Tuesday, July 31, 2007

WILL BUSH CANCEL THE 2008 ELECTION?


by Harvey Wasserman & Bob Fitrakis, Commmon Dreams
























It is time to think about the “unthinkable.”

The Bush Administration has both the inclination and the power to cancel the 2008 election.

The GOP strategy for another electoral theft in 2008 has taken clear shape, though we must assume there is much more we don’t know.

But we must also assume that if it appears to Team Bush/Cheney/Rove that the GOP will lose the 2008 election anyway (as it lost in Ohio 2006) we cannot ignore the possibility that they would simply cancel the election. Those who think this crew will quietly walk away from power are simply not paying attention.

The real question is not how or when they might do it. It’s how, realistically, we can stop them.

In Florida 2000, Team Bush had a game plan involving a handful of tactics. With Jeb Bush in the governor’s mansion, the GOP used a combination of disenfranchisement, intimidation, faulty ballots, electronic voting fraud, a rigged vote count and an aborted recount, courtesy of the US Supreme Court.

A compliant Democrat (Al Gore) allowed the coup to be completed.

In Ohio 2004, the arsenal of dirty tricks exploded. Based in Columbus, we have documented more than a hundred different tactics used to steal the 20 electoral votes that gave Bush a second term. More are still surfacing. As a result of the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville federal lawsuit (in which we are plaintiff and attorney) we have now been informed that 56 of the 88 counties in Ohio violated federal law by destroying election records, thus preventing a definitive historical recount.

As in 2000, a compliant Democrat (John Kerry) allowed the coup to proceed.

For 2008 we expect the list of vote theft maneuvers to escalate yet again. We are already witnessing a coordinated nationwide drive to destroy voter registration organizations and to disenfranchise millions of minority, poor and young voters.

This carefully choreographed campaign is complemented by the widespread use of electronic voting machines. As reported by the Government Accountability Office, Princeton University, the Brennan Center, the Carter-Baker Commission, US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and others, these machines can be easily used to flip an election. They were integral to stealing both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Efforts to make their source codes transparent, or to require a usable paper trail on a federal level, have thus far failed. A discriminatory Voter ID requirement may also serve as the gateway to a national identification card.

Overall, the GOP will have at its command even more weapons of election theft in 2008 than it did in Ohio 2004, which jumped exponentially from Florida 2000. The Rovian GOP is nothing if not tightly organized to do this with ruthless efficiency. Expect everything that was used these past two presidential elections to surface again in 2008 in far more states, with far more efficiency, and many new dirty tricks added in.

But in Ohio 2006, the GOP learned a hard lesson. Its candidate for governor was J. Kenneth Blackwell. The Secretary of State was the essential on-the-ground operative in the theft of Ohio 2004.

When he announced for governor, many Ohioans joked that “Ken Blackwell will never lose an election where he counts the votes.”

But lose he did….along with the GOP candidates for Secretary of State, Attorney-General and US Senate.

By our calculations, despite massive grassroots scrutiny, the Republicans stole in excess of 6% of the Ohio vote in 2006. But they still lost.

Why? Because they were so massively unpopular that even a 6% bump couldn’t save them. Outgoing Governor Bob Taft, who pled guilty to four misdemeanors while in office, left town with a 7% approval rating (that’s not a typo). Blackwell entered the last week of the campaign down 30% in some polls.

So while the GOP still had control of the electoral machinery here in 2006, the public tide against them was simply too great to hold back, even through the advanced art and science of modern Rovian election theft.

In traditional electoral terms, that may also be the case in 2008. Should things proceed as they are now, it’s hard to imagine any Republican candidate going into the election within striking distance. The potential variations are many, but the graffiti on the wall is clear.

What’s also clear is that this administration has a deep, profound and uncompromised contempt for democracy, for the rule of law, and for the US Constitution. When George W. Bush went on the record (twice) as saying he has nothing against dictatorship, as long as he can be dictator, it was a clear and present policy statement.

Who really believes this crew will walk quietly away from power? They have the motivation, the money and the method for doing away with the electoral process altogether. So why wouldn’t they?

The groundwork for dismissal of both the legislative and judicial branch has been carefully laid. The litany is well-known, but worth a very partial listing:

The continuation of the drug war, and the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act and other dictatorial laws prompted by the 9/11/2001 terror attacks, have decimated the Bill of Rights, and shredded the traditional American right to due process of law, freedom from official surveillance, arbitrary violence, and far more.

The current Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, has not backed away from his announcement to Congress that the Constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus. The administration continues to act on the assumption that it can arrest anyone at any time and hold them without notification or trial for as long as it wants.

The establishment of the Homeland Security Agency has given it additional hardware to decimate the basic human rights of our citizenry. Under the guise of dealing with the “immigration problem,” large concentration camps are under construction around the US.

The administration has endorsed and is exercising its “right” to employ torture, contrary to the Eighth Amendment and to a wide range of international treaties, which Gonzales has labeled “quaint.”

With more than 200 “signing statements” the administration acts on its belief that the “unitary executive” trumps the power of the legislative branch in any instance it chooses. This belief has been further enforced with the administration’s use of a wide range of precedent-setting arguments to keep its functionaries from testifying before Congress.

There is much more. In all instances, the 109th Congress—and the public—have rolled over without significant resistance.

Most crucial now are Presidential Directive #51, Executive Orders #13303, #13315, #13350, #13364, #13422, #13438, and more, by which Bush has granted himself an immense arsenal of powers for which the term “dictatorial” is a modest understatement.

The Founders established our government with checks and balances. But executive orders have accumulated important precedent. The Emancipation Proclamation by which Lincoln declared an end to slavery in the South, was issued under the “military necessity” of adding blacks to the Union Army, a step without which the North might not have won the Civil War. Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order #8802 established the Fair Employment Practices Commission. Harry Truman’s Executive Order #9981 desegregated the military.

Most to the point, FDR’s Executive Order #9066 ordered the forcible internment of 100,000 people of Japanese descent into the now infamous concentration camps of World War II.

There is also precedent for a president overriding the Supreme Court. In the 1830s Chief Justice John Marshall enshrined the right of the Cherokee Nation to sovereignty over its ancestral land in the Appalachian Mountains. But President Andrew Jackson scorned the decision. Some 14,000 native Americans were moved at gunpoint to Oklahoma. More than 3,000 died along the way.

All this will be relevant should Team Bush envision a defeat in the 2008 election and decide to call it off. It’s well established that Richard Nixon—mentor to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney—commissioned the Huston Plan, which detailed how to cancel the 1972 election.

Today we must ask: who would stop this administration from taking dictatorial power in the instance of a “national emergency” such as a terror attack at a nuclear power plant or something similar?

Nothing in the behavior of this Congress indicates that it is capable of significant resistance. Impeachment seems beyond it. Nor does it seem Congress would actually remove Bush if it did put him on trial.

Short of that, Bush clearly does not view anything Congress might do as a meaningful impediment. After all, how many divisions does the Congress command?

The Supreme Court, as currently constituted, would almost certainly rubber stamp a Bush coup. If not, like Jackson, he could ignore it as easily as he would ignore Congress.

What does that leave? There is much idle speculation now about what the armed forces would do. We also hear loose talk about “90 million gun owners.”

From the public side, the only conceivable counter-force might be a national strike or an effective long-term campaign of general non-cooperation.

But we can certainly assume the mainstream media will give lock-step support to whatever the regime says and does. It’s also a given that those likely to lead the resistance will immediately land in those new prisons being built by Halliburton et. al.

So how do we cope with the harsh realities of such a Bush/Cheney/Rove dictatorial coup?

We may have about a year to prepare. Every possible scenario needs to be discussed in excruciating detail.

For only one thing is certain: denial will do nothing.

Monday, July 30, 2007

DANGERS OF A CORNERED BUSH


by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity & Dr. Justin Frank, Consortium News























Recent events have put a great deal more pressure on President George W. Bush, who has shown little regard for the constitutional system bequeathed to us by the Founders. Having bragged about being commander in chief of the “first war of the 21st century,” one he began under false pretenses, success in Iraq is now a pipedream.

The “new” strategy of surging troops in Baghdad has simply wasted more lives and bought some time for the president. His strategy boils down to keeping as many of our soldiers engaged as possible, in order to stave off definitive defeat in Iraq before January 2009.

Bush is commander in chief, but Congress must approve funding for the war, and its patience is running out. The war – and the polls – are going so badly that it is no longer a sure thing that the administration will be able to fund continuance of the war.

There is an outside chance Congress will succeed in forcing a pullout starting in the next several months. What would the president likely do in reaction to that slap in the face?

What would he do if the Resistance succeeded in mounting a large attack on U.S. facilities in the Green Zone or elsewhere in Iraq? How would he react if Israel mounted a preemptive attack on the nuclear-related facilities in Iran and wider war ensued?

Applied Psychoanalysis

The answers to such questions depend on a host of factors for which intelligence analysts use a variety of tools. One such tool involves applying the principles of psychoanalysis to acquire insights into the minds of key leaders, with an eye to facilitating predictions as to how they might react in certain circumstances.

For U.S. intelligence, this common-law marriage of psychoanalysis and intelligence work dates back to the early 1940s, when CIA’s forerunner, the Office of Strategic Services commissioned two studies of Adolf Hitler.

