and neutralise threats to the citizenry, but it is not the responsibility of government to indulge in willful misrepresentation in order to achieve its aims. Suspension of belief in morality is not usually enforceable. But it can be willingly embraced, just as it was by ordinary, decent people in Nazi Germany, who were encouraged, at first gradually and then by a mighty propaganda campaign, to believe that minor and defenseless nations presented a threat to their personal security and to their country.

Germans lost their freedom, beginning with the Decree for Protection of Nation and State. If the Patriot Act is not repealed, Americans will lose their freedom, too. The parallels with Nazi Germany are too close for comfort.

Brian Cloughley writes on military and political affairs. He can be reached through his website www.briancloughley.com

 

[dr_mabeuse]

While I am not really trying to full throttle reenter the fray, I just wanted to say that in my opinion, the democrats aren't really trying this year. I don't think they expect to win, nor do they necessarily want to win. Maybe they have a longer range plan, or maybe theres a worldwide conspiracy of who's really pulling the strings, but whatever the case if you really look closely they seem to be trying to throw the race without appearing to do so.

I don't understand this. What should the dems have done to look like they're trying to win? Rig the primaries? Kerry was selcted by voters who thought he has the best chance of beating Bush.

What should they do now to show that they want to win? Lie? Misrepresent their positions? Rattle more sabers? Have we come to the point where we expect politicians to just say whatever's most popular so they can get to the white house, and then do whatever they please once they're in?

Maybe we have.

----dr.M.

 

[shereads]

I think we're trying, but what's missing is an ingenious fundraising machine like the one Bush I began and which has benefited his sons. In response to campaign finance reform, which limited individual contributions to $1000 per candidate, the Republicans under Bush I created the "Pioneers" program under which corporate CEOs and other people who might benefit from some political influence are challenged to each convince 100 other people to donate $1000. A Pioneer is a Republican campaign donor who can be credited with $100,000 in donations. The elite among the Pioneers are those who have brought other Pioneers into the fold.

To date, the Bush 2004 reelection campaign has raised more than $200 million. An all-time fundraising record.

That certainly accounts for why Kerry's commercials appear so rarely compared to GWBs. The Democrats are trying to save their money for after the primaries.

It's also true that Kerry seems to be keeping quiet while Bush's adminsitration chips away at its own popularity and credibility.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I don't understand this. What should the dems have done to look like they're trying to win? Rig the primaries? Kerry was selcted by voters who thought he has the best chance of beating Bush.

What should they do now to show that they want to win? Lie? Misrepresent their positions? Rattle more sabers? Have we come to the point where we expect politicians to just say whatever's most popular so they can get to the white house, and then do whatever they please once they're in?

Maybe we have.

----dr.M.

1. Start off by nominating (then supporting) better/ more viable candidates.

2. Not lie, but a little PR wouldn't hurt. Get there message out, show the positive side of Kerry (rather than just listing why Bush is bad) and show how the Bush team is misrepresenting Kerry. I hardly see any really visible 'defense' of Kerry. Speak up! Try not to sound so pathetic and lame. (I really didn't throw away my medals, I threw away somebody elses...)

3. More visibiltiey all around. Why not a few decent photo ops, kiss a couple of baby's *do something* for Petite's sake!! Generate some positive publicity for a change.

4. Get an image, show us what you stand for, be agresssive (in a good way) be simplistic if necessary. Kerry= what? Right now Kerry=not Bush. I'd like to see, Kerry= domestic tranquility, better relations with our worldneigbors, and jobs for everybody who wants one! (Or something like that) I want to see and hear it ever day, everywere I turn. Kerry means your kids will get a University Education rather than a War Education! Kerry will keep America SAFE and OUT OF HARMS WAY (to contradict the idea that if you vote Kerry the terrorists will have there way with america)

If I were a Washington political advisor, I'd have more ideas- or even if I thought about it for a while, I'd probably have more- but there's a start, and an idea of what I mean when I say 'trying.'

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I hear you, SnP, excpet that the Dems don't nominate their candidates. Anyone can run in the primaries, and whoever gets the most votes wins. Right now I really don;t see any real charismatic and appealing Democrat except maybe John Edwards, and he's still too inexperienced, seems to me.

