Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: August 2007
Loading...

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Thursday, August 30, 2007

September It's All On The Table; Impeach or The Streets, Bush And Cheney Have To Go!




SEPTEMBER THE SILENCE ENDS IN RESISTANCE AND REBELLION STEP BY STEP TO THE END!

SEPTEMBER SHOWDOWN OR SELLOUT? THE CHOICE IS OURS!

CONSCIENTIOUS CITIZENS OR COLLABORATING COWARDS;
THE QUESTION SHALL BE ANSWERED!


IMPEACH OR THE STREETS?







CHECK THESE SITES ALSO!


http://grassrootsamerica4us.org/

http://www.washingtonpeacecenter.net/civic

Rev. Yearwood: Liberator For The Mind, Leader For Its Body
Published: Thursday - August 30, 2007Words by Mike Cooper II

Confined by the stereotypes of an imprudent media's perception, hip-hop has become the scapegoat for a lifetime's worth of transgression whilst the very tyrant, who directs that culpability towards the culture of an oppressed people, commits far superior crimes disturbing the balance of humanity itself.

If hip-hop is truly not to blame for a world gone mad, if it's truly not dead, and if it's wise enough to point that finger back at the corporate cronies and media whores who dammed it in the first place, then it will require a leader willing to sacrifice for a cause greater than just the music, or the shoes, or the art.

Hip-hop wishes to plead its own case. For too long have others spoken for it. And those that have wish to censor and bowdlerize it.

Hip-hop necessitates for a leader, a guide for the movement, who understands what the culture has been through, and what it marches towards.

It has found such a leader in Reverend Lennox Yearwood.

BallerStatus recently spoke with Yearwood, the virtuous President of the Hip-Hop Caucus and National Director for the Gulf Coast Renewal Campaign, about the role of hip-hop in today's society and what it can do to better it.

BallerStatus.com: We'll I'm so glad you're out of jail now.

Rev. Yearwood: I'm glad I'm out of jail.

BallerStatus.com: How did it feel to be walking down the steps of the Capitol in handcuffs when you were protesting the biggest bunch of criminals this country has ever seen?

Rev. Yearwood: Yeah. You know? They're handcuffing the wrong people obviously. They shouldn't be arresting the ones who are protesting and trying to make the injustice visible. They should handcuff the ones who are committing the injustice in the first place. And so you're right... it was... it was very difficult.

My wrist is still hurting. They were plastic handcuffs, so they tighten up as you move. It was very tight on my left wrist. The damage to my thumb is still not right. I'm hoping it repairs itself naturally, but that is the cost literally for trying to bring awareness and trying to get this congress to do what it's supposed to do.

BallerStatus.com: You've spoken about John Conyers being your mentor. How does it feel to be let down by him?

Rev. Yearwood: Well, I mean honestly in regards to Congressman Conyers he is... I mean he was a great mentor for me since the days of being a White House intern for Clinton, and then when I was actually a political director for Russell Simmons, he was a great ear to discuss that, and on the issue of Katrina, and some many different things.

But unfortunately we both realized -- and it was disappointing -- that we did not agree on his role as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to uphold our Constitution by holding this President and Vice President accountable for admitting egregious impeachable offenses.

BallerStatus.com: Here's a quote you said about the sit in, "We sat down so others could stand up." Explain to the public what you had in mind when you said that?

Rev. Yearwood: It's funny because Rosa Parks worked in John Conyers' office, so it was actually ironic to me -- in the lobby of the office there's a bust of Rosa Parks -- and so we just followed suit to savor that Rosa Parks sat down so a whole movement could stand up, the Civil Rights movement. We did the same thing for the impeach movement.

We sat down even though it might cost us a day of our freedom to be arrested, and now be monitored by certain agencies about our personal information, but we sat down because we recognized its time for us to have the impeachment movement standup. We're standing up to this President and this Vice President.

We recognize that if we don't stand up now in the 21st century, then our future is very bleak.

BallerSatus.com: It came out a couple days ago, in the BBC, that apparently Prescott Bush was part of the Business Plot back in the 30s to overthrow Roosevelt and install a fascist dictator in the White House. Did you hear about that?

Rev. Yearwood: Nah, actually I didn't. I need to look that up.BallerStatus.com: Took them about 70 years, but they finally did it, to an extent.

Rev. Yearwood: Yeah, and that's the thing. The irony to this whole process is that Congressman Conyers' wife sits on the City Council of Detroit, the largest city, to call for, and put impeachment on the table. And so her husband is in the position to push it forward or keep it from happening, so it's important to note that Congressman Conyers is the authority on impeachment.

He and his staff actually wrote the book on it, on the crimes and what would be impeachable, while they were in the minority. And that's important because they listed out everything from Downing Street to torture, obviously Katrina, and then the signing statements. I mean there are so many acts that are breaking the rule of law, and the bottom line here is that if the law makers break the rule of law there is no rule of law. There is no law at all. And so Congress' job is to make laws, but if there is no rule of law, Congress might as well go home.

And I told somebody this today, I said, "Right now in 2008, we're voting for Hillary Clinton and maybe in 2028, we'll be voting for Chelsea Clinton." And there might be a situation where the precedent that is set now, for our generation, is a precedent that can be disastrous because if you cannot impeach this President now for torture and starting an illegal war where hundreds-of-thousands of people have lost there lives, for literally leaving the Katrina survivors behind while they go on vacation, for signing statements and egregious after egregious act then we'll never be able to impeach anybody in the future.

BallerStatus.com: That's really telling. What will it take, hauling off minorities and disabled to camps and gas chambers? That's next the run on this downward ladder to hell. When they impeached Clinton only one person wrote the bill if I'm not mistaken. I believe it was Hyde.

There were no other co-sponsors. And there are at least 15 signed on to oust Cheney as we speak. And you mentioned Detroit, and they are nearly a hundred other cities that are backing it as well. Perhaps as much as 40 percent of the population is backing impeachment.
Rev. Yearwood: That's funny because the people actually... this has essentially become a polling nation, where a focus group gets polled and decisions are based on that.

One of the things about being a polling nation is that they're done so often now, on every minor issue that many aren't taken seriously anymore.

Even the polls show that this nation wants impeachment. We brought one million signatures of people who were calling on this President to be impeached. It is the people who are calling for this impeachment.

And if the Congress does not follow the will of the people, then whose House is it? Is it the people's House? Or is it somebody else's House?

BallerStatus.com: It's Wall Street's House. So anyway, when did you first become a minister?Rev. Yearwood: I became a minister right after college. I was the SGA President, and also I played college basketball. And while I was there, I was a White House intern.

That was someway I felt I could pursue in order to help, and I felt that I needed something outside of myself. In this day and age, you sort of need something visible to put on in order to make some change.

BallerStatus.com: What was your experience like as an intern in the White House?
Rev. Yearwood: My experience was... I guess you call it an experience. I believe in life you go through a series of experiences that get you to where you are.

So, you know, at the White House, I was like any other intern. You just go about and do intern stuff. But that gave me the opportunity to meet the President and I approached him on Lonnie Guinier, who was up for a position, but the Right was against her because she was "too radical" and he pulled her name out of the process even though most of the communities of color wanted her.

So I kind of stood up then, and I guess I've been standing up ever since.

BallerStatus.com: Will you be backing Cindy Sheehan's run in 2008 against Pelosi?Rev. Yearwood:

You know, it's funny the caucus is in a position now... I'll lead by this: Cindy Sheehan is my mother in the movement. And the caucus has backed the fact that we are not partisan. We are post-partisan. We push based upon issue. And so the issue there, as it simply boils down in San-Francisco, is about organized people versus organized money.

So I will definitely back the candidate who is for organized people.

BallerStatus.com: Have you ever been down to Camp Casey before?

Rev. Yearwood: I have. I've been down to Camp Casey. We were there over Easter when we did our "Make Hip-Hop Not War" tour. That was one of our stops. It actually snowed in down there in Crawford, about three inches. It was amazing. It snowed in the heart of Texas and we were dancing for justice in the snow.

It was also amazing because there were a lot of white anti-war activists and a lot of young urban black anti-war activists dancing together for justice. That's the bottom line for what we really want to achieve. I call ourselves the "Dream Generation," a generation where we are the sons and daughters of former slaves working together with descendants of some of our former slave owners, and that's a dream generation. We believe that we can actually -- and we will -- end poverty, racism and war.

The Dream Generation is a generation where it's not about black or white, Asian or Latino, and even male or female. It's really about Dr. King's dream, about being judged by your content and not your color.

So as this Dream Generation, we believe that we can end a lot of things the boomers refused to end.

BallerStatus.com: Tell me about the day-to-day functions of the Hip-Hop Caucus.

Rev. Yearwood: The caucus job is pretty simple. Our job is to make government transparent. I mean that's pretty easy, and to inspire and motivate the young to be more involved in social change and politics. And so obviously we do that through electoral activism. We do that through the culture with hip-hop programs. You know, it's really funny... the greatest thing the Caucus has brought so far... one of the things that we have now in the 21st century is this kiddy table mentality through which activism was created 'cause if you were under 30 you could only be involved with groups like campus organizations or with youth stuff.

The Hip-Hop Caucus... it's hard. I will admit it's hard. We don't have the infrastructure and the resources and all the people that other organizations have. But we do have influence and access, and we have our voice. Our voice is at the table, with the people. We're speaking up for people who don't normally get that chance. And so we're really trying to just dismantle that kiddy table mentality.

BallerStatus.com: It was that march on the Pentagon when I first became aware of your movement and its mission. You were very recognizable up there with those "Make Hip-Hop Not War" shirts. What do you see as the difference between the hip-hop you grew up on, and fell in love with, and what we see today when we turn on BET, or hear when we turn on the radio?Rev. Yearwood: Yeah, I mean the difference between the rap music -- because hip-hop is a culture -- of then and now is that back then the music was seen as unprofitable.

So the trueness of the music came out. The trueness of the music was freedom music. Music is usually tied to that. Music comes from the people. It's still that way. That's one thing about it, if you go into other parts of the world like Brazil, France, and even in Africa, it's being used as wake up music.

Unfortunately in America, it was found to be profitable, and then it went from being profitable to being buffoonery and blackface. So you have those artists, but I don't discount all my comrades. There are some artists I don't listen to or some songs like that, but they still deserve credit for going through an experience, an experience that should be listened to. The caucus, being who we are, we work with all groups.

I say that because one thing about it, we're in this together, whether some artists see that or align with our message. Obviously there are some artists more in lined with our political thought. We just did a "Shut it Down, Stop the Torture!" concert with Mystic, Dead Prez and Wise Intelligent among others.

BallerStatus.com: Interesting you mention Wise Intelligent, he has been featured on BallerStatus.com as of late. The man is quite a wordsmith. What do you have to do to make the public more aware of that type of hip-hop as opposed to the corporate conceived commercial side that's dominating right now?

Rev. Yearwood: I tell you this, and this is not a self-serving comment, I believe that organizations like the Hip-Hop Caucus... the stronger we get, the stronger they will get. If the people are not political, they're not going to want to listen to political music. So the more that they get involved in politics and gain an understanding about impeachment, the war, healthcare, police brutality, and all the bigger problems that are affecting their community, once that happens then they're going to want to hear the music along those lines.

That was the power of 95 because they were listening to the Million Man March and they were dealing with Rodney King. They were dealing with police brutality at that point in time. They were dealing with problems with education and healthcare in their communities, and we still are. It was politically inspired, so they could hear it. I believe as Hip-Hop Caucus gets stronger, so does Wise Intelligent. As the caucus gets stronger, so will Immortal Technique.

When we get stronger, we will have greater influence and access to deal with media reform, and deal with getting people on radio. We'll deal with the FCC. We'll deal with the conglomerates who want to keep them off the air. We are a mechanism to organize, mobilize and energize the masses. We can then link with the artist to make change. Then as we get stronger, you'll hear them on the radio, and they'll become the face of hip-hop. And I think they're getting that.

I think that's the reason Immortal Technique and my staff, Liz, and the other people on staff talk and are dealing with things because we recognize how important it is for us to work together.

BallerStatus.com: What do say to the leaders of the black community, and elsewhere, who are pushing to censor the hip-hop culture and rap music?

Rev. Yearwood: Well, I think it's funny. I think what they're doing now is falling into the game, into the hands of those who want to confuse the community. Those that recognize the power of the hip-hop generation recognize that we have a wonderful ability to think outside the box, that we are not falling inline with their train of thought. So obviously they want to cut that down, cut our influence and access. They want to link together those -- the corporate, the ironic part, the corporate buffoonish blackface side with the side that is being much more political and calling for change.

So you would think it'd be the same way when Dr. King was coming up with SCLC and SNCC, and you know the Hip-Hop Caucus has often been called the 21st century version of SNCC. When SNCC came up, it wasn't popular to say black. It was a bad word. It was just like saying the "n" word now. It was bad. If you said that word, it was terrible. But they started saying "Black Power" and people got scared cause of that.

There's a famous story about that. Dr. King didn't shut them down. He recognized this is the voice of the people. Instead of shutting them down, he said in the march, "Black Power." They said it was so shocking that one guy who had a camera, filming, dropped his camera. That's how it was.I think that what would really happen if more of the people who really are ahead of us... we're now finding out that we have a lot of superficial leadership in these positions who we call timecard activists because they're career activists who are really more concerned with their paycheck than the people.

The paycheck trumps people, and because of that they don't care. We have that problem. I mean that's where we are with that right now. I laugh too because buffoonery and blackface they come out now and act like its new, but I remember Pam Grier, "Superfly" and "Dolemite." That was just blackface that was used to take away power from the Black Panthers at that point in time.

It created another image of blackface in the 70s, so it's not a new thing and they act like it's new.That's why its so disheartening because our leaders themselves went through that when they were, back then, saying "Power to the People" only to be drowned out by things like "Superfly" or "Dolemite," those things that were used to show that they were cool with the police. When they we're talking about pigs in Oakland, they would come out with "Shaft" who was cool with the police, and all that kind of stuff.

You know? So we've always had that as an influence on our community, so I'm just shocked that these same leaders would then fall into that. We're not going to fall into that. We're going to empower our community, inside and outside the academy.

BallerStatus.com: So do you feel that Sharpton and some of the other leaders should be focusing more time protesting what Bush is doing and less time thinking about the current state of rap music?

Rev. Yearwood: Oh most definitely. There's no doubt about it. It should have been Iraq and not Imus. I mean yes, of course. That's no doubt. They're more worried about funding cycles than people. You are correct on that. That is clear... and they do. I will say this too: there are times when Jesse and Sharpton have spoken out on Bush.

But the media is certainly not putting that out there. I've been at events and heard Jesse speak out on Bush, and the media won't put that out there. They have been looking out. Is it enough? No. It would have been great beautiful moment to have Sharpton and Jesse Jackson with me in Conyers' office. I think that would have put out a statement. That would have been wonderful.

BallerStatus.com: Certainly the whole Imus ordeal was a mess, and we here were pissed while it went down, because meanwhile in the nation's capitol Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was preparing to testify before Congress and that got no attention. And the reason he's in trouble right now is because he fired U.S. Attorneys, and the reason he fired them was because of voter suppression. And his purpose, the cause of Gonzalez, and Rove and that whole cabal is too suppress the minority vote in 2008. That is real racism. That isn't on the news.

Rev. Yearwood: You hit it on the head. That's the thing about it. You hit it on the head. I mean I'm more worried about someone treating me as the "n" word than calling me one. So that's the reality. And so you're right Gonzalez is out there doing this thing. I having this feeling that we're going through a higher form of Jim Crow. And you're right, Gonzalez has fired their attorneys -- that's what's crazy.

He fired his own people because they were not hard enough on trying to suppress the votes of convicted criminals or soldiers fighting overseas, most of all whom were black or Latino. So you're right. I mean, it's ridiculous that goes on at the same time as Imus. You know, it's funny we were all in Chicago when they all came on Oprah, that was the same week that our "Make Hip-hop Not War" tour was in Chicago, on the same day they're all on television talking about Imus and I'm thinking, "man." This very moment there are black soldiers who are dying in Iraq.

Studies show that it's safer for a black man in Iraq than it is on the streets of Chicago. I was shocked she was even wasting her time talking about that. It was disheartening, but that's the reason why there has to be new leadership and a new thrust of people. It makes sense for us to fight for our generation. At the same time though, if I'm 65 and blocking the way of other people coming up from behind then I'm wrong.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/26257

Conyers Now Says Impeachment is NOT Off His Table

Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2007-08-29 12:49. Congress Impeachment

By Ann Wright, Colonel, US Army Reserves (retired)
US Congressman John Conyers said in Pontiac, Michigan, on August 28, 2007 that, while Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi may have impeachment off her table, he has NOT put impeachment off HIS table!

At a gathering of over 500 citizens of the Detroit and Pontiac, Michigan area gathered to “Take a Stand” against the war on Iraq sponsored by Iraq Summer, Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said that citizens must bring to an end “sad and tragic war.”

Conyers said that citizens must reject the “imperial” government of the Bush administration. Conyers listed torture, Geneva Convention violations, abuse of national security letters, and voters’ rights violations as parts of the “imperial system,” and that members of the administration have “inherent contempt” for the Congress. Conyers said he has no reticence or reluctance to “use the tool of impeachment,” when he “feels it is appropriate.”

I spoke to the gathering prior to Congressman Conyers. I called for accountability for the invasion and occupation of an Arab, Muslim, oil-rich country that had not attacked the United States and for other Bush crimes such as torture, kidnapping, illegal detention and warrant less wiretapping. I said accountability for illegal actions is critically important to our country as if the Bush administration escapes accountability, future administrations will attempt to do the same.

I asked Congressman Conyers to “Take a Stand” for accountability for the deaths of 3760 US military and 1000 US civilian contractors killed in Iraq, for the 700,000 Iraqis killed in the US occupation of Iraq and for the 770 persons imprisoned for almost 6 years in Guantanamo with only one charged and convicted by the US military commission.

I emphasized that investigations of allegations of criminal actions by President Bush and Vice-President Cheney were the right of citizens, that investigations that could lead to impeachment, were a part of the US Constitution that could not be taken away by individual Congressmen or women.

And, I reminded Congressman Conyers that I was one of 400 persons who came to his office on July 23 and one of 47 who were arrested in his office when he would not agree to consider initiating investigations on articles of impeachment. Conyers has said frequently that “we don’t want to jeopardize the 2008 elections with impeachment” and “we don’t have time before the 2008 for impeachment.”

I also promised to organize the “protection of the House Judiciary committee” if Nancy Pelosi attempted to take the chairmanship of the Judiciary committee from Conyers if he initiated investigations for possible impeachment.

The 500 citizens in the audience were committed to putting further pressure on the Congress for ending the war on Iraq and were enthusiastic about holding the Bush administration accountable for its crimes through impeachment.

September is a critical month for ending the war. We need as many people as can come to Washington to put pressure on the Congress to end the war and to impeach those in high offices who have broken domestic and international law. The Petraus/Crocker/White House report will be presented in mid-September, marches will be on September 15 and 29. The Iraq Moratorium Day is September 21. Come help in DC!!!

STOP THE WAR and Demand Accountability through IMPEACHMENT!
About the Author: Ann Wright is a retired US Army Reserves Colonel and a US diplomat who resigned in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq. She served in US Embassies Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. She was on the team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan in December, 2001. She is the co-author of “Dissent: Voices of Conscience” which will be published in October, 2007.

I want to read what US Congressman John Conyers said in Pontiac, Michigan, on August 28, 2007. Is this just more pandering to the crowds? A month ago he was willing to have people arrested at his office, now he's back to "ya impeachment sounds good"? WTF?

September Showdown or Sellout? The Choice is Ours!

Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-08-30 20:35. Activism

Congress returns on September 4th after a month's vacation. It has been 8 months since this Congress took power with a mandate to end the occupation of Iraq and hold Bush and Cheney to the rule of law. This Congress has funded the occupation, legalized unconstitutional spying, and promised never to impeach. Will this trend continue? Can we afford to allow it to? We have killed over a million people, and the death rate is double this year what it was last year, according to the Associated Press.

There are signs that the tide may be turning. A serious movement in Congress to impeach Gonzales helped lead to his departure. Twenty congress members of conscience have signed onto articles of impeachment for Cheney. Congressman John Conyers says he wants impeachment proponents to come to his office to urge him on (watch the video). And 70 congress members have committed to oppose funding the occupation, while funding a withdrawal by January 2009 or sooner.

What can we do to push Congress in the direction of peace and justice? Big marches are planned for the 15th and the 29th in Washington, but the pressure will be all month long. September has something for everyone!

There are local events all over the country on the September calendar. Here are some of the most exciting national (and international) dates:

Congress returns on September 4th after a month's vacation. It has been 8 months since this Congress took power with a mandate to end the occupation of Iraq and hold Bush and Cheney to the rule of law. This Congress has funded the occupation, legalized unconstitutional spying, and promised never to impeach. Will this trend continue? Can we afford to allow it to? We have killed over a million people, and the death rate is double this year what it was last year, according to the Associated Press.

There are signs that the tide may be turning. A serious movement in Congress to impeach Gonzales helped lead to his departure. Twenty congress members of conscience have signed onto articles of impeachment for Cheney. Congressman John Conyers says he wants impeachment proponents to come to his office to urge him on (watch the video). And 70 congress members have committed to oppose funding the occupation, while funding a withdrawal by January 2009 or sooner.

What can we do to push Congress in the direction of peace and justice? Big marches are planned for the 15th and the 29th in Washington, but the pressure will be all month long. September has something for everyone!

There are local events all over the country on the September calendar. Here are some of the most exciting national (and international) dates:

Aug. 29 - Sept. 2: International Tribunal on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in New Orleans, La.: http://www.internationaltribunal.org/

Aug. 31 - Sept. 1: People's Poll and Peace Rally in Ft. Worth, Texas. This will be a huge protest at the time and place where the Republican Party is planning to have 20,000 delegates from throughout the U.S. and all of the Republican presidential candidates attend their Straw Poll Convention: http://www.texansforpeace.org/peoplespoll/schedule.htm

Sept. 4: Stand watch over Congress! Join us in the gallery and STAND to show we are watching what this Congress does: http://www.americastandswatch.org/

Sept. 6: Call Congress! This one is for everybody. Call your representative and your two senators at . Tell them: I want you to act now to end the war and occupation of Iraq. The Congress has the Constitutional right and a moral responsibility to use the power of the purse to withdraw all U.S. soldiers and contractors from Iraq on a rapid and binding schedule. Four and a half years of this war is too long - it has to end now!

Sept. 7: Choose Peace Concert! Emma's Revolution, Randi Driscoll, Free Radicalz, and more, in New York City: http://www.democrats.com/node/14104

Sept. 8-16: Vacation for Peace in Italy!The people of Vicenza, Italy, have been struggling against the construction of a proposed new U.S. military base in their city. They have organized a week of camping, actions, debates, rallies, concerts and initiatives. Join them: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/26308

Sept. 8: The War and Rural America! Farmers and veterans meet in New York City: http://www.democrats.com/node/14102

Sept. 11: March of the People Arrives in DC just in time for the White House's expected sales pitch for extending the occupation: http://www.marchofthepeople.org/

Sept. 11: Washington, D.C.: 3 PM to 7 AM following day, all night vigil in front of Tower Guard, by the Capitol Building, with the Action Response Team reading 12,000 impeachment cards with messages from people all over the Country to impeach Bush and Cheney! Come join and read some of these incredible hand written messages: http://www.arrestcheneyfirst.org/

Sept. 12: "Tell the Truth" event outside your local media outlet: http://www.democrats.com/node/14134

Sept. 12: 11 AM, deliver 12,000 impeachment messages to Nancy Pelosi personally. All are welcome to attend and stay for a nice chat with the Democratic Leader! http://www.arrestcheneyfirst.org/

Sept. 14-21: Days of Decision, nonviolent action at congressional offices to end the occupation of Iraq: http://www.declarationofpeace.org/

SEPTEMBER 15:

Thousands of Americans from around the country will join together in Washington, D.C., to demand the impeachment of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush and insist on the immediate end to the occupation in Iraq. Please join us: http://www.impeachbush.org/

Or hold a local event:

Use the occassion of September 15 to hold an impeachment rally in your town. You'll find big marches in Alabama, Kansas, and Florida on the calendar, and several more here. Hold your own. Visit your congress member's offices. Hold a Honk-to-Impeach event. Hold a sit-in. Screen a video. Event resources are here: http://afterdowningstreet.org/eventresources

http://www.troopsoutnow.org/

A Two-Month Surge of Resistance Against the War at Home and Abroad

The next two months will see many acts of protest and resistance against the war. We encourage you to organize, mobilize, and support as many of these actions as you can. Let's answer Bush's surge with a surge of resistance.

August 25 - March Against the the war at home and abroad - Newark - http://www.peaceandjusticecoalition.org%20/

August 25 - Protest the war criminals - Kennebunkport Maine http://www.kportprotest.org%20/

August 27 - Stop the War Against Women - http://iacenter.org/images/womennyc082707a.pdf%20

August 29 - September 2, 2007 - International Tribunal on Hurricanes Katrina & Rita - http://internationaltribunal.org%20/

September 11 - "Day of Outrage" against police terror - NYC - called by the D12 Movement http://troopsoutnow.org/sept11.html

September 15 - March Against the War - Washington DC - called by the ANSWER Coalition http://www.answercoalition.org/

September 22 - 29 - Encampment to Stop the War in Washington - http://www.answercoalition.org/

September 29 - March against the war at home and abroad - http://www.troopsoutnow.org%20/

October 27 and 28 - Regional antiwar protest around the country - called by United for Peace & Justice - http://www.unitedforpeace.org%20/

http://www.myspace.com/encampmenttostopthewar

Michael Marowitz: Why Bush must be impeachedMarin Independent-Journal - San Rafael,CA,USAIn combination, these actions provide more than sufficient grounds for impeachment. There are probably many more grounds for impeachment that the process ...See all stories on this topic

War, Impeachment on the Minds of McCollum's ConstituentsMinnesota Monitor - Minneapolis,MN,USA... any of the times that the topics of Congressional oversight, subpoenas of White House staff and records, or impeachment were brought up at the meeting. ...See all stories on this topic

When is enough enough?Pasadena Weekly - Pasadena,CA,USAUpstairs, other members of the Glendale/Pasadena Impeachment Committee and the Los Angeles National Impeachment Center (LANIC) weren't having as much luck ...See all stories on this topic

Tough Talk On ImpeachmentBy Anthony I listened to this podcast a couple weeks ago and it got me even more worked up about impeachment. Constitutionalists are furious about the precedents being set by George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their co-conspirators. ...The Cosmic Tap - http://www.cosmictap.com/

Impeachment Quickie: Conyers Says Impeachment Not Off His Table!By Ticia US Congressman John Conyers said in Pontiac, Michigan, on August 28, 2007 that, while Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi may have impeachment off her table, he has NOT put impeachment off HIS table! ...TPMCafe blogs - http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog

Impeachment of George W. Bush : a handbook for concerned citizens ...Title: Impeachment of George W. Bush : a handbook for concerned citizens / Elizabeth Holtzman with Cynthia L. Cooper. Edition:. Publisher: New York : Nation Books, c2006. Location: Bird-4th Floor. Call Number: KF5075 .H65 2006 ...History - New Titles - Syracuse... - http://library.syr.edu/

Conyers: "Impeachment off Pelosi's Table, but Not Mine"By Christopher John Conyers declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could not stop him from beginning impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee against a 'long list of people'in the Bush administration, although he did not make a firm ...From the Left - http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com

Conyers WANTS Impeachment Proponents to Come to His Office"I want you to know that I have no reticence, no reluctance, no hesitation to use the tool of impeachment ... whenever I feel that it is appropriate," Conyers said. "I only wish that I could be moved by a lot of people coming to my ...AfterDowningStreet.org - Impeach... - http://www.afterdowningstreet.org

Dear World Can't Wait Supporter,

Last week, this was posted on worldcantwait.org:

We Are What We’ve Been Waiting For!

If ever there was a time to step outside the boundaries of what “common wisdom” accepts as possible, this is it. We need - the whole world needs - a movement of massive and powerful RESISTANCE, a movement that begins to wrench the future of humanity out of the blood drenched hands of the likes of Bush and Cheney and puts it in the hands of the people. A movement that unseats a sitting president, and creates a new atmosphere of liberating, fierce, and joyous struggle in the place of the suffocating acquiescence to endless atrocities that exists today.

A groundswell of orange, assisted and amplified by the voices of prominent people and musicians wearing and promoting orange on TV, radio, and on stage at concerts can break people out of this conundrum where millions are just furious but still numbed and rendered inactive by the complicity of the loyal opposition Party and by the anaesthetizing effects of the presidential elections.

The world has been waiting…but the world can’t wait any longer. Can’t wait for a massive movement to arise, determined to make the sacrifices and take the risks; to overcome the obstacles, to show the courage and heart so urgently in demand today; to cry out “enough” - of the unjust wars, the threats of further wars, the mass destruction of entire cities and neighborhoods, the grotesque torture and endless imprisonment, the steady encroachment of a police state of pervasive and permanent government spying, the relentless poisoning of this planet and the very things that make life sustainable.

The World Can’t Wait for a movement that has the focus, energy, and resolve to Drive Out the Bush Regime. The world has been waiting – and we are what we’ve been waiting for

DECLARE IT NOW: WEAR ORANGE, DRIVE OUT THE BUSH REGIME!