We call such assessments “at-a-distance leader personality assessments.” Many were quite useful. VIPS found the 2004 book Bush on the Couch, by Washington psychiatrist Justin Frank, MD, a very helpful assessment in this genre. We now have two more years of experience of observing Bush closely.

As we watched the pressure build on President Bush, looked toward the additional challenges we expect him to face over the next 18 months, and pondered his tendency to disregard the law and the Constitution, we felt very much in need of professional help in trying to estimate what kinds of decisions he is likely to make.

Dr. Frank, it turned out, had been thinking along the same lines, when we asked to meet with him just three weeks ago. What follows is a collaborative Frank-VIPS effort, with the psychological insights volunteered by Dr. Frank, who shares the imperative we feel to draw on all disciplines to assess what courses of action President George W. Bush is likely to decide upon in reacting to reverse after reverse in the coming months.

Parental discretion advised. The outlook is not only somber but potentially violent—and includes all manner of threats born of George W. Bush’s mental state (as well as the unusual relationship he has with his vice president).

Things are going to hell in a hand basket for this administration, and Bush/Cheney have shown a willingness to act in extra-Constitutional ways, as they see fit.

While Bush and his advisers make a fetish of it, he is nonetheless commander in chief of the armed forces and the question becomes how he might feel justified in using them and is there still any restraining force—any checks on the increasing power of the executive in our three-branch government.

We have a president whose psychological makeup inclines him to do as he pleases. Because Congress has been cowed, and the judiciary stacked with loyalists, he has gotten away with it—so far.

But the polls show growing discontent among the people, especially over the war in Iraq. Congress, too, is starting to challenge the executive, as it should—but slowly, slower than it should. The way things are moving, there is infinite opportunity to diddle and dodge—in effect conducting business pretty much as usual over the next 18 months.

Could Start Another War...

Meanwhile, the president may well feel free to start another war, with little reference to the Congress or the UN, against Iran.

The commander of CENTO forces, Admiral William Fallon is quoted as having said we “will not go to war with Iran on my watch.” Tough words; but should the president order an attack on Iran, chances are Fallon and others will do what they are accustomed to doing, salute smartly and carry out orders, UNLESS they show more regard for the U.S. Constitution than the president does.

There is an orderly remedy written into the Constitution aimed at preventing a president from usurping the power of the people and acting like a king; the process, of course, is impeachment.

The usual focus on impeachment is on abuses of the past, and a compelling case can surely be made. We believe an equally compelling incentive can be seen in looking toward the next 18 months.

In this paper, we are primarily concerned about what future misadventures are likely if this administration is not somehow held to account; that is, if Bush and Cheney are not removed from office.

Unless Checked

If the constitutional process of impeachment is under way when President Bush orders our military to begin a war against Iran, there is a good chance that, rather than salute like automatons and start World War III, our senior military would find a way to prevent more carnage until such time as the representatives of the people in the House have spoken.

This administration’s capacity for mischief would not end until conviction in the Senate. But initiating the impeachment process appears to be the only way to launch a shot across the bow of this particular ship of state. For it is captained by a president with a psychological makeup likely to lead to new misadventures likely to end in a ship wreck unless the Constitution is brought alongside and a new pilot boarded.

We are grateful that Dr. Frank agreed to collaborate with us and to issue under VIPS auspices the psychological assessment that follows.

Discussion of the three scenarios after his profiling of President Bush was very much a collaborative exercise aimed at applying Frank’s insights to contingencies our president may have to address before he leaves office. Our conclusions are, of necessity, speculative—and, sorry, scary.

The Assessment of Dr. Frank:

If a patient came into my consulting room missing an arm, the first question I would ask is, “What happened to your arm?” The same would be true for a patient who has no guilt, no conscience. I would want to know what happened to it.

No Conscience

George W. Bush is without conscience, and it would require a lengthy series of clinical sessions to find out what happened to it. By identifying himself as all good and on the side of right, he has been able to vanquish any guilt, any sense of doing wrong.

In Bush on the Couch I gave examples illustrating that remarkable lack of conscience. From his youthful days blowing up frogs with firecrackers to his unapologetic public endorsement of torture, there has been no change.

Observers are gradually becoming aware of this fundamental deficit. For example, after watching the president’s press conference on July 12, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan wrote, “He doesn't seem to be suffering, which is jarring. Presidents in great enterprises that are going badly suffer: Lincoln, LBJ with his head in his hands. Why doesn't Mr. Bush?”

No Shame

George W. Bush seems also to be without shame. He expresses no regret or embarrassment about his failure to help Katrina victims, or to tell the truth. He says whatever he thinks people want to hear, whether it be “stay the course” or “I’ve never been about ‘stay the course.’” He does whatever he wants.

He lies—not just to us, but to himself as well. What makes lying so easy for Bush is his contempt—for language, for law, and for anybody who dares question him.

That he could say so baldly that he’d never been about “stay the course” is bone chilling. So his words mean nothing. That is very important for people to understand.

Fear of Humiliation

Despite having no shame, Bush has a profound fear of failure and humiliation. He defends himself from this by any means at his disposal—most frequently with indifference or contempt.

He will flinch only if directly confronted about being a failure or a liar. Otherwise world events are enough removed from him that he can spin them into his intact defense system.

This deep fear helps to explain his relentlessly escalating attacks on others, his bullying, and his use of nicknames to put people down. There is fear of being found out not to be as big in every way as his father.

What a burden to have to face his many inadequacies—now held up to the light of day—whether it is his difficulty in speaking, thinking, reading, managing anxiety, or making good decisions. He will not change, because for him change means humiliating collapse. He is very fearful of public exposure of his many inadequacies.

Contempt for Truth?

Contempt itself is a defense, a form of self-protection, which helps Bush appear at ease and relaxed—at least to big fans like New York Times columnist David Brooks.

The president’s contempt defense protects his belief system, a system he clings to as if his beliefs were well-researched facts. His pathology is a patchwork of false beliefs and incomplete information woven into what he asserts is the whole truth.

What gets lost in this process is growth—the George W. Bush of 2007 is exactly the same as the one of 2001. Helen Thomas has said that of all the presidents she has covered over the years, Bush is the least changed by his job, by his experience. This is why there is no possibility of dialogue or reasoning with him.

Sadistic

His certitude that he is right gives him carte blanche for destructive behavior. He has always had a sadistic streak: from blowing up frogs, to shooting his siblings with a b-b-gun, to branding fraternity pledges with white-hot coat hangers.

His comfort with cruelty is one reason he can be so jocular with reporters when talking about American casualties in Iraq. Instead of seeing a president in anguish, we watch him publicly joking about the absence of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, in the vain search for which so many young Americans died.

Break It!

Bush likes to break things, needs to break things. And this is most shockingly seen in how he is systematically destroying our armed forces.

In the early days of the Iraq invasion he refused to approve the large number of troop the generals said were needed in order to try to invade and pacify Iraq and acquiesced in the firing of any general who disagreed.

He turned a blind eye to giving the troops proper equipment and cut funding for needed health care. Health care and other social programs have one thing in common: they are paid for by public funds.

It may well be that, unconsciously, the government represents his neglectful parents, and those helped by the government represent the siblings he resents. If George W. Bush wanted to destroy his own family, he could scarcely have done better. Thanks to him, no Bush is likely to be elected to high office for generations to come.

Where Does This Leave Us?

It leaves us with a regressed president who needs to protect himself more than ever from diminishment, humiliation, and collapse. He is so busy trying to manage his own anxiety that he has little capacity left to attend to national and world problems.

And so, we are left with a president who cannot actually govern, because he is incapable of reasoned thought in coping with events outside his control, like those in the Middle East.

This makes it a monumental challenge—as urgent as it is difficult—not only to get him to stop the carnage in the Middle East, but also to prevent him from undertaking a new, perhaps even more disastrous adventure—like going to war with Iran, in order to embellish the image he so proudly created for himself after 9/11 as the commander in chief of “the first war of the 21st century.”

Iran would make number three—all the compelling reasons against it notwithstanding

* * *

Contingencies:

We will now attempt to put flesh on the discussion by positing and examining scenarios that would force Bush to react, and applying the observations above and other data to forecast what form that reaction might take.

Outlined below are three illustrative contingencies, each of which would pose a neuralgic threat to George W. Bush’s shaky self-esteem, his over-determined efforts to stave off humiliation, and his unending need for self-protection.

These are not seat-of-the-pants scenarios. Each of them is possible—arguably, even probable. The importance of coming up with educated guesses regarding Bush’s response BEFORE they occur is, we hope, clear.

Scenario A: Destructive Attack on the Green Zone

The U.S. military is out in front of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other policymakers in Washington in seeing the hand of Iran’s government behind “the enemy” in Iraq.

On July 26, the operational commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, blamed the recent “significant improvement” in the accuracy of mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone on “training conducted inside Iran.” Odierno also repeated that roadside bombs are being smuggled into Iraq from Iran.

Last week, Gen. David Petraeus warned that insurgents intend to “pull off a variety of sensational attacks and grab the headlines to create a ‘mini-Tet.’” (Tet refers to the surprise country-wide offensive mounted by the Vietnamese Communists in early 1968, which indicated to most Americans that the war was lost.)

Attacks on the Green Zone have doubled in recent months. Despite this, the senior military appear to be in denial with respect to the vulnerability of the Green Zone—oblivious even to the reality that mortar rounds and rocket fire have little respect for walled enclaves.