As for why Kerry isn't out there spreading the word, the only thing I can think of is that they're waiting till after the convention. Bush has the money to run start his re-election campaign as of last month; Kerry doesn't. He's got to wait till the fall.

---dr.M.

 

[sweetnpetite]

oops! file that under 'things I should have known but didn't'

Well anyways, who they give their support to during the innitial phases makes a big difference. Also, like I said, if he doesn't have the $$$ he should be staging some publicity events that show him in a good light. Or something.

I hear you, SnP, excpet that the Dems don't nominate their candidates. Anyone can run in the primaries, and whoever gets the most votes wins. Right now I really don;t see any real charismatic and appealing Democrat except maybe John Edwards, and he's still too inexperienced, seems to me.

As for why Kerry isn't out there spreading the word, the only thing I can think of is that they're waiting till after the convention. Bush has the money to run start his re-election campaign as of last month; Kerry doesn't. He's got to wait till the fall.

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

oops! file that under 'things I should have known but didn't'

Well anyways, who they give their support to during the innitial phases makes a big difference. Also, like I said, if he doesn't have the $$$ he should be staging some publicity events that show him in a good light. Or something.

It may be SnP that right now Kerry's best chance is low visiblity. With all that is going wrong in Iraq and other places, the headlines might be serving him better than pre planned photo ops could.

Just a thought.

I personally think the higher echelons of the Democratic party have written this election off and are looking at 2008. If Cheny stays on the ticket, and dosen't run for the presidency after Bush II, the second term, the GOP will have to stage primaries just like the Dems. It should even the playing field money wise. I think the Democratic party is experiencing a significant errosion of support on all levels from the school board to the highest office in the land, and I don't think those that are running the party have quite figured out what's causing it yet.

Just my 2 cents worth.

-Colly

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, I don't think the Dems have written off the election by any means. Whether they have the leadership to win the election is another matter altogether. So far they haven't shown much of that. They haven't even launched any trial policy balloons, and I don't know if parties still even have platforms. It's all so personality-driven now.

But I agree with Colly that they may be thinking that with everything so volatile right now it might be best to just lie low until they see what's what. A couple of months ago everyone was talking about how Bush's big strength was the War on Terror and the Iraq invasion, and that his big vulnerability was the economy. Now the economy seems to be picking up and Iraq is his greatest liability. I don't think anyone knows what's going to happen with oil and gas prices, and that could be a big issue too.

But I would assume that with Bush sinking in the polls, the Dems are just going to sit tight and keep their mouths shut for as long as this goes on.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Bumped for Zor, who is young and for whom there is still hope.

 

[shereads]

Bumped and ground.

 

[Blarneystoned]

Examine History

Kerry is wishy washy...If the democrats are going to succeed they need someone like Truman or FDR. Kerry is neither.

You may not like GW at all, but at least you know where he stands. That is not the case with Kerry. You can't use a Clintonian opinion poll to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. You must use strength and force of will, like Truman did with Japan. How many US troops do you think we re snipered and blown up while we stabilized Germany and Japan and we still didnt get all the Nazis.

Oil will come down because high oil is bad for business. You make money in the short run..but over the long haul people buy less. It cost more to run airlines, people travel less, trucking costs go up, it costs more to send packages, etc. The Saudis will capitualte and force OPEC to produce more or the Saudis will lose market share to Oman, Quatar, Dubai, Libya, etc.

You must think globally now, 911 forced us too.

Blarneystoned

 

[shereads]

Bumped.

 

[Somme]

Grounded 'n b'd......(I'd post articles but as I need a kip I'll, um, save the world tomorrow)

 

[Somme]

Bernard Weiner: Bush's 2004 Scandals for Dummies
Wednesday, 9 June 2004, 1:49 pm
Opinion: Bernard Weiner
Bush's 2004 Scandals for Dummies

By Bernard Weiner
The Crisis Papers

There are so many Bush Administration scandals and so little time to figure them all out. So I checked in with the franchised book series that succinctly provides clear answers for confused dummies like me.