WITH THE WARNER ANNOUNCEMENT THE EVALUATION OF THIS ELECTION DATA AND THE HEARST/DAVIS RACE WILL BE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTAIL!

Tom Davis Truth

Demographic Breakdown



Sen. Warner to Say Whether He Will Seek Reelection
By Bill Turque
Washington Post Staff WriterThursday, August 30, 2007; 2:30 PM

Virginia Sen. John W. Warner (R), whose political plans have been the subject of intense speculation, will announce tomorrow whether he will seek a sixth term in 2008.

Warner, 80, is scheduled to reveal his decision tomorrow afternoon on the north steps of the Rotunda on the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, according to a brief statement issued by his office this afternoon.

Speculation about Warner's retirement has circulated for many months. The departure of several long time staff members, and his almost nonexistent fundraising activity, have fueled expectations that he will step down. He reported in April that he raised just $500 in the first three months of this year.

Still, Warner cautioned that if he did decide to run, "I have every confidence that I will be able to raise sufficient resources."

His departure would significantly alter the 2008 political landscape both nationally and in Virginia. If he does not seek re-election, he will likely turn Virginia into a battleground in the GOP's fight to gain control of the Senate, which Democrats currently hold by a threadbare 51-49 margin. Democratic Party leaders are touting former Gov. Mark R. Warner as a likely candidate.

On the Republican side, Rep Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) has long coveted Warner's seat, and would probably have primary competition from the right wing of the party, perhaps former Gov. James S. Gilmore III. Davis's candidacy would also have a domino effect in Fairfax County. Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D), who has refused to commit to finishing his term if reelected in November, has made no secret of his interest in succeeding Davis in the 11th Congressional District, where Democrats are gaining strength. Former Rep. Leslie Byrne (D) has been mentioned as another possible contender.

Connolly's departure would set off a stampede at the local level, with a number of possible aspirants, including Supervisor and Metro board member T. Dana Kauffman (D-Lee), who is not seeking reelection, and Board of Supervisors Vice Chair Sharon Bulova (D-Braddock).
Why We Need More Investigations Like Cheney Needs More Power
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-07-12 19:51. Evidence Impeachment

Their crimes stand open on the table before us. Their lies about Iraqi ties to al Qaeda are on videotape and in writing, and they continue to make them to this day. Their claims about Iraqi weapons have been shown in every detail to have been, not mistakes, but lies. Their threats to Iran are on videotape. Bush being warned about Katrina and claiming he was not are on videotape. Bush lying about illegal spying and later confessing to it are on videotape.

A federal court has ruled that spying to be a felony. The Supreme Court has ruled Bush and Cheney's system of detentions unconstitutional. Torture, openly advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs. Torture was always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and Cheney. Bush has reversed laws with signing statements.

Those statements are posted on the White House website, and a GAO report found that with 30 percent of Bush's signing statements in which he announces his right to break laws, he has in fact proceeded to break those laws. For these and many other offenses, no investigation is needed because no better evidence is even conceivable. And rather than taking three months, the impeachment of Cheney or Bush could be completed in a day.

But the investigations that Congress has pursued at its glacial pace over the past six months, while thousands upon thousands died, have produced another impeachable offense, the refusal to comply with subpoenas. That is what President Richard Nixon did; and his refusal to comply with subpoenas constituted the offense cited in one of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974 as warranting "impeachment and trial, and removal from office."

Bush and Cheney are claiming executive privilege. Nixon also tried that one. It didn't work then; and it won't work now. Condoleezza Rice is claiming, with more frankness, that she's just not inclined to comply. Even Nancy Pelosi ought to understand by now that the removal of the threat of impeachment is what empowers the White House to ignore subpoenas, and that the threat of impeaching the White House for its stonewalling would break down the wall even before we reached impeachment.

And Bush and Cheney have now gone further by announcing on July 19, 2007, that the Justice Department will not enforce any contempt of Congress proceedings. So, that alternative to impeachment is out.

THAT LEAVES IMPEACH OR THE STREETS! FIGHT OR SURRENDER!

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

IMPEACH, BUSH, CHENEY, IRAN, CONTEMPLATION OF MADNESS!












S.O.B. (SON OF BUSH) CONTEMPLATES MADNESS: WAR WITH IRAN! IRAN CHATTER ON THE DANGEROUS SIDE. THEY HAVE TO BE MAD!

IRAN IS NO THIRD WORLD POWER IN THE WEAPONS DEPARTMENT AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF A PRECIPITOUS ACTION COULD BE GLOBAL







Iran holds the northern side of the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow neck in the Persian Gulf through which two fifths of the world's traded oil passes. A hi-tech torpedo could be used with devastating effect against oil tankers and western warships sent to protect them, choking off the world's oil supply, driving up prices and causing global economic chaos.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is the United States provoking war with Iran, to begin while the Congress is conveniently on its August recess?

One recalls that it was in August 1964, after the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, that the Tonkin Gulf incident occurred.

Twice it was said, on Aug. 2 and Aug. 4, North Vietnamese patrol boats had attacked the U.S. destroyers Maddox and Turner Joy in international waters. The U.S. Senate responded by voting 88 to two to authorize President Johnson to assist any Southeast Asian nation whose government was threatened by communist aggression.

The bombing of the North began, followed by the arrival of U.S. Marines. America’s war was on.

As Congress prepares for its August recess, the probability of U.S. air strikes on Iran rises with each week. A third carrier, the USS Enterprise, and its battle group is joining the Nimitz and Stennis in the largest concentration of U.S. naval power ever off the coast of Iran.

And Tonkin Gulf II may have already occurred.

In Baghdad, on July 1, Gen. Kevin J. Bergner charged that Iranians planned the January raid in Karbala, using commandos in American-style uniforms, that resulted in the death of five U.S. soldiers.

As the New York Times reports, this “marks the first time that the United States has charged that Iranian officials have helped plan operations against American troops in Iraq and have had advance knowledge of specific attacks that have led to the death of American soldiers.”

The Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards is using Hezbollah to train Shi’ites to attack our soldiers and providing them with enhanced IEDs that have killed scores of U.S. troops, Bergner charged. He says we have captured a veteran Hezbollah agent and documents pointing to direct Iranian complicity in the Karbala raid.

Iran has denounced the charge as “ridiculous.” But the Senate has voted 97 to zero to censure Iran for complicity in killing the Americans.

If what Bergner alleges is true, President Bush has not only the right but appears to have the blessing of Congress to attack Iran. And he now has the naval and air forces at hand. What is stopping him?

For it is surely not Congress, which buried a resolution last spring declaring that Bush must come to Congress before taking us into a new war in the Middle East. Congress appears to be signaling Bush: “If you want to hit Iran, you have the green light. No need to consult us.”

Is this yet another abdication by Congress of its moral and constitutional duty to decide when and whether America goes to war?

And something smells awfully fishy here.

Iran has no interest in a war with the United States, which it seems to be toying with. Iran supports the pro-American Shia regime in Baghdad. And the al-Qaeda umbrella group in Iraq, which is our mortal enemy, has just warned Iran it faces terror attacks if it does not stop supporting Shi’ites in Iraq.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who leads the al-Qaeda group known as the Islamic State in Iraq, says his fighters have been preparing for four years for war on Iran.

“We are giving the Persians, and especially the rulers of Iran, a two-month period to end all kinds of support for the Iraqi Shi’ite government and to stop direct and indirect intervention – otherwise a severe war is waiting for you,” Baghdadi said in a 50-minute videotape.

Baghdadi also warned Arab Sunnis in the region who do business with Shi’ites in Iran that they were inviting assassination.

Query: If Iran’s ally, the Maliki government, is our ally, and if Iran’s enemy, al-Qaeda in Iraq, is our enemy, why would Iran use the Quds Force to attack Americans and risk U.S. retaliation?

Killing Americans in Iraq is not going to defeat the United States. But it could trigger heavy U.S. retaliation, not only on the Quds Force, but on Iran’s nuclear facilities – and a war with the United States. Yet Iran’s diplomatic behavior suggests it wishes to avoid such a war.

Another explanation comes to mind. Iran is not initiating, but is responding to U.S.-inspired attacks inside Iran, in the Kurdish north, the Arab southwest, and the Baluchi southeast of its country. Was Karbala an attempted kidnapping to exchange U.S. soldiers for the five Iranian “diplomats” we are holding?

Has Bush secretly authorized covert attacks inside Iran? Are U.S. and Israeli agents in Kurdistan behind the attacks across the border to provoke Iran? On July 11, Iranian troops clashed with Kurd rebels inside Iran, and the Iranians fired artillery back into Iraq.

Why is Congress going on vacation? Why are a Democratic-controlled House and Senate not asking these questions in public hearings? Why is Congress letting Bush and Vice President Cheney decide whether we launch a third war in the Middle East?

Or is Congress in on it?

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Bush and Cheney Cornered; The Need to Impeach Before Iran Attack
Political Cortex, NY - Jul 30, 2007Acknowledging the prospect of Bush mounting military action against Iran as a result of his cornered status in the wake of death and failure in Iraq coupled ...


CNN.com - Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran...
The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions ... Hersh said U.S. officials believe that a U.S. attack on Iran might provoke ...www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/ - 51k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


Iran readies military, fearing a U.S. attack / Tensions with Bush ...
Iran readies military, fearing a US attack Tensions with Bush administration surge over Tehran's disputed nuclear ambition.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/21/MNGHUBERIV1.DTL - 50k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


Annals of National Security: The Iran Plans: The New Yorker
The Iran Plans. Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the ... inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. ...www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact - 116k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


'America would back Israel attack on Iran' - Telegraph
'America would back Israel attack on Iran' ... Moments later, Mr. Bush was asked another question on Iran and appeared to return to his script - this time ...www.telegraph.co.uk/.../news/2005/02/18/wiran18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/18/ixnewstop.html - 40k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


Consortiumnews.com
Despite assurances from Bush and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that they have no plan to attack Iran, the steady build-up of U.S. forces in the region ...www.consortiumnews.com/2007/022707.html - 34k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


RTÉ News: Bush: Iran attack 'ridiculous'
George W Bush Attack on Iran 'ridiculous'. George W Bush Attack on Iran 'ridiculous'. EU-US Summit Historic family photo. EU-US Summit Historic family photo ...www.rte.ie/news/2005/0222/bush.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


Mohammed Cartoons Prep Europe For Bush Iran Attack
Of course, if these regimes decide to play Mussolini to Bush's Hitler and actually send their troops to join the Anglo-Americans in war with Iran, ...www.rense.com/general69/moh.htm - 42k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack - Times Online
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly ...www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece - Similar pages - Note this


Why Bush will Choose War Against Iran
So this is why I reluctantly believe today that Bush will indeed launch an attack on Iran before the expiration of his term of office: ...www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14694.htm - 20k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


Think Progress » U.S. General: Iran Attack Fraught With Risk, Bush ...
Does anyone really believe that Bush wants to attack Iran? Come on! What the hell is that useless debate society, better known as the UN doing about ...thinkprogress.org/2006/05/02/iran-general/ - 86k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


The Washington Note
If we were to attack Iran, our naval forces could also be vulnerable to counterattack. Is there anyone in this last-throes Bush-Cheney administration who ...www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002281.php - 51k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


Lebanonwire.com A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'
The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after internal polling indicated that if the Bush administration launched a so-called anti-terrorist attack on ...www.lebanonwire.com/0410/04102002LW.asp - 13k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


CNN.com - Bush: Talk of Iran attack 'wild speculation' - Apr 10, 2006
President Bush on Monday dismissed as "wild speculation" reports that his administration has considered nuclear strikes against sites in Iran to prevent the ...www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/bush.iran/index.html - 41k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


War Summit - Bush, Sharon Meet To Plan Iran Attack
Meet To Plan Iran Attack Thermonuclear Armed Israeli Leader To Visit Bush at Ranch Rattled CIA Types Now Sounding The Alarm About Israel MER MiddleEast.org ...www.rense.com/general63/warsum.htm - 41k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


WhatReallyHappened.com: IRANArchives
In furtherance of Dick Cheney's buildup for an attack on Iran, the Bush Administration is planning to declare Iran's largest military branch, ...www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_iran.html - 977k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


Annals of National Security: The Next Act: The New Yorker
Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more? ... Bush announced the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, ...www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27/061127fa_fact - 112k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


Prelude to an Attack on Iran - TIME
Reports that the Bush Administration will put Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the ... starting with the attack on the Marines in Beirut in 1983. ...www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1654188,00.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


Democracy Now! Seymour Hersh: Bush Administration Planning ...
Seymour Hersh: Bush Administration Planning Possible Major Air Attack on Iran ... inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. ...www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/12/1359254 - 48k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


AlterNet: MediaCulture: Are Bush & Co. Gearing Up to Attack Iran?
See more stories tagged with: iran, attack, war, rove, cheney, bush ..... Bush will attack Iran because liberals and progressives are gutless blowhards. ...www.alternet.org/mediaculture/60493/?page=2 - 131k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


Bush Tries To Allay E.U. Worry Over Iran (washingtonpost.com)
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," Bush said. "And having said that, all options are on the table." ...www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43199-2005Feb22.html - Similar pages - Note this

Will There Be An Attack On Iran?


Wake Up America - 6 hours agoTimes Online reports on President Bush's comments concerning Iran's pursuit to an atomic bomb could lead to a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East and ...

Bush attacks 'forces of radicalism'











VDARE.com, VA - 18 minutes agoBush’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, his planned attack on Iran [See Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East, PDF], ...

POLITICS: Israel Warned US Not to Invade Iraq after 9/11


Inter Press Service (subscription), Italy - 8 hours agoWilkerson notes that the main point of their communications was not that the United States should immediately attack Iran, but that "it should not be ...

News Analysis Departures Offer Chance for a Fresh Start as Term Ebbs


New York Times, United States - 4 hours agoLike Ronald Reagan after the Iran-contra scandal, Mr. Bush wants to prevent his final year in office from being dominated by Congressional inquiries. ...

Philadelphia Inquirer

French Leader Raises Possibility of Force in Iran


New York Times, United States - Aug 27, 2007But Mr. Sarkozy harshly criticized the Bush administration for going to war against Iraq on its own and for failing to address the global warming crisis ...



AlterNet, CA - Aug 23, 2007A former CIA analyst estimates the chances of an attack on Iran and shows that the mainstream media is already cheering it on. A shorter version of this ...

Philadelphia Daily News



New York Times, United States - 22 hours agoAll of this means that there is nothing between Mr. Bush and another unilateral and pre-emptive attack on a country that is not an imminent threat. Iran ...The Great Divide Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Councilall 474 news articles »

Who’s on First? Fighting on many fronts in Iraq


Blogger News Network - 1 hour agoIran is sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which could be used to attack American and NATO troops. Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who ...

The Same-old same-old: Are we going to get on that same slippery ...


Intellectual Conservative, AZ - 14 hours agoIf Bush embarks on a bombing campaign of Iran that is based on the restrictive "gradualism" to send his own version of the Vietnam-era diplomatic message, .

A poodle for a lapdog


Payvand, Iran - 12 hours ago[iv] Mr. Bush is intolerant of any news which may indicate Iran to be a force for progress and peace in the region. He, too, has had his orders to attack ...
of evil” was enormously detrimental to ...

Scotsman



ABC Online, Australia - 7 hours agoMr. Ahmadinejad also dismissed the chance of any US attack on Iran over its nuclear drive, saying a warning by his new French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy ...Iran Ready to Fill Any Vacuum in Iraq Forbesall 262 news articles »

No Light Unto the World: Hegemonic Hubris
Pacific Free Press, Canada - Aug 26, 2007According to Baer, the Bush regime has given no consideration to whether Iran's response to a US attack might be different than to welcome it as liberation. ...

We've got to get Bush out of office
BlueRidgeNow.com, NC - 18 hours agoTo The Editor: If Congress does not start impeachment immediately, Bush will render them powerless to govern and Cheney will initiate an attack on Iran. ...

MIDEAST: Bush Peace Plan Met with SkepticismInter Press Service (subscription), Italy - 19 hours ago"The proposed peace summit is only meant to provide the US with the political cover it needs to attack Iran," Ibrahim Eissa, political analyst and ...

From the Lives of the Marionettes: Gonzo Gone But the Grotesquerie ...
Empire Burlesque, UK - 5 hours agoIt will not stop the now-inevitable attack on Iran, and the hideous murder that will follow. It will not close the concentration camps at Guantanamo Bay, ...

Bush: Fight Against Extremism Is Crucial
Guardian Unlimited, UK - 8 hours ago``Iran is sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan to be used to attack American and NATO troops,'' Bush said. ``Iran has arrested visiting American ...

The Crisis Papers on DU
Democratic Underground, DC - 13 hours agoFormer Middle East CIA specialist Bob Baer says that senior intelligence officials told him that Cheney Bush are likely to attack Iran within six months. ...

Bush Applauds Iraq Officials
FOX News - Aug 27, 2007"Success in Iraq will be a major blow to the extremists and radicals who would like to attack America again. And that's why the United States will continue ...

CIA said to step up operations against Iran as hawks seek to tie ...
Center for Research on Globalization, Canada - Aug 26, 2007by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane In an effort to build congressional and Pentagon support for military options against Iran, the Bush administration ...

Clash with Cheney over Iran prompted Rove departure
Arab American News, MI - Aug 25, 2007It is as though I'm back as an analyst at the CIA, trying to estimate the chances of an attack on Iran. The putative attacker, though, happens to be our own ...

Cheney, Lieberman and the Iran War Conspiracy
AlterNet, CA - Aug 18, 2007I was never one of those who believed the Bush administration was getting ready to attack Iran in 2006 or early 2007. But it is now clear that at least Vice ...

Congressional approval would be needed to attack Iran


By MATT STEARNS

McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON Taking military action against Iran could put President Bush on a collision course with Congress, leading Democrats and a Republican lawmaker cautioned Friday.

Bush on Thursday threatened unspecified consequences for alleged Iranian meddling in Iraq.

It has been the consensus for months among the Democrats that Bush must get congressional authorization before any military strike.

The authorization would be no easy sell. Two knowledgeable U.S. officials said that the administration so far doesn’t have “smoking-gun” evidence that could be used publicly to justify an air attack.

The presumed target of an attack would be camps in Iran where officials think that the Iranians are teaching Iraqi Shiite fighters how to fashion bombs that can destroy American armored vehicles.

The U.S. officials refused to discuss whether such evidence exists but can’t be made public because doing so would betray intelligence sources.

Even with such evidence, however, the Democratic-controlled Congress could be hard to convince, five years after Vice President Dick Cheney kicked off the administration’s public relations campaign against Saddam Hussein with a speech in Cincinnati.

Several administration officials said that Cheney has advocated launching air strikes against targets in Iran if there is clear evidence of Iranian support for Shiite Muslim militants in Iraq.

Sen. Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, appeared Friday to steer the administration toward requesting authorization.

“I doubt the president could or would do so without coming to Congress,” he said. “Nevertheless, there are a number of wide-ranging actions he could be taking, primarily focusing on expanding diplomatic efforts to increase pressure on Iran.”

To reach Matt Stearns, send e-mail to
mstearns@mcclatchydc.com

Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran

The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis.

The paper, "
Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East" – written by well-respected British scholar and arms expert Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament – was exclusively provided to RAW STORY late Friday under embargo.

"We wrote the report partly as we were surprised that this sort of quite elementary analysis had not been produced by the many well resourced Institutes in the United States," wrote Plesch in an email to Raw Story on Tuesday.

Plesch and Butcher examine "what the military option might involve if it were picked up off the table and put into action" and conclude that based on open source analysis and their own assessments, the US has prepared its military for a "massive" attack against Iran, requiring little contingency planning and without a ground invasion.

The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicizing the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.

US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.

US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.

Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.


Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.

Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programs.

The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.

The US is not publicizing the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.


When asked why the paper seems to indicate a certainty of Iranian WMD, Plesch made clear that "our paper is not, repeat not, about what Iran actually has or not." Yet, he added that "Iran certainly has missiles and probably some chemical capability."

Most significantly, Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a "full-spectrum approach," designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of "a weak or failed state." Although they acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter the Bush administration from carrying out such a massive attack, they also emphasize that the administration's National Security Strategy includes as a major goal the elimination of Iran as a regional power. They suggest, therefore, that:

This wider form of air attack would be the most likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program for a sufficiently long period of time to meet the administration’s current counter proliferation goals. It would also be consistent with the possible goal of employing military action is to overthrow the current Iranian government, since it would severely degrade the capability of the Iranian military (in particular revolutionary guards units and other ultra-loyalists) to keep armed opposition and separatist movements under control. It would also achieve the US objective of neutralizing Iran as a power in the region for many years to come.


However, it is the option that contains the greatest risk of increased global tension and hatred of the United States. The US would have few, if any allies for such a mission beyond Israel (and possibly the UK). Once undertaken, the imperatives for success would be enormous.

Butcher says he does not believe the US would use nuclear weapons, with some exceptions.

"My opinion is that [nuclear weapons] wouldn't be used unless there was definite evidence that Iran has them too or is about to acquire them in a matter of days/weeks," notes Butcher. "However, the Natanz facility has been so hardened that to destroy it MAY require nuclear weapons, and once an attack had started it may simply be a matter of following military logic and doctrine to full extent, which would call for the use of nukes if all other means failed."

Military Strategy

The bulk of the paper is devoted to a detailed analysis of specific military strategies for such an attack, of ongoing attempts to destabilize Iran by inciting its ethnic minorities, and of the considerations surrounding the possible employment of nuclear weapons.

In particular, Plesch and Butcher examine what is known as Global Strike – the capability to project military power from the United States to anywhere in the world, which was announced by STRATCOM as having initial operational capability in December 2005. It is the capacity that could provide strategic bombers and missiles to devastate Iran on just a few hours notice.

Iran has a weak air force and anti aircraft capability, almost all of it is 20-30 years old and it lacks modern integrated communications. Not only will these forces be rapidly destroyed by US air power, but Iranian ground and air forces will have to fight without protection from air attack.

British military sources stated on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" from March 2003. It continued this focus even though it had infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

Global Strike could be combined with already-existing "regional operational plans for limited war with Iran, such as Oplan 1002-04, for an attack on the western province of Kuzhestan, or Oplan 1019 which deals with preventing Iran from closing the Straits of Hormuz, and therefore keeping open oil lanes vital to the US economy."

The Marines are not all tied down fighting in Iraq. Several Marine forces are assembling in the Gulf, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979 as is indicated in this battle map of Hormuz illustrating an advert for combat training software.

Special Forces units – which are believed to already be operating within Iran – would be available to carry out search-and-destroy missions and incite internal uprisings, while US Army units in both Iraq and Afghanistan could mount air and missile attacks on Iranian forces, which are heavily concentrated along the Iran-Iraq border, as well as protecting their own supply lines within Iraq:

A key assessment in any war with Iran concerns Basra province and the Kuwait border. It is likely that Iran and its sympathizers could take control of population centres and interrupt oil supplies, if it was in their interest to do so.

However it is unlikely that they could make any sustained effort against Kuwait or interrupt supply lines north from Kuwait to central Iraq. US firepower is simply too great for any Iranian conventional force.

Experts question the report's conclusions

Former CIA analyst and Deputy Director for Transportation Security, Antiterrorism Assistance Training, and Special Operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, Larry Johnson, does not agree with the report’s findings.

"The report seems to accept without question that US air force and navy bombers could effectively destroy Iran and they seem to ignore the fact that US use of air power in Iraq has failed to destroy all major military, political, economic and transport capabilities," said Johnson late Monday after the embargo on the study had been lifted.

"But at least in their conclusions they still acknowledge that Iran, if attacked, would be able to retaliate. Yet they are vague in terms of detailing the extent of the damage that the Iran is capable of inflicting on the US and fairly assessing what those risks are."

There is also the situation of US soldiers in Iraq and the supply routes that would have to be protected to ensure that US forces had what they needed. Plesch explains that “"firepower is an effective means of securing supply routes during conventional war and in conventional war a higher loss rate is expected."

"However as we say do not assume that the Iraqi Shiia will rally to Tehran – the quietist Shiia tradition favored by Sistani may regard itself as justified if imploding Iranian power can be argued to reduce US problems in Iraq, not increase them."

John Pike, Director of
Global Security, a Washington-based military, intelligence, and security clearinghouse, says that the question of Iraq is the one issue at the center of any questions regarding Iran.

"The situation in Iraq is a wild card, though it may be presumed that Iran would mount attacks on the US at some remove, rather than upsetting the apple-cart in its own front yard," wrote Pike in an email.

Political Considerations

Plesch and Butcher write with concern about the political context within the United States:

This debate is bleeding over into the 2008 Presidential election, with evidence mounting that despite the public unpopularity of the war in Iraq, Iran is emerging as an issue over which Presidential candidates in both major American parties can show their strong national security bona fides. ... The debate on how to deal with Iran is thus occurring in a political context in the US that is hard for those in Europe or the Middle East to understand.



A context that may seem to some to be divorced from reality, but with the US ability to project military power across the globe, the reality of Washington DC is one that matters perhaps above all else.


We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran. So, do not be in the least surprised if the United States attacks Iran. Timing is an open question, but it is hard to find convincing arguments that war will be avoided, or at least ones that are convincing in Washington.

Plesch and Butcher are also interested in the attitudes of the current UK government, which has carefully avoided revealing what its position might be in the case of an attack. They point out, however, "One key caution is that regardless of the realities of Iran’s programs, the British public and elite may simply refuse to participate – almost out of bloody minded revenge for the Iraq deceit."

And they conclude that even "if the attack is 'successful' and the US reasserts its global military dominance and reduces Iran to the status of an oil-rich failed state, then the risks to humanity in general and to the states of the Middle East are grave indeed."

Larisa Alexandrovna is managing editor of investigative news for Raw Story and regularly reports on intelligence and national security stories. Contact:
larisa@rawstory.com

Muriel Kane is research director for Raw Story.

Nuclear Weapons


http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

Iran's nuclear program began in the Shah's era, including a plan to build 20 nuclear power reactors. Two power reactors in Bushehr, on the coast of the
Persian Gulf, were started but remained unfinished when they were bombed and damaged by the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war. Following the revolution in 1979, all nuclear activity was suspended, though subsequently work was resumed on a somewhat more modest scale. Current plans extend to the construction of 15 power reactors and two research reactors.

Research and development efforts also were conducted by the Shah's regime on fissile material production, although these efforts were halted during the Iranian revolution and the Iran-Iraq war.

The current nuclear program is headed by the President, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the head of the Defense Industries Organization, and the head of Iran's
Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO). These leaders continue the pursuit of WMD's and support Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear programs against all pressures from the United States and its allies.

Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect any of its nuclear facilities. Prior to 2003 no IAEA inspections had revealed Tehran's violations of the NPT.

Since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Tehran redoubled its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and
ballistic missiles. In addition to Iran's legitimate efforts to develop its nuclear power-generation industry, it is believed to be operating a parallel clandestine nuclear weapons program. Iran appears to be following a policy of complying with the NPT and building its nuclear power program in such a way that if the appropriate political decision is made, know-how gained in the peaceful sphere (specialists and equipment) could be used to create nuclear weapons (dual-use technologies have been sold to Iran by at least nine western companies during the early 1990's). Also, in this atmosphere of deception, unconfirmed reports have been made that Tehran purchased several nuclear warheads in the early 1990's

It is evident that Iran's efforts are focused both on uranium enrichment and a parallel plutonium effort. Iran claims it is trying to establish a complete
nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy program, but this same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons development program. Iran appears to have spread their nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection or attack.

Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, and would appear to be about two years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. By some time in 2006, however, Iran could be producing fissile material for atomic bombs using both
uranium enriched at Natanz and plutonium produced at Arak. The Natanz facility might produce enough uranium for about five bombs every year, and the Arak facility might produced enough plutonium for as many as three bombs every year.

If Iran did acquire atomic bombs, it would put pressure on other countries in the region do the same. Many Arab countries believe it is unfair that Israel has nuclear weapons. If Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia but also Egypt and possibly Syria, found themselves caught between a nuclear-armed Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran, it would greatly increase pressures to pursue their own nuclear options. This could result in a regional arms race in the Middle East which is likely to be quite destabilizing, given the number and intensity of conflicts and instabilities in the region.

In December 2003 Presidential hopeful John Kerry said that he would explore "areas of mutual interest" with Iran.

And in June 2004 Kerry proposed providing nuclear fuel to Iran in
exchange for Iran's abandoning the fissile material production complex at Esfahan, Arak, Natanz and other locations. In an interview on 29 August 2004, reported in the Washington Post on 30 August, Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards proposed a "Grand Bargain" with Iran, under which the US would drop objections to the nuclear power reactor at Bushehr, in exchange for Iran abandoning the material production complex.

According to Edwards, if Iran rejected this offer, it would confirm that it was building atomic bombs. Edwards also said that Kerry would ensure that European allies would join the US in imposing sanctions on Iran. "If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us," Edwards said. "Iran is further along in developing a nuclear weapon than they were when George Bush came into office... A nuclear Iran is unacceptable for so many reasons, including the possibility that it creates a gateway and the need for other countries in the region to develop nuclear capability -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, potentially others," Edwards said.