Anyone with a mortar and access to maps and images on Google can calibrate fire to devastating effect—with or without training in Iran. It is just a matter of time before mortar round or rocket takes out part of the spanking new $600-million U.S. embassy together with people working there or nearby.

And/or, the insurgents could conceivably mount a multi-point assault on the zone and gain control of a couple of buildings and take hostages—perhaps including senior diplomats and military officers.

Given what we think we know of George Bush, if there were an embarrassing attack on U.S. installations in the Green Zone or some other major U.S. facility, he would immediately order a retaliatory series of air strikes, and let the bombs and missiles fall where they may.

The reaction would come from deep within and would warn, in effect: This is what you get if you try to make me look bad.

Scenario B: Israeli Attack on Nuclear Targets in Iran.

This would be madness and would elicit counterattacks from an Iran with many viable options for significant retaliation. Nevertheless, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D, Conn) and his namesake Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s minister of strategic affairs, are openly calling for such strikes, which would have to be on much more massive a scale than Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.

For that attack in 1981, Cheney, a great fan of preemptive strikes, congratulated the Israelis, even though the U.S. joined other UN Security Council members in unanimously condemning the Israeli attack.

Five years ago, on Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney became the first U.S. official publicly to refer approvingly to the bombing of Osirak. And in an interview two and a half years ago, on Inauguration Day 2005, Cheney referred nonchalantly to the possibility that “the Israelis might well decide to act first [to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities] and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.”

One thing Cheney says is indisputably—if myopically—true: Bush has been Israel’s best friend. In his speeches, he has fostered the false impression that the U.S. is treaty-bound to defend Israel, should it come under attack—as would be likely, were Israel to attack Iran.

With the U.S. Congress firmly in the Israeli camp, Cheney might see little disincentive to giving a green-light wink to Israel and then let the president “worry about cleaning up.”

Reporting from Seymour Hersh’s administration sources serve to strengthen the impression shining through Bush’s speeches that he is eager to strike Iran. But how to justify it?

Curiously, a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear capability, a study scheduled for completion early this year, has been sent back several times—probably because its predictions are not as alarmist as the warnings that Cheney and the Israelis are whispering into the president’s ear.

Senior U.S. military officers have warned against the folly of attacking Iran, but Cheney has shown himself, time and time again, able to overrule the military.

But What if Impeachment Begins?

Is there nothing to rein in Bush and Cheney? It seems likely that only if impeachment proceedings were under way would senior officers like CENTCOM commander, Admiral William Fallon, be likely to parry an unlawful order to start yet another war without the approval of Congress and the UN.

With impeachment under way, such senior officers might be reminded that all officers and national security officials swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States—NOT to protect and defend the president.

It was a highly revealing moment when on July 11, former White House political director Sara Taylor solemnly reminded the Senate Judiciary Committee, that as a commissioned officer, “I took an oath and I take that oath to the president very seriously.”

Committee chair Patrick Leahy had to remind Taylor: “We understand your personal loyalty to President Bush. I appreciate you correcting that your oath was not to the president, but to the Constitution.”

The most senior officers, military included, can get their loyalties mixed up. And this is of transcendent importance in a context described by Seymour Hersh: “These guys are scary as hell...you can’t use the word ‘delusional,’ for it’s actually a medical term. Wacky. That’s a fair word.”

One does not need psychoanalytic training to see that Bush and Cheney do not care about facts, treaties (or the lack thereof), or other legal niceties, unless it suits their purpose. This gives an even more ominous ring to what Hersh is hearing from his sources.

If Israel attacks Iran, President Bush is likely to spring to Israel’s defense, regardless of whether he was inside or outside the loop before the attack; and the world will see a dangerously widened war in the Middle East.

Psychologically, Bush would almost certainly need to join the attack, mainly to sustain his illusion of safety and masculinity. And Cheney, knowing that, would be pushing him hard on U.S. energy and other perceived strategic interests.

Scenario C: Congress Cuts War Funding This Fall

We posit that Congress finally grows weary of the increasingly obvious bait-and-switch, the “we-need-more-time” tactic, and cuts off all funding except for that needed to bring the troops home.

The talk now is about getting a “meaningful” progress report in November, because September is said to be too soon. The Iraqi parliament is behaving much like its American counterpart by taking August off. But our soldiers do not get a month-long hiatus from constant danger.

It is clear even to the press that the surge has simply brought more American deaths and an upsurge of insurgent attacks. What is less clear is why Bush remains so positive. It is probably not just an act, but an idée fixe he needs to hold onto tightly.

Since doubt is dangerous, we see a compensatory smile fixe on the face of the president and other senior officials, dismissing any trace of uncertainty or doubt.

If Congress cut off funding for war in Iraq, Bush might well cast about for a casus belli to “justify” an attack on Iran.

Would the senior military again go along with orders for an unprovoked, unconstitutional war on a country posing no threat to the U.S.? Hard to say.

In this context, an ongoing impeachment process could provide welcome evidence that influential members of Congress, like many senior military officers, see through Bush’s need to strike out elsewhere. Military commanders might think twice before saluting smartly and executing an illegal order.

In such circumstances, Dick “it-won’t stop-us” Cheney, could be expected to try to pull out all the stops. But if he, too, were in danger of being impeached, uniformed military officers could conceivably block administration plans.

There is only a remote chance that Defense Secretary Gates would be a tempering voice in all this. Far more likely, he would smell in any restrictive legislation traces of the Boland amendment, which he assisted in circumventing during the Iran-Contra misadventure.

Petraeus ex Machina

With “David” or “General Petraeus” punctuating the president’s every other sentence at recent press conferences, the script for September seems clear. This is one four-star general with exquisite PR and political acumen—pedigree and discipline the president can count on.

And with his nine rows of ribbons, he calls to mind the U.S. commander in Saigon, Gen. William Westmoreland at a similar juncture in Vietnam (after the Tet offensive when popular support dropped off rapidly).

It is virtually certain that Petraeus will press hard for more time and more troops. Potemkin-style improvements will be used by Bush to justify continuing the “new” surge strategy, with the calculation that enough Democrats might be overcome by the fear of being charged with “losing Iraq.”

In the past Bush seems to have bought Cheney’s “analysis” that increased enemy attacks were signs of desperation. Hard as it is to believe that Bush has not learned from that repeated experience, it is at the same town possible to “misunderestimate” one’s capacity for wooden-headedness, particularly with respect to someone with the psychological makeup of our president.

He is extraordinarily adept at finding only rose-colored glasses to help him see.

With Cheney egging him on from the wings of the “unitary executive,” but Congress no longer bowing to that novel interpretation of the Constitution, Bush will be sorely tempted to lash out in some violent way, if further funding for the war is denied.

To do that effectively, he will need senior generals and admirals as co-conspirators. It will be up to them to choose between career and Constitution. All too often, in such circumstances, the tendency has been to choose career.

Impeachment hearings, though, could encourage senior officers like Admiral Fallon to pause long enough to remember that their oath is to defend the Constitution, and that they are not required to follow orders to start another war in order to stave off political and personal disaster for the president and vice president.

Justin Frank, M.D.

With,

David MacMichael
Tom Maertens
Ray McGovern
Coleen Rowley

Steering Group
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Friday, July 27, 2007

Cuba-trained U.S. Doctors Graduate


by Michael Voss, BBC

Eight US students have graduated from a Cuban medical school after completing a six-year study programme funded by the country's communist government.

The eight came to Cuba as part of a deal agreed between President Fidel Castro and members of Washington's Congressional Black Caucus.

Under the plan, Cuba offers students from deprived backgrounds full scholarships, including accommodation.

They are meant to return to the US to offer low-cost healthcare.

The BBC's Michael Voss in Havana says the stories of the six medical students are something of a propaganda coup with Cuba.

Hearts and minds

Cuba's vice president Carlos Lage and other Cuban leaders attended a graduation ceremony for the students at Havana's Karl Marx theatre.

"We get everything from books, even uniforms. But the conditions are that we go back to our communities, wherever we're needed, and we provide healthcare and that's what we really want to do, so we're actually looking forward to it," Evelyn Erickson, a graduate from New York told the BBC.

According to the Cuban authorities, more than 80 young US students are currently receiving training at the Latin American Medical School in Havana, whose qualifications are recognised by the World Health Organization.

Cuba's free healthcare system has been a key foreign policy tool for winning hearts and minds in the developing world, our correspondent says.

The government has sent tens of thousands of Cuban doctors abroad to help some of the world's poorest communities.

It also trains large numbers of foreign doctors on the island.

According to the official newspaper, Granma, there are currently more than 5,000 medical students from 25 countries studying in Cuba.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

THE NEW MILLINIUM MINSTREL SHOW: REDUX


by Malik Isasis













In February of this year I blogged about Hot Ghetto Mess. Hot Ghetto Mess is a website about African-American ghetto culture. Carmen had first discussed the website over at Racialicious. Hot Ghetto Mess’ editor Jam Donaldson purported that her mission is to usher in “a new era of self-examination. And because I am proud member of the black community, they are my priority.”

Carmen had reported that the website was going to be developed into a television program on Black Entertainment Television (BET). She was right, and wouldn’t you know, the show is titled, “We Gotta Do Better” after the clothing gear, dvds, and cds for sale on Ms Donaldson's website, you know, so to help black folk do better.