Q. Why are all these scandals seeming to come at the same time? Am I imagining this? Is it a liberal media conspiracy?

A. No, you're not imagining it. And there's no conspiracy involved. It's a phenomenon not at all surprising. Here's how it works:

Many of the Bush scandals aren't new at all; they've been brewing for a long time, with the White House trying to push them off until after Election Day. But scandals, like viruses, erupt on their own schedules.

Then, too, when a mass of scandals all seem to be happening at once, the veneer of invulnerability around an administration is removed. Suddenly what looked impregnable now looks vulnerable, and so more people are willing to step up and be counted in opposition, including whistle-blowing insiders with secrets to reveal. And elements in the mass media, looking for juicy stories, participate in the sharks-in-the-water syndrome when they smell blood; these days, they feel they have to dive in because foreign journalists and internet writers are scooping them each day on the depths of the scandals.

In addition, when you've been around for a long time -- in the case of Bush&Co ., it's been nearly a full term -- you make a lot of enemies. There are a lot of politicians out there, many of them Republicans, who resent the Bush cabal (many refer to them colloquially as "those arrogant sons of bitches") for the way they've been pushed around and threatened and lied to over the years. Even though it may be bad for the party -- in the short term -- they don't mind watching Bush and his cohorts squirm and flail about, just like ordinary mortals; many of these true conservatives feel that if they are lucky, Bush&Co. will implode on their own, and they can get their political party back again.

Then, there are the spooks in the CIA and State who, thoroughly pissed at Bush trying to blame them for all the mistakes in intelligence and the war and 9/11 -- and at the felonious "outing" of one of their covert agents by Bush officials -- are happy to heap dirt (and there's lots of it) on the Bush neo-cons.

Finally, let us not forget that it's not the "liberal media," or Democrats, or disaffected Republicans who generated the scandals. It's Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and their crews who got themselves into this huge mess, through their greed, lust for power, secretiveness, obstinacy, arrogance, and conviction that they are holy warriors in a divine crusade against those who don't believe exactly as they do. That's the irony, of course: In a sense, they're fighting the Taliban, when they want to BE the Taliban.

THE PRISONER-TORTURE SCANDAL

Q. All that's very interesting, but it's way too generalized for me. Maybe we should take the scandals one at a time. Tell me about -- oh, let's start with the abuse-of-prisoners scandal in Iraq.

A. OK, but let's agree on our terms of reference. It's not happening only in Iraq, but all over the world where Bush&Co. believe that information needs to be obtained from detainees, by whatever means necessary. And it's not just "abuse," but out-and-out torture as well.

Q. But the government says it's just a "few bad apples," a few guards who went off on their own, freelance sadists, so to speak. You don't believe the Administration denials?

A. Of course not. Yes, there always are, and will be, some cruel and sadistic guards, who get their jollies by humiliating and beating up and raping prisoners in their care, terror suspects or no. But in this case, it's pretty clear that the chain of command, at least from Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and all the way down the line, set the tone for the lower officers and troops.

Just look at the smoking-gun memos issued for the Bush Administration by law professor John Yoo, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez, and the lawyers in Rumsfeld's office -- all designed to permit, indeed facilitate, what is euphemistically called "harsh interrogation methods" (read: abuse, humiliation, physical and psychological torture) and to shield those ordering such tactics and those carrying them out from being tried later for war crimes.

Using those questionable, enabling advisories from their lawyers, the Bush Administration figured it had cleverly escaped the restrictions of the Geneva Convention with regard to prisoner-care -- by re-naming prisoners "enemy combatants" or "detainees," terms not mentioned in the Geneva rules -- and had engineered it so that U.S. forces could not be held liable in international courts.

At that point, Gen. Miller -- the guy in charge of the infamous Taliban/Al Qaida camp at Guantanamo -- was sent to Iraq to pass on some of these harsh interrogation techniques to the guards and CIA interrogators in Abu Ghraib and the other jail sites. These tactics included sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, keeping the detainees nude and hooded, using beatings and dogs and near-drownings to terrorize them, etc. Miller leaves, and almost immediately the techniques harden up in Iraq and the abuse and torture goes big time.