Iranian Weapons
07 April 2006


Iranian Weapons (MP3)
Iranian Weapons (Real Player) - Download
Listen to Iranian Weapons (Real Player)

The Iranian government claims to have developed new weapons. One is a torpedo that can supposedly destroy ships and submarines at any depth and any speed. The second weapon is a missile that Iran claims can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously. Iran also said it test-fired a high-speed underwater missile.

Bryan Whitman, a U.S. Defense Department spokesman, says, "Iranians are always trying to improve their weapons systems by both foreign and indigenous measures":

"It's possible that they are increasing their capability and making strides in radar absorbing materials and targeting. However, the Iranians have been known also to boast and exaggerate their statements about greater technical and tactical capabilities."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan says that Iran's "aggressive military program and defiant rhetoric are further examples of how the regime is isolating itself and the Iranian people from the rest of the world":

"It is also a reminder of why the international community is united in its concern about the regime's possible development of nuclear weapons, and why the international community is calling on Iran to comply with its international obligations, or face further isolation."

Mr. McClellan says the United Nations Security Council "sent a very clear statement to the [Iranian] regime":

"It said: Comply with your obligations, come clean. You have thirty days to come clean, make a commitment to come clean and comply with your obligations, or we're going to be back at the Security Council consulting about next steps to take."

The United States, says White House spokesman McClellan, has "a number of concerns about the [Iranian] regime's behavior and there appears to be a pattern. . . .of concealing its nuclear activities, a pattern of supporting terrorism, [and a] pattern of threatening rhetoric." He says, "You can understand why we are skeptical given their history of hiding their activities."

The preceding was an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government.
Iran sends a message to the West by boasting about its high-speed torpedo

By Tim Butcher, Middle East Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:49am BST 03/04/2006

Iran announced that it has carried out successful test-firings of the world's fastest torpedo, capable of outrunning any warship.

The message was intended as a signal to western military planners considering attacks to deal with Iran's nascent nuclear capability.

While military plans remain secret, it is believed that Washington, London and Tel Aviv have begun drawing up options ranging from surgical air strikes to helicopter-borne commando raids.

A new torpedo of the speed and capability described by Ali Fadavi, a rear admiral of the Revolutionary Guards, would not be used to combat western warships involved in an attack on Iran but to punish western military action by crippling the world's oil supply.

Iran holds the northern side of the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow neck in the Persian Gulf through which two fifths of the world's traded oil passes. A hi-tech torpedo could be used with devastating effect against oil tankers and western warships sent to protect them, choking off the world's oil supply, driving up prices and causing global economic chaos.

"This device evades sonar technology under the water and even if the enemy's sonar system could detect its movement, no warship could escape from it because of its high velocity," Admiral Fadavi said.

"The Islamic Republic is now among only two countries that hold this kind of missile." He did not name the other. "Under water, the maximum speed that a missile could move was 25 meters per second. But now we possess [one] that goes as fast as 100 meters per second.

"It carries a very powerful warhead that enables it to operate against groups of warships and big submarines."

Iran is known to have a number of Kilo-class submarines. Built in Russia, they are relatively sophisticated hunter-killer boats, designed to sneak up on enemy shipping, attack with torpedoes and escape. Iran lied to the international community for more than 10 years about its nuclear capability, denying that it had any technology or ambitions.

Intelligence leaks to the West eventually forced Teheran to admit that it had a relatively advanced nuclear program but even now it insists that this is purely to generate energy. It flatly denies any military ambitions.

There has been a significant toughening of the language used by western diplomats about Iran recently.

By Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer


TEHRAN, Iran — Iran conducted its second major test of a new missile within days on Sunday, firing a high-speed torpedo it said no submarine or warship can escape at a time of increased tensions with the U.S. over its nuclear program.

The tests came during war games that Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have been holding in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea since Friday.

On the maneuvers' first day, Iran said it successfully tested the Fajr-3 missile, which can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads.

The new torpedo, called the "Hoot," or "whale," could raise concerns over Iran's power in the Gulf, a vital corridor for the world's oil supplies and where the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet is based. During Iran's war with Iraq in the 1980s, Iranian ships attacked oil tankers in the Gulf, and Iran and the U.S. military engaged in limited clashes.

Iran's state television stopped its normal programs to break news of the torpedo test, showing it being launched from a ship into the Gulf waters, then hitting its target, a derelict ship.

Gen. Ali Fadavi, deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards' navy, said the ships that fire the Iranian-made Hoot had radar-evading technology and that the torpedo — moving at 223 miles per hour — was too fast to elude.

"It has a very powerful warhead designed to hit big submarines. Even if enemy warship sensors identify the missile, no warship can escape from this missile because of its high speed," Fadavi told state television.

The Hoot's speed would make it about three or four times faster than a normal torpedo and as fast as the world's fastest known underwater missile, the Russian-made VA-111 Shkval, developed in 1995. It was not immediately known if the Hoot was based on the Shkval.

The new weapon gives Iran "superiority" against any warship in the region, Fadavi said, in a veiled reference to U.S. vessels in the Gulf. It was not immediately clear whether the torpedo can carry a nuclear warhead.

Cmdr. Jeff Breslau, spokesman for the U.S. 5th Fleet based on the tiny Arab island nation of Bahrain in the Gulf, said no special measures were taken in reaction to the Iranian war games, even after the latest missile test.

He would not comment on whether the new torpedo represents a threat to American forces in the region.

"In general terms, no matter where we operate in the world, we're aware of other capabilities that exist and of other countries that aren't as friendly to the U.S., and we pay attention to those capabilities," he said.

The U.S. and Iranian navies have had brush-ups during the past — during the "Tanker War," when U.S. warships moved into the Gulf to guard oil tankers.

In 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly damaged by an Iranian mine. In response, the U.S. Navy launched its largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American helicopter was shot down, killing the two pilots.

Iran is now trying to show its strength amid worries of U.S. military action over its nuclear program, which Washington says aims to produce nuclear weapons. Iran denies the accusation, saying it intends only to generate electricity.

The U.N. Security Council has demanded Iran give up uranium enrichment, a crucial part of the nuclear process. Washington is pressing for sanctions if Tehran continues its refusal to do so, though U.S. officials have not ruled out military action as an eventual option, insisting they will not allow Iran to gain a nuclear arsenal.

Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has warned that the United States will "suffer" if it takes action against its nuclear program. Some have seen that as a threat to increase militant action in the region or turn to the oil weapon, though Iranian oil officials have ruled out any squeeze in supplies.

Iran, which views the United States as an arch foe and is concerned about the U.S. military presence in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, says the maneuvers aim to develop the Guards' defensive capabilities.

The United States and its Western allies have been watching Iran's progress in missile capabilities with concern. Iran already possesses the Shahab-3 missile, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and hitting U.S forces in the Middle East.

The upgraded version of the ballistic Shahab-3 missile can travel about 1,200 miles, putting Israel within easy range.

Fadavi said Sunday's torpedo test was the outcome of six years of hard work at the Iranian Aerospace Industries, affiliated with the Defense Ministry.

More than 17,000 Revolutionary Guards forces are taking part in the weeklong maneuvers in the Gulf.

On Sunday, guards paratroops practiced a drop in an attack on a mock enemy position, and warships, jet fighters, helicopters and sophisticated electronic equipment were used in other exercises.

The television report said Sunday's war games included measures to respond to electronic jams caused by a mock enemy.

Iran has routinely held war games over the past two decades to improve its combat readiness and test locally made equipment such as missiles, tanks and armored personnel carriers.

Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.


http://www.securenet.bc.ca/NewsCentral/News%20Library/News%20Releases/nl072307.htm

http://www.missilethreat.com/archives/id.33/subject_detail.asp

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2006/index_04.htm

THE LATEST ON IRAN....
Joseph Cirincione:
For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran.

Apparently senior sources in Britain have been getting the same message.
From the Telegraph:

It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is "inevitable" if Teheran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment program.

....A senior Foreign Office source said...."If Iran makes another strategic mistake, such as ignoring demands by the UN or future resolutions, then the thinking among the chiefs is that military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis. The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable."

There's no question that the administration is already preparing the ground for an air strike on Iran, but it's likely that the real push won't come until late summer when it can be used as a cudgel in the midterm elections. Same song, new verse.

And once more: If Democrats
don't start thinking about how they're going to respond to this, they're idiots. We don't always get to pick the issues to run on. Sometimes they're picked for us.

n 1994, Russian military contractors were handing out
brochures touting their "high-speed underwater missiles." This weapon, called the Shkval, had a "high kill capability," the contractors promised. Against it, "known anti-torpedo defense system[s]" were "not effective." Someone in Tehran liked what they read, apparently. Check out today's New York Times.

Iran said Sunday that it had test-fired what it described as a sonar-evading underwater missile [video of the test
here]...

The new missile is among the world's fastest and can outpace an enemy warship, Gen. Ali Fadavi of the country's elite Revolutionary Guards told state television.

General Fadavi said only one other country, Russia, had a missile that moved underwater as fast as the Iranian one, which he said had a speed of about 225 miles per hour.

That's because this Iranian weapon -- called the "
Hoot," or "whale" -- is based on the Russian Shkval, according to former Naval Intelligence Officer Edmond Pope. "I was informed in late 1990's by a Russian government official that they were working with Iran on this subject," he tells Defense Tech. "A cooperative demonstration/program had already been conducted with them at Lake Issy Kul in Kyrgyzstan."

The
Shkval goes so fast because it creates an air bubble around itself, essentially. The process, known as supercavitation, keeps friction to a minimum. "Instead of being encased in water," New Scientist noted, the weapon "is simply surrounded by water vapour, which is less dense and has less resistance." (Pope has more about the technology on his website. The Airborne Combat Engineer blog rounds up supercavitation speculation here.)

As the AP notes, the Russian-Iranian cooperation could have major strategic consequences for the U.S. navy, possibly keeping American ships from operating freely in the
Persian Gulf. "The U.S. and Iranian navies have had brush-ups during the past."

During the "Tanker War," when U.S. warships moved into the Gulf to guard oil tankers.

In 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly damaged by an Iranian mine. In response, the U.S. Navy launched its largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American helicopter was shot down, killing the two pilots.

(Big ups: NH, RC,
Kathryn)

UPDATE 12:22 PM: As Aaron and Hambling both note,
Darpa has its own supercavitation project -- an ultra-fast torpedo for shooting SEALs through the seas. Defense Technology International has the scoop.

UPDATE 1:39 PM:
Kathryn clues us into the fact that Iran is planning to test-fire another new torpedo later today.

"Because of its high speed, this torpedo is able to strike any type of submarine at any depth," Rear Admiral Mohammad Ibrahim Dehghani told the state-run news agency Fars.

"This torpedo will be fired from mini-warships to combat pretend enemy submarines in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz," Dehghani said.

Meanwhile,
ACE digs through Ed Pope's site, and finds that "a concerted effort to develop an underwater supercavitating vehicle was begun here in the US and the Russians obtained key documents from us and reportedly bought at least one patent from a company in the US."

ACE also echoes a
commenter below, who says that the Germans have "developed a supercavitation torpedo which is able to intercept and destroy a Shkval."


Original source


Iran


The Geopolitics of Oil: Next We Take Iran
Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran
The Senate: Blank Check for War on Iran
Ron Paul Warns War With Iran Inevitable - U.S. Policies Must Be Changed
Intelligence Services, The Media Softening the Public Opinion for War On Iran
Bush Directive for a Catastrophic Emergency in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran?
U.S. Congress - When it comes to Iran, the Extremists are in Charge
The Day After We Strike Iran
Accusations Pave Way for Attack on Iran - by Philip Giraldi
U.S. Congress - When it comes to Iran, the Extremists are in Charge
The Day After We Strike Iran
Hitler 1938, Cheney 2007?
Alain Gresh: Countdown to War on Iran
Could an al-Qaeda Attack Trigger War With Iran? - by Gareth Porter
“Islamic Terrorists” supported by the Bush Administration -”Black Ops” directed against Iran, Lebanon and Syria
Iran: Does ‘The Decider’ Decide on War? - by Pat Buchanan
Gary Leupp: Cheney, Israel and Iran
Neocons - not defeated - determined to gin up a War with Iran
Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran
Iranian Missiles do not pose any Threat to Europe
ZNet Iran Fact Sheets of Iran-US Standoff
Teetering on the Brink of Disaster: The NeoCon Decision to Bomb Iran
Clinton: US might have to attack Iran Jerusalem Post
Risk to the U.S. Dollar from Iraq War and Iranian Crude Oil Exchange - The Market Oracle
ZNet Iran They Would Not Really Attack Iran, Would They?
Iran May Be The Greatest Crisis Of Modern Times
Norman Solomon: Iran - The Awful Truth About Hillary, Barack and John
Bush and his Iran madness
Stop War on Iran
Iran leads attack against U.S. dollar
Noam Chomsky - The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous
Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs againt Iran: This Way Lies Madness

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

A Letter From The Black Quill: Additional Thoughts On Why Bush And Cheney Ought To Be Impeached











A Letter From The Black Quill: Additional Thoughts On Why Bush And Cheney Ought To Be Impeached And The Congress Held Accountable For Dereliction Of Duty: Misfeasance, Nonfeasance, Malfeasance In Office Equals Congressional Malpractice: Matters of Principle and A helping of America’s Violent Apple Pie!








But First Some Thoughts others have had:

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. -Samuel Adams-

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles on sleeping men. -Voltaire-

No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots. - Barbara Ehrenreich-

Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will. –Frederick Douglass-

I have named the destroyers of nations: comfort, plenty, and security - out of which grow a bored and slothful cynicism, in which rebellion against the world as it is, and myself as I am, are submerged in listless self-satisfaction. - John Steinbeck-

Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. -Oscar Wilde-

The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment. - Robert M. Hutchins-

We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King, Jr.-

When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered. - Dorothy Thompson-

Edward R. Murrow:
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

Rabbi Sherwin Wine:
There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.

The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.

This second vision is our vision. It is the vision of a free society. We must be bold enough to proclaim it and strong enough to defend it against all its enemies

Historically we are little more than dust, our time a mere blink of a strobe in the grand scheme of things, a fleeting moment to examined, evaluated and judged by archeologists and historians ages hence in the continued pursuit of truth not always discernable in the crucible of the present.

In “hopeful assumption” that we will have left them voluminous, almost verbose records, that will not have been consumed in some great catastrophic conflagration authored by man’s ignorance and greed, they will sift through our questions and answers, events glorious and disastrous and place us in the continuum of man’s exploits on this planet.

Their task will be no easier than historians of the past or of this day. The task will be different. They will not so much have to dig through the fallen ruins of man’s edifices as to sift through the deluge of words and records to determine the truth. Again, that perspective is premised on the optimistic hope and assumption that man as a whole is not suicidal and will succumb to the inferno of a nuclear holocaust leaving only the fragmentation of ash.

Not so long ago, within our blink, Americans walked on the moon while the world watched in admiration. Today, Americans are trudging with guns through streets of carnage in Baghdad, while the world hangs its head in shame at what we have become.

Not so long ago, American moral leadership inspired the world. Other nations respected us, even our enemies. We were looked up to because we were worthy of it. We were a compassionate and generous nation, a nation that cared for its poor and honored its laws and believed in the American Dream.

But for seven years, we have been trapped in a nightmare. Our government puts human beings in cages. Our government tortures prisoners. Our government spies on us. Our government wages war for oil. Politicians have dragged America into the gutter. But we don't have to stay there.

Across this country on September 15, we can show these politicians and pundits and complicit media hacks that their lies about Iraq are no longer going to be tolerated. We can join together with other Americans, in our streets and parks and neighborhoods, in Washington D.C., in New York City, in San Francisco, in Chicago and Denver and Philadelphia and Boston. We have to tell America the truth about Bush's monstrous war for oil. Congress won't. But we will. Someone has to.

We don’t want to admit that citizen default is responsible for the success of the Bush administration's fear-mongering. Yes, we have allowed Bush and company to anesthetize us with fear. And by remaining under the ether of irrational anxiety we are abandoning our responsibility, the oath we take as citizens when we pledge allegiance to our flag – the symbol of our Constitution. If as citizens we allow the Bill of Rights to be vitiated and eviscerated we are complicit in the treasonous acts of our government.

Edward R. Murrow said it best: “No one man can enslave an entire nation unless we are all accomplices.” And damn it, ladies and gentlemen we are guilty as hell! We let our young men and women go off to Iraq and fight and die is a wrongful cause, and we talk and we squawk, but we do not act and move as citizen soldiers to topple this regime, and that is what must be done.

As the old Pogo comic strip said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Walter Lippman swung a good hammer and hit the nail on the head when he warned: that “the false ideal of democracy…can only lead to disillusionment and to meddlesome tyranny limiting individual freedom.”

We are where we are at this moment in time because we have accepted the concept that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. We have not done our jobs. We have been politically proper polite cowards, and that is a fact!

America is a herd of blank drones drifting vacantly through the shopping malls of America, going about business as usual while denying the existence of pervasive and threatening evils.

I freely acknowledge that when people get to the street, it's almost always not the first option. That happens when we see the system not working. Are we there yet fellow Americans? What in the hell are we waiting for? Are we a bunch of political alcoholics waiting to hit the bottom, the bottom being the first time the administration declares martial law anywhere for any reason? And twelve steps up from there will be a helluva climb, a helluva price!

If so many people are fed up with the war, why is everyone so silent? Is this the way it usually feels in the heartlands of great empires until the barbarians actually do come knocking at the gates?

“All governments fall, eventually,” Nelson said. “The symptom is when those we elect begin to feel that they are superior to the people they represent. George Washington stated “How soon we forget history. Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” He got that one right!

“Hopefully, this government will wake up and recognize that, as a servant of the people, it is obligated to obey our Constitution, and when it does not; what does The Declaration Of Independence proscribe as a remedy?

We are in the midst of a political crisis that goes right to the heart of our constitutional government. Yet, without a depression or civil war on the horizon, we have been slow to respond to this threat to the future of our democracy. We can’t seem to embrace the idea that we have to be citizen soldiers, freedom fighters!

The Founding Fathers made interpreting the Constitution easy. Gouverneur Morris, the delegate tasked with polishing its prose, preferred clear expression. Where the framers wished to be specific, he made the document transparent. Where they preferred to be vague, he produced felicitous phrases like the famous "necessary and proper clause." Where they utterly failed to anticipate a development like the emergence of political parties, there was an amendment process that could separate the elections of president and vice president, as did the 12th.

However easy to interpret, sustaining a consensus around any particular interpretation of the Constitution has proven more difficult. Our Supreme Court justices have never failed to fill up their docket.

Against this background of successive and contending interpretations of the Constitution, it's important to distinguish between differences of opinion and a crisis.

The differences arise over how to apply the Constitution in specific cases. When a development threatens the heart of our Constitution, a crisis looms. And it does so now with a president who explicitly and consistently works to extend his power in a way that upsets the balance of authority among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our government.

Like some wasting diseases, this constitutional crisis began years ago with WW I and the Great Depression and accelerated with the Cold War.

The communist threat at the end of World War II, part of it real and part of it self-generated, wrought substantial changes in our balance-of-power, checks and balances constitutional system. Authority shifted to the executive branch.

Much of this shift came from an outright grant of power by successive Congresses unwilling to assume responsibility for conducting a novel kind of warfare that was not concentrated on the open battlefield but in the back alleys of the world. Given the way they operate it should have been right up their ally, but then again there are only a handful that are not of mediocre intellectual stature, and that groups talks only to itself and leads the rest!

Declaring massive support for the South Korean government to be a "police action," President Harry Truman in 1950 sought congressional authorization to make war only obliquely under the aegis of the United Nations, not a formal declaration as required by the U.S. Constitution.

This set a pattern that would be followed by successive presidents for the next half century. Truman further warned the Soviet Union not to meddle in Greece and Turkey through a policy that came to be known as the Truman Doctrine.

The National Security Act of 1947 established a National Security Council, along with a permanent Department of Defense and United States Air Force, that quickly came to rival the Department of State for presidential attention and policy initiative.

That Act also created a Central Intelligence Agency whose activities soon spread to destabilization, and sometimes overthrow, of unfriendly governments or those seen to be too friendly to the Politburo in Moscow.

Truman's decision to use atomic weapons in Japan, and his brisk, authoritative manner, caused few to want to challenge him where the communist threat was concerned.

Conservatives, newly minted as anti-communists, found it difficult to question his increasing use of covert operations to counter Soviet initiatives or the emergence of the United States as the world's stabilizing force.

The Cold War badly battered American traditions. We fought police actions, proxy wars, and covert operations, using euphemisms to cover up our failure to follow the Constitution.

The secret operations and lesser-of-two evils alliances of these years made a mockery of an earlier Wilsonian tradition of "open covenants, openly arrived at.", and Kissinger made sausage of it, and it wasn’t Kosher!

The stark choice presented between a world of democratic governments and totalitarian communist regimes smoothed the path away from earlier American practices. Cold War diplomacy was anomalous, but an anomaly that lasts half a century can become the norm.

When President Richard Nixon's covertly subverted checks and balances 30 years ago during the Vietnam War, Congress passed laws making clear that presidents were not to engage in unconstitutional behavior in the interest of "national security."

Then Congress was reacting to violation of Fourth Amendment protections against searches and seizures without judicial warrants establishing "probable cause," attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, and surveillance of American citizens.

During the Cold War, intelligence became a marshal's baton. Those who had access to it, particularly the president, held a trump card over those who did not.

The theme of "if you only knew what I knew you wouldn't question my decisions" helped a succession of Cold War president keep Congressional inquiries at bay.

It has resonated most blatantly in the George W. Bush administration. "We know secrets having to do with national security that we cannot divulge even to Congress, let alone the American people," has been their message. Access to intelligence, real or imagined, became the justification for unilateral presidential action.

Bush's prosecution of the Iraq war has included similar abuses. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, providing Constitutional means to carry out surveillance, and the Intelligence Identification Protection Act, protecting the identity of undercover intelligence agents, have both been violated by an administration seeking to "restore the power of the presidency," even those powers have been explicitly prohibited by acts of Congress.

The issue of presidential power in wartime has plagued the American republic throughout its history. Once past the founding era principle of "no foreign entanglements," various administrations have tried to use conflict, whether genuine or not, to consolidate and concentrate power in the executive branch. Characterizing the fight against terror as a war has accelerated this pernicious development.

Terror is a method not an ideology or tangible enemy, but declaring "war" on it has enabled the Bush administration to justify unlimited detention of "enemy combatants" (a unique, self-invented category meant to avoid both the criminal justice system and international conventions). So too has the "war on terror" permitted surreptitious domestic wiretaps and surveillance, in violation of U.S. law and in circumvention of established judicial warrant procedures. Its exigencies have been called in to defend unilateral, preemptive invasions of sovereign states.

During the first post-Cold War decade of the 90s, power had become a bit more balanced between the Article One legislature and the Article Two executive. Not everyone liked this course correction.

There is little question that Vice President Richard Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, veterans of the Ford administration, came into office determined to reverse this trend and consolidate the executive authority that they perceived to have been eroded during Nixon's travail after the Watergate break-in. The Neocon prescription was filled in New York!

There was little in January 2001 that could provide a fulcrum to lever an expansion of presidential powers. Then came 9.11. Al Qaeda provided the opportunity to carry out the long awaited project of restoring a dominant executive branch. War is always a convenient excuse to do that. Instead of overtly and directly announcing their intensions, the executive "restorationists" carried out their project largely in secret.

No speeches were given, no mandate articulated. Senior Bush administration officials simply went about their business of making the presidency primus inter pares despite the importance in the Constitution of maintaining a balance.

The creation of a constitutional crisis became virtually inevitable once this program was in gear.

Though the systematic effort to place ideologically motivated judges in federal district courts, courts of appeals, and Supreme Court positions was largely read as motivated by a social agenda centered on reversal of Roe v. Wade, there is now reason to believe that this effort was even more motivated by a realization that extra-constitutional concentration of power in the executive would, sooner or later, required judicial scrutiny and approval.

The Bush administration has built on the Cold War foundations of an imperial president, accelerating the rate of the power shift and openly defending the unlimited nature of the president's power in time of war.

Years and many decisions later, President Bush and his most trusted advisors have pushed the expansion of presidential power so far that we now confront a constitutional crisis.

President Bush has given Commander-in-chief Bush unlimited wartime authority.

Relying upon legal opinions from Attorney General Albert Gonzales, then working in the White House, and John Yoo, in the Justice Department, Bush has insisted that there can be no limits to the power of the commander-in-chief in time of war.

More recently the president has claimed that laws relating to domestic spying and the torture of detainees do not apply to him.

President Bush's interpretation of his war powers has produced a hellish conundrum, for no peace treaty can possibly bring an end to the fight against terror.

There will always be some rogue terrorist. The emergency powers of the president during this "war" can now extend indefinitely, at the pleasure of the president and at great threat to the liberties and rights guaranteed us under the Constitution.

The entire scheme has required not just a president intent on accumulating and consolidating executive power, but a compliant Congress, and a judiciary willing to ratify this systematic march toward a quasi-authoritarian structure as well.

Arguably, there is no precedent for this dangerous project in American history. Upon its outcome rests the future of our republic, and we are still trying to make nice as reasonable law abiding folk who believe in peaceable assembly that has no news value and threatens no one’s reelection.

Nor has it only been in foreign affairs that President Bush has usurped the authority of Congress. Using an innovation from Ronald Reagan's presidency called "presidential signing statements," he has flouted his constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," as stated in Article 2, Section 2.

Rather than veto legislation and thereby give Congress a chance to override his veto, he has elected to announce that he does not intend to execute the law, in effect putting the president above the law.

The Boston Globe has found more than 750 "presidential signing statements" expressing the president's intention not to execute the law before him. Many of these laws have specifically addressed President Bush's expansion of powers as part of the "war on terror," a notorious example being his rejection of the law against the use of torture after failing to stop its passage through Congress.

This policy seems not to be terribly troubling to a complacent Congress, but it is one that massively unhinges the Constitution.

All of these novelties could be written into the Constitution through the amendment process, but of course that would trigger the debate we're not having.

There are other ways to change the Constitution while avoiding the laborious amendment process. One is to silently ignore a provision, a course of action which takes the collusion of those in office. A spectacular example involves the Constitution's investment of the power to declare war to Congress.

Despite the many hostilities the United States has engaged in over the past 60 years, Congress has not declared war since December 8th, 1941, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked Congress for such a declaration following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution is quite explicit in giving Congress, not the President, the power to declare war. No ambiguity here of the original intent. Nor should the Constitution be selectively respected.

So accustomed have Americans become to the president's assuming this authority that in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, during the spring of 2002, Alberto Gonzales, then presidential counsel, advised the president that he need not consult Congress.

When the president decided to do so any way, it was not to ask it to declare war, but rather to authorize the use of force, leaving him to decide when or if.

A distinction without a difference? Hardly.

The drafters of the Constitution gave this power to declare war to Congress because its members were the closest in contact with their constituents who would fight and pay for any war. Representatives of those who would bear the brunt of war would make the awful choice of resorting to violence. The Founders also sought to balance the power of the commander-in-chief against that of Congress, to avoid a dangerous concentration of power in the presidency.

To make matters worse, , after President Bush announced that he would consult Congress, as though it were a matter of his choice, not a constitutional imperative, he told crowds gathered in Indiana and Kentucky that he did not expect a Congressional debate to change his position.

Later the president indicated his impatience with any prolonged congressional deliberations about his intentions. Yet it is exactly this function of hearing from experts, canvassing opinions, and expressing constituents' concerns that distinguishes Congress from the presidency.

Few in Congress complained publicly about this abrogation of the power to declare war, set forth in art. 1, sect. 8, but over 1,400 American historians complained in a petition presented to a delegation of representatives. The petition noted that "Congress has not asserted its authority to declare war for over half a century, leaving the president solely in control of war powers to the detriment of our democracy and in clear violation of the Constitution.

And we’re going to “talk” about how to hold these people accountable, when I firmly believe it is time to ACT to hold them accountable!

" To merely authorize the use of force, as Congress eventually did, is to avoid responsibility and leave the ominous decision to go to war with an officer who benefits from the extension of powers war brings.

The trouble with the course of action President Bush has taken is that it directly contradicts both the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution.

The Founding Fathers, who always come to mind when the Constitution is in danger, anticipated the possibility of power grabs.

Writing in the Federalist Papers, James Madison defined tyranny as the concentration of powers in one branch of the government, going on to point out that "the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others."

Warming to his subject, Madison continued, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition;" the interest of the office holders must "be connected with the constitutional rights of the place."

Recognizing that he was making an appeal to interest over ideals, Madison concluded that it "may be a reflection of human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government." "But what," he asked, "is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?

If men were angels, no government would be necessary; If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

What James Madison would have thought of a latter-day president who held himself above the law, treated Congress as a nuisance, subjected American citizens to state intrusion, and manipulated intelligence, meant to protect the people as a whole, is difficult to fathom.

But it is most certainly the kind of presidency he was concerned to curb.

Madison's solution to the concentration of powers that he believed led to tyranny relied upon either Congress or the Supreme Court to check the overreaching from a president. In our present crisis, Congress has been supine in the face of the president's steady assertion of unconstitutional, unlimited power, and the Supreme Court has yet to decide on cases affecting detainees and executive surveillance of Americans' telephone calls and email messages.