We Gotta Do Better premieres on BET, so check your local listings. Viacom, the parent company of BET has set back a generation of progress by their lowest-common-denominator programming, which firms up the stereotypical foundation of African Americans: over sexual, aggressive, ignorant, shallow, conspicuous consumers, uneducated, and uninformed by portraying hip hop culture as 100% of African American culture.

BET’s programming promotes conspicuous consumption, black male hyper vigilance and the praising of false idols that come in the form of car rims—the bigger the better, gold jewelry encrusted with diamonds. So, it makes sense that they would develop Ms Donaldson’s exploitation of people’s need for expression. Ms Donaldson and the black corporatist over at BET people are like Justice Clarence Thomas, and will sell black folks down the river and over the waterfall for a payday and then pretend to be revolutionaries.

No culture is above airing dirty laundry, but this isn’t dirty laundry, this is a minstrel show where black folks are happily applying the blackface and playing up stereotypes to the detriment of a whole swath of people. These stereotypes have real life consequences just take a look at the recent post at Reappropriate, not to mention some of the films that are on offer like, Who’s Your Caddy?

I'm not saying that if those black people in the positions to stop the 21st century minstrel shows that it will address the systemic issue of white supremacy, it won't but it could lead to black youth having a more diverse body of role models rather than just athletes and entertainers.

Fair and Balance

If there were a rich tapestry of imagery of people of color in general, these types of shows would not bother me as much, however, since their isn’t a balance these shows become the ambassadors for white supremacy ideology.

I don't know, you tell me what you think.

When the axe came into the forest, the trees said, “The handle is one of us.
–African Proverb

Monday, July 23, 2007

BLOOD PERVERSIONS


by Malik Isasis

















It really is a shame that military leadership in the past week have been paraded out into the public by the public relations administration, mirroring Bush’s talking points as if being shocked with an electric prod.

“It's going to take through summer, into the fall, to defeat the extremists in my battle space, and it's going to take me into next spring and summer to generate this sustained security presence,'' said Lynch, who commands U.S. forces south of Baghdad.

These commanders are props in Bush’s Traveling Circus of Perversions, willing to say anything the administration wants. These generals are cowards for allowing Iraq to be a washed in blood for the political gain of their civilian leaders.

Iraq is not a war; it is an occupation and the Democratic Party should really stop calling this a war. They'll never win the linguistic debate if they continue to use Republicans' language.

Do you know of any democracies under occupation?

Logic 101 suggests that occupation, does not equal democracy. Basic math.

The Disconnect

The corporate media covers Bush’s antics with an unbelievable sense of disconnectedness as if one thing has nothing to do with the other. For instance, they ignored the timid, and tapered criticisms General Zinni who said, “There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure” ; however, the corporate media has reported General Lynch’s request for more time as if to validate Bush’s moving the goal line back, again. Bush and the neocons have been wrong about everything concerning Iraq. Everything. And yet the media covers Bush and the neocons without referring back to their record of policy predictions, and blatant hypocrisy.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Iraq will not succumb to democracy under a gun and a foreign occupier. And Bush will not get out Iraq unless the Democrats force him to.

You hear that Democratic Party?


GAZA IS NOT ALGERIA


by AHMED YOUSEF, Ha'aretz
























The Abbas leadership has poorly calculated its political strategy, choosing to align itself with the Israeli regime and its Washington patrons in a bid to retain its hold on power. Yet it has compromised its legitimacy in the eyes of a large swath of the Palestinian public, and it has fallen into Israel's Machiavellian trap of sowing discord among Palestinians to avoid dealing with the real issue: ending the occupation, fairly and justly.

Voters in the occupied territories are under no illusions about who planted the seeds of the current strife, particularly as Hamas made offers - but was repeatedly rebuffed - to form a unity government as soon as it won the elections in 2006. Despite increasing intransigence by hard-line Fatah activists, Hamas even adhered to a unilateral cease-fire for 18 months in a bid to neutralize tensions.

For over a year, the Islamic movement's leadership has tried to avoid conflict with Fatah, yet confrontation was inevitable because American neoconservatives, the Israelis and even some Arab officials are determined to undermine a Palestinian government with an Islamic hue.

The economic blockade was the first blow. Then American neoconservative officials, led by Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams, machinated against the Hamas government. Finally, Fatah tried, illegally, to call for premature elections in January; when this failed, it initiated plans to strengthen its hold on security forces in preparation for a coup, receiving arms and training from both Israel and foreign governments.

The combined economic blockade and militarization of Fatah forced Hamas to undertake preemptive measures aimed at preserving the integrity of Palestine's fledgling democracy.

Abbas' current moves to unilaterally declare an emergency government in the West Bank is a political gamble doomed to fail. First, Parliament will not approve deposing Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. Therefore the only options Abbas has are to amend the constitution without a parliamentary vote, or to stage a military coup bolstered by Israeli arms and secret-service support in a move reminiscent of Algeria's FLN negating moderate Islamist victories at the ballot box in 1991.

The rational choice would be to engage with Hamas - as it has been trying to do since coming to power - within the framework of the law, and jointly to work toward ending economic terrorism and irredentist occupation. Western powers would do more for the cause of stability by releasing their chokehold on the Palestinian economy and finding more plausible representation than Tony Blair to act as an envoy in the interests of peace.

Hamas itself has proven its ability to enforce and preserve peace when left unhindered to do so, by securing the release of BBC correspondent Alan Johnston. The entire apparatus of the legitimate Palestinian government focused its energies on Mr. Johnston's release for humanitarian and practical reasons. Journalists like Alan are brave, honorable people who have risked much to alleviate our suffering or report the truth.

Hamas was limited in its ability to exercise security controls until recently; however, now that the security apparatus is genuinely geared toward the safety and well-being of the general population, Hamas will pursue all avenues to ensure that thugs and hoodlums, regardless of purported ideology, are neutralized.

Our efforts must remain focused on rectifying the misguided actions of our colleagues in the unity government and refocusing our political energies exclusively on ending the occupation. We have learned from the experiences of Turkey, and will conduct ourselves in a manner that reflects the national interest without compromising our principles.

The alternative is open, internecine conflict - something abhorrent to Hamas, yet a necessary evil if the peaceful alternative is not pursued. Civil war is tragic, permanently affecting a nation's psyche if not its geography. Yet when there are forces that reflect the majority's will, their victory can lead to national reconciliation and prosperity, as demonstrated in the decades following the French Revolution and U.S. Civil War. Hamas would, by any measure, be justified in defending itself given the assassinations of Hamas officials and supporters, attempts on the life of the elected prime minister, and kidnappings and bombings by some members of Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' paramilitary groups. And defend itself it shall.

Ahmed Yousef is the political adviser to deposed Palestinian premier Ismail Haniyeh.

Friday, July 20, 2007

THE AGE OF BUSH


by Malik Isasis














A federal judge has dismissed the civil lawsuit filed against top Bush administration officials by former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. The judge, John Bates of the US District Court in Washington, DC is a Bush appointee who previously dismissed a lawsuit filed by the federal government against Vice President Dick Cheney. That suit sought access to Cheney's energy task force documents.

Bush has pulled yet another Houdini, an optical illusion out of his ass. His packing the federal benches with political operatives has paid off in spades in the Supreme Court and in federal district courts, reinforcing his disdain for the law.

Don’t believe your eyes, believe what I say, is the Bush motto. And since September 12, 2001 this is exactly the protocol the Republicans, Democrats and the corporate media followed. The aforementioned enablers of Bush’s childish ways has comforted his overwhelming sense of entitlement and privilege.

To understand Bush though, is to understand his privilege; born with a silver spoon in his mouth he has slipped on every banana peel on his way to the Presidency. He has failed at every job he’s had, with the only exception being his stint as a political operative for his father.

Bush has never had to take responsibility for the chaos he has left in his polluted wake. In order to have compassion, one must have empathy. This blind spot in Bush’s scripted life allows him to have contempt for those who disagree with him.

Bush doesn’t understand losing; privilege has protected him from this painful, albeit necessary life experience. He’s like a child throwing a temper tantrum in a grocery store because his parents never say no. His father President George Herbert Walker Bush has done his son and ultimately our country a disservice by not allowing his child to fail.

Bush Senior’s gift: Dick Cheney, the gift that keeps on giving.

Membership has it’s Privileges

Bush has extended his privilege of not ever having to take responsibility for his action to those in his cabinet, and they have obliged by not taking responsibility for the heap of shit that they’ve dragged us into.

Bush’s corporate whores in the media gives him cover in the form of validating his manufactured terror warnings and terrorist capturing every time he needs to cover his ass and change the subject. But there is no way around it. As Bush stands with his back against the Iraq door, the blood seeps through the cracks. It is difficult for him to hide the carnage in the Iraq occupation.

His fragile ego holds both the United States and Iraq hostage because his father didn’t teach him about failure.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

THE B-LIST REVIVAL


by Malik Isasis






















I haven’t caught a lot of television in the past month in a half, mainly because it is summer and it’s when the networks throw everything but the kitchen sink into reality programming, hoping that something sticks.

I caught the train wreck that is Scott Baio is 45 and Single. VH1 has dominated the celeb-reality programming with Surreal Life and its various spinoffs Flavor of Love, and its derivatives I Love New York, Flavor of Love Girls: Charm School; not to mention other shows such as Celebrity Fit Club, Breaking Bonaduce, and
Hogan Knows Best. And know Scott Baio is 45 and Single.