Things get pretty messy, including scores of prisoners dying while in American custody, presumably after having been beaten or crushed or drowned. Photos are taken -- some for personal enjoyment, some used to frighten other detainees -- and soon the word gets out about what's going on at the prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. Damning reports on the tortures are issued by human rights groups, and the International Red Cross.

So Gen. Taguba is dispatched to find out what happened and write an internal Army report on the mess; his conclusions are devastating. But nobody pays any attention to his report, which languishes in the Pentagon, basically unread. Then all hell breaks loose when the photos and videos of the degrading, humiliating, violent treatment makes its way into the American and world media. Something has to be done.

A few guards are fingered for courts-martial, some lower-level officers are disciplined and moved around, some interrogation tactics are altered, at least temporarily. The whole object is to ride out the wave of bad publicity, and keep the investigation away from those who set the policy, and the tone of behavior, in the first place -- i.e., in the Pentagon and the White House. The strategy seems to be working, but the impact has done its damage to the American cause, especially in the Muslim world.

THE MORAL LOW GROUND

Q. What damage? We're still whoopin' ass in Iraq and the story is off the front pages now.

A. Well, one of the big reasons why Bush's numbers are going lower and lower is that the last remaining reasonable justification for the war disappeared with those tortures and humiliations. There were no WMDs, no nuclear weapons, no imminent threat, no Iraq ties to Al Qaida -- the only claim the Americans still had was that it had toppled a brutal dictator and the cruel regime he ran, one rife with torture and death of prisoners in his care. Now, thanks to the reports and photos and videos, it turns out that prisoners in U.S. care were tortured, humiliated, sexually abused and, in some cases, even killed. There goes the last piece of moral high ground.

Q. OK, so that looks bad for Bush, I grant you. But he's been able to cut off the damage at the lower levels for now, so the neocons are still in control -- that would seem to bode well for Bush's election hopes, yes? But what about the Chalabi scandal?

THE CHALABI ENIGMA

A. We may never find out what that one's all about, it's so involved in multiple layers of spies and double-agents and triple crosses in the convoluted world of Middle East intrigue. The important point seems to be -- beyond the one of finding out which officials in the Pentagon and/or White House committed treason by providing Chalabi top-secret information -- that the long-simmering war between the so-called "realists" at State and the neo-con "ideologues" at Defense is getting nastier and nastier. Each group is finking and leaking on the other with increasing rapidity and nastiness. Condi was supposed to act as a buffer between the two, but it's just too intense.

Chalabi may well be a double- or even triple-agent, feeding us intelligence (some of which actually is good, to justify his pay-grade) at the same time he's passing on U.S. secrets to the Iranians and maybe the Syrians and Jordanians. He's a dangerous viper, but for the moment, has lost much of his power, and his neo-con backers can't get him back into the game, at least not until after the November election.

The "realists" are driving the show right now: witness the new Iraqi interim government, filled with politicians the U.S. can do business with. Sure, it's a rigged selection process -- the guys appointed by the Americans now have appointed themselves to the important portfolios in the interim government -- but supposedly it's only temporary until January. In truth, the whole affair seems designed to help Bush get through the November election, then all bets are off.

But if the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate much further, if the American troops can't provide protection for the Iraqi civilians and government officials and police, the U.S.-friendly new Iraqi government may find itself forced to move even more into the nationalist camp and, at some near-future point, demand that the U.S. take its troops and reconstruction companies and depart the country.

Q. Do you think the U.S. would leave if the Iraq government demanded it?

A. Before the U.S. election, yes: anything to get daily news reports of slaughtered U.S. soldiers and "contractors" (mercenaries) off the electoral front pages. The spin would be: "We came to rid Iraq of Saddam and help set up a functioning democracy; Saddam is gone and a democratic government has made a request we can't ignore." And some troops would be pulled out, slowly, with an eye on the election in the States.

But If Bush were to win in November, then my answer is a firm no. The logic would be: "We didn't come this far, and spend this much human and financial capital, to pack up and go home, our tails between our legs. We're in Iraq to help transform the entire Arab Middle East, stabilize the situation between Israel and its neighbors, and make sure the rich energy resources do not fall into the hands of the Bad Guys. We're staying, get used to it." The neo-con agenda would be re-activated; let the regime-changing begin anew.