If Madison's reliance on the ambition of other office holders has failed us, we need to look elsewhere. Can what Thomas Jefferson called the "common sense and good judgment of the American people" help us now?

In the past, they have been a critical last resort when our leaders endangered the constitutional checks and balances that have made us the world's oldest democracy. But first the public must wake up to this constitutional crisis.

The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal national poll results vividly show a population incredibly dissatisfied with their nation’s political system. In other countries in other times such a depressing level of confidence in government would send a signal to those running the government that a major upheaval is imminent.

But not here in the USA. Why?

First, here are the highlights of the poll that surveyed 1,008 adults from June 8-11, with a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points. A whopping 68 percent think the country is on the wrong track. Just 19 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction - the lowest number on that question in nearly 15 years. And most of those with the positive view are probably in the Upper Class. Bush’s approval rating is at just 29 percent, his lowest mark ever in the survey. Only 62 percent of Republicans approve, versus 32 percent who disapprove. Take Republicans out of the picture and a fifth or less of Americans have a positive view of Bush. Even worse, only 23 percent approve of the job that Congress is doing.

So much for that wonderful new Democratic control of Congress.

Bipartisan incompetence is alive and well. On the economic front, nearly twice as many people think the U.S. is more hurt than helped by the global economy (48 to 25 percent). Globalization does not spread wealth; it channels it to the wealthy, making billionaires out of millionaires. I have long asserted that Americans live in a delusional democracy with delusional prosperity and these and loads of other data support this view.

There is an obscenely wealthy and politically powerful Upper Class that is literally raping the nation.

Meanwhile, the huge Lower Class continues to lose economic ground while their elected representatives sell them out to benefit the Upper Class. Yet no rational person thinks that a large fraction of the population is ready to rise up in revolt against the evil status quo political-economic system that so clearly is not serving the interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Why not?

For a nation that was built on a REVOLT against oppressive governance by the British, something has been lost from our political DNA.

We apparently no longer have the gene for political rebellion.

It has been bred out of most of us. And those of us that urge a Second American Revolution are seen as fringe, nutty subversives.

Part of the genius of our contemporary ruling class elites is that they have engineering a state of political and economic oppression that paradoxically is still embraced by the Lower Class.

The rational way to understand this is that ordinary, oppressed Americans are in a deep psychological state of self-delusion.

Despite all the empirical, objective evidence of a failed government, they fail to see rebellion opportunities.

Many still believe they live in the world’s best democracy.

But across all elections considerably less than half the citizens even bother to vote anymore.

Yet, as the new NBC/Journal poll results show, people are cognitively aware of just how awful the political-economic system is.

Yet they are not feeling enough pain to seriously consider rebellion. And it is visceral pain that must drive people to the daring act of rebellion.

Why is there insufficient pain for revolution?

I fully understand the words that follow are as relevant an observation of human nature today as they were the day that the delegates of The Second Continental Congress enshrined them in our heritage with their votes to adopt The Declaration Of Independence.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

How much more are we expected to accept before we act upon those words?

This is a deadly serious issue. What is historically unique about America is that even the most oppressed and unfairly treated people are distracted by affordable materialism, entertainment, sports, gambling, and myriad other aspects of our frivolous, self-absorbed culture.

Even failed school and health care systems do not drive people, paying enormous sums to fill up their SUVs, to rebellion.

So, Americans are aware of their oppression, but the power elites have successfully drugged them with a plethora of pleasure-producing distractions sufficient to keep them under control.

We are free to bitch, but too weak to revolt. The Internet has provided a release valve for some pent up anger and frustration. But it too has mostly become another source of distraction, rather than an effective tool for rebellion.

Though these new poll statistics make news, those in control of the political-economic system are not afraid that the population is on the verge of retaking their constitutionally guaranteed sovereign power and take back their nation.

Thousands of people like me keep writing, keep communicating, keep trying to make the system and our institutions respond in every acceptable way, but those in power just find new, ingenious ways to keep the population distracted – if not through pleasure, then certainly through fear of terrorism. Growing economic insecurity also contributes to self-paralysis, as do never-ending political lies.

What a degenerate perverted system we have at the moment.

Even as the population has growing awareness of the dire condition of their nation, the move by the politically powerful on the right and left continues to seek a new immigration law that will solidify the selling out of America.

Business interests want more of those fleeing Mexico and other nations to keep wages low. Instead of Mexicans rising up in rebellion against their oppressive government and economic system they escape to the USA.

But Americans have no such viable escape solution,though global warming will certainly make Canada increasingly attractive.

So what do Americans have – other than a terribly bleak future? Where is hope in our dismal demented world?

In a bizarre twist of history that further illustrates just how impotent Americans have become, virtually all citizens are either unaware of or unreceptive to the ultimate escape route that the Framers of our Constitution gave us. They anticipated that Americans could become quite dissatisfied with the federal government.

They feared that the political system could become incredibly corrupted by moneyed interests. They were right.

So here we sit over 200 years after our nation was created unwilling to use what is explicitly given to us in Article V of the Constitution – the option to have a convention outside the control of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court to make proposals for constitutional amendments.

Do we really believe in the rule of law?

If so, then we should understand that the supreme law of the land – what is in our Constitution – is the ultimate way to obtain the deep political and government reforms to restore true democracy and economic fairness to our society.

Make no mistake: an Article V convention has been stubbornly opposed by virtually all groups with political and economic power.

This is most evidenced by the blatant refusal of Congress to obey the Constitution and give us an Article V convention, even though the single explicit requirement for a convention has been met.

This fact alone should tell rational people that they are being screwed and oppressed. The rule of law is trumped by the rule of delusion. Our lawmakers are lawbreakers. Go learn more about the effort to get an Article V convention at http://www.foavc.org/ and become a member, particpate. It is at least a legal and peaceful avenue you can explore. Do not keep witnessing the unraveling of American society, voting for lesser evil candidates, and believing the propaganda that putting different Democrats or Republicans in office will actually improve things for most of us.

Choose peaceful rebellion by using what our Constitution gives us while that option is still available. Fight self-delusion.

"Increasingly, Americans are a people without history, with only memory, which means a people poorly prepared for what is inevitable about life -- tragedy, sadness, moral ambiguity -- and therefore a people reluctant to engage difficult ethical issues."

In August 2002, when President George Bush began to drum up a war fever in America with a view to toppling Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein, alleged to be the possessor of weapons of mass destruction. Bush did so without providing the evidence, the costs, the "why now" explanation, or long-term implications of such a war.

And by October 2002, The United States Congress not only granted the president a virtual declaration of war for an historically unprecedented "pre-emptive war," but did so without raising any questions about the whys, the evidence, the costs, or long term implications for the nation -- and for the world -- of such an unprovoked invasion.

Only a democratic society accustomed to war -- and predisposed to the use of war and violence -- would accept war so quickly, without asking any questions or demanding any answers from its leaders about the war. Does this not tell you what we have become as a nation?

And only the opposition of the French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese finally forced some Americans to raise questions about what was actually being planned. This, coupled with the anti-war demonstrations on February 15th, 2003 by millions of people in 350 cities around the globe, delayed President Bush from actually launching this war against Iraq by mid-February 2003.

Nothing, however, seemed to stop the bush administration's drive for war.

Nor did the failure of American diplomatic efforts to get authorization from the United Nations' security council seem to bother the members of the congress, virtually all of whom remained silent or in support of war.

The incessant polls showed that a majority of the American population continued to support a preemptive war even as -- or perhaps because of -- increasingly angry objections were voiced by important long term allies and antiwar demonstrators all over the world.

Yes sir, by God, no one was going to tell the USA that we could not invade any piss ant third world power we chose to. No one was going to tell this beacon of democracy and purveyor of freedom that we could not have our way with any nation on Earth, for whatever reason!

We became willing accomplices to murder, genocide and a fiction of a “Holy War” against terrorism. But we are too big, too strong, to admit we were wrong. We are after all excluded from being held accountable by anyone in the world. We are the USA! We can bring the wrath of American violence down upon anyone anywhere at any time, for any reason, real of imagined of cause.

The reality untaught in American schools and textbooks is that war -- whether on a large or small scale -- and domestic violence have been pervasive in American life and culture from this country's earliest days almost 400 years ago.

Violence, in varying forms, according to the leading historian of the subject, Richard Maxwell Brown, "has accompanied virtually every stage and aspect of our national experience," and is "part of our unacknowledged (underground) value structure."

Indeed, "repeated episodes of violence going far back into our colonial past, have imprinted upon our citizens a propensity to violence."

Thus, America demonstrated a national predilection for war and domestic violence long before the 9/11 attacks, but its leaders and intellectuals through most of the last century cultivated the national self-image, a myth, of America as a moral, "peace-loving" nation which the American population seems unquestioningly to have embraced.

Despite the national, peace-loving self-image, American patriotism has usually been expressed in military and even militaristic terms.

No less than seven presidents owed their election chiefly to their military careers (George Washington, 1789, Andrew Jackson,1828, William Henry Harrison, 1840, Zachary Taylor,1848, Ulysses S. Grant,1868, Theodore Roosevelt,1898, and Dwight David Eisenhower, 1952) while others, Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, for example, capitalized upon their military records to become presidents, and countless others at both federal and state levels made a great deal of their war or military records.

Starting with President Woodrow Wilson early in the 20th century, national leaders began to use moralistic rhetoric when they took the nation to war.

They assured Americans that the nation's singular mission in the world required the nation to go to war, but that when it went to war, America only did what was morally right. Do you remember some history teacher reciting with pride of voice the phrases: “The war to make the world safe for democracy!”, and “The war to end all wars!”

War is not now, nor has it ever been romantic. Only on film is war heroic and romantic. And if folks had paying attention in those history classes they should have recalled words worth the remembering as they sprouted in our soil and from our own experience as a nation torn asunder!

"Some of you young men think that war is all glamour and glory, but let me tell you, boys, it is all hell!"-General William T. Sherman,

"I am sick and tired of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the woundedwho cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell." From "On Killing" by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

Secretary of State John Hay, in 1898, lauded the Spanish-American War as a "splendid little war."

Commentators have touted World War II as the good war and those who fought in it, "The Best American Generation," and President George Bush, as he was about to launch a War against Iraq on January 29, 1991, asserted: "We are Americans; we have a unique responsibility to do the hard work of freedom. And when we do, freedom works."

This is not to suggest that all American wars have been fought for base motives, cloaked by self-serving moralistic rhetoric, but rather that Americans have little genuine understanding of the major role played by war throughout the American experience.

Historians, however, are well aware that war taught Americans how to fight, helped unite the diverse American population, and helped stimulate the national economy, among other significant things. But this is not the message that they have presented to the American people, concerned perhaps they might undermine Americans' self-image.

Just how frequent war has been, and how central wars have been to the evolution of the United States, only becomes clear when you start to make a list.

American wars begin with the first Indian attack in 1622 in Jamestown, Virginia, followed by the Pequot War in New England in 1635-36, and King Philips' War, in 1675-76, which resulted in the destruction of almost half the towns in Massachusetts. Other wars and skirmishes with Native American Indians would follow until 1900.

There were four major imperial wars between 1689 and 1763 involving England and its North American colonies and the French (and their Native American Indian allies), Spanish, and Dutch empires.

During roughly the same years, 1641 to 1759, there were 18 settler outbreaks, five rising to the level of major insurrections (such as Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia, 1676-1677, Leisler's Rebellion in New York, 1689-1692, and Coode's Rebellion in Maryland, 1689-1692), and 40 riots.

Americans gained their independence from England and boundaries out to the Mississippi River, as a consequence of the Revolutionary War.

The second war against England, 1812-1815, reinforced our independence, while 40 wars with the Native American Indians between the 1622 and 1900 resulted in millions upon millions of acres of land being added to the national domain.

In 1848, the entire southwest, including California, Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Utah and Wyoming, was obtained through war with Mexico. The Civil War between 1861 and 1865 was simply the bloodiest war in American history.

America's overseas empire began with the Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection (1898-1902) by which the U.S. gained control of the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico.

Then, there were World Wars I and II, the Korean Police Action (1949 - 1952), and the longest -- and most expensive war -- in American history, the Vietnam War between 1959 and 1975.

Meanwhile, between 1789 and 1945, there were at least 200 presidentially directed military actions all over the globe.

Among other places, these military actions involved the shelling of Indochina in 1849 and the U.S. military occupation of virtually every Caribbean and Central-American country between 1904 and 1934.

Indeed, in his effort to justify U.S. military intervention in Cuba against Fidel Castro, on September 17, 1962, Secretary of State Dean Rusk presented a list to a U.S. Senate Hearing of all of these 200 plus "precedents" (now called "low intensity conflicts") from 1789 to 1960.

During the Cold War between 1945 and 1989, the U.S. waged war, directly or through surrogates, openly and covertly, from military bases all over the world.

After the Cold War ended in 1989, other important military actions have been undertaken, such as the Gulf War (January and February 1991 in Iraq), in the former Yugoslavia (in 1999), and the 2001 war against the Taliban government and international terrorists in Afghanistan and the Philippines in 2003.

To this roster, we must add the 2003 war against Iraq, to be followed, perhaps, by one with North Korea, which has lately brandished its nuclear weapons and missiles.

American historians have avidly studied war, especially the Civil War and World War II, but their focus has almost always been on war causation, battles, generalship, battlefield tactics and strategy, and so on.

Overlooked, for the most part, are the general and specific effects of war upon American cultural life; the possible connections between war and civilian violence is still largely unexplored territory.

Has war directly or indirectly encouraged an American predisposition toward aggressiveness and the use of violence or was it the reverse?

This question has never been satisfactorily investigated by American historians or other scholars. Yet, the overwhelming majority of historians have always known that America was -- and is -- a violent country.

But they have said very little about it, depriving the population of a realistic understanding about this important aspect of their national culture.

This omission is most clearly observable in U.S. history textbooks used in high schools, colleges and universities, on the one hand, and popular histories derived from these texts, on the other, which have never devoted serious attention to the topic of the violence in America, let alone sought to explain it.

Consequently, there seems little genuine understanding about the centrality of violence in American life and history.

The overwhelming majority of American historians have not studied, written about, or discussed America's "high violence" environment, not because of a lack of hard information or knowledge about the frequent and widespread use of violence, but because of an unwillingness to confront the reality that violence and American culture are inextricably intertwined.

Many prominent historians recognized this years ago.
In the introduction to his 1970 collection of primary documents, "American Violence: A Documentary History," two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Richard Hofstadter wrote: "What is impressive to one who begins to learn about American violence is its extraordinary frequency, its sheer commonplaceness in our history, its persistence into very recent and contemporary times, and its rather abrupt contrast with our pretensions to singular national virtue."

Indeed, Hofstadter wrote the "legacy" of the violent 1960s would be a commitment by historians systematically to study American violence.

But most American historians have studiously avoided the topic or somehow clouded the issue.

In 1993, in his magisterial study, "The History of Crime and Punishment in America," for example, Stanford University Historian Lawrence Friedman devoted a chapter to the many forms of American violence.

Then, in a very revealing chapter conclusion, Friedman wrote: "American violence must come from somewhere deep in the American personality ... [it] cannot be accidental; nor can it be genetic.

The specific facts of American life made it what it is ... crime has been perhaps a part of the price of liberty ... [but] American violence is still a historical puzzle."

Precisely what is it that historians are unwilling to discuss? Basically, there are three forms of American violence: mob violence, interpersonal violence, and war.

What is the extent of mob violence?

Indiana University Historian Paul Gilje, in his 1997 book, "Rioting in America," stated there were at least 4,000 riots between the early 1600s and 1992. Gilje asserted that "without an understanding of the impact of rioting we cannot fully comprehend the history of the American people."

This is a position that director Martin Scorsese just made his own in the film, "Gangs of New York," which focuses on the July 1863 Draft Act Riots in New York City as the historical pivot around which America's urban experience revolved. However, occasional gory movie depictions of violent riots, or Civil War battles, as in "Gods and Generals," provide little real understanding of a nation's history.

M.I.T. Historian Robert Fogelson, in his 1971 book, "Violence as Protest: a Study of Riots and Ghettos," concluded that "for three and a half centuries Americans have resorted to violence in order to reach goals otherwise unattainable ... indeed, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the native white majority has rioted in some way and at some time against every minority group in America and yet Americans regard rioting not only as illegitimate but, even more significant, as aberrant."

Part of the fascination with group violence is the spectacle of mob rampages. But for historians there is more; group violence is viewed as a "response" to changing economic, political, social, cultural, demographic or religious conditions.

Thus, however violent the episodes were, historians could see larger "reasons" for these group behaviors; somehow, these actions reflected a "cause."

(This might be likened to the way many American historians still view the southern secession movement and Civil War.

Seeking to maintain their institution of human slavery, southerners started the bloodiest war in American history which almost destroyed the union.

But because they claimed to be fighting for their "freedom," historians have treated their action as a legitimate cause, whereas in other nations such action is ordinarily viewed as treason). The Revolutionary War was an act of treason…the act of over throwing a legitimately established ruling authority of Great Britain, and you can rest assured that had we lost that war or revered forefathers would have ended their lives not as the leaders of a new nation, but at the end of a rope!

Now, to the nitty-gritty: How many victims did riots and collective violence claim over the 400-year American historical experience?

This can never accurately be known, considering it includes official and unofficial violence against Native American Indians, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Asians and untold riots, vigilante actions and lynchings, among other things.

But a conservative guesstimate of, perhaps, about 2,000,000 deaths and serious injuries between 1607 and 2001 (or about 5,063 each and every year for 395 years) seems a reasonable -- and quite conservative -- number for analytical purposes, until more precise statistics are available.

At least 753,000 Native American Indians were the intended victims of warfare and genocide between 1622 and 1900 in what is now the United States of America, according to one scholar. The number for African-Americans might equal or exceed the estimate for the Indians, 750,000.

The total number of deaths for all other forms of collective violence seems well under 20,000. The greatest American riot, the New York City Draft Act riots of July 1863, resulted in between 105 and 150 deaths, while the major 1960s riots (Watts, Los Angeles, Newark, N.J., and Detroit, Mich., accounted for a total of 103 deaths, and the 1992 Los Angeles riot claimed 60 lives.

The estimate of deaths from the 326 vigilante episodes is between 750 and 1,000. Approximately 5,000 individuals were known to have been lynched between 1882 and 1968, and about 2,000 more killed in labor-management violence.

Horrendous as this sounds -- and it is horrendous -- this 2,000,000 figure pales when compared to the major form of American violence which historians have routinely ignored until very recently.

Historians of violence have largely ignored individual interpersonal violence, which, in sharp contrast to group violence, is very frequent, sometimes very personal -- and far deadlier than group violence.

In 1997, two distinguished legal scholars, Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, compared crime rates in the G-7 countries (Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States) between the 1960s and 1990s in their book, "Crime Is Not The Problem: Lethal Violence In America Is." Bluntly, they stated their conclusion:

"What is striking about the quantity of lethal violence in the United States is that it is a third-world phenomenon occurring in a first-world nation." We maintain capital punishment where it has been banished in those lesser third world nations we consider as part of our Imperial play ground.

Instances of personal violence include but are not limited to barroom brawls, quarrels between acquaintances, business associates, lovers or sexual rivals, family members, or during the commission of a robbery, mugging, or other crime.

How does the carnage in this category contrast with the 2,000,000 victims of group violence between 1607 and 2001?

During the 20th century alone, well over 10 million Americans were victims of violent crimes -- and 10 percent of them -- or 1,089,616 -- were murdered between 1900 and 1997. The "total" number of "officially reported" homicides, aggravated assaults, robberies and rapes between 1937 and 1970 was 9,816,646, but these were undercounts!

Every year during the 20th century at least 10 percent of the crimes committed have been violent crimes -- homicides, aggravated assaults, forcible rapes and robberies. Between 1900 and 1997, there were 1,089,616 homicides. How were they murdered? 375,350 by firearms and the rest were due to other means, including beating, strangling, stabbing and cutting, drowning, poisoning, burning and axing.

Between 1900 and 1971, 596,984 Americans were murdered. Between 1971 and 1997, there were another 592,616 killed in similar ways.

More Americans were killed by other Americans during the 20th century than died in the Spanish-American war (11,000 "deaths in service"), World War I (116,000 "deaths in service"), World War II (406,000 "deaths in service"), the Korean police action (55,000 "deaths in service"), and the Vietnam War (109,000 "deaths in service") combined. ("Deaths in Service" statistics are greater than combat deaths and were used here to make the contrast between war and civilian interpersonal violence rates even clearer.)

So, what accounts for the American ability to overlook collective violence, interpersonal violence, and war, and now our acceptance of Genocide as an acceptable part of the human condition?

The explanation lies, first, with historians' abdication of responsibility systematically to deal with the issue of violence in America ... and, second, with the American population's refusal directly to confront any very ugly reality -- which came first I do not know. This is what historians refer to as " mutual causation."

There are, of course, several factors that have enabled Americans to overlook their violent past.

Many of these were actually defined by Richard Hofstadter in his 1970 introduction to "American Violence: A Documentary History." First, Americans have been told by historians that they are a "latter-day chosen people" with a providential exemption from the woes that plagued all other human societies. Oh, there it is again!

Historians of the 1950s had not denied that America's past was replete with violence; they just preferred during the Cold War to emphasize a more positive vision of America. Historians refer to this as the "myth of innocence" or the "myth of the new world Eden."

In an open, free, democratic society, graced with abundance of natural resources, and without the residue of repressive European institutions, virtually any white person who worked hard had the opportunity to achieve the "American Dream" of material success and respectability.

Violence, especially political violence when it erupted, was dismissed out of hand as somehow "un-American," an unfortunate by-product of temporary racial, ethnic, religious and industrial conflicts.

Second, American violence had not been a major issue for federal, state or local officials because it was rarely directed against them; it was rarely revolutionary violence. Rather, American violence has almost always been citizen-against-citizen, white against black, white against Indian, Protestant against Catholic or Mormon, Catholic against Protestant, white against Asian or Hispanic.

The lack of a violent revolutionary tradition in America is the principal reason why Americans have never been disarmed, while in every European nation the reverse is true. It is also a function of weaponry chosen by those in street revolt.

Thus far the guns have been in the hands of those representing the state.

The people have more typically filled their empty wine bottles and beer bottle with mixtures of lighter fluid, paint stripper, gasoline or kerosene, added liquid soap, plugged it with a Tampax and tape for a home grown version of a Napalm filled Molotov Cocktail, relied: on flares, lengths of pipe, baseball bats, picket sign standards, bricks, stones, bottles, broken pavement and sidewalk concrete,(any handy trash).

Occassionally a stick of dynamite has been know to be thrown; throwing usually means throwing tear gas canisters back at the blue line. Knives and ice picks are never too far from the ready and burning vehicles provide cover, rally and diversion while cutting fire hoses and destroying fire hydrants and every plate glass window shattered provides new on scene weaponry.

Our revolts are more reminiscent of peasant revolts; you know the pitch fork, shovel, hoe, rake, sickle and Scythe variety. It’s the “Man” who kills with bullets!

So, for the most part, Americans, laymen and historians alike, have been able to practice what some historians have termed "selective" recollection or "historical amnesia" about the violence in their past and present.

Since the 1960s, historians' works, cumulatively, have demonstrated a causal connection between American culture and the American predisposition to use violence. We might now be experiencing yet another by-product of this national penchant for violence -- a willingness to engage in a major war without asking very many hard questions. It's the American Way.

I have said it before the level of our technology, the level of our civilization be as it may; is not a measure of our civility. Violence is as American as our cliché Apple Pie. We are not far removed from our frontier imprint. The last fabled gunman of the frontier died at his desk at The New York Times in 1910. His gun was found in his desk drawer.

But it is time again to remind everyone of the slippery slope of Fascism upon which this nation has been embarked for some time. It is not even a slope any longer; it is now the steep downward side of the roller coaster.

The end of the ride is in sight!

The rise of fascism in America: it will all seem so normal.

Fascism in America won’t come with jackboots, book burnings, mass rallies, and fevered harangues, nor will it come with black helicopters or tanks on the street. It won’t come like a storm—but as a break in the weather, that sudden change of season you might feel when the wind shifts on an October evening: Everything is the same, but everything has changed. Something has gone, departed from the world, and a new reality will have taken its place.

But it will all seem “normal”.

All the old forms will still be there: legislatures, elections, campaigns—plenty of bread and circuses.

It will all seem “normal”.

But “consent of the governed” will no longer apply; actual control of the state will have passed to a small and privileged group who rule for the benefit of their wealthy peers and corporate patrons.

But it will all seem ““normal””.

The change in America is taking place as I write, and Sinclair Lewis prophetically said” “That when Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

And when it happens, somehow; it will all seem “normal”.

To be sure, there will be factional conflicts among the elite, and a degree of debate will be permitted; but no one outside the privileged circle will be allowed to influence state policy. Dissidents will be marginalized—usually by “the people” themselves.

Deprived of historical knowledge by a thoroughly impoverished educational system designed to produce complacent consumers, left ignorant of current events by a corporate media devoted solely to profit, many will internalize the force-fed values of the ruling elite, and act accordingly. There will be little need for overt methods of control.

It will all seem “normal”.

The rulers will act in secret, for reasons of “national security,” and the people will not be permitted to know what goes on in their name. Actions once unthinkable will be accepted as routine: government by executive fiat, state murder of “enemies” selected by the leader, undeclared wars, torture, mass detentions without charge, the looting of the national treasury, the creation of huge new “security structures” targeted at the populace. In time, this will be seen as ““normal”,” as the chill of autumn feels “normal” when summer is gone.

It will all seem “normal”.

Fascism is a political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community.[1] Many different characteristics are attributed to fascism by different scholars, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, statism, collectivism[2], anti-liberalism, and anti-communism.

There are numerous debates between scholars regarding the nature of fascism, and the kinds of political movements and governments that may be called fascist. For further elaboration, please see definitions of fascism and fascism and ideology.

The term fascism was first used by Benito Mussolini, and it comes from the Italian word fascio, which means "union" or "league", and from the Latin word fasces (fascis, in singular), which means rods bundled around an axe. The fasces was an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of magistrates, and the symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is very difficult to break.

Since the end of World War II, there has been considerable stigma associated with fascism, and few political groups in the past 60 years have dared to openly identify themselves as fascist.

Unlike other ideologies, fascism never generated a large body of dogma or political theory, and, most importantly, there have been no significant political texts written from a fascist point of view since 1945. Thus, nearly all works on the topic of fascist ideology have been written by non-fascist and anti-fascist authors, and it is often difficult to determine the fascist position on many important issues.

The word "fascist" is often used pejoratively, a label used by people of all political views to draw criticism upon an opposing viewpoint. This has spilled over into debates concerning the ideological nature of fascism, with adherents of some ideologies trying to draw parallels between fascism and their own ideological opponents.

Many diverse regimes have identified themselves as fascist, and many regimes have been labelled as fascist even though they did not self-identify as such. Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets. Since the 1990s, there has been a growing move toward some rough consensus reflected in the work of Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell, Roger Griffin, and Robert O. Paxton.

Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He wrote in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:

Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century.

If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State. (a version of the text is here).

Since Mussolini, however, there have been many conflicting definitions of the term "fascism." Former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton has written that:

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."[4]

Paxton further defines fascism's essence as:1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions;

2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits;

3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts;

4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint;

5. fear of foreign `contamination."[5]

Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

Stanley Payne's Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980) uses a lengthy itemized list of characteristics to identify fascism, including the creation of an authoritarian state; a regulated, state-integrated economic sector; fascist symbolism; anti-liberalism; anti-communism; anti-conservatism.[6] Semiotician Umberto Eco also attempts to identify characteristics of fascism in his popular essay Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt.[7] More recently, an emphasis has been placed upon the aspect of populist fascist rhetoric that argues for a "re-birth" of a conflated nation and ethnic people.[8]

Most scholars hold that fascism as a social movement employs elements from the political left, but many conclude that fascism eventually allies with the political right, especially after attaining state power. For example, Nazism began as a socio-political movement that promoted a radical form of National Socialism, but altered its character once Adolf Hitler was handed state power in Germany. Some scholars and political commentators argue that fascism is a form of socialistSoviet Union.[9]

The evolution of Fascism in a Democracy is the most insidious of political transitions, assembling many components from divergent intellectual, pop culture sources and fringe organizations that have fanatic devotees. Even in the face of warning, the words of the courier most often go without heed, and in fact, are frequently attacked as the ranting of lunatic alarmists; the evolutionary/transitional process, both by design of the usurpers and the climate of gradual acceptance isolates the messenger until it is too late. Everything seems rational; everything seems “normal”. Just look inside the following and tell me: Is this your idea of “normal”? From such sources is the stew being

Neo-Fascism

Neo-Nazism

Neo-fascism and religion

Christian Identity

Creativity Movement

Ku Klux Klan

National Alliance

Nouvelle Droite

American Nazi Party

Alain de Benoist

William Luther Pierce

George Lincoln Rockwell

International Third Position

National anarchism

National Bolshevism

And the Top Neocon Think Tanks

Project for the New American Century (PNAC)Established in 1997 by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, PNAC's goal is "to promote American global leadership." Creating a blueprint for the US' current role in the world, PNAC's original Statement of Principles called for the US to return to a "Reaganite foreign policy of military strength and moral clarity."