I am not in the business of belittling people because they are trying to make a living. There is a sense of exploitation here on VH1’s part, using former stars from the 80s and exposing their neuroses, and unresolved pathologies for general consumption.

Scott Baio seemed both contemptuous and embarrassed about having his own reality show. There is a scene in which he reluctantly joins his former lover and co-star of Joanie Love Chachi, Erin Moran in an autograph-signing event.

"Can I have a kiss?" A fan asks Baio at the event. Baio is resentful and refuses to kiss the fan on the cheek because “I don’t know where your face has been” he tells her.

Other networks such as Bravo Network, A&E, ABC and NBC have all jumped on the bandwagon of bringing in celebrities to expose the warts and all. A&E will be airing The Two Coreys, which stars former drug-idled heartthrobs of the 80s Corey Haim and Corey Feldman.

This 80s revival of former stars has absolutely no social value but the lack of imagination in the networks is a symptom of a much bigger and dangerous problem in American culture: media consolidation.

In 1983 50 corporations controlled majority of the media in the United States; in 1992, 90% of the media was owned by two dozen corporations and by 2004 the number of corporations that owned a majority of the media had fallen to six. Today the vast amount of United States media is filtered through approximately six huge conglomerates: Time Warner,
Disney, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., Bertelsmann of Germany, Viacom and General Electric. Each company boasts of its holdings. Have a look.

Basically, six CEOs control what we see and hear. This lack of media diversity has resulted in the unimaginative politicians, movies, network shows and news we receive in the United States. Is it no wonder Bush and the Republicans has gotten away with murder?

THE SMELL TEST



The corporate media continues to give the despotic Republican Party a pass on their filibustering and obstruction of Democratic legislation to end the occupation of Iraq. See hear. The Democrats’ strategy of keeping the Senate in an overnight, marathon session is being called “Political Theatre”, and “Anti-War Spectacle” by the media, using Republican talking points.

The Republicans continue to support a failed policy in Iraq; however the corporate shills in the media find ways of marginalizing the Democrats, allowing the Republican Party to stand knee high in bullshit and pretending not to smell it.

Monday, July 16, 2007

DRAMA/MEX


a film review by Malik Isasis











“THE MEXICANS ARE COMING! THE MEXICANS ARE COMING!” and they’re bringing their leprosy with them, and other forms of exotic diseases. This is what CNN’s Lou Dobbs and Fox News would have you believe. There has been an endless negative narrative propagated against Mexicans by the Republicans and their political operatives in the corporate media for the past two election cycles now.

Mexicans are seen as the servant class —the stevedores for America. This narrow view is dehumanizing, but this is what the political strategists do best, right? Tap into America’s xenophobia?

Did you know that Bill Gates was quietly dethroned as the world’s richest man? That title now belongs to Carlos Slim Helu, a Mexican.

Sure Mexico is an oligarchy that has created two Mexicos: a very rich one and a very poor one, with virtually no middle class, but isn’t that where we are headed?

In the last ten years there has been a Mexican new wave in cinema from the likes of Alfonso Cuaron (Y Tu Mama Tambien, Children of Men), Guillermo del Toro's (Hellboy, The Devil’s Backbone & Pan's Labyrinth), and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Amores Perros, 21 Grams & Babel) and now witness the rise of Gerardo Naranjo, the director and writer of Drama/Mex, a character-driven drama about the interconnectedness of a few of Acapulco’s residents.

This is an ensemble piece, with two story strands. The first story strand follows ex lovers Chano (Emilio Vsaldes) and Fernanda (Diana Garcia). Chano, a handsome but emotionally aloof loser had left Fernanda without notice and adding insult to injury, had stole money from her father. Fernanda, stunning with pillowy lips, and bed-side almond-shaped eyes is an heiress to her father’s hotel chain, and is still in love with Chano.

Chano has shown up after six months and the movie opens with Fernanda and Chano bickering in a restaurant. Fernanda resistant to Chano’s romantic advancements is strong, a little too strong, almost cartoonish, which is why Chano sees right through her act. He follows her back to her house, where he rapes her. It starts out as rape, until she goes along with it, opening her heart up once again to Chano. The scene no less is disturbing, and obviously written by a man.

The second story strand follows Jamie (Fernando Becerril) a burnt out business man who may or may not have had sexual indiscretions with his young adult daughter. Whatever, his indiscretions were, he is haunted by them and steals the payroll deposit of his company and leaves his family to rent a room on the beach to paint the hotel wall with his brains.

While contemplating his death with a gun in his mouth, a hand opens the door to take his wallet with the stolen payroll money. Tigrillo (Miriana Moro) a sassy teenager notices Jaime staring at himself in the mirror with a gun in his mouth. She takes the wallet and closes the door.

Tigrillo, a run away has joined some of her friends and is trying her hand at prostitution. Just earlier before stealing Jamie’s wallet, she was trying to convince him of a hand job. He declined. He watches and laughs at her attempts to seduce men on the beach. Eventually he feels sorry for her and takes her out to lunch, rather, she demands it. It is at this point that the two story strands cross-pollinate, as the characters cross paths on the beach.

My first impression of the film was, “What have I gotten myself into?” Those feelings quickly dissipated however, as the characters became realized. Tigrillo and Jaime both emotional train wrecks become functional together. Strangely, Jaime who’s old enough to be Tigrillo’s grandfather and Tigrillo have good chemistry and I found myself rooting for their success. But as train wrecks go, it is a matter of time before the train tracks run out.

Drama/Mex was Executive Produced by Mexican actors Gael Garcia Bernal and Diego Luna, both of whom starred in
Y Tu Mamma Tambian. It is easy to see why Bernal and Luna would be interested in the Drama/Mex script, it is reminiscent of both international hits Y Tu Mamma Tambian and Amores Perros.

The Mexicans are Coming!

Film is a powerful language. It is also a cultural ambassador. It is why American culture is so popular around the world.

Drama/Mex may have a horrific title, but the film continues the Mexican new wave. In the past ten years some of the best filmmaking has come out of Mexico, revealing that Mexicans are not just border-jumping stevedores, but are people with dreams, ambition, love, lost and share the same complicated lives as we do. Not all Mexicans crave to cross the border into “Yankeeland.”

The Mexicans are coming, and I suggest you sit back and enjoy what they have to say.


Grade: A

Friday, July 13, 2007

THE KEEPER’S OF DEATH


by Malik Isasis



















Bush, The Giggling Killer, stated in a press conference “I don’t think Congress ought to be running the war…I think they ought to be funding the troops.” As I said in an earlier post, Bush understands the political DNA of his despotic party. The Republicans will support their leader no matter what. The Republicans are like the scorpion in the parable, The Scorpion and the Frog, where the scorpion stings the frog in the back after the frog has agreed to carry it across the river. The scorpion caused both he and the frog to drown, claiming that it was in his nature.

The Republican’s nature is to see their self-destructiveness all the way through its destructive end.


After Bush told the Congress not to dictate war policy, the Democratic Party controlled House of Representatives voted to withdraw all troops out of Iraq in 120 days with all troops out of Iraq by April 1, 2008. The vote was along party lines 223 Democrats out of 233 voted in favor while 201 Republicans voted in favor of the occupation, out of 202 (four Republicans joined the Democrats).

The Crypt Keepers

We live in a Democracy, which values the voices of the minority. The Democrats need the support of the Republicans to stop the death and destruction in Iraq. However, reaching out to the Republicans has only resulted in the Democrats getting their hands stung.

The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, and the deaths of troops are used as propaganda to justify more death. These people are not about Democracy; they’re not about freedom, nor are they about moral values.

Everything that they say, believe the opposite.

When they talk about family values, it means they are probably molesting a child, when they talk about marriage, it means they are wearing women’s stocking while a sex worker stump on their scrotum; if they say that the occupation is going well, it means that it is, for the oil companies, and private contractors; when they say they believe in the culture of life, it means they mean for themselves and their loved ones.

The Republicans are walking zombies, rotting from the inside out, puking bile every time they open their mouths. Every single thing they touch, they destroy. They are incapable of governance. They govern by chaos, when there is chaos such as an occupation and “War on Terrorism’ they can hide just how incompetent they are. What’s frightening about these zombies is their lack of shame, even when they are caught with their dicks in their hands; they instantly portray themselves as victims. Their political evolution is so narrowly define that it is no wonder they collapse once a generation.

The Republicans govern for the corporate class, and as long as the bottom line is ballooning from the looting of the US Treasury, and the Iraqi’s Oil profits, there is no need to intercede in stopping the death and destruction.

Other people die, so that they can live.


Iran and Beyond: Total War is Still on the Horizon


by Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report























The mindset that launched the invasion of Iraq remains embedded in the mentality of the ruling circles of the United States - and compels them to lash out at Iran. Actually, Iran was supposed to have been vanquished, already, rolled up in the euphoria of America-Love that the delusional architects of the Iraq operation imagined existed among the people of the Middle East and the rest of the world. It didn't turn out that way, because it could not. Americans are not loved, because they are not lovable. They kill, big time.

More than half a million deaths later, the same Americans imagine that they can resurrect the cemetery they have created, and make the corpses march under the Red, White, and Blue banner. But that is not possible. There are millions of grieving family members who know who the murderers are: the Americans. These sins will never be forgiven, and they are wounds to the entire Arab family. That's a lot of folks.