FLAMING THE PLAME LEAKERS

Q. What about the Valerie Plame scandal, where two "senior Administration officials" outed the CIA covert agent as payback for her husband (Ambassador Joseph Wilson) revealing how Bush&Co. lied about "yellowcake" uranium in the State of the Union address? Are Karl Rove and Scooter Libby going to be fingered?

A. As John W. Dean and others have written, it could be worse than that. Both Cheney and Bush have approached criminal defense lawyers outside the White House for advice -- not a good sign. This felonious outing -- a bit of vindictiveness that has Rove M.O. written all over it -- always was a simmering pot that could blow up in their faces. Someone is going down on this one, with indictments coming soon; it's just a question of who the sacrificial lambs are going to be and at what level. Will it stop with the underlings or is it going up the line to Rove and Libby (Cheney's chief of staff) -- or, conceivably, if immunity deals are made, to Cheney and Bush? And will the indictments come this summer or right before the election, with the truth coming out at trial after November?

TENET: AN OPEN OR CLOSED MOUTH?

Q. What about CIA Director Tenet's resignation? What does this portend? Will it help or hurt Bush?

A. Whether the stone hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the stone, it ain't good for the pitcher. The head of intelligence leaving in the midst of an election campaign centering on national security issues can only make Bush look more vulnerable. Whether Tenet was pushed or jumped on his own isn't really the point. Whether he keeps his mouth shut between now and November is the central question. So Bush&Co. have to play their deflection of blame onto the CIA with great sensitivity; the spooks are ready to lash back, with more leaks involving more scandalous Bush behavior, and Tenet might feel compelled to join in the fray to back up his former troops. How to keep Tenet quiet is the big job for Bush and Cheney.

Q. What about Cheney's scandals?

A. About time you mentioned his name, as he's far more vulnerable, in so many areas, than his sock-puppet in the Oval Office. Most of Cheney's scandals seem to involve energy -- the way Enron manipulated the California energy crisis, for example, with Cheney on the inside making sure Enron had free rein -- and his ultra-secret energy policy panel, which may have helped create the takeover of the Iraq oil fields. And, then, of course, there's Halliburton, his old company with which he claims he's no longer involved, even while there is evidence that he's deeply engaged. But, again, the whole aim of Cheney and Bush is to keep all this awfulness and political slime hidden under the rocks until after November. Wouldn't do to get impeached before the election.

Q. So much of what you've talked about seems to revolve around November 2. You seem to be cynically implying that everything Bush is doing now is based on winning that election, and that he's even willing to sacrifice his principles to gain a victory. I thought he was a strong guy who didn't flip flop or back down.

A. At this point, Bush/Cheney/Rove care about one thing and one thing only: staying in power. If they get kicked out of the White House in November, they can't complete their agenda of police-state powers at home, and controlling the world situation abroad. They will be in an extremely tenuous, vulnerable position, with many revenge-minded politicos and ordinary citizens working to get them convicted and into the federal slammer.

For all these reasons, be advised that Bush&Co. will do anything, ANYTHING, necessary to stay in the White House, including selling out their grandmothers, distorting the election vote-counts, and looking the other way while a major terrorist attack is mounted inside the U.S. (remembering 9/11 and thinking, perhaps erroneously, that if and when the big terrorist attack happens, the frightened populace once again will rally-'round-the-president).

If the Bushies were to emerge victorious in November, they would be a lame-duck administration, so all restraints would be off. They might well figure they'd be able to do whatever they want to do domestically and around the globe. Native-fascism at home, imperial wars abroad, wrecking even more of the environment, more extremist judges appointed, more corruption, the economy tanking, the middle-class getting squeezed even more, Social Security and Medicare down the tubes.

In sum, if you want to stop these guys, you've got to do it NOW.

**********

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government, has written numerous "Dummies"-like parodies, available at The Crisis Papers website ( crisispapers.org), which he co-edits. He is a contributing author to the just-released "Big Bush Lies" book, available at bookstores and RiverWood Books ( http://www.riverwoodbooks.com/books/Big-Bush-Lies.html).