American Enterprise Institute (AEI)Founded in 1943, this influential Washington think tank is known as the headquarters of neoconservative thought. In a crucial speech in the leadup to the war in Iraq, US President George W. Bush said this to an audience at AEI: "You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds."

Jewish Intitute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)Based in Washington, JINSA "communicates with the national security establishment and the general public to explain the role Israel can and does play in bolstering American interests, as well as the link between American defense policy and the security of Israel." Some of the strongest supporters of Israel's right-wing Likud Party in the already pro-Israel neoconservative circles are on JINSA's board of advisers.

Center for Security Policy (CSP)CSP's 2001 annual report boasts of its influence saying it "isn't just a 'think tank' – it's an agile, durable, and highly effective 'main battle tank' in the war of ideas on national security." Securing neoconservatives' influence at the nexus of military policymakers and weapons manufacturers, CSP's mission is "to promote world peace through American strength."

The Hudson Institute

The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies

Ethics and Public Policy Center

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Further Sources For Investigation

In his original article, "Fascism Anyone?", Laurence Britt (interview) compared the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet and identified 14 characteristics common to those fascist regimes. This page is a collection of news articles dating from the start of the Bush presidency divided into topics relating to each of the 14 points of fascism. Further analysis of American Fascism done by the POAC can be read here.

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

September 11 Freedom Walk

New Majority Leader: Iraq War “May Be The Greatest Gift That We Give” Our Grandchildren

Headstones of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are inscribed with the Pentagons

war-marketing slogans

White House and the RNC are going to make a habit of using uniformed military personnel as props at Republican political rallies, despite the fact that it is a plain violation of military regulations banning politicization of the armed forces.

"You must glorify war in order to get the public to accept the fact that your going to send their sons and daughters to die." The inside story of the cozy relationship between big box office American war movies and the PentagonMore...

2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

We are now a torturing police state: Bush signing into law that will get rid of habeas corpus, allow hearsay evidence, and allow the President to determine what is allowable torture.

Bush Offers Himself Amnesty for Human Rights Crimes

Bush threatens to veto $442b defense bill if Congress investigates detainee abuses.

Guantanamo Judge: “I don’t care about international law. I don’t want to hear the words ‘international law’ again. We are not concerned with international law.”

Rumsfeld to approve new guidelines that will formalize the administration's policy of imprisoning without the protections of the Geneva Conventions and enable the Pentagon to legally hold "ghost detainees,"

US 'preparing to detain terror suspects for life without trial'

U.S. oks evidence gained through torture

July 1, 2003: U.S. Suspends Military Aid to Nearly 50 Countries: because they have supported the International Criminal Court and failed to exempt Americans from possible prosecution.
US has at least 9000 prisoners in secret detentionMore...

3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

Congressman: Muslims 'enemy amongst us'

SB 24, Ohio law to muzzle "liberals"

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum has joined a conservative Washington think tank, where he will found and direct a program called "America's Enemies."

Sean Hannity creates weekly "Enemy of the State" segment on his new program

Fox radio hosts suggests putting liberal commentators and activists in concentration camps.

World history textbook used by seventh-graders at Scottsdale’s Mohave Middle School was pulled from classrooms mid-semester amid growing right criticism of the book’s unbiased portrayal of Islam

Rallies planned against 'Islamofacism': Event to 'unify all Americans behind common goal'
More...

4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

If you haven't seen the Oreo flash animation yet, see it here (It puts things in perspective!)

Bush’s Domestic Program Hit List (What Priorities are important?)

Bush slashes domestic programs, boosts defense. Arlen Spector calls it "scandalous"

Funding for job training, rural health care, low-income schools and help for people lacking health insurance would face big cuts under a bill passed Friday by the House

Pentagon to spend 75 billion for three new brigades

Three cable channels now feed news, information and entertainment about the armed services into millions of living rooms 24 hours a day, seven days a week: The Military Channel, the Military History Channel and the Pentagon Channel.
More...

5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

It's legal again, to fire gov't workers for being gay

Bush calls for Constitutional ban on same-sex marriages

Bush refuses to sign U.N proposal on women's "sexual" rights

W. David Hager chairman of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee does not prescribe contraceptives for single women, does not do abortions, will not prescribe RU-486 and will not insert IUDs.

The State Department has awarded an explicitly anti-feminist U.S. group part of a US$10 million grant to train Iraqi women in political participation and democracy.More...

6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

FBI Acknowledges: Journalists Phone Records are Fair Game

Report shows U.S. government has been engaged in illegal propaganda aimed at its own citizens and the story gets only 41 mentions in the media

Free Press details recent governmental propaganda efforts, from faux-correspondent Jeff Gannon to paid-off pundit Armstrong Williams, and from the demise of FOIA to video news releases passed off as news.

also... See a Whitehouse fake news release here (opens realplayer)

US seizes webservers from independent media sites-

Bush's war on information: US editors forbidden to publish certain foreign writers-More...

7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses

Bush Aides ADMIT 'stoking fear' for political gain:

Bush adviser said the president hopes to change the dynamics of the race. The strategy is aimed at stoking public fears about terrorism, raising new concerns about Kerry's ability to protect Americans and reinforcing Bush's image as the steady anti-terrorism candidate, aides said.-

The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level.

GOP Ad These are the stakes-

Keith Olbermann: "The Nexus of Politics and Terror."-

Cheney warns that if Kerry is elected, the USA will suffer a "devastating attack"

GOP convention in a nutshell (quicktime) –

Rove: GOP to Use Terror As Campaign Issue
in 2006More...

8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Jerry Falwell cleared of charges that he broke federal election law by urging followers to vote for Bush

NC congressman proposes law making it ok to preach politics from the pulpit

Texas Governor Mobilizes Evangelicals

Family research council: Justice Sunday

Thou shalt be like Bush:

What makes this recently established, right-wing Christian college unique are the increasingly close - critics say alarmingly close - links it has with the Bush administration and the Republican establishment.

Park Service Continues to Push Creationist Theory at Grand Canyon and other nat'l parksMore...

9.) Corporate Power is Protected:

The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

The K Street Project is a project by the Republican party to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials. It was launched in 1995, by Republican strategist Grover Norquist and House majority leader Tom DeLay.

American Conservative Magazine: One U.S. contractor received $2 million in a duffel bag... and a U.S. official was given $7 million in cash in the waning days of the CPA and told to spend it “before the Iraqis take over.”

There are 6 Congressional Committees investigating the Oil-for-Food (UN) scandal, yet not a single Republican Committee Chairman will call a hearing to investigate the whereabouts of 9 billion dollars missing in Iraq

Bush money network rooted in Florida, Texas: Since Mr. Bush took office in 2001, the federal government has awarded more than $3 billion in contracts to the President's elite 2004 Texas fund-raisers, their businesses, and lobbying clientsMore...

10.) Labor Power is Suppressed:

Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

Labor Department warns unions against using their money politically

President Bush Attacks Organized Labor: Bush attacked organized labor Saturday, issuing orders effectively reducing how much money unions can spend for political activities and opening up government contracts to non-union bidding.

March 2001: President Bush signed his name to four executive orders on organized labor last month, including one that cuts the money unions will have for political campaign spending.

Congress and the Department of Labor are trying to change the rules on overtime pay, eliminating the 40 hour work week, taking eligibility for overtime pay away from millions of workers, and replacing time and a half pay with comp days.More...

11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

The A to Z guide to political interference in science

Bush's new economic plan cuts funding for arts, education

Artists from all over the world are being refused entry to the US on security grounds.

A group of more than 60 top U.S. scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and several science
advisers to past Republican presidents, on Wednesday accused the Bush administration of manipulating and censoring science for political purposes

Freedom of Repression: New ruling will allow censorship of campus publicationsMore...

12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations

The 10 most outrageous civil liberties violations of 2006
dictatorship similar to that in



















13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.




Bush Cronyism: Foxes Guarding the henhouse

Who's been indicted, named as a co-conspirator or convicted? The Grand Ole Docket tracks trial dates, court appearances and sentencing hearings for players in the current array of national political scandals.

Making Sense of the Abramoff Scandal

In preparation for upcoming Congressional hearings, Bush Administration firing federal attorneys and appointing ringers without Senate confirmation via the patriot act.

If Bush's pick is confirmed, that will mean the five top appointees at Justice have zero prosecutorial experience among them.

Iran-Contra Felons Get Good Jobs from Bush

Big Iraq Reconstruction Contracts Went To Big Donors

Bush Wars -- Crooks Get Contracts : The main companies that were awarded billions of dollars worth of contracts in Iraq have paid more than $300 million in fines since 2000, to resolve allegations of fraud, bid rigging, delivery of faulty military equipment, and environmental damage.

US Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) lost track of $9 billion

"Contracting in the aftermath of the hurricanes has been marked by waste, corruption and cronyism"More...

14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

A couple of election workers have been convicted of rigging a recount in Ohio following the 2004 election

Rolling Stone does some investigative and rather exhaustive digging into public documents and says we’re almost guaranteed the 2004 election results were massively rigged

Powerful Government Accounting Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings
Conyers hearing in which Clinton Curtis testifies that he was hired to create hackable voting machines (.wmv)

The Republican Party has quietly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide private defense lawyers for a former Bush campaign official charged with conspiring to keep Democrats from voting in New Hampshire.

The Conyers Report (.pdf)

No explanation for the machines in Mahoning County that recorded Kerry votes for Bush, the improper purging in Cuyahoga County, the lock down in Warren County, the 99% voter turnout in Miami County, the machine tampering in Hocking County

Less access than Kazakhstan. Fewer fail-safes than Venezuela. Not as simple Republic of Georgia. The 2004 Elections according to international observers.

This picture is what stopped the ballot recounts in Florida shortly after it seemed that legitimate President Gore had a lead. The "citizens" started what was later called "the preppy riot". Screaming, yelling, pounding on the walls, these "outraged citizens" intimidated the polling officials to halt the court mandated recount. A closer look reveals who they really were. They were bussed and flown in at Republican law makers expense. Some even flew in on Tom Delay's private plane.

If Mussolini defines fascism as "the merger of corporate and government power" what does that make the K Street project?

Related Articles:

"Now and Then"- Part 1 A 3 part series by W David Jenkins III on the similarities between America now and Germany post Reichstag fire-

"Now and Then"- Part II: The Propaganda Machine-

Now and Then- Part IIIHitler's Playbook: Bush and the Abuse of Power-

It may sound crazy to some, but the style of governing into which America has slid is most accurately described as fascism.-

Is America Becoming Fascist?-

Eternal Fascism:




Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt-






With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.-










The Brownshirting of America:

Bush’s supporters demand lock-step consensus that Bush is right. They regard truthful reports that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved in the September 11 attack on the US – truths now firmly established by the Bush administration’s own reports – as treasonous America-bashing.





































The Rise of Fascism in America; A Little Repeat Reminder and Review




Fascism in America won’t come with jackboots, book burnings, mass rallies, and fevered harangues, nor will it come with black helicopters or tanks on the street.




It won’t come like a storm—but as a break in the weather, that sudden change of season you might feel when the wind shifts on an October evening: Everything is the same, but everything has changed.




Something has gone, departed from the world, and a new reality will have taken its place. All the old forms will still be there: legislatures, elections, campaigns—plenty of bread and circuses.

But “consent of the governed” will no longer apply; actual control of the state will have passed to a small and privileged group who rule for the benefit of their wealthy peers and corporate patrons.

The change in America is taking place as I write, and Sinclair Lewis prophetically said” “That when Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
The rulers will act in secret, for reasons of “national security,” and the people will not be permitted to know what goes on in their name.

Actions once unthinkable will be accepted as routine: government by executive fiat, state murder of “enemies” selected by the leader, undeclared wars, torture, mass detentions without charge, the looting of the national treasury, the creation of huge new “security structures” targeted at the populace.

In time, this will be seen as ““normal”,” as the chill of autumn feels “normal” when summer is gone. It will all seem “normal”.Since the 1970’s, American businesses have grown larger and more monopolistic, helped along by deregulation, the repeal of anti-trust laws, and a steady transformation from manufacturing to capital management (dare I say, “capital manipulation”?).

As Paul Bigioni puts it in his excellent essay entitled “The Real Threat of Fascism”: “If we are to protect ourselves from the growing political influence of Big Business, then our antitrust laws must be reconceived in a way which recognizes the political danger of monopolistic conditions.”
Bigioni continues by emphasizing that “Antitrust laws do not just protect the marketplace, they protect democracy.” It is well to remember that conditions like these led to fascism in both Germany and Italy in the 1930’s, and Bigioni points out that the transformation toward fascism occurred in both countries while they were still liberal democracies.

In America, since at least 1971, the rich have gotten much, much richer and the poor have become poorer and far more numerous, largely because our government now sees its primary function as serving the interests of Big Business and its Big Money.

As of 2003, according to a Congressional Budget Office report, the top one percent of households in America accounted for 57.5% of America’s wealth, up from 38.7% only twelve years earlier.

And this does not take into account the last three years of the Bush tax-cuts. In the U.S. today, there are 374 billionaires, approximately 25,000 deca-millionaires ($10,000,000-$999,000,000) and 2.5 million millionaires; and this does not even take into account the wealth of corporations!

Under such conditions, competition is minimized or thwarted, and capital is exalted over labor, the consummation of Marx’s contention that “Capital is dead labor.”

In every industry, huge monopolistic cartels dominate the playing field, following the spate of mergers and acquisitions throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s. To cite just two examples: (1) Four media giants (AOL-Time Warner, Viacom, Disney, and Rupert Murdoch’s NewsGroup) control everything we read, view, listen to, see at movie houses, and do at entertainment parks. Just four conglomerates, which have oh so much in common with one another, produce (for profit) every newspaper, magazine, major internet site, movie, cd, dvd, television program, and so on.

The pressure to stay within fairly narrow bounds of covering and the fear of losing one’s job should one “think outside the box” is detailed succinctly in Danny Schechter’s March 27, 2006 column the title of which is taken from a line Edward R. Morrow utters in the movie “Good Night and Good Luck”: “The Fear is in the Room: Inside our Unbrave Media World”; Robert Fisk’s March 19 column, “The Farcical End of the American Dream”; and Bill Gallagher’s March 28th column, “There is No ‘Good News’ in Iraq."

To note one other example: if Wal-Mart were a country it would have the 19th largest economy in the world!

Do not be hoodwinked by labels here: there was nothing “socialist” about Hitler’s National Socialist Party, despite his clever employment of terms such as “volk” (the people or the folks), “heimat” (homeland), or the solidarity sounding “ein land” (one country)!

Likewise, there is no genuinely human freedom in the free market, despite the intoxicating rhetoric of the neo-liberals. Bigioni quotes Thurman Arnold, the head of the Anti-trust section of the Justice Department in 1939:

“Germany, of course, has developed within 15 years from an industrial autocracy into a dictatorship. Most people are under the impression that the power of Hitler was the result of his demagogic blandishments and appeals to the mob. . . Actually, Hitler holds his power through the final and inevitable development of the uncontrolled tendency to combine in restraint of trade.” And in another address, Arnold told the American Bar Association that “Germany presents the logical end of the process of cartelization.”

And, of course, every cartel needs a strong leader, a commander-in-chief with an iron fist, And Arnold says that Hitler filled that role, but that if it had not been Hitler, it would have been someone else.

(Americans today might draw an analogy: if it were not George W. Bush, the first M.B.A. President, who would serve as the front-man for Big Business, it would be someone else.)

Bigioni writes, “Compulsory slave labor was the crowning achievement of Nazi labor relations.” By analogy, Employment-at-Will, the outsourcing of manufacturing and even service jobs, and the rejection of a living wage, is the crowning achievement of American labor relations. (See, for example, Harold Meyerson’s article, “Three Ideas to Radically Reorder Economy” (Providence Journal, March 24, 2006) and Princeton University Professor Alan Blinder’s article in the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs.

The disappearance of union jobs, outsourcing and downsizing has been the crowning achievement of American business relations over the past 30 years or so. The other factors contributing to what Bigioni calls “the fascist trajectory” includes low taxes, various forms of corporate welfare, the decimation of small businesses, and the ability of corporations to discharge obligations to employees, to the environment, and to the country as a whole.

In short, the United States is suffocating from the deleterious effects of Big Money interests in virtually every arena, from public political processes to the privatization of much of what belongs to all of us. Corporate advertising secures the pernicious effects. From time to time, one hears a call for public financing of elections, for truth in advertising, and for more regulation and oversight of lobbying activities, but on the whole, Americans seem glib about the way things are, supposing that this is the only way they can be.

The status quo breeds resignation in the citizenry, and this resignation, too, is in large part an effect of Big Business and its Big Money. It keeps ordinary folks and their common sense away from the political arena, which might otherwise force a change in the way things are done. Big Money does everything it can to sour people on political participation, so that the little guys who just don’t know what’s best for themselves or the country will leave matters of governance to the professional ruling class.

To formalize this relatively recent reality, it would seem necessary to reword our Constitution to reflect those entities called “corporations,” which have now been deemed “persons” and whose capital is now regarded as a form of “speech.” (See, for example, Jeffrey Kaplan, “Uncivil Liberties: ACLU Defense of ‘Money=Speech’ Precedent Undermines Democracy.”) The United States has become a country “of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation.”

Public financing of elections and campaign expenditure limits are shouted down as communism or socialism, in a manner very similar to Big Money’s cries of “class warfare” when the population at large objects to additional giveaways to the richest few Americans.

Big Money (representing a small, elite class) does everything in its power to prevent the American people from awakening to the fact that what it is seeing really is class warfare: warfare that is being waged from the top down, against the poor and what we used to call the “middle class,” which are now subsidizing Big Money interests that control the political agenda and its legislative processes.

The influence of Big Money on U.S. elections cannot be underestimated. (See, for example, Greg Palast’s “Jim Crow in Cyberspace” in The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, the work on election fraud by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, and the recent articles by Warren Stewart “Do You Know How Your Vote Will be Counted?” and Fred Grimm “Election Official Hammered for Telling the Truth”. The problem with the role of money in a supposedly democratic country is not restricted to the many and all-too regular scandals—such as the Abramoff affair or the conviction of Randy “Duke” Cunningham—nor is the problem restricted to the corruption that has ensnared elected officials and exposed lobbyists as little more than bribes makers and bagmen.

(See Geov Parrish, “That Old-Fashioned Corruption,” and Katrina vanden Heuvel’s, “Annals of Outrage I, II, and III) It is, rather, that money, as John McCain famously said, “is the mother’s milk of politics” (at least in the U.S. political system.) The need to raise money at every level, from city to state to federal offices, pollutes and perverts the democratic process.

The corruption is bipartisan; at present, the Republican Party enjoys greater favor with the corporate paymasters than does the Democratic Party, but both parties are “on the take”.

It does little to assuage one’s concern for democracy that one party gets 55-60% of the paymasters’ money and the other only 40-45%. In a country that prides itself on being democratic, private money peddles its influence across the political spectrum.

To cite one illustrative example, Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen, an energy industry watchdog, reports that Big Oil and Gas doled out $55 million to various campaigns for legislative and executive seats since 2001. And why not, ExxonMobil alone made a profit of $36.1 billion in 2005, the most profit ever recorded by a U.S. corporation in a year, and a rate of return on investment of 46-59%.

And what did these donations buy the industry? Among other things, when the executives of the top five oil and gas companies were called before Congress to testify about possible price-gouging and the prospect of a windfall profits tax, the five company representatives were not required to testify under oath!

Big Money and the future of Democracy in America

I suspect that everything just recounted is entirely by design: not by the design of our framers, but by the design of Big Money interests. The role of money ensures that only the wealthy and well-connected have any chance of influencing the political process or holding elected office at a significant level.

In the 2004 election campaign, 549 people each raised $100,000 for Bush’s re-election, and John Kerry, too, relied on big donors on his side of the political equation. Thus, it was not by sheer coincidence that, in the 2000 presidential campaign, voters were given a choice between a Yale graduate, whose father had been President and whose grandfather was a Senator, and a Harvard graduate, whose father was a Senator.

And in the 2004 presidential contest, the choice was even more narrow, between a multi-millionaire Yale “Skull and Bones” man and a billionaire Yale “Skull and Bones” man. Nepotism, like corruption, discourages most good Americans from participating in elections, to say nothing of running for office!

If in 1968, I had hung a poster on my bedroom wall that read: “Wanna Be President of the United States? First Find $25 Million”! Today, that wouldn’t buy a Senate seat or even a New York City Mayor’s job.

We should be either shocking or disgusting to realize that John Corzine spent $63 million for a New Jersey Senate seat, and Michael Bloomberg spent $70 million to become the mayor of New York City. With rumblings that he is considering a run for the Presidency we need not worry about being hounded for contributions by Mr. Bloomberg. He can foot the bill himself, and should he run you can rest assured that he won’t have to; there will be freely volunteered contributions to curry later favors.

Corporations give money to both parties in staggering amounts, and what they do not give directly to their favorites, they spend on advertising to shape the public mind. The result is a net loss both for the public good and for democracy. It costs the corporations only a small fraction in contributions for what they gain through their wheel-greasing.

Do you wonder how much the oil and natural gas lobby paid to secure that $9 billion in windfall profits that they stand to gain from the Bush administration’s plan for “royalty relief”. And that million dollar donation by the UAE to the Bush library in Crawford was surely just a down-payment on the ports deal they hoped to get!

It seems quaint nowadays to reflect back on the corporate culture of the 1960’s. John Kenneth Galbraith wrote the following description in his1967 book, The New Industrial State, as quoted by Paul Krugman in his excellent October 20, 2002 New York Times Magazine article, “For Richer”:

“Management does not go out ruthlessly to reward itself---a sound management is expected to exercise restraint. . . With the power of decision goes opportunity for making money . . . Were everyone to seek to do so . . . the corporation would be a chaos of competitive avarice.

But these are not the sort of thing that a good company man does; a remarkably effective code bans such behavior. Group decision-making insures, moreover, that almost everyone’s actions and even thoughts are known to others. This acts to enforce the code and, more than incidentally, a high standard of personal honesty as well.”

Does anyone believe that such a self-policing culture exists today? If the corporate scandals of the 1990’s taught us anything, it is that corporations no longer even aim to stay in business, a goal that used to temper their penchant for excess and bridge-burning. The cases of Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, WorldCom, Global Crossing, and many more perpetrators, should have made abundantly clear that there is no limit to corporate excess or insatiable greed, and, in the absence of federal and international regulations, it is usually the stockholders and the public at large who end up underwriting the thefts, cleaning up the pollution, and dealing with the displaced workforce.

Most of this is not new. In fact, the seeds of corporate rule over America were sown by the 1971 ”Powell Memorandum.” And we need only think back to the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980’s, to recall another half a trillion dollar boondoggle that taxpayers had to underwrite.

There have been plenty of books written about such scandals (see, for example, William S. Greider, Who Will Tell the People?, Arianna Huffingtom, Pigs at the Trough, Jim Hightower, Thieves in High Places, and David K. Johnston, Perfectly Legal, for starters.) Yet despite the recurrent malfeasance, little has been done to curb corporate excesses and outright frauds.

What is more, trans-national corporations need have no allegiance to the United States of America. They have offices in many countries and on many continents, and most of them have already shipped their profits offshore to avoid the patriotic duty of paying their fair share of U.S. taxes.

Remembering President Eisenhower’s Warning

Several commentators have recently reminded us of General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s January 17, 1961 farewell address, warning of the threat posed by the “military-industrial complex”.

Usually omitted from discussions of President Eisenhower’s warning is the less well-known fact that, until the final version of the speech, Eisenhower used the phrase, "military-industrial-congressional complex”.

He is said to have deleted the reference to Congress from his final version to avoid offending legislators.

But President Eisenhower regularly referred to “the triangle” and even to “the iron triangle” consisting of the military, the industries that profit from war, and the Congress, which is charged with declaring war, appropriating funding for wars (and everything else the federal government spends money on), and for exercising oversight functions of various kinds.

According to University of Washington Emeritus Professor of engineering, public affairs, and social management, Edward Ward Wenk, Jr.: “These three cornered fellowships coupled hungry defense contractors, ambitious military officers whose promotions rested on husbanding new defense systems, and members of Congress eager to steer new funds and job opportunities to their district.”

Eisenhower might have added “educational institutions” to the list, since universities conducted research for the Manhattan Project and institutions, such as UC Berkeley, which managed the Los Alamos laboratory (which produced the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) from its inception until last year, when the University put Los Alamos on the auction block and Bechtel secured the management contract.

President Eisenhower’s speechwriter—whom Professor Wenk revealed to be Malcolm Moos—recalled that Eisenhower feared a “pathological influence of the military-industrial coalition beyond a healthy arm’s-length relationship, especially if the national psyche was prodded artificially by fear. A future chief executive might exploit political energies of the coalition to further a narrow and dangerous agenda” (Italics mine).

Professor Wenk, who served in the administrations of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, and who was the first incumbent in the post of science advisor to Congress during the Eisenhower administration, draws this conclusion in his March 17 article, “Ike’s Warning Reverberates Today” by saying: “I see coalitions increasingly entrenched.

Failed weapons systems are seldom canceled. Auditing is cursory for moving and feeding troops; malperformance is accepted in the fog of war, and penalties for fraud uncollected. . .” “Influence of coalitions also has grown with the cost of political campaigns. Members spend half their time raising funds, rather than forging policy. . . In the absence of strong vigilance, their concern about a corporate state hatched by stealth might yet happen.”

Indeed, it has already taken place, repeatedly!

It appears glaringly obvious these days that Congress has failed miserably in its oversight, appropriation, and war-declaration functions. This lack of oversight is apparent not only with respect to the Administration’s reckless adventure in Iraq, but also with regard to the passage of the Patriot Act (and its renewal), the muted response against policies condoning torture, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the practice of “extraordinary rendition”, the warrantless wiretapping on American citizens, and the insuring of free and fair elections with verifiable ballot-counting.

What we have now is a military-industrial-Congressional complex indeed…a real foundation for Fascist formulation!

I nonetheless, really believe that “most” public officials begin their careers with a desire to serve the people and to make America better. I do not believe that members of Congress, or members of state legislatures, for that matter, run for office merely to enrich themselves. No, I think that most of them begin their political careers as genuine and sincere people. But the systemic role of money, as I have said, pollutes and perverts processes and people.

It is a bit like boiling a frog. If you drop the frog in boiling water, it will immediately jump out of the kettle; but if you drop the frog in lukewarm water and slowly increase the temperature, the frog will neither jump out of the kettle nor croak anymore. And that is just what happens to far too many of our public servants and to the citizenry as a whole.

It is ironic that Big Business tries to insure that government stays on the sidelines and pursues laissez faire policies, until Big Business needs the government (usually aided by the U.S. military) to make some country or region “safe” for its business interests.

From making Cuba safe for the United Fruit Company, to securing access to Persian Gulf oil and South Asian gas, Big Business is always ready to have the government protecting its interests. One notes again and again, however, that such security is paid for by taxpayers, while the profits go straight into the corporate coffers.

But beware, Big Business; for as Bigioni warns: “Just as monopoly is the ruin of the free market, fascism is the ultimate degradation of liberal capitalism.” It’s sort of like be careful of what you wish for…

But then again the drift downward will be in a comfortable proper patriotic, flag wrapped, Christian, Family Values fog will all seem so “normal”…except, sooner of later the fog lifts and reality become clear.

It’s sort of like mowing the lawn on a hot summer day and having one or two too many beers. You lay down on the sofa for a few minutes with a fan blowing on you to cool down, and sleep comes quickly, a sleep broken by the rudeness of your neighbor ringing your door bell to report you left you mower running and it is now at rest against the side of his house….

Or you’ve had a good party with friends and your pitchers of Martinis were good and gone, and you awake to find yourself on that sofa again, and as you stumble in the Martini haze through the darkened house, you discover the bedroom door locked. You don’t know what you did, but you know you are in trouble, and at that moment you don’t know what you are going to have to do.

The arrival of Fascism is like that, seductive, intoxicating, and comfortable because your leaders have assured you that they are strong enough and have the answers to keep you safe and happy, and then comes the political hang over that can last for generations!

I on the other hand have no question as to where I stand, for the following words are, and will be, my refuge and resort when everyone has failed and the Fascist Flag Flies; I will be on the other side ready to begin anew the fight to regain what we all once knew before we succumbed to the intoxication, woke up in a fog pondering: “What do we do now, or as was written on the original book jacket of Sinclair Lewis’s, “ It Can’t Happen Here: “What will happen when Dictatorship comes to America?”

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.

When Fascism comes to America it will wrapped in the flag carrying a cross, and I will be wrapped in The Declaration Of Independence carrying a gun. It’s as American as Apple Pie!

Monday, August 27, 2007

An Open Letter To Bob and America




AN OPEN LETTER TO BOB AND AMERICA





Bob Crowe wrote :

(1) ” How can we get the conversation away from the war hawk talking points and onto the realities of the mistakes, disasters, and illegalities?

(2) Perhaps part of the answer is that in order to do so we must criticize ourselves (we Americans) and we all shy away from self-criticism.

(3) But that, I think, is what it will take. From among our leaders, who will stand up and say "this is wrong, this is a mistake, and we must now take responsibility and get to work to fix it?

(4) Where is the leader who will risk reelection for the sake of doing the right thing?”