When the Bush regime told the generals to cross the Kuwaiti border, and introduced the world to hi-tech "Shock and Awe," they fully expected that the dominoes would fall in Tehran, Damascus and throughout the Arab/Persian/Turkik world. Such was their hubris, and their ignorance. They have not gotten any smarter, in defeat. They still savor taking Tehran, the capital of Iran, and are ramping up for an attack on that nation.

The Bush gang's game plan remains the same: to somehow move beyond Iraq into Iran and Central Asia, to secure the geo-resource space that was the original goal of the Iraqi invasion - to change the world balance of power by military force. The Project for the New American Century was their blueprint for world conquest. It would have carried U.S. forces deep into places in Central Asia that most Americans had never heard of. The Americans planned to plant the flag among happy natives trodding atop vast oil and gas fields, and to effectively partition vast stretches of the planet from the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Europeans and anybody else. That was the plan. It failed, and they have no other plan.

So they go forward with the old plan, the only one they've got. Attack Iran.

In this demonic endeavor, the Bush men have many allies. Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and everybody else among the Democratic candidates but Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, act like Dracula when the word Iran comes up. Nuke it! Bomb it! Invade it! Punish it!

By doing so, they give a clear sign to the Bush regime that it's alright to launch another war. Indeed, the Republicans cannot possibly win the 2008 election unless there is another war - something the "American people" can coalesce around. The Iraq war is lost. Let's start another one. Time for a New American Century.

In the corporate media, we hear the same nonsense that we were forced to imbibe in 2003, at the time of the invasion. The same craziness that is rooted in American Manifest Destiny, which maintains that the U.S. is God's gift to the world. God's gift can do no wrong, by definition. America is a good force on the Earth. If half a million people die, that's just collateral damage. On to Tehran.

A larger war is looming. This one will be bigger than the current conflict, and might ultimately consume us. The captains of capital - caught in multiple contradictions of their own making - don't know what to do; they are in a box, with no rational way out. The Great Offensive of 2003, of which the conquest of Baghdad was to have been only phase one, was designed to irrevocably alter the global chess board to establish permanent U.S. hegemony over the earth's most vital resources. China, India and Russia would be reduced to supplicants, begging for entrée to the oil and gas spigots. With the world's actual capital - energy resources - under U.S. control, the artificially inflated dollar would be re-established as the uncontested global currency - monopoly money for the monopoly capitalist class that rules in Washington. No more threat from the euro.

Iraqi nationalists stopped the juggernaut in its tracks, and have broken the back of U.S. ground forces. The Iraq invasion was a wakeup call to the world, a warning that the Americans were determined to enslave...everybody. The warning has been duly noted in every world capital. The elites of Indonesia, Malaysia, Latin America and Europe were shocked and awed into an understanding that the U.S. was out to subjugate them. Since 2003, the Americans have been unwelcome at the table of business, excluded from regional conferences and uninvited from development planning events. Nobody wants the bully in the room. Not even the Europeans.

America has been redlined by the global community. Many American corporations understand that, to their horror. Firms that must cultivate goodwill to do business in foreign lands increasingly view the current regime in Washington as an albatross around their necks, poisoning every prospective deal and soiling the company name. But these companies are not at the heart of the ruling cabal, which is centered on finance and military-industrial capital. These non-productive sectors profit by manipulating markets to create unfair advantage - while creating nothing. They are parasites, retarding global development and standing like George Wallace in the door to prevent solution of the manifold crises that pose imminent threats to humanity.

Ultimately, the parasitic class can only maintain its rule by force. Manufacturing nothing, creating no value except on paper, they must finally call upon the Armed Forces to impose their unearned advantage on the planet. Such was the logic of March, 2003. The Great Offensive failed, but the contradictions that compelled the captains of finance capital to order their political servants to wage war, remain - and are in fact more acute than four years ago. They must wage war, again, to fight their way out of the box.

And so it is on to Tehran, by sea and by air. It does not matter that the attack may ignite an apocalypse; the ruling parasites cannot envision a world in which they are not supreme, in any case. Why not get it over with?

African Americans have no stake in this coming war, but our misleadership has failed to warn us of its imminence. Stuck in Jim Crow politics, we applaud Senator Barack Obama, a pure imperialist who wants to add 100,000 more troops to the Armed Forces to bolster U.S. capability to shape the world's economies to the advantage of his campaign contributors. Although Black Americans are reflexively suspicious of U.S. motives in the world and have opposed every military adventure since the media decided we were worth polling, we are blind-sided by narrow interests of racial pride.

The crisis of capital is coming to a head. It will be very bloody, not because the people of the world want it so - indeed, everyone wants to avoid it - but because the imperatives of a parasitic class require it. They have unfinished business, and war is their only answer.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

THE 49 OBSTRUCTIONS


by Malik Isasis




















For the six years that the despotic Republican Party had absolute power, they had often accused the Democratic Party of being obstructionists, crying with raised fists at every turn if the Democrats objected to any of their legislation. The Republican leadership even threatened the “nuclear-option” a rule change that would have effectively ended the 200-year old tradition of filibustering used by the minority party. The Republicans infected and rabid with absolute power were willing to forgo 200 years of tradition to push through their agenda no matter what, Democracy be damned.

The Republicans are known for their lock-goose-stepping and will follow one another right off of a cliff. The corporate media refers to this hierarchical system as being organized, they are organized all right, with a top-down leadership Republicans are primed for despotism. The main tenets of this party are loyalty and obedience.

Party before country.

They are willing to sacrifice themselves if it means holding onto power. It is the genetic flaw of the party’s DNA, which is why they always implode so fantastically, and dramatically when they arise to power, collapsing under the weight of their festering petulance.

Even as Bush surfs on a crest of Iraqi and American blood, they stand on the sidelines justifying the occupation of Iraq and the hundreds of thousands of deaths so that their corporate raiders take as much as they can from the US Treasury.

The Democrats’ feeble attempts to end the occupation were met with cries of a Constitutional crisis and defeatism. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch went so far as to say that the Democrats’ filibustering was, “unprecedented, unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional,” and said they created a “constitutional crisis.” The Republicans who threaten the “nuclear-option” only two years ago are now filibustering the Democrats at almost every turn.

“The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail ... so far it’s working for us,” said Republican Minority Whip Senator Trent Lott. What a difference an election makes.

Not a lick of shame in their hypocrisy.

The Senate

The US Senate is nearly equal with 49 Republicans and 51 Democrats, Bernie Sanders an Independent, caucuses with the Democratic Party; Joe Lieberman an Independent also caucuses with the Democrats when it is in his interest, in matters of war and destruction he caucuses with his kindred spirits to the Right of the aisle.

I gave the Democratic Party hell for caving in and giving Bush his way on the troop surge six months ago by continuing to fund the occupation. The Democrats as well as Republicans knew the surge was dead on arrival. It’s an occupation, not a war. The Democrats could not get the votes needed to override Bush’s veto of their bill, calling for troop withdrawal because the Republicans would not budge.

Party over country.

The 49 Republicans in the Senate are the culprits that allow Bush to hang ten on the ocean of blood that is spilling out of Iraq. They are supporting Bush in spite of their conscious.

49 Republicans

As the news in Iraq worsens, some senate Republicans are speaking of breaking off their support for the occupation but still won’t support a Democratic bill, because it is a Democratic bill. As the despots grumble about how the occupation is affecting their reelection efforts, Bush being Bush, gives them the finger because for as dumb as he is, he understands the party’s political DNA.

Party over country.

They will support him as they always have.

The 49 Republicans in the senate is the latchkey for making a change, but they have chosen to join Bush at the table in drinking the blood and misery of the Iraqi and American families. These obstructionists have paved the way for Bush’s Messianic madness, and delusion. Now they must convinced themselves that the lives lost due to their cowardice and personal gain was worth it. The most beautiful thing, and the most tragic thing about the human mind is that it is able to justify anything.

The Obstructions

Senate Republicans have obstructed almost every bill in the Senate – even ones with wide bipartisan support.

* So far, in the first half of the first session of the 110th Congress, there have been THIRTEEN cloture votes on motions to proceed – each one wasting days of Senate time. (110th Congress, Roll Call Votes #44, 51, 53, 74, 129, 132, 133, 162, 173, 207, 208, 227, and 228)
* In comparison, in the first sessions of the 108th and 109th Congresses combined, there were a total of FOUR cloture votes on motions to proceed.

EIGHT times Republican obstruction tactics slowed critical legislation

* Fulfilling the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (Passed 97-0, Roll Call Vote #53)
* Improving security at our courts (Passed 93-3, Roll Call Vote #133)
* Water Resources Development Act (Passed 89-7, Roll Call Vote #162)
* A joint resolution to revise U.S. policy in Iraq (Passed 89-9, Roll Call Vote, #74)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 69-23, Roll Call Vote #173)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 64-35, Roll Call Vote #228)
* CLEAN Energy Act (Passed 91-0, Roll Call Vote #208)
* Funding for the Intelligence Community (Passed 94-3, Roll Call Vote #129)

FOUR times Republicans blocked legislation from being debated

* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked comprehensive immigration reform (Rejected 45-50, Roll Call Vote #206)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)

FOUR times Republicans stopped bills from reaching a vote

* Senate Republicans blocked funding for the intelligence community. (Rejected 41-40, Roll Call Vote #130)
* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)

TWICE Republicans blocked bills from going to conference

* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (6/26/07)
* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on ethics reform (6/26/07)

Monday, July 09, 2007

THE HORROR OF IGNORANCE


by Malik Isasis

























The United States with support of Britain are responsible for the deaths of 600,000 thousand Iraqis since the initial invasion and the subsequent occupation of Iraq according to a British medical journal. These shocking statistics are made all the more horrific when we realize that among the 600,000 or so victims of Iraqi war violence, the largest portion have been killed by the American military, not by carbombings or death squads, or violent criminals -- or even all these groups combined.

During the first half of 2006 of the occupation, the death rate among the Iraqi civilian population was approximately 30,000 a month. The death and destruction that has been brought against the Iraqi people is unthinkable, unimaginable—partly because the corporate media has become the public relations arm of the military, cheering on the mechanized way in which unarmed civilians can be killed with the latest and greatest incendiary weapon. This pep rally is called “Supporting the Troops.”

"Support the Troops" is an empty and non-sensical slogan used to suppress anti-war sentiment so that corporate raiders can colonize a sovereign country using the assets of the United States government. It is collusion between the Bush administration and their corporate base and it is nothing short of a money-laundering scheme hiding out in the open with contempt.

The London bombings was an example of blow back from Britain's involvement in the Iraq Occupation; it was also an example of the corporate media's disconnect between the British occupation and the bombing. The occupation and the bombing were two ships passing in the night. It was if one thing had nothing to do with the other.

Let’s Count the Ways

The correlation between extremist blowing things up and the United States’ meddling in other folks’ business is clear as the nose on my face. Here, let me count the ways:

1. United States support of President Mubarak in Egypt

2. Unmitigated support of Israel’s occupation and colonization efforts against the Palestinian people.

3. US supports the corrupt House of Saud

4. US is the number one arms dealer in the world: customers: Lebanon military, Gaza militia, Iraq Sunni dissidents, Israel and many more.

5. US uses the International Monetary Fund as system of controlling developing nations.

The United States is Tony Soprano, breaking knee caps, busting caps in asses and trying to convince the victim that they deserved it because it was in their best interest. If Tony Soprano got whacked, it wouldn't be unexpected.

Obfuscation

How can 30,000 deaths of Arab and Muslims a month in Iraq go almost unnoticed here in the United States? It is clear that their lives are not valued, and it is perfectly clear to them of how inconsequential their lives are in the eyes of the United States; it is not that they hate our freedoms or jealous of our lifestyle as the Republican-corporate media will have you believe, rather it is the sheer amount of death, destruction and colonization over decades caused by the United States and other Western powers that has set forth the manifestation of violence that has consumed the Middle East, which drives their anger with the United States.

The image of Arabs and Muslims as savages is used to justify what we do under the guise of National Security, or Democracy. What we do has nothing to do with Democracy, but everything to do with colonization—the taking of people’s wealth, land and resources. It is why the US is picking on Iran and scouting the Horn of Africa.

The shit we do to others comes home to roost and when the times come, we shouldn't be surprised if we get whacked.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Will the Press Idiocy Ever Stop?


by Robert Parry, Consortium News




















If someone submitted an op-ed to The Washington Post that quoted Marie Antoinette saying about starving Parisians “let them eat cake,” the Post’s editors surely would strike the apocryphal quote – and the op-ed author would be lucky to escape with a tongue-lashing about factual sloppiness.

But different rules continue to apply to made-up quotes for Al Gore. In a June 27 op-ed, Post columnist Ruth Marcus couldn’t resist tossing in one of the favorite joke lines of Campaign 2000, a reference to Gore having declared, “I invented the Internet.”

Except, of course, that Gore never spoke the Internet line anymore than the ill-fated French queen said “let them eat cake.” The fake “cake” quote was put into Marie Antoinette’s mouth by French radical propagandists much like the “I invented the Internet” quote was attached to Gore by his political enemies.

Yet, what does it say about the modern U.S. news media that such a misrepresentation could succeed in modern times, helping to shape the fateful outcome of Election 2000 and even continuing into the early days of Campaign 2008?

After all, Marie Antoinette lived more than two centuries ago, well before tape recorders and electronic media existed. One could understand how a bogus quote might be attributed to a person when there was no reliable way for taking down statements.

But there was no such excuse in 1999 when Gore’s “I invented the Internet” quote was fabricated. Indeed, the made-up quote derived from remarks that Gore made during a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer. Videotape and transcripts were readily available.

But that didn’t stop the Republican National Committee from rewriting Gore’s words. Nor did U.S. political journalists – and late-night comedians – hesitate in taking up the apocryphal quote as if it were real.

The made-up quote was then repeated endlessly as a reference point for proving that Gore was a lying braggart and even delusional, unfit to serve in the highest office of the land. Other misquotes were then added to the mix, with each new Gore “lie” prompting the reprising of the earlier fabrications.

So, when Americans went to the polls in November 2000, millions of voters thought that Gore was either deceitful or totally nuts. Many voters told exit pollsters that their issue of Gore’s honesty was important in causing them to cast their ballots for George W. Bush.

Still, despite the Lyin’ Al canard, Gore managed to edge out Bush nationally by more than a half million votes and surely was the narrow favorite as well in the swing state of Florida. But numerous voting irregularities in Florida and pro-Bush rulings – by Gov. Jeb Bush’s subordinates and five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court – sealed the deal for Bush.

Repeating History

The rest, as they say, is history. But, as the nation heads into another election cycle, it’s worth reprising what happened in the early days of Campaign 2000 – and to note that the political press corps seems to have learned almost nothing from its catastrophic behavior eight years ago.

In her op-ed, columnist Marcus cited the “I invented the Internet” quote as particularly devastating as “a moment whose importance is magnified because it fits with jigsaw precision into an existing template.”

But the problem with Gore’s made-up Internet quote fitting with “jigsaw precision” was that not only was the quote fabricated but so was the “template.”

The press corps’ “war on Gore” can be traced back to 1997 when Gore reportedly made a passing reference in a Time magazine interview to an article in the Tennessean, which quoted Love Story author Erich Segal as saying that the lead characters in his sentimental novel were based on Al and Tipper Gore, whom Segal knew during college days at Harvard.

That brief reference in Time magazine was then picked up as part of a Gore profile in The New York Times, which noted that Segal had clarified the point, saying that the hockey-playing male lead, Oliver Barrett IV, was partly based on Gore and partly on Gore’s Harvard roommate, actor Tommy Lee Jones. But Segal said the female lead, Jenny, was not modeled after Tipper Gore.

Rather than treating this distinction as a minor point of legitimate confusion that wasn’t worthy of attention during a presidential campaign, the news media – virtually across the political spectrum – seized on the Love Story story to conclude that Gore had willfully lied.

In doing so, however, the media repeatedly misstated the facts, insisting that Segal had denied that Gore was the model for the lead male character. In reality, Segal had confirmed that Gore was, at least partly, the inspiration for the character, Barrett, played by Ryan O’Neal.

Some journalists seemed to understand the nuance but still couldn’t resist disparaging Gore’s honesty. For instance, in a later attack on Gore, the Boston Herald conceded that Gore “did provide material” for Segal’s book, but the newspaper said it was “for a minor character.” That, of course, was untrue, since the Barrett character was one of Love Story’s two principal characters.

Internet Distortion

The news media’s treatment of the apocryphal “inventing the Internet” comment followed a similar course. Gore’s actual statement may have been poorly phrased, but its intent was clear: he was trying to say that he worked in Congress to help create the modern Internet.

Gore wasn’t claiming to have “invented” the Internet, with its connotation of a computer engineer tinkering with some hardware and achieving a technological breakthrough.

Gore’s actual comment, in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that aired on March 9, 1999, was as follows: “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”

While the phrasing may have been inelegant, Gore’s intention was both clear and correct. He had led the way in Congress to fund the development of what the world now knows as the Internet, or what Gore earlier dubbed, “the information super-highway.”

But Republicans quickly went to work on Gore’s statement. In press releases, they noted that the precursor of the Internet, called ARPANET, existed in 1971, a half dozen years before Gore entered Congress.

But ARPANET was a tiny networking of about 30 universities, a far cry from today’s Internet. Nevertheless, a media clamor soon arose over Gore’s Internet statement.

Gore’s spokesman Chris Lehane tried to clarify the point by noting that Gore “was the leader in Congress on the connections between data transmission and computing power, what we call information technology. And those efforts helped to create the Internet that we know today.”

There was no disputing Lehane’s description of Gore’s lead congressional role in developing today’s Internet. But any plaintive appeals for fairness were hopeless.

Reporters soon had lopped off the introductory clause “during my service in the United States Congress” or simply adopted favored Republican word substitutions, asserting that Gore claimed that he “invented” the Internet.

Whatever imprecision may have existed in Gore’s original comment, it paled beside the media’s exaggerated efforts to attack Gore for exaggerating.

Love Canal

By late 1999, the “template” described by Marcus was so firmly in place that journalists felt it even was their duty to reshape Gore’s words so they would fit into it.

For instance, the news media generated dozens of stories about Gore’s supposed claim that he discovered the infamous Love Canal toxic waste dump. “I was the one that started it all,” he was quoted as saying in articles in both The Washington Post and The New York Times.