Let us take the last part of that first (4). I am being neither dismissive of the question, nor trivializing it by my oblique commentary. The FACT of the matter is that hundreds of the members of Congress in the House and Senate are mental midgets, embarrassing blowhards, chronic liars, outright crooks, corporate lackeys and cowards who feast at the public trough, pillage every coffer they see and believe it is their right to covet and collect every perk and privilege that they can in exchange for access and their vote.

All that has nothing to do with all the fine platitudes and high sounding hyperbole they slathered on the public like a coating of honey while seeking office and our VOTE. It felt good, sounded good, smelled good and in the hunger for change in November 2006; it tasted good!

The Congress of The United States, within its membership, and systemically as an institution, has failed. Bob it is not simply a matter that as nation we are unwilling to participate in self examination and constructive, essential- for- survival, self criticism; we can’t and we won’t until catastrophe has befallen us because as a nation we are egomaniacal and arrogant to a fault.

We are exclusive, exemption minded from the rest of the world. Our every act of collective or permitted/tolerated aggression and inaction to a world beset with Genocide is daily evidence of that FACT.

We are comfortable with Genocide because it is a mere word that most cannot comprehend, and never will until this country is shaken to its core on own soil.

Oh, but there is a rub; our mentality that says: “It can’t happen here.”

Anyone who clings to the notion that any malady suffered anywhere else in this world cannot be visited upon our “SACRED IMMUNE SOIL” I cannot help or cannot reach with reason or words because they are the very heart of the problem with this nation.

They do not possess the requisite pride in this nation, a conscious appreciation of our heritage, an understanding of the real and sometimes horrific sacrifices that have been made by generations long gone to their graves, dying to achieve, defend or preserve those very things we anguish over with words.

There are few who really believe that all is right with this nation, but there are fewer prepared to be a Bobby Kennedy or a Martin Luther King, an Edward R. Murrow, a Che or Chavez, a John L. Lewis or Joe Hill and those who are so prepared can find no troops but their own private circles.

I fear that while intellectually America knows it is becoming unglued, personally, viscerally the people have been fear driven into impotence or the belief that that are impotent in the face of this government.

The Machiavellian performance of this congress is worthy of a Doctoral Degree on Machiavelli, and what I find most troubling about that fact is that most are intelligent enough to have digested his work, but time, experience, trial and error example and the machinations and manipulation of the technologies that dominate our society have made understanding unnecessary as contemporary political process has been reduced to routine scripted formula manipulation of a benign populous.

Money in obscene amounts is generated on the internet for candidates and organizations, according to practices formulas, formulas that tap into individual harbored hopes. One can easily donate that way, feel that are somehow a contributor to hope and change, effortlessly, thoughtlessly, anonymously and risk free.

There are so few members of the house, all facing election who are worthy of even a penny of support at the moment, but the money flows foolishly in the naive partisan knee jerk instinct that all will change in the 2008 elections and that we just have to forgive the failure following the November 2006 elections.

The Founders of our nation and the Framers of our Constitution surely did not foresee the day when, of the federal government’s three branches, the public would have the least confidence in Congress. In fact, the public has a little less confidence in Congress than it has in HMOs. At 14 percent, the fraction of Americans with a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress is the lowest in Gallup's history of this measure -- and the lowest of any of the 16 institutions tested in this year's Confidence in Institutions survey. The Supreme Court received 34 percent confidence and the criminal presidency of George W. Bush received 25 percent – nothing to be proud of and certainly not inspirational.

The 2006 congressional elections demonstrated/revealed that switching power between the two major political parties is an act of utter futility.

We have a bipartisan failure of Congress to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities and serve the public.

In the end, we Democrats may have a different style, but like Republicans we are also corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent.

Things have gotten so bad institutionally and culturally that we cannot vote our way out of a dysfunctional and destructive Congress as long as the two-party duopoly maintains its grip on our political system.

We no longer have a significant number of members of Congress that rise above partisan political priorities or private privilege and plundering/pilfering/pillaging to put the good of the nation and the integrity of our Constitution first.

For our constitutional republic to really work Congress must have the courage and integrity to use its constitutional powers to safeguard Americans’ freedom, security, health, safety and welfare. Even the most distracted and cynical Americans now see Congress has done next to nothing to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.

But the very words: integrity, courage, service and constitutional have been pretty much relegated to the trash bin of history as speech making vocabulary that no one believes. America has come to accept that their leaders are corrupt, will continue to be corrupt, and that the best they can hope for is that the organizations they support, the party they support, amidst their corruption will incidentally protect and serve their personal well being and interests; that they will not be bothered, negatively impacted or have to put down their beer, get off the sofa and so something distastefully meaningful that someone else has not done for them.

That is a painting of American apathy, not personal cynicism.

Worst of all, Congress has allowed the Bush presidency to accumulate far more power than our Constitution permits. Even after years of arrogant disrespect by Bush and Cheney for our Constitution and Congress itself, Congress is too cowardly to do what they are supposed to do to maintain the structure of our federal government. It has not used the constitutional remedy of impeachment – not to punish Bush – but to preserve the constitutional limits on the presidency.

How many Americans understand that the thread of Executive power that broke away from the whole cloth fabric of our democracy did so in the shadows of WW I and the Great Depression?

How many Americans understand the pending catastrophe that confronts us is a web of power woven from that errant thread of so many years ago?

How many Americans understand that, that we call the “military industrial complex”, corporate capitalist excess and conspiracy among the few has been allowed to simply grow like an untreated cancer to the detriment of the entire world in the name of power, privilege and wealth for the few?

How many Americans understand that, that evolution has all but disassembled the fruits of the labor movement that men and women died for?

America was too busy with other matters, other comfortable matters, and we slumbered in placid decades of self absorption. The Vietnam era is a forgotten aberration for most of the younger generation and forgotten by others annoyed by the noise after Nixon fell as the pound of flesh paid for that adventure and the masters of politics and war learned to manage Television, made body bags disappear and replaced then with honored patriotic flag draped coffins, so much more acceptable.

Add to all this: the failure to protect the rule of law; the failure to control spending and reduce our debt; the failure to control our borders and protect our national sovereignty; the failure to stop the insane Iraq war; the failure to stop creation of the North American Union; the failure to stop the many forms of corruption of Congress itself; the failure to restore public confidence in our elections; the failure to stop the excesses of globalization that is destroying our middle class; the failure to address rising economic inequality; the failure to fix/replace our broken health care system; and so much more, all the result of repugnant runaway politics.

Getting elected, grabbing power and enjoying the benefits of office trump governing.

Those hundreds of members of Congress – in the House and Senate – the mental midgets, embarrassing blowhards, chronic liars, outright crooks, corporate lackeys, and elderly buffoons are plutocracy protectors more than democracy defenders. And too many that think they should be president. What a list!

So Bob; what can the 86 percent of Americans without confidence in Congress do?

Put aside partisan views and stop re-electing members of Congress. Only a handful of incumbents deserve to be re-elected. A very few that never supported the Iraq war, do not use pork spending to reward their supporters, and have worked to impeach Bush, for example.

It really is time that America breaks the mold. It is the only peaceful, bloodless, last option available!

Our Constitutional system does not provide for a revolution at the ballot box, only evolution. As close as we can get to affecting real change will occur in the Presidential Election of 2008 when all 435 House members are up for election, and a few Senators.

Now is the time to elect independents, third party candidates and non incumbents to Congress.

When one objectively sees the utterly low quality of both Democratic and Republican members of Congress it becomes clear that even a random selection of ordinary Americans would probably do better.

But we have thousands of independents and third party members with considerable civic and elective office experience that deserve the opportunity to restore our representative democracy.

How could we do any worse? Let’s make a dent in house cleaning and send the message that we are watching and that voter rage is real, and that the two party incumbents do not have an automatic lease on their offices throw the bums out and give real change a chance.

We also need much greater public awareness that Congress for a very long time has failed to obey the part of Article V of our Constitution that gives us the right to a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.

Such an Article V Convention was created by the Framers as an alternative to Congress proposing amendments. They created this convention option – a temporary fourth branch of government giving us some direct democracy – in case Americans some day lost confidence in the federal government. That day has arrived!

I don’t know if the call for a Third Continental Congress has ant chance of being realized, but it is worthy the try. It would make a solid statement that Americans can organize nationally to express their will and serve both notice and as a platform for the launch of a Constitutional Convention should it be necessary and deemed an appropriate vehicle for correcting the accumulation of tools and statutes of Executive Branch excess.

There are many constitutional amendments that deserve public discussion, especially ones to make our government work they way our Constitution intended it to work. We need to strengthen our Constitution to prevent power-hungry presidents, useless Congresses, and Supreme Courts that create new public policy that is injurious to the fabric of this democracy.

Moreover, the one and only requirement to have an Article V Convention specified has already been satisfied, because way more than two-thirds of state legislatures have requested such a convention. Learn more about this congressional disobedience of the Constitution at
www.foavc.org , the website of the new national, nonpartisan group Friends of the Article V Convention.

Why has Congress failed Americans?

Because Americans have allowed it to fail them.

Now is the time for Americans to assert their sovereign constitutional power and take back their country. That means US!

Six months on, the defining characteristic of the new Democrat majority in Congress has been failure: failure to lead, failure to communicate, failure to organize, failure to deliver. It's normal for a caucus long out of power to have some tough sledding when relearning how to run the place, but this crowd is taking incompetence to a new level.

Forget about the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) are riding at the head of the Gang That Can't Even Shoot.

To deal more directly with the idea that we as a nation cannot deal with self-evaluation or self-criticism; there is no question in my mind but what you are right! The idea that America can be wrong, that it might have to admit to error or wrong doing is foreign a concept to a nation that perceives itself as the world power, the bastion and marketer of democracy and the moral compass of the world, that to suggest such is viewed by a majority as lunacy and treasonous.

The collapse of the immigration bill is a perfect case study in the legislative idiocy that is right now posing as leadership in the Democratic Party. The Democrats wrote the immigration bill like it was 1977, when they commanded huge majorities -- behind closed doors, details kept even from their own caucus, as if confident their ideological pals at the networks and major newspapers would keep the story from the American people. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid simply do not understand that you can't manage Congress in a vacuum of closed-door meetings and party discipline.

The idea that a handful of senators could get together in secret, write a 1,000-page bill opposed by 70 percent of the American people, come down off Mount Sinai and demand a supermajority of support with less than 48 hours' lead time is even stupider than it sounds. Pelosi's and Reid's careers are far from over, but I think it's fair to say that Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson they ain't. The entire immigration issue was a political administration ploy from the beginning.

Never intended for resolution is was a diversionary tactic. Some how the Genie got out of the bottle and things have become complicated and divisive within the states and local communities. At the Federal level both parties wish it would away as even a lip service measure cannot be agreed upon. Congress does not want to admit it is a bunch of hypocrites on this one and supporters like Tancredo are simply opportunistic xenophobes.

What makes the Democrats' failures stand out thus far -- again, some learning curve should be expected -- has been their utter lack of leadership.

Quick: What's the congressional Democrat position on the war, or taxes, or earmarks, or entitlement reform?

They themselves don't really know.

On the two issues on which Democrats have taken a firm position -- in favor of the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill and in favor of the un-American denial of secret ballots to union members -- they have walked into public relations and policy disasters.

Meanwhile, their floor management has been, literally, unmatched in the history of legislative incompetence. The House Republican minority has passed more motions to recommit in six months than had been lost in fifteen years.
Even the Democrats' presumed top-line agenda items are foundering.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has no schedule for reauthorizing the popular, and expiring, SCHIP children's health care program.

Reid has no plan to rescue the Democrats' promised bill to allow for collective bargaining on drug prices.

The House student loan program not only fails to cut loan rates in half, it doesn't cut them at all.

House Democrats shot down a proposal that would have held them to their promise to stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund.

Their unserious promises about gas prices have long been exposed as empty rhetoric, as no energy plan is in the works.

Health care, cheaper drugs, senior insecurity, sticking it to Big Oil: This is the Democrats' bread and butter, and one-quarter of the way through their term (and almost one-half of their time for actual legislating), they can't even get the bills out of committee. There is no excuse in this nation that every man woman and child is not covered fully for health care costs…none.

We have the money to bomb and blast anyone back to the stone age, unleash the forces of Genocide anywhere in the world, the ability to reduce this planet to a burned out charcoal briquette in the icy void of space and yet the elderly have to chose too often between medication and food. Costa Rico has better medical care and coverage than the United States. Does that make sense?The worst of the lot, of course, is earmarks. The Democrats for years ran against the Republicans' supposed culture of corruption.

Speaker Pelosi called for an end to all earmarks, publicly and repeatedly. She called for earmarks to be open to public scrutiny. She called for a ban on earmarks that would personally impact a member's finances. To date, every single one of these campaign pledges have been broken.

Democrats to date have passed one spending bill, a continuing resolution left over from the previous Congress, and it contained hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks.

Pelosi herself proposed one earmark that would have funneled federal dollars into a San Francisco neighborhood where her family owns four homes.

Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) admitted on "Meet the Press" that $20 billion in pork was put into a bill to buy the votes of reluctant Democrats.

And despite repeated pledges to the contrary, Democrats have made no move to require members to disclose earmark requests. Regarding the lowest of low-hanging fruit -- cleaning up the earmarking process -- Democrats have simply adopted the practices they once called corrupt.

Does that make me feel proud to call myself a Democrat; no?
In sum, the style, substance and management of the new Democrat majority has been an abject failure. The leaders do not lead.

The back-benchers do not follow. They have no unified agenda. They espouse no underlying principles. It's a good thing their presidential candidates are having such substantive debates. The U.S. Congress is a failure. Nancy Pelosi is a failure as speaker. There is no other way to look at it.

They passed an ethics bill that was only window dressing.

After all the promises and lip service, Pelosi and her liberal friends can’t deliver anything.

This was all predictable. Their attempts to reign in the president where the war is concerned have been ludicrous. Our party looks like a bunch of sock puppets paralyzed, hypnotized by Presidential 2008. We have our eye on the prize; it could well be our eye on our demise!

We have painted ourselves into a corner. We can’t or won’t force a timetable for withdrawal on the president. All that is left is to defund the war completely, and they can’t see their way to doing that due to political considerations. It’s time for Pelosi and her cheap shot friends in congress to lead or get out of the way.

Passing ridiculous bills that have no hope of becoming law is nothing more than political posturing on their part. Is this what you wanted when you cast that vote against the GOP in 2006? There I can be critical.

But there are other matters that high light the problem. George Bush and others are as guilty of War Crimes as Adolph Hitler. The country does not want to hear that. Only our enemies can be guilty of War Crimes.

We have the exclusive right to do any damn thing we please in the name of democracy. There are even liberals/progressive who are closet exclusivists.

We don’t want to admit it; the day of empire for any national state is over, and that includes us. That does not mean that there are not other institutions and organizations capable of economic dominion to the degree that their power constitutes Empire, and therein lays the problem.

It is a global problem and for the most part we just struggle with its symptoms in America. We search and we scratch; we fight and try to martial some cohesive plan that will at least break a significant number of links in the chain, and all too often we develop the feeling that we’re being, the Congress is being allowed to play in someone else’s backyard, as long as we play nice.

Someday there will be players who are not included in the global game who will unite in their own new game, like a giant clerical Arab state and all bets will be off as they will be playing by their own rules for their own purposes.

Congressmen and Senators ( F ) equals failure to do the (Will of the People). The Will of the people is no longer a part of the democratic process in the United States.

Today the (Will of the People) is no longer a part of the democratic process in the United States of America’s Congressional and Senatorial agencies.

It is a sad state of affairs when from the highest office in the land, to those who are directly responsible for hearing, representing, and properly enforcing the voice, and Will of the People, disregard, and act totally independent of the People. And they are doing it on a daily basis.

Despite party affiliations and agendas, (We the People) of the United States of America, the largest, constitutionally based union; predicated upon bylaws specifically adapted by the people and for the people, desire officers who recognize, understand, and are governed by the same, to which we’ve been entrusted.

We…the People, have a legal and moral obligation locally and abroad, to enforce the laws relative to electing and dismissing governing officers who by a preponderance of the evidence break the laws of the land and fellow countrymen, and yet speak of lawlessness, and the lack of democracy elsewhere. We are agreed on Impeachment being the only legal remedy for this matter. To those who are “Terrorist” hypnotized there is nothing that this government can be held accountable for in “The War on Terrorism”. They are lost to the voice of reason and the rule of law. They don’t even want to hear the words.

It just may be that these same neighbors abroad, listen, and watch while our United States official representatives, blatantly disregard, and offend the Will of its own people, while claiming to love their neighbors abroad: thus, our neighbors may determine that, they want no part of the United States’ brand of democracy.

Example: Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; Nancy Pelosi, knowing the Will of the People, and despite all evidence desiring impeachment of President G.W. Bush and Vice President Cheney, after being sworn-in, made the open statement that ‘impeachment of President George W. Bush is off the table,’ thus, flooring the ‘Democratic’ Party as a whole.

Example: Upon the changing of the guard, in both the US Senate and Congress, promises the likes of, and relative to addressing the affairs of, and miss-management by this less than legal, disingenuous administration, bringing our young troops home; out of Iraq and the midst of civil unrest, medical health care and insurance, education and benefits for US citizens, and the overall ill-fated state and welfare of our local economy, seemingly, were no longer imperative.

Now, it’s a lax ‘Impeachment is not on the table,’ as to suggest that the direction the United States presently faces, The War; the invasion and occupation in Iraq, the thousands of casualties as a result of an illegal (WAR AGENDA), the real unemployment statistics, outsourcing of jobs, and numerous other illegal activities, were either inevitable, or, already a reality; and, have become an acceptable behavior and condition. Perhaps Speaker Pelosi and her collaborators aren’t cognizant of the ‘Peoples’ Will today, and believe they can continue to hold down the fort, without (the People). Could a person be more remiss than this?

Example; and, less we forget too; upon the changing of the guard, in both the House and the Senate, during the most critical event any country could facilitate; a major election, not one United States Senator stood to, i.e., (represent) an entire ethnic group (of people), whom undoubtedly were
disenfranchised.

Despite other social ills, this single personal affront upon these US citizens alone has set the United States back one (100) years. All of this, while other countries look-on; questioning, and wondering about our, the United States’ brand and definition of democracy, that, we so desperately want to share with the Iraqi citizenry.

When a country deliberately breaks the legs of, and cripples those within its own society, not only is it defeated from within, it’s sure to reap a similar harvest without.

We are left with few options. We can continue to fumble about in the dark, each doing his/her own thing in the name of what believe to be right. We can march; we can picket; we button and yard sign people; we can petition and walk the streets and malls until we are bone tired and foot weary. We can meet and debate, rage against the darkness, exhaust every legal remedy attempting to impeach; attempting to awaken the American conscience and consciousness to reality; we can author a Third Continental Congress, Convene a new Constitutional Convention, attempt a blow against the traditional electoral process; try to shake loose the media.

We can speak out like a Kucinich, honest to a fault and dismissed by the media as we the peons are.

We can do all this as peace loving, law abiding people…and when all that fails, comes to naught, you know there are only two roads left at that point: The road named Surrender and the road named The People In The Streets.

We are left with few options.

Investigate, Impeach, Indict, Imprison The Entire Cabal

















GONE BUT NOT BEYOND THE REACH OF THE PEOPLE'S LAW!

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Impeach Bush, Cheney: From ITMFA to Ugly Truth





There Is A Lot Of Ugly Truth Here: Bush, Cheney, Iraq, Davis, Martial Law, Black Water Mercenaries; It Sounds Like TV News...ALL BAD!


I'm Myra from NC—I think I had the very first ITMFA license plate. They pulled it about 2 months ago—I got a polite letter, a self addressed envelope for the return, and a new plate in the mail. I HAD to put on the new plate, or I wouldn't have been legal driving. But I did not return the plate. I will hang it up, framed, for my grandson to have. And I did not cash the check they sent to refund my special plate fee. Therefore, the transaction never finished in their computers, and they cannot make me return it.

A memento. It was great while I had it on, though. Myra G.

Where are you, ACLU?

In other ITMFA news, my old arch-enemies at the Des Moines Register published an editorial in defense of ITMFA plates.

Who cares if a driver you've never met is Cyclone fan (CYFAN) or likes to play tennis (10SNE1)? Personalized license plates are curious because, like bumper stickers, they reveal the need some people have to announce tidbits about themselves to other motorists who probably couldn't care less.

But in some cases, the government cares a lot. Government-issued plates are subject to government regulation.

The Iowa Administrative Code states personal plates can have "No combination of characters...which is sexual in connotation; defined in dictionaries as a term of vulgarity, contempt, prejudice, hostility, insult, or racial or ethnic degradation; recognized as a swear word; considered to be offensive; or a foreign word falling into any of these categories."

Defining "offensive" is tricky business. And likely a headache for Iowa Department of Transportation officials who take complaints about license plates. This year, the DOT has sent letters to nine Iowans asking them to surrender their plates.

Included in the list are: ITMFA, HORNDOG, GOTWUD1, HUKDFOX, BCHMGNT, 2REDRUM, COOTER, and 3REICH.
We'll admit we were scratching our heads on a few of these until we checked the Internet for the meaning of slang terms.

The DOT also issued a letter to John Miller of Boone for the FNADER plates on his Corvair. He's not only refusing to give them up; he's getting some help from the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa.

There are thousands of words in the English language beginning with the letter F. Is that letter now recognized as always synonymous with a swear word?

We don't think so. Censoring it amounts to censoring thoughts.

Register writer John Carlson elaborated on ITMFA in a recent column. This is apparently taken from an anti-Bush Web site and stands for "Impeach the (expletive) Already."

But how could anyone be offended unless they read Carlson's column or were familiar with the Web site?

Aside from banning plates that spell out profanities, the DOT should leave creative Iowa drivers alone.

From the Des Moines Register:
Glen Keenan got his shiny new personalized license plates on Aug. 1.

The polite, but firm, letter from the Iowa Department of Transportation arrived a week later.

If he would be so kind, the state told him, please "voluntarily surrender" the new plates. Within 10 days. In other words, pronto.

"I don't know what to do, but I don't think so," said Keenan, a lifelong Iowan from Jefferson County. "It's not an obscene message. I really don't understand why I wouldn't be allowed to keep them."

Keenan tells me this is what his personalized Iowa license plates say: ITMFA.

...
There were two complaints about Keenan's plates similar to the objection somebody had in Chapter 1 of Iowa's personalized license plate problem.

Surely you remember John Miller of Boone, the guy who put the "F NADER" plates on his Corvair. The state has ordered the plate be revoked, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa is intervening on his behalf.

The first step is an administrative hearing. Keenan says he, too, is in contact with the ACLU.

Miller's and Keenan's are two of the nine state-ordered revocations this year.

"I don't know what the big deal is with mine," said Keenan, 41. "My plate isn't vulgar. It's simply a series of letters than can mean any number of things."

Really?

"Sure," he said. "It can mean 'Impeach the Miserable Failure Already.' Or it could mean 'Information Technology Masters Fine Arts.' You could think of lots of things. I mean, any vehicle with an 'F' on the license plate could be objectionable to somebody."
Which is why they are treating migraines at the Iowa Department of Transportation. And possibly elsewhere.

The Web site also has pictures of vehicles in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., with the same message on license plates.

What will it take for Keenan to ditch the plates?

"I'll give them up if Bush is impeached or when he's no longer president," Keenan said.
http://www.thanhniennews.com/worlds/?catid=9&newsid=31349

An American doctor who volunteered to serve in Vietnam during the war has sent 100 copies of his Vietnam War memoirs to US senators in an attempt to influence the debate on the Iraq War.

Not all senators had seen war firsthand, Dr. Allen Hassan observed, and the experience of war was extremely sobering.

Failure to Atone: The True Story of a Jungle Surgeon in Vietnam is a powerful testament to the misery, death, and suffering of civilian populations caught in an aggressive war.

The city of San Fernando City Council Pass Resolution For ImpeachmentAtlantic Free Press - Groningen,NetherlandsThe city of San Fernando City Council passed an impeachment resolution for President Bush with a unanimous vote on August 20, 2007. ...See all stories on this topic

Why is Impeachment off the Table?Free Market News Network - Pompano Beach,FL,USAAccording to public opinion polling, the percentage of voters supporting the impeachments of both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are now ...See all stories on this topic

IMPEACHMENT FRIDAY: Bush Is DelusionalBy hotpotato At a minimum his line should read: ...and liberated 50 million citizens from tyrannical rule and delivered them to hell. Clearly we have two DICK's in the White House. Why not throw them both out?
Impeach.Hot Potato Mash - http://www.hotpotatomash.com/

AND 47 Americans - It's time to get involved, Impeachment dialog ...By info@anationdeceived.org (Craig S. Barnes) Bruce Russell is a Prof. of Sociology and Criminology and founder of Montana Partners for Impeachment (MPFI). Through various MPFI efforts, he has been regularly raising the awareness of the people of Montana regarding impeachment and ...Impeachment Podcast - http://www.anationdeceived.org

Thanks NPR - Impeachment Segment Ran on NPR on WednesdayBy takomaparkibc On Wednesday the NPR program Day to Day ran a balanced, accurate segment on impeachment that presented both sides (pro-impeachment and 'it's not going to go anywhere'). They even had Bruce Fein on saying Democrats are afraid of having ...
Takoma Park Impeach Bush & Cheney - http://takomaparkibc.wordpress.com


Calls for impeachment are missing the factsBy Jackson Citizen Patriot JACKSON -- To all the liberals and Democrats out there calling for President Bush's impeachment, know your facts before running your mouths. There are only a few serious acts, such as treason, that can lead to impeaching the president. ...Opinion and Column - Jackson... - http://blog.mlive.com/citpat_opinion/

Pelosi's Stand Blocking Impeachment in the House is Killing the ...By sudhan It's not just the Constitution that is suffering because of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's nutty and unprincipled "impeachment-off-the-table" position blocking any effort to impeach President Bush or Vice President Cheney for their many ...Suzie-Q - http://suzieqq.wordpress.com

An intensifying US campaign against Iran
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0824/p01s01-wome.html?s=hns
Amid US charges of Iran's hand in Iraq's instability, some counsel caution.
By Scott Peterson Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the August 24, 2007 edition

Page 1 of 3

Istanbul, Turkey - Somalia, 1993: During the darkest days of the American military intervention, when US troops were taking casualties from drug-addled gunmen wearing flip-flops, US officials pointed to a familiar nemesis.

It was Iran, warned Madeleine Albright, then-US envoy to the United Nations, that had forged a "tactical alliance" with a Somali warlord and "terrorists" in Sudan. Intelligence sources for the first time spoke of smuggled Iranian weapons. In Mogadishu, journalists were told that Iranian agents were training Somalis to make car bombs. But no proof was ever presented.

US charges against Iran's role in Iraq are mounting. But analysts say that a history of unsubstantiated US claims against Iran should serve as a cautionary tale. The lesson to be drawn is not that Iran is guiltless in Iraq, they say, but one of restraint as a familiar drumbeat sounds.

The latest step in the Bush administration's intensifying campaign to depict Iran as a disruptive force in Iraq is a decision to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard force a "terrorist" group. That label, and a push for more UN sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, and continued charges of training, funding, and supplying anti-US militants in Iraq, experts say, could harm Iraq security talks between US and Iranian diplomats in Baghdad.

"The Americans are blaming Iran for everything that goes wrong, even if it's not Iran's fault, and Iran does the same with the US," says Trita Parsi, the Washington-based author of the forthcoming "Treacherous Alliance: Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the US."

"Decisionmakers in Washington are by-the-minute limiting their own maneuverability in how to deal with Iran, [thereby] making it more difficult to put the relationship on a positive track," he says.

The US case against Iran

This week, the US commander of central Iraq claimed that 50 officers of the Revolutionary Guard's elite Qods Force were in Iraq, training militants.

Top US officers also charged this month that lethal roadside bombs called explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) from Iran were used in 99 attacks in July and caused one-third of US combat deaths, an "all-time high," Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, deputy US commander in Iraq, told The New York Times.

General Odierno claimed the "Iranians are surging support" to Iranian-trained cells to influence US decisions about the Baghdad troop surge. "Over the past three to four months, [Iran's support] has picked up in terms of equipment, training and dollars," Odierno told the Times.

Some US charges appear to stick. US forces earlier this month captured homemade video of preparations for two Shiite militant attacks on a US base southeast of Baghdad on July 11 and Aug. 5. The footage showed 50 fresh-from-the-box 107-mm rockets being lined up on metal stands in daylight, to fire upon the base.

Intelligence officers told Fox News that there was "no doubt" the rockets – still with some packing grease and English lettering for export, the year 2006, and color-coded – were made in Iran. How they got to Iraq, and carried by whom, they could not say. Fourteen of those rockets were fired at the base, killing one soldier; 36 others were found primed, but their timers failed. Three more larger rockets were fired Aug. 5.
Page 1 2 3 Next Page

U.S. criticism draws a blunt Iraqi retort
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-maliki23aug23,0,5688757.story?coll=la-tot-topstories&track=ntottext

Maliki, in Syria, says his nation 'can find friends elsewhere.' Analysts doubt Washington wants to replace him.
By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer August 23, 2007

BAGHDAD -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki warned the Bush administration after talks with longtime U.S. adversaries in Syria on Wednesday that Iraq "can find friends elsewhere" if Washington doesn't like how he runs his country.
Maliki's defiant rhetoric followed criticism from the White House and congressional leaders in recent days of his efforts to unite his Cabinet and improve stability, which would permit a reduction in the number of U.S. troops here.