But the two prestige newspapers had misquoted Gore on one key point and cropped out the context of another sentence to give readers a false impression of what he meant. The error was then exploited by national Republicans and amplified endlessly by the rest of the news media, even after the Post and Times grudgingly filed corrections.

The Love Canal quote controversy began on Nov. 30, 1999, when Gore was speaking to a group of high school students in Concord, New Hampshire.

The Vice President was exhorting the students to reject cynicism and to recognize that individual citizens can contribute to important changes. As an example, he cited a high school girl from Toone, Tennessee, a town that had experienced problems with toxic waste. She brought the issue to the attention of Gore’s congressional office in the late 1970s, he said.

“I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing,” Gore told the Concord students. “I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue, and Toone, Tennessee – that was the one that you didn’t hear of. But that was the one that started it all.”

After those congressional hearings, Gore said, “we passed a major national law to clean up hazardous dump sites. And we had new efforts to stop the practices that ended up poisoning water around the country. We’ve still got work to do. But we made a huge difference. And it all happened because one high school student got involved.”

The context of Gore’s comment was clear. What sparked his interest in the toxic-waste issue was the situation in Toone, Tennessee – “that was the one that you didn’t hear of. But that was the one that started it all.”

After learning about the Toone situation, Gore looked for other examples and “found” a similar case at Love Canal. He was not claiming to have been the first one to discover Love Canal, which already had been evacuated. He simply needed other case studies for the hearings.

In the next day’s Washington Post, a story by political writer Ceci Connolly stripped Gore’s comments of their context and gave them a negative twist.

“Gore boasted about his efforts in Congress 20 years ago to publicize the dangers of toxic waste,” Connolly’s story said. “‘I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal,’ [Gore] said, referring to the Niagara homes evacuated in August 1978 because of chemical contamination. ‘I had the first hearing on this issue.’ … Gore said his efforts made a lasting impact. ‘I was the one that started it all,’ he said.”

The New York Times ran a slightly less contentious story with the same false quote: “I was the one that started it all.”

GOP Attack

The Republican National Committee spotted Gore’s alleged boast and was quick to fax around its own take. “Al Gore is simply unbelievable – in the most literal sense of that term,” declared Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson. “It’s a pattern of phoniness – and it would be funny if it weren’t also a little scary.”

The GOP release then doctored Gore’s quote a bit more. After all, it would be grammatically incorrect to have said, “I was the one that started it all.” So, the Republican handout fixed Gore’s grammar to say, “I was the one who started it all.”

In just one day, the key quote had transformed from a reference to the waste dump in Toone, Tennessee, as “that was the one that started it all” to “I was the one that started it all” to “I was the one who started it all.”

Instead of taking the offensive against these misquotes – and thus face accusations of being overly defensive – Gore tried to head off the controversy by clarifying his meaning and apologizing if anyone got the wrong impression. But the fun was just beginning.

The national pundit shows quickly picked up the story of Gore’s latest “exaggeration,” mixing the Love Canal case with other hostile interpretations of Gore’s words relating to the movie Love Story and his support for creating the modern Internet.

“Let’s talk about the ‘love’ factor here,” chortled Chris Matthews of CNBC’s “Hardball.” “Here’s the guy who said he was the character Ryan O’Neal was based on in ‘Love Story.’ … It seems to me … he’s now the guy who created the Love Canal [case]. I mean, isn’t this getting ridiculous? … Isn’t it getting to be delusionary?”

The next morning, Post political writer Ceci Connolly highlighted Gore’s supposed Love Canal boast, putting it into his alleged pattern of falsehoods. “Add Love Canal to the list of verbal missteps by Vice President Gore,” she wrote. “The man who mistakenly claimed to have inspired the movie ‘Love Story’ and to have invented the Internet says he didn’t quite mean to say he discovered a toxic waste site.”

That night, CNBC’s Hardball returned to Gore’s Love Canal quote, comparing the Vice President to Zelig, Woody Allen’s character whose face appeared at an unlikely procession of historic events.

“What is it, the Zelig guy who keeps saying, ‘I was the main character in ‘Love Story.’ I invented the Internet. I invented Love Canal.”

The following day, Rupert Murdoch’s right-wing New York Post elaborated on Gore’s supposed pathology of deception.

“Again, Al Gore has told a whopper,” a Post editorial said. “Again, he’s been caught red-handed and again, he has been left sputtering and apologizing. This time, he falsely took credit for breaking the Love Canal story. … Yep, another Al Gore bold-faced lie. …

“Al Gore appears to have as much difficulty telling the truth as his boss, Bill Clinton. But Gore’s lies are not just false, they’re outrageously, stupidly false. It’s so easy to determine that he’s lying, you have to wonder if he wants to be found out. Does he enjoy the embarrassment? Is he hell-bent on destroying his own campaign? … Of course, if Al Gore is determined to turn himself into a national laughingstock, who are we to stand in his way?”

Rippling Falsehood

The Love Canal controversy soon moved beyond the Washington-New York power axis.

On Dec. 6, 1999, The Buffalo News ran an editorial entitled, “Al Gore in Fantasyland,” that echoed the words of RNC chief Nicholson. It stated, “Never mind that he didn’t invent the Internet, serve as the model for ‘Love Story’ or blow the whistle on Love Canal. All of this would be funny if it weren’t so disturbing.”

The next day, the right-wing Washington Times judged Gore simply crazy. “The real question is how to react to Mr. Gore’s increasingly bizarre utterings,” the Times said in an editorial. “Webster’s New World Dictionary defines ‘delusional’ thusly: ‘The apparent perception, in a nervous or mental disorder, of some thing external that is actually not present … a belief in something that is contrary to fact or reality, resulting from deception, misconception, or a mental disorder.’”

Yet, while the national media was excoriating Gore, the Concord students were learning more than they had expected about how media and politics worked in modern America. For days, the students pressed for a correction from The Washington Post and The New York Times. But the newspapers balked, insisting that the error was insignificant.

“The part that bugs me is the way they nit pick,” said Tara Baker, a Concord High junior. “[But] they should at least get it right.”

Bob Somerby, the editor of a media-criticism Web site, The Daily Howler, also was hectoring what he termed a “grumbling editor” at the Post to correct the error.

Finally, on Dec. 7, 1999, a week after Gore’s comment, the Post published a partial correction, tucked away as the last item in a corrections box. But the Post still misled readers about what Gore actually said.

The Post correction read: “In fact, Gore said, ‘That was the one that started it all,’ referring to the congressional hearings on the subject that he called.” The revision fit with the Post’s insistence that the two quotes meant pretty much the same thing, but again, the newspaper was distorting Gore’s clear intent by attaching “that” to the wrong antecedent. From the full quote, it’s obvious the “that” refers to the Toone toxic waste case, not to Gore’s hearings.

Three days later, The New York Times followed suit with a correction of its own, but again without fully explaining Gore’s position. “They fixed how they misquoted him, but they didn’t tell the whole story,” said Lindsey Roy, another Concord High junior.

While the students voiced disillusionment, the two reporters involved showed no remorse for their mistake.

“I really do think that the whole thing has been blown out of proportion,” said Katharine Seelye of the Times. “It was one word.”

The Post’sCeci Connolly even defended her inaccurate rendition of Gore’s quote as something of a journalistic duty. “We have an obligation to our readers to alert them [that] this [Gore’s false boasting] continues to be something of a habit,” she said.

The half-hearted corrections also did not stop newspapers around the country from continuing to use the bogus quote. A Dec. 9 editorial in the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, New Era even published the polished misquote that the Republican National Committee had stuck in its press release: “I was the one who started it all.”

The New Era then went on to psychoanalyze Gore. “Maybe the lying is a symptom of a more deeply-rooted problem: Al Gore doesn’t know who he is,” the editorial stated. “The Vice President is a serial prevaricator.”

In the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, writer Michael Ruby concluded that “the Gore of ‘99” was full of lies. He “suddenly discovers elastic properties in the truth,” Ruby declared. “He invents the Internet, inspires the fictional hero of ‘Love Story,’ blows the whistle on Love Canal. Except he didn’t really do any of those things.”

On Dec. 19, GOP chairman Nicholson was back on the offensive. Far from apologizing for the RNC’s misquotes, Nicholson was reprising the allegations of Gore’s falsehoods that had been repeated so often by then that they had taken on the color of truth:

“Remember, too, that this is the same guy who says he invented the Internet, inspired Love Story and discovered Love Canal.”

More than two weeks after the Post correction, the bogus quote was still spreading. The Providence Journal in Rhode Island lashed out at Gore in an editorial that reminded readers that Gore had said about Love Canal, “I was the one that started it all.”

The editorial then turned to the bigger picture: “This is the third time in the last few months that Mr. Gore has made a categorical assertion that is – well, untrue. … There is an audacity about Mr. Gore’s howlers that is stunning. … Perhaps it is time to wonder what it is that impels Vice President Gore to make such preposterous claims, time and again.”

So, was it any wonder why so many Americans were confused about the issue of Al Gore’s honesty when they went to the polls in November 2000?

Now, eight years later – despite the horrendous consequences wrought by the sloppy journalism and the resulting six-plus years of George W. Bush’s presidency – the editors of The Washington Post still don’t seem to care when one of their columnists continues this idiocy.