Advice by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs poses a potential clash with supporters of the buildup.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-pace24aug24,0,6180731.story?coll=la-tot-topstories&track=ntottext

By Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers 12:23 PM PDT, August 24, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.
Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military. This assessment could collide with one being prepared by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, calling for the U.S. to maintain higher troop levels for 2008 and beyond.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/24/tom-davis-tweak

Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA): White House Will ‘Tweak’ The ‘Petraeus Report’

Last week, the media reported — and the White House confirmed — that the so-called “Petraeus report,” which will document the conditions on the ground in Iraq, will not be authored by Gen. David Petraeus, but rather by the White House.

Yesterday, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) “bravely agreed to attend a meeting of the antiwar Americans Against Escalation in Iraq.” Davis was asked by Iraq war veteran John Bruhns whether reports of the “Petraeus report” being “filtered through the White House” were true.

Davis responded that he assumed that the White House would “tweak” the report:

I just would assume that if it goes through the White House, they will take it and do what they, you know — I’m sure they will probably tweak it.

Price nixes impeachmentThe Independent Weekly - Durham,NC,USADavid Price agreed President George W. Bush has abused his power, but stopped short of committing to lead impeachment proceedings at an Aug. ...See all stories on this topic

A Primer on ImpeachmentOpEdNews - Newtown,PA,USAby thomas bonsell Page 1 of 2 page(s) Impatience with the Democrats in Congress seems to grow daily about their inaction to begin
impeachment proceedings of ...See all stories on this topic

Impeaching Gonzales would restore integrity to impeachment
ePluribus Media - USAby clammyc The stupidest most illogical reason that I hear for not pursuing impeachment charges against Bush or Cheney or Gonzales or anyone else for that ...See all stories on this topic

No resignations? Easy...impeachmentBy Newsdesk In the meantime, what does it take to get you guys to see the light? Remember [Richard] Nixon, [Spiro] Agnew, [John N.] Mitchell? Remember? All had the sense to resign, but not this crew. Impeachment is obviously the answer. ...
.com/news_opinion_letters/http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_opinion_letters/


PCPBy info@anationdeceived.org (Craig S. Barnes) - - - Private Client Audio Preview - - - password required.Impeachment Podcast - http://www.anationdeceived.org

'The Genuis of Impeachment' to be Discussed at Cedar HillSharon Jones, facilitator of the Cedar Hill Reading Group, encourages any interested persons to attend, even if they have not read the book by John Nichols...CummingHome - Forsyth County News - http://www.cumminghome.com/news30041/index.shtml

Cartoon Strip: Nota Bene by Leonardo No. 56 - Impeachment Now!And yet Congress lacks the courage, the will to do their job and reign in the American dictator. What of the media? Nothing sanitizes so well as sunlight. They must have the courage to show the President that impeachment is back on the ...Salem-News.com - http://salem-news.com

Top Story: The Republicans' $15 Million Campaign to Stay the Course in Iraq

This week, a group of former Bush Administration officials launched an ad campaign to persuade 37 key Congressional Republicans to keep Rubber Stamping the President's failed war in Iraq. The $15 million ad blitz targets Republicans in 20 states and 60 Congressional districts across the country.
Groups plan $30 million battle over warThe Politico

"Anti-war groups ridiculed a $15 million, Republican-led ad campaign aimed at rallying support for the war in Iraq..."

Republicans Jump Ship

It's getting hard to keep track of the growing list of Republicans who are looking for the nearest exit. Last month, Republican Congressman Ray LaHood (IL-18) announced he will not run for re-election. This past week, he was joined by four other senior Republicans, including former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the ethically-challenged Rick Renzi, and the President's political guru, Karl Rove.




Renzi Says He Will Not Seek Re-ElectionRoll Call (subscription required)
"Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) said Thursday that he will not seek re-election in 2008, ending months of speculation regarding the ethically clouded Congressman's political future."

Hastert quitsUSA Today
"Hastert, who today becomes the fourth House Republican in three weeks to say he won't seek re-election next year, didn't so much seize power as accept it. He didn't seek the spotlight."

Pryce calls it quitsWashington Post
"Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) announced yesterday that she will retire from one of the most competitive House districts in the country, after squeaking to victory in a hotly contested race in 2006."

Pickering will not seek re-electionThe Hill
"Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) confirmed late Thursday night that he would not seek a seventh term in the House, becoming the third senior GOP lawmaker this week to say he would retire."

Rove resigns despised and deifiedThe Politico
"Karl Rove will leave George Bush's side this month one of the most controversial political figures in living memory."

The Latest News From the Ethically-Challenged House Republicans

Last year's election proved how important ethics are to Americans. After 12 years in the Majority, the Republicans' allowed their culture of corruption and lack of accountability to permeate Washington -- and they paid for it on Election Day. This past week, all signs indicated that they still haven't learned their lesson.

Indicted donor poses quandary for GOP lawmakers who accepted fundsThe Hill

"Seven vulnerable House Republicans face difficult decisions about whether to return contributions from a major Republican donor who was charged last week on 23 counts of bankruptcy fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice and perjury."

Young's $10 million earmark focus of inquiryThe Seattle Times

"A Justice Department corruption task force is investigating whether Alaska Congressman Don Young took campaign cash in return for securing $10 million for construction of a proposed Florida highway ramp..."

The continuing progress of the New Direction Congress

While Republicans keep putting the President's interests ahead of America's interests, Democrats in Washington making progress on our country's most important priorities.

The Speaker in ChargeThe Washington Post

In short, it's one of those weeks when Nancy Pelosi has no doubts about the wisdom of her decision to become speaker of the House.

Coming Clean in the CapitolNew York Times Editorial, subscription required

Democrats are close to winning passage of their long-promised ethics reform bill... The bill, which the House approved with overwhelming, bipartisan enthusiasm yesterday, is a good start.

Editorial: Kids' health trumps presidential whimsAlbuquerque Tribune

President Bush insists that his tax cuts for the most wealthy Americans must continue... But when it comes to America's uninsured children - thousands of whom live in New Mexico - there is no money.

WEEKLY SPOTLIGHT

War on Terror Confidence Inches Up in August
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans now believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That’s up three points from a month ago and just a point shy of the highest level of confidence measured in 2007. The Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 32% now say the terrorists are winning. That’s down from 36% in July. Republicans, by a 58% to 19% margin, believe the U.S. and its allies are winning.
More..


TOP STORIES
Government Ethics and Corruption Top Voting Issue The latest Rasmussen Reports tracking poll on Election 2008 Issues finds that voters name Government Ethics and Corruption as the most important issue of the season. The national telephone survey asked respondents to rank ten issues in terms of how they would impact voting behavior and 74% named government ethics and corruption as Very Important.
More..

Romney Encounters More Core Opposition Than Clinton Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has finally surpassed New York Senator Hillary Clinton in the polls. Unfortunately for Romney, it’s a poll measuring the number of people committing to vote against him.
More..

59% Give Thumbs Up to Summer of 2007 Six percent (6%) of Americans rate the summer of 2007 as the best ever and another 53% said this summer was good or excellent. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 29% considered this summer fair and 12% rated it as poor.
More..

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson on top of the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. Giuliani earns 24% of the vote from Likely Republican Primary Voters while Thompson is at 22%.
More..

Obama Holds On to Slim Leads Over Giuliani, Thompson Democratic Senator Barack Obama maintains his edge over former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll. It’s now Obama 45% and Giuliani 43%. That's just one percentage point more than Obama earned two weeks ago in our August 7 poll.
More..

US intelligence describes 'paralyzed' Iraqi government

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0824/p99s01-duts.html

The NIE report prompts calls for US troop withdrawals, while Bush supporters say it shows Iraq is more stable.

By Tom A. Peter
from the August 24, 2007 edition

The release of a new intelligence assessment of the war in Iraq on Thursday has prompted several high-visibility US politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, to call for American troop withdrawals. Composed by the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the report indicates that while the troop surge in Iraq has been effective in reducing violence in "measurable but uneven improvements," it gives a grim prognosis of Iraq's government under the leadership of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Though some politicians have used the reports findings to support the war effort, others, most prominently Sen. John W. Warner (R) of Virginia, have used it as further fodder to challenge the Iraq war.

NIE offers a mixed progress report of the war. Its report, titled "Prospects for Iraq's Stability: Some Security Progress but Political Reconciliation Elusive," represents the general consensus of the US's 16 intelligence agencies. Though coalition forces have made some security gains, Iraq's security forces remain incapable of operating independently of the US military and the nation's political failures ultimately threaten the security situation, says the NIE report.












































































Friday, August 24, 2007

The Voices Heard In The Shadows


History Teaches Us That It Is Dangerous To Ignore Or To Be Unaware Of What Is Being Whispered In The Shadows In Times Of Mounting Crisis.



I Have A Trip Into The Deepest Parts Of The Counter Culture And I Share With You But A Few Words Being Spoken There. It has taken Some Time To Source Search The Quotes.

The First Is A Direct Statement Of A Possible New American Militant Leader.

This Is The Message In Circulation:

The great are only great because we are on our knees and it far better to die on your feet than live on your knees. When the political arena leaves no alternatives, when the well intentioned attempts of reasonable men of good character fail in the face of an apathy that permits an unchecked arrogance of power, then the few who understand that steel bars have never held back the people of a nation when they move with human courage fortified by the consciousness of being right, must leave the shadows and choose the moment to strike the spark that unleashes that power against the tyranny all others have failed to bring down. That moment is close at hand.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”
John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Our government teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
Louis D. Brandeis quotes

Every generation needs a new revolution.Thomas Jefferson quotes

The more there are riots, the more repressive action will take place, and the more we face the danger of a right-wing takeover and eventually a fascist society.Martin Luther King, Jr.

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.Mao Tse-Tung

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.Albert Einstein

I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.Albert Einstein

War is when the government tells you who the bad guy is. Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.wolfdyke

No real social change has ever been brought about without a revolution - Revolution is but thought carried into actionEmma Goldman

ITS IMPEACHMENT STUPID!






ITS IMPEACHMENT STUPID!




Click On The Bumper Sticker For A Close Up View Of The Rajun Cajun.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

OTHER REMINDERS FROM THE LAST TIME


SOME ADDITIONAL FLASHBACKS WE OUGHT TO THINK ABOUT








HOW MANY TIMES MUST THE BUGLE SOUND?







WE SHALL COME FROM THE SHADOWS AND WE SHALL OVERCOME


IF THIS PAGE DOES NOT BREAK YOUR HEART YOU ARE NOT AMONG THE LIVING.



























The Impeachment Of Bush and Cheney; an Open Letter From A Dark Night



THE STREETS AND MY MIND ARE RESTLESS TONIGHT: READ THIS IF YOU DARE


It is quiet here but sleep will not come; my mind is restless as it often is these days and the lyrics and melody of the Simon and Garfunkel anthem of long ago is haunting in tonight’s deathly calm. Once again those words well up again and again and again; the imagery just will not subside. And there are so many thoughts that will not release me to sleep. The night is restless; the streets are restless; the nation is restless.

Is time to organize my thought and notes, time to release some of the pent up anger, rage and venom that is a vexation to my spirit, a darkness that this man in black contends with on a conscious level everyday, and damn it every night.

Hello darkness, my old friendI've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence
In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speakingPeople hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence
"Fools", said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you
"But my words, like silent raindrops fell
And echoedIn the wells of silence
And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said,
"The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls"
And whispered in the sounds of silence.

The streets are restless, like the strange warm breathing of the wind before a summer rain, the sort of storm that may rumble through quickly with little consequence, or may drive one scurrying into the dark and dampness of a seldom used basement; it is the restlessness of uncertainty.

The parks and malls fill with walkers and marchers who have heard the call, but one has to wonder whether they understand the message or the mission. They are young; they are a generation that has had no Woodstock, a generation that hopes that the symbols of their discontent will prevent what those standing apart in the shadows and doorways, alleys and the shade of trees, whispering low as their cigarette burns down, are considering.

These marchers are but a young flock dressed in the colors of the day, hoisting their banners and placards, sporting their buttons, admiring one another’s catchy wordsmith slogans.

They do not carry guns or conceal long blades under their clothing and the flashes of light in the crowds are the glint of shared DVDs not the reflections off weapons, but here and there the flash of a camera and that is all. They are trying to awake from a placid generation concerned only with the value of self so carefully taught.

And the old men off to the side, off by themselves are viewed with some suspicion, for these are people who recount days when marchers charged barricades, left cars burning in the streets amidst the rubble of broken plate glass windows along the line of march.

They carried their wounded, battered, bruised, bleeding and confused back to the sanctuary of friends for care as they rallied for the next wave.

They have these memories and they carry them more like scars than decorations of by gone wars. They talk of the moments when they found themselves looking into the anonymous plastic shielded faces of authority as they hurled back their tear gas canisters, their hands protected always by the one old garden glove they always carried.

Their whisperings are of bullets, bayonets and batons. Their recollections are of screams not chants. Their memories are those of physical strife; the taunting that proceeded has long faded in recollection.

All they have are memories of the price once paid to save a nation from surrender by compliance, surrender by silence. This they could not do.

They saw their friends and neighbors fathers and uncles die on the far flung soils of World War II, agonized over our men on heart break ridge in Korea, saw their friends neighbors, sons carried back in the body bags from the swamps and jungles on a meaningless war in Vietnam. Not even the heroic babbling of Barry Sadler’s “Ballad OF The Green Beret” could lift their spirits to acceptance. This they could not do.

They saw wrong and sought to right it willing to pay a soldiers price in the war at home. The term citizen soldier has a meaning only they understand at the moment. Peace is not pacifism. Citizenship may require resistance. Conscience may dictate rebellion and Justice may require violence.

Marching in hope is admirable; marching without a historic perspective is folly.

The labor movement had its heroes, its’ imprisoned and its’ dead.

The Civil Rights Movement had its heroes, its’ imprisoned and its’ dead.

The Vietnam era had its heroes, its’ imprisoned and its’ dead.

The Abolitionist Movement had its heroes, its imprisoned, most notably William Lloyd Garrison who wrote the very day he was released from prison: “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. With reasonable men, I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.

You can not possibly have a broader basis for government than that which includes all the people, with all their rights in their hands, and with an equal power to maintain their rights.”

He was harsh; he did not equivocate and the voice of “The Liberator was heard, and the movement and this nation had its dead in the travail of the Civil War. Who is prepared, given the nature of our species, that the blood soaked soil of this nation was either in vain or could have be avoided?

In my mind’s eye the compact of silence and timidity, the almost unspoken acquiescence to the notion that though we hold the high ground of principle we will fail, which exists between the people of this nation and their government is a covenant with death and an agreement with hell. This is unacceptable. Why do we pay such devotional lip service to the great voices of our past and the perspective of time and experience, and not heed them, take then to heart and act upon them?

Is it that we hope, leave in our comfortable complacent cowardice, the tasks of confrontation, action and sacrifice to “others” so moved by their consciences and convictions, their principled intolerance of wrong so strong, that they will act to rectify the current wrongs, that they will strike out and strike down the injustices, that they will pay the price for us, and then we will properly sing their songs, regurgitate their words with veneration ages hence.

That is the dark corner of the coward and hypocrite who should be held in as great a contempt as the enemy.

Yes are dangers in conviction and action. That pathway has always been the path of resistance, rebellion and death.

Thus has it always been and thus it shall always be given our the imperfections of our species.

I do not abandon the hope for the better angels of hope to author changes on the road to a time and place where a universal acceptance of one another as brothers and sisters in a common humanity, a time and place where individual differences, some even repugnant to us in our own imperfection of intolerance and acceptance, are tolerated and accommodated instead of giving rise to threat, discrimination, hatreds and danger.

I repeat, in part ,the words of the very first issue of the Liberator, William Lloyd Garrison stated, "I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. . . . I am in earnest - I will not equivocate - I will not excuse - I will not retreat a single inch - and I will be heard!

There was danger in those words and so there is danger in mine as I implore you to enter the ranks of those willing to take back our nation by whatever means necessary.

And so I will be heard if you but dare to read my words this day!

I have abandoned any pretense of moderation on the Issue of Impeachment.

It is time for those of us care about the citizenry and future of this nation to speak out, take action and resist in every manner possible the continuation of The Bush Administration.

I issue this challenge: “Prove to me that George W. Bush is not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors in office, not guilty of war crimes (crimes against humanity) as defined by International Laws to which this nation is an agreed to party, not guilty of defiance of the Constitution of These United States, not guilty of willfully ignoring, breaking and setting aside duly enacted laws of the United States Congress, and I will publicly eat my words and cease and desist in my advocacy of Impeachment.

It is easy to offer explanations and excuses, cloaked in the capes of practicality, convenience, and expediency for doing nothing.

It is easy to spin inaction to a public cowering in fear, devoid of any expectations and numbed into self-assessed impotence insofar as any matters of government are concerned.Any incompetent self-serving coward dedicated to self perpetuation and self preservation in elective office can resort to such tactics, apparently in good, or with no, conscience.

The problem is that no one can refute the facts and the statement that: “George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, several cabinet members, a host of subordinates within the government and the military are guilty of acts that are:

(1) Impeachable with conviction,

(2) Crimes subject to prosecution, conviction and imprisonment under civil law, and

(3) War Crimes, crimes against humanity, as defined by International Law to such an extent that the death penalty can be invoked.

To attempt to either dispute that statement and to defend the parties, or dismiss taking those actions necessary to bring all the guilty criminal parties to justice is to:

(1) Assume a totally non Christian amoral position,

(2) Admit you have no faith in our system of justice and are prepared to submit to the demise of our system of government and laws,

(3) Approve and accept the culture of corruption and become a willing accomplice to the common criminality of this administration,

(4) Make a conscious commitment to becoming a collaborator and co-conspirator in the undermining our most fundamental principles of democracy,

(5) Be a willing party, and an enabling facilitator in the implementation of a Fascist model state in these United States,

(6) Admit your willingness to be a colleague in crime and a catalytic agent in the erosion of American law,

(7) Become a party to attempts to avoid and evade the undeniable truth and inescapable facts documenting that this administration is the single most sinister and criminally corrupt in this nation’s history,

(8) Surrender, as a dupe to this administration, all elements of your personal dignity and integrity to some terribly misguided hopeless, futile, delaying tactic campaign of defense of the damned whose down fall is now inevitable as the forces for Impeachment rise and march where victory in a democracy is crisis is always won, in the streets, before victory is achieved in the halls of Congress and the Courts of this land, and

(9) betray your nation and the yet unborn, as Judas betrayed Christ, as Benedict Arnold before you, betrayed this country. You stand condemned by your cowardly surrender and silence! You make a mockery of every American serviceman who ever gave his/her life in good conscience and the name of this nation to the freedom and liberties you enjoy and exercise, now all imperiled.

These people have driven me to the darkest corners of my being. I admit it, and I am not alone in that regard. That at least makes me honest and on the outside edge of our society that makes me somewhat dangerous of out look. I acknowledge that also. But as I have often written: “We shall come from the shadows and we shall overcome!”

I mean those words as the words of the Peasant Prayer contained in the 1812 Overture are playing in my earphones and I can see the images of mere peasants in revolt taking back their land with pitch forks, shovels and rusted dulled swords taking down the armies of Russia and a litany of European Tyrannical Regimes and systems of governance. It is history; it is fact; it is our nature when we can tolerate, accept no more abuse!

And so let me digress for a moment and address my feelings to our oppressors!

"Friends, neighbors, and countrymen of the Right: I hate your lying despicable guts."

I detest your very being; I resent your existence.

And while I remain committed to your right to say anything you wish, and to believe anything you will; it ends there as of this day.

You no longer have my respect; that has turned to contempt.

You no longer have my toleration; I will grind you under my heel every chance I get and I will scrape you off my shoe like the mashed pile of excrement that you are.

I will no longer tolerate your cowardice, stupidity and meaningless shallow drivel.

I will confront you, demean you, belittle, debase demonize and disgrace your name and every utterance at every turn, every mention with every tool of destructive venom that I can summon.

You are vile, evil and your life is pure vexation.

You have the right to that life; may it be short, end in debilitating anguish and suffering, and when you are buried I will walk on the still soft earth covering your worthless rotting carcass with joy and in victory.

If a tear should well up it will be a tear of joy, for I will not mourn your passing as your very existence has been a cancer on my life, my time.

I will: delight in your failures, take amusement from your troubles, find pleasure in your miseries, enjoy inflicting injury upon you, contribute to your undoing, rejoice at your disgrace and celebrate your demise, the end of your meaningless worthless lives.

I will mock and soil your memory as long as I draw breath.

I used to try to laugh you people off.

Now, I detest you as among the most loathsome people America has ever vomited up.
You are not only dangerous to our way of life; you are a danger to the entire world and Bush has molded you into a mindless flock of sheep.

There are some of you, otherwise intelligent people, who just cannot believe that anything disastrous will happen that the President cannot be impeached while the farce of Iraq is in “progress” that he cannot be brought to trial before the world on War Crimes.

With childish immaturity and a profound snobbery of exclusive denial that surpasses that of the deepest alcoholic and most wasted addict, you walk your sons and daughters forward into a new day where they will be offered up on the altar of World War III as the price to be paid for your lives of mindless, moronic mediocre idiotic comfort.

He has violated The Constitution of The United States willingly and repeatedly; he must be removed from office.

He has ordered and sanctioned the violation of the Geneva Conventions willfully and repeatedly; that constitutes War Crimes of the magnitude punishable by death.

He must be brought to justice.

Americans, who simply dismiss those facts, are so uninformed, so unconcerned, so detached, so ignorant, insensitive and driven by the stupidity of mindless arrogance that they just don’t believe an American President can be brought to justice, are fools, mental midgets, ignorant by choice to the degree that I can no longer politely ignore you in common social conversation.
You are an elitist, your every word, “verbal lint” that makes me want to wretch and scream in your faces to wake up your dormant worthless brains.

You are not in touch with reality.

You sicken me as you are the very manure core of the growing Bush Dictatorship.

You are the essence of every ill in this world and you just don’t give a damn because you are so shallow outside of your little “important” everyday world that you think you can get away with simply ignoring anything anyone says and that it all will be well for you and yours.

You don’t want to hear a word anyone else has to say as you live as though all ill will somehow go away and your knee jerk cynicism permits you to scrape aside like dog shit on a sidewalk, anything you do not want to hear.

Your ears have gone deaf; your mind has closed; your eyes are clouded the cataracts of the cynical and your words, instinctual, are those of a practiced hypocrite, all fitting as you have stopped carrying about anyone but yourself.

You might as well be truly deaf as your mind absorbs nothing except yourself.

Firmly believing none of the problems of the world will be visited upon you, for you are among “the righteous self anointed chosen ones” entitled to dictate the lives, morals, conduct and human condition of others, like the fool who watches a mole change, convinced it could never kill them so you self centered, self-ordained “intelligent ignorant bastards walk through life with distain for everyone but yourself.

No one else really matters, and thought you may profess love, express grief at the loss of a “loved one”, you will for a few days mouth the ritual cliché collection of funeral home sound bites and content yourself with devouring the estate “droppings” of your dead moments after the repetitious recitations of graveside you have authored, and life will return to your self-absorbed normal tomorrow.

Your lover is a convenience that can be replaced; your “friends” are to be used; your offspring is for show and validation that you are complete.

Your life is a sham, a poorly written play, a well enacted daily hypocrisy.

You owe no one anything and publicly do all those things deemed “correct”.

You are so devoid of any real humanity that my bloodlust hatred of you causes me no concern.
Many of you sanctimoniously wrap yourselves in the cloak of their naive foolish belief in a God; it is a funeral shroud.

Everything is in the hands of God, and the hands and mouths of those who plunder this Earth and manipulate the mindless pathetic flock they pretend to serve.

Your Christianity is but a title you need for self-defined respectability.

You are the people I now hate, hate with a passion that no words in our language can express, (only acts of violence would suffice)--these people who seek to control our national security.

The best of you are misinformed; the worst are knowingly evil.

The rest of you are vicious liars.

So I intend to vote in every election as I always do, but starting now it will not be a felling of hope; my vote will be cast with the vile tastes of hatred and revenge on my tongue.

If I have to, I'll crawl over broken glass to do it. And this year I'm voting a straight Democratic ticket right down to dog catcher, because I've had it. I'm fed up with the deranged, lying Right.

You have attacked me so many times in my life, and I have accepted and dealt with those attacks; no more; if you want destruction, I will provide every measure of it I can muster for the rest of my life.

You have infected me. I will see to it everyday in every act and word that your lives will be under attack and your every value undermined and labeled as hateful worthless trash and that you values are as worthless as your existence.

I'm now a hater, too." I have loved with a passion; I will now hate with a constant consistent vengeance. I have eradicated the words forgiveness, understanding, compassion and toleration from my vocabulary and being where you are concerned.

Should those I hate never have been born; this world would be a better place. May you live in agony, fail in disgrace and die with long lingering suffering that consumes all you have accumulated leaving your off spring nothing.

You have driven me to the point where song lyrics to THE MASTERS OF WAR just won’t fade from my mind; you have authored despair, the sickness unto death; this I cannot forgive!

MASTERS OF WAR

Come you masters of war, you that build all the guns. You that build the death place, you that build all the guns. You that hide behind walls, you that hide behind desks. I just want you to know, I can see through your masks.

You that never done nothing, but to build and destroy You play with my world, like its your little toy. You put a drug in my head, then you hide from my eyes And you turn and run following the fast foolish lie.

Like Judas of old, you lie and deceive A world war can be won, you won't need to believe But I see through your eyes, and I see through your brain Like I see through the water that runs down my drain.

You that fasten all the triggers, for the others to fire Then you sit back and watch, while the death count gets higher You hide in your mansion, while young people's blood Flows out their bodies and is buried in the mud.

You've thrown the worst fear, that could ever be hurled The fear to bring children, into this world.

For threatenin' my baby, unborn and unnamed You ain't worth the blood that runs in your veins.

How much do I know, to talk out of turn? You might say that I'm young, you might say I'm unlearned But there's one thing I know, though I'm younger than you Even Jesus would never forgive what you do.

Let me ask you one question, is your money that good? Will it buy you forgiveness? Do you think that it could? Oh, I think you will find, when your death takes its toll All the money you made will never buy back your soul.

And I hope that you die, and your death will come soon.


I'll follow your casket, in the pale afternoon And I'll watch as your lowered, into your deathbed And I'll stand on your grave till I'm sure that your dead.

And with those words of Dylan brought to a level of hating ferocity by Cher we were stepping on the last cobblestone on the edge of a second Revolutionary War, the war at home against the war in Vietnam.

Those were dangerous times, and they have come again!

It is true; these are dangerous times, made so not only by technologies that can reduce our world to a barren charcoal briquette floating silently in the icy void of space, and those that can persuade our species to alter their perception of their existence in such fashion as they are reduced to, and succumb to, the opiate like futility of a submissive surrender to fear, but, by those who are all to willing to gamble and employ both those technologies for their interests.

History tells me; my innate instincts tell me; my self sense of hope, though I be in the presence of the those who given themselves over to hopelessness and the sickness of despair tells me that in the midst of the greatest of perils there is inherent the possibility for the greatest of achievement; the restoration of right, justice and the renewal of liberty, if we are but willing to confront circumstances and ignore the machinations of those who would be our oppressors.
At such a juncture we find ourselves.

We have choices that must be made. We have actions that must be taken, lest we are willing to see our way of life and the dreams that this nation has been founded upon, nourished by the blood of every generation, to simply, silently drown in the sea history awaiting generations hence to document and dissect our desertion of those dreams and the demise our democracy.

In this nation it has become common place to be critical of all, to fault everything, to blame someone else for every problem, to expect corruption and an uneven application of law and justice, to accept passively any dictum of government with the attitude that nothing can be or will be changed, as we assume our impotence and inability as individuals to either alter the direction of this nation, or to regain command of our human condition.

We are treading water, at this point, in the pages of history, contemplated our own drowning demise, and seemingly unwilling, or unable to shed the paralysis that will take us down in the inevitable fatigue of the continued flailings of failure.

In the first “Letters To A German Friend”, Albert Camus wrote: “No, I didn’t love my country, if pointing out what is unjust in what we love amounts to not loving, if insisting that what we love should measure up to the finest image we have of her amounts to not loving.”

When, as now, pointing out injustice and appealing to hope is labeled as treasonous, the pendulum has come to rest at the Fascist end of the arc.

The cross has been fashioned on the anvil of political manipulation into a sword to be deployed as a weapon in an internal social, culture clash war of deflection and deceptions.

Blood has always been spilled in the name of God and every manifestation of oppression known to man has been imposed in the name of God in the pages of human history.

In every instance the cross turned sword, and the legions sent forth on some “Holy Mission” have marched into the blood letting to evade the solutions of more worthy challenges.
If religion has any value it should be that of uniting humanity in a common community of understanding, toleration and embrace.

The Cross, The Bible, The Koran and all symbols and sources of faith should be tools of unity and peace, not weapons of division and bloodshed.But when man is impoverished of food and hope, self worth, immersed in the pains of loneliness, despair, futility, impotence an unimportance, as personal sense of irrelevance, he grasps for anything that gives him a sense of meaningfulness, a sense of purpose, a sense of place and being, even if it is the most negative and perverted expression of truth and goodness gone corrupted and corrosive; lies become accepted truth.

It is bad enough that in the evolution of species, our development has from time to time given rise to circumstances that spawn such tragic aberrations, but it is unforgivable when the conditions for yet another season of unreason are the product of premeditated man made circumstances, fashioned to satisfy personal whims and agendas at the expense of the unaware masses quickly ensnared in the net of deception and marched across life’s stage as puppets of the evil masters, and they are admittedly evil, through and through.

Our nation is desperate need of a serious introspective examination. There are so many divisive forces in active play. They are not only tearing at our societal fabric but like the smoke accompanying a raging fire they are obscuring the root source causes and pathways to resolution.

The fires of division rage on and those pouring on the accelerants are escaping necessary exposure. So many, in particular a co-opted conforming media, have become unwitting accomplices to those dedicated to a dictatorial control of the American nation. The threat is that serious and that simple of definition.

Do we really believe that the whole hosts of ills that confront us as a matter of coincidence.

Do we believe that the cultural, racial, economic, educational and political divides surrounding us have converged simultaneously by historical accident?

Do I say that there is some great conspiracy afoot with a master plan for disassembling our democratic institutions?

No, that would be a grandiose inaccuracy, but there are conspiratorial forces at work whose agendas, perhaps more limited in design at the moment, that are in their successes contributing to growing infections that, if not stamped out, will eventually disease the body politic into a sufficiently comatose state, that those individuals and organizations will be able to accomplish a power grab that is currently only their dream, their ultimate fantasy.

Are the phenomenon of political character assassination and predictable political campaign tactics mere natural evolutions in our system? Hardly; and we are all well aware the techniques of negative campaigning, yet America continues to knowingly dine and digest with some degree of relish, the poison fruits served up in our obscenely expensive political feasts.

There is something wrong with that, clearly in need of examination and explanation.It is not a simple as one might be knee jerk response inclined to attribute to the gullibility of the American public.

If that be the symptom; what is the underlying root rot that has given rise to the malady?With what kind of pride do we announce to the world that we are a: Homophobic, Xenophobic, Racially Bigoted, Religiously Intolerant, Revenge Crazed, Blood thirsty, Execution loving, Arrogant, Insensitive to our needy, Mercenary to a fault nation?
How do we explain to the world, (and the inherent problem here is we feel no obligation to explain to anyone, anything as a nation) that we can ignore the problems and afflictions of the young, the old, the mentally challenged, the mentally ill, those who are impoverished, the homeless sleeping in our streets, the growing number of suicides, a health care health insurance system out classed by some near third world nations?

How do we justify to the world sending our youth off to die in war after war worthy of Hague prosecution, praising them as patriots while they weapon in hand, only to have them have to wage war at home for their benefits and adequate medical treatment of their ravaged minds and bodies in civilian life. How do we justify the return of our soldiers home to jobs no longer theirs, to the ruination of their families and their entry into the ranks of the homeless on our streets.

How do we do this?

How do we tolerate something a simple as raising the Minimum wage in this country to be held hostage while politicians attempt to use it as a vehicle to create new tax loop holes, tax breaks and tax reductions for the wealthiest Americans as if the poorest among us is not worthy of a pittance in their pay envelopes, after years of deprivation, unless The wealthy and well placed are awarded yet another “entitlement” of evasion of paying just dues to the support of a government that services them disproportionately well; yes this is an “entitlement” for the rich, a word they spit through their teeth with venom when is applied to any other class in this nation…curious?

But let us continue our consideration of and shed some light on why we find ourselves so deeply divided today, placing much of the responsibility for the current chaos and confusion squarely on Bush and his advisors.The Bush presidency has never been about broadening his support among moderates and progressives.

It has focused narrowly and tenaciously on solidifying his support among the right-wing conservative and fundamentalist factions and his “base” of corporate interests and the wealthiest two percent of Americans.
This strategy–a gamble that Karl Rove and his cronies may shortly regret–is yet another reason for American ferment, and distrust of George W. Bush. It proves, yet again, that our President has never had the best interests of America in mind while governing the nation, and invariably seeks to further his own political and economic interests and those of his “base,” and the rest of us are damned.

That is both an analysis and the current general perception in the land, but yet again; we know what is going on and we know it is an abuse of power, but when are we and the Congress going to rise up and put an end to this philosophy of government, a philosophy that inherently say from each American as much as we can take, and into our pockets as much as we can make off with.

All of the things that matter to us all, regardless of political stripe–jobs, the economy, the environment, education, our children’s future and our own well-being–have all been imprisoned swept into a dark locked closet while Bush, his henchmen and advisors sequester us deeper and deeper into divided, fearful and disinformed, misinformed, misled camps of Culture War conscriptees.“Religion” has been manipulated into a strong and growing force in the way Americans think about politics bearing down on political affiliation, political values, policy attitudes and candidate selection. Its’ increasing influence on political opinion and behavior rivals race, region, age, social class and gender considerations.

More specifically, religion currently has a significant impact on the political views of Christian Americans representing 84% of the voting age population. Christian political conservatism is associated with every religious dimension covered in all research and political polls.

Regardless of denomination, people who “express more faith” are more conservative.People who engage in more religious practices are more conservative.

Those who report that religion plays a very important role in their lives are more conservative.

Polling data indicates that religious influences lead to a more liberal position on some issues, but there is little indication of a coherent pattern of liberal belief associated with any major religion or religious group.

This suits the administration’s agenda as a failure to coalesce behind “liberal” humanitarian social/political issues/causes leaves free to manipulate the hot button “life and death polarize/divide/distract and redirect issues’, of Abortion, Stem Cell Research, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment.

Add the deflection of Gay and Lesbian Rights, Same Sex Marriages, Prayer and Flag matters, Treasonous Un-American conduct of “liberals who dare to question the expected obligatory Patriotism as defined by the administration, terrorism yesterday, today and tomorrow, International Security, “Illegal Aliens”, “American right or Wrong, support it, support our troops package, the ever present harpy Anti Tax rhetoric, “Family Value?”, and you have “almost” the complete emotional polarizing refocus package!

When people buy into this mental paint job, they feel Patriotic, they: make their personal dutiful patriotic sacrifices “To the Cause” in terms of individual freedoms in the name of “necessary to deal with terrorism impositions”, accept economic decline, stagnant wages and loss of rights and voice in the work place, join the mob that: “Oh woe is me, I hope they can fix the health care, health insurance disaster “someday”.

This is all part and parcel of the “Flock Mentality” that this administration has worked so diligently at cultivating. Too many have succumbed; the Democratic Party dissolved into a paralyzed timid, complain only entity, and now, with some vestige of power to change things in their hands, they have been baited into in fighting, posturing on “non binding resolutions” and the sort, that somehow are supposed to demonstrate some manifestation of backbone when in reality they display a continued totally ludicrous picture.

The full impact of religion on American politics is best observed when race is factored into the equation. The conservatism of white evangelical Protestants is clearly the most powerful religious force in politics today.Analysis of the data reveals that the most meaningful distinction that we must understand is that there are important differences between Protestants who self-identify as evangelical or born again vs. those who do not.

While the classification cuts across denominational lines, Baptists make up the largest share of evangelicals.Mainline denominations such as Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians are predominant among non-evangelical Protestants [Throughout this area of discussion, the terms "non-evangelical Protestant" and "mainline Protestant" are used interchangeably].

White evangelical Protestants are not only much more conservative on policy questions that involve moral issues such as abortion, laws regarding homosexuality and family issues. They are also more conservative on a range of political values including environmentalism and beliefs about international security.

Their greater conservatism on non-moral issues is independent of other factors in their backgrounds, such as income or the prevalence of evangelicals in the South. These patterns reflect the increased politicalization of white evangelical Protestants.Compared to a decade ago, a greater percentage of them now self-identify as Republicans.

The GOP has not made as many conversions among non-evangelical Protestants nor among white Catholics.Republican affiliation among white evangelical Protestants grew 9% points between 1978 and 1987 and 7% points more between 1987 and 1995 [CBS/New York Times survey, June 1978 (N=1,527); "The People, the Press, & Politics: The Times Mirror Study of the American Electorate." Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press, 1988. Washington, DC].The fires of division rage on and those pouring on the accelerants are escaping necessary exposure!

The most dangerous element of those who have engineered the current culture divide can be found in the ranks of the Neoconservatives (Neocons). To most Americans, unfortunately, those words have little if any meaning, and they like it that way!

No idea, however powerful and seductive, is enough on its own. And as Edward R. Morrow said: “No one man can enslave an entire nation unless we are all accomplices.” Silence and the hypocrisy of complaint without the willingness to take back this nation by whatever means necessary

“Onward Christian Neocons, marching as to war!” There is more truth here than my frivolous paraphrasing. That which the American people must understand regarding the “Neocons” is that they have as a group a delusional unrealistic vision of the world and goals that are:

(1) INCONSISTENT with traditional American traditions,

(2) PREMISED on faulty base assumptions,

(3) CATAPULT this nation into “Aggressor Nation” status internationally,
(4) IMPERIL world peace by converting the Middle East into a tinder box for the ignition of a world wide conflagration,

(5) REALIZABLE only if the democratic structure and governance systems of this nation are subject to massive corruption, destruction coupled with a Fascist-derivative form, under mining the basic legal structures and principles of this nation,

(6) ACCOMPANIED by the establishment of an Imperial Executive branch that empowers itself sufficiently as to render the Legislative branch powerless to the point where its’ actions are meaningless and the Judicial machinery of the nation is ignored with impunity, or is co-opted as an instrument of its’ actions,

(7) CHARACTERIZED by wholesale ignorance of the public’s most serious needs, allowing those issues to become sources of dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction manipulated to their advantage by shifting the onus of blame to other entities, organizations, or individuals they wish to isolate, demonize and busy with their own self defense, thus neutralizing any impact they might have or the policies, programs and actions of the administration, and

(8) FLAWED in terms of real world considerations and their “understanding” of human nature and the human condition.

Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism, tolerated more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives, supported civil equality for blacks and other minorities, and sympathized with a non-traditional foreign policy agenda that was less deferential to traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles, even if that meant unilateral action.
The key at this point is the word, historically, and like so many other things a corruption of principles or philosophies, via, delimiting selective embrace, a sort of perverted evolution set in. In fact, some people described as "neocons" today say that neo-conservatism no longer exists as an identifiable movement.

I am not inclined to go that far. Their remain theoretical purists Neocons, but our concern is with the Bush Bunch, the Bush Brand, the distilled simplified version, those who taken the larger body of thought and theory and reduced it in a Chinese Restaurant like approach, picking and choosing from column “A” and column “B” to make up their political meal.

That process is best seen in the words of Neocon Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, who defines/ delimits the larger body of thought and principle into : “There are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism:

1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits, as well as the potential benefits, such as budget surpluses

2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture.

3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity; world government is a terrible idea, the ability to distinguish friend from foe, protecting national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.

At the expense of being considered sarcastic, that is about as much as this administration is capable of digesting, and tried they have!

There is a widespread impression that domestic policy does not define neo-conservatism, that it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, free trade, opposition to communism during the Cold War, support for Israel and Taiwan and opposition to Middle Eastern and other states that are perceived to support terrorism.

Given only the cursory examination of this administration’s policy penchants; the conclusion is inescapable: “that is a mistaken notion given the nature of the selective content adoption of the Neocon package this administration.”‘The movement began to focus on such foreign issues in the mid-1970s. However it first crystallized in the late 1960s as an effort to combat the radical cultural changes taking place within the United States.
Irving Kristol wrote: “If there is any one thing that neoconservatives are unanimous about, it is their dislike of the counterculture.”

Norman Podhoretz agreed: “Revulsion against the counterculture accounted for more converts to neoconservativism than any other single factor."{ In sociology, counterculture is a term used to describe a cultural group whose values and norms of behavior run counter to those of the social mainstream of the day, the cultural equivalent of political opposition.

Although distinct countercultural undercurrents exist in all societies, here the term counterculture refers to a more significant, visible phenomenon that reaches critical mass and persists for a period of time.

A counterculture movement thus expresses the ethos, aspirations and dreams of a specific population during a certain period of time — a social manifestation of zeitgeist. In contemporary times, counterculture came to prominence in the news media as it was used to refer to the youth rebellion that swept North America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand during the 1960s and early 1970s.

Earlier countercultural milieu in 19th century Europe included the traditions of Romanticism, Bohemianism and of the Dandy.

Another important movement existed in a more fragmentary form in the 1950s, both in Europe and the US, in the form of the Beat generation (Beatniks), who typically sported beards, wore roll-neck sweaters, read the novels of Albert Camus and listened to Jazz music.

(I guess this means me, and my generation)

Counterculture is generally used to describe a theological, cultural, attitudinal or material position that does not conform to accepted societal norms. Yet, counterculture movements are often co-opted to spearhead commercial campaigns.

Thus once taboo ideas (men wearing a woman's color — pink, for example) sometimes become popular trends.}Ira Chernus, a professor at the University of Colorado, argues that the deepest root of the neoconservative movement is its fear that the counterculture would undermine the authority of traditional values and moral norms.

Because neoconservatives believe that human nature is innately selfish, they believe that a society with no commonly accepted values based on religion or ancient tradition will end up in a war of all against all.

(Hobbes )They also believe that the most important social value is strength, especially the strength to control natural impulses. The only alternative, they assume, is weakness that will let impulses run riot and lead to social chaos.

According to Peter Steinfels, a historian of the movement, the neoconservatives' "emphasis on foreign affairs emerged after the New Left and the counterculture had dissolved as convincing foils for neo-conservatism . . . The essential source of their anxiety is not military or geopolitical or to be found overseas at all; it is domestic and cultural and ideological."

Neoconservative foreign policy parallels their domestic policy. They insist that the U.S. military must be strong enough to control the world, or else the world will descend into chaos.

Believing that America should "export democracy," that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives.

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an idealist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite.

Aggressive support for democracies and nation building is founded on a belief that, over the long term, it will reduce the extremism that is a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. Are there any questions about the validity of that assumption?


Neoconservatives, along with many other political theorists, have argued that democratic regimes are less likely to instigate a war than a country with an authoritarian form of government. (Did the Iraqis initiate the current War?)

Further, they argue that the lack of freedoms, lack of economic opportunities, and the lack of secular general education in authoritarian regimes promotes radicalism and extremism. Consequently, neoconservatives advocate the spread of democracy to regions of the world where it currently does not prevail, most notably the Arab nations of the Middle East, communist China, North Korea and Iran.

Neoconservatives also have a very strong belief in the ability of the United States to install democracy after a conflict - comparisons with denazification in Germany and installing a democratic government in Japan starting in 1945 are often made - and they have a principled belief in defending democracies against aggression.

This belief has guided U.S. policy in Iraq after the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, where the U.S. insisted on organizing elections as soon as practical.

As compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which sometimes exhibit an isolationist strain, neo-conservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad, and promoting democracy and freedom. Neoconservatives are strong believers in democratic peace theory.

(The democratic peace theory, liberal peace theory, or simply the democratic peace is a theory and related empirical research in international relations, political science, and philosophy which holds that democracies—usually, liberal democracies—never or almost never go to war with one another.)

The original theory and research on wars has been followed by many similar theories and related research on the relationship between democracy and peace, including that lesser conflicts than wars are also rare between democracies, and that systematic violence is in general less common within democracies.)Let us examine the body of thought by examining the most accessible document relevant to the Bush Administration’s brand of neo-conservatism.

The document, brief as it is, is important in that many of the Bush administration, on the payroll or advisors contributed to and approved of this final draft.

June 3, 1997 NEOPAC ORGANIZATIONAL PRINCIPLES

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks.

But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy.

They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this.

We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades?

Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations.

Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations.

As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power.

But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests.

The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today.

Here are four consequences:

• We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

There is no question the Bush Administration reflects, almost in total, the inclusion of the most, and the most problematic principles and ideas of the Neocon approach to government and their world vision.

That should come as no surprise when we reveal the numbers of Neocons within the administration and others that have an immediate ear in the White House and “audience immediate” upon request!

BUT WE NEED EXAMINE ALL THIS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF WHAT HAS BECOMED THE BUSH DOCTRINE VERSION

The Bush Doctrine, promulgated after September 11th, incorporates the concept that nations harboring terrorists are themselves enemies of the United States.

It also embraces the Clinton Doctrine, which is the view that pre-emptive military action is justified to protect the United States from the threat of terrorism or attack.

That concept finds fairly broad acceptance in the general public. The notion becomes problematic, however, when an administration is all to willing to “allege a threat(s)”, knowing full well that none exists and then acts under this umbrella for totally specious and unspoken motives.

We are embroiled, entangled in the Mid East currently, as part of a “grand strategy” to root out terrorism and bring democracy to yet another nation.

We are there shedding the blood of our young in the name of democracy, to protect “our national interests”, to combat international terrorism originally, and fallaciously linked to 9/11; not one word spoken on the record of OIL!

Not one word is candidly spoken about establishing a balance of power in the region that serves the administration’s interests.

Both doctrines state that the United States "will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States."

Given third world nation’s embrace of the strategy of waiting The United States out while we exhaust our resources of war materials faster than we can replace them and the American populous becomes war weary, the will to continue wanes, and the administration finally has to deal with criticisms of and resistance to a primary objective, the need to surpass our over all military might becomes negated in regional conflicts.

The attrition of men and materials adds up quickly while other local sources of weaponry appropriate to the task of inflicting daily casualties on American forces is freely supplied those who are resisting this nation.

The Iraqi Resistance has no problems of weapon supply, in fact, in recent days they have demonstrated possession of sophisticated ordinance.

Iran is “alleged, suspected” to be the source of supply. This administration, given its’ desire, and we all know that desire is there, to exercise a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities lest they become, at minimum, a regional nuclear threat with which we and Israel would have to contend.

I would again point out, that given limitations even this administration has to contend with (they are not quite at the point where they can do anything they want without repercussion).

The Iran Issue is currently in full view with charge and counter charges being bandied about in the press. The Bush Administration is holding that Iran is “responsible” for the appearance of the new ordinance and is attempting to make the case that the Iranian government is “implicated”, while government is asserting that while Iranian weaponry may have found its way into Iraq, that it may well be the result of private groups “sympathetic to those opposing the American occupation”, moving the material through the porosity of the border.

The problem the administration has, is that the media has been forecasting a possible “Iranian Invasion” as Bush’s last war for sometime, and the administration has no credibility left.

They are currently boxed into having to suggest Interdiction of the arms flow, while the media has already set out the story line:“Interdiction followed by Invasion”.

There is no trust available, and coupled with a rush “on paper” look semi reasonable agreement with North Korea being touted at the moment, one gets the feeling that a smoke screen has gone up, as the agreement is merely a rehash of a 1996 proposal that has no long range certainty of solution.

It is momentary diplomatic window dressing devoid of any meaningful substance likely to collect. Like fly paper, criticisms of financial obligation on our part, and appearances of appeasement and having been black mailed, a real classic smoke and mirrors proposition.

The Neocon Doctrine, or its’ principles as “selective chosen/applied” by the Bush, administration can only be seen as marking the abandonment of a focus on the doctrine of deterrence (in the Cold War through Mutually Assured Destruction) as the primary means of self-defense. While there have been occasional preemptive strikes by American forces, until recently preemptive strikes have not been an official American foreign and military policy.

Neoconservatives won a landmark victory with the Bush Doctrine after September 11th. Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow at the influential conservative think-tank, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which has been under neoconservative influence since the Reagan Administration, argued in "The Underpinnings of the Bush doctrine":“that the fundamental premise of the Bush Doctrine is true: The United States possesses the means—economic, military, diplomatic—to realize its expansive geopolitical purposes.

Further, and especially in light of the domestic political reaction to the attacks of September 11, the victory in Afghanistan and the remarkable skill demonstrated by President Bush in focusing national attention, it is equally true that Americans possess the requisite political will power to pursue an expansive strategy."

A bloated deficit ridden national budget, a beleaguered supply short, weapons short military recycling troops, no one listening or talking, the world sickened by our ambitions, a coalition of the “willing” (really the coalition of the obligated), an administration mocked with “cry wolf” analogies, condemned for its lies and lawlessness, rejected resoundingly in the November Elections, surrounded with scandals, corruption, investigations, mounting Impeachment talk and preparations in as yet “private quarters”, marches and protests growing in frequency, numbers and planning, a nation turned war weary and against the war; the assumptions have proven false and the political capital has been squandered by a President who at best can be labeled mediocre and at worst an incompetent criminal.

In his well-publicized piece "The Case for American Empire" in the conservative Weekly Standard, Max Boot argued that "The most realistic response to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role." He countered sentiments that the "United States must become a kinder, gentler nation, must eschew quixotic missions abroad, must become, in Pat Buchanan's phrase, 'a republic, not an empire'," arguing that "

In fact this analysis is exactly backward: The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation."

President Bush has expressed praise for Natan Sharansky's book, The Case For Democracy, which promotes a foreign policy philosophy nearly identical to neoconservatives'. President Bush has effusively praised this book, calling it a "glimpse of how I think". [17]It has been read and praised by President George W. Bush. Other members of his administration, such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have also read the book.

Washington Times interview with George Bush where he comments on the book _Mr. Bush: If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy read Natan Sharansky's book "The Case for Democracy." Anybody read it? Read it. It's a great book. And I think it will help - it will help explain a lot of the decisions that you'll see being made - you've seen made and will continue to see make.

And it will help explain what's going to happen in the Palestinian territories as far as we're concerned. For government, particularly for opinion makers, I would put it on your recommended reading list. It's short and it's good. This guy is an heroic figure, as you know. It's a great book.

Just another moment of digression. I am surrounded and have been all my life by voracious readers, people who wish to understand the ideas of and traffic in the ideas of others. That is all well and good if and only if, in my opinion, one reads, examines and explores ideas in a critical fashion. The perspective I offer is that, we human being define everything in life.
We give meaning to every word spoken, judgmentally we assign value to everything and everyone we come into contact by either embrace or rejection by advocacy or rebuttal. The problem with our humanity and the embrace or rejection of ideas is a tendency to be in a hurry.

It is my position that one embarks upon the consideration of a new or different idea that they ought first examine the assumptions upon which that idea is foundationed. But down the book; think before you read further. If in ones rush to read, something sounds good you have taken the bait and if you don’t stop to think you will have set the hook.

I find it hard to believe that if the Neocon assumptions had been subjected to wide spread scrutiny; that would have been embraced. They read like a stacked deck mediocre University Thesis made seemingly worth while and palatable by a capable creative wordsmith. College library shelves are cluttered with dust gathering “publish or perish” trash. But let us return to the discussion at hand.

For some reason, the president’s reading habits — every president’s reading habits — seem to generate considerable media interest. Apparently, it’s a peek into the president’s personality, coupled with insight into what might help influence his perspective.But in order for these reading lists to be valuable, we have to believe the books are actually being read.

In Bush’s case, I’m just not so sure. President George W. Bush faced major security challenges on three fronts on and as he prepared to return to Washington after a 10-day working vacation at his ranch, Bush puts down his summer reading — including Albert Camus’ “The Stranger,” and two books on Civil War President Abraham Lincoln — in favor of presidential briefing books.

Reading about Lincoln isn’t much of a stretch. Bush very well may consider himself something of a Lincoln-esque figure, fighting a costly war while enduring intense political criticism.

But Camus? I have a really tough time buying this one. We all like to joke about Bush’s limited intellectual prowess, but I think it’s safe to say even staunch Bush allies would concede that the president is not exactly “book smart.”

According to his own carefully-crafted narrative, Bush is driven by instinct.

By the president’s own admission, he doesn’t read newspapers and he won’t pore over briefing books; Bush will instead hire a loyal team he can rely on to distill information and offer him choices, which he will make based on his gut.

He is not, in other words, the kind of guy who reads Camus on vacation, in between brush-clearing and bike-rides in which he’ll shout “air assault!” to his companions.

Moreover, “The Stranger” is not … how do I put this gently … an easy read.

It’s a novel steeped in philosophy, most notably Camus’ existentialism, and delves into a not-so-subtle atheism (Meursault rejects any suggestion of embracing religion and believes there are no supernatural influences on humanity).

If Bush has decided to branch out and challenge himself, considering a world view that is clearly at odds with his own, I’ll be the first to congratulate him.

But based on everything I’ve seen of the president, I simply find it hard to believe. I’m not suggesting the president offer us a book report, but if he wanted to take a moment, perhaps at his next press conference, to share his reaction to the book, I’d be anxious to hear his perspective.

By the way, and just an aside, if Bush did read the book, what will the GOP base think about the president picking up an existentialist novel with atheistic themes?

Though Paul Wolfowitz started out as leader of the pack in the administration, there have been limits in the power of neoconservatives in the Bush administration. The former Secretary of State Colin Powell (as well as the State department as a whole) was largely seen as being an opponent of neoconservative ideas. However, with the resignation of Colin Powell and the promotion of Condoleezza Rice, along with widespread resignations within the State department, the neoconservative point of view within the Bush administration has been solidified.

While the neoconservative notion of tough and decisive action has been apparent in U.S. policy toward the Middle East, it has not been seen in U.S. policy toward China and Russia or in the handling of the North Korean nuclear crisis.

THE IMPACT OF 2003 IRAQ WAR ON NEOCONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHY AND INFLUENCE NEOCONSERVATISM AND CHARGES OF APPEASEMENT

Neoconservative proponents of the 2003 Iraq War likened the conflict to Churchill's stand against Hitler. Former United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld likened Hussein to Stalin and Hitler. President George W. Bush singled out Iraq's dictator as the "great evil" who "by his search for terrible weapons, by his ties to terrorist groups, threatens the security of every free nation, including the free nations of Europe."

In the writings of Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Max Boot, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, William Bennett, Peter Rodman, and others influential in forging the foreign policy doctrines of the Bush administration, there are frequent references to the appeasement of Hitler at Munich in 1938, to which are compared the Cold War's policies of détente and containment (rather than rollback) with the Soviet Union and the PRC.

While more conventional foreign policy experts argued that Iraq could be restrained by enforcing No-Fly Zones and by a policy of inspection by United Nations inspectors to restrict its ability to possess chemical or nuclear weapons, neoconservatives considered this policy direction ineffectual and labeled it appeasement of Saddam Hussein.

JUST WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? ( Neoconservative Thinkers)

Irving Kristol[1]
Daniel Bell[1]
Irving Howe[1]
Nathan Glazer[1]
Daniel Patrick Moynihan[1]
PNAC Members

DIRECTORS
William Kristol[2]
Robert Kagan[2]
Bruce P. Jackson[2]
Mark Gerson[2]
Randy Scheunemann[2]

STAFF
Ellen Bork, Acting Executive Director[2]
Gary Schmitt, Senior Fellow[2]
Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow[2]
Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow, Director of the Middle East Initiative[2]
Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director[2]
Michael Goldfarb[2]

PAST/PRESENT MEMBERS OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION
John Bolton, Ambassador to the UN (2005-2006). (Gone!)
Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, founding member of PNAC and Chief of Staff to the Vice President (2001-2005) (Oops!)
Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (2001-2003).
Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense (2001-2006).(Gone! but not forgotten by the German High Court on War Crimes)
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001-2005) and architect of the Bush Doctrine.

NEOCONSERVATIVE WRITERS
Francis Fukuyama
Michael Ledeen
Norman Podhoretz
Charles Krauthammer
Michael Gove, British Member of Parliament (2005-) and journalist.
Henry Jackson, US Congressman and Senator (1941-1983).
Alan Keyes, former diplomat and Senate candidate for Illinois. [3]
Francis Fukuyama, A Small Turning Point In The Making!
Fukuyama is a prolific widely read, highly regarded “Intellectual” writer in Neocon circles, and as such I am going to spend a bit of time presenting some of his writing and the controversy(ies) that surround him and his work.

EDUCATION

He received his B.A. in classics from Cornell University, where he studied political philosophy under Allan Bloom, his Ph.D. from Harvard in Political Science, and is currently Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International political economy and Director of the International Development Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University.

He has been affiliated with the Telluride Association since his undergraduate years at Cornell, an educational enterprise that was home to other significant leaders and intellectuals, including the Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg and the defense and foreign affairs official, Paul Wolfowitz.

WRITINGS

Fukuyama is best known as the author of The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies is largely at an end, with the world settling on liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War and when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

Fukuyama's prophecy declares the eventual triumph of political and economic liberalism.

Fukuyama's thesis in this first book was based on a misprision (a "creative misreading" or "distortion") of Kojeve and Hegel's thesis that history in the limited sense of the struggle of ideologies had ended in the 19th century.

Fukuyama's work presumes that human nature is governed by a desire for recognition, and since only liberal democracy provides a way of satisfying the need for recognition, liberal democracy provides the end point of history.

But let us consider Fukuyama’s ideas in his own words. The distant origins of the present volume lie in an article entitled “The End of History?” which was written for the journal The National Interest in the summer of 1989.

In it, it was argued that a remarkable consensus concerning the legitimacy of liberal democracy as a system of government had emerged throughout the world over the past few years, as it conquered rival ideologies like hereditary monarchy, fascism, and most recently communism.

More than that, however, it was argued that liberal democracy may constitute the “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and the “final form of human government,” and as such constituted the “end of history.” That is, while earlier forms of government were characterized by grave defects and irrationalities that led to their eventual collapse, liberal democracy was arguably